Category: Science

Fertility Clinic Funhouse

Posted on

 

People who trust science to solve their fertility problems put their faith in the expertise of medical professionals. What could possibly go wrong? Lots, it turns out. There was Dr. Norman Barwin, the Canadian fertility doctor who was recently reprimanded “for inseminating at least 11 women with his own sperm and giving the wrong sperm to dozens more women beginning in the 1970s.” There was Dr. Jan Karbaat, the Dutch fertility doctor who “secretly used his own sperm to inseminate patients without their consent and father 49 children.” And there was Dr. Donald Cline, the Indiana fertility doctor who fathered at least 50 children by secretly inseminating patients with his own sperm.

Then there was the case of the Ohio lesbian couple, Jennifer Cramblett and Amanda Zinkon, who chose a blue-eyed blond-haired sperm donor (No. 380) for their IVF procedure. Instead, the clinic accidently used a black sperm donor (No. 330 — oops!), so they sued the clinic.

Being an enthusiastic proponent of the old-fashioned method of procreation, I’m not much impressed with the high-tech approach. Why put yourself at the mercy of scientific “experts” in a laboratory to accomplish what two teenagers can usually do in the backseat of a Buick with no more medical assistance than a four-pack of wine coolers?

Now comes the latest sad tale of fertility-clinic misadventures:

A Queens couple that tried for years to get pregnant suffered the mother of all mix-ups once they finally succeeded — giving birth to someone else’s babies, thanks to a bungling Los Angeles fertility clinic, a stunning new lawsuit claims.
Married in 2012, the Asian husband and wife — identified in court papers only as Y.Z. and A.P. — turned to CHA Fertility Center, when their countless attempts, both natural and with artificial insemination, failed.
Run by Dr. Joshua Berger and co-owner Simon Hong, the clinic boasts that it’s a “mecca of reproductive medicine” that has “fulfilled the dreams of tens of thousands of aspiring parents from Southern California and beyond in over 22 countries.”
With hope in mind, the Flushing couple made the trip West in January 2018 to meet with Berger and Hong, and eventually underwent a months-long regimen of medicines, vitamins, tests and procedures that yielded eight embryos.
In all, they spent $100,000 on facility, specialist and doctors fees, medication, lab expenses and travel costs, the couple claimed.
In July 2018, A.P. attempted to have an embryo implanted at the Los Angeles facility, but it didn’t work, the couple said in its Brooklyn federal court lawsuit.
A month later, they were ready to try again, and CHA thawed two of the couple’s female embryos for another attempt.
By September, A.P. was pregnant.
The two “were ecstatic to learn that after years of trying to conceive, they had success and were pregnant with twins,” according to court papers.
But subsequent sonograms showed something wasn’t right.
Ultrasound technicians kept telling the couple that A.P. was carrying twin boys, prompting the “confused” pair called CHA to find out why.
The doctor and clinic owner “assured [A.P. and Y.Z.] that they were having girls and that nothing was wrong.”
On March 30, 2019, A.P. went to a New York hospital. The next day, she gave birth via a cesarean section.
Both babies were boys — and neither shared Y.Z. and A.P.’s Asian ethnicity, the couple charges.
CHA personnel, including Hong, flew to New York to conduct genetic tests that confirmed the newborns weren’t genetically related to Y.Z. and A.P.
“The testing also confirmed that the two male babies were not genetically related to each other,” the couple alleges.
Y.Z. and A.P. were then forced to give custody of each infant to their respective biological parents, who were also clients of CHA.

But sure, trust science. The “experts” know what they’re doing, right?



 

Science Superstar Neil deGrasse Tyson Exposed as Sexual ‘Predator’

Posted on

 

You may know Neil deGrasse Tyson from the PBS series Nova, the Fox series Cosmos and the National Geographic series Star Talk. However, now Tyson is starring in a new series called The Astrophysicist Who (Allegedly) Raped Me, co-starring Tchiya Amet, who says he raped her when they were both graduate students at the University of Texas. This week, two other women have come forward to make their own accusations against Tyson: Bucknell Professor Katelyn Allers, who says Tyson groped her at a party in 2009, and Ashley Watson, who says she quit her job as Tyson’s assistant because of “his inappropriate sexual advances.” Watson says Tyson has “predatory tendencies” and made “misogynistic comments.” So now I guess his career will implode like N6946-BH1.

 

Scientist Offers Evidence That Men and Women Are Different, Gets Banned

Posted on Comments

Professor Alessandro Strumia gives a presentation in 2013.

The European nuclear research center known as CERN has banned Professor Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University after he gave a slide presentation at a conference that discussed male/female differences in career outcomes in the field of physics. Professor Strumia’s presentation — which is archived here — was removed from CERN’s website, and the center issued a statement calling it “highly offensive” and “unacceptable.”

Professor Strumia had been invited to speak at the conference last week, which focused on “issues of gender and equal opportunities in the field” of “theoretical high energy physics and cosmology.”

