what women genius?

The Larry Summers Show Trial
By Steve Sailer

[Note to culturally-deprived immigrant Editor: The title references a classic HBO comedy called "The Larry Sanders Show."—Steve.]

[Peter Brimelow replies: Oh.]

Nothing exemplifies the corruption and decay of American intellectual culture more grotesquely than The Larry Summers Show Trial.

At a private academic conference, the Harvard president dared to suggest that discrimination might not be the only explanation why men outnumber women as professors of math, science, and engineering at elite universities.

The horror! No matter how many times Summers apologizes for telling this truth, and no matter how much in other people's money and other men's opportunities he offers up as reparations for his "gaffe," it just hasn't been enough.

When the former Clinton Administration Treasury Secretary finally released the transcript of his off-the-record talk, it turned out to be a humble but devastating demolition of the reigning cant about the need for more diversity in hiring.

And that only exacerbated the frenzy. Precisely because Summers's talk was a model of how the intellectual leadership of America ought to be thinking about important issues, he has been endlessly excoriated.

For example, the front page of Friday's Wall Street Journal featured a typical article, Harvard Clash Pits Entrenched Faculty Vs. Brusque Leader, by Robert Tomsho and John Hechinger, reporting that Summers said:

"'It does appear that on many, many different human attributes -- height, weight...overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability -- there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means' or average levels of ability 'there is a difference in the standard deviation and variability of a male and a female population…'”

Thus, for example, it’s a well established fact that, while male and female IQs are about the same on average, there are far more male morons…and geniuses. [VDARE.COM: See here for Ilana Mercer’s discussion of Richard Lynn's alternate theory that men enjoy a 5-point advantage in average IQ.]

The WSJ reporters went on, in the grand tradition of Claude Rains' Captain Renault in Casablanca, to act shocked, SHOCKED by other statements of fact made by the Harvard president:

"Mr. Summers also told participants at the conference that women weren't the only group underrepresented in an important activity. ’To take a set of diverse examples,' he said, 'the data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and agriculture.'

"According to the transcript, Mr. Summers cited no sources for these assertions …"

No sources? In other words: when it comes to whether or not white men are statistically underrepresented in the NBA, who (to paraphrase Richard Pryor) are you going to believe: the President of Harvard and your own lying eyes—or the Axiom of Equality that says that the world would be infinitely homogenous if not for discrimination by the White Male Power Structure?

And since the WMPS would want to hog the money and fame that goes with playing in the NBA, then it must obviously be an unsubstantiated "stereotype" that most players are black!

Give me a break.

One of Summers's earlier gaffes has been repeatedly brought up again over the last month. The WSJ reporters write:

"Many at Harvard are still bitter that Mr. Summers singled out one of the department's stars, Cornel West, three years ago for a highly unusual presidential scolding of a tenured professor. Among Mr. Summers's issues, according to Prof. West's associates: making a hip-hop record and allegedly missing classes to help with a political campaign. At the time, a person close to Mr. Summers said he was only trying to encourage Prof. West to concentrate on scholarship and teaching. The incident inspired widespread publicity, and Prof. West ultimately left for Princeton University."

But Summers' racial "insensitivity" spared Harvard the embarrassment engendered by Professor West's next feat of scholarship: playing the role of a "Councillor of Zion" in those two unbelievably awful sequels, The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions.

In "The Education of Larry Summers" in the Feb. 28th edition of The American Conservative (now available on newsstands, but not online), I explore the brouhaha in depth.

One topic in my essay that deserves more consideration is: Where are all the female geniuses that the feminist revolution was supposed to unleash upon the world?

Virginia Woolf claimed long ago that often a female genius—"some mute and inglorious Jane Austen" -- had been silenced by male oppression.

Yet after decades of strenuously celebrating women's achievements, such as they are, we don't seem to have gotten many new Jane Austens, for our troubles—or even many new Virginia Woolfs.

We're about 35 years into the age of feminism, but how many new geniuses do we have to show for it?

In contrast, by the time 35 years had passed after Jackie Robinson had integrated baseball in 1947, the game had benefited from Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Bob Gibson, Roberto Clemente, Maury Wills, Reggie Jackson, and countless other black stars.

Lets look at some hard numbers for the hard sciences. The first human being to win two Nobel Prizes was a woman: Madame Curie (Physics laureate in 1903 and a Chemistry laureate in 1911). Through 1964, women had won five times in Physics or Chemistry.

Since then, out of the 160 laureates in those two fields, women have numbered … zero.

Women have done better in Medicine/Physiology, but, overall, women made up 2.5 percent of the laureates in the three hard science Nobels up through 1964 … and 2.3 percent ever since. (No woman has ever won a Fields Prize, the Nobel equivalent for mathematicians.)

In Economic Sciences (I'll remain silent on whether that term is an oxymoron), women have accounted for none of the 44 Nobel Laureates since that Prize was instituted in 1969.

