"We are seeking equality."
That's what feminists and many so-called "peace groups" tell us all the time.
What exactly is equality? What do they actually mean when they say they are seeking "equality"?
1) Marxist equality
-Anyone, regardless of productivities or any other features, should receive the same treatment.
The first type of equality, as the Soviet Union had indicated, simply won't work, because of the fact that people would become "free-riders", and this is going to be disastrous the economy. With productivity being abysmally low, nobody is going to be happy. If this is what they mean by equality, I am certain that this kind of people will not do any good for us. Fortunately, judging from what they do, they don't seem to be so.
2) Statistical equality
-All groups of people should be statistically equal in ALL aspects of life.
This is total nonsense. Just take STEM as an example. Assuming that men are innately better at these subjects. If equal number of men and women attend STEM courses, then it follows that men are handicapped in some ways or women are compensated in some ways. Now that's the problem: Either way, there will be some economic loss, because some resources have been wasted, and it is not creating any additional value for us. No matter what, resources are wasted.
In other words, chasing statistical equality is simply going to waste a lot of resources. Imagine two countries, A and B. People in A spend a lot of money in seeking statistical equality, while those in B don't. Assume all other factors being constant, B will end up being more affluent that A, because it simply waste much less resources than A. The consequence will be that A will lose the competition with B, and people in A will either migrate to B, or change their nations to be more like B, or die. Many activist group seems to be seeking this form of equality. I would say that what they do are, in fact, quite harmful for our society.
3) Eqaulity of opportunity
-The assignment of individuals to places in social hierarchy is determined purely by competition.
At first glance, this is the only type of equality out of the three that seems to make any sense. However, I noticed that as one drill down to this, this form of equality becomes quite hopeless, indeed.
Let say, should men earn more than women?
No matter you answer "yes" or "no", it seems that you are not going to reach the criteria of equality of opportunity. This is because even if men are indeed more efficient than women, one may argue that it is because women are handicapped in some ways relative to men. Similarly, if men earn less than women, than you can still argue that men are handicapped. Moreover, we can never know if we have given enough support for all people such that they are "not handicapped". For example, even if we give completely equal support for everyone, you may still argue that some people perform less well because the type of support given to them are not qualitatively suitable for them, they are disadvantaged in some other ways, etc.
In addition, even if we manage to find all factors that can impair performance, we would still have little clue as to whether they did contribute to the poorer performance at all, because we simply cannot obtain information about all of them and to calculate their overall effects.
See? The debate is endless, and I seriously doubt if it is possible to yield any fruits at all. It is absolutely hopeless, at least with our current technology. If we seek this type of equality, then we are doomed to waste a lot of time (and money). It doesn't sound like it is going to be good for us.
Conclusion
As one can see, equality, despite being a very popular notion, is very doubtful regarding its execution. If equality is nothing but a spam, then it follows that chasing it is not going to bring us any good at all. Instead, if we abandon the so-called "equality", I think our society will be more properous, and if we don't do so, what will happen is simply identical to that between A and B.
2011年7月31日 星期日
2011年7月29日 星期五
The Feminist Problem, Part 1
One of the most familiar aspects of feminism is the perpetual victimhood of women. For example, feminists keep blaming patriarchy and men for what women did, and strangely, such blaming seems to be endless. If a woman is beaten by a man, feminists would say that he is a violent thug. If a woman beat up a man (usually with weapons), feminists would say that he did something that cause her to do so. Either way, the woman is the perceived victim.
Why is the feminist theory so interesting?
The reason is simple: almost everything that happens are co-caused by both men and women. When a woman get beaten (this is relatively rare compared to a man being beaten), it is quite typical that she actually did something to provoke that man. For instance, it was reported that wife killing is particularly likely to happen during divorce, in which the woman is highly likely to be falsely accusing of her husband or emotionally abusing him in some ways. Thus, in this case, both the man and the woman should have responsibilities, because both of them did something that they could choose not to do and lead to the unhappy result. Similarly, when a husband was killed, it is likely that he may have done something that provoke the woman in some ways. Quite frankly, the vast majority of the problems we are facing are co-caused by both men and women. Let's see the following example:
1) Government spent a hell lot more money on women's health
-Certainly, men's disproportionately higher rate of premature deaths has something to do with their testosterone. However, if women didn't keep claiming victimhood and grabbed all the health funds away, this problem wouldn't have been so serious.
2) Women, in general, were not given direct power
-True, men loved power, but quite frankly, psychologists have found that women preferred to exert indirect power, that is, they prefer to manipulate powerful figures into helping them do their bidding. Plus, women, not all, but in general make a lot of irrational decisions. I simply don't think we should give irrational people too much direct power (or else it is disastor for us). So I am pretty sure that women's relative lack of direct power have something to do with themselves.
As one can see, almost all problems are co-caused by both men and women. The feminist trick is to focus on how men contribute to the problems and hide how women co-cause it, creating the illusion that women are not guilty of anything. However, what is the point in perpetually blaming one of the genders for all the problems while we know both of them contribute to the problems?
Conclusion
I have noticed why women appear to be perpetual victims under the feminist theory. The answer is rather simply: because both men and women contribute to the problems they are facing, therefore it is always possible to blame one of the genders for all the problems by focusing on how that gender contributes to them, and feminist chose to blame men.
Why is the feminist theory so interesting?
The reason is simple: almost everything that happens are co-caused by both men and women. When a woman get beaten (this is relatively rare compared to a man being beaten), it is quite typical that she actually did something to provoke that man. For instance, it was reported that wife killing is particularly likely to happen during divorce, in which the woman is highly likely to be falsely accusing of her husband or emotionally abusing him in some ways. Thus, in this case, both the man and the woman should have responsibilities, because both of them did something that they could choose not to do and lead to the unhappy result. Similarly, when a husband was killed, it is likely that he may have done something that provoke the woman in some ways. Quite frankly, the vast majority of the problems we are facing are co-caused by both men and women. Let's see the following example:
1) Government spent a hell lot more money on women's health
-Certainly, men's disproportionately higher rate of premature deaths has something to do with their testosterone. However, if women didn't keep claiming victimhood and grabbed all the health funds away, this problem wouldn't have been so serious.
2) Women, in general, were not given direct power
-True, men loved power, but quite frankly, psychologists have found that women preferred to exert indirect power, that is, they prefer to manipulate powerful figures into helping them do their bidding. Plus, women, not all, but in general make a lot of irrational decisions. I simply don't think we should give irrational people too much direct power (or else it is disastor for us). So I am pretty sure that women's relative lack of direct power have something to do with themselves.
As one can see, almost all problems are co-caused by both men and women. The feminist trick is to focus on how men contribute to the problems and hide how women co-cause it, creating the illusion that women are not guilty of anything. However, what is the point in perpetually blaming one of the genders for all the problems while we know both of them contribute to the problems?
Conclusion
I have noticed why women appear to be perpetual victims under the feminist theory. The answer is rather simply: because both men and women contribute to the problems they are facing, therefore it is always possible to blame one of the genders for all the problems by focusing on how that gender contributes to them, and feminist chose to blame men.
2011年7月28日 星期四
The Lies Women told about Themselves
I guess many of you have heard of women being liars. No, I am not going to talk about the lies women told as individuals, but those that they told about their own genders. For any women or feminists who read this article, I am certain that you will be likely to boil in rage, so feel free to give any irrational comments or personal attacks. For any anti-feminists who read this, I am glad to tell you that you would probably agree with most of the contents in this article. For any men who still think that women are the innocent angels they portray themselves to be, I am also glad to tell you that you would probably find this article enlightening. Let's see the things women tell us about their gender:
1. Women are/were oppressed.
Let's talk about the current situation. Well, if you see some statistics, you will know that in almost men parts of the world, women have lower suicide rate (The typical gender ratio is 2:1 to 3:1), lower substance abuse rate, lower chance of committing crimes, lower chance of being assaulted or murdered, lower rate of premature death, when compared to men. Even depression rate has recently been doubted, with some researchers suggesting that women report but not experience more depression.
All these are signs of privileges, rather than oppression. For example, whites have lower suicide rate, etc. than African American. Similarly, homosexuals have higher substance abuse rate, etc. compared to heterosexuals. When black people and gay people exhibit the above patterns, we say that they are minority groups, but how come nobody cares when men exhibit the above patterns? How exactly can an oppressed class appear to be living so much more happily than their oppressors?
Based on these results, I seriously doubt if women are truly a minority group at all. True, they may be disadvantaged in some ways, but it seems to me that what women experience is pretty far from what you could call "oppression". It is also notable that men in almost all parts of the world have shorter life, although currently biologists still fail to find any intrinsic reasons why this should be true. Of course, these statistics are true even in India and Islamic countries.
It seems that women lead a far more stress-free life than men do (and did). So, the only things they can complain about are education and political power. In the past, education resources were scarce. Thus, if a person would like to receive education, he or she will be obliqued to work afterwards. Which gender would be more likely to want to retire from work to have children? The female gender, I suppose. Therefore, I am pretty sure that women's lack of educational opportunity in the past have something to do with their own choices, rather than purely being men's decision, and the same goes for political power.
Let's look into history then. After all, it was men who were enslaved (the vast majority of black slaves are black men), who were sent to die in wars, who ended up doing all the most dangerous and deadly labor (e.g. mining), and we all know that most parts of the world have chivalry or its variants, through which men who aggress against women are in general, despised upon, but they usually don't give a fxxk when a woman hurted a man (actually, men being aggressed against by women were usually ridiculed).
Plus, it was well-documented in psychology that BOTH male and female tend to treat male more harshly, regardless of their victims' misbehaviors. This finding is cross-cultural, so this suggests that it probably has a biological basis. Therefore, it is quite likely that this is still the case even in the past, with both men and women from upper classes exerting more oppression on men from lower classes. So, I didn't see how women could have been more oppressed than men throughout history.
The illusion of women being the oppressed gender is due to the fact that women love to whine about victimhood, and women's suffering are frequently highlighted, and often exaggerated. In contrast, men who suffer (especially those who suffer in the hands of women) are hidden from view at a massive scale.
2. Women are not violent nor aggressive.
This is totally ridiculous. Psychology have already told us that women are much more likely to use indirect aggression than men do. "Indirect aggression" means that they make use of lies, manipulations and rumors to cause others to aggress against their victims. For instance, a woman may lie to her boyfriend to cause him to beat up another man (e.g. "he touched my breast!"), and it seems that men's cognitive capacity are seriously impaired when faced with women's whining, maybe due to some biological problems. They may also use rumors to humiliate people, inducing anger and therefore aggression. Thus, women are DEFINITELY NOT as peace-loving as they portray themselves to be.
The illusion of women being not aggressive is that they are, statistically speaking, more "hypocritical". Research have well-documented that women are better at "suppressing aggression". That's mean, although they still have desires to aggress, they are not likely to show it. In other words, when a person is being nice to you, this niceness would be more likely to be genuine if that person is a man. In other words, women are simply better at pretending to be nice and then stab you in the back, statistically speaking.
Moreover, women love violent men. They implicitly tend to be turned on by men who exert violence and dominance on others (usually on weaker males). Therefore, they in general would reinforce these men to exert violence on gentle men or weaker men, and we all know sexual access to women is highly reinforcing to such men. So, do women contribute nothing to violence? I suspect not.
3. Women are the fairer sex
Eh, is this supposed to be a joke? Women are also very competitive. True, men are more competitive if it is a chess game or something, but I am pretty sure that you woud obtain the opposite results if it is a beauty contest. Plus, intersex and intrasex equality are two different things.
Women may be more fair when it is an issue among women, but do they like to treat men as their equals? I suspect not. Researchers found that home-schooled children show no gender difference in exam grades, and girls are doing better in the current education system. What does this tell us about our education system? Let me see, women tell us that they want a fair fight. Well, they certainly are fair, aren't they?
If women are sooo fair, why don't they try what men experienced? For example, why don't they do something to make their suicide rate twice of that of men? Why don't they try being left behind and see the opposite gender getting on the lifeboats (just like what happened in Titanic and the Japanese Earthquake)? Why don't they try being forced to do the most odious labor on earth? Why don't they try being obliqued to sacrifice their lives to protect their spouses? And women tell us that they are the fairer sex?
What a joke. A frequent observation is that women showed concern about what I said and then go back to continue to "empower" their own gender. It seems that women are simply better at pretending to play fair and then grab all the goodies away.
Conclusion
If you are a woman, I think it is highly likely that you are already furious and perhaps would like to strangle me. Feel free to spit any venoms at me, because by doing so you will expose the truth of your gender. Women are and were usually privileged, they are indeed violent and they are the most unfair creatures on earth. All these good things women told about themselves are nothing but lies upon lies. They are simply trying to take all the goodies away with a facade of innocence.
Women are simply naturally hypocritical. That's all.
