Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception
- Stupidity-Dogmas
- Assisted Suicide & Right to die
- Child Porn Witch Hunt
- Economics
- Faulty Science
- Human Rights
- Inspiring Intelligent Solutions
- Intelligent Design (Creationism)
- Irrational Drug Policy
- Men's Rights & Feminism
- Political correctness
- Prostitution
- Race & Intelligence
- Religion & Atheism
- Social Rules & Habits
- Teenage Sexuality
- Unhealty Lifestyle
- Victimless Crime
- Science
- Drugs
- Humor
- Uninformedness
Posts Tagged gender differences
Rape and murder of males deemed irrelevant
Posted by admin in Men's Rights & Feminism on
The press decries systematic rape of women in African war zones while keeping quiet about the killing of even more men.
When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”
Women’s suffering emphasized, men’s suffering ignored. An evolutionary mechanism?
Women have a special talent to paint themselves as victims and engage men as "white knights" to help them in that endeavor. The even higher level suffering and plight of men is just getting ignored. Human-Stupidity suspects that this manipulation skill is due to evolutionary built in mechanisms that women learned in the gender war, to counter men’s superior strength. It is to be noted that the limiting factor for child production (and thus inclusive fitness) is the number of women’s wombs, not the number of men. As Angry Harry puts it: men are dispensable.
Women are always the victims. In rallies, women "take back the knight" at safe campuses, requesting safety for women no matter how drunk. Nobody mentions that statistically men are more frequently victims of violence and homicide. Women stress rape culture, re-defining rape to include ever more minute transgressions like 5 second rape (failure to instantly stop consensual sex).
Women, engaging the help of men, manage to raise public awareness about rape while ignoring prison rape. Prison rape is extremely violent, and often entails years of sexual slavery and repeated rape. Prisoners who "consent" to years of sex to avoid violence don’t even count as rape victims.
Media focus on rapes and other female miseries while ignoring male executions, worked-to-death laborers, tortured prisoners, and nine-year-old boy soldiers trained to kill and be killed.
An excerpt from Tim’s new book Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics
‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”
A case in point is provided in an editorial by Nicholas D. Kristof, published June 5, 2005 in the New York Times under the heading, “A Policy of Rape.” Says Kristof, “More than two years after the genocide in Darfur began, the women of Kalma Camp—a teeming squatter’s camp of 110,000 people driven from their burned villages—still face the risk of gang rape every single day as they go out looking for firewood.” Now, of course, this is an abomination that demands attention. It is also an abomination that receives attention. My concern with this article comes from what’s missing—at least up until the very end. “I’m still chilled by the matter-of-fact explanation I received as to why it is women who collect firewood, even though they’re the ones who are raped,” says Kristof. “‘It’s simple,’ one woman here explained. ‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”
Inside Story – The silent victims of rape | Al Jazeera Video
The United Nations, even in security council resolutions, explicitly excludes men and boys when they talk about sexual violence against women and girls. The United Nations spokeswomen squirmed herself out of the topic, distracting but not recognizing the United Nation bias against male victims.
The above movie focuses on male rape. it still ignores other types of violence that is selectively anti-male. It mentions that 20% of male combatants got raped, vs. 30% of women. It does not mention how many men got killed, nor that there probably are not many female combatants.
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Read the rest of this entry » »
Rape and murder of males deemed irrelevant » continues here »
Legal right to renounce child support empowers women, increases birth rates
Posted by admin in Men's Rights & Feminism on
Contractual freedom to agree about child support rights
Many women want to have a baby, but, for some reason, don’t find the appropriate man or husband. A man willing to the father and take on fatherly duties. The typical solution is to “forget” to take the pill or just let the man falsely assume she is taking birth control.
1) Women should have right to renounce rights to father’s child support
We propose that
a) A woman should be empowered to contractually agree with a man to have his baby and not demand any child support.
Advantages:
- In most developed countries, more babies are urgently needed. This probably will lead to higher birth rates. The richer, more educated, more capacitated women will have children of their choice, that are wanted.
- No manipulation needed, no dishonesty about accidentally “forgotten birth control” to get pregnant against the man’s expressed wish
- female empowerment: the woman can have her wish, pick the father of her choice and have a baby.
- Most men would feel honored to be chosen as a father, without being obliged to support the baby nor having to get along with the woman for the next 20 years.
- many men would, voluntarily, by mutual agreement give some aid and support in child raising, in spite of the waiver.
It fixes our perverted system in which
- the most irresponsible and uncontrolled, least intelligent and poorest men have the most offspring
- these people are the most unfit genetically (their offspring will be less intelligent and have less self control)
- these people are also most unfit as parents and educators: they are less responsible, less intelligent
- these people are less unfit financially to provide a good home
- society pays for these offspring, with welfare that often encourages the poor to have more offspring to receive more money. These children are not welcome and loved, they are either accidents or planned to increase welfare income. A bad and traumatic start of a life for a baby.