“[E]ach day talks and panel discussions will be dedicated to research on gender in academia, with an aim to further the development and implementation of action plans to support women and other minorities in physics,” CERN said in announcing the conference. “Since any positive change needs the support of the whole community we encourage everyone, men and women, junior and senior scientists, to participate in this workshop.” Professor Strumia’s presentation, however, was apparently not what CERN officials had expected when they invited him.

Professor Strumia criticized the “mainstream” theory — i.e., that the lack of equality (“symmetry”) between men and women in the field of physics is due to sexist bias — calling it “cultural Marxism.” He cited evidence that, in attempting to create greater opportunities for women, the field has in recent years begun discriminating against male scientists. He cited research showing that apparently natural differences between men and women’s interests “play a critical role in gendered occupational choices and gender disparity in the STEM fields.”

The controversy surrounding the presentation was first noted by former Harvard professor Luboš Motl, who didn’t name Professor Strumia, but it has now been reported by the BBC:

A senior scientist has given what has been described as a “highly offensive” presentation about the role of women in physics, the BBC has learned.
At a workshop organised by Cern, Prof Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University said that “physics was invented and built by men, it’s not by invitation”. . . .
The centre, which discovered the Higgs Boson in 2012, has removed slides used in the talk from its website “in line with a code of conduct that does not tolerate personal attacks and insults”.
Prof Strumia, who regularly works at Cern, presented the results of a study of published research papers from an online library.
He told his audience of young, predominantly female physicists that his results “proved” that “physics is not sexist against women. However the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside”. . . .
Dr Jessica Wade, a physicist at Imperial College London who was at the meeting, told BBC News that Prof Strumia’s analysis was simplistic, drawing on ideas that had “long been discredited”.
“It was really upsetting to those at the workshop,” she said.
“There were young women and men exchanging ideas and their experiences on how to encourage more women into the subject and to combat discrimination in their careers. Then this man gets up, saying all this horrible stuff.”
She added: “I don’t understand how such a forward thinking organisation like Cern, which does so much to promote diversity in research, could have invited him to speak to young people just starting off in their research careers when his ideas are so well known.”

Dr. Wade’s comments highlight the problem. Evidence of innate behavioral differences between men and women (i.e., in terms of group averages) has certainly not been “discredited.” Herrnstein and Murray have explained in The Bell Curve that average group differences are not predictive of any individual’s ability. However, when institutions start implementing “diversity” formulae based on numerical representation of groups, we discover that these differences matter very much. When activists complain that certain groups are “underrepresented” in some area, and turn this into a political grievance, the result is likely to be an erosion of standards and the use of deliberate discrimination to achieve a more “diverse” outcome. Institutions are hijacked for a political agenda, so that CERN — which presumably should be devoted to pursuing advancements in nuclear physics — is now instead expected to “encourage women” and “promote diversity.” This is similar to the mentality that produced the Atlanta public school cheating scandal.

It is not yet known what penalties Professor Strumia will suffer for publicly questioning the dogma of male/female “symmetry.” Professor Motl has compared Professor Strumia to Galileo, whose heliocentric “heresy” made him a target of the Inquisition. Why are these Italian scientists always causing so much trouble by questioning religious dogma? Because let’s face it, “gender equality” is a cult ideology.

By the way, I was tipped to this story by a Ph.D. physicist who wishes to remain anonymous. Heretics everywhere fear the Inquisition.



 

Atheist Creep Lawrence Krauss Becomes a Pariah in the Scientific Community

Posted on

“When women come to me to warn me about what speakers to avoid at conferences or confide in me sexual harassment they’ve experienced, Lawrence Krauss is by far the most common name I hear.”
— Jen McCreight

Almost every prominent man in the atheist movement is a lecherous creep, according to women in the movement, who began publicly complaining about five years ago how they were constantly harassed and groped by the vile perverts who attend atheist conferences.

In 2013, I wrote about the notorious Lawrence Krauss, and figured that anyone who Googled his name would know what a creep he is, but it took years — and the #MeToo movement — before other journalists decided to investigate the accusations against Professor Krauss. Peter Aldhous, Azeen Ghorayshi and Virginia Hughes of BuzzFeed spent months working on their very detailed article about Professor Krauss, who teaches physics at Arizona State University. It turns out he may have left his previous job under duress:

Case Western Reserve University restricted star physicist Lawrence Krauss’s access to campus in 2009 because of a sexual harassment complaint, according to a report in BuzzFeed News.
But by the time the sanctions were put in place, Krauss had left for Arizona State University, BuzzFeed said. He was permitted to return to CWRU in 2009 for a colloquium.
The allegation at CWRU was among several reported by BuzzFeed News against Krauss in the last decade. . . .
Krauss came to CWRU in 1993 as chair of the Physics Department and hired some of the current physics faculty before stepping down as the chair in 2005.

In other words, Professor Krauss’s departure from Case Western may not have been entirely voluntary, but the accusations against him there were kept hush-hush and he made the move to Arizona State without any public scandal. Yet his reputation was very bad, even by the disreputable standards of the atheist community, and Rebecca Watson calls Professor Krauss “someone I’ve always known was extremely shady.”

