Thursday, September 03, 2015

 

[Re-post] Ascent of Woman? The Descent to cultural, historical and scientific illiteracy of the BBC

[Re-post]
The BBC documentary 'The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation' broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night's broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of 'patriarchy' [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as 'patriarchy' [sic] – or 'matriarchy' [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed 'female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the 'sexual politics' [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female 'fertility' and male 'sun' deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity 'go-between' figures who sacrificed themselves to the 'fertility' goddess.
* 'Civilisation' did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no 'quantum-jump' of some former 'non-civilised' sociality into 'civilisation'.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly 'egalitarian' hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant 'flattening' of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the 'sexual politics' [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.

 

I want to be in your bed

Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is SweetPeach501 my profile is here CANT WAIT

 

Re: get with me f#ckbuddy

Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is HoneyLove144 my profile is here S00N

 

Re: I want to be in your bed

Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is Muffin488 my profile is here SPEAK SOON

 

want to be my new f#ckbuddy

Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is PassionFruit690 my profile is here SEE YOU SOON

 

Ascent of Woman? The Descent to cultural, historical and scientific illiteracy of the BBC

The BBC documentary 'The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation' broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night's broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of 'patriarchy' [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as 'patriarchy' [sic] – or 'matriarchy' [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed 'female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the 'sexual politics' [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female 'fertility' and male 'sun' deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity 'go-between' figures who sacrificed themselves to the 'fertility' goddess.
* 'Civilisation' did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no 'quantum-jump' of some former 'non-civilised' sociality into 'civilisation'.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly 'egalitarian' hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant 'flattening' of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the 'sexual politics' [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.

 

Ascent of Woman? The Descent to cultural, historical and scientific illiteracy of the BBC

 
The BBC documentary 'The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation' broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night's broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of 'patriarchy' [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as 'patriarchy' [sic] – or 'matriarchy' [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed 'female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the 'sexual politics' [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female 'fertility' and male 'sun' deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity 'go-between' figures who sacrificed themselves to the 'fertility' goddess.
* 'Civilisation' did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no 'quantum-jump' of some former 'non-civilised' sociality into 'civilisation'.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly 'egalitarian' hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant 'flattening' of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the 'sexual politics' [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.

Thursday, August 06, 2015

 

[Re-post] Professor Tim Hunt was teasing but also RIGHT

[Re-post because of junk imposter posting]
Tim Hunt is spot-on.
Forget the fact that he was teasing, and that it was his lifetime of personal experience that is of value to hear ....
Women do take things personally. Ask women! Ask them which sex they prefer for a boss. Look at the various research in the workplace.
     Female sociality is wholly different to male. Females form idiosyncratic 'personal networks', which are chains of association out from a closest friend: a twosome/threesome inner circle with themselves always at the centre, which excludes most others in any abstract grouping such as the science lab -- and especially excluding males because of a fourfold female same-sex preference for choosing 'personal-network' members.
By complete contrast, males identify with the whole of the abstract grouping and everyone within it without exception as being their 'in-group', in which they do not place themselves at the centre but, in terms of other males, they are assigned a rank in the hierarchy. As regards the wider in-group beyond the male intra-sexual hierarchy, males have no same-sex preference as females do; and so don't exclude any of the females.
     Female sociality is obviously problematic regarding both collaborative and/or competitive efforts in research in a science lab, even before all of the sexual stuff Professor Hunt mentioned -- and never mind different communication modes/styles which may be mutually unintelligible. When the sexes are together, men increase their competitiveness with each other – and, though ostensibly only, with women: this last is actually sexual display. Women instead back off from being competitive because it would compromise their ability to project their femininity; with the result that their effort is still further denuded -- though women's effort tends to be more conscientious than competitive: women usually lack a strong genuine deep drive through actual interest in the research topic; females being socially rather than task orientated.
     Overall ... too right there are issues re the sexes in the workplace.
     Denying them is idiocy driven by the now ubiquitous extreme political totalitarianism.
     We can all have a laugh at the risible contortions the ideo-bigots will go through before the weight of reality caves in on them; and cave in on them it surely will -- the more spectacularly the longer they manage to stave it off. These are going to be interesting times ... unless you're on the Left (in any way as it currently manifests), for which oblivion beckons.



 

Ray Ban Sunglasses Only 14.78GBP

Ray Ban Sunglasses Only14.48GBP

Ray Ban Factory Direct Sale

Biggest Selection! Bigger Savings!

All Sunglasses Only 14.78GBP  

Ray-Ban: The Top-Selling Eyewear Brand Worldwide

Hottest Styles. 5600+ New Styles.