- The well-to-do fear child support payments. Poor deadbeats that are unable to pay, and anonymous one night stances can get unlimited offspring without legal and financial responsibility
b) A man should be allowed to contractually assume all child care and support obligations after birth
Equally, a man can agree to take a child, after birth, assuming all child care and support.
This might convince a woman to forego abortion, or to become pregnant.
This ultimately empowers women, because it still is fully her choice to decide to terminate a pregnancy. She might find it attractive to have a baby without obligations.
Or she might do it as favor for the man, almost like a surrogate pregnancy.
All this would help to increase birth rate and reduce the population shortage problem in developed countries.
Who will pay for children’s needs?
If one party was relieved of his/her obligation, the other party.
- The party that took up the contractual obligation, mostly the mother. After all are women not empowered and independent? Don’t women have professions, salary, self sufficiency. Women did this for centuries and millennia, before the advent of liberated professional women and welfare.
- Welfare support. Government already pays support for children of deadbeat dads and moms in poverty. Why can’t they pay for the honest working tax paying father? Whoever took up the responsibility should pay him/herself, unless they are below poverty level.
Your comments are welcome
All this is a suggestion and, of course, open to discussion. Please comment
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Read the rest of this entry » »
Legal right to renounce child support empowers women, increases bi... » continues here »
Wikipedia discriminates against women? Or gender differences are real?
Posted by Devils Advocate in Men's Rights & Feminism on
Surveys suggest that less than 15 percent of the online encyclopedia’s hundreds of thousands of contributors are female. [...]
Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation, has set a goal to raise the share of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015, but she is running up against the traditions of the computer world and an obsessive fact-loving realm that is dominated by men and, some say, uncomfortable for women.
Her effort is not diversity for diversity’s sake, she says. “This is about wanting to ensure that the encyclopedia is as good as it could be,”
Is Wikipedia creating a glass ceiling, actively blocking women from participating? Well, or maybe women are different. Or maybe men really are the gender that creates knowledge, wealth, public services, etc?
I would imagine that if less than 15% of the contributors are women, then much less than 15% of the work is done by women.
Considering that almost nobody gets paid for Wikipedia, the most obvious thing that can be said about its existence from a gender point of view is that the human race owes a debt of gratitude to the male sex.
[... men see the point] n working for free to expand access to information for people they don’t know. But blaming any problem, even one as exiguous as women not contributing much unpaid labor to Wikipedia, on women is a no-no, so the fault must lie with “misogynists.”
Guys Create Wikipedia For Free: That’s A Problem
Hanna Rosin on the rise of women (TED talks)
Posted by admin in Men's Rights & Feminism on
| Quite a shocking speech. Hanna Rosin fails to mention the constant discrimination against men and boys, and against masculine traits and behaviors, from kindergarten on.
But, judging from her speech, men clearly need to be protected and have affirmative action, as a disadvantaged class.
|
Female quotas on death row? Unsuccessful male losers overlooked by feminist zeal!
Posted by admin in Evolutionary Psychology, Men's Rights & Feminism on
Males are overrepresented in jail, death row, war death, work accidents, accidental death & involuntary middle age virginity, reproductive failures, mental retardation. Feminist and men’s right’s activist fail to request female quotas in jail. Isn’t it funny? We need quotas in politics, management, Universities. But no quotas among homeless and war dead? No gender equality on Titanic life boat seats!
Compare: Germany plans mandatory female quotas in top management
some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.
The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.One can imagine an ancient battle in which the enemy was driven off and the city saved, and the returning soldiers are showered with gold coins. An early feminist might protest that hey, all those men are getting gold coins, half of those coins should go to women. In principle, I agree. But remember, while the men you see are getting gold coins, there are other men you don’t see, who are still bleeding to death on the battlefield from spear wounds.
Is There Anything Good About Men? by Roy F. Baumeister
Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners
Men take high risks. They reap high rewards, and pay with death, injury, abysmal failures. Feminists are envious of the winners, and oblivious of the losers. They want to get the gold coins without risking their lives in the fight.
Evolution built this higher risk, higher variance even into genetics of male physical features: There are more men that are extremely tall, extremely intelligent, etc and there are more men then women at the bottom, with the lowest IQ, shortest height, etc.
Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
Over half the males but very few females were reproductive failures
Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. [ . . ] Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago [2005].
I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
In evolutionary times, in the “EEA” 100 000 years ago, only very few women failed to reproduce, but about 60% of the men were total evolutionary failures. They are the end of their genetic line. Every man or women know that some guys are girl magnets, while others barely stand a chance: Nerds, socially inept, shy, ugly, handicapped. And even nowadays, with legally enforced monogamy, there still is serial monogamy after divorce, and affairs, both practiced mainly by successful men.
In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners. [ . . . ] Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. [...] For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children.
And thousand’s of wanna-be Genghis Khan’s died before they had a chance to reproduce. And others were snubbed by women.
Feminists look for equal rights without equal risk & equal losses.
Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards
Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners




Recent Comments