 

Watson recommends the BuzzFeed article as “painstakingly researched,” including multiple women “reporting the same kind of sexual harassment from Lawrence Krauss over and over, all over the world.” Yet she says even this has not convinced the, uh, “denialists”:

Despite how well-researched it is, of course there are people falling over themselves to defend Krauss. These people have taken Occam’s Razor and thrown it in the garbage, because they think it’s more likely that all of these separate women decided independently to lie about Lawrence Krauss sexually harassing and assaulting them, than that Krauss did it.

Nevertheless, Professor Krauss is beginning to suffer consequences:

Several talks by Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics at Arizona State University and a well-known skeptic, were canceled after BuzzFeed reported on allegations of sexual harassment against him. Krauss, who denies the claims, will not speak at the American Physical Society’s meeting in April, it announced Friday. The society “deplores harassment in all its forms and remains committed to ensuring a respectful and safe environment at its meetings,” it said in a statement. Among other appearances, Krauss’s book talk at Massachusetts Institute of Technology next month has been canceled.

 

Professor Krauss had been scheduled to appear last Friday with fellow atheists Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty at a “Celebration of Science and Reason” in Phoenix, but after the BuzzFeed article was published, Professor Krauss was scratched from the agenda. How many more events will be cancelled before Professor Krauss becomes persona non grata? Hasn’t this exposure already irreparably damaged his reputation? He was once what passed for a “celebrity” in the atheist community — his books were popular and he got a good bit of media publicity — but those days are clearly over, and what does Professor Krauss have left now, except a teaching job in Arizona? He’s a washed-up has-been, and he probably won’t be invited to many conferences in the future.

Live by the “science,” die by the “science.”

 

Google vs. Science, Feminists vs. Babies, Commies vs. History, Ad Infinitum

Posted on Comments

 

Toni Airaksinen of Campus Reform reports that Lee Jussim, a Rutgers University psychology professor, has defended Google “manifesto” author James Damore’s controversial statements about male-female differences. Damore “gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right,” Professor Jussim says, and suggests that Google has “created an authoritarian atmosphere that has stifled discussion of these issues by stigmatizing anyone who disagrees as a bigot.” The essence of this controversy, as I have explained, is average group differences.

The best guide to understanding this is The Bell Curve, and the Google controversy has inspired me to re-read the 1994 book by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Sunday night, I turned to Chapter 15, “The Demography of Intelligence” (pp. 341-388), addressing the ways in which modern societies are afflicted by dysgenesis. The major influence involved in this problem is the tendency of highly educated women to delay motherhood and to have fewer children. “Fertility delayed is fertility denied,” as demographers say, and any intelligent person can examine the relevant data and see how this process works.

Not a high school graduate
Lifetime births (average) ….. 2.6
Childless ………………………….. 11.6%

Bachelor’s degree
Lifetime births (average) ….. 1.8
Childless ………………………….. 19.9%

As I summarized this data, “High-school dropouts, on average, had 44% more children than women who had college diplomas. Childlessness was 72% more common for college graduates than for high-school dropouts.” What does this mean? The future will be an increasingly stupid place.

Part of the problem is the willful ignorance enforced by liberal elites in academia and media who are ideologically hostile to the truth. Consider how the media distorted what James Damore wrote. The Google scientist was falsely accused of arguing that women are “genetically unsuited” (Washington Post) or “biologically unfit” (CNN) to work in high tech, which was not at all what he said. Yet liberals are so committed to defending the “patriarchal oppression” thesis of radical feminism that they will tell any lie necessary to prevent an honest examination of the facts (which is why SJWs Always Lie, as Vox Day says).

Character assassination is no substitute for facts or logic, but this is what the Left routinely does. Disagree with a liberal, and you will be branded a Thought Criminal — racist! sexist! homophobe! — because only by such dishonest smears can the failed policies of liberalism be defended.

“When [James Damore’s Google memo] went viral, thousands of journalists and bloggers transformed themselves overnight from not understanding evolutionary psychology at all to claiming enough expertise to criticize the whole scientific literature on biological sex differences.”
— Professor Geoffrey Miller, University of New Mexico

What is missing from this discussion is a critical examination of radical feminism’s anti-motherhood bias. According to feminists, “mother” is a lowly occupation, unworthy of any intelligent woman’s talents. Adopting a quasi-Marxist analysis of men and women as hostile classes, locked into a zero-sum-game competition for socio-economic resources, feminists long ago committed themselves to the idea that the only meaningful measurements of “equality” are statistics comparing women to men in terms of high-status professional careers. This idolatry of careerism leads to a number of dubious beliefs, e.g., attributing the “gender gap” in income to sexist discrimination. Beyond such bogus claims, however, we must confront the basic anti-maternal bias of feminist thought. If a woman goes to college and becomes a preschool teacher, feminists count this as a win — a professional career! Yet if the same woman has children and decides to stay home and raise them herself, rather than dropping them off at the daycare center, feminists score this as a defeat, simply because the mother is devoting herself to the care of her own children, rather than earning wages to provide care to other people’s children.

