Women's Brains and Male Upper Body Strength

Stephen Jay Gould, a polemicist of science, who was recently hoisted on his own petard, wrote a book 'The Panda's Thumb' wherein one chapter was dedicated to women's brains, or the lack thereof when compared to men's. A woman called Maria Montessorri featured at the end of his essay. Gould writes of her:

She measured  the  circumference of  children's heads  in herschools and  inferred  that  the best prospects had bigger brains. But she had no use for Broca's conclusions about women. She discussed Manouvrier's work at length and made  much  of  his  tentative  claim  that  women,  after proper correction of  the data, had slightly  larger brains than men. Women,  she  concluded, were  intellectually superior,  but men  had  prevailed  heretofore  by  dint  of physical force.

And Gould then went quoting her at length:

Since  technology has abolished force as an instrument of power, the era of women may soon be upon us: "In such an epoch there will really be superior human  beings,  there  will  really  be  men  strong  in morality and in sentiment. Perhaps in this way the reign of  women  is  approaching,  when  the  enigma  of  her anthropological superiority will be deciphered. Woman was always the custodian of human sentiment, morality and honor."

It's hard to fault Ms. Monterssori's logick, the legen-wait for it-dary human male upper body strength which has been submitting beasts like lions, tigers, bears, mammoths from eternity:

samson killing a male lion (tautology is sexist)

even sharks are not spared,

Haggar piledriving a shark

or for sending rockets into space,

If only rockets weren't such a phallic triggering symbol....

and the herculean task of keeping earth in position.

shrug it off bro!

How exactly 'technology'(and where this mythological abstraction arrived from) has made force redundant as power is something that is pointless to dwell on. It's more important to consider the sad fact that women like Maria Montessori couldn't enjoy the morality and sentimentality of today's male sex. Or the female sex, if she were inclined that way. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

PS -

Who says women can't have upper-body strength? Misogynists, that's who!

Eat yer heart out Montessori

A lesson in Herstory - Women as Property

There are some hilarious ways of saying women were chattel:

Example: a man’s goods and chat(t)els - hence the reason that widows were until recently described as chatelaines. That is, the wife and the kids were/are defined as ‘moveable property’.

And then there is the more serious way of saying women were chattel: they went from their fathers and brothers to their husbands and sons(see they moved!) with the involvement of wealth(and see property, patrimony, matrimony, QED bigot!), without the sex-in-the-city woo-girl lesbian-experimentalist phase that is a fundamental right of womankind.

The perspective that women were property sounds quite absurd when male resources is a common point in discussions of mate-selection. Property, wealth, money, doesn't exactly sound what men look for in a woman, isn't that what the 'strong and independent'™ women bewail about?

If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning.

The lack of male prostitution, notwithstanding the "buying women" stupidity that feminists use, is another hint.

The existence of Coverture where the legal identity of woman was subsumed into her husband's when they married, the feme sole converting to feme covert, following which her earnings and whatever she brought into the marriage went to her husband and became his property and not hers, OMG patriarchy was really evil!

This state of affairs was to continue until a brave lady by the name of Caroline Norton appeared on the scene, rather disappeared from her husband's scene, much to his chagrin.

Wikipedia recounts her property grievance:


In 1836, Caroline left her husband.Caroline managed to subsist on her earnings as an author, but Norton claimed these as his own, arguing successfully in court that, as her husband, Caroline's earnings were legally his. 

and how unfair the law was towards wives, yet Mrs. Norton certainly gave back as good as she got:

Paid nothing by her husband, her earnings confiscated, Caroline used the law to her own advantage. Running up bills in her husband's name, Caroline told the creditors when they came to collect, that if they wished to be paid, they could sue her husband.

LOLZ patriarchy hoisted on its own petard!

Oh wait...

Why did the creditors could sue her husband and not her?

The answer is provided in stark contrast when one considers what Mrs Norton's orgy of tears led to. Married Women's Property Act,  a law by which married women could keep their property to themselves and only themselves like other women could, all is well and equal, innit? NOT!