Possibly the most prominent American female economist today is Deirdre McCloskey—who, perhaps not coincidentally, used to be the prominent American male economist Donald McCloskey.

When I look at fields I'm more qualified to judge, it's evident that women are not currently storming the heights of genius in the numbers Woolf expected.

As a reviewer of nonfiction books, I would probably pick Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae as the single most brilliant work by anyone, male or female, over the last 15 years. After that, though, the pickings get slim.

As a film critic, I’ve noted that while the number of female Hollywood executives has soared, the number of top women screenwriters has declined since the 1960s, the number of consistently strong female directors is very small (women have earned only three of the last 84 Academy Award nominations for Best Director), and the number of outstanding woman cinematographers is nonexistent (no woman has ever been nominated for an Oscar in cinematography).

Since the death of Pauline Kael, there haven't even been many leading women film critics.

Or consider a brand new field, one too young for an Old Boys Network to control: blogging.

The top woman in the business is almost certainly VDARE's own Michelle Malkin, with perhaps Wonkette a contender. But, nobody would dispute that blogging is a field heavily dominated by men.

Of course, noting the recent lack of female geniuses may be unfair to women, since we don't appear to be living in an age of male geniuses either.

The most rigorous attempt to measure the number of great discoverers and creators over time is Charles Murray's 2003 book, Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. It uses the citations of individuals in leading reference books in order to rank their importance.

Around 1400, Western Europe became a perpetual motion machine for the creation of geniuses. But Murray's statistics show, on a per capita basis, a falling off of individual accomplishment beginning in the second half of the 19th Century and continuing up through 1950 (when Murray stopped in order to prevent ephemeral recent fads from warping the data).

Murray's subjective view is that human accomplishment has dropped even more sharply in the last half century, and I have to agree.

I asked my blog's readers to nominate works of art from the post-1950 era that would likely meet Murray's challenge of still being appreciated 200 years from now. Strikingly, a large fraction of the nominees turned out to be from the 1940s.

For example, the first play I thought of as likely to win a place in the permanent repertory was Eugene O'Neil's Long Day's Journey into Night, which debuted on Broadway in 1956. Yet it turned out to have been written 15 years earlier.

Of the nominated works that were actually created in the second half of the century, by far the most came from the 1950s, with the 1960s in second place.

So, it could be that the current feminist era is just unlucky to have happened during an overall slack period.

But, it's also likely that feminism—with its emphasis on self-pity, resentment of greatness, hatred of logic, insistence upon social validation of personal feelings, and demand for lying and browbeating the honest into silence—has contributed to the general decline in quality.

Modern feminism and modern decadence are results of the same general trend. Feminism emerged at the end of the 1960s precisely because the cultural leaders of the era had rebelled against the traditions that had made Western Civilization such an incubator of geniuses for over 500 years— above all, the preference for truth over ideology.

Larry Summers is merely the latest, and perhaps the least, victim.

Why We Must Demand the �Male Pill� - David R. Usher - MensNewsDaily.com�

Why We Must Demand the “Male Pill”

February 20, 2005



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by David R. Usher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Men who are sick and tired of having no sexual or gender power in marriage and society have something very important to do: demand legalization and widespread distribution of the male birth control pill immediately.

Feminists were brutally wise urging birth control for women. They cried for a way to prevent coat-hanger abortions and to free women from the burden of unintended motherhood. But the actual political goal, as discussed in feminist books, was to grant women penultimate control over reproduction, and subsequently, family under the guise of “choice”. At the other end of the spectrum, this line of thinking also created Rowe v. Wade, which additionally gave women sole control over everything between conception and birth, insinuating addition sole pre-emptive rights even after birth. The women’s sexual liberation movement was more about creating a matriarchy than anything else. Social data proves this is a reality today.

Having sole control over conception and termination of conception is an awesome amount of power, particularly when one realizes what this has done to family law. Because feminists essentially have total control over all aspects of reproduction, feminist legal principles extending from Rowe v. Wade came to dominate family law, impressing these values on culture from the trial court bench. As it stands, virtually everything within 1000 yards of a woman’s reproductive tract is legally seen as an extension of her body, and therefore, her choice.

Over the years, I have worked with thousands of men who, in my opinion, were raped. “Rape” is the act of forcing one’s reproductive capacity on another person. But law only recognizes this act when a man does it via physical force and violence.

Women force their reproductive capacity on men not by using overwhelming physical force, but by deception and seduction. It is an act of social violence, not physical violence. When combined with the action of welfare laws, it becomes the act of stealing a man’s natural right to be a father and husband. It also becomes slavery, where a man who is denied the right to be a father and husband, must then labor for the benefit of the mother, for which he receives absolutely nothing in return.

Many men end up in paternity suits because his girlfriend said she was using an (invisible) form of contraception; when in fact she was not. Men have no way to verify this. The rape is the misrepresentation of fact surrounding the most powerful aspect of life itself: reproduction and the social structure under which the mother intends it to take place.