1. Women are/were oppressed.
Let's talk about the current situation. Well, if you see some statistics, you will know that in almost men parts of the world, women have lower suicide rate (The typical gender ratio is 2:1 to 3:1), lower substance abuse rate, lower chance of committing crimes, lower chance of being assaulted or murdered, lower rate of premature death, when compared to men. Even depression rate has recently been doubted, with some researchers suggesting that women report but not experience more depression.
All these are signs of privileges, rather than oppression. For example, whites have lower suicide rate, etc. than African American. Similarly, homosexuals have higher substance abuse rate, etc. compared to heterosexuals. When black people and gay people exhibit the above patterns, we say that they are minority groups, but how come nobody cares when men exhibit the above patterns? How exactly can an oppressed class appear to be living so much more happily than their oppressors?
Based on these results, I seriously doubt if women are truly a minority group at all. True, they may be disadvantaged in some ways, but it seems to me that what women experience is pretty far from what you could call "oppression". It is also notable that men in almost all parts of the world have shorter life, although currently biologists still fail to find any intrinsic reasons why this should be true. Of course, these statistics are true even in India and Islamic countries.
It seems that women lead a far more stress-free life than men do (and did). So, the only things they can complain about are education and political power. In the past, education resources were scarce. Thus, if a person would like to receive education, he or she will be obliqued to work afterwards. Which gender would be more likely to want to retire from work to have children? The female gender, I suppose. Therefore, I am pretty sure that women's lack of educational opportunity in the past have something to do with their own choices, rather than purely being men's decision, and the same goes for political power.
Let's look into history then. After all, it was men who were enslaved (the vast majority of black slaves are black men), who were sent to die in wars, who ended up doing all the most dangerous and deadly labor (e.g. mining), and we all know that most parts of the world have chivalry or its variants, through which men who aggress against women are in general, despised upon, but they usually don't give a fxxk when a woman hurted a man (actually, men being aggressed against by women were usually ridiculed).
Plus, it was well-documented in psychology that BOTH male and female tend to treat male more harshly, regardless of their victims' misbehaviors. This finding is cross-cultural, so this suggests that it probably has a biological basis. Therefore, it is quite likely that this is still the case even in the past, with both men and women from upper classes exerting more oppression on men from lower classes. So, I didn't see how women could have been more oppressed than men throughout history.
The illusion of women being the oppressed gender is due to the fact that women love to whine about victimhood, and women's suffering are frequently highlighted, and often exaggerated. In contrast, men who suffer (especially those who suffer in the hands of women) are hidden from view at a massive scale.
2. Women are not violent nor aggressive.
This is totally ridiculous. Psychology have already told us that women are much more likely to use indirect aggression than men do. "Indirect aggression" means that they make use of lies, manipulations and rumors to cause others to aggress against their victims. For instance, a woman may lie to her boyfriend to cause him to beat up another man (e.g. "he touched my breast!"), and it seems that men's cognitive capacity are seriously impaired when faced with women's whining, maybe due to some biological problems. They may also use rumors to humiliate people, inducing anger and therefore aggression. Thus, women are DEFINITELY NOT as peace-loving as they portray themselves to be.
The illusion of women being not aggressive is that they are, statistically speaking, more "hypocritical". Research have well-documented that women are better at "suppressing aggression". That's mean, although they still have desires to aggress, they are not likely to show it. In other words, when a person is being nice to you, this niceness would be more likely to be genuine if that person is a man. In other words, women are simply better at pretending to be nice and then stab you in the back, statistically speaking.
Moreover, women love violent men. They implicitly tend to be turned on by men who exert violence and dominance on others (usually on weaker males). Therefore, they in general would reinforce these men to exert violence on gentle men or weaker men, and we all know sexual access to women is highly reinforcing to such men. So, do women contribute nothing to violence? I suspect not.
3. Women are the fairer sex
Eh, is this supposed to be a joke? Women are also very competitive. True, men are more competitive if it is a chess game or something, but I am pretty sure that you woud obtain the opposite results if it is a beauty contest. Plus, intersex and intrasex equality are two different things.
Women may be more fair when it is an issue among women, but do they like to treat men as their equals? I suspect not. Researchers found that home-schooled children show no gender difference in exam grades, and girls are doing better in the current education system. What does this tell us about our education system? Let me see, women tell us that they want a fair fight. Well, they certainly are fair, aren't they?
If women are sooo fair, why don't they try what men experienced? For example, why don't they do something to make their suicide rate twice of that of men? Why don't they try being left behind and see the opposite gender getting on the lifeboats (just like what happened in Titanic and the Japanese Earthquake)? Why don't they try being forced to do the most odious labor on earth? Why don't they try being obliqued to sacrifice their lives to protect their spouses? And women tell us that they are the fairer sex?
What a joke. A frequent observation is that women showed concern about what I said and then go back to continue to "empower" their own gender. It seems that women are simply better at pretending to play fair and then grab all the goodies away.
Conclusion
If you are a woman, I think it is highly likely that you are already furious and perhaps would like to strangle me. Feel free to spit any venoms at me, because by doing so you will expose the truth of your gender. Women are and were usually privileged, they are indeed violent and they are the most unfair creatures on earth. All these good things women told about themselves are nothing but lies upon lies. They are simply trying to take all the goodies away with a facade of innocence.
Women are simply naturally hypocritical. That's all.
2011年6月4日 星期六
Freedom, Freedom, Freedom
One of the most highly valued thing in nowaday society seems to be so-called "human rights". Basically, no matter what those activists do, claiming that they are defending human rights alone can bring them huge support (and of course the funds). For instance, gay activists constantly claim that being accepted as normal citizens is basic human rights, and therefore demand "equal" rights.
This is not going to do us any good.
One of the very first assumptions of "goodness" of absolute freedom is that humans are rational creatures. This statement is obviously flawed. More importantly, making choices can be costly. Imagine the following scenario:
A person is choosing which subjects as his major. He is given a variety of choices, but he has no idea what subjects is going to be suitable for him, so he randomly picks one at first, then keep switching majors until he finds one that he seems to like.
University Education requires government funding. So imagine what would happen if thousands of people are doing the same thing, and we all know that our resources are limited. If we waste so much money on these people, the old and the sick is going to receive less funding to help them. That's the key of my problem with those so-callled "freedom": In real world, letting people make choices freely is going to cost us resources, and the amount is far from negligible.
Therefore, it follows that there should be a point at which freedom and restriction are well balanced such that human happiness is going to be maximized. It is obvious that limitlessly raise freedom people have will definitely not bring us to this point.
Conclusion
I don't think endlessly demand freedom is going to do us any good. Instead, it is probably not going to creating anything but misery and misallocation of resources. One of the greatest reasons people seem to mindlessly support the so-called "human rights" is that it appears to induce intense emotions in us such that people in general stop doubting if what they do is correct.
I am really beginning to wonder why being emotional seems to be associated so strongly with poor decision making.
This is not going to do us any good.
One of the very first assumptions of "goodness" of absolute freedom is that humans are rational creatures. This statement is obviously flawed. More importantly, making choices can be costly. Imagine the following scenario:
A person is choosing which subjects as his major. He is given a variety of choices, but he has no idea what subjects is going to be suitable for him, so he randomly picks one at first, then keep switching majors until he finds one that he seems to like.
University Education requires government funding. So imagine what would happen if thousands of people are doing the same thing, and we all know that our resources are limited. If we waste so much money on these people, the old and the sick is going to receive less funding to help them. That's the key of my problem with those so-callled "freedom": In real world, letting people make choices freely is going to cost us resources, and the amount is far from negligible.
Therefore, it follows that there should be a point at which freedom and restriction are well balanced such that human happiness is going to be maximized. It is obvious that limitlessly raise freedom people have will definitely not bring us to this point.
Conclusion
I don't think endlessly demand freedom is going to do us any good. Instead, it is probably not going to creating anything but misery and misallocation of resources. One of the greatest reasons people seem to mindlessly support the so-called "human rights" is that it appears to induce intense emotions in us such that people in general stop doubting if what they do is correct.
I am really beginning to wonder why being emotional seems to be associated so strongly with poor decision making.
2011年6月1日 星期三
Feminization of Poverty?
Recently, I have heard of a fancy term called "feminization of poverty", which is defined as the so-called fact that women are disproportionately likely to become impoverished. For example, feminists claimed that women around the world are about twice as likely to be of low income than are men.
Does this indicate some forms of "oppression"?
I doubt it.
First of all, I am wondering how many men are maltreated so seriously that they don't show up in the statistics. For instance, they are probably killed or migrated (usually to act as slaves), and we all know that men have higher mortality rate in the workplace. Indeed, the following article reports that women's higher "incidence" of poverty concentrates in older age groups, to a certain extent supporting this hypothesis.
http://www.fao.org/sd/wpdirect/WPan0015.htm
This article also indicates that there are very little direct scientific evidence supporting the so-called "feminization of poverty".
A more interesting fact is that I have noticed two features of article talking about "feminization of poverty": emotional-ness and lack of objectivity. All of them (as far as I have read) use a lot of emotional words that tend to arouse sympathy to the "victims" and very few of them actually cite any objective statistics to support their points. If they are telling the truth, why are they so reluctant to give us statistics, which, would support their positions if what they say are true?
Even more curiously, none of these articles have told me how did they obtain their "statistics". This along with the fact that feminists have a habit of distorting the truth have made me become very suspicious of the so-called "feminization of poverty".
Conclusion
The summary is as usual: I am quite sceptical of feminists claiming that they are addressing inequalities. In fact, the converse may be true. Of course I am not saying that the feminization of poverty is definitely false, but with the current lack of "evidence" in hand, I am rather reluctant to support their positions, nor am I ready to join those campaigns.
Does this indicate some forms of "oppression"?
I doubt it.
First of all, I am wondering how many men are maltreated so seriously that they don't show up in the statistics. For instance, they are probably killed or migrated (usually to act as slaves), and we all know that men have higher mortality rate in the workplace. Indeed, the following article reports that women's higher "incidence" of poverty concentrates in older age groups, to a certain extent supporting this hypothesis.
http://www.fao.org/sd/wpdirect/WPan0015.htm
This article also indicates that there are very little direct scientific evidence supporting the so-called "feminization of poverty".
A more interesting fact is that I have noticed two features of article talking about "feminization of poverty": emotional-ness and lack of objectivity. All of them (as far as I have read) use a lot of emotional words that tend to arouse sympathy to the "victims" and very few of them actually cite any objective statistics to support their points. If they are telling the truth, why are they so reluctant to give us statistics, which, would support their positions if what they say are true?
Even more curiously, none of these articles have told me how did they obtain their "statistics". This along with the fact that feminists have a habit of distorting the truth have made me become very suspicious of the so-called "feminization of poverty".
Conclusion
The summary is as usual: I am quite sceptical of feminists claiming that they are addressing inequalities. In fact, the converse may be true. Of course I am not saying that the feminization of poverty is definitely false, but with the current lack of "evidence" in hand, I am rather reluctant to support their positions, nor am I ready to join those campaigns.
2011年5月22日 星期日
On Gender-based Oppression, Again
I know that I have written about gender-based oppression before, but I would like to investigate the issue slightly more deeply in this article. As we all know, feminists keep shouting that women were oppressed throughout history and that they need liberation. First, let's see how we define "oppression":
Oppression = the inappropiate use of authority (or power) to cause distress
Let's do some analysis, shall we?
In those old day (in almost all races), people are in general, divided into "nobles" and "serf", with the former exerting authority to the latter. Obviously, the latter don't have what we call "authority", so by definition they can't cause any oppression. To begin with, it is obvious that NOT all men are "nobles" and NOT all women are "serf", but men of both classes seemed to have more authorities than their womenfolk.
Does this mean that women were more oppressed?
Think about it clearly, having authority is merely a neccesary condition, but not sufficient condition, according to our definition. To prove that women were more oppressed, one need to prove that men tended to use authority inappropiately compared to women.
Within-class Oppression
However, it may be reasonable for men in both classes to have slightly more power than their womenfolks. This is because of the fact that in many parts of the world the society had what we call "chivalry" or its variants (e.g. Keen, 1984), which oppose male aggression towards females, but not the other way round. Therefore, it may be that if men and women were given equal power, the latter will be more likely to inappropiately use their authorities to aggress. Thus, to balance to amount of aggression experienced by either gender, it may be reasonable to give men in both classes slightly more power than their female counterparts.
Apart from the issue of inter-gender aggression, we all know that women have access to various tools for emotional manipulation when it comes to indirect aggression, such as spreading rumors or manipulating people into aggressing on their behalf (e.g. Bjorkqvist, 1994; Osterman et al., 1998) and that men are far less likely to do so, and this is quite likely to have some biological basis, since those results are cross-cultural. This means that even if women had slightly less direct power than their male counterpart, it may be to a certain extent fair and thus may not constitute what we call "oppression".