This bias against motherhood is so inherent to feminist ideology that its practical consequences are seldom scrutinized in academia, since the professors of Women Studies are themselves fanatically devoted to the idolatry of careerism. As a result, university-educated women are often indoctrinated with the anti-maternal prejudices that prevail among feminist professors, and this in turn contributes to the problem of dysgenesis examined in Chapter 15 of The Bell Curve.

Those of us who have a real stake in America’s future — because this is the future in which our grandchildren will live — must do what we can to fight the perverse and destructive agenda of radical feminism.

 

 

 

 

Are my wife, my daughters and my daughters-in-law less deserving of admiration than the Democrat Party’s Crazy Cat Lady Caucus? Is motherhood such a despicable occupation that only stupid women should aspire to it? If Americans accept the prejudices of feminism, then my grandchildren — being the offspring of exceptionally intelligent parents — will have to adjust to life in a world populated by helpless morons.

And speaking of morons, Oregon Muse at AOSHQ calls attention to people who don’t seem to understand the concept of free speech, e.g.: “There are limits to free speech. You don’t get to advocate dispicable thoughts that have been soundly defeated.” Notice the idiot misspelled “despicable,” but beyond that, we must ask, which “thoughts . . . have been soundly defeated”? If he means Keynesian economics, I might be tempted to agree, but would that justify me punching Paul Krugman in the face? Does he mean that advocates of economic liberty should firebomb the offices of the New York Times? No, of course not. The author of that statement was arguing that Confederate defeat means that “their speech is not protected.” This principle would seem to require banning publication of, inter alia, Gen. Richard Taylor’s Destruction and Reconstruction: Personal Experiences of the Late War.

Taylor, the son of President Zachary Taylor, led a brigade under Stonewall Jackson during the famous Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1862, and his memoir is one of the finest literary works of its kind. Taylor’s father — “Old Rough and Ready,” the hero of Fort Harrison, the Black Hawk War, Palo Alto and Buena Vista — had a soldier’s disdain for politics, and was reluctantly persuaded to be the Whig Party’s presidential candidate in 1848, with a young Whig named Abraham Lincoln helping lead the campaign that elected Taylor to the White House. The younger Taylor, who had served as his father’s aide-de-camp in Mexico, opposed secession (as did Robert E. Lee, among others) but felt it his patriotic duty to fight for the South when events led to the war, despite his own efforts for peace. Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who had served under Zachary Taylor during the Black Hawk War, had married Richard Taylor’s sister, Sarah Knox Taylor, who died in an 1835 malaria outbreak three months after their wedding. Because of this tie of kinship to Davis, and because of his personal connection with various Republicans who had once been his father’s Whig supporters, Richard Taylor traveled to Washington after the war in an attempt to secure fair treatment for Davis, when the latter was imprisoned at Fort Monroe. Anyone who reads Destruction and Reconstruction might develop an opinion of these historic events that is at odds with the left-wing interpretation advocated by Larry Slobodzian, and therefore Taylor’s book ought to be banned along with Confederate memorials.

 

Aside from his insulting conflation of Confederates and Nazis — Judah P. Benjamin could not be reached for comment — Larry Slobodzian’s argument articulates a “might makes right” theory that would be entirely acceptable to Adolf Hitler or any other totalitarian. Does military conquest justify whatever belief the conqueror chooses to impose upon the vanquished? Did the Battle of Culloden permanently deprive the Scots of their national identity? Or did the Roman siege of Jerusalem forever destroy the right of Israel’s national existence? History gives many examples of conquered nations that have outlived their conquerors, not least of them the states of Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland) which were conquered first by the Nazis and then by the Soviets, both of which totalitarian powers have now crumbled into “the ash heap of history.”

If might makes right, as Larry Slobodzian would have us believe, what about ISIS? Islamic terrorists conquered parts of Syria and Iraq for their “caliphate” and, we may be certain, ISIS leaders would say of the Kurds and Yazidis that “their free speech is not protected.” Slobodzian and ISIS are kindred spirits, however, sharing the intolerant rage of the left-wing mob that toppled the Confederate monument in Durham, N.C. To condemn this mob, Slobodzian says, is to “advocate dispicable [sic] thoughts that have been soundly defeated.” And this brings us full-circle back around to Google’s firing of James Damore.

The triumph of feminism in Google’s corporate culture means that scientific evidence of male-female differences can be relegated to the category of “thoughts that have been soundly defeated.” James Damore can be silenced, and the scientific evidence suppressed, on the same principle that Larry Slobodzian has articulated vis-a-vis Confederate memorials. If a self-declared victim of oppression claims to be “offended” by something or someone, the target will be demonized in much the same way that the memory of Robert E. Lee has been demonized by the Left.

Because the Left now controls the public school system, the universities and the major media, most young people are entirely ignorant of history and unable to articulate a cogent argument against the rhetoric of this Thought Police regime. They are incapable of comprehending how the Google controversy is linked to the Charlottesville controversy, and do not perceive what consequences these dreadful omens likely portend.

