"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler
According to the latest scientific study, homophobes are secretly gay!
Therefore, Fred Phelps is Andrew Sullivan’s dream date, or something.
For many years, I’ve been working on a scientific study to confirm my hypothesis that some lesbians — the really hot ones — are in fact secretly bisexual and eager to have me join them for a threesome.
According to a new scientific study, Republicans hate new scientific studies, but it is a scientific fact that Republican women have vaginas, and evidence suggests they know how to use ’em.
That’s right: Research indicates that the vagina functions as part of what scientists refer to as the “reproductive system” and that certain activities involving the vagina can result in women becoming so-called “moms,” a process by which something known as a “baby” actually comes out of a woman’s vagina!
With these scientific facts in mind, the latest scandalous headlines:
Vagina: Secret Weapon of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy!
Science keeps proving what I’ve been saying for years: Men and women are different. People with common sense may wonder why we need science to tell us this, but feminism — an ideology which attempts to impose a regime of pseudo-androgyny — must be disproven, and therein lies the importance of science:
According to this hypothesis, domestic violence varies with women’s reproductive value or expected future reproduction, declining steeply as women age.” That hypothesis was tested against data taken from nearly 4,000 New York City domestic-abuse cases, and the view was largely borne out: Domestic violence is strongly correlated with women’s age, which is a proxy for fertility.
Fertility and violence interact in complicated ways: Men are more likely to be violent toward fertile women, and fertile women select men who are more likely to be violent. A study of women’s sexual preferences conducted at St. Andrew’s University (and since replicated) found that in most cases women preferred photos of men whose faces had been digitally altered to make them more feminine — but during ovulation, they reversed their preferences and chose photos of men whose faces had been digitally altered to make them more masculine: “A growing literature has shown that women in the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle demonstrate stronger preferences for men with masculine traits than they do when in the non-fertile phases of the cycle,” the study says. It is well established that high levels of testosterone in men are associated with a number of personality traits: aggression, assertiveness, territoriality — and violence.
(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) Studies like this merely demonstrate a general tendency and there is, of course, wide variation among individuals in the extent to which the demonstrable tendency is exhibited. Some women may have no such tendency at all.
Nevertheless, in general — that is to say, when speaking of women as a group, as a category — we see evidence of a personality trait that quite likely represents a hard-wired biological difference, uniquely related to women’s role in the reproductive process.
Kevin Williamson examines this “Chicks Dig Jerks” factor in a very narrow context, namely situations like the Chris Brown-Rhianna domestic-violence case. But I would beg you to consider the possibility that this scientific tidbit has wide applicability, because if we accept as demonstrably true that women (in general) have personality traits that are biologically hard-wired, making them different from men in important ways — well, this is one of those Ideas Have Consequences moments.
How do these differences impact the workplace, where the law requires that men and women be treated equally — as though they are the same — even though they are demonstrably different? Williamson touches upon an obvious consequence of this idea:
[E]ven in the 21st century, testosterone levels correlate with status in organizations such as the U.S. Army. (But not in the U.S. job force: High levels of testosterone correlate negatively with career success in the United States. Corporate America really is full of girly-men. But you knew that.)
Bingo, Kev: The “gender-neutral” workplace disadvantages masculinity, as does our education system. The legal regime of “equal opportunity” actually has highly unequal effects, one of which is the declining career prospects for young men and (an inevitable correlation) the declining marital prospects for young women.
If women prefer more masculine men — as science would seem to indicate — and if such men are disadvantaged in terms of education and employment, then the men who are most desireable as mates increasingly lack the kind of economic wherewithal to fulfill the breadwinner role of husband and father.
Many young women complain that they find themselves working in offices surrounded by “girly-men” and are perplexed by the apparent shortage of marriageable men. Meanwhile, the lower rungs of the socio-economic scale are increasingly crowded by unmarried mothers and fatherless children. And amid all this misery, we are not permitted to wonder aloud whether these problems are side-effects of a regime of “equality” which in fact has drastically unequal consequences.
Some critics have dismissed my oft-stated preference for natural breasts as mere ignorant bigotry against artficial enhancement, but now at last I’ve been vindicated by science:
Thousands of women ‘should’
have breast implants removed
Around 45,000 British women are known to have had Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) implants, which have since been found to have contained industrial silicone and have not passed medical regulations.