Lastly, one should compare the life of noble men and women in those days. Noble men in those days had to go to work. Was it something pleasant? Probably not. After all, you need to face the demanding bosses and various tasks that sprung up from nowhere in workplace, and we all know that people mostly consider work to be something they want to get away from. In comparison, noble women didn't have to work, instead they lives were probably better than their husbands in some aspects.
Inter-class Oppression
To prove that serf women suffered more oppression than their male counterpart, we need to prove that the maltreatment exerted on these women from "nobles" are greater. Nonetheless, it had been very consistently found that cross-culturally, both men and women in positions of power tend to treat males more harshly than females, even if the severity of misbehavior is the same (Daly & Tonry, 1997; Mustard, 2001), and this is true even in childhood (Lambert et al., 1971), implying a biological basis.
This implies that it was likely the case that both "noble" men and women tended to exert more oppression on serf men than on serf women. If this is true, that it logically follows that serf women could not have suffer more oppression than their male counterparts in those days, in fact the converse would probably be true.
You may tell me that many women in those days were sexually restricted. However, I seriously doubt if you would call this "oppression" if you compare it to being subject to painful death in the battlefield or having to work in dirty and dangerous environments to financially support one's wife.
If it is the case that men created a system in which they suffer more (as a whole, since NOT all men are kings, obviously), how can this constitute "oppression"? Moreover, were rulers treated that nicely? Of course the majority of them led very extravagant life, they also had opportunities to fulfil their ambitions (only a few of them did so though), but these came with a burden: intense stress. Well, just imagine how you would feel if you are constantly told that your decisions can affect the lives of hundreds or thousands, and women seem to have idealized these positions too much.
Conclusion
As you can see, I used a lot of "may" and "probably" in this article. Well, obviously because these are merely my speculation, so do those feminist theories. First, we all know that those old societies won't give us any objective statistics and subjective observation is just unreliable since women are just so much better at claiming victim status than men (statistically speaking, of course!). Therefore, is it reasonable to suggest that one of the genders (be it male or female) were more oppressed in those old days?
I suspect not.
One last thing, although feminists claim that women are more oppressed in some parts of the world, I am not willing to give help to these "oppressed women", since I seriously doubt if feminists are telling us the truth. Such doubt is not without reasons, considering the fact that feminists have already done a lot of things in which they deliberately distort the truth using their political power. With this in mind, I am not very motivated to give these "oppressed" women help, at least not via feminists.
Are feminists truly helpful for impoverished women?
Once again, I suspect not.
Reference
Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research, Sex roles, 30(3-4), 177-188.
Daly, K, & Tonry, M. (1997). Gender, Race, and Sentencing. Crime & Justice, 22, 201-252.
Osterman, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Kaukiainen, A., Landau, S. F., Fraczek, A., Caprara, G. V. (1998). Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 24(1), 1-8.
Mustard, D. (2001). Racial, Ethic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 285-314.
Oppression = the inappropiate use of authority (or power) to cause distress
Let's do some analysis, shall we?
In those old day (in almost all races), people are in general, divided into "nobles" and "serf", with the former exerting authority to the latter. Obviously, the latter don't have what we call "authority", so by definition they can't cause any oppression. To begin with, it is obvious that NOT all men are "nobles" and NOT all women are "serf", but men of both classes seemed to have more authorities than their womenfolk.
Does this mean that women were more oppressed?
Think about it clearly, having authority is merely a neccesary condition, but not sufficient condition, according to our definition. To prove that women were more oppressed, one need to prove that men tended to use authority inappropiately compared to women.
Within-class Oppression
However, it may be reasonable for men in both classes to have slightly more power than their womenfolks. This is because of the fact that in many parts of the world the society had what we call "chivalry" or its variants (e.g. Keen, 1984), which oppose male aggression towards females, but not the other way round. Therefore, it may be that if men and women were given equal power, the latter will be more likely to inappropiately use their authorities to aggress. Thus, to balance to amount of aggression experienced by either gender, it may be reasonable to give men in both classes slightly more power than their female counterparts.
Apart from the issue of inter-gender aggression, we all know that women have access to various tools for emotional manipulation when it comes to indirect aggression, such as spreading rumors or manipulating people into aggressing on their behalf (e.g. Bjorkqvist, 1994; Osterman et al., 1998) and that men are far less likely to do so, and this is quite likely to have some biological basis, since those results are cross-cultural. This means that even if women had slightly less direct power than their male counterpart, it may be to a certain extent fair and thus may not constitute what we call "oppression".
Lastly, one should compare the life of noble men and women in those days. Noble men in those days had to go to work. Was it something pleasant? Probably not. After all, you need to face the demanding bosses and various tasks that sprung up from nowhere in workplace, and we all know that people mostly consider work to be something they want to get away from. In comparison, noble women didn't have to work, instead they lives were probably better than their husbands in some aspects.
Inter-class Oppression
To prove that serf women suffered more oppression than their male counterpart, we need to prove that the maltreatment exerted on these women from "nobles" are greater. Nonetheless, it had been very consistently found that cross-culturally, both men and women in positions of power tend to treat males more harshly than females, even if the severity of misbehavior is the same (Daly & Tonry, 1997; Mustard, 2001), and this is true even in childhood (Lambert et al., 1971), implying a biological basis.
This implies that it was likely the case that both "noble" men and women tended to exert more oppression on serf men than on serf women. If this is true, that it logically follows that serf women could not have suffer more oppression than their male counterparts in those days, in fact the converse would probably be true.
You may tell me that many women in those days were sexually restricted. However, I seriously doubt if you would call this "oppression" if you compare it to being subject to painful death in the battlefield or having to work in dirty and dangerous environments to financially support one's wife.
If it is the case that men created a system in which they suffer more (as a whole, since NOT all men are kings, obviously), how can this constitute "oppression"? Moreover, were rulers treated that nicely? Of course the majority of them led very extravagant life, they also had opportunities to fulfil their ambitions (only a few of them did so though), but these came with a burden: intense stress. Well, just imagine how you would feel if you are constantly told that your decisions can affect the lives of hundreds or thousands, and women seem to have idealized these positions too much.
Conclusion
As you can see, I used a lot of "may" and "probably" in this article. Well, obviously because these are merely my speculation, so do those feminist theories. First, we all know that those old societies won't give us any objective statistics and subjective observation is just unreliable since women are just so much better at claiming victim status than men (statistically speaking, of course!). Therefore, is it reasonable to suggest that one of the genders (be it male or female) were more oppressed in those old days?
I suspect not.
One last thing, although feminists claim that women are more oppressed in some parts of the world, I am not willing to give help to these "oppressed women", since I seriously doubt if feminists are telling us the truth. Such doubt is not without reasons, considering the fact that feminists have already done a lot of things in which they deliberately distort the truth using their political power. With this in mind, I am not very motivated to give these "oppressed" women help, at least not via feminists.
Are feminists truly helpful for impoverished women?
Once again, I suspect not.
Reference
Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research, Sex roles, 30(3-4), 177-188.
Daly, K, & Tonry, M. (1997). Gender, Race, and Sentencing. Crime & Justice, 22, 201-252.
Lambert, W. E., Yackley, A., & Hein, R. N. (1971). Child training values of English Canadian and French Canadian parents. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 3(3), 217-236.
Keen, M. (1984). Chivalry. USA: Yale University Press.Osterman, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Kaukiainen, A., Landau, S. F., Fraczek, A., Caprara, G. V. (1998). Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 24(1), 1-8.
Mustard, D. (2001). Racial, Ethic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 285-314.
2011年5月18日 星期三
Summary of my Attitude towards Gays
I have discussed with quite a lot of people about my attitude towards homosexuals, and of course I have received some irrational comments, after posting my thoughts in some other blogs. In this article, I would like to summarize what I think about homosexuals and gay activists. I hopes to stress that these two things are different, with the latter being much more aggressive and demanding.
Proper Places
There are two main positions on homosexuality in our society:
1. Homosexuality is a sin that should be condemned.
2. Homosexuals deserve exactly equal rights as heterosexuals.
I support neither position. Let me tell you why.
Even in countries in which gay rights are most rampant (e.g. Netherland), homosexual couples are still much more likely to break up than heterosexual ones, for both gay men and lesbians. Moreoever, there is strong evidence that homosexuals, statistically speaking, are more likely to adopt pathological behaviors such as substance abuse and suicidal behaviors. Some of you may tell me that this is due to homophobia.
Ah really?
One study have found that this trend persists in Netherland and other countries that are remarkably tolerant of homosexuals. Even after controlling for experience of social stigma and rejection, homosexuals are still more likely than heterosexuals to exhibit pathological behaviors. This suggests that homophobia can't explain everything, instead some scholars suggested that there may be something intrinsically wrong with homosexuality itself.
Let's see how the APA (American Psychological Association) define mental disorder:
-- A mental disorder is a condition which is un-normative, distressful and causing impairment.
Obviously as we have discussed, homosexuality fits into this definition perfectly.
(Saghir & Robins, 1978; Bell & Weinberg, 1981; Ross ,1988; Herrell et al., 1999; Sandfort et al. 2001)
Therefore, my conclusion is that homosexuality is probably indeed a mental illness, and some APA staff even admitted that the removal of same-sex attraction from their list of mental disorder was based more on politics rather than science. Hence, homosexuals deserve treatment of mental patients, not that of normal people nor that of criminals. That's why I don't agree with both of the above positions.
Someone told me that homosexuality caused some other problems, which would in turn lead to pathology, and thus it is these problems rather than homosexuality itself, that need to be dealth with. However, we know that depression doesn't cause pathology directly either, but instead cause irrational thoughts, but we still prefer to treat depression rather than merely removing those thoughts, this is because if we knows that the former is causing the latter, changing the latter only won't bring any long-term benefits. If we deal with the former intead, we could completely uproot the problems (in theory).
The Movement
While homosexuals themselves are not condemnable, I strongly believe that there are something wrong about the gay "rights" movement.
Reason?
See this article:
http://www.blogherald.com/2003/09/09/profs-anti-gay-blog-returns-to-university-website/
That's the point: the gay "rights" movement have already attained such a powerful position that criticism of homosexuals become politically incorrect, even if those comments are perfectly rational. Read some history and you will know that letting a group (be it religious or not) hold the power to shut off rational criticism can lead to very disastrous results. In my opinion, some gay activists are merely exploiting homosexuals to attain the power, and things that can potentially follow are just too morbid to imagine.
Of course, promoting gay marriage and all those politically correct "gay-is-not-an-illness" things is not going to help homosexuals either. If they are indeed mental patients, letting them roam around with their problematic behaviors won't bring them any good.
Conclusion
In sum, I believe that there are some good reasons to consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder, rather than criminal behaviors nor a normal orientation. Although I won't blame homosexuals of anything, there are some signs of gay activism being the cult for the next generation. I sincerely hope that this is not going to happen.
Reference
Bell, A.P.; Weinberg, M.S. (1978): Homosexualities. A Study Of Diversity Among Men And Women. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True,W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen,S.; Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, 867-874.
Ross, M.W. (1988): Homosexuality and mental health: a cross-cultural review. J. Homosex. 15(1/2), 131-152.
Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel (2001): Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58, 85-91.
Saghir, M.T.; Robins, E. (1973): Male and Female Homosexuality, A Comprehensive Investigation. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore Maryland. 335 pages.
Proper Places
There are two main positions on homosexuality in our society:
1. Homosexuality is a sin that should be condemned.
2. Homosexuals deserve exactly equal rights as heterosexuals.
I support neither position. Let me tell you why.
Even in countries in which gay rights are most rampant (e.g. Netherland), homosexual couples are still much more likely to break up than heterosexual ones, for both gay men and lesbians. Moreoever, there is strong evidence that homosexuals, statistically speaking, are more likely to adopt pathological behaviors such as substance abuse and suicidal behaviors. Some of you may tell me that this is due to homophobia.
Ah really?
One study have found that this trend persists in Netherland and other countries that are remarkably tolerant of homosexuals. Even after controlling for experience of social stigma and rejection, homosexuals are still more likely than heterosexuals to exhibit pathological behaviors. This suggests that homophobia can't explain everything, instead some scholars suggested that there may be something intrinsically wrong with homosexuality itself.
Let's see how the APA (American Psychological Association) define mental disorder:
-- A mental disorder is a condition which is un-normative, distressful and causing impairment.
Obviously as we have discussed, homosexuality fits into this definition perfectly.
(Saghir & Robins, 1978; Bell & Weinberg, 1981; Ross ,1988; Herrell et al., 1999; Sandfort et al. 2001)
Therefore, my conclusion is that homosexuality is probably indeed a mental illness, and some APA staff even admitted that the removal of same-sex attraction from their list of mental disorder was based more on politics rather than science. Hence, homosexuals deserve treatment of mental patients, not that of normal people nor that of criminals. That's why I don't agree with both of the above positions.