As a successful lady litigant (May, 1896) remarked to her husband, "There is no law which compels me to obey or honour you, but there is a law that you must keep me." This woman tersely sums up the position. In the case of a man of property the Courts will expropriate him for the benefit of his wife. In the case of a wage-earner the Courts from police magistrates to Supreme Court will decree him to be her earning slave, bound to work for her or go to prison. A wife, no matter if rolling in wealth, is not obliged to contribute a penny to her husband's support, even if he be incapacitated from work through disease or accident.

or the ingenuity of suffragetes much like Mrs Norton's:

Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife’s property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income taxes–$185–and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless the wife pays or the laws are changed.

First wave feminist equality in full effect. FREEDOM from pater-archy!!

So the freedom that feminists want is a freedom from responsibility when it comes to interaction with men. And of course, the same rights that a man has. Logical contradictions are for the weak-minded.

Reason exists for those who cannot go on living without clinging to it. 
-Aizen Sosuke

thank god..err technology for photoshop (from manwomanmyth.com)

back to reality

Feminism and "Feminism is not a monolith" being just a power play where men are in the wrong regardless of what women do. If you are not a feminist, you're a bad person. Become a feminist and indulge yourself in the orgy of women-empowerment and the subsequent screeching amongst feminists as to how this empowerment can be attained(Note for phallus-bearers, keep your mouth shut so that women's voices could be heard!).

So men shouldered responsibility before too, but now are sent off to jail in the name of child support(so sad too bad, you should have kept your dick in your pants, Mr. Oppressor!) and have no power/authority against that responsibility(and that's the way we do gender-equality, bigot!), times they are a-changing'!

Men were property, Men are property.


Addendum:

1.)The American husband, as Mrs. Houstoun wrote in 1850, was "merely the medium through which dollars find their way into the milliners' shop in exchange for caps and bonnets."

2.) Madeleine V. Dahlgren made a case against women's suffrage by pointing out that women were unsuited for military.

Establish the right of suffrage for women and it involves a common responsibility in the duty of bearing arms, for which we are absolutely unfitted. In the discharge of of this severest of all masculine duties we cannot bear a share. If forced to do so, inferior size and strength must make inferior troops. We may therefore sum up these objections by the consideration that the present movement proposes to make the whole range of duties common to the sexes instead of the present division of the duties of life, which assigns to each sex those most appropriate.

Of course that doesn't go very far when State is much more than mere military and almost a provider husband for many women, election issues can devolve into the inanity of "War on Women", and  in our enlightened brave new world in which women can be soldiers too, bigot, at least equal and sometimes better than men.

Feminism and the Lion

Sexual assault. Attempted marital rape. Poor lioness is left gasping for breath at the end.


                 

It's female lion you sexist bigot!



Child abuse at 1:00

                 



Patriarchy in full display! Someone get me a glass of water! And call CPS quick! 




No equality in housework.



                  

Women's right to work doesn't mean there's free lunch for you male chauvinist pigs..err lions! Or dinner!



Feminism, correcting nature's sexist mistakes, one species at a time.

Before Marriage 

After Marriage

After Divorce

Pics from here.

And Finally,

EQUALITY has been had!

PS -


Male Lion against Feminism's mascot.



How ancient peace-loving egalitarian matriarchies were usurped by patriarchal violence...my poor heart weeps!




Sometimes the sisterhood goes horribly wrong.





That male lion caused all that, look how he tries to play the confused dumbo, damn you patriarchy!




PPS:

"what has this got to do with us, uncle dolan?"

BETA NOOB!

https://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/woman-have-quietly-snitched-from-man-his-really-human-qualities/

Male-Dominated History and the Definition of Feminism

The term male-dominated is commonly bandied about as if there was a version of history which went like this:

Every man-made or rather human-made institution fell from space, and men being men, ran into the more prestigious ones and then locked the doors after them. Women being poor runners and with the additional handicap of being pregnant and with babies stuck to their udders were then not let in.
It was only after an orgy of thousand tears that they were allowed and lo-and-behold today we have the feminist movement correcting for all those years of male-dominated inequality.

Or should we consider that there is another version of history that can be understood  after you use this definition of feminism:

Feminism is a power grab by (man-hating) women called feminists who have the chutzpah to claim that they have done the most for women by simply positing themselves as a necessary intermediary between transfers of knowledge/resources/technology/opportunities from men to women, and then disparaging and working towards eradicating the source.