Ask yourself why a conservative like me would defend lesbian YouTuber Arielle Scarcella against SJW transgender activists. It is not only that the SJWs are hostile to facts about sexual differences, but also that the accusation of “hate” — transphobia! — is being used to demonize those who dissent from the transgender movement’s ideology. If the SJWs prevail in this effort, can’t we expect in the not-too-distant future that the same brigades of leftist Thought Police commissars who got James Damore fired from Google will seek to disqualify from employment anyone who dares to dispute the claims of transgender activists?

Like I keep saying, people need to wake the hell up.

Also, as I keep saying, Hit the Freaking Tip Jar!



 

 

Fake News: The Media Are Lying About James Damore’s Google ‘Manifesto’

Posted on Comments

 

Bre Payton at the Federalist has an excellent compilation of biased media reports about fired Google engineer James Damore’s viral memo, and the blatant dishonesty is enough to shock even those of us who have spent decades fighting liberal bias in journalism. Repeatedly, headlines mischaracterize Damore’s views as “anti-diversity” (despite his clearly stated support for diversity) and news articles falsely assert that Damore argued women were “genetically unsuited” (Washington Post) or “biologically unfit” (CNN) to work in high tech.

Are these journalists simply illiterate? Do they lack the reading comprehension skills necessary to understand what James Damore wrote? Or is it rather the case, as I believe, that feminist gender theory has attained the status of an official religion within academia and journalism, so that skeptics are excluded from employment in these fields? If all your professors are committed to Third Wave feminist ideology — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — and all your college-educated peers went through the same indoctrination program, wouldn’t you just assume that these beliefs were scientific truth? And this is the situation within the elite media establishment, which is effectively off-limits to anyone who suspects that there are natural differences between men and women.

This ideological echo-chamber effect is the result of deliberate discrimination against conservatives in academia and media. We have witnessed how the American higher education system has ceded control to those who act as Stalinist commissars in enforcing political conformity. In 2005, then-Harvard President Larry Summers suggested that “innate differences” between men and women might explain the relative scarcity of women among science and engineering faculty. Summers, a liberal economist who had served in the Clinton administration, merely offered “innate differences” as one possible explanation of this disparity, but this was enough to summon a firestorm of rage from campus feminists. Within a year, Summers was forced to resign, sacrificed to the Feminist Cult of Androgyny as a warning to anyone within academia who might ever dare to imply that men and women are different.

Harvard feminist mob protesting against Larry Summers in 2005.

Totalitarian regimes do not tolerate dissent, and feminist hegemony in higher education has had the effect of disseminating this totalitarian attitude throughout those fields where college education is a prerequisite to employment, including tech companies like Google. Continue reading Fake News: The Media Are Lying About James Damore’s Google ‘Manifesto’ →

Feminism: It’s About SCIENCE!

Posted on Comments

 

Sex is about reproductive biology. Human beings are mammals, and any eighth-grader can figure out what that means in terms of sex.

Once you understand this scientific definition of sex, everything else is just details. Young people have to figure out how to attract potential partners, how to choose a good partner from among the prospective candidates, and how to negotiate a relationship that will lead toward lifelong monogamous pair-bonding — i.e., a successful marriage — because this is the ideal situation in which to raise children.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .”
— Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

Science and the Bible are not really in disagreement about sex. Godless atheists enjoy denouncing Christianity as “superstition,” but insofar as successful reproduction and child-rearing are concerned, do we find that Darwinism actually has anything to teach us? And am I the only one who has noticed that the fanatical advocates of Darwinism generally don’t do much in the way of reproducing the species? Having announced the Death of God in 1966, making godlessness the basis of their worldview, the secular elite now claim to worship at the altar of Science, and you might expect that pursuing a “survival of the fittest” strategy would lead these devout disciples of Darwin to procreate abundantly. Alas, no.

 

Those who imagine that they can kill God simply by not believing God exists are not as scientific as they claim to be. After all, if God does exist, his existence is independent of human belief, and therefore the logic of atheism is highly irrational. Atheists begin their argument with the conclusion — “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1 KJV) — then seek evidence to support that conclusion, and confirmation bias always leads them to believe they are correct.

The motive for this search, of course, is that fools wish to live in a godless world where they can pursue their own selfish desires without limits. If God does not exist, there are no rules, you see. Atheism therefore attracts to its banner immoral hedonists and greedy materialists, as well as power-mad totalitarians who want to dictate their own rules to the rest of us without regard for any eternal standard of Right and Wrong. If we are Beyond Good and Evil, as Nietzsche believed, then everything is simply about The Will to Power and, once people start thinking this way, it is only a matter of time before the Panzer divisions are rolling across the Polish frontier and the Stukas are dive-bombing Warsaw.

The lessons of the 20th century, however, have not been properly taught in our schools, and so our university campuses are nowadays under the administration of godless fools, who sometimes seem shocked to discover that their students are dangerous totalitarians. It turns out, quite routinely, that the atheist decides the Meaning of Life is “Give me what I want” and “Do what I say,” a philosophy of selfish irresponsibility.