Someone told me that homosexuality caused some other problems, which would in turn lead to pathology, and thus it is these problems rather than homosexuality itself, that need to be dealth with. However, we know that depression doesn't cause pathology directly either, but instead cause irrational thoughts, but we still prefer to treat depression rather than merely removing those thoughts, this is because if we knows that the former is causing the latter, changing the latter only won't bring any long-term benefits. If we deal with the former intead, we could completely uproot the problems (in theory).
The Movement
While homosexuals themselves are not condemnable, I strongly believe that there are something wrong about the gay "rights" movement.
Reason?
See this article:
http://www.blogherald.com/2003/09/09/profs-anti-gay-blog-returns-to-university-website/
That's the point: the gay "rights" movement have already attained such a powerful position that criticism of homosexuals become politically incorrect, even if those comments are perfectly rational. Read some history and you will know that letting a group (be it religious or not) hold the power to shut off rational criticism can lead to very disastrous results. In my opinion, some gay activists are merely exploiting homosexuals to attain the power, and things that can potentially follow are just too morbid to imagine.
Of course, promoting gay marriage and all those politically correct "gay-is-not-an-illness" things is not going to help homosexuals either. If they are indeed mental patients, letting them roam around with their problematic behaviors won't bring them any good.
Conclusion
In sum, I believe that there are some good reasons to consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder, rather than criminal behaviors nor a normal orientation. Although I won't blame homosexuals of anything, there are some signs of gay activism being the cult for the next generation. I sincerely hope that this is not going to happen.
Reference
Bell, A.P.; Weinberg, M.S. (1978): Homosexualities. A Study Of Diversity Among Men And Women. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True,W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen,S.; Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, 867-874.
Ross, M.W. (1988): Homosexuality and mental health: a cross-cultural review. J. Homosex. 15(1/2), 131-152.
Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel (2001): Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58, 85-91.
Saghir, M.T.; Robins, E. (1973): Male and Female Homosexuality, A Comprehensive Investigation. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore Maryland. 335 pages.
2011年5月16日 星期一
Basic Assumptions of Feminist Theory
I have written quite a number of articles about feminists before. However, my previous articles were mostly concentrated on specific parts of the feminist agenda, and were relatively informal, but still logical though. Today I would like to explore together with my readers about the basic premises of the feminist theory and of course, its absurdities. This is going to be a relatively formal article so one could expect a reference list.
Gender: Nature VS Nurture
One of the most important premises of the feminist theory is that gender is purely a social construct. Specifically, they consider traditional feminity and masculinity to be solely due to socialization, rather than inherent characteristics of either gender. This is one of the reasons why they believe that some seemingly "unfair" treatment are problematic.
Take women's underrepresentation in science and engineering as an example, they have cited extensive evidence (e.g. Spencer et al., 1999) that it is "purely" due to discrimination against women in these domains. Nonetheless, these studies are probably methodologically flawed. This is because most of them indicates that women's performance on some standardized test can be impaired by stereotyping. Lamentably, doing scientific researches and designing engineering products have very little to do with these tests.
Indeed, the above-mentioned trend has been very consistently observed across cultures and it persists despite all those feminist agenda, along with many other gender differences in behaviors and cognition (e.g. Lee & Keith, 1994; Cohen-Bendahan et al., 2005). This suggests that such difference are quite resistent to cultural influence, implying that they have some biological roots. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to argue that gender itself doesn't have a biological basis. Then it logically follows that this very basic premise is false.
The Oppressed Gender
Another commonly cited premise by the feminist theory is that women were "oppressed" more than men in the past, primary by the patriachial system. To begin with, we should define this terms before discussion, since a vague word implies unclear thinking. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the term "oppress" means to cause distress to someone through the inappropiate use of authority.
However, there have been strong evidence people of both gender tend to treat males more harshly than females, at all ages (e.g. Daly & Tonry, 1997; Mustard, 2001), even in childhood (e.g. Lambert et al., 1971). These findings are quite consistently across cultures and therefore probably have a biological basis as well. This implies that no matter who is holding power, they tend to treat males in worse ways, even back in ancient times.
The above means that there factors which suggest that men were actually the more oppressed gender back in those old days. However, if one would like to prove this point, they need to show that the total unhappiness caused by unequal treatment received by men is greater than that received by women. The only way to do this is to develop some ingenius ways to measure total happiness, and travel back to those old days using a time machine. This obviously cannot be done, at least not with the current technology. Then it follows that it makes no sense to argue that one of the genders was overall more oppressed than the other and thus, the feminist theory makes very little sense in this premise, too.
Moreoever, can this oppression be blamed on patriachial system entirely? Probably not. Even back in those old days, we have many women who held considerable authority, mostly through maniplating men around them though, and they were fully capable of inflicting harm on their subordinates. This is especially problematic since men tend to suppress their aggression towards women, but may not other way round.
Worse still, even in nowaday society, oppressions exist in non-patriachial system. This implies that the tendency to misuse authorities may be innate in humans rather than being inherent problem of the patriachial system. Therefore, can one says that it is the system that have caused the oppression? The answer would be a certain "no".
Equal Opportunities in Everthing
Based on the above premises, the feminist theorists suggested that women deserve equal opportunities in EVERY aspects of life as men, most specifically political influence. However, even without considering the falsehood of the last two premises, this statement is also problematic in itself.
The very first condition for giving someone certain rights is that they are not going to cause troubles with those rights. We won't let serial killers freely roam around because we know that granting them such rights is going to be harmful to our society. In a similar manner, it is actually reasonable not to give women certain power. Take political influence as an example, there have been little doubt that women tend to base their judgement more on "empathy" (e.g. Toussaint & Webb, 2005). This is quite problematic since we all know that this is going to cause biases in perception, since some politicians are really good at manipulating emotions.
Therefore, a more reasonable thing to do is not to allow all women to exert their power on everything, since their biased perception is going to lead them to cause destructions. Of course, if a woman does give some rational opinion, we should listen, but if we allow all women to act without letting men voice their opinion first, troubles would follow. Thus, according to our basic principle, women don't deserve equal opportunities in political participation. I am NOT saying that women shouldn't get such rights in every aspects, but they don't deserve it in at least SOME domains. Similarly, if one finds that letting men having certain opportunities would cause trouble, I would agree that men don't deserve equal rights in these aspects either.
Conclusion
Obviously, it is not possible to cover all facets of the feminist theory in one single article, that's why I stressed the word "brief" in the title. However, the above three are the most basic premises of this theory. In reality, almost ALL feminist agendas are based on at least one of the above three statements. As we can see, all three of these feminist principles are far from the truth. This implies that a VERY significant number of feminist theories are based on serious falsehood and their arguments are definitely NOT going to be sound. This is going to do nothing but to cause misery to everyone.
Reference
Cohen-Bendahan, C. C., Beek, C., & Berendaum, S. A. (2005). Prenatal sex hormone effects on child and adult sex-typed behavior: methods and findings. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Review, 29(2), 353-384.
Daly, K, & Tonry, M. (1997). Gender, Race, and Sentencing. Crime & Justice, 22, 201-252.
Mustard, D. (2001). Racial, Ethic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 285-314.
Spencer, S. J., Steel, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28
Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender differences in the Relationship between Empathy and Forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(6), 673-685.
Gender: Nature VS Nurture
One of the most important premises of the feminist theory is that gender is purely a social construct. Specifically, they consider traditional feminity and masculinity to be solely due to socialization, rather than inherent characteristics of either gender. This is one of the reasons why they believe that some seemingly "unfair" treatment are problematic.
Take women's underrepresentation in science and engineering as an example, they have cited extensive evidence (e.g. Spencer et al., 1999) that it is "purely" due to discrimination against women in these domains. Nonetheless, these studies are probably methodologically flawed. This is because most of them indicates that women's performance on some standardized test can be impaired by stereotyping. Lamentably, doing scientific researches and designing engineering products have very little to do with these tests.
Indeed, the above-mentioned trend has been very consistently observed across cultures and it persists despite all those feminist agenda, along with many other gender differences in behaviors and cognition (e.g. Lee & Keith, 1994; Cohen-Bendahan et al., 2005). This suggests that such difference are quite resistent to cultural influence, implying that they have some biological roots. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to argue that gender itself doesn't have a biological basis. Then it logically follows that this very basic premise is false.
The Oppressed Gender
Another commonly cited premise by the feminist theory is that women were "oppressed" more than men in the past, primary by the patriachial system. To begin with, we should define this terms before discussion, since a vague word implies unclear thinking. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the term "oppress" means to cause distress to someone through the inappropiate use of authority.
However, there have been strong evidence people of both gender tend to treat males more harshly than females, at all ages (e.g. Daly & Tonry, 1997; Mustard, 2001), even in childhood (e.g. Lambert et al., 1971). These findings are quite consistently across cultures and therefore probably have a biological basis as well. This implies that no matter who is holding power, they tend to treat males in worse ways, even back in ancient times.
The above means that there factors which suggest that men were actually the more oppressed gender back in those old days. However, if one would like to prove this point, they need to show that the total unhappiness caused by unequal treatment received by men is greater than that received by women. The only way to do this is to develop some ingenius ways to measure total happiness, and travel back to those old days using a time machine. This obviously cannot be done, at least not with the current technology. Then it follows that it makes no sense to argue that one of the genders was overall more oppressed than the other and thus, the feminist theory makes very little sense in this premise, too.
Moreoever, can this oppression be blamed on patriachial system entirely? Probably not. Even back in those old days, we have many women who held considerable authority, mostly through maniplating men around them though, and they were fully capable of inflicting harm on their subordinates. This is especially problematic since men tend to suppress their aggression towards women, but may not other way round.
Worse still, even in nowaday society, oppressions exist in non-patriachial system. This implies that the tendency to misuse authorities may be innate in humans rather than being inherent problem of the patriachial system. Therefore, can one says that it is the system that have caused the oppression? The answer would be a certain "no".
Equal Opportunities in Everthing
Based on the above premises, the feminist theorists suggested that women deserve equal opportunities in EVERY aspects of life as men, most specifically political influence. However, even without considering the falsehood of the last two premises, this statement is also problematic in itself.
The very first condition for giving someone certain rights is that they are not going to cause troubles with those rights. We won't let serial killers freely roam around because we know that granting them such rights is going to be harmful to our society. In a similar manner, it is actually reasonable not to give women certain power. Take political influence as an example, there have been little doubt that women tend to base their judgement more on "empathy" (e.g. Toussaint & Webb, 2005). This is quite problematic since we all know that this is going to cause biases in perception, since some politicians are really good at manipulating emotions.
Therefore, a more reasonable thing to do is not to allow all women to exert their power on everything, since their biased perception is going to lead them to cause destructions. Of course, if a woman does give some rational opinion, we should listen, but if we allow all women to act without letting men voice their opinion first, troubles would follow. Thus, according to our basic principle, women don't deserve equal opportunities in political participation. I am NOT saying that women shouldn't get such rights in every aspects, but they don't deserve it in at least SOME domains. Similarly, if one finds that letting men having certain opportunities would cause trouble, I would agree that men don't deserve equal rights in these aspects either.
Conclusion
Obviously, it is not possible to cover all facets of the feminist theory in one single article, that's why I stressed the word "brief" in the title. However, the above three are the most basic premises of this theory. In reality, almost ALL feminist agendas are based on at least one of the above three statements. As we can see, all three of these feminist principles are far from the truth. This implies that a VERY significant number of feminist theories are based on serious falsehood and their arguments are definitely NOT going to be sound. This is going to do nothing but to cause misery to everyone.
Reference
Cohen-Bendahan, C. C., Beek, C., & Berendaum, S. A. (2005). Prenatal sex hormone effects on child and adult sex-typed behavior: methods and findings. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Review, 29(2), 353-384.
Daly, K, & Tonry, M. (1997). Gender, Race, and Sentencing. Crime & Justice, 22, 201-252.
Lambert, W. E., Yackley, A., & Hein, R. N. (1971). Child training values of English Canadian and French Canadian parents. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 3(3), 217-236.
Lee, K. A., & Keith, D. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 502-512.Mustard, D. (2001). Racial, Ethic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 285-314.
Spencer, S. J., Steel, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28
Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender differences in the Relationship between Empathy and Forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(6), 673-685.
Feminism pollutes the Counseling Profession, Part 1
Decades earlier, the counseling profession was more oriented towards men than towards women. For instance, counselors at those days were in general more concerned about technique on dealing with male clients than with female ones. Of course they didn't completely ignore women's need, but overall they spent more resources on male issues, that is.
As you could imagine, feminists were VERY unhappy about it, and they threw their horrifying tandrums and forced counselors to spend more time on women's need, and everyone knows that the terrifying pressure feminists can exert, so the counseling profession can do nothing but to succumb to their tandrums. Did this make sense?
