Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Tales from Evolutionary Psychology: A Light on Anglo Feminism

In his superb introduction to evolutionary psychology, The Moral Animal, Robert Wright of Harvard cites compelling evidence that low status sons of any species have less value to their parents than low status daughters. This is because a low status male is unlikely to reproduce at all, while a low status female can still attract a sex partner. Florida pack rat mothers, if fed poorly, will let their sons starve to death, while daughters nurse freely. In fact, many species will have more daughters than sons, if conditions are less than auspicious.

This also seems to be true of humans. In North America, more than half of the daughters born to low income women were breast fed, less than half the sons were. More dramatically, low-income women, on average, had another child within 3.5 years of the birth of a son and within 4.3 years of the birth of a daughter. Clearly, daughters are more valuable to the lower social classes than sons (Wright, pp.171-173). As the present author understands it, British underclass 'chavs' produce disproportionately high numbers of daughters, which, given the foregoing, is interesting food for thought.

This gender distinction seems to be carried into post-catastrophe population demographics. It has long been noted that, in the aftermath of catastrophes like 9/11, somewhat more girls than boys tend to be born:

When a woman was under stress, either individually or during a war or natural disaster, more girls were conceived.


What is the explanation for this? It has been suggested that more weak male fetuses are lost and damaged in the womb during/after disasters because the crisis conditions in the aftermath of such catastrophes will disadvantage a weak male in his struggle to reproduce. Hence, the female body has evolved to abort such males in inauspicious conditions, since they are a 'waste of time' in the strictest biological sense. On the other hand, a female will have no difficulty getting impregnated, no matter how weak or unhealthy she is. Her reproductive potential is guaranteed by her gender, which is why rather more girls are born in the aftermath of natural disasters. Nature abhors waste: and sickly males in such circumstances are simply a waste of time and resources.

Again, it is notable that certain debilitating conditions like photo-sensitive epilepsy are far more commonly found among females (in fact, 70% of epileptics are female). This makes perfect sense in evolutionary terms - a male with epilepsy would not have been a viable partner for most women for most of history, or would have been easily killed in intra-male conflict for women. By contrast, epileptic women would have got to reproduce anyway, allowing these disorders to become almost gender-specific characteristics. Matrilinear peoples/cultures like the Jews or Ba'hais have always been vulnerable to persecution, and the matrilinear custom has of course developed in response to the fact that women are far more likely to survive pogroms and other forms of ethnic cleansing than men - often being raped and coerced but still surviving, unlike the males of their community. This was brought home in the recent Balkans conflict, where male-specific gendercide was commonplace.

Indeed, young girls often display archaic characteristics reminiscent of distant ancestors. Pashtun girls in Pakistan sometimes throw fair hair and caucasian features, suggesting their Greek ancestry (Pashtuns claim heritage from Alexander's invading army). Mitochondrial (female only) DNA shows far greater inflection than the male, suggesting that males are subject to far greater reproductive competition. This is why geneticists study mitochondrial DNA to isolate archaic genetic residues.

I believe that these facts can shed an interesting light on Anglo-Saxon feminism, and can explain why its core assumptions are so flawed. Feminists invariably assume that all males are enormously advantaged over all females - a bizarre assumption to males of middle or working class origins, whose daily lives are characterized by extensive gender discrimination in health, education, the media, politics and law. Now, given the foregoing discussion, it is obvious that feminists are 'missing the trick' because, hailing overwhelmingly from the affluent classes, they are blind to this ubiquitous discrimination against low-status males. Robert Wright shows that only high status males are shown preferential treatment by their parents - most males are not. Having experienced this pro-male bias, Anglo feminists mistakenly assume that the broad male masses in Anglo-American society are similarly advantaged - but, as we have seen, nothing could be further from the truth.

Am I not clever? A matchless, paradigm-shifting evisceration of feminist assumptions in a few paragraphs, backed by the latest scientific research, and you get it FREE on Anglobitch! If you cannot beat any feminist or mangina armed with the relentless logic of this peerless post, you need a cold shower.