Free Delivery On Order 3Pairs.

Shop Online Now: www.top10-sales.com


Don't want to receive this type of email? Click here to unsubscribe

.

Saturday, July 18, 2015

 

Ray Ban Sunglasses Only 14GBP

 
logo
shadow
  social icon social icon social icon social icon social icon

If you can't see this email? View it online

header divater
Our promise
divater

1. Shop Online Now & Save up to 85% .

2. Free Fast Shipping. 100-Day Returns.

3. Large Selection of Ray Ban Glasses.

main product
All clear to your side
Take an Extra 85% Off All Sales! In Stores & Online. We are selling our company in the world. We can promote it. I promise you that we will give you the lowest price and best quality.
more details button
shadow
Our Products
divater
product
shadow
New Styles
Promotion = Only £14.12

RB3044 Aviator Sunglasses Arista Frame Crystal Deep Green

shop now


 

New Style
Promotion = Only £14.12

RB4125 Cats Sunglasses Brown Frame Gray Gradient Lens

shop now
product
shadow


 

product
shadow
Hot Sale
Promotion = Only £14.12

RB3422Q Sunglasses Arista Frame Grey Gradient Brown Lens

shop now


 

Hot Sale
Promotion = Only £14.12

RB4098 Jackie Ohh II Sunglasses Shiny Black Frame

shop now
product
shadow
more promotion
More Promotion
divater
Ray-Ban is a brand of sunglasses and eyeglasses founded in 1937 by American company Bausch & Lomb. The brand is best known for their Wayfarer and Aviator styles of sunglasses.
more details

 

 

 

 Don't want to receive this type of email? Click here to unsubscribe


 

.

Friday, July 17, 2015

 

[Re-post] Professor Tim Hunt was teasing but also RIGHT

[Re-post because of junk imposter posting]
Tim Hunt is spot-on.
     Forget the fact that he was teasing, and that it was his lifetime of personal experience that is of value to hear ....
     Women do take things personally. Ask women! Ask them which sex they prefer for a boss. Look at the various research in the workplace.
     Female sociality is wholly different to male. Females form idiosyncratic 'personal networks', which are chains of association out from a closest friend: a twosome/threesome inner circle with themselves always at the centre, which excludes most others in any abstract grouping such as the science lab -- and especially excluding males because of a fourfold female same-sex preference for choosing 'personal-network' members.
     By complete contrast, males identify with the whole of the abstract grouping and everyone within it without exception as being their 'in-group', in which they do not place themselves at the centre but, in terms of other males, they are assigned a rank in the hierarchy. As regards the wider in-group beyond the male intra-sexual hierarchy, males have no same-sex preference as females do; and so don't exclude any of the females.
     Female sociality is obviously problematic regarding both collaborative and/or competitive efforts in research in a science lab, even before all of the sexual stuff Professor Hunt mentioned -- and never mind different communication modes/styles which may be mutually unintelligible. When the sexes are together, men increase their competitiveness with each other – and, though ostensibly only, with women: this last is actually sexual display. Women instead back off from being competitive because it would compromise their ability to project their femininity; with the result that their effort is still further denuded -- though women's effort tends to be more conscientious than competitive: women usually lack a strong genuine deep drive through actual interest in the research topic; females being socially rather than task orientated.
     Overall ... too right there are issues re the sexes in the workplace.
     Denying them is idiocy driven by the now ubiquitous extreme political totalitarianism.
     We can all have a laugh at the risible contortions the ideo-bigots will go through before the weight of reality caves in on them; and cave in on them it surely will -- the more spectacularly the longer they manage to stave it off. These are going to be interesting times ... unless you're on the Left (in any way as it currently manifests), for which oblivion beckons.

Wednesday, July 08, 2015

 

