It was recently reported that only one percent
of females want to give their career priority.

Some while ago I began to suspect that lesbians
were over represented among loud-mouthed
feminists. Since then this premise has become
well established. Alongside this we may consider
that Germaine Greer has issues concerning her
father, and other *radical* feminists are found
to be divorced and possibly are bearing
resentments as a result of that.

Why is this 1% so telling?

The reason is that it is so small… That is
interesting. We should not be overly surprised
that 1% of females could have serious
psychological issues residual from childhood; or
in the plainer language of the day, baggage.

The Swiss psychologist: Alice Miller, has often
referred to the deep-seated motivations of
Hitler and Stalin stemming from their
childhoods. Although we are familiar with the
idea that people can perhaps commit terrible
crimes driven by the disturbances from the their
childhoods, this is usually only considered in
the case of serial killers and other fairly
extreme criminal situations. But it is not
limited to these cases. It applies to all of us
- ALL OF US. We are all driven by the
circumstances of our early years. Those who have
deep-seated unconscious motivations can be
extremely sophisticated in achieving the
satisfaction of those motivations.

Women (young girls) are not immune to carrying
their childhood disturbances in adulthood. And,
like Hitler and Stalin, may well succeed in
presenting themselves quite adequately as they
rise the ladder to barbarity and tyranny.
Moreover, it is precisely those with issues
(though they may not know it) that are most
highly motivated (if unconsciously) to achieve
the position from which they can exercise their
vile and vengeful hatreds.

It is no surprise, then, that we find abject
misandry spewing from the media, politics and
Social Services departments across the
Anglo-Saxon world.

The difficulty is that just 1% can effectively
take command of major institutions in these
countries and affect policy within the limited
framework of their own beliefs even though they
may not at all represent women in the general
population. 1% of adult females in UK is
approximately 250,000 people. Yet it only takes
one goon in the education department; Ruth
Kelly, to have significant influence; it only
takes one goon in the solicitor general's
office: Harriet Harman-hater, to have
significant effects; it only takes one goon:
Butler-Schloss, in the family court system to
effect significant influence.

There is a recent example, which is famed on
this newsgroup: that of Larry Summers. Here we
have a most astonishing situation; one that
should leave any intelligent being aghast but,
nonetheless, demonstrates exactly what Summers
was saying. I explain:

The first responsibility of any scientist is to
the truth - WHATEVER IT MAY BE. The second is to
remain dispassionate and object in the conduct
of all professional business. Now, of course,
none of us is ideally dispassionate and
objective - we are human. Male or female we are
incapable of being perfect in this regard.
However, consider what has happened to Larry
Summers and, in particular the lambasting that
has been meted out by female academics who would
have us believe that they are as good as any
man. Apart from the major revision of feminist
so-called science that had to be conducted in
the early nineteen-nineties; if females cannot
even sit in a room and listen to someone present
a piece that contradicts their *belief* system
without the risk of fainting (re: Nancy Hopkins)
they are certainly not fit to be scientists. If
someone is so severely affected by a challenge
to his/her belief system how can she/he be
relied upon in the laboratory?

The loony toon twits of womanhood don't seem to
understand that, by their very own reactions to
this, they have shown their own gross inadequacy
as so-called scientists.

Are there (brain) differences? Of course there
are. It is blindingly obvious that there are
differences; it is tantamount to a mental
deficiency to deny that there are brain
differences. We would not be here if there were
not differences. Anyone who says there are no
brain differences between males and females is
denying the legitimacy of Darwin! Ugh! Yes.
That's right. To deny brain differences between
males and females is to deny Darwin.

When I first read about the brain differences in
Jessel, D., and Moir, A. (1989) *Brainsex,*
London. Michael Joseph, I thought to myself -
why didn't I realise that before. It is bloody
obvious. There have to be differences. Evolution
requires it.

Boys are different from girls. I will take it
that you folks have worked that out. But this
difference is key to our very existence; e.g. to
the process of reproduction, our evolution and,
thus, our presence here today. However, that
requires that the two animals *behave* in
different ways. She has boobs. She has the boobs
because *she* must provide for the child when
born. There is no guarantee that he is going to
be around. In the natural environment: the
jungle, they meet, copulate and part company. At
any time he may well die by whatever means. She
cannot assume that he is going to be there to
help. There is no assumption that he should be
there. Hence the female has to evolve the food
sacks (tits) to provide the initial feeding for
the new-born. On the other hand, should anything
happen to her the foetus is lost too. Nature has
ensured that *he* is not essential beyond the
insemination and conception process.

This is not merely that the female carries the
food sacks around with her. We speak here of the
brain. In order to maximise the survival of her
child she needs to survive for *at least* nine
months after insemination. The male does not.
Reproduction; the passing of genes and,
therefore, evolution favours the female who is
conservative; careful; defensive - etc., etc.,
etc. In other words, *behaviours* that are
dependent upon the functioning of the brain;
upon the way in which the brain perceives, and
responds to, the environment!

We are all - each and every one of us - the
results of a long, long, long line of women who
survived for at least nine months - and, in most
cases, probably longer.

This difference in behaviour - which is an
absolute reproductive and, therefore,
evolutionary requirement - *must* result in the
development of differing brain behaviours.

Moreover, the differences observed are
consistent with that to be expected from a
Darwinistic analysis. Moreover, the physical
brain differences observed under laboratory
examination are consistent with that to be
expected from a Darwinistic analysis. And the
psychological differences that are observed in
psychological experiments are also consistent
with that to be expected from a Darwinistic
analysis.

This logic strikes me as inescapable.

Dustbin.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/25/05 12:46:06 PM ---