Authorities in France are expected to call in all women there who have been given PIP implants in order to have them removed and replaced.
British experts said that women here should consider having them removed for ‘peace of mind’ as they have a high risk of leaking.
Investigations have been conducted after some suspicious cases of cancer were found in women with the implants . . .
Thanks to Dan Collins for the e-mail tip. There should be no need to remind readers that Dr. Collins and I are co-founders of The Collins-McCain Institute for Therapeutic Breast Staring, and are available to assist or advise America’s women in all matters breast-related.
THE COLLINS-McCAIN INSTITUTE
We’re Here for You. Because We Care.™
Unattractive guys lacking social skills are — unexpectedly! — poor judges of women’s interest in them:
There are “tons” of studies that show men think women are interested when they’re not, says lead author Carin Perilloux, a visiting professor at Williams College. But her study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, found that not all men do. And surprisingly, it appears that the dorky, less attractive guys are more likely to think they’re babe magnets than their more attractive counterparts. . . .
The more attractive the woman was to the guy, the more likely he was to overestimate her interest in him, researchers found. And it turns out, the less attractive men (who believed they were better looking than the women rated them) were more likely to think beautiful women were hot for them. But the more attractive guys tended to have a more realistic assessment.
Read the whole thing (hat-tip to Hot Air Headlines) but you don’t need psychological case studies to explain this phenomenon. The more success a guy has with women, the more experience he has in judging which chicks he has the best chance with.
If a guy is regularly scoring with chicks in the 6-to-7 range on the 10-scale, but has little luck with any chick who rates an 8 or better, he learns to spot chicks in his feasible range.
Less-attractive guys are sometime unfortunately unwilling to settle for the less-attractive chicks in their range. Popular entertainment (e.g., sitcoms in which chubby middle-aged losers have beautiful wives 10 years younger than them) suggests to these guys that they’ve got romantic opportunities they don’t actually have. And because the “dorky” guys also are usually lacking in social skills, they don’t have enough real-world romantic experience to judge either their own attractiveness or women’s interest in them.
As a result, the nerd’s only barometer of such matters is:
Attractive women learn at an early age to spot guys like that and never give them any encouragement, lest they find themselves followed around by a lovestruck nerd who mistook her polite smile for a gesture of erotic passion. Guys who think pretty girls are “stuck up” fail to understand this as a necessary defense mechanism on the woman’s part.
Having seldom been mistaken for Brad Pitt myself, I spent my youth learning to make the best of what few advantages I possessed in the Darwinian competition for, uh, mating opportunities.
Learned to dance. Learned to play guitar. Dressed sharp. Told a few jokes. Also, and most importantly, I was always grateful for whatever female companionship I could get, without much caring that none of them looked like Vogue fashion models. While this any-port-in-a-storm attitude — romantic pragmatism, we might call it — may not strike you as ideal, it beats the hell out of being alone.
The ironic thing, of course, is that I eventually ended up married to a lovely woman who, as anyone who knows us will agree, is way too good for me. (Luck? No — it was skill, my friends.)
Here’s the thing: Actual real-life experience with women has the effect of teaching that beauty — however much we may admire it — is still only skin-deep. To quote Smokey Robinson: “Pretty girls are a dime a dozen. Try to find you one who’s gonna give you good lovin’.”
Back in the day, I’d go to a party and see guys hovering around the prettiest girl in the room, while less attractive girls sat unnoticed. Hey, “hunt where the ducks are,” as they say: Let those idiots chase the Queen Bee, I’ll be over here applying my charm where the odds of success are greater.
Unattractive guys do themselves a disservice when they eschew the companionship of unattractive women, while pining hopelessly for the “10” they’ll never get. Experience matters, and you’re never going to get any experience — except perhaps the experience of repeated rejection — by constantly chasing girls who are out of your league. Practice makes perfect, and if you get good enough at the game, you might one day get called up to the major leagues.
Guys talk about “geting lucky,” but it isn’t entirely luck. Ask my wife.
That’s Dr. Norman Spack, M.D.:
The Children’s Hospital Gender Management Services Clinic can, using hormone therapies, halt puberty in transgender children, blocking the development of secondary sexual characteristics — a beard, say, or breasts — that can make the eventual transition to the other gender more difficult, painful, and costly.