                          


‘I looked into the Hellfire, and the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful.’ It was asked, ‘Did they disbelieve in (i.e. were ungrateful to ] Allah?’ He replied, ‘They were ungrateful to their husbands and were ungrateful for favors and the good deeds done for them. If you had always been good to one of them and then she saw something in you not to her liking, she would say, ‘I have never seen any good from you at all.”

The shamelessness with which feminists cry "women were denied education" is a sight to behold. Most of them do reject the fiction of a male God which they say is used to perpetuate the patriarchal beast, but apparently a/the divine father in heavens sent down a thing called "education" to all equally but men kept it only to themselves. And brainwashed women into being mothers and "primary care-givers", a term that is stupid because of its existence.
So let's see, becoming a mother and wife = patriarchal brainwashing,
20 or more years of education = FREEDOM!

What makes people believe this sort of nonsense?

Feminism's "strong and independent" women throw off the patriarchal yoke and then run into the very bastions of patriarchy to be taught how to become strong and independent.
Sexist to have a males-only university, women were not allowed into prestigious learning institutions, and the good women called feminists allowed women in, feminists fought for women's right to education! Right? Right!

History in a nutshell (Angry Harry)

These women did not build their own institutions, but shamelessly clamored for the "right" to go into men's even though they merely had to copy what had already been put in place by men and not to start from the primordial scratch.
And for this they are women's liberators?

Women won the right to vote. Oh lordy, and since women couldn't vote, men voted for it. This is women's struggle, this pitiable and laughably aggrandized greed for power that is built upon lies, utter solipsism and a victimhood that shows no signs of waning, feminism's raison d'etre?

Is this some kind of a joke or has the Onion taken over the world?

Their expropriation is not merely content with getting into old boys' network, but then justifies affirmative-action on the grounds that men were its beneficiaries for thousands of years, the time during which patriarchy ruled the roost, before feminism appeared to take us back to the egalitarian world of matriarchy(logical contradictions are trifles that feminists don't deal with), the utter shamelessness of these ingrates is breathtaking!

Isn't a Millennium of Affirmative Action for White Men Sufficient??


As for the fiction of equality, it is to be merely used in this way:
Declare yourself equal to an apple-farmer. Then in the name of equality, you deserve half the apples, and a bit more to make up for the time during which you are unequal. Oh and since he is now driving a tractor, no matter whether he was using a plough before, you deserve the inviolable right to be the tractor driver. 
And he should put up an AC in the driver's chamber unless he wants an hostile workplace lawsuit. Any murmur of discontent is proof of farmer-privilege.

State is their father, or mother, or the androgynous/genderless being that their acolytes can be sufficiently comfortable with. State is the replacement for the pie-in-the-sky bearded old white man and jesus rolled in one, which sends down education to them, teachers being the priests of this religion.
And having a good priest is necessary to save one from Newton's rape manual, or introducing gently the other such howlers from the Lord-of-Flies-esque place called women's studies department.

Is there a better definition of feminism? Is one being too harsh on feminists here?

In other words, feminist theory cannot be accurately regarded as a competing or rival account, diverging from patriarchal texts over what counts as true. It is not a true discourse, nor a more objective or scientific account. It could be appropriately seen, rather, as a strategy, a local, specific intervention with definite political, even if provisional, aims and goals. In the 1980s, feminist theory no longer seems to seek the status of unchangeable, trans-historical and trans-geographic truth in its hypotheses and propositions. Rather, it seeks effective forms of intervention into systems of power in order to subvert them and replace them with other more preferable. Strategy implies a recognition of the current situation, in both its general, structural features (macrolithic power alignments), and its specific, detailed, regionalised forms (microlithic power alignments)...

As a series of strategic interventions into patriarchal discourses, feminist theory doesn't simply aim to reveal what is "wrong" with, or false about patriarchal theories - i.e. at replacing one "truth" with another. It aims to render patriarchal system, methods and presumptions unable to function, unable to retain their dominance and power.

In simple words, truth is an expedient, merely to be used when it's useful to do so, to be disregarded when not. An example would be women being "second-class citizens".
The word citizen is merely used to gain advantage and it's not as if feminists care about being citizens when they are more concerned about women in other countries than men in their own.
Traitors is more like it.

