Sorry it has been such a long time since my last post -- I am fighting on several fronts at the same time, including the government of Singapore (please see ‘The Singapore Affair’ on my website, if you are interested). I have now filed a police report in Singapore against their government, and am awaiting developments.
==================


Mr. Mycroft: if you don’t realise that just about every woman on earth is poised to put you down -- should you ever dare to speak out against or criticise women as a species -- then you are dead in the water. You haven’t a hope. They can come up with a sexist argument in seconds that it takes a man months to figure out a reply for. They are using roughly 5 times more of the surface area of neocortex than we do, when they are arguing, and they already have a far more connected brain (courtesy of their thicker corpus callosum). This is why they out-perform us so spectacularly (Tonmoy Sharma, 1998, Institute of Psychiatry, London).
==================


Mr. CovertOperation: You and I are on opposite sides: you think men have too much power today; I think women have. Nevertheless, I also get on well with feminists -- even butch lesbian ones -- because I treat them with respect and encourage them to do their worst! It is not their business to control themselves, it is men’s ... just as women are meant to control men -- which they do most effectively, I might add.

To deny the sex war is futile, for women will never give up their cause (would you want them to?). Though he is ridiculously pessimistic about it (the combat should be enjoyed, not loathed) Nietzsche puts it quite well:

“To underestimate the real difficulties of the man and woman problem, to fail to admit the abysmal antagonism and the inevitable nature of the constant strain between the two, to dream of equal rights, education, responsibilities and duties, is the mark of the superficial observer, and any thinker who has been found shallow in these difficult places - shallow by nature - should be looked upon as untrustworthy, as a useless and treacherous guide; he will, no doubt, be one of those who 'briefly deal with' all the real problems of life, death and eternity - who never gets to the bottom of things.”

Men and women are different, and to believe that women have just as much right to become men as men have is a contradiction of human nature -- both men’s nature and women’s nature. Your wife is forever getting you to do things you’d prefer not to -- on the odd occasion you must return the favour, just to show you can if you really need to (i.e. when she has gone seriously wrong).

Yes, I think in your last sentence you put it quite nicely, but if you downplay the potential confrontation, and if you ignore the fact that in many ways a woman is far cleverer than a man, then you will be on a perpetual losing streak. As Cato the Elder said:

“Suffer woman once to be your equal, and from that day forth she will be your master”

=======================


Mr. TorchedFrog: Absolutely spot on! Thank you very much indeed. I am not very good at confronting women yet, so that is why I use professor Goldberg’s book and my t-shirt to bolster my confidence. They both work miracles, truly they do. Several times today, in fact -- including one well qualified lady who I met at the train station, who volunteered to do my website for me, if I failed to find a local company that is brave enough. How’s that for a result?!
=======================


Mr. Hustler: Thank you very much indeed for your analysis. We men think we are doing what women want by feminising ourselves, but it is actually crazy to do so. It amount to self-castration! The key is to watch how they respond to you, and pay far less attention to what they say.

Workplace: I also agree that the feminisation process whereby men yield their leadership role is designed for the business environment. I dislike it even there (I want to drastically reduce the numbers of women in management, for example -- the ones that have got there through quotas, women-only lists, female preferences, special programmes, etc.), but, as you say, it is truly disastrous for a man to give up his leadership role within marriage and the family.

I am very grateful for your open and honest support. (and also for Dolphin’s, Summer Junky’s, and TorchedFrog’s back-up!)
=======================


MY POST IS TOO LONG, SO I WILL MAKE A SECOND ONE, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS ONE.

Mr. Tom: You say you can’t think of the last time you heard someone accused of bad sexism? Surely that’s what EVERY accusation of sexism is today: it is a derogatory term used to criticise or put-down someone else. Good sexism -- pointing out some true sexist difference -- is not recognised today, for we all mouth the words: “Oh yes, I believe in equality”, several times each day. What utter nonsense! When did you last hear someone praised for a beautifully sexist distinction he has drawn (unless it happens to be a woman speaking, of course)? Here’s the comparison between women speaking half-truths and men speaking half truths: simply google the following (in double quotes):

“I can do anything a man can do” --- 282,000 hits
“I can do anything a woman can do” --- 2 hits

12 Jan 2010

THAT’S the extent of the sex gap on half-truths.

Evidence for Private Events: As for there being no proof for some of the things I say, on many issues you will just have to trust me, since there were no witnesses ... but I suggest it is not worth talking to me in the first place, if you do not believe I am trying my best to speak truthfully.