Like many things put forward by feminists, this makes absolutely no sense at all.
The Rule
One of the most important rules in helping is that we should pay more attention to those who are more in need, which I personally call the "needs rule". For example, impoverished children are more prone to academic failure despite not being inherently inferior in terms of intelligence plus they are quite helpless since it is the social structure that had handicapped them, so it make perfect sense to administer extra help to them. With this rule in mind, let us consider the following facts:
1. Men are less likely to have intimate relationships with whom they can share very personal problems.
2. Men are less likely to be able to seek help from their spouses for personal issues.
(Research have found that it is much more likely for a man to help a woman than vice versa)
3. Women are much more likely to seek emotional support from friends and family memebers.
(At worst, this means that they tend to complain for trivial things)
The main point of counseling is to administer support for people with personal problems, and the above facts suggest that men are more likely to need counseling services than women, statistically speaking. Then according to the "needs rule", it actually makes quite a lot of sense for the counseling profession to be more oriented towards men. Moreoever, they didn't ignore women either. Instead, if you do some readings and you will find that they did pay quite adequate attention to female clients.
Conclusion
As usual, feminists are nothing but a group of obnoxious people who keep throwing tandrums in order to acquire privileges that they don't deserve. Only cults use political pressure to bring privileges to their members, and feminists are doing this all the time.
Does this make it clear that what feminism actually is?
As you could imagine, feminists were VERY unhappy about it, and they threw their horrifying tandrums and forced counselors to spend more time on women's need, and everyone knows that the terrifying pressure feminists can exert, so the counseling profession can do nothing but to succumb to their tandrums. Did this make sense?
Like many things put forward by feminists, this makes absolutely no sense at all.
The Rule
One of the most important rules in helping is that we should pay more attention to those who are more in need, which I personally call the "needs rule". For example, impoverished children are more prone to academic failure despite not being inherently inferior in terms of intelligence plus they are quite helpless since it is the social structure that had handicapped them, so it make perfect sense to administer extra help to them. With this rule in mind, let us consider the following facts:
1. Men are less likely to have intimate relationships with whom they can share very personal problems.
2. Men are less likely to be able to seek help from their spouses for personal issues.
(Research have found that it is much more likely for a man to help a woman than vice versa)
3. Women are much more likely to seek emotional support from friends and family memebers.
(At worst, this means that they tend to complain for trivial things)
The main point of counseling is to administer support for people with personal problems, and the above facts suggest that men are more likely to need counseling services than women, statistically speaking. Then according to the "needs rule", it actually makes quite a lot of sense for the counseling profession to be more oriented towards men. Moreoever, they didn't ignore women either. Instead, if you do some readings and you will find that they did pay quite adequate attention to female clients.
Conclusion
As usual, feminists are nothing but a group of obnoxious people who keep throwing tandrums in order to acquire privileges that they don't deserve. Only cults use political pressure to bring privileges to their members, and feminists are doing this all the time.
Does this make it clear that what feminism actually is?
2011年5月15日 星期日
Why is there so much Misery
Throughout the history of homo sapiens, there are unspeakable sociopathic acts, and of course the misery that follows them. For instance, the superstition in Europe had caused the witch hunts, persecution of heretics and the torture that went with them. In the Eastern world, we had the callous oppression of ancient Chinese emperors exerted on their fellow men, including unthinkable political persecution and zero freedom of speech.
It is far too simplistic to suggest that such things exists only in ancient world. Indeed, oppression exists in modern world as well, namely feminists, to a lesser extent SOME gay activists and CERTAIN types of Christians. They have a common feature: the use of political pressures to distort the truth. Everyone knows about what feminists and SOME gay activists do, and Christians have recently attempted to add Creationism into science disciplines. These people, through manipulating the public with their emotional tactics, acheive their own twisted agenda.
How They Opreate
What gives rise to such obnoxious groups in the first place?
The answer is: Irrationality. When people ask for reasons, it is hard for such groups to exert their influence. This is because almost ALL of them operate as follows:
1. Distort the truth, mostly through political pressures
2. Tell people about the distorted picture
3. Induce appropiate emotions in them
4. Motivate people into doing what they want them to do
If people demand reasons and objectivity, stage 2 and 3 of this model would be VERY unlikely to happen, then it follows that their agenda would be over and of course they are not going to harm our society nor get what they want.
An Ideal World
Therefore, my theory is that one of the main culprits of human misery is the use of emotions and feelings rather than reasons and logics in evaluating truth. It is doubtless that an ideal world should not be so miserable. Then it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the use of logics instead of feelings in evaluating truths among the public is essential for an ideal world.
Please bear in mind that I am NOT saying that emotions and feelings are of no value. I admit that they have their importance to an ideal world, but their value in helping us to determine what to believe is very limited compared to logics and reasons. They may not be overall inferior, but they are definitely undesirable in some aspects.
Conclusion
All in all, one of the greatest culprits of human misery is the lack of "mind" among the general public, that's why cults exist throughout human history. Even in modern day, we have feminists, SOME Christian and SOME gay activists as our new "cults". Therefore, the promotion of more "mind" is of essence to creating an ideal world.
It is far too simplistic to suggest that such things exists only in ancient world. Indeed, oppression exists in modern world as well, namely feminists, to a lesser extent SOME gay activists and CERTAIN types of Christians. They have a common feature: the use of political pressures to distort the truth. Everyone knows about what feminists and SOME gay activists do, and Christians have recently attempted to add Creationism into science disciplines. These people, through manipulating the public with their emotional tactics, acheive their own twisted agenda.
How They Opreate
What gives rise to such obnoxious groups in the first place?
The answer is: Irrationality. When people ask for reasons, it is hard for such groups to exert their influence. This is because almost ALL of them operate as follows:
1. Distort the truth, mostly through political pressures
2. Tell people about the distorted picture
3. Induce appropiate emotions in them
4. Motivate people into doing what they want them to do
If people demand reasons and objectivity, stage 2 and 3 of this model would be VERY unlikely to happen, then it follows that their agenda would be over and of course they are not going to harm our society nor get what they want.
An Ideal World
Therefore, my theory is that one of the main culprits of human misery is the use of emotions and feelings rather than reasons and logics in evaluating truth. It is doubtless that an ideal world should not be so miserable. Then it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the use of logics instead of feelings in evaluating truths among the public is essential for an ideal world.
Please bear in mind that I am NOT saying that emotions and feelings are of no value. I admit that they have their importance to an ideal world, but their value in helping us to determine what to believe is very limited compared to logics and reasons. They may not be overall inferior, but they are definitely undesirable in some aspects.
Conclusion
All in all, one of the greatest culprits of human misery is the lack of "mind" among the general public, that's why cults exist throughout human history. Even in modern day, we have feminists, SOME Christian and SOME gay activists as our new "cults". Therefore, the promotion of more "mind" is of essence to creating an ideal world.
2011年4月15日 星期五
Why should we help Men?
One of the most common argument about giving more resources to women is that "women are weaker and more needy, and thus it is reasonable to give them more assistance". These people will then dismiss any argument which suggest that men may need some attention as well. After closer examination, I have noted that this argument has a hidden premise:
People that are more needy deserves more help, and degree of "neediness" depends on their abilities to cope with their difficulties.
-I can figure out some problems with this premise. In the first place, men are of course physically stronger, but does this neccessarily means that they can cope with SOME situations as good as women do? For the reason of convenience, I will refer to this principle as the "needs rule" in the following section of this article.
-First let's talk about domestic violence. There is no doubt that men ARE actually less capable of coping with being abused by spouse than women. Many studies on domestic violence have found that women are no less capable than men of inflicting serious injury on their spouses, mainly because women can use weapons including knives, baseball bat and so on. Moreover, it is TYPICALLY the women who made the first move, yet they are provided with various services.
-Yes, men are overall more aggressive, but this DOESN'T mean that they are more aggressive in spousal relationship.
-Following the "needs rule", men deserve more help than women in issues related to domestic violence.
-Second let's talk about health a bit. Currently, 8 times more money are being spent on women's health than that of men. However, I am DAMN sure that men are no more capable of dealing with health problems on their own than women. Well, even if men have higher stamina and strength, they still cannot access medicines and chemotherapies without help. So, I seriously doubt if the "needs rule" would support the current un-balance in health fund.
-Finally, let's talk about education. Studies have found that there is no gender difference in exam grades among home-taught kids. This is a good reason to suggest that there are probably gender biases in the education system, of course it may not be apparent. Do you think individual boys (and even men) can deal with such systematic biases on their own, when the whole society are biased against them? I think not. The "needs rule" will then imply that we should provide more help to boys than to girls.
See http://www.angryharry.com/esWellDonetheGirls.htm?note
Conclusion
The feminist argument based on the needs rule is nothing but absurd. This is because this rule will suggest that men are the one who deserve more help, not women. The illusion of women being needy is presumably due to the fact that they are MUCH better at pretending to be victims, compared to men (and statistically speaking of course), while men tend to hide all their suffering.
People that are more needy deserves more help, and degree of "neediness" depends on their abilities to cope with their difficulties.
-I can figure out some problems with this premise. In the first place, men are of course physically stronger, but does this neccessarily means that they can cope with SOME situations as good as women do? For the reason of convenience, I will refer to this principle as the "needs rule" in the following section of this article.
-First let's talk about domestic violence. There is no doubt that men ARE actually less capable of coping with being abused by spouse than women. Many studies on domestic violence have found that women are no less capable than men of inflicting serious injury on their spouses, mainly because women can use weapons including knives, baseball bat and so on. Moreover, it is TYPICALLY the women who made the first move, yet they are provided with various services.
-Yes, men are overall more aggressive, but this DOESN'T mean that they are more aggressive in spousal relationship.
-Following the "needs rule", men deserve more help than women in issues related to domestic violence.
-Second let's talk about health a bit. Currently, 8 times more money are being spent on women's health than that of men. However, I am DAMN sure that men are no more capable of dealing with health problems on their own than women. Well, even if men have higher stamina and strength, they still cannot access medicines and chemotherapies without help. So, I seriously doubt if the "needs rule" would support the current un-balance in health fund.
-Finally, let's talk about education. Studies have found that there is no gender difference in exam grades among home-taught kids. This is a good reason to suggest that there are probably gender biases in the education system, of course it may not be apparent. Do you think individual boys (and even men) can deal with such systematic biases on their own, when the whole society are biased against them? I think not. The "needs rule" will then imply that we should provide more help to boys than to girls.
See http://www.angryharry.com/esWellDonetheGirls.htm?note
Conclusion
The feminist argument based on the needs rule is nothing but absurd. This is because this rule will suggest that men are the one who deserve more help, not women. The illusion of women being needy is presumably due to the fact that they are MUCH better at pretending to be victims, compared to men (and statistically speaking of course), while men tend to hide all their suffering.
Was one of the genders oppressed?
The majority of people believed that women were oppressed in the past, while some others suggest that men were the one being oppressed. Both of them have cited some points. Let's see what their arguments are:
Pro-women:
1. Women were overpowered.
2. Women were being kept out of work place.
...so on
Pro-men:
3. Men were sent to war to die in painful and gruesome ways, while women stayed in relatively safe and comfortable places for their whole lives.
4. Men's health were less protected, despite being more vulnerable to most diseases.
...so on
Indeed, both sides had made some good points. Now the problem is, if we are to say that one of the genders were oppressed, we NEED to prove that one of the sets of points outweight the others. Say, to suggest that women were more oppressed, one have to prove that the total unhappiness caused by 1 and 2 is greater than that by 3 and 4, and the same goes for vice versa.
Obviously, even if we derive some ingenius methods to measure "happiness", we can by no mean determine the amount of unhappiness experienced by either gender in the past. This implies that we have NO reasons to believe that one of the gender was more "oppressed". In other words, debating over the issue is not going to yield any meaningful answers. To put it bluntly, it is nothing but a waste of time and energy. I guess it would probably be more useful to focus on the present moment.
As I have mentioned in one of my previous pieces, lack of objective measurement can be very dangerous since it would allow some people to interpret data in infinitely possible ways.
Conclusion
All in all, I strongly believe that debating over which gender was more oppressed (and indeed, what classes of people, be it whites, blacks, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc.) is totally, meaningless and silly thing to do. Instead, it would be more helpful for us if we concentrate on what is happening NOW.
Pro-women:
1. Women were overpowered.
2. Women were being kept out of work place.
...so on
Pro-men:
3. Men were sent to war to die in painful and gruesome ways, while women stayed in relatively safe and comfortable places for their whole lives.