Before they were femini....err lesbians

The Biggest Success of Feminism

“But what is surprising, or at least unfortunate, is that these ‘half women’ should achieve a certain leadership over many normal women, women who have all the instinctive, ineradicable feelings of wifehood and motherhood; that these ‘half-women’ should be guides in what, if it is carried to its logical termination, will be the greatest revolution the human race has yet seen.”

"Not all women are like that(NAWALT) and those who are, will be educated!"

The mothers, sisters and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into epicene. Involved in one ruin from our present proud preeminence, we shall become a laughing-stock and a by-word to the nations of the world. We appeal to our women to be content that as mothers they control man in his early and impressible years,; and as wives they rule him not less surely in the riper hours, and share with him whatever of most worth life and the common lot bring.

"What, you afraid of a little equality, you immersed in the patriarchal matrix you.."

It is such women as Mrs. Lease, Helen Gauger, Susan B. Anthony and Miss Willard who are making all this clamor for the ballot. Most of these women have no children and therefore few family ties to keep them at home. In the absence of woman’s proper occupations, they run the country over, reviling everything in general and men in particular, and such women as these are the ones who would rule under a regime of woman suffrage.

"In the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, with an unaborted parasite on her teat? Not on my watch!"

Anti-Suffrage Essays

by Massachusetts women, with an introduction by Ernest Bernbaum

(check out some excerpts here)


Despite the proclamations about universal sisterhood, women aren't exactly beholden to other women, let alone feminists. The brouhaha when a woman like Marissa Meyer refuses to bow at the altar of feminism gives us a hint.
Despite protestations to the contrary, feminism's overwhelming success was brought about by the fact that men are overwhelmingly philogynists instead of the other way round.
After all, it wasn't women who voted for women's suffrage.

By positing itself as a necessary intermediary between men and women, without which men would be undisputed rulers and women undisputed slaves, feminism commands the obedience of every woman, especially those with the power of influence. It's cute to hear feminists talk of opportunities for women, while using sleights of language like "technological advances", "march of science", "medical progress" to hide where these opportunities originated from in the first place.
After all, Mary Wollstonecraft wasn't exactly taught to read and write by aliens of the UFO kind. Contrary to feminist belief, education didn't exactly fall from space(or protruded from gaia's womb), nor did the washing machine.

And despite the proclamations about universal sisterhood, the biggest enemies of feminism have been other women,  women like Phyllis Schalfly or Esther Vilar. And why shouldn't it be so, when it's women who can easily discern the daggers that lie behind the sweet words of other women, while the incorrigible buffoon that is man falls for them hook, line and sinker.

However, this women-women split cannot be acknowledged openly by feminists for then they lose the very useful narrative of "a misogynist is a man who opposes benefits to womankind and the purveyors of these benefits, which is feminism" and risk inviting men into this intra-sex struggle. It's not hard to see which side men would take, the campaign to see beauty in ugliness notwithstanding.

Thus the movement proceeds by brainwashing girls the way it accuses the mythical beast of patriarchy of, inciting them with propaganda akin to Torches of Freedom ("ya think girls can't do so and so? sexist, chauvinistic pig!"), claiming ever more benefits for women against men(which suspiciously always end up arguing for more positions of power after shoehorning women into places they would otherwise won't go, for e.g. suffrage, higher education), and if finally men register their discontent, it's only proof of the misogyny that they've been hiding all along.

"Oh look, a man angry at losing his male-privilege!"

Apparently the champions of the right of men to show emotions don't want them to show any. Or perhaps they do, but the emotions should be of the weepy kind; after all it's the 21st century, breaking the stereotypes and all that. But we digress.

Perhaps it is now amply clear what the title is supposed to stand for.

Consider a nerd who has convinced the jocks that they are only breaking their bones for getting used by chicks.
And they could take a stand against this oppression by organizing a communal fellatio.

A suicide bomber who has no love for life, not merely taking out those who do but convincing them to turn into suicide bombers themselves and to go even further, being proud of it.

Penis near my..er..a woman's vagina? Rape!

While the War against Women rhetoric is quite funny, even funnier still is women themselves waging a successful war against the tyranny of their wombs and against their own identity after being told that it's patriarchally constructed. And they can be free if they become copycats of men!
After all, it isn't men rushing in to trade their pants for skirts.

