Friday, August 22, 2014

Monsters, Love and Humiliation

" must needs precede hatred; and nothing is hated, save through being contrary to a suitable thing which is loved. And hence it is that every hatred is caused by love." - Thomas Aquinas

The word “monster” and “demonstrate” come from the same root word: both mean “a warning.” I find that curious. A monster is a warning. But of what?

When I found out about the connection between those two words, the first word that occurred to me was “Frankenstein.” Frankenstein (he had no name in the novel or any of the movies) was a monster, but was a sympathetic monster (and here I go again: the “path” in sympathy is related to the word “pathos” and means “to suffer with”).

Frankenstein didn’t want much more than a friend; he wanted to be part of a community, even if it was just him and the blind hermit. He was rejected and humiliated by everyone except the blind man, who couldn’t see him. Everyone else was horrified by him and wanted to kill him.

What then, is demonstrated by Frankenstein? Brutally humiliate someone, especially in public, and what can happen (and often does happen, if history is any guide), is revenge. Whatever love Frankenstein had was turned to hate and the desire to revenge.

Frankenstein belongs to the class of monsters known as the Undead, along with zombies and vampires. Where did the idea of these undead monsters originate?

I don’t know, but I suspect they somehow based on real people, people who described themselves as the living dead, or zombies, or vampires.

The psychiatrist James Gilligan, who interviewed violent prisoners for almost 40 years, noticed a curious thing: those who committed the worse crimes, say, brutally murdering and mutilating their victims, invariably described themselves as “dead” before they committed their crimes.

They didn’t mean biologically dead; they meant dead inside. They often described themselves as zombies, vampires, robots, monsters. They said their “selves” had died long before they began killing people. They were in fact the Undead long before they began making others dead.

There is a lot to be learned by looking at what words really mean. The word “mortify” means “to make dead by humiliation.” In other words, if you want to make a monster, brutally humiliate someone, especially in public.

The ancient Greeks consider brutally humiliating someone in public to be obscene, and they banned it from their theater. In fact, the original meaning of the word “hubris” meant to humiliate or abuse someone in public.

Hubris was followed by Nemesis, which is revenge. Brutally humiliate someone, hate them, and you are then fated to suffer revenge. If you want to see a demonstration of how to create a monster, brutally and cruelly humiliate people, and if it goes on long enough, they die inside (this mortification transforms them into zombies and vampires) and then they seek to wreak destruction on people. Isn’t revenge and destruction what all monsters seek?

The sad and puzzling thing about the townspeople is they never realized their treatment of Frankenstein – rejecting, humiliating and trying to destroy him – is what caused him to seek revenge. If they had accepted him there would have been no problem.

Whenever monsters – of course they are always people -- start roaming the earth, maiming, murdering and destroying, it is a demonstration that something has gone wrong with other people so that they mortify the innocent, transforming them into the Undead who seek revenge on the living.

By the way, the love known as agape has been defined as "an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being."

Older Women Who Are Bitter and Hateful - And Sometimes Older Means "21 Years Old"

I've run into a fair number of bitter and hateful women - and some of them have been 21.

The 21-year-olds - and admittedly they are very rare - have usually been unattractive, although they think they are more attractive than they are. They're entitled, and think some handsome guy is just supposed to show up.

I've met some who were decently attractive, but is was always the same - entitled, expecting something more than they can get.

In college I saw a 20-year-old who blew off some guy in her league and then come after me - and I was way out of her league. Not in looks, but in being smart and funny. Since I didn't get involved with her she got hostile toward me. You know - "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." It's true.

Many women think if she wants to go out with him, he should. But if he wants to get involved with her and he doesn't want to, then he's a creep or sexually harassing her. Weird, huh?

I've seen middle-aged women never married or divorced. Most of them are nuts. They are full of hate and anger towards almost all men.

They may have been fairly attractive when younger, but end up pudgy and plain by middle age. Some were very attractive when younger but try to cover it up with make-up and over-dressing.