A few years ago, I had an extended discussion with Cathy Young about this problem. Despite Cathy’s wisdom in many areas, she simply couldn’t agree with me. “Reproductive fraud” is about as far as she could see. The point here is that we can no longer diminish what women do to men when they force their reproductive capacity on men.

How often do women rape men? I have not seen any studies on this issue. But we can measure the problem another way, perhaps more factually, by looking at illegitimacy statistics. If women were being responsible with birth control, we would expect that illegitimacy would decrease with the introduction of modern birth control methods. It has not. Despite having the best contraceptive methods in the history of civilization, the number of children born out of wedlock in 1995 is thirteen times higher than it was in 1960 (Rosenberg, Harry M. et al. Births and Deaths in the United States, 1995: Monthly Vital Statistics Report). Illegitimacy rates remain unchanged since 1995 [childstats.gov - America's Children in Brief, 2004 ].

So we have it. Despite having the most effective birth control methods available in the history of womankind, women have taken reproductive advantage of men in astonishing numbers. The really sick part is that society blames this all on men, who have very little control over contraception at all.

Men are not stupid. We all know about this problem. Some men resolve the issue by having themselves neutered. Others avoid the problem by finding their gay side, and subsequently join forces with radical feminists who now want to give women the right to marry each other so they don’t need men at all. Some men never go beyond chat room relationships.

But most men eventually end up being raped. It does not have to be this way.

When the “male pill” becomes widely available, I predict we will see profound changes in culture, social data, and legal decisions surrounding the “gender power equation”. Very few men want to end up being served up on the platter of radical feminism. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of men will be highly responsible with birth control, where women have failed so miserably.

Men must live life in the answer. We, too, should have equal control over our bodies and reproduction. The technology is here. All we have to do is organize ourselves and demand it. We no longer have to suffer the triple indignities being raped, having to pay the rapist, and being blamed by government, David Blankenhorn, and even Promise Keepers for it all.

It time for the “responsible half” of the sexual revolution organizes itself, so that men can have equal reproductive and legal rights in society, family, and home. We are being held responsible for the problem, so we might as well put ourselves in a position where we can be responsible for our destiny

Men finally need the right to decide who they are going to get pregnant with. When we can, we will be well on the way towards ending Rowe v. Wade and the plethora of feminist family law principles that fall out of that decision.

The male pill will bring about a tremendous realignment of gender power in relationships. When women can no longer garner the economic benefits of marriage by taking advantage of men sexually and socially, women will again see marriage as a worthy institution. Women will no longer be society’s “free agents”. The power-sharing institution known as marriage will become the norm.

Over time, we will see a realignment of legal principles towards responsibility-based marriage in which men are treated much more fairly. Why will this take place? When illegitimacy ends, the feminist-political-media complex will not be able to use men as the scapegoats of the world. Men will commonly be treated with more respect, and men will be in a clear position to demand it.

Is this a conservative approach? You triple-ditto bet it is. Abstinence is certainly a worthy goal in high school (when kids have plenty to learn and parental controls are in place), but you can’t expect that of men forever. I will bet a date with Hillary Clinton that Rush Limbaugh wasn’t a virgin at age 25. The abstinence programs and welfare reforms in effect for the past decade have not reduced the overall illegitimacy rate one bit. The greater illegitimacy problem is clearly not one of abstinence – it revolves around the fact that men have little control over when they get pregnant. Empowering men to end the illegitimacy problem is precisely what is needed.

Ending the need for the welfare state is the biggest problem government and all political parties have wrestled with for over thirty years. The male pill will largely abate this problem. When men have equal reproductive gender power, many of the welfare-state problems will simply go away. All Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians finally have a powerful tool to take care of the very problem that obviously can’t be prevented by the traditional reactionary vehicles of education, child support enforcement, incarceration of men, and ratcheting feminist socialism.

Those who want to end abortion have a powerful way to end political support for Rowe v. Wade. Most men desperately do not want the problems that go with out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Men learn at a very early age they don’t get anything out of an out-of-wedlock birth except discrimination, a huge child support order, and the condemnation of society. In fact, we can predict that men will be far more responsible about using birth control than women are because they are the only ones who have a strong incentive to use it. Abortion will become a relic of the past when women rarely get pregnant out of wedlock.

Cultural restoration of marriage depends decisively on the male pill. Men hate the welfare state. They remain unwilling victims of its predatory practices to this very day. The divorce revolution succeeded only because it rode the coattails of the welfare state, which created the notion that we should entitle women for having children out of wedlock. When this entitlement diminishes, reforming the divorce revolution will become a separate and politically approachable problem. When men finally have equal reproductive power, the cultural institution of marriage will become the most popular option – because it is the only institution in which men have equal rights in family, home, and society.

If conservatism is about fungible equality for all Americans – the ownership society, marriage, and ending welfarism; then conservatives must actively call for the male pill. It is the magic bullet with which all egalitarian-minded political parties, organizations, and individuals can end the misery and burden inflicted on every taxpayer, mother, father, and child touched by the problem of family breakdown.

