Let's set the stage with a picture worth ten thousand screams.
So, what are thei female traits ?
For instance, they're more pain resistant than males, right ? You have also noticed this, right ? And it's readily explained, they'd better be, they have to give birth. It all makes sense, there's Biology to the rescue. It's adaptative. Boys should be pain-avoidant to avoid killing each other, and girls should be pain-tolerant to get themselves knocked up.
And they have tits. This should be obvious, I mean, sure you also have nipples, just like they do, and areola and everything. But they're different!ii And it makes a difference! Sure there's ALSO that one time when I fucked a perfectly normally developped 30 yo woman that just happened to weigh a hundred pounds and have less tit than me. But that doesn't change anything, wasp bites and your dad's hot C cup be damned! Tits are a female trait! It says so in the Bible, even!iii Should insurance cover male breast cancer therapy or is that all fraud ?iv
And they're also more conservative than males, who have a greater appetite for risk. Makes sense, as a guy, you gotta compete for cunt, because one of you is enough for dozens of themv whereas females gotta take care of the litter to protect all that time and baby fat they put into it. Makes perfect sense, and don't vote for Pelosi she's insane for this reason and will ruin things.vi
And they're also naturally subservient, because hey, since they gotta be the slaves of their kids anyway they got slavery in the blood. Makes perfect sense, right ? Yeah, ok, I agree.
Let's move on :
The problem isn't the data, but the words.
None-- read it again, none-- of the studies found any link between the behavior and fetal testosterone. All of them found the link between the behavior and finger lengths, which are proxies for fetal testosterone.
But what if finger ratios aren't actually proxies for testosterone?
"Then those studies are crap. Another example of science overreaching. All that research money wasted."
Oh, no, Murdock, it's much worse than that. The studies are valid, the data are solid-- finger ratios do indeed correlate well to these behaviors-- but all of the inferences you've invented about them are wrong.
A recent article discovered that in birds, the correlation was between digit length and estrogen receptors. If that turned out to be true for humans, what are you going to do with all the stories about "masculine" traits? You can't simply say, "oh, it doesn't have to do with testosterone after all." You must now explain why it does have to do with estrogen. Are these feminine behaviors? What?
There are other studies which similarly find the testosterone/finger story to be suspect or even backwards.
So the data aren't wrong-- they're right; they're just about something else. The social implications of the studies-- the very point of doing the studies-- are wrong. You can't dismiss the studies because they're still true-- you have to go back and explain how you got it backwards.
Anyone who had taken a moment to look at the whole hypothesis-- masculine--> testosterone--> finger lengths--> behaviors would have said, "there are way too many loose connections to take this seriously." But no one would have taken you seriously. "Science" is three dimensional: "look at the stack of studies that find a relationship between testosterone and behaviors!" No one questions the intervening proxy (digit span) because to do so is perceived to be unrigorous. When you say, "I don't believe this testosterone link" they politely say, "look at the stack!" but if you say you don't buy the digit length, they roll their eyes: another amateur who doesn't understand how science is done. They do this because there's no other argument to make. "This is how we've been doing it for decades, and it's a quite satisfactory method." Yeah. That's what they said about missionary, too.
Because there are so many researchers, and so many in the public willing to run with it, and so much time in between, there's no one to point to as responsible. You can't blame Cambridge University for the obviously preposterous notion that masculine traits make for better traders any more than you can blame the head of BP for the oil spill. Both situations are your fault. You wanted what they were offering, even though it was bad for you.
Either we're going to kill Iraqis, or we're going to kill ducks. It's the world's one and only truth, the law of equivalent exchange. For every barrel of oil, you need to replace it with a barrel of blood.
But they are to blame, because when they presented you with their products, they knew exactly what you were going to do with them.
I'm telling you this not because I care about finger lengths, but because you are being corrupted.
The article doesn't even have to spell it out for you: they just have to write "there's a relationship to testosterone " and we'll make the cultural/social value judgments ourselves. But they leave nothing to chance; thus Time Magazine.
That's not an unfortunate, unexpected by product of science-- it is the very point of it. In order for you to obtain this knowledge, you have to lose some other knowledge of equivalent value.
Once it's happened, once you've allowed this into your brain, there is no escape, ever, any more than there is an escape from oil. No matter what else they discover, you will always have the suspicion that trading-- and lesbianism and risk taking and hand eye coordination-- are masculine traits.
Until, of course, new guys come in with a new story to tell. "Thanks Dr. Kohut, we'll take it from here."
The science error of our generation is this: If A is strongly associated with B, and B is strongly associated with C, then A is strongly associated to C.
That's not just wrong, it is extremely wrong. If that seems counterintuitive to you, then you are the problem. Not in the way Robespierre was the problem, but in the way the French were the problem. "Sounds about right to me. And there's a guillotining at 6:94!"
It's not your fault, you weren't trained to understand this, indeed, you were trained specifically not to understand this. "Let's look closely at the statistics" (not the words.)
Science in the service of social policy is all about giving you everything you need to lie to yourself.
Do we still agree ?
Mind that when Einstein agrees with Newton that p = m v, Einstein has a little rider in his mind there going "for slow large objects" that Newton doesn't actually disagree with - Newton doesn't even perceive it. They're both remarkable physicists, they both contributed significantly to the fieldvii and they both agree. So it must be so, right ?
Who's agreeing with who here, are you agreeing with me that there's no difference between the genders that's predicated upon a difference between the sexes ? Or am I agreeing with you that since what we want are females and slaves, those females that make excellent slaves actually make excellent slaves ?viii
An ought has yet to flow from an is. "Evidence based medicine", "Policy informed by science" or any other attempts at rebranding won't likely change this.———
- You know, "the" ? As in, THE female traits ?