4. Men's health were less protected, despite being more vulnerable to most diseases.
...so on
Indeed, both sides had made some good points. Now the problem is, if we are to say that one of the genders were oppressed, we NEED to prove that one of the sets of points outweight the others. Say, to suggest that women were more oppressed, one have to prove that the total unhappiness caused by 1 and 2 is greater than that by 3 and 4, and the same goes for vice versa.
Obviously, even if we derive some ingenius methods to measure "happiness", we can by no mean determine the amount of unhappiness experienced by either gender in the past. This implies that we have NO reasons to believe that one of the gender was more "oppressed". In other words, debating over the issue is not going to yield any meaningful answers. To put it bluntly, it is nothing but a waste of time and energy. I guess it would probably be more useful to focus on the present moment.
As I have mentioned in one of my previous pieces, lack of objective measurement can be very dangerous since it would allow some people to interpret data in infinitely possible ways.
Conclusion
All in all, I strongly believe that debating over which gender was more oppressed (and indeed, what classes of people, be it whites, blacks, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc.) is totally, meaningless and silly thing to do. Instead, it would be more helpful for us if we concentrate on what is happening NOW.
2011年4月13日 星期三
How to respond to "This-is-not-my-ideology"
I have recently noticed that when activity groups (be it feminists, gay activists and occasionally even masculists) are accused of creating inequalities or doing anything that is not desirable, their first reaction is to counterargue with the following argument, which I personally call "This-is-not-my-ideology" argument:
"You have probably gotten it wrong. The [feminist/gay rights/...] ideology is not what you accused it to be, instead it is blah blah..."
For example, I have seen a feminist arguing that feminism is not about women grabbing the goodies that men has and shrugging off the burdens that come with them, when someone accuse them of doing so. I have done some readings on feminist ideology and I admit at least part of it are not guilty. However, does what you idealize neccessarily translate into what you do?
I think not.
When translating thoughts into behaviors, a very complicated process is involved. An example includes a behavioral model of goal seeking:
http://www.itk.ilstu.edu/faculty/portegys/research/ci2005.pdf
For an ideology to work as it expects, firstly the one promoting it MUST truly be motivated to seek the goals, and he or she must makes as less errors as possible during execution. One of the processes involved in goal seeking is the thinking process, which has proven to be subject to A HELL LOT of errors (e.g. I am too lazy to do reference, but I am certain that you can find such evidence by typing "thinking" and "bias" in google scholar).
Moreover, we all know that what a person says doesn't means that he or she is truly motivated to do the things he or she claims to be doing.
However, the "This-is-not-my-ideology" Argument works ONLY IF what the person is doing is in agreement with his or her ideology, but we all know that this is NOT always true (and probably sadly, often false). Therefore, it would follows that the argument is not valid, and of course unsound.
Conclusion
I have briefly analyzed an argument often used by activists (be it feminists, gay activists or any other activity groups) to counter when accused of doing something that is not desirable or acceptable. I believe this is quite a good response to it, by pointing out the fact that it is completely absurd. Anyone have figure out some other ways to deal with this argument?
"You have probably gotten it wrong. The [feminist/gay rights/...] ideology is not what you accused it to be, instead it is blah blah..."
For example, I have seen a feminist arguing that feminism is not about women grabbing the goodies that men has and shrugging off the burdens that come with them, when someone accuse them of doing so. I have done some readings on feminist ideology and I admit at least part of it are not guilty. However, does what you idealize neccessarily translate into what you do?
I think not.
When translating thoughts into behaviors, a very complicated process is involved. An example includes a behavioral model of goal seeking:
http://www.itk.ilstu.edu/faculty/portegys/research/ci2005.pdf
For an ideology to work as it expects, firstly the one promoting it MUST truly be motivated to seek the goals, and he or she must makes as less errors as possible during execution. One of the processes involved in goal seeking is the thinking process, which has proven to be subject to A HELL LOT of errors (e.g. I am too lazy to do reference, but I am certain that you can find such evidence by typing "thinking" and "bias" in google scholar).
Moreover, we all know that what a person says doesn't means that he or she is truly motivated to do the things he or she claims to be doing.
However, the "This-is-not-my-ideology" Argument works ONLY IF what the person is doing is in agreement with his or her ideology, but we all know that this is NOT always true (and probably sadly, often false). Therefore, it would follows that the argument is not valid, and of course unsound.
Conclusion
I have briefly analyzed an argument often used by activists (be it feminists, gay activists or any other activity groups) to counter when accused of doing something that is not desirable or acceptable. I believe this is quite a good response to it, by pointing out the fact that it is completely absurd. Anyone have figure out some other ways to deal with this argument?
2011年4月9日 星期六
Problems of Emotional Tactics
I have just seen a TV programme which depicts children in rural villages of China leading a horrendously difficult life and therefore, deserve help. To put it frankly, these TV programmes make me sick, a lot. I am not saying that these children don't need help. The problem is, they would prompt people to donate a HELL lot of money to them.
Now that's the problem, we know that there are many people who are also in need but are unable or unwilling to seek help in such TV programmes. If these promotions keep running and draw MOST of the money to these children, the ratio of resources devoted to these children and "those-who-need-help-but-don't-know-how-to-do-promotion" will gradually rise and eventually become disproportionate. This, of course, would be unfair to them, and it CAN cause problems.
One of the most important rules to administer help to people in need is that we should give more help to people who are more badly in need. However, according to the above analysis, we find that using emotinal tactics to draw resources run counter to this principle.
(Indeed, we may have good reasons to think that people who can't seek help in such TV shows are actually more in need)
Conclusion
TV programmes who attempt to use emotional tactics to draw resources to "minority groups" sickens me a lot. I admit everyone in our society need help, but I believe using statistics to allocate resources would be preferable to emotional tactics. I am still trying to figure out why being emotional seems to be associated so strongly with poor decision making.
Now that's the problem, we know that there are many people who are also in need but are unable or unwilling to seek help in such TV programmes. If these promotions keep running and draw MOST of the money to these children, the ratio of resources devoted to these children and "those-who-need-help-but-don't-know-how-to-do-promotion" will gradually rise and eventually become disproportionate. This, of course, would be unfair to them, and it CAN cause problems.
One of the most important rules to administer help to people in need is that we should give more help to people who are more badly in need. However, according to the above analysis, we find that using emotinal tactics to draw resources run counter to this principle.
(Indeed, we may have good reasons to think that people who can't seek help in such TV shows are actually more in need)
Conclusion
TV programmes who attempt to use emotional tactics to draw resources to "minority groups" sickens me a lot. I admit everyone in our society need help, but I believe using statistics to allocate resources would be preferable to emotional tactics. I am still trying to figure out why being emotional seems to be associated so strongly with poor decision making.
2011年4月7日 星期四
Insanity and Gay Laws, Part 1
Discrimination has been a behavior widely condemned by various groups, especially gay activists. One of the most insane things they have done is to make "stirring up hatred against homosexuals" illegal. Okay, I admit there are problems IF someone deliberately create emotional states in the public to attack certain groups of people, be it men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals and so on. However, gay activists seem to define the term quite differently:
Firemen demoted and fined for shining torch on gay foursome in the bushes
This is by no mean stirring up hatred. Instead, I guess the firemen would have done the same if the perpetuators were heterosexual. This implies that gay activists don't seem to use my definition. Their version seem to be "anything that displeases homosexuals should be illegal, EVEN IF those things make perfect senses". Of course they won't admit this publicly, but judging from WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO, it seems to be.
This would be VERY problematic, because this would make rational criticism of homosexuals illegitimate. And read some history and you will know that letting a group (no matter it is a religion or anything else) hold such power can be very disastrous.
Conclusion
All in all, I have to stress that I am NOT anti-gay, but it remains a fact that gay activists are doing a lot of absurd things, which, in my opinion, are nothing but unfair for heterosexuals. I admit, homosexuals are also people, but I don't think we should give them benefit at the expense of others.
Firemen demoted and fined for shining torch on gay foursome in the bushes
This is by no mean stirring up hatred. Instead, I guess the firemen would have done the same if the perpetuators were heterosexual. This implies that gay activists don't seem to use my definition. Their version seem to be "anything that displeases homosexuals should be illegal, EVEN IF those things make perfect senses". Of course they won't admit this publicly, but judging from WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO, it seems to be.
This would be VERY problematic, because this would make rational criticism of homosexuals illegitimate. And read some history and you will know that letting a group (no matter it is a religion or anything else) hold such power can be very disastrous.
Conclusion
All in all, I have to stress that I am NOT anti-gay, but it remains a fact that gay activists are doing a lot of absurd things, which, in my opinion, are nothing but unfair for heterosexuals. I admit, homosexuals are also people, but I don't think we should give them benefit at the expense of others.
2011年4月6日 星期三
Homosexaulity: Choices or What?
One of the most common controversy in issues about homosexuality is regarding whether the gays "choose" to be gay. Anti-gay suggested that sexual orientation is a choice and is therefore changeable. Let's investigate their arguments a bit, shall we?
Argument 1
Sexual Orientation is only 20% genetic in origin, so it is a choice.
-Okay, I can't think of any arguments that are more absurd than this one, not even feminist arguments. The point is, is the remaining 80% choices? No. Studies suggest that those are environmental factors, but we all know that a child has very little choices in his family environment, parents, siblings, education, and so on. Therefore, I seriously doubt if those 80% can be considered to be "choices".
Argument 2
Sexual Orientation is not a choice, so we have to act on it.
-This is a pro-gay argument that is commonly heard of. It is nothing but absurdity. As mentioned in one of my previous articles, many criminals (yes, even murder and VERY violent crimes) have very little choices in committing crime, as studies have pointed out that many childhood and genetic factors are involved in inducing criminal behaviors. Does this make their behaviors justifiable? I think not.
Conclusion
I have investigate the most common arguments, both pro- and anti- gay regarding choice theory. As you can see, the most basic levels of logics can completely reveal the absurdity of these arguments. I guess most people just can't be rational when it comes to gender-related issues.
Argument 1
Sexual Orientation is only 20% genetic in origin, so it is a choice.
-Okay, I can't think of any arguments that are more absurd than this one, not even feminist arguments. The point is, is the remaining 80% choices? No. Studies suggest that those are environmental factors, but we all know that a child has very little choices in his family environment, parents, siblings, education, and so on. Therefore, I seriously doubt if those 80% can be considered to be "choices".
Argument 2
Sexual Orientation is not a choice, so we have to act on it.
-This is a pro-gay argument that is commonly heard of. It is nothing but absurdity. As mentioned in one of my previous articles, many criminals (yes, even murder and VERY violent crimes) have very little choices in committing crime, as studies have pointed out that many childhood and genetic factors are involved in inducing criminal behaviors. Does this make their behaviors justifiable? I think not.
Conclusion
I have investigate the most common arguments, both pro- and anti- gay regarding choice theory. As you can see, the most basic levels of logics can completely reveal the absurdity of these arguments. I guess most people just can't be rational when it comes to gender-related issues.
2011年4月1日 星期五
Death Penalty Examined, Part 1
Okay, feminist and gay rights issue draw a lot of attention. That's why so many absurd arguments are created. Today I would like to talk about some of the arguments regarding death penalty. Yes, I am asking is it justifiable to take someone's life for the crime they committed?
Common argument 1
Death Penalty disallows rehabilitation.
-Well, what if rehabilitation is just impossible for some people? Criminologists have told us that SOME criminals are born that way and almost unchangeable. It would cost us a hell lot of time and effort if we attempt to rehabilitate them, with very limited success. Now that's the problem: in such cases, it would means that death penalty is not the culprit of impossibility of rehabilitation and of course, this argument would not be a valid reason to ban it.
Common argument 2
Following death penalty, crime rates rise.
-It is a fact that some studies have indicated that violent crime become more likely to happen after publication of execution. Then some anti-death-penalty people suggest that death penalty actually cause more crimes and is therefore unjustifiable.
-I have thought of some problems with this argument. Firstly, those studies ONLY suggested that it is publication of execution that is causing the problem. Then we could just do executions without publication, since the "execution-cause-more-crime" effect is not intrinsic of death penalty itself. That's means they have no reason to favor "no-execution" over "execution-without-publication".
-I have even thought of a more serious problems. Those studies are mostly correlational. This implies that they say nothing about causation. Thus, it is possible that they are of the same causes. Usually death penalty is used to deal with very serious crimes. For example, it is imaginable that after hearing about a serious crime happening in the district, residents will be primed with aggression and violence. This means that execution is NOT the cause of increased violence.
-Lastly, those studies say nothing about the long-term effect of publication of execution.
Conclusion
I have once again briefly examined some arguments that I find absurd. Of course these two are not the only arguments against death penalty. However, due to limitation of space, I would only briefly address these two here.
Common argument 1
Death Penalty disallows rehabilitation.