David R. Usher

Hostile School Environment Created by Lesbian Teachers - Jim Kouri - MensNewsDaily.com�

Hostile School Environment Created by Lesbian Teachers
Pacific Justice Institute Battles ACLU, Homosexual Groups

February 14, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Jim Kouri, CPP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American public school teachers continue to fail in educating children while students continue to suffer from violence and crime. Yet, some school administrators find it more
important to preach about sexuality to kids and to push a gay agenda with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Public high school teachers in Santa Cruz County have recently begun hanging pro-homosexual posters in their classrooms. Lesbian teachers also have begun openly discussing their homosexuality in the classroom and providing referrals to third party gay, lesbian, and bisexual organizations to students questioning their own sexuality or who “feel queer,” as one poster states.

Numerous parents have complained to school officials because the students are clearly a captive audience. Parents also assert that the instructors stand in a position of authority but are teaching values that are inconsistent with what is taught in the home.

While teachers engage in this conduct under the guise of promoting tolerance, the teachers will not allow posters celebrating traditional families. Further, a student who is not interested in joining a diversity club is subjected to obscene gestures and other forms of harassment by aggressive gay and lesbian students.

“What is occurring at this school is that militant teachers and pupils are creating a hostile environment for students who hold faith-based or traditional values which view homosexuality as immoral,” said Brad Dacus, President of the Pacific Justice Institute. “The radical homosexual teachers’ idea of diversity education is that they will have a monopoly on the debate to the exclusion of everyone else.”

Parents who have requested that the pro-homosexual posters be taken out of the classrooms and pinned instead on public bulletin boards, where students can either read or ignore them, or placed with posters showing competing view points, have thus far been ignored by the school administration.

Homosexual organizations and the ACLU are reportedly claiming that this type of tolerance and diversity education is necessary to comply with anti-harassment laws. “That’s misleading. The truth is that those laws are not written exclusively for homosexuals. They apply equally to Southern Baptists, Mexicans, the physically disabled and everyone else,” said Kevin Snider, attorney for Pacific Justice Institute.

“Bullying and harassment is never appropriate in school. But it was never the intent of lawmakers to have public school teachers use anti-harassment laws as a soapbox for state sponsored endorsement of homosexuality.”

Jim Kouri

In Search Of Men Who Want To Marry Mommy - Fred Reed - MensNewsDaily.com�

In Search Of Men Who Want To Marry Mommy

February 14, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Fred Reed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is becoming a constant, like gravity: Maureen Dowd opens her mouth, and I get email from guys saying, “Fred! Geez, man, how much do apartments go for in Guadalajara?”

Maureen is the resentment columnist for the New York Times. She serves as newsprint megaphone for the angry, selfish, wretchedly unhappy career woman who can’t understand why she is living alone in an apartment with two cats. (I understand the alone part. I question the judgement of the cats.)

Maybe I can explain.

In a recent column, headed "Men Just Want Mommy," Maureen tells us, “A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: ‘I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women.’"

The bastards.

Here we have the eternal cry (at least it’s beginning to feel eternal) of the unhappy feminist: “The whole world can’t stand me. What’s wrong with the whole world?” If men don’t want to marry a self-absorbed menopausing ocelot, there is something wrong with men. I listen to this stuff and I want to marry someone’s personal assistant, just to be sure I don’t get drunk and marry a very beautiful actress.

But more of Maureen and the personal assistants. She continues observantly, “I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.” Men want to marry Mommy, she implies, with forty-weight passive-aggressiveness you could lube a diesel with.

Actually, what men very much do not want is to marry Mommy. The problem for Maureen is that she is Mommy: censorious, moralizing, self-pitying, endlessly instructive, and so achingly tedious that men find themselves thinking of moldy bath sponges. I have never seen her and don’t know how old she is. She may be twenty-three, radiantly gorgeous, and have seven husbands. She writes as if she were fifty, a tad overweight and, having grossly overestimated her value in the meat market, missed the train. (I have a federal license to mix metaphors like that.) Since nothing can be her fault, that leaves men.

Now, why might a man want to date his secretary instead of some virile pit-viperess of a lawyer, forever coiled to strike? To start with, twenty-five is more appealing than fifty. Sorry, but there it is. Second, secretaries usually lack the misandry, vanity, and abrasiveness of the viperess. (Think Alan Dershowitz in drag, but hostile.) Which leads to, Third, the secretary is likely to be lots more fun. You don’t have to spend time comparing penises with her. She won’t always be looking for discrimination, like a chicken clucking after bugs in a barnyard. You won’t get the throwaway snotty remarks about men.

I can’t imagine doing a fast double-step jitterbug in a dirt bar in Austin with a warlike partner from Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe—you know, Little Richard shrieking Long Tall Sally, skirts flying in the twirls. A secretary is likely to think it is a hell of a good idea.