Marriage and parenthood are not very compatible with such a philosophy, which is why the godless so often fail to reproduce. Nietzsche, of course, died a lunatic, most likely as a result of tertiary syphilis, and more recently Michel Foucault died of AIDS, but it is among feminists that we find the perfect philosophical expression of the Culture of Death.

The road to Equality is paved with dead babies. Feminism’s idea of “empowerment” for women requires forsaking motherhood and, once the possibility of procreation is excluded, what does sex mean? If a woman decides to be a non-participant in the reproduction of the species, does she have any need for marriage? Indeed, why bother with men at all? This feminist argument has been obvious for many decades:

In 1980, Australian feminist Denise Thompson described how “countless numbers of lesbians” joined the feminist movement because it offered them “the possibility of a cultural community of women whose primary commitment was to other women rather than to men.” Furthermore, Thompson added, the rise of the feminist movement produced a “mass exodus of feminist women from the confining structures of heterosexuality” in such numbers as to raise questions about “the institution of heterosexuality in the consciousness of those feminists who, for whatever reason, chose not to change their sexual orientation.” . . .
Women “changed their sexual/social orientation from men to women,” Thompson explained, “in response to the feminist political critique of their personal situations of social subordination.” If the personal is political (as feminists say) and if women’s relationships with men are “confining structures” of “social subordination,” why would any feminist be heterosexual?

That quote from my book Sex Trouble (pp. 109-110) is not merely a summary of arguments by Denise Thompson, who is author of the 2001 book Radical Feminism Today. All she did was to describe a phenomenon that may be observed by anyone who studies feminism. Whatever else her ambitions include, if a woman desires to find a husband and have babies, there are obvious limits to how far she can go in supporting feminism, because the feminist movement is anti-marriage and anti-motherhood.

 

Feminism is fundamentally an anti-male ideology, and therefore is ultimately also an anti-heterosexual ideology. Whether or not the young woman who joins the feminist movement begins with any inclination toward lesbianism, she will discover that her commitment to the movement’s ideology makes it difficult for her to find happiness in heterosexual relationships. The kind of men who seek women as wives — romantic men, those who hope to find lasting love in a permanent, monogamous relationship — will tend to avoid women who denounce marriage as slavery, an institution of “social subordination.” Likewise, the young feminist will find that her support for the movement tends to exclude from her companionship any man who desires to become a father. Feminism is implacably hostile to motherhood, advocating abortion and contraception, and celebrating childlessness as the ideal expression of women’s liberation from the oppressive yoke of patriarchy. The social consequences of this hostility are obvious.

“Certainly all those institutions which were designed on the assumption and for the reinforcement of the male and female role system such as the family (and its sub-institution, marriage), sex, and love must be destroyed.”
— The Feminists, 1969

“Pregnancy is barbaric.”
— Shulamith Firestone, 1970

“Women’s oppression is based in the fact that she reproduces the species. . . .
“In terms of the oppression of women, heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy.”
— Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women,” in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch (1975)

“Women are a degraded and terrorized people. Women are degraded and terrorized by men. … Women’s bodies are possessed by men. … Women are an enslaved population. … Women are an occupied people.”
— Andrea Dworkin, 1977 speech at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, in Letters from a War Zone (1993)

“The lesbian liberation movement has made possibly the most important contribution to a future sexual liberation. . . . What the women’s liberation movement did create was a homosexual liberation movement that politically challenged male supremacy in one of its most deeply institutionalized aspects — the tyranny of heterosexuality.”
— Linda Gordon, “The Struggle for Reproductive Freedom: Three Stages of Feminism,” in Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, edited by Zillah Eisenstein (1978)

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988)

“Woman’s biology oppresses her only when she relates to men. The basis of the inequality of the sexes here is seen as the inequality inherent in heterosexual intercourse as a result of sex-specific anatomy. To transcend or avoid this in personal life by having sexual relations only with women — lesbianism — eliminates the gender-based underpin­nings of sexual inequality in this view. . . . Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of its dominant form, heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

“To the extent that women harbor negative attitudes toward lesbians and lesbianism, we demonstrate identification with men. To the extent that women express negative attitudes toward lesbians in our words and deeds, we strengthen patriarchy.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“The term motherhood refers to the patriarchal institution . . . that is male-defined and controlled and is deeply oppressive to women.”
— Andrea O’Reilly, Feminist Mothering (2008)

“In the early 1970s both gay and feminist movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and there was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgoing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
— Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Theorizing Sexuality (2010)

The logical consequences of feminism are not usually apparent to young women when they first join the movement. A young woman feels she is treated unfairly in some way and the promise of “equality” appeals to her, and so she starts calling herself a feminist. She begins reading feminist writers who tell her that she is a victim of oppression, and she learns a vocabulary — “sexism,” “misogyny,” “objectification,” etc. — to describe male behavior she doesn’t like. She develops an attitude of resentment and suspicion, a sort of sexual paranoia that makes it impossible for her to enjoy normal interactions with men. If a man expresses admiration for her beauty, he is objectifying her with the “male gaze.” She despises men who are sexually interested in her, who want to possess her body, to degrade and enslave her in the tyranny of male supremacy.