Feminist Arguments for Schoolgirls to Use: I am not suggesting a conspiracy, it simply comes naturally to women to promulgate sexist arguments in their favour, and since schools have become so feminised (with boys being discipline like girls), the balancing sexist arguments in favour of men have been silenced. Nor is it a conspiracy in the sense that it is secret or hidden away: girls are openly boosted in every way possible as a matter of written policy, scholarships, special courses, special colleges, special quotas -- even a special division for women in the United Nations. But now that we are damaging our boys in school so much, there is little need of these programmes anymore -- girls out-perform boys anyway.

Women as the Enemy of Men: unless you deny the sex war, this is true by definition. You simply need to get used to the idea: acknowledge it, enjoy it, and celebrate it. If you truly respect your enemy (‘love her as thyself’, as Jesus would have advised you), then you can engage her in combat with delight -- knowing neither of you are ever going to gain final victory ... we just win the odd skirmish here and there.

Sexism: I have come to believe that men’s most important role is controlling women -- in fact I call men controlling women (and women controlling men) our most important mission on earth ... the meaning of life itself. As an atheist this is a very important concept to me, and I am pushing it for all I am worth.

You attempt to invalidate the above expressions of support for me (with the support of CovertOperation, Kowalski and Mycroft), but I think the words simply need to be read again -- for I believe they can speak for themselves.
===================


Mr. Dolphin: Sorry I was away so long, I’ll try to come back twice a week. Yes, all this is related to dominance and alpha males ... in fact it leads to the whole hierarchy of power between males, upon which female relationships depend (Frans de Waal, 1986, ‘The Integration of Dominance and Social Bonding in Primates’, in the journal ‘Animal Behaviour’). The most important way we men are superior to women is our aggression: the ability to threaten, act violently, and to kill. This is what holds society together -- not just in times of war, but more importantly in peacetime when you visit Macdonald’s or get on a bus. In any public place, if a sufficiently large number of men are not prepared to risk all, to preserve the public order, then it slowly but surely disintegrates.

Who’s to blame?: It is MEN who are acting unnaturally, in denying their responsibility to control women’s behaviour -- women have never stopped doing the reverse. So it is men, not women, who need to clean up their act. That is why I encourage women to behave as outrageously as they dare -- join feminist movements, argue for more and more power over men, etc. Surely at some point men will wake up and tell them enough’s enough? I’ve even joined the women’s clergy movement here in the UK (WATCH), to help them boot out heterosexual priests from the Church of England (replacing them with women, gays, and lesbians) -- on the basis that it will cause the church itself to collapse. They have accepted me as a member on these conditions!
======================


Mr. CovertOperation: attempting self-control is all very fine, but we are not much good at it -- we are far better at knowing how others ought to behave. So, while I don’t advise you to give up self-control, I also recommend you do a goodly bit of controlling others -- particularly women. You don’t have to worry about other men so much, because you can normally rely on women to deal with them.

Settling scores with my ex-wife: There is nothing secret about this. I believe I was the weakest of boyfriends and then husbands for the 27 years of our relationship, and this is why she divorced me. I am finally learning to stand on my own two feet, I believe, and would love to rejoin battle with her, if she would have me back on that understanding. That’s all there is to it: no bitter resentment, since it was mainly my fault, and no terrible guilt, since most men are feminised like this today, though not quite to the same degree as me.
=======================


Mr. Tom: I agree with you that it is the man’s fault for sucking up to a woman, as per above to Mr. Dolphin, but the motive is a little more than just a desperation for her acceptance: because men have fallen silent, it has also become the ‘received wisdom’ that this is how a man ought to behave. He is actually seeking the approval of the whole of society, not just his wife. Nevertheless, you are right: he has got it entirely wrong.
======================


I will attempt to return on Saturday. I would like to thank everybody for taking me so seriously, and at the same time not being too offended. Though I tried very hard to be polite, I was banned from RichardDawkins.net just before Christmas ... this time things seem to be going much better.

This is a joke right.
Female representatives in the Parliament at the moment is about 18.6%.

Huh????????????????????

Well I'm not going to engage with Duncan from now on. He has a score to settle with women, and I don't think this forum has anything to do with settling scores.

End of my interest, and I shant check this thread, nor any other started by him, again.

Whoa there Duncan. So far I've avoided arguing with you for two reasons - firstly I think that, in a slightly misogynistic, almost malicious kind of way, the bones of what you're getting at is mostly right. Secondly, I don't want to get drawn into this vast chasm of division and controversy that seems to have been created here. I've got far better things to do with my time.

However, when you bring such dubious science into the equation, I feel, as a neurophysiologist, compelled to get involved.