Maureen pretty much answers the question of why these creatures stay single. In another column she says, “When I asked a 28-year-old friend how he and his lawyer-girlfriend were going to divide the costs on a California vacation, he looked askance. ‘She never offers,’ he replied. ‘And I like paying for her.’”

Maureen knows lots of these. “Carrie, a publicist in her late 20's from Long Island, is not unwilling to dig into her Kate Spade bag. ‘He can get the jewelry, the dinners, the shoes and the vacations,’ she says. ‘I'll get the cab.’"

Who would marry that? Carrie is a parasite, like a screw-fly larva. You could find better leaning against a lamppost. Honest prostitution is preferable to dissimulated. (Incidentally, Stanford did a genetic study in which they found that a New York career woman shares ninety-five percent of her genes with the common tape worm. The remaining five percent, speculated the scientists, explains why tapeworms, though parasitic, are not uncivil.)

Maureen’s women are forever nattering about sexual equality. Maureen, speaking of some movie: “Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection.” Actually art isn’t doing anything. A woman who wants a man to pay her bills is already a selfish narcissist.

I find myself wondering what parallel universe Maureen inhabits, and how she found the door. In fairness to at least some career women, maybe most of them, I dated mostly such for a decade or two in Washington, and expected them as a matter of course to split the bill. They did. It didn't seem to bother them. And—surprise—I thought of them as equals. They acted that way.

So little of what Maureen says tracks with the world I know. She thinks men don’t like smart women. I know a lot of bright guys, and they all look for bright women. They just want agreeable bright women.

Further—am I alone in this?—I don’t think of women I date in terms of superiority and inferiority. Sally is my date, not my competitor. Does it run through Maureen’s tiny little mind that I walk along with a secretary thinking, “Hah! Mere secretary. My inferior. Hah!”? Actually I think, “How’d I get so lucky? Hope she doesn’t think of that.”

This erosion of pecking order by mating explains why the military doesn’t want officers to date enlisted women: A cute corporal is on equal terms with an admiral by virtue of seeing him. Hierarchy doesn’t survive romance. But, as Maureen’s status-obsessed women discover, neither does romance survive a relentless concern with hierarchy.

Thing is, the times have changed. The age-old bargain was that women exchanged sex for whatever they wanted, and men exchanged whatever they had for sex. Part of the deal was that the woman would be reasonably agreeable. A career woman today, being independent, no longer has to be agreeable, and frequently isn’t. On the other hand, a man doesn’t have to commit himself to anything to get sex. So the man dates his secretary, and the career woman sits in her apartment with the cats.

I’m going to move to Mexico. (Though come to think of it, I already have.)

Fred Reed

Domestic Violence: How Non-Facts Become Facts - Richard L. Davis - MensNewsDaily.com�

Domestic Violence: How Non-Facts Become Facts

February 12, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Richard L. Davis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am as frustrated with society as a pyromaniac in a petrified forest. - A. Whitney Brown

Not long ago a prominent journal decided not to accept a manuscript of mine. Their reasoning was that I did not provide enough “empirical support” for my claims. While I agree the article may not have been “professional” enough for their journal, I am not sure about the lack of “empirical support.” The “fact” is that all citations do not provide “empirical support.”

The following appears twice on the first page of an article presented in the December 16, 1999 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (JAMA): “Domestic violence is the most common cause of nonfatal injury to women in the United States.” The article is about injuries to women, and excludes injuries to men.

This domestic violence injury non-fact has been written many times and so often presented as fact by the electronic and print media, it has actually become accepted as a fact by the general public and many professionals, researchers and domestic violence advocates.

This domestic violence injury non-fact is presented as fact by one of the more prestigious medical journals in the world. It is co-authored by 9 medical doctors and two staff members. Once JAMA reports that domestic violence is the most common cause of nonfatal injury to women in the United States, the JAMA article itself will be used to cite that non-fact as fact.

If you read the article or visit the abstract on the JAMA website you will see that this article has been cited by 14 other articles. Now researchers can provide 15 instances of “empirical support” to document this non-fact as fact. This non-fact to fact to “empirical support” process is not very complicated.

The JAMA article has three citations for its “most common injury” claim. The first citation was: “Family and other intimate assaults – Atlanta, 1984. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1990;39:525-9.” Results are here.

What is a fact is that the above study provides little to no data to support the JAMA researchers claim. It is a very small study and the majority of the participants are African American women living in an urban setting. The report contains only a total of 150 reported non-fatal incidents. That information is gleaned from police reports and presents no comparison with other non-fatal injury reports.

The only information in the MMWR study that might be seen as supporting the researchers claim is a paragraph that notes another study that claims domestic violence is responsible for more injuries than motor vehicle accidents, rape, and mugging combined. However, the MMWR study includes a warning about that study that the researchers chose to ignore.

