Thursday, March 13, 2008

The Threat to Science of Women - Not Religion

Oops. I forgot to include that I was directed to this lovely article by the denialism blog. The post is dated March 11. I apologize for not mentioning that originally. Thank you for bringing this scribbling to my attention.

Vox Day writes that religion is not a threat to science, but women are. It is amusing, but I felt that he must be looking in a mirror to come up with his examples of abuse of science.

He states that:

women already earn 57 percent of bachelor's degrees, 59 percent of master's degrees and a majority of doctorates.

The idea of biology classes being taught by lesbian professors who believe that heterosexual procreation is a myth or calculus courses being taught by women who can't do long division may sound impossible today, but tell that to any software developer, and he'll be able to provide you with plenty of current examples of computer science engineers, some with advanced CS degrees, who have no idea how to even begin writing a computer program.

Apparently, the ability of women to outperform men in school is the reason they are a danger. Suddenly, there will be a Jeckyl/Hyde transformation and they will have forgotten basic math or will be obsessed with radical feminism. Either would be a serious problem, but where does he get these ideas?

There is radical liberal thought on campuses and probably always will be.

Still, he and his jihadist friends seem to desire to bundle all of the women up in burkhas and cleanse the schools of their evil influence. Or are they just anti-American and incapable of a little competition with women? According to his own numbers, women seem to be more suited to higher education. He just doesn't seem to be able to grow a set and compete in the same class room.

Why this hatred of women?

If women are evil, gays are evil, masturbation is evil, and surgical manipulation of sexual organs to avoid reproduction is evil - is there anything left for him to do? Insane posting, maybe.

Of course, he would write the same about me as far as insanity is concerned, but I can stand the competition. :-)

Did he steal a Taliban edition of the Koran with all of the fanatical stuff highlighted and set about translating it to Aramaic, so he could fit in with all of the rest of the pseudo-Christian He-Man Women Haters Club?

Later he adds:

Because they are the intellectual driving force of humanity, men will be fine.

It is written that "women ruin everything"; having destroyed the liberal arts, the classics and the pseudo-sciences, it is now abundantly clear that the more rigorous sciences are next on the equalitarians' destructive agenda.

I am relieved to know that "men will be fine." I have had my moments when I was less than happy with a woman, or even more than one woman, but to claim that "'women ruin everything'" is not something you expect to hear from someone who is sober and has left adolescence behind.

His argument is not persuasive on a logical level. Some women are radical feminists, women are passing men in academic achievements, so radical feminists will take over and ruin science!

Universities have a huge problem with censorship of any unpleasant thought, such as the idea that personal responsibility is a good thing. This is something that should be opposed by conservatives and liberals. The "liberal amendment" in the Bill of Rights is the first one. Without this, often unpleasant, freedom of speech we cease to be the America that is worth defending.

He claims to be a libertarian, but how does one justify excluding women from education and still claim that he is promoting freedom and eliminating government interference in private lives?

The highlighted and underlined words, in the quotes, linked to what appeared to be advertisements, so I disabled them. I never clicked through on them, but different windows popped up with what appeared to be advertisements, if the mouse hovered near these words.

Sally Kern you inspire me!

Sally Kern is inspiring.

Inspiring me to write, at least.

She almost makes you wish for a logic requirement for legislators, but then they might actually accomplish something other than obsessing about everyone else's sexual behavior. There is probably a DSM IV category for neurotics like this, but they are so busy calling others deviant. Any "others" why limit that to gays, she probably doesn't.

If the mainstream is like her, then everyone else is deviant (even gays). If she is a reflection of the mainstream then being deviant is the only ethical position.

She probably obsesses on sexual positions, too.