[Re post] Professor Tim Hunt was teasing but also RIGHT

[Re-post because of junk imposter posting]
Tim Hunt is spot-on.
     Forget the fact that he was teasing, and that it was his lifetime of personal experience that is of value to hear ....
     Women do take things personally. Ask women! Ask them which sex they prefer for a boss. Look at the various research in the workplace.
     Female sociality is wholly different to male. Females form idiosyncratic 'personal networks', which are chains of association out from a closest friend: a twosome/threesome inner circle with themselves always at the centre, which excludes most others in any abstract grouping such as the science lab -- and especially excluding males because of a fourfold female same-sex preference for choosing 'personal-network' members.
     By complete contrast, males identify with the whole of the abstract grouping and everyone within it without exception as being their 'in-group', in which they do not place themselves at the centre but, in terms of other males, they are assigned a rank in the hierarchy. As regards the wider in-group beyond the male intra-sexual hierarchy, males have no same-sex preference as females do; and so don't exclude any of the females.
     Female sociality is obviously problematic regarding both collaborative and/or competitive efforts in research in a science lab, even before all of the sexual stuff Professor Hunt mentioned -- and never mind different communication modes/styles which may be mutually unintelligible. When the sexes are together, men increase their competitiveness with each other – and, though ostensibly only, with women: this last is actually sexual display. Women instead back off from being competitive because it would compromise their ability to project their femininity; with the result that their effort is still further denuded -- though women's effort tends to be more conscientious than competitive: women usually lack a strong genuine deep drive through actual interest in the research topic; females being socially rather than task orientated.
     Overall ... too right there are issues re the sexes in the workplace.
     Denying them is idiocy driven by the now ubiquitous extreme political totalitarianism.
     We can all have a laugh at the risible contortions the ideo-bigots will go through before the weight of reality caves in on them; and cave in on them it surely will -- the more spectacularly the longer they manage to stave it off. These are going to be interesting times ... unless you're on the Left (in any way as it currently manifests), for which oblivion beckons.

 

[Re-post] Professor Tim Hunt was teasing but he was also RIGHT

[Re-post because of junk imposter posting]
 
Tim Hunt is spot-on.
     Forget the fact that he was teasing, and that it was his lifetime of personal experience that is of value to hear ....
     Women do take things personally. Ask women! Ask them which sex they prefer for a boss. Look at the various research in the workplace.
     Female sociality is wholly different to male. Females form idiosyncratic 'personal networks', which are chains of association out from a closest friend: a twosome/threesome inner circle with themselves always at the centre, which excludes most others in any abstract grouping such as the science lab -- and especially excluding males because of a fourfold female same-sex preference for choosing 'personal-network' members.
     By complete contrast, males identify with the whole of the abstract grouping and everyone within it without exception as being their 'in-group', in which they do not place themselves at the centre but, in terms of other males, they are assigned a rank in the hierarchy. As regards the wider in-group beyond the male intra-sexual hierarchy, males have no same-sex preference as females do; and so don't exclude any of the females.
     Female sociality is obviously problematic regarding both collaborative and/or competitive efforts in research in a science lab, even before all of the sexual stuff Professor Hunt mentioned -- and never mind different communication modes/styles which may be mutually unintelligible. When the sexes are together, men increase their competitiveness with each other – and, though ostensibly only, with women: this last is actually sexual display. Women instead back off from being competitive because it would compromise their ability to project their femininity; with the result that their effort is still further denuded -- though women's effort tends to be more conscientious than competitive: women usually lack a strong genuine deep drive through actual interest in the research topic; females being socially rather than task orientated.
     Overall ... too right there are issues re the sexes in the workplace.
     Denying them is idiocy driven by the now ubiquitous extreme political totalitarianism.
     We can all have a laugh at the risible contortions the ideo-bigots will go through before the weight of reality caves in on them; and cave in on them it surely will -- the more spectacularly the longer they manage to stave it off. These are going to be interesting times ... unless you're on the Left (in any way as it currently manifests), for which oblivion beckons.

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

 

Ray Ban Sunglasses Only 14.42GBP

 
logo
shadow
  social icon social icon social icon social icon social icon

If you can't see this email? View it online

header divater
Our promise
divater

1. Shop Online Now & Save up to 85% .

2. Free Fast Shipping. 100-Day Returns.

3. Large Selection of Ray Ban Glasses.

main product
All clear to your side
Take an Extra 85% Off All Sales! In Stores & Online. We are selling our company in the world. We can promote it. I promise you that we will give you the lowest price and best quality.
more details button
shadow
Our Products
divater
product
shadow
New Styles
Promotion = Only £14.12

RB3044 Aviator Sunglasses Arista Frame Crystal Deep Green

shop now


 

New Style
Promotion = Only £14.12

RB4125 Cats Sunglasses Brown Frame Gray Gradient Lens

shop now
product
shadow


 

product
shadow
Hot Sale
Promotion = Only £14.12

RB3422Q Sunglasses Arista Frame Grey Gradient Brown Lens

shop now


 

Hot Sale
Promotion = Only £14.12

RB4098 Jackie Ohh II Sunglasses Shiny Black Frame

shop now
product
shadow
more promotion
More Promotion
divater
Ray-Ban is a brand of sunglasses and eyeglasses founded in 1937 by American company Bausch & Lomb. The brand is best known for their Wayfarer and Aviator styles of sunglasses.
more details

 

 

 

 Don't want to receive this type of email? Click here to unsubscribe


 

.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?