In fact, the MMWR study warns that this other small study is also takes place in an inner city emergency room where the population is almost exclusively African America women living at the lower end of the socioeconomic strata. These women from an inner city minority community do not accurately represent a cross section of America women. In fact the rate for injuries in the MMWR study notes that African America women were injured three times more than white women.

The second citation in the JAMA article is: “Grisso JA, Wishner AR, Schwarz DF, Weene BA, Holmes JH, Sutton RI., A population-based study of injuries in inner-city women. Am J Epidemiol 1991:134:59-68.” An abstract of the results from that study can be found online.

These JAMA article researchers appear to ignore the fact that the study above they cite actually demonstrates that the major cause of injury to women were falls not domestic violence. Further, it reports “that very little is know about nonfatal injuries to women.” It concludes that, “More work is needed to understand the nature of injuries occurring to young women in urban communities.

This study also does not provide a cross section of American women. The majority of the participants are from a poor, urban, African American community. How can these JAMA article researchers conclude that the information in either of these first two studies is empirical scientific data that provides “support” for their domestic violence injury claim?

The third citation the JAMA article cites is: “Stark E, Flitcraft A. Spouse abuse. In: Surgeon General’s workshop on violence and public health: source book, 1985: Centers for Disease Control, 1986:AS1-SA43.” What is a fact is that this fact was never presented as “fact” by the Attorney General.

In fact the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is on record that they will not recognize this “fact” as being presented by them or the Attorney General as a “fact” at the conference The JAMA article researchers either ignore or are unaware of the CDC disclaimer.

What is more surprising than the non-fact citations presented in the JAMA article, is the fact that these 9 doctors and two staff members failed to notice that two out of their three citations lead them to the CDC.

All that researchers and others who are concerned about this claim have to do is to visit the CDC website to find out that they claim that domestic violence is the most common cause of nonfatal injury to women in the United States is without “empirical support”.

The CDC website documents unequivocally that domestic violence is not the most common cause of nonfatal injury to women in the United States. There is not a single scientific study anywhere in the United States, or in fact elsewhere, that documents this claim to be true.

This article establishes another less than “reputable citation” for gender feminists [gender feminists are people who believe women’s rights are more important than victim or civil rights] and others who want to continue with this hoax. The truth is that these researchers for this JAMA article, did not present a single citation that can actually document their domestic violence injury claim has “empirical support.”

How is it possible that these researchers and a prestigious medical journal remain so unconcerned or uninformed about the truth? Is it possible that the gender feminist ideology has become more important to some domestic violence researchers than the truth?

Richard L. Davis

Metroactive Features | Feminism

Victims Gone Wild

How Feminism Has Messed Up Relationships

By Amy Alkon

"IN SEDUCTION, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine," proclaimed radical feminist Andrea Dworkin in 1976. If you're a woman born 20 years ago, you probably don't even recognize Dworkin's name. Yet, there's a good chance you've had some seriously frustrating dates with her unwitting progeny: the guy who waits until date three or four—not to grab you, throw you up against the wall and suck face—but to politely inquire, "May I kiss you?"

Equal pay for equal work? It's a beautiful thing. Equal opportunity? Thrilled to have it. We women owe an enormous debt to Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and all who followed in their footsteps, fighting the righteous fight against sex-based discrimination.

Unfortunately, in the late '70s and early '80s, feminism got hijacked by a small but vocal gang of Victims Gone Wild. Leading the band with Dworkin was anti-porn harpy and law professor Catherine MacKinnon (most of whose outrageous, but now commonly accepted, claims about the damage done to women by pornography were neatly debunked in a 2004 analysis by psych professor Catherine Salmon).

Dworkin, MacKinnon and their hairy-armpitted underbosses gave the order to the "victimized"—women, largely privileged and white, on campuses across America—to crawl out from under the boot of "male oppression." In reality, what they were fighting wasn't male oppression, but maleness of any kind—based on the erroneous feminist notion that equality means sameness.

In their eyes, male sexuality isn't just different. It's WRONG. Penetration is a form of rape, don'tcha know? Ultimately, these femi-fascists sought to re-create men in their own image and to reshape sexual expression into something kinder, gentler and more "egalitarian." (Personally, I have no idea what more "egalitarian" sex is—and I hope I never find out.)

According to their Stalinist-feminist party line, every man is a criminal—a rapist until proven otherwise. In 1992, a small mob of "wymyn" bullied Antioch College into passing the "Antioch Rules," a written code mandating that one obtain "clear verbal consent" from one's partner in any sexual act. At Antioch, from then on, raging desire was expected to play out as if accompanied by the small print on an airline ticket: "Pardon me, but would you mind giving me your unqualified verbal permission to tongue your left nipple?"

Men, as a group, were expected to feel ashamed—although the individual man was generally unclear as to what, he, personally, had done wrong, just by virtue of being born with a penis. Relations between men and women got very confusing. Opening the door for a girl didn't mean you were polite; it meant you found her inferior.