Firstly, yes, it would appear that women have a larger brain volume dedicated to neurones of the corpus callosum but to argue that this allows them to formulate arguments more quickly or ably is not true. The number of axons in the corpus callosum (which determines its volume) does not dictate the speed of action potential propogation. So whilst women have more CC axons, they are the exact same Alpha-I myelinated axons as those found in the male CC and thus have the same conduction velocity.

Secondly, I would dispute the claim that women use 5 times more surface area of the neocortex than men when arguing, and I ask that you post some references to scientific papers giving evidence for this. My reasoning for doubting this is simple - have you ever argued with a woman? As long as you're in the right, cold, hard, male logic is simply superior and you will win that argument. The real beauty of the female brain is that it will make you feel like you've lost, even if you win.

Something poetic to end on, I think, but please consider the science of your claims carefully. I don't know what your background is in terms of profession, but I suspect it is not one of science with apparently blind acceptance of such questionable conclusions.

Good evening, Miss Blanca: I am encouraged that you think I am mostly right -- thank you for mentioning it -- but I am also saddened that you find fault with my science. Are you sure that your motives are entirely beyond reproach?

You see, I think you are being a naughty lady, Miss Blanca: just like the rest of your colleagues, you are doing your very best to cover up the sex differences -- despite your area of science being in the strongest of positions to reveal them, and even as you pretend to adopt a position of scientific objectivity. Please read my accusation of you and your ilk, as presented to the IQ psychologists, at their annual meeting in Madrid last month. This is seriously wicked stuff -- you are helping to shred our social world to pieces.

Powered by Google Docs

my qualifications: you are right, I have no formal qualifications in this field (as an engineer with a degree in electronics, I have specialised in ways of pumping oil out of the ground), but in this instance I believe this is the best qualification of all: for everyone in your line of work has to toe the ‘equalist’ line, in order to preserve his job. Look what happened to Larry Summers when he refused to conform. I, on the other hand, have very little to lose, and so can afford to speak the truth: equality between the sexes is utter nonsense. We have equal value as human beings, right enough, but in everything else we differ -- sometimes by several orders of magnitude.

Colossal spacial and verbal sex differences linked to brain structure: It was a 1999 article in the Daily Mail that first alerted me (just after I came out of 3 months solitary confinement in prison!). Here’s the original article (minus the pictures of the MRI scans, unfortunately), and I am still trying to find out if Dr. Tonmoy Sharma published a paper reporting the study. In the pictures, the contrast between the active areas for men and women are dramatic. If you are interested I can scan it for you.

Why women really can't get their mind around road maps; BRAIN SCANS SOLVE MYSTERY OF SEXES' STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES | Daily Mail (London, England), The Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET

World cognitive expert and corpus callosum: In 2002 I corresponded with the world authority on sex differences in cognition, Professor Doreen Kimura (Simon Fraser University, Canada), and it was she who identified the back part of the corpus callosum (called the splenium) as a potential reason for women’s superior verbal skills -- first in her September 1992 article in Scientific American, and subsequently in her 2002 follow-up. I contacted her again last month, and though she did not fully endorse my views, she did not deny them.

Other Leading Authorities: At the intelligence conference last month I had the great fortune to meet several other leading researchers in sex differences, including (I believe) number two and number three ladies in the world: Professor Linda Gottfredson and Dr. Wendy Johnson. In fact I am now in active discussions with both of them by e-mail. Professor Helmuth Nyborg from Denmark even undertook to wear my t-shirt at home for Christmas! In the conference, in the bar, over dinner, and three breakfast meetings in a row ... I picked the best brains in the world on this subject. Two of the leading men, Professors Richard Lynn and Philippe Rushton, though vigorously disagreeing with me, nevertheless gave generously of their time. All in all, I believe I can say, as an amateur, that I am becoming reasonably qualified in a hurry.

Other Sexist Brain Structures: Anyway, there are many other structural differences between the male and the female brain which might explain cognitive sex differences -- are you going to deny all of these, too? The latest paper I’ve read highlighting the differences is Larry Cahill’s ‘His Brain, Her Brain’ (Scientific American May, 2005, page 40) which identifies a plethora. It seems to me you are simply nit-picking, to avoid addressing the real issue?

Superior, righteous, cold, hard, male logic wins: Wherever did you get this idea? Have you not heard of women-only politician lists?, gender mainstreaming?, female quotas in industry and boardrooms?, female preference for top jobs? You must have your head very firmly buried in the sand!