Monday, 26 October 2009

Fires within Fires: Nick Griffin, Question Time and Pretty White Girl Syndrome

Recently, Nick Griffin of the BNP appeared on the BBC's flagship political program, Question Time. Here, we are not trying to engage with his comments - which largely came across as the ramblings of an idiot - but rather with the intellectually dishonest attitude of his inquisitors.

Again and again, both the panelists and their audience implied that Britain is a non-racist country, where Griffin and his party are unwelcome. One audience member even suggested he move to the South Pole. So far, so good. However, if Griffin's racist views are so offbeat, so eccentric, so laughable, why do we still have PWGS across the Anglosphere, including Britain?

PWGS stands for Pretty White Girl Syndrome. What does this mean? Well, when a young, pretty, middle class white girl goes missing (or even just scratches her toe), the Anglo-American media are weeping into their coffee, squandering rain-forests of paper and months of prime-airtime on her case. More importantly, the Anglo-American police spend millions on detecting missing PWGs, despite their minimal economic contribution. In short, PWGS is a well-attested reality in all Anglo-Saxon nations.

However, when the confounding variables of age, gender and class are carded out of the equation, we find young, pretty, middle-class but non-white women to be almost as undervalued as their old, ugly, poor, male counterparts. Clearly, race remains a vastly important factor in how most people view crime victims, with whiteness eliciting far greater public sympathy than blackness. Newspapers print what sells: clearly, PWGS sells papers and boosts advertising revenues. This can only be because most people in the Anglosphere (including Britain) are more concerned about the welfare of white girls than black ones. Who, then, are the mass media to sit in judgment on Griffin or his party? They are just as racist themselves, as are most of the pan-Anglosphere white populations. Let’s be honest, had Madeleine McCann been non-white, non-middle class and non-female her case would never have even made the news. That is the brutal reality.

The same can be said for Louise Woodward, the English girl accused of shaking a baby boy called Matthew Eappen to death while working as an au pair in the States. Instantly, the British media cranked into action, bewailing her imprisonment and mocking the American legal system (mainly because it punishes people for wrong-doing, a not unreasonable objective). Indeed, the pudgy murderess was feted with all the fervor and solemnity of a saint. One woman was even attacked for not openly supporting Woodward's cause in Woodward's home town of Eltham, Cheshire. If she were old, male, poor or non-white of course, none of this would have happened.

In short, the fashionable liberal notion that Anglo-American societies embrace non-whites as tenderly as they embrace whites is utterly confounded by PWGS. This notional equality, so willingly fostered by the white liberal class at every occasion, is clearly a delusion. If racial discrimination were really as marginalized as most of those panelists and the Question Time audience would like to suggest, why is PWGS and its reflexive racial preference for white females so embedded in Anglo-American culture? Why can advantaged white girls expect to command endless of lines of copy, while everyone else - worthy tax payers all - can expect nothing?

It doesn't add up.

Wednesday, 21 October 2009

Sex Trafficking: the Anglobitch Myth

The great myth of Anglo Saxon feminism is that all women who engage in prostitution are coerced into the job by inhuman slave-traders. Prostitution always inheres to 'trafficking' in any feminist-liberal discussion of the subject. Presently, we shall discover why feminists seeks to blandish prostitution. However, the evidence that most women engage in prostitution of their own free will is overwhelming, and supported by a recently released British study. Essentially, an extensive police investigation produced NO convictions for trafficking. The details below are taken from the Guardian:











Forty-seven of those never made it to court.







He said he had commissioned fresh research from regional intelligence units to try to get a clearer picture of the scale of sex trafficking. "What we're trying to do is to get it gently back to some reality here," he said. "It's not where you go down on every street corner in every street in Britain, and there's a trafficked individual. There are more people trafficked for labour exploitation than there are for sexual exploitation. We need to redress the balance here. People just seem to grab figures from the air."