But they're all nuts.

Actually I have found the easiest way to tell an insane middle-aged woman in that they have become overweight and plain, but have permanently hostile looks on their face. Or else they overdress and put on the make-up with a paint roller.

For the younger ones, pudgy with too much make-up and overdressed is a huge red flag. I started seeing that in college.

But no matter what their age, all had entitled attitudes and expected someone out of their league - and always blamed their failures on men.

So pay attention to the expressions stamped on their faces.

Love at First Sight with Superior Women

Only once have I looked at a woman and got that "Pow!" (It does exist.) As soon as I looked at her, I knew she could have been one of the Ones.

She had long red hair, was very striking, and worked in an art gallery. In fact, she spoke to me first. She had looked at me and got that Pow!

I won't go into why I got that Pow! (it's a long story) but boy I would have liked to have kids by her. They would have been something.

There was another time when I didn't get that Pow! until some years later, when I ran across her again. She was smart, funny and charming (something I never noticed in college), had one brother who had an MS in math, and another became an actor, mostly on Broadway, but has also been on a couple of well-known TV programs. Her sister was a jewelry designer.

I would have liked to have had kids by her, too.

Yet there are other women I have met - almost all of them, actually - that I never have kids with. Why? I consider them genetic garbage.

The number of fat, unattractive, stupid women I know....

Supposedly half of what we are is genetic. If that is true, then you only want to have kids by intelligent,nurturing, supportive, appreciative women who come from families that have some kind of accomplishment.

You decide what "accomplished" means. But it certainly doesn't mean fat, ugly and stupid. And it doesn't mean having a "career" and trying to find "Mr Perfect" when you're 30. Maybe it means being a wonderful cook and having the brains to appreciate all the things men have done for women.

In simplest terms you want to increase the good and eliminate the bad. You want to transmit the most and best "capital" you can to the next generation.

I understand why in the past parents had to okay whom their children married. Who wants trash in their family - having Kallikaks and Jukes for kids?

I've seen people marry alcoholics who couldn't make it to work when hungover, and one of their kids became an alcoholic. He apparently inherited the tendency from his father. And both sons were obsessed with motorcycles just like their father.

I'm seeing a lot of dysfunction these days. Genetic dysfunction, really. It's one of the reasons IQs are dropping. Not surprisingly, this was predicted by the movie, Idiocracy.

The dumb are outbreeding the stupid. Pretty soon it's going to be like H.G. Welles' The Time Traveler - the Morlocks attacking and killing the Eloi.

Pretty soon? Oops...

Thursday, August 21, 2014

"Why Great Husbands Are Being Abandoned"

"A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism." - Camille Paglia

As usual, many women blame their problems on men. Whine, whine, whine, grumble, grumble, grumble.

This article is from The Huffington Post (which never gets anything right) and was written by Randi Gunther.

"Not so many years ago, married men had the freedom to live by one set of rules away from home, and a different set at the hearth. Because they held the power to distribute resources however they wished, they could decide what and when to share them. As women have become legitimate wage earners with more powerful voices, they have challenged their chosen partners to participate in a whole new kind of connection that does not accept automatic hierarchy.

"In the last few decades women have slowly driven their point home. The millennial men, who are their current counterparts, are freer thinkers and they have responded in kind in their relationships as well. These men like their women strong and feisty, and have willingly accepted the responsibility to connect in a more vulnerable way. They get it that it's sexy to help make a meal or take the kids away on a Sunday morning so their wives can sleep in. They are the androgynous guys that their women have asked them to become.

You would think that the women in these new relationships would be ecstatic. They've got a guy who wants to work out together, share parenting, support their parallel dreams, and make their family collective central to both of their lives. They've established an equal relationship of coordinated teamwork, and the guys don't seem to miss their old need to posture for power over intimate connections.