Whatever you do, don't compliment that female co-worker on her hair—a compliment is no longer just a compliment but a full-on patriarchal assault, surely intended to send a woman running, screaming, out of a "hostile workplace." It got to the point, in many quarters, where just about anything a guy could say or do, short of silently rolling over like a stuffed pink bunny, was seen as a capital offense upon the Sisterhood.

Perhaps some of this sounds like old news. It is—and it isn't. While the radical feminists have receded into the background, their agenda is still trickling down into sex, dating and relationships. Just look around at young women and what they wear. Sure, there is that subset of preteen streetwalker chic. But, there are also a lot of lonely women in their 30s and 40s who dress like men trying to attract work picking lettuce. Refusing to pander to "the male gaze" is what it used to be called.

These women can't, for the life of them, figure out why they're unable to get a date. After all, men "shouldn't" care about what's on the outside, right? They "should" only lust after that beautiful person within ... right? Yes, perhaps they "should." But they don't, and they won't, and the sooner women admit that, the sooner they'll have a date with more than their cat on Saturday nights. Of course, this does assume that women will be asked out. That's another big problem, judging by all the requests for advice I get from guys who wonder why no women will ever agree to go out with them, then note somewhere in their message that they're too terrified to even ask.

You really can't blame the guys. They're looking for a sign, any sign, that it's safe; that they won't be rejected. They aren't getting many (or any), because women who go out of their way to look like migrant laborers generally aren't in the habit of flirting—the method women have successfully used for centuries to send a message to men that the coast was clear for the asking.

Some misguided women today do try to take over and sweep a man off his feet. While there are those stories of deliriously happy couples in which the man was hunted down like prey, a whole lot of young women have learned the lesson the hard way that the dynamic created by this act of "equality" doesn't work.

Men and women are actually very different; biologically different. No, they didn't magically become the same just because a bunch of man-loathers in the women's studies ghetto decided to grow out their mustaches.

The burgeoning field of evolutionary psychology is proving that there's nothing new in psychology. In fact, an ever-increasing mountain of data shows that what men want and what women want has always been, and will likely continue to be, the same as it was back in cave days.

Acknowledging how we're hard-wired, and using it in our best interest doesn't "put a woman down." In fact, it takes a strong, self-assured, post-victim-feminist woman to ease up a little. Acting the girl (or putting on the alpha male) is a role—one that's worked for 10 million years. As a role, it involves play and fun—a big part of what's been lost on the dating scene.

It's time all women junked the big ugly boots, shelved the perpetually dour faces and worked up a seductive smile or two. Maybe, once they do, they'll inspire a guy to glue a little hair on his chest and ask them for a date. In time, the guy might even work up the guts to kiss them afterward—and without asking them to sign a permission slip first.

©2005, Amy Alkon, all rights reserved.

The Australian: Males slow to realise 'men are quick thinkers' claim could offend [February 07, 2005]

Males slow to realise 'men are quick thinkers' claim could offend
Roger Dobson and Will Iredale, London
07feb05

BOYS may be outperformed by girls at school but there is a glimmer of hope for them. Researchers claim to have found scientific proof that men can think faster than women.

Their study found that men's brain cells could transmit nerve impulses faster than women's – potentially giving males the intellectual edge.
The claim will add fuel to the debate recently triggered by Larry Summers, the president of Harvard University, who challenged the prevailing wisdom when he suggested women were innately less able than men in subjects such as maths and science.

The new study is likely to prompt similar anger. This weekend, the intellectual credentials of the researchers – all male – were themselves already being challenged by other eminent neurologists. In the study, scientists measured nerve conduction velocity, the speed at which messages passed through and between brain cells.

Other studies have suggested the speed of such impulses is linked to intelligence, drawing parallels with computers, where faster processors result in more power to carry out tasks quickly.

The latest paper, to be published shortly in the academic journal Intelligence, will say: "Males had four faster NCVs than females. This very significant sex difference in all test conditions in favour of males was most unexpected."

Under the research, scientists carried out investigations on 186 male and 201 female Canadian students, who were subjected to a battery of cognitive tests to assess their intelligence and other mental skills.

Researchers also measured the length of their subjects' heads to estimate the distance impulses would have to travel from the eye to the primary visual cortex, which interprets what someone is seeing.

Then they used electrodes to measure how long it took for an image flashed in front of the eye to send an impulse back to the visual cortex.

Professor Edward Reed, a zoologist at Toronto University, and Philip Vernon and Andrew Johnson, psychologists at the University of Western Ontario, found the impulses were speeding through men's brains faster than through women's. They suggest this is because the nerves in men's brains have a slightly thicker coating of myelin, a fatty material which protects the nerves and improves conductivity.

The report concludes: "We find that males have four faster NCVs than females with each of the three test conditions, probably due to their faster increase of white matter in the brain during adolescence."

The researchers appear to have realised only recently that such conclusions could prove political and controversial. This weekend all three were refusing to comment on their findings although Vernon said he would consider replying to emails.