Thus the biggest success of feminism is not domestication of man or rather convincing boys to not grow into one,  but the victory over their arch-enemies from their own sex to such an extent that their daughters now repeat feminist jargon against their own self-interests, if they can ever realize where they lie. Or say they support the right of a woman to have a 'choice' when in reality it takes away whatever little choice women could have had before what Elizabeth Warren has described as the two-income trap came into being.

The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure."

Simone de Beauvoir sez:

No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.


                



PS:

Pussy Riot are too cliche, here's the new anti-establishment:

                   

A philogynist in action against Christina Hoff Sommers:

                   


And finally a plaintive article by a rad-fem moaning that fun-fems might do to them what (radical or real)feminists did to their predecessors:

What is feminism? A political movement to overthrow male supremacy, according to us radicals. These days, however, young women (and men) are increasingly fed the line from "fun feminists" that it is about individual power, rather than a collective movement.

A lesson from Herstory - Voting

Contrary to popular misconception, feminism is an old movement and was around before you or your parents were born.
So its stupid arguments such as "it's not even a century that women were allowed to vote"(and today we have a war on women!) are made stupider when you consider history. Men didn't have such privilege(err.. right?) either, but for a few decades or in many cases, a few years.

Even Saudi Arabia, yes that Saudi Arabia, supposedly the Sweden of boy-power(as a corollary of Julian Assange's claim "Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of Feminism"), which granted female suffrage recently, had its first nation-wide elections in 2004, and yes they stone men for adultery too.

Secondly, women did not "win" the right to vote. (Isn't this generalizing women and hence misogynist/sexist/paternalistic/bigotistic? Oh wait, it is feminists doing it, mmkay no problemo!)
Some women were against the suffrage and they lost. Most women didn't even care, and as Chesterton states it was a curious demand of suffragetes that women may vote for everything else but for suffrage itself:

"The working objection to the Suffragette philosophy is simply that overmastering millions of women do not agree with it. I am aware that some maintain that women ought to have votes whether the majority wants them or not; but this is surely a strange and childish case of setting up formal democracy to the destruction of actual democracy.
What should the mass of women decide if they do not decide their general place in the State? These people practically say that females may vote about everything except about Female Suffrage."

And consider this ad of women against female suffrage,

or women writing against suffrage such as this(Madeleine V. Dahlgren):

The advocates of female suffrage claim that if women had the right to vote they would purify legislation of many abuses. We hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. The relations between the sexes, so carefully guarded by religion and by parents, by law and by society, will become common and therefore corrupt. The family, the foundation of the State, will disappear. The mothers, sisters and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into epicene. 

end of women?

 or women like Eliza Lynn Lipton and Mary Humphry Ward and what google might throw up with a simple search.

It's time we put an end this bigotry and generalization of women and put herstory on correct foundations.

PS -

More suffragete cartoons here:

http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/humour-interlude-offend-a-suffragette-edition-2/

Photo credits - Muscleweek.com

Women are victims either way - in a more sophisticated way

Stephanie Coontz's recent NYT article, The Myth of Male Decline, purports to show that men aren't declining in society but are actually winning when you separate the wheat from the chaff.

For an example, she points out that it is wrong to compare men's income to women's without adjusting for the attributes such as education.

So while colleges might be 60% women, it's wrong to say that men are declining because they still earn more when you control for education. In other words, use ceteris paribus you morons(ummm wage-gap?)! Men are still winning! Still earning more dollaz for every dollar a woman makes!

Refuting her arguments isn't the objective here. It's the juxtaposition of her reasoning with "men and women are the same, especially in maths" professor Janet Hyde's reasoning of why boys get higher SAT scores. And I quote:

In 2007 the SAT was taken by 798,030 females but only 690,500 males, a gap of more than 100,000 people. Assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group. It is therefore not surprising that females, on average, score somewhat lower than males. The gender gap is likely in large part a sampling artifact.

Both bemoan dominance of men at higher echelons. Oh well...

PS - Regarding the cartoon and how it's interpreted by the feminist species:
I just googled the words “beer advertisements” and already the first page of results are scantily dressed women, being objectified to sell a “man’s product.”

Holy carp bateman(bateperson?)! They are giving away millions dollas to be objectified! Women are oppressed!

It's kinda like hearing a patriarchy-smashing feminist tell you that logic is patriarchal. Delicious irony.

PPS - It's refreshing to read someone make the case about inequality amongst women(and men) themselves.