Her hostility toward “the patriarchal institution of marriage” (Jaggar) may not immediately lead the young feminist to reject “the inequality inherent in heterosexual intercourse” (MacKinnon), yet she must avoid any man who is interested in finding a wife, and she must also renounce any desire to have children, because her “oppression is based in the fact that she reproduces the species” (Small). Having thereby abandoned the kind of scientific understanding of sex that is apparent to any eighth-grade biology student, what purpose is served by her relationships with men? If sex is nothing but immoral hedonism — the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake — then what is a man to her, other than an instrument to serve her own selfish needs? And if a man does not willingly accept this role, if he has needs and purposes of his own, how or why would he possibly be of any interest to a feminist?

A young woman who becomes a feminist as a high school or college student is unlikely to perceive all the implications of her ideology. She aspires to a professional career and, insofar as she thinks of marriage and motherhood at all, these are merely potential choices for the future, activities she might choose to pursue when she’s 25 or 30, once she has gotten her degree and established her career. She therefore must avoid any genuinely serious romantic involvement with her boyfriends, because such a relationship could lead toward “the patriarchal structures” (Jackson and Scott) of the traditional family. In postponing serious relationships with men, the young feminist thereby makes herself unavailable to any man who is interested in finding a wife, and she makes this decision at an age — in her teens or early 20s — when young people normally begin pairing off together, engaged in the process of courtship aimed toward forming lifelong partnerships. Despite the trend toward postponing marriage and parenthood, the typical first-time mother in the United States is about 25, and most American mothers have two children by the time they’re 30. More than 42% of women who eventually become mothers have their first baby before age 25. A woman who delays motherhood thereby diminishes the likelihood that she will ever have any children, and there has been a remarkable increase in childlessness.

 

These trends demonstrate the influence of the feminist movement, which encourages young women to reject sex in its basic scientific meaning, i.e., as naturally related to procreation. Feminism tells young women that they should pursue sex on the basis of immoral hedonism, as pleasure without responsibility. Most young women who adopt this irresponsible attitude do so with the mistaken belief that the choices they make in their teens and 20s will have no permanent consequences. The young feminist believes she can be promiscuous in her youth without impairing her ability to find a husband later, and that she can choose to postpone motherhood without any increased risk of childlessness. She believes in equality, and therefore listens to feminist advice. She doesn’t bother to ask what equality may require, or who is giving her this advice.

“I was the editor of my campus sex magazine. I had some one-night stands. I explored my sexuality and what I wanted, and I met a guy at a party and he was amazing. He was super-charismatic and sexy and funny and brilliant and I fell really hard for him. We started seeing each other and then, three weeks later, I woke up with an outbreak of genital herpes.”
— Ella Dawson, September 2015

“The labels I currently use for myself are queer, gay, femme, and homoflexible. (Basically, I’m a lesbian with exceptions.) The label bisexual doesn’t work for me right now. . . . I’m on the asexual spectrum somewhere . . . I don’t experience primary sexual attraction.”
— Miriam Mogilevsky, October 2015

“Only when we recognize that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed, can we truly understand the nature of sexism. . . .
“Questioning gender . . . is an essential part of the feminism that has sustained me through two decades of personal and political struggle.”
— Laurie Penny, October 2015

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

Do you suppose many young women would call themselves feminists if they were informed of the character of those who lead this movement? Do you suppose many teenage girls hate babies, identify as “genderqueer,” or look forward to the morning when they wake up with genital herpes? Yet these are the attitudes, beliefs, identities and behaviors that the feminist movement celebrates. This is the “empowerment” and “liberation” that feminism encourages in the name of “equality.”

Those who worship at the altar of Science exhibit a remarkable willingness to ignore any fact that does not fit their theory, and we are not surprised to see strange claims made by those who ignore eighth-grade biology lessons. Feminist Tumblr is full of these young lunatics.

Simple Objective Fact of the Day:
opposite-sex relationships are favored in society because of heterosexism. People in same-sex relationships are allowed to point this out.

Actually, ma’am, “heterosexism” is necessary to “society” because without “opposite-sex relationships,” there would be no “society,” because there would be no people. This is an “Objective Fact” that we are allowed to point out, but even if we never pointed it out, it would still be true.