-Well, what if rehabilitation is just impossible for some people? Criminologists have told us that SOME criminals are born that way and almost unchangeable. It would cost us a hell lot of time and effort if we attempt to rehabilitate them, with very limited success. Now that's the problem: in such cases, it would means that death penalty is not the culprit of impossibility of rehabilitation and of course, this argument would not be a valid reason to ban it.
Common argument 2
Following death penalty, crime rates rise.
-It is a fact that some studies have indicated that violent crime become more likely to happen after publication of execution. Then some anti-death-penalty people suggest that death penalty actually cause more crimes and is therefore unjustifiable.
-I have thought of some problems with this argument. Firstly, those studies ONLY suggested that it is publication of execution that is causing the problem. Then we could just do executions without publication, since the "execution-cause-more-crime" effect is not intrinsic of death penalty itself. That's means they have no reason to favor "no-execution" over "execution-without-publication".
-I have even thought of a more serious problems. Those studies are mostly correlational. This implies that they say nothing about causation. Thus, it is possible that they are of the same causes. Usually death penalty is used to deal with very serious crimes. For example, it is imaginable that after hearing about a serious crime happening in the district, residents will be primed with aggression and violence. This means that execution is NOT the cause of increased violence.
-Lastly, those studies say nothing about the long-term effect of publication of execution.
Conclusion
I have once again briefly examined some arguments that I find absurd. Of course these two are not the only arguments against death penalty. However, due to limitation of space, I would only briefly address these two here.
Problem of Equality: Measurement
From time to time, we heard feminists and gay activists claiming that they are seeking equality, and that it is essential for a better society. However, I have came up with a question: How to measure equality?
A common method used by feminists is statistics. If statistics shows that women are underrepresented in some areas, they would say that women are being oppressed. For instance, statistics show that women are still currently underrepresented in science, engineering and mathematics. Then feminists would shout that men are oppressing women by not allowing them to enter those careers.
The problem with this is that it may be showing other difference (probably biological), rather than social structural factors. Taking the above examples, feminists would then take measure to ensure that same number of men and women are represented in those career. Now that's the question. If men ARE indeed innately better at these things, such measures would be problematic to them because this will means that men are structurally handicapped in order for women to enter those career. What is so fair about this?
This method is based on the following premise:
If there are statistical difference, it MUST be due to social factors.
Can anyone tell me the logics behind this absurd statement?
Lack of objective measurement is very dangerous, because it allows powerful groups (especially feminists as this is most commonly used by them) to interpret the data in infinitely possible ways. For example, with the case cited above, it can be explained by a hell lot of data: innate difference, stereotype, hormonal issues and so on. But, we can NEVER know if it is truly due to some kind of "oppression" or "social factors".
Conclusion
Equality MAY BE a worthwhile cause, but I sincerely wish that any groups (no matter feminists or gay activists) who claim that they are seeking it should firstly tell everyone a good way to measure equality. Otherwise, it will become an endless and meaningless debate about "which factors are more important".
A common method used by feminists is statistics. If statistics shows that women are underrepresented in some areas, they would say that women are being oppressed. For instance, statistics show that women are still currently underrepresented in science, engineering and mathematics. Then feminists would shout that men are oppressing women by not allowing them to enter those careers.
The problem with this is that it may be showing other difference (probably biological), rather than social structural factors. Taking the above examples, feminists would then take measure to ensure that same number of men and women are represented in those career. Now that's the question. If men ARE indeed innately better at these things, such measures would be problematic to them because this will means that men are structurally handicapped in order for women to enter those career. What is so fair about this?
This method is based on the following premise:
If there are statistical difference, it MUST be due to social factors.
Can anyone tell me the logics behind this absurd statement?
Lack of objective measurement is very dangerous, because it allows powerful groups (especially feminists as this is most commonly used by them) to interpret the data in infinitely possible ways. For example, with the case cited above, it can be explained by a hell lot of data: innate difference, stereotype, hormonal issues and so on. But, we can NEVER know if it is truly due to some kind of "oppression" or "social factors".
Conclusion
Equality MAY BE a worthwhile cause, but I sincerely wish that any groups (no matter feminists or gay activists) who claim that they are seeking it should firstly tell everyone a good way to measure equality. Otherwise, it will become an endless and meaningless debate about "which factors are more important".
2011年3月29日 星期二
Adaptiveness and Gender
Although feminists do make a lot of absurd arguments, their opponents do occasionally make some too. I have recently seen an argument that look like the following:
It was cross-culturally observed that women were regarded as the inferior gender in ancient times, therefore, it is adaptive to do so. Thus, women are, indeed, the less capable gender.
I doubt this would be a valid argument (but I think it carries some truth). This is because it has a hidden premise, which look like this:
Things that are adaptive in ancient time must also be adaptive nowaday.
Without this premise, this argument won't work. The point is, we know that environment changes. For instance, humans developed a preference for sweet taste in ancient times. However, seeing all the obesity and health problems caused by sugar consumption, I doubt if this instinct is adaptive in nowaday society. Therefore, the hidden premise is NOT true, and the argument is not valid.
Conclusion
As mentioned, I believe that there are something inherently wrong with the female gender, but I don't think the "adaptive" argument is a sound argument. The conclusion may be correct, but it is not valid.
It was cross-culturally observed that women were regarded as the inferior gender in ancient times, therefore, it is adaptive to do so. Thus, women are, indeed, the less capable gender.
I doubt this would be a valid argument (but I think it carries some truth). This is because it has a hidden premise, which look like this:
Things that are adaptive in ancient time must also be adaptive nowaday.
Without this premise, this argument won't work. The point is, we know that environment changes. For instance, humans developed a preference for sweet taste in ancient times. However, seeing all the obesity and health problems caused by sugar consumption, I doubt if this instinct is adaptive in nowaday society. Therefore, the hidden premise is NOT true, and the argument is not valid.
Conclusion
As mentioned, I believe that there are something inherently wrong with the female gender, but I don't think the "adaptive" argument is a sound argument. The conclusion may be correct, but it is not valid.
2011年3月28日 星期一
More pro-gay arguments
I have discussed some absurd arguments promoted by gay activists previously, and I am going to evaluate more of their arguments. After some readings, I have to say that gay activists (along with feminists) seriously need to take some classes on logics and debates.
Arguement 1
There is nothing wrong with a loving and consensual relationship.
-I can think of some problems with this argument: It allows incest. If it stands, than it follows that incest would be morally acceptable, and we know that incest is harmful to the health of the offsprings due to higher likelihood of transmitting genetic disease. In this case, incest is a very selfish behaviors since the participants fulfil their wish at the expense of other people. Therefore, it follows that this argument is not a good reason to justify behaviors.
Argument 2:
Not accepting homosexual relationships is not fair since heterosexual relationships are widely accepted.
-Yes, fairness is important to our society. But the prerequisite of fairness is that the target behavior should be morally acceptable. For example, if we accept women doing certain crimes while condemning men for doing the same, we would call this unfair because both behaviors are exactly the same.
-The point is, is heterosexual and homosexual relationships truly "the same". I think not, for the most parts. Even in societies in which gay rights are most rampant, homosexual couples are still more likely to break up than heterosexual ones, and homosexuals are still more likely to abuse substances and alcohol than heterosexuals. Therefore, I think I have some good reasons to suggest that these two are NOT the same.
-By the way, don't tell me that these are due to homophobia. Do some goggling and you will find a good number of studies which suggest that homophobia does contribute, but it cannot explain everything.
Conclusion
I don't think homosexuals are giving good reasons for us to accept them (and more importantly, spending so much money to help them). I am not anti-gay, but despite this, the fact is gay activists probably have a hard time justifying their behaviors.
Arguement 1
There is nothing wrong with a loving and consensual relationship.
-I can think of some problems with this argument: It allows incest. If it stands, than it follows that incest would be morally acceptable, and we know that incest is harmful to the health of the offsprings due to higher likelihood of transmitting genetic disease. In this case, incest is a very selfish behaviors since the participants fulfil their wish at the expense of other people. Therefore, it follows that this argument is not a good reason to justify behaviors.
Argument 2:
Not accepting homosexual relationships is not fair since heterosexual relationships are widely accepted.
-Yes, fairness is important to our society. But the prerequisite of fairness is that the target behavior should be morally acceptable. For example, if we accept women doing certain crimes while condemning men for doing the same, we would call this unfair because both behaviors are exactly the same.
-The point is, is heterosexual and homosexual relationships truly "the same". I think not, for the most parts. Even in societies in which gay rights are most rampant, homosexual couples are still more likely to break up than heterosexual ones, and homosexuals are still more likely to abuse substances and alcohol than heterosexuals. Therefore, I think I have some good reasons to suggest that these two are NOT the same.
-By the way, don't tell me that these are due to homophobia. Do some goggling and you will find a good number of studies which suggest that homophobia does contribute, but it cannot explain everything.
Conclusion
I don't think homosexuals are giving good reasons for us to accept them (and more importantly, spending so much money to help them). I am not anti-gay, but despite this, the fact is gay activists probably have a hard time justifying their behaviors.
2011年3月21日 星期一
Substance Abuse and Homosexuality
I have always been wondering about the differential treatment substance abusers and homosexuals receive: the former would be advised to get rid of their habits and the latter will be celebrated (mostly by the gay community and SOME psychotherapists). You may ask why this is considered to be a differential treatment. Well, I have got some points here:
1. Both can harm one's health.
-Well, there is no doubt about substance abuse threatening our health. In fact, due to receptive anal sex, gay and bisexual men are about 15 times more likely to get anal cancer. Anal sex is also a very effective way to spread AIDS and many other sexually transmitted diseases. Also, Homosexuals are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to abuse alchohols or has mental illnesses.
2. Both are to a certain extent, genetic.
-Just do a bit googling and you will find evidence for what I have said.
3. Both are changeable.
-same as the above
How exactly do substance abuse and homosexuality differs from each other such that they deserve such differential treatment?
Counter Argument [Edited]
Recently, I have received a counter-argument against this article, whose content was posted on another blog. This counter-argument goes as follow:
-- It is homosexual people's unhealthy habits that has caused their health problems, therefore what should be treated is these behaviors, rather than homosexuality itself.
Ah really?
There have been various research showing that homosexuality is inherently connected to unhealthy behaviors. For example, there are studies indicating that homosexuals are more likely to have mental health problems and be suicidal even in countries in which homophobia is remarkably low. Some of them even suggested that homosexuals are more likely to have such problems even when homophobia experienced is controlled for. All these implies that social factors cannot explain all mental health problems among homosexuals. Therefore, there are reasons to suggest that unhealthiness is intrinsically associated with homosexuality, although it may not be a direct causes of these problems.
I believe this is a good reasons to treat homosexuality as a mental disorder. As we can see, MANY mental disorders including depression, conduct disorder, anti-social personality disorder don't directly lead to health problems but instead cause the sufferers to act in unhealthy manners. If this counter-argument stands, then we shouldn't treat these problems as mental disorder either, and this will lead to VERY disastrous result.
See: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
1. Both can harm one's health.
-Well, there is no doubt about substance abuse threatening our health. In fact, due to receptive anal sex, gay and bisexual men are about 15 times more likely to get anal cancer. Anal sex is also a very effective way to spread AIDS and many other sexually transmitted diseases. Also, Homosexuals are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to abuse alchohols or has mental illnesses.
2. Both are to a certain extent, genetic.
-Just do a bit googling and you will find evidence for what I have said.
3. Both are changeable.
-same as the above
How exactly do substance abuse and homosexuality differs from each other such that they deserve such differential treatment?
Counter Argument [Edited]
Recently, I have received a counter-argument against this article, whose content was posted on another blog. This counter-argument goes as follow:
-- It is homosexual people's unhealthy habits that has caused their health problems, therefore what should be treated is these behaviors, rather than homosexuality itself.
Ah really?
There have been various research showing that homosexuality is inherently connected to unhealthy behaviors. For example, there are studies indicating that homosexuals are more likely to have mental health problems and be suicidal even in countries in which homophobia is remarkably low. Some of them even suggested that homosexuals are more likely to have such problems even when homophobia experienced is controlled for. All these implies that social factors cannot explain all mental health problems among homosexuals. Therefore, there are reasons to suggest that unhealthiness is intrinsically associated with homosexuality, although it may not be a direct causes of these problems.
I believe this is a good reasons to treat homosexuality as a mental disorder. As we can see, MANY mental disorders including depression, conduct disorder, anti-social personality disorder don't directly lead to health problems but instead cause the sufferers to act in unhealthy manners. If this counter-argument stands, then we shouldn't treat these problems as mental disorder either, and this will lead to VERY disastrous result.
See: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
2011年3月19日 星期六
Why women hate Logics
I guess many men know that it is usually a waste of time to try to reason objectively with women, since most of the time women would just emote in an irrational manner and made all the basic logical mistakes you can think of. Still, it is interesting to ask why, women, STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, are so incapable of reasoning from a logical and objective point of view. Recently, I have thought of an evolutionary explanation for it.