"Well, guess again. Fifty percent of marriages are still ending in divorce, and women continue to be the gender that initiates those endings. In the past, their reasons for leaving most often had to do with infidelity, neglect, or abuse. Now they're dumping men who are faithful, attentive, and respectful, the very men they said they have always wanted. Why would women who have accomplished the female dream suddenly not be satisfied with it? Why are they leaving these ideal guys, and for what reasons?

"I am currently dealing with several of these great husbands. They are, across the board, respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive guys whose wives have left them for a different kind of man. These once-beloved men make a living, love their kids, help with chores, support aging parents, and support their mate's desires and interests. They believe they've done everything right. They are devastated, confused, disoriented, and heartsick. In a tragic way, they startlingly resemble the disheartened women of the past who were left behind by men who 'just wanted something new.'

"You may think that these women are ruthless and inconsiderate. Those I know are far from that. More often, they still love their husbands as much as they ever did, but in a different way. They tell me how wonderful their men are and how much they respect them. They just don't want to be married to them anymore.

"Perhaps it would be even more honest to say that they don't want to be yoked to anyone any more. At least in the traditional ways they once embraced as ideal. They feel compassion for their prior mates, but liberated in their new-found right to create a different way of feeling in relationships. In short, they want to live their lives with the privileges men once had.

"I think I understand what is going on.

"In the last twenty years, as women have found their voices and value, they have been asking more equality in their relationships. They were ready to take leadership and to disconnect from dependency. In exchange, they wanted their men to adopt nurturing and vulnerable characteristics. At first, there was an expected backlash. 'Men are from Mars' and other media presentations became the cry for holding on to the differences between men and women and to keep them from blending.

"Nevertheless, it became more and more apparent that quality people of both genders would be happier and more fulfilled if they could combine power and nurturing. Men would develop their feminine side and women their masculine. No longer would it be that the bad boys were sexy and the good women were virtuous. Now quality men needed to add chivalry to their power, and women to claim their ability for independent thinking and leadership. They could imagine a relationship where both were equally blended and free to be the best they could be. 'She' and 'he' became the new idealized 'we.'

"As the trend picked up energy, more of the die-hard 'men's men' started to see that the androgynous males were stealing the great girls from under their hard-core posturing, and began to wonder if their 'take-no-prisoners' attitude might benefit from a little revising. Women saw their newly developed mates as their best friends, so wonderfully malleable they could take them anywhere and know they would fit in. Men no longer had to 'understand and handle' their women, nor did women have to orchestrate 'connection.'

"Then things started to go awry. Perhaps these androgynous couples over-valued adopting the same behaviors in their relationship. Maybe the men got too nice and the women a little too challenging. Oddly, the androgynous men seemed to like their new-found emotional availability, while the women began to feel more unfulfilled. Her 'perfect' partner, in the process of reclaiming his full emotional expressiveness, somehow ended up paying an unfair price; he was no longer able to command the hierarchical respect from her that was once his inalienable right.

"How can a man be a caretaker and a warrior at the same time? How can he serve his woman's need for a partner who is vulnerable, open, and intimate, while donning armor to fight the dangers that threaten his family and place in the world? How can he stand up and be a man amongst men, loyal to the hunting band that covers his back, while taking the night feeding, while not appearing less than a man? Did he blend his male energy with his female side, or did he learn to be more like a female at the price of his innate masculinity?

"The women I have treated who have left their husbands for more 'masculine' men believed that their new relationships would be able to both excite and nurture them. Sadly, that has not always happened. The veritable saint with balls is as elusive as ever.

"When things haven't worked out as they thought they would, several of the women I am now working with are re-thinking their decisions, wondering if they left too soon, or for the wrong reasons. They want to reconcile with the men they have left behind. Their husbands are torn between the understandable desire to reject them and still wanting them back. Ironically, because these have nurtured the feminine side of their natures, they are also able to forgive in a way few men have been able to do in the past.

"But because they have no interest in returning to the 'bad boy' mentality their competitors brandished, they are faced with a challenge most men have never had to confront. How do they hold on to their vulnerability and capacity to nurture, and blend it with the strength and power required of a self-respecting leader of men?