Ah yes, those figures from the air... how feminists love them! One is reminded of Andrea Dwokin's 'millions' of anorexia victims in the US (the real annual fatality figure is a mere 100), or Sher Hite's nonsensical 'research' on human sexuality.

Despite our amusement at feminist thought processes, there is a serious message here. Feminists will project any delusion to attain their demented ends. But what are their ends? And why do they have to lie to pursue them? Why are feminists so obsessed by painting prostitution in a negative light, when all evidence refutes that perspective?

Simply put, Anglo-American feminists fear prostitution because it cheapens sex. As Schopenhauer argues, women need to secure a male while they are still young and relatively attractive, for very few males would willingly marry a woman over thirty. Simply put, women are strongly committed to marriage because it binds a male to them for a lifetime, even when their primary attraction (namely, sexual allure) is only present for a few fleeting years. Given the choice, most men would trade in their partner when she hit thirty and get themselves a fresh young model. Of course, while few males have the resources to enjoy such serial polygamy, many do have the resources to enjoy young, nubile prostitutes whenever the need takes them. Women have little to offer any male after the age of thirty - indeed, even most young females are fairly repulsive - so marriage suits women perfectly.

And now we see why women go to such lengths to ration sex, not only in their personal lives but as a matter of official policy: having nothing else to offer a man, rationing sex enhances its scarcity value. Prostitution, however, blows that agenda apart. In cultures where prostitution is legal and approved, women have very limited status since their sexual 'value' is correspondingly low. This is why feminist politicians like Harriet Harman or Hilary Clinton go to such enormous lengths to criminalize and stigmatize prostitution: essentially, prostitution weakens their manipulative hold over men. Hence the hysterical cult of 'trafficking' that surrounds all feminist discourse around prostitution in the modern Anglosphere.

Finally, for those who quibble with my claim that the contemporary Anglosphere is a misandrist matriarchy with a puritanical agenda, consider how the British media unthinkingly accepts unfounded feminist assumptions about the nature of prostitution. The liberal media are particularly compliant to feminist claims, as might be expected. And the same effect can no doubt be observed around the Anglosphere, with varying modifications.

Sunday, 11 October 2009

Smoke and Mirrors: the 'Woman Trap' of Anglo feminism

Anglo feminism is the creation of white middle class women who are wildly unrepresentative of most women. Many of the problems currently afflicting the whole Anglosphere - the emergence of a welfare-dependent underclass, male alienation, family disruption and much else besides - can be traced to this. Most women who work are in crappy, low paid jobs, they are not high powered lawyers or whatever. This is 'the Great Unsaid' concerning feminism, it applies the experiences of privileged minorities to disenfranchised groups like the underclass, with disastrous results.

We see this most of all in the issue of female employment. We always find that women extolling the wonders of work are privately educated, high paid and wildly unrepresentative of most women. The average woman earns very little, so little that there is no point her going out to work at all. Moreover, most of the work that women undertake is not economically productive - shop-work, routine pink-collar work or teaching pointless liberal arts subjects to future taxi drivers and waitresses. Of course, this large majority of underpaid, unhappy women have no voice in politics or the media, so their miserable lot is largely ignored. By contrast, prominent female politicians like Hilary Clinton (ughh) or Harriet Harman (double ughh) have their unrepresentative views and experiences inflated out of all proportion by the Anglo-American media.

In itself, this is problem enough, but the fallout from these delusions is socially catastrophic. While elite women can afford an army of professional childminders to accommodate their careers, underclass women (indeed, most women) cannot. This has fed the growth of a Welfare dependent underclass, where single women feel that pumping out child after child is economically preferable to work (which for them, it is). In this scenario, the male is increasingly marginalized as a luckless sperm-doner to be discarded like some poor mantis after his reproductive duties are discharged. As Daniel Amneus has shown, this has resulted in the Garbage Generation: our slack-minded, idle underclass. Children reared without fathers are far more prone to crime, mental illness and a host of other maladies, yet western governments persist in actively promoting such matriarchal families.