It has long been clear that men's and women's brains do have important differences and each tends to perform certain tasks slightly better than the other. For example, some studies suggest men have better spatial skills, while women may be more emotionally aware and verbally fluent.

However, most experts point out that the differences are small compared with the similarities and that there is far more variation between individuals than genders.

Bruce Burns, assistant professor in the department of psychology at Michigan State University, conducted a study of chess players, suggesting those who were quicker thinkers were likely to make better moves.

He said: "There is controversy about sex difference but there seems to be a fair amount of agreement that men do tend to have better visual spatial skills. However, I am not sure we can say that makes them more intelligent."

Desmond Morris, the social anthropologist and zoologist, said evolutionary pressures were likely to have given men and women slightly different skills. "Perhaps men's better visual responses came from having to hunt animals while women developed personal skills from child-rearing and co-operating to grow or gather plants," he said.

However, others reject such simple analyses, comparing the methods of the Canadian research to phrenology, a discredited Victorian science which attempted to link intelligence, creativity and other mental faculties to the size and shape of people's skulls.

Professor Steven Rose, director of the brain and behaviour research group at Britain's Open University, said previous studies suggested no difference in decision-making between men and women. "It is true that men and women use different parts of the brain for similar tasks but the time taken to complete the tasks is identical."

Bea Campbell, the feminist writer and historian, also questioned the findings. "The distribution of intelligence is much the same for all genders and all races," she said. "Our experience and common sense tells us that the quest to prove one or another biological group is brainier than the other is really a vain exercise."

The Sunday Times

Men Feeling Blue on February the Fourth - Carey Roberts -

Men Feeling Blue on February the Fourth
February 2, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two national health organizations are teaming up in an Orwellian effort to pander to women and mislead the American public about the threat of heart disease.

First, for those of us who care about such things, the facts. According to the latest government report, men die an average of 5.4 years before women.

The main reason for that disparity in life expectancy is heart disease. Heart disease is the number one killer of men and women alike.

But men’s risk of dying from heart disease is far greater than women’s – about 50% higher. These are the actual numbers from the recent report, Health, United States, 2004: The adjusted heart disease death rates in 2002 were 297 per 100,000 persons for men and 197 for women [www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus.htm].

Those figures actually understate the extent of the problem, because when men die of heart disease, they are typically in their 40s and 50s, whereas women usually die of heart disease at a later age.

This means that when women die from this condition, their kids are out on their own. But men stricken by heart disease are still the main breadwinners for the family, working overtime to pay off the mortgage and driving the kids to soccer practice. His untimely death is a medical and financial disaster for the wife and kids.

Public health experts have a way of gauging that age effect – it’s called “Years of potential life lost.” So in 2002, the number of potential years lost due to heart disease was 1,707 for men, and only 749 for women. That’s more than a two-fold difference.

But we live in an Alice-in-Wonderland world where the wishes of women necessarily trump the medical necessities of men. Thus, we are told that we should be more concerned about women, not men, who are risk of heart disease.

So get ready for National Wear Red Day on Friday, February 4. The American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health are urging women to wear red that day, using the predictable feminist jargon, in order to “share the power.”

But this event is not limited to one day – it’s a full-fledged campaign. All across the country, local chapters of the American Heart Association will be celebrating every manner of activity, including Woman-to-Woman conferences, Wear Red Day, and Go Red for Women luncheons [www.heart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3017091].

Ironically, these AHA events are all co-sponsored by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, the folks who make millions of dollars selling Viagra to men.

Orwellians always try to cover their tracks by invoking the notion of “truth.” The Wear Red Day campaign is no exception to that rule.

Go to the National Institutes of Health website, and there you will see how the decidely one-sided “truth” will be presented at a series of Heart “Truth” Events [www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/hearttruth/index.htm]. These events include an Olympus Fashion Week, Single City Community Events, outreach to health professionals, and the Heart Truth Road Show.

How do upstanding organizations like the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health justify the embarrassing neglect of men’s hearts?

Here’s what Dr. Augustus Grant, president of the American Heart Association, had to say: “Heart disease kills more American women than any other disease, yet surveys show that when you ask women to name their No. 1 health threat, less than half answer correctly.”

But the AHA didn’t even bother to survey men. Sometimes you almost have to feel sorry for those afflicted by political correctness, persons who are so easily taken in by their pat answers and delusions of gender enlightenment.

Propaganda campaigns always have their share of sweet ironies. And here, the Heart Truth website talks about women celebrating the impending Valentine’s Day.

But when those women open their husband’s gift of mouth-watering chocolates, how many will realize that they may well spend their Golden Years alone, ruing the fact that their husband’s life was cut short by heart disease?

And as they are lovingly handed that bunch of red roses, how many single girls know their boyfriend faces a 50% greater risk of dying of heart disease than they do?

On February the fourth, as these women admire the svelte models strolling down the runway at the Red Dress Collection Fashion Show, how many will appreciate the irony?


Carey Roberts