"None of my reuniting couples ever want to lose each other again. They've left the old ways behind and know that going back to what was will not work anymore. They intensely want to create a new kind of connection that blends the beauty of traditional roles with the freedom to move between them, and to blend the best of the past with an as-yet-unwritten future.

"It must be a parallel path. Both men and women must separately find their own balance between their need for independence and their desire for ongoing commitment. As integrated individuals in their own right, they would then have the capacity to create a relationship that is more than the exchange or sum of the parts. Committed partners who are willing to fight for that innovative solution will find the way."

Women As Reproductive Bottlenecks

My neighbor across the street breeds bulldogs, and the female recently gave birth to six puppies. The father had been dead five years, but his sperm had been frozen. God knows how many puppies he's fathered.

That got me thinking about women as reproductive bottlenecks. A woman can perhaps have 15 babies in her life (my father's mother had nine), but a man can impregnate thousands of women.

I don't consider this bottleneck a good thing. For one thing, r-selected retards can outbreed us K-selected smartyguys.

Society got around this in the past by killing the more criminal r-selected (yay for one less Michael Brown!) and also parents had a say to whom their kids married, to make sure they didn't end up with male or female Michael Browns.

No matter, that bottleneck has caused horrendous problems. Let's put it this way: great men such as Adam Smith and Isaac Newton never reproduced. But as for the retarded (think Idiocracy), the world is being flooded with them.

I used to read a lot of science fiction in my early teens, not because it made me imaginative, but because I was imaginative and thus drawn to it. But I remember reading Brave New World and the babies in test tubes (try the TV series, Space: Above and Beyond for vat-grown babies).

Right now human sperm and eggs are being frozen, and then sometimes implanted in surrogate mothers.

It's a way beyond that bottleneck.

What's next? Artificial wombs? It's coming. You know it is.

What will this do to the value of women? Their value sexually is close to zero, at least for men who can get women. If men can get designer babies grown in artificial wombs, with the eggs of whatever woman they choose (and I'm sure those special eggs would cost a lot of money), then who needs the average woman?

Sex cheap, the bottleneck bypassed, making women's reproductive value cheap...the only thing left that makes women worthwhile is love. And what is to be done with that?

Brave New World, indeed.

"Sorry, men ARE more brainy than women (and more stupid too!) It's a simple scientific fact"

If I had my way there wouldn't be any public schools. Some students would rather have mentors and be taught on their own. Others might prefer being home-schooled in groups. And I'd have the older teach the younger.

My experience has been you can pretty much give boys and girls the same education up to puberty (although boys are rowdier) but after puberty you get some profound differences, and they are inborn. Such as mathematical ability.

I have a niece who is better at math than I am, and that's fine with me. Education means "to draw out," as in drawing out natural talents. So if a woman has talent at math or chemistry or biological, then that talent should be drawn out.

Most women, however don't care for those things. I've met a lot who were just fine, and very much enjoyed, cooking for their families. And they should not be discouraged, either.

That leftist delusion that all of us are blank slates and can be anything...if only it were true. But it's not, not in the least.

This article is from the Mail Online and was written by Professor Richard Lynn.

I suggest you read the comments. There are, as usual, a lot of women blaming their problems on men.

"Baroness Susan Greenfield is one of Britain's best-known female scientists; she's a professor of neurophysiology at the University of Oxford, a former director of the Royal Institution and an accomplished writer and broadcaster on scientific matters.

"So when she very publicly bemoans the lack of women reaching the higher echelons of the scientific establishment, people tend to sit up and take notice.

"In a newspaper article last month, she expressed her concern that only ten per cent of science professors in this country are women.

"Her comments struck a chord, attracting a host of comments agreeing that women scientists were generally getting a raw deal.