Of course, in an elite context, even the matriarchal family will avoid most of these problems. This is because affluence cocoons the growing child in liberal neo-Christianity, rationale, empathy and altruism. An elite child can deconstruct and contextualize the snarling anti-Semitism and misanthropy of rap music, for instance. However, a child without culture, wealth or prior contact with neo-Christian liberalism lacks this distancing facility; for them, such cultural artifacts form an immutable statement. There are many more examples of this: video games, violent movies, pornography and drug use. Ultimately, in all these cases it is absurd to assume that an underclass child will approach these cultural artifacts/experiences as would an elite child already imbued with humane values as part of its primary socialization. In short, the delusion that elite values can be effortlessly transplanted into an underclass context without serious social malfunction is at the root of our present social crisis. Unfortunately, this delusion is also at the root of Anglo-American feminism.

The article below raises questions about the glib elite assumption that all women yearn to work. My own analysis in the foregoing paragraphs explains the all-important class context underlying these issues.

Women do not want highpowered careers and find more fulfilment in motherhood than work, a prominent liberal commentator said yesterday. Millions have been left frustrated and miserable by Government policies that push them into jobs and their children into nurseries, Cristina Odone said.

She backed her argument with a poll that showed fewer than one in eight mothers want to work full-time and that only one in a hundred mothers in two-parent working families with young children think it is right for them to have a full-time job. The research found women feel bombarded by images of 'superwomen who manage everything, plus a high-profile career', when many just wanted to be stay-at-home mothers with their husbands taking the role of breadwinner.

The call for a reversal of the march of women into work came from a former deputy editor of the New Labour house magazine, the New Statesman, and editor-of the Catholic Herald. Miss Odone condemned her feminist colleagues in media and politics as a 'small, influential and unrepresentative coterie' who assume that women must achieve self-realisation through work.

She added: 'We need to break the stranglehold that the small coterie of women, who work full-time and buy into the macho way of life, enjoy on our public life. They have for years misrepresented real women who reject the masculine value system for one that rates caring above a career and interdependence above independence.


The attack, published by the centre-right think tank Centre for Policy Studies in a pamphlet titled What Women Want, comes against a background of growing political pressure on mothers to go out to work and on companies to ensure women staff are offered flexible hours and better pay.

Ministers have redoubled efforts to persuade mothers to take jobs in the face of evidence that a big majority of the poorest families are two-parent families in which only the father works. Labour (British Democrats) leaders believe they can never hit their targets for reducing child poverty unless more mothers go out to work. Ministers have redoubled efforts to persuade mothers to take jobs in the face of evidence that a big majority of the poorest families are two-parent families in which only the father works.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (the British NAACP), headed by Trevor Phillips, and equal pay pressure groups, say that mothers are often anxious to go back to work but are pressured into a caring role by lack of opportunities for flexible hours, lack of affordable daycare, and the reluctance of male partners to take over a share of the childcare.

As a riposte, yesterday's report produced a YouGov poll which showed that only 12 per cent of mothers wanted to work full-time and nearly a third, 31 per cent, did not want to work at all. In families where there were two children under five and the father worked, one per cent of mothers said it was right to work full-time and nearly half, 49 per cent, thought a mother should not work at all. Official figures show that 57 per cent of mothers of children under five work either full- or part-time.

The findings, taken from two separate YouGov polls taken in February and March among 2,270 and 2,420 adults, said disaffection with paid work was not confined to mothers.
They indicated that 19 per cent of all women, nearly one in five, said they wouldn't work if they didn't have to.

Miss Odone called for an end to state support for child daycare which has over the last ten years topped £21billion. Some of the money could be spent on marriage support services and pointing out to women the dangers of unmarried cohabitation. She said the tax and benefit system that treats single parents much more generously than couples with children should be reformed, and regulation and red tape should be cut to open up more part-time jobs of the kind most attractive to mothers. She called for a 'cultural shift' to 'stop forcing women into a mould'.