Founded in 2007 by endocrinologist Norman Spack and urologist David Diamond, the clinic — known as GeMS and modeled on a Dutch program — is the first pediatric academic program in the Western Hemisphere that evaluates and treats pubescent transgenders. A handful of other pediatric centers in the United States are developing similar programs, some started by former staffers at GeMS.
It was in that clinic, under Spack’s care, that Nicole and her family finally began to have hope for her future. . . .
(“Nicole,” neé Wyatt, who has a twin brother.)
“I have always known I was a girl,’’ says Nicole, now 14. “I think what I’m aiming for is to undergo surgery to get a physical female body that matches up to my image of myself.’’ . . .
When the twins were in the first grade, their parents found a therapist for Wyatt, who was starting to act out. In the third grade, before the GeMS Clinic was even open, Kelly heard about Dr. Spack and made an appointment with him. . . .
Nicole and her parents filed a complaint with the Maine Humans Right Commission over her right to use the girls bathroom. The commission found that she had been discriminated against and, along with the Maines family, filed a lawsuit against the Orono School District. The suit is pending in Penobscot County Superior Court, and the Maines family is represented by lawyers from the Gay & Lesbian Advocates. . . .
(Bathroom rights for transgender sixth-graders? Oh, joy! More business for the trial lawyers!)
[Dr. Spack] believes it is crucial to intervene with such children before adolescent changes begin in earnest. . . .
He adds: “We can do wonders if we can get them early.’’ . . .
“The drugs have a great track record; we already know that these kids do fine,’’ says Spack. “There are no ill consequences.”
(Hat-tip: Da Tech Guy.) Excuse my skepticism here. Maybe I’ve read too much dystopian fiction — Frankenstein, Flowers for Algernon, etc. — about the unintended and tragic consequences of Science Gone Wrong.
It was once considered sophisticated to have a wary attitude toward the claims made on behalf of Scientific Progress, but that sort of skepticism seems to have gone out of style. Once the fashionable experts in any field reach a “consensus” nowadays, everyone starts screaming that The Science Is Settled and anyone who continues to express doubt is labelled “anti-science” and ostracized from polite society.
Suppression of dissent wasn’t part of the scientific method as I was taught it, back in the Dark Ages, but I guess these enlightened experts like Dr. Norman Spack and his colleagues know everything about the diagnosis and treatment of “pubescent transgenders,” and everyone may safely ignore the old-fashioned skeptics.
Your skepticism, of course, will be diagnosed as a “phobia” — perhaps pedotransphobia or transpedophobia — and there will be political lobbying groups organized to clamor for legislation to safeguard the “rights” of these experimental specimens against “discrimination” by hateful bigoted transpedophobes like you.
Clever cable network executives are probably already working on a reality TV series, and “Nicole” will likely defray the costs of surgery by landing a book deal for her memoirs: I Was a Pre-Teen Shemale.
by Smitty
Slashdot has a story from Reuters about a Dutch social shrink who was unencumbered by that messy ‘data’ stuff that restricts the output of so many researchers near you:
In a statement posted on the internet via the Dutch newspaper Brabants Dagblad this week, Stapel admitted to falsifying data and apologized for his actions.
“I have failed as a scientist, as a researcher,” he said. “I have adjusted research data and faked research. Not just once, but many several times, and not just briefly, but over a long period of time.
“I am ashamed of this and I am deeply sorry.”
Science published a study by Stapel and colleague Siegwart Lindenberg in April which found that people are more likely to discriminate against others when their surroundings are disordered and messy.
Sure am glad that isn’t true. My desk is cluttered, and I cannot discuss Stacy’s work environment in mixed company, though, if he veers into furniture design, the resulting product line will be named ‘Gonzo’.
Don Surber fact-checked a Washington Post article and determined that Richard Muller, whom the Post touted as a “self-proclaimed climate skeptic” was, in fact, an early advocate for man-made global warming theory who “has re-branded himself a former skeptic — the better to sell global warming.”
But I think Surber missed the lead: Muller got $150,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation for his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Who approved that grant? What did Muller tell the folks at Koch about himself and his project? Wouldn’t it suggest the possibility of research fraud, if Muller was willing to misrepresent his views in order to obtain funding or to promote his findings?
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the Washington Post to follow up on that angle.