"This raises an important and controversial question. Is there really a glass ceiling holding back the careers of talented female scientists? Have decades of anti-sexual discrimination legislation really counted for nothing in the laboratories of Britain?

"Or might there be another explanation for why we find such a marked shortage of women, not just in the highest levels of science but in big business, the professions, and politics, too?

"It is my contention - based on a lifetime of academic research - that there is an explanation and I advance it all too aware of the howls of feminist outrage I am about to unleash.

"So, here goes: one of the main reasons why there are not more female science professors or chief executives or Cabinet ministers is that, on average, men are more intelligent than women.

"Nor do the shocks to the noisy advocates of equal opportunities stop there, I'm afraid.

"For not only is the average man more intelligent than the average woman but also a clear and rather startling imbalance emerges between the sexes at the high levels of intelligence that the most demanding jobs require.

"For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism.

"In this context, Professor Greenfield's indignation that only one in ten science professors is female doesn't seem all that bad. It also goes some way to explaining why, in almost 110 years of Nobel Prize history, only two women have ever won the Prize for physics, only four have won the Prize for chemistry and why no women at all have ever won the coveted Fields Medal for mathematics in eight decades of trying.

"In recent years, the forces of political correctness have made the reporting of this sort of statistic virtually impossible.

"Yet as a psychologist who has dedicated his career to the study of intelligence - and, in particular, to how it differs between the sexes - I can tell you that in my academic circles these IQ figures are barely disputed.

"Ever since the Frenchman Alfred Binet devised the first intelligence test in 1905, study after study has confirmed the same result. When it comes to IQ, men and women - at least once they've gained adulthood - simply are not equal.

"Boys and girls may start out with the same IQ but by 16 or so boys are starting to inch ahead. The ever-growing success of girls at GCSE, A-level and now at university would seem to refute this - but the blame lies with our exam system, with its emphasis on coursework, which rewards diligence more than it does intelligence.

The undeniable, easily measurable fact remains that, by the time both sexes reach 21, men, on average, score five IQ points higher than women.

"Before discussing how and why this might be, I ought to explain what psychologists mean by intelligence. It's made up of a range of cognitive abilities that include reasoning, problem-solving, spatial ability, general knowledge and memory.

"In all of these, men outperform women - although women hold their own when it comes to verbal reasoning and have a definite edge in foreign language skills and spelling.

"We must look to the field of evolutionary psychology for an explanation of why men have emerged as the more intelligent sex.

"As the hunter part of a hunter-gatherer society, men were faced with complex, life-threatening problems that needed solving on a daily basis. For example, how to kill that elusive deer?

"The hunters that used all their mental capabilities to come up with the answers, successfully killing animals day after day, were clearly the most intelligent.

"They were the high-status males of their day and - provocative as it is to say so - must have possessed far sharper minds than those of women engaged in the relatively simple tasks of gathering berries and raising children. The difference in intelligence between boys and girls starts to emerge at school

"The difference in intelligence between boys and girls starts to emerge at school

"These high-status males would also have been the most eligible mates, and it would be their genes - chief among which would be those controlling male brain size - that would be passed on to the next generation.

"The result is that men today still have physically bigger brains than women, even after adjustments for their different-body size. Might this underpin the five-point difference in IQ between the sexes?

"Of course, in normal daily life, there's not much real difference between a man with an IQ of 105 and a woman with an IQ of 100. The real difference only emerges as we rise up the IQ scale to the sort of level that the really top jobs require and as we drop lower down the scale - because men, as it turns out, have a much wider range of intelligence than women.

"As a result, there are not only far more men with high IQs than there are women, but there are also, as I'm sure any woman would tell you, far more stupid men around than there are stupid women.

"There is, as yet, no simple or, indeed, totally convincing explanation as to why this is, but while the abundance of stupid men has always caused social problems, it is the relative abundance of highly intelligent men that has caused problems for several generations of emancipated, liberated, ambitious women.

"As a result, when these women get close to the top, they are simply out-numbered by highly intelligent and often ruthlessly ambitious men.