First, we need to know what kinds of things women depend on, since an organism develop an aversion towards a certain thing usually because the target threatens its survival and seeing what women rely on will tell us what method they used to survive. To know this, we need to look at what women are good at (statistically speaking, of course). 48 hours after birth, baby girls begin to pay more attention to human faces than baby boys. Girls and women talk much more about relationships and feelings than boys and men, and they are better at verbal and non-verbal communication. All in all, the female gender is more "social" than the other. In other words, females survive on manipulating other people, relative to males and statistically speaking. To manipulate others, you need to induce appropiate emotions in them, so that they will be motivated to do what you want them to do. Say, to get a man to help her beat up another man she dislikes, a woman need to induce anger in her man (e.g. "He touched my breasts!"). In other words, women thrive by creating affective states in people, particularly men (but bear in mind that these aren't neccessarily intelligent behaviors).
The point is that, logic would prevent this from happening. Back to the previous example, if the man question the woman, say, by asking her if she could provide any evidence that the target has indeed, groped her, her agenda is over. Similarly, if men begin to aks questions about the things Angry Harry mentioned (http://www.angryharry.com/), women can no longer acquire the disproportionate advantages they are currently having. That's why women are evolutionarily designed to reject logical and objective reasoning, because if they let men question them in an objective manner, they are doomed. The mechanism that promotes their survival is their horrifying tandrums when men attempt to use logics and reasons to make decisions.
Of course a scientific theory needs testing. My theory would predict that women should be particularly likely to emote in irrational manner when it comes to issues that affect them personally, say, feminist issues. Please bear in mind that I am talking about women in ancient times, not nowaday women. And I have to remind you that to break an argument, you need to either show that it is not valid, you may also choose to show that its premises are not correct, but personal attack won't break an argument, okay?
Lastly, what I am saying about women is STATISTICAL. This means that I won't say anything about individual women, and of course I admit that SOME women are indeed capable of rational thinking, but it is just that such thinking pattern is much more prevalent in males than in females.
By the way, anyone has thought of some other ways to test this theory?
First, we need to know what kinds of things women depend on, since an organism develop an aversion towards a certain thing usually because the target threatens its survival and seeing what women rely on will tell us what method they used to survive. To know this, we need to look at what women are good at (statistically speaking, of course). 48 hours after birth, baby girls begin to pay more attention to human faces than baby boys. Girls and women talk much more about relationships and feelings than boys and men, and they are better at verbal and non-verbal communication. All in all, the female gender is more "social" than the other. In other words, females survive on manipulating other people, relative to males and statistically speaking. To manipulate others, you need to induce appropiate emotions in them, so that they will be motivated to do what you want them to do. Say, to get a man to help her beat up another man she dislikes, a woman need to induce anger in her man (e.g. "He touched my breasts!"). In other words, women thrive by creating affective states in people, particularly men (but bear in mind that these aren't neccessarily intelligent behaviors).
The point is that, logic would prevent this from happening. Back to the previous example, if the man question the woman, say, by asking her if she could provide any evidence that the target has indeed, groped her, her agenda is over. Similarly, if men begin to aks questions about the things Angry Harry mentioned (http://www.angryharry.com/), women can no longer acquire the disproportionate advantages they are currently having. That's why women are evolutionarily designed to reject logical and objective reasoning, because if they let men question them in an objective manner, they are doomed. The mechanism that promotes their survival is their horrifying tandrums when men attempt to use logics and reasons to make decisions.
Of course a scientific theory needs testing. My theory would predict that women should be particularly likely to emote in irrational manner when it comes to issues that affect them personally, say, feminist issues. Please bear in mind that I am talking about women in ancient times, not nowaday women. And I have to remind you that to break an argument, you need to either show that it is not valid, you may also choose to show that its premises are not correct, but personal attack won't break an argument, okay?
Lastly, what I am saying about women is STATISTICAL. This means that I won't say anything about individual women, and of course I admit that SOME women are indeed capable of rational thinking, but it is just that such thinking pattern is much more prevalent in males than in females.
By the way, anyone has thought of some other ways to test this theory?
2011年3月18日 星期五
"Pornography degrades Women" and Dumbness
Feminists (and many women) freak out every time when they heard the word "pornography". When I ask them why they hate porns so much, they ALWAYS say that this is because porn degrades women, and the following two are the most common arguments they give (for the rest of the things they said, I am not sure would those words even qualify as arguments). Let's explore them a bit, shall we?
Common Argument 1
Porns are treating women as inanimate objects.
-Heterosexual men watch porns and they want to have sex with those porn actresses. This suggests that porns are NOT treating women as inanimate objects. If men are seeing these women as objects rather than humans, why would they want to have sex with these women? I guess the majority of heterosexual men are not paraphilics.
Common Argument 2
Porns are incomprehensive depiction of women.
-If this argument stands, it would be a VERY disastrous result, you know? Almost all movies, novels and so on are incomprehensive depiction of certain classes of people (To reach "comprehensive depiction" of a certain group, you will need a really BIG cast), and thus are degrading certain classes of people. For instance, the movie "MONSTERS" (2010) shown the leading actor being a photographer, according to feminist logic, the film is degrading men because it is not showing all types of behaviors men can engage in. Sound ridiculous, isn't it? Similarly, do depicting women having sexual values NECESSARILY mean that they are of no other values? I think not.
Conclusion
I don't think porngraphy has anything to do with the degradation of women, and I am really getting tired of women and the illogical arguments they give. I also wish to figure out some ways to help women get rid of their habit of replacing logics with feelings and emotions. Of course there are other arguments against porn proposed by women and feminists, but these two are the ones I saw most frequently (in real life), I will probably address the rest of them in the future.
Common Argument 1
Porns are treating women as inanimate objects.
-Heterosexual men watch porns and they want to have sex with those porn actresses. This suggests that porns are NOT treating women as inanimate objects. If men are seeing these women as objects rather than humans, why would they want to have sex with these women? I guess the majority of heterosexual men are not paraphilics.
Common Argument 2
Porns are incomprehensive depiction of women.
-If this argument stands, it would be a VERY disastrous result, you know? Almost all movies, novels and so on are incomprehensive depiction of certain classes of people (To reach "comprehensive depiction" of a certain group, you will need a really BIG cast), and thus are degrading certain classes of people. For instance, the movie "MONSTERS" (2010) shown the leading actor being a photographer, according to feminist logic, the film is degrading men because it is not showing all types of behaviors men can engage in. Sound ridiculous, isn't it? Similarly, do depicting women having sexual values NECESSARILY mean that they are of no other values? I think not.
Conclusion
I don't think porngraphy has anything to do with the degradation of women, and I am really getting tired of women and the illogical arguments they give. I also wish to figure out some ways to help women get rid of their habit of replacing logics with feelings and emotions. Of course there are other arguments against porn proposed by women and feminists, but these two are the ones I saw most frequently (in real life), I will probably address the rest of them in the future.
The Not-so-beautiful Side of Women and Feminists
Feminists (and many women) always keep saying that men are oppressing women and that they need liberation. Ah really? Let's see how the Oxford Dictionary define the word "oppress":
mass noun
mass noun
- prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority:a region shattered by oppression and killing
- the state of being subject to oppressive treatment:a response to collective poverty and oppression
- mental pressure or distress:Beatrice's mood had initially been alarm and a sense of oppression
Let's see some facts, shall we?
I have read some articles from Angry Harry:
http://www.angryharry.com/notefeminismforstudents.htm#mis
He has given some good points to consider indeed.
http://www.angryharry.com/notefeminismforstudents.htm#mis
He has given some good points to consider indeed.
-Around 8 times more money are being spent on women's health than on men's health, in all parts of the worlds.
-Women who verbally, emotionally or even physically abuse their husbands are treated as mental patients, while men who do the same are imprisoned and condemned.
-Girls are now doing better at school, when they performed worse several decades ago, they claimed that this is because of "male oppression". Now, they don't say anything about helping the boys.
-Research has consistently found that males are treated more harshly for the same crimes than females, but no one cares.
-Research has consistently found that males are treated more harshly for the same crimes than females, but no one cares.
-Televisions and video games cause more detrimental effects on the academic performance of boys than on girls, but no one cares.
-Examinations actually favor females. Despite the fact that overall females are not more intelligent, they are MUCH better at answering moderately difficult questions within a short time.
-Examinations actually favor females. Despite the fact that overall females are not more intelligent, they are MUCH better at answering moderately difficult questions within a short time.
-The vast majority of victims of most crimes are men, but it is always the female victims that get most of the attention, and more importantly the resources.
-Mothers are more likely than fathers to get custody, despite the fact that mothers overall are more likely to abuse their children.
(Fathers are more prone to sexually abuse their children, but mothers completely outnumber fathers when it comes to other types of abuse)
-Mothers are more likely than fathers to get custody, despite the fact that mothers overall are more likely to abuse their children.
(Fathers are more prone to sexually abuse their children, but mothers completely outnumber fathers when it comes to other types of abuse)
These things are REALLY fair, aren't they?
And feminists say that they are seeking equality?
Are women the innocent angels they portray themselves to be?
Are women the innocent angels they portray themselves to be?
They ARE lying.
Conclusion
Conclusion
Back to our definition of "oppression", after reading Angry Harry, I begin to think that men, not women, are the one being oppressed, indeed. Yet, feminists would keep shouting that women are being oppressed by men and the majority of women pretend that nothing is wrong. Then women claim that they are the fairer sex.
Hm, someone asked me why I dislike feminists even on a personal level. This is why.
Hm, someone asked me why I dislike feminists even on a personal level. This is why.
Why should we accept Homosexuality?
Well, I guess many of you have heard of gay right activists giving arguments to justify homosexuality. I have also seen many of such attempts. After some reading, I have found that so far, almost all of the ones I have seen are variations of the following three arguments.
Argument 1
Homosexuality is inborn, so it is justifiable.
-Hm, I can think of a hxll lot of problems with this argument.
a) I have done some reading. Although quite a lot of twin studies and so on have shown that genes can influence sexual orientation, homosexuality is NOT completely genetic in origin. This means that the first premise is not correct.
b) This argument has a hidden premise: things that are inborn are justifiable. Anyone who has read some psychology will know that many other behaviors such as serial murder and violence are also to a certain extent, genetic in origin. Does this means that these behaviors are also justifiable? I guess not.
Argument 2
Homosexuality can't be changed, so it must be accepted.
-This argument is pretty similar to the last one. And the problems with it are also quite similar to those with the first argument.
a) NARTH (link: http://narth.com/) has reported that they has acheived some success about changing sexual orientation.I won't go into details here, but if you are interested, you could go to their website.
b) Being unchangeable doesn't make a behavior justifiable. Say, humans' tendency to reject those who are different is also large unchangeable. Following this logic, we shouldn't get rid of discrimination.
Argument 3
Homosexuality exists in animals, so it is natural.
-Since when did animals became standards of morality? Things that are 'natural' aren't neccessarily good. If this is true, why not we go live in caves or eat raw meats?
Conclusion
It is very hard to find gay activists that can give appropiate justifications for their behaviors. To a certain extent, I would say that gay activists, like feminists, are promoting illogical thinking. Well, this doesn't neccessarily means that we need to get rid of them, but I think they need to change their argumentative style a bit, don't they?
Argument 1
Homosexuality is inborn, so it is justifiable.
-Hm, I can think of a hxll lot of problems with this argument.
a) I have done some reading. Although quite a lot of twin studies and so on have shown that genes can influence sexual orientation, homosexuality is NOT completely genetic in origin. This means that the first premise is not correct.
b) This argument has a hidden premise: things that are inborn are justifiable. Anyone who has read some psychology will know that many other behaviors such as serial murder and violence are also to a certain extent, genetic in origin. Does this means that these behaviors are also justifiable? I guess not.
Argument 2
Homosexuality can't be changed, so it must be accepted.
-This argument is pretty similar to the last one. And the problems with it are also quite similar to those with the first argument.
a) NARTH (link: http://narth.com/) has reported that they has acheived some success about changing sexual orientation.I won't go into details here, but if you are interested, you could go to their website.
b) Being unchangeable doesn't make a behavior justifiable. Say, humans' tendency to reject those who are different is also large unchangeable. Following this logic, we shouldn't get rid of discrimination.
Argument 3
Homosexuality exists in animals, so it is natural.
-Since when did animals became standards of morality? Things that are 'natural' aren't neccessarily good. If this is true, why not we go live in caves or eat raw meats?
Conclusion
It is very hard to find gay activists that can give appropiate justifications for their behaviors. To a certain extent, I would say that gay activists, like feminists, are promoting illogical thinking. Well, this doesn't neccessarily means that we need to get rid of them, but I think they need to change their argumentative style a bit, don't they?
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)