Not like in, "what are female traits", which implies you have to first figure out whether there even is such a thing, but as in "what are female traits, which implies that yes of course there are some and it's your job to find them. Women can't ride a horse, right ? By which you mean they can't ride it properly, isn't it ? Oh, they can ? Must mean there's something else then, wouldn't you say ?
Do not feel too bad about this. I am as guilty as anyone, myself. Definitely. Let me tell you a story : I grew up in a certain place, as everyone grows up in a certain place - it's always definite, specific, precise. Nobody grows up in a house "that had curtains", they are always an insanely detailed, specific, particular type which you remember. You might think you do not, but if you are confronted with the exact material you'll suddenly discern it, and you might have no appreciation for the level of detail until you go and make a computer game.
So - people there are generally miserable drivers ; but women especially so. It is true, it is a fact, do not dare dispute the actual experience of the informant. I was there, I saw it, I am a trained scientist, I know how to discount bias and how to account for experimental results. If I tell you I saw it you can take it as you take everything else I say, I know what I'm talking about. I saw it.
I am also culturally aware, plugged into the globalist matrix, I know this isn't supposed to be the case. So what do you do ? What do you do, when data experimentally obtained stubbornly shows robustness that is plainly contradictory to accepted paradigm ? For a while, you fiddle with the data, eventually you have enough of that shit and crack the paradigm one across the eyes.
And so I tried to fiddle with the data. It got me nowhere, which is to say it got me to the statistical impasse : "while it's true that women generally suck at driving, this says nothing about any individual woman's driving ability", and so if you want to be my driver go ahead and test for it. It's objective, right ? I sit there with you, you drive a little, I get an idea if you're ok or not. I've seen a hundred drivers or more before, how much more objective than this could it get ? Obviously, I never had a woman driver (which isn't to say no woman ever drove me around, of course not, relax, I know, you have black friends too), but that doesn't mean anything, right ?
Right. So why would it be that women suck at driving (even if this says nothing about any individual woman!) ? Gee... I dunno. They're too risk averse. They're too anxious, which means they go into things too fast, too early, they hold the damned wheel too tight. This is a female trait, right, holding on to the wheel to the white of your knuckles, in a society where the expectation is you suck at it. Female trait. Definitely. There's something in them, and we'll concoct some bland or another, vaguely social-scientistical explanation.
Then I went to the United States and the scientist in me kicked into high gear. Yes, yes, all their food is shit, but looky! See this string of correctly parked cars over five straight miles of 42nd street ? I took pictures of this. Yes, people were amused, because who the fuck cares about such ? I do. I notice. You would notice too if it had never happened in your entire existence that you walked for fifty paces on a sidewalk with parked cars out in the street, parked so that the wheel-to-sidewalk distance for the lot is within six inches! Not one, not two. Not even six! Can you imagine this, by the way ? This guy, parks so that he grates the wheel on the curb. Next guy, a "normal" three inches away. The next guy, one. The next gal, almost a foot out. The next etc! You do not believe me ? Fie upon you, infidel. A casual walk would reveal more than one car in fifty or so is parked in such manner that the curb corner cuts mid-tyre! Cars parked with one wheel up and one down, you name it!
At which point the driver of the insanity was immediately obvious : US girls are expected to drive well. That's it. At the sweet age of fifteen they'd better learn how to drive, what are they, retarded ?! And they get a car, and they use it. Not less than boys, neither of these, and so there you go. Romanian women usually get their first car at the ripe old age of twenty-something, and it is a boyfriend's. You know ? (If at this point you don't notice the horse-car continuity there is no helping you.)
So... what are the female traits ? Well, I'll tell you what the female traits are : women can't do math.
In the US, that is. In Romania they'd fucking hang you by your feet and bastinado the devils out of you if you can't add, but in the US... math is hard, and the female trait is being "creative" which is to say "artistic" so they couldn't possibly. Add. They couldn't possibly add.
The female trait is that it sucks living in your country, how about that. [↩]
- Because now quantitative arguments can be used to patch up leaky qualitative arguments, that's how it works,
"Jane you're totally a total slut!11"
"Weren't you naked in the pool at that frat party with a bunch of dudes jacking off on you ?"
"That's still less than what you did!"
- Adam got his nipples because God anchored him to a tree by the pectorals while cutting off his penis rib or somesuch. [↩]
- Oh, the answer to this is obvious, right ?
How do you feel about insurance-mandated yearly mamographies for males ? Hey, wait a minute. Where did that obvious go! It was right here, wasn't it ? I saw it! [↩]
- Ever wondered what the "lamb" you eat is ? Hint : male.
Ruminant herds only need one male in maybe a hundred or less females, and so all young females grow up and all young males go steak. In fact, the reason artificial insemination even exists as a technology is that it reduces the carrying costs of livestock, thus improving efficiency. What's that you say, it threatens to bleed over into human lifestyles, given that ten million people of which five milion males is ten million votes, whereas eleven million people of which a hundred thousand males is... eleven million votes ? Aww, don't think that way, please. Nobody would purport to treat humanity as a herd. That is nazi talk.
- She has in fact ruined things, does that mean she ruined them because menopausal women have no business in politics ? What are the menopausal female traits ? [↩]
- "of Physics". Because that's a field, right ? Physics ? Hello ? [↩]
- How about the slaves that make excellent females ? You're not gay, are you ? [↩]