As our hunter-gatherer example has already suggested, men and women have also evolved different kinds of intelligence.

The demands of hunting - devising tactics and strategies, anticipating likely outcomes - favoured the development of reasoning, together with mathematical and spatial abilities, which is why, thousands of years later, men continue to be overrepresented in fields such as maths and physics.

"However, when it comes to verbal intelligence, women match men because, in our hunter-gatherer past, women needed verbal abilities to negotiate their relationships with both men and women and to teach and socialise their children.

"This explains why they are every bit as successful as men at writing novels, say, or even newspaper columns. Their superior foreign language skills explain why if you walk into a university language lecture theatre, you won't find many men.

"But there's another reason why, at the very highest and most demanding of levels in society, men have a natural advantage - and it's one we've seen in countless natural history TV documentaries.

"Take, for example, the case of rutting stags or fighting chimps and you get the generally aggressive idea. Thanks to high levels of the male sex hormone testosterone, men are far more competitive and motivated for success than women.

"For a man - at least as far as his hormone system is concerned - succeeding, competing and beating his rivals is very much still a matter of life and death.

"Consequently, ambitious, high-achieving men typically work harder, compete more aggressively and become totally immersed in their careers, while even the most high-achieving women will often admit to finding themselves distracted by their genetically preconditioned aptitude for nurture and support.

"For them, it is often a question of what to get for supper, or whether the children have got clean shirts for school. These are small distractions, admittedly, but at the very highest level they have an effect.

"As an academic, it's my job to tell the truth, to explain the scientific evidence before us, irrespective of how unfashionable my conclusions are.

"Big ideas such as Galileo's theory that Earth revolved around the Sun, rather than vice versa, or Darwin's theory of evolution, met with vociferous opposition when first advanced.

"And, certainly, the ideas I've laid out here have already got some highly respected people into very serious trouble.

"n 2005, the distinguished economist Lawrence Summers was forced to resign as President of Harvard University after expressing the view, at a seminar on diversity in the academic workplace, that in some fields the innate cognitive differences between the sexes might make the search for a perfect 50:50 gender balance impossible.

"He didn't accept that the lack of women at senior level was all due to glass ceilings, anti-social hours or lack of opportunity and encouragement.

"Instead, he went with what the science is clearly telling us - that at the really top level in maths and science, when we're not dealing with average intelligence but near genius, there are simply more men around who can do the job.

"For that simple statement of truth, he was eventually forced out of his post.I take some comfort from the fact that Lawrence Summers' hormonally-driven male competitive instincts kicked in and he has now bounced back to become a senior economic adviser to President Obama.

"But what if he and I are right - as I am 100 per cent convinced we are? If men are innately better at certain subjects than women, then why should society struggle so hard - and so expensively - to try to engineer a perfect balance between the sexes?

"By all means, take steps to ensure that boys and girls get the same opportunities in education, but let's also accept that those same opportunities will not produce the same outcomes. Men will always outnumber women in certain fields and vice versa.

"My argument isn't based on crude chauvinist doctrine (although I'm quite sure my opponents will disagree) but on decades of research, relatively simple statistics and an understanding of the law of averages.

"Of course, just because men, on average, are more intelligent then women, doesn't mean there are no individually brilliant women around.

"If I'm right, it doesn't mean there will be no female professors of physics; it just means we should accept that there will be fewer of them. Nor does it mean that a woman will never win the Fields Medal for mathematics; it just means that we live in a world where such an event is very, very unlikely.

"I realise my views are unfashionable, just as I realise the juggernaut of sexual equality and political correctness will take an awful lot of stopping.

"But I say to the social engineers who dream up ever-more-ingenious ways of getting more women into top positions; don't be surprised if you find your nobly motivated ambitions foundering on the immovable rock of human nature."

Two Poems by Rudyard Kipling

I don't read any poetry to speak of. But I do read Rudyard Kipling.


The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk--
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.


It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.