Because a statistically insignificant fraction of the world’s children are now conceived with the extraordinary assistance of Science, some people seem to believe that “opposite-sex relationships” are as obsolete as VHS tapes, manual typewriters, and vinyl 45-rpm records. Everybody’s gay now, and in the near future, all babies will be conceived in laboratory petri dishes, implanted in hired surrogates who will be paid to give birth, and then this generation of scientifically produced super-babies will be raised by trained experts in government-subsidized daycare centers. It is only the ignorant prejudice of “heterosexism” that causes “society” to expect that children will continue to be produced the old-fashioned way. And now, for some Simple Objective Facts:

Top Ten Countries by Total Fertility Rate
(Average lifetime births per woman)

  1. Niger …………………….. 6.76
  2. Burundi ………………… 6.09
  3. Mali ……………………… 6.06
  4. Somalia ………………… 5.99
  5. Uganda ………………… 5.89
  6. Burkina Faso ………… 5.86
  7. Zambia …………………. 5.72
  8. Malawi …………………. 5.60
  9. Angola …………………. 5.37
  10. Afghanistan …………. 5.33

Excuse me for suspecting that “heterosexism” is still quite prevalent in Burundi and Burkina Faso, Uganda and Afghanistan, and that all births in these countries result from “opposite-sex relationships.” While I suppose there might be some people in Mali or Malawi who could afford the “scientific” method — in vitro fertilization, etc. — why should they bother? These high-fertility societies aren’t suffering from any shortage of mothers and babies, whereas on the other hand . . .

Total Fertility Rates for
Selected Industrial Nations

South Korea …………… 1.25
Japan …………………….. 1.40
Greece ……………………. 1.42
Italy ……………………….. 1.43
Germany ………………… 1.44
Austria …………………… 1.46
Spain ……………………… 1.49
Switzerland ……………. 1.55
Canada ………………….. 1.59
Denmark ……………….. 1.73
Australia ………………… 1.77
Belgium …………………. 1.78
Netherlands …………… 1.78
United States …………. 1.87

The appropriate phrase here is demographic collapse, although “decadence” and “societal death spiral” might work as well.

Making atheism the basis of their belief system, celebrating selfish immoral hedonism as Science, feminists are the Darwinian Dead End.

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live . . .”
— Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)

To reject God is to reject life. The curse is upon them.

Science? It’s so simple any eight-grader could understand it.

+ + + + + +

The Sex Trouble project has been supported by contributions from readers. The first edition of Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War on Human Nature is available from Amazon.com, $11.96 in paperback or $1.99 in Kindle ebook format.





 

 


The New Thought Crime: ‘Adultism’

Posted on Comments

Adultism “is running amok in America”:

Parents know what’s best for their children? At the risk of tossing tons of other scenarios aside, we LGBTQIA+ kids have heard that last one plenty while trying to grow up while out. Parents say we’re not bi. Or queer. Or a boy. Or non-binary.
They give us labels at birth and expect us to adhere to them. And when we don’t? Certainly it’s because our parents simply know us better than we know ourselves.
It couldn’t possibly be that parents are — gasp! — people who are ultimately a different being than their children.
But what of my suggested inability to provide parental advice when I’m not a parent myself? Okay, I give you that one. But the thing is that article wasn’t on parental advice.
It was an article on children’s basic human rights, which we tend to so grossly overlook.
How did that point so quickly get turned right back around to focus on the parents instead of the children?
Because adultism. . . .

You can read the rest. Notice that (a) it’s published at Everyday Feminism and (b) the “LGBTQIA+” agenda is foremost in the author’s mind.

The essential sovereignty of parents in raising their own children has been under assault in America for a long, long time. In the 19th century, “reformers” (especially including Horace Mann) began refashioning our education system along the lines of the Prussian model, which viewed children as the rightful property of the state. These progressive “reformers” deliberately sought to undermine parental authority, substituting the ideas of modern “experts” for whatever religious beliefs or old-fashioned customs might have hitherto served to guide parents in the governance of their families. By privileging their own opinions and preferences, these academic experts became self-ratifying authorities.

The manufacturing of “consensus” among a clique of intellectuals can easily create the appearance that these “experts” actually do have all the answers, and that skeptics and critics are simply ignorant.

When it comes to the best methods of child-rearing, the proof is in the pudding, but this pudding takes a long time to prepare. That is to say, you won’t know until your child is an adult whether your methods were right. So if a new “trend” in parenting or education comes along, it’s going to take about 15 or 20 years before you can look at the final product and evaluate the effects of the child’s upbringing.

When we saw the outbreak of student radicalism on university campuses during the 1960s, it became obvious that something had gone badly wrong during those seemingly placid years of the Eisenhower administration. Somehow, a number of spoiled brats (radical leaders of the SDS, for example) had developed ideas of “democracy” that were at odds with what most American adults believed. What caused this so-called “generation gap”? Two words: Public education.

During the great post-WWII economic boom, an enormous hubris characterized the leadership of the American education system. And a desire to instill patriotic idealism in these Future Citizens led to children being taught to celebrate democracy as the summum bonum.

The only way to judge whether something was good or bad, right or wrong, was to have a vote about it, many children were led to believe. To someone who has been taught this kind of mindless devotion to egalitarian democracy, it is enough to condemn anything to say it is “undemocratic.” The traditional family is condemned by this standard.

Let me state this plainly: I am not going to debate my teenage son over whether he should clean up his room and mow the yard. Continue reading The New Thought Crime: ‘Adultism’ →