Blind acceptance of questionable conclusions: In summary, I reject your accusation that I blindly accept unscientific, unsubstantiated claims; and in reply I riposte that it is you, your colleagues, and, yes, science itself who is in a state of denial over sex differences. If only science would occasionally study masculinity in a positive light, for example, the whole world would be turned upside down.

Miss Duncan (what's with calling Blanca miss?)

There are differences between the sexes I don't think anyone's denying that but your conclusion to these differences is where the problem is.

This is weak, lame behaviour and has fuck all to do with masculinity and more to do with being a controlling twat. So provide a bunch of evidence that shows men and women are different fine, but I haven't seen any evidence for this kind of low control that you propose.

Also you can't claim that you are better positioned than scientists and doctors but then use their work to back up your theory, by your definition your evidence is inadmissible and you're arguing against yourself.

Duncan, I'm going to wrap up my side of this argument in this post. Don't expect any more response from me - I've got better things to do with my time than argue with someone who quotes the Daily Mail as a scientific reference. And someone who, for some indiscernible reason, thinks I am a woman. And an unmarried one at that.

I'm not going to go on about science here. Suffice to say that yes, the male and female brain are slightly different, due partly to developmental differences and the effects of hormones in utero and partly due to hormonal differences in vivo and this is the reason that women fancy men and men fancy women. It's why women are more caring and compassionate, and men tend to be more logical and aggressive. It might even give women an upper hand when it comes to arguing. For the sake of peace and quiet, I'll let the Daily Mail have that one. Their science is far more convincing than anything I've ever been taught by my academic tutors.

My main argument is going to line up amongst the dozens of previous rebukes already posted here. You have complained at length, quite rightly, about the almost militant feminism that was seen in the 60s. At the time, it was a good 25 years before my birth, but there's no doubting that it happened. Women running around shouting about men being vile repugnant and detrimental to the human race. Ridiculous behaviour, I agree.
However, the majority of the feminist movement achieved many good things. Equality for women - (nearly) equal pay, equal rights and a new (almost) equal role in society, and forcing misogynistic men to pay attention to the unfairness they were experiencing.

I would argue that this is a good thing. Women are human beings, just like us men and deserve the same rights as us, the same opportunities and the same moral status. I would suggest, in your apparent hatred of women and everything they stand for, that you are no better than the militant feminists who were little more than man-hating lesbians with nought but rage and resentment in their intentions. Please Duncan, tell me you're not in this camp? Or the camp of people that treats people differently because they're black, brown, gay, ginger or whatever? I want to like you - you seem intelligent and make some good points that we could no doubt do with listening to, if only they were presented in a less spiteful way.

So we come full circle - men and women are different. Not massively so, and certainly not uniformly (I would dispute your sweeping generalisations that all women are satanic harpies and whores of babylon), but men are better suited to some things, and women to others. What I think your problem is can best be illustrated by Harriet Harman.

Here is a woman who seems determined for women to take over government, a closet feminist who thinks men are too inferior to handle the incredibly important job of running the country. This would normally piss me off beyond words too, but for one important fact. This woman is an idiot and has the intelligence of a housefly, and nobody except the Daily Mail takes her seriously.

But there's something I do agree with you on. Very strongly. And that is the apparent trend of hiring people on a quota system - hiring someone because having a female face on the company photograph looks better than having all men. Now, I might suggest that this is simply the Daily Mail going about its business as usual, but sadly is does happen. And not just with women either. Black and brown people are hired simply because of their skin colour, in an effort to make their employer seem more ethnically diverse. I'm not black or brown, but if I was, I'd feel extremely insulted by this. It's the more acceptable form of racism (and, I suppose, sexism) and is not only sexist to males and racist to white people, but sexist to women and racist to other ethnic groups. I therefore completely agree that people should be hired on the basis that they are best suited to the job, and bollocks to whether they're male, female, black, brown, ginger, tall, short, Welsh or gay.

What I feel uncomfortable about is your bitterness towards women. Your attitude of being the man around women (ie being the one wearing the trousers) is a much-used technique in self-improvement to the end of becoming more attractive to women, and something I agree with. Certainly, being apologetic for being a man and having sexual urges and a penis is the worst way to attract women, and something we try to beat out of newbies early on. But to suggest that we should think of all women as vulturous harpies with hearts of stone and talons of steel is not on. Having read your posts about how your ex-wife treated you, I sympathise that some women have caused you great upset in the past, but please don't assume this of all women. That would be like saying that all Muslims are suicide bombers, all black people are thieves and all Welshmen misbehave with sheep. Sweeping generalisations like this are almost never true.

xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx