The epistemology of sex, part 1

November 11th, 2008 Egghead
the-epistemology-of-sex-part-1

I’d like to start off my series of posts on political philosophy with an odd side-excursion to a topic that, on the surface, seems to be completely unrelated to politics. That topic is sex. Yes, there are sexual scandals that can bring down a politician, but I’m not referring to specific instances of sex. I’m referring instead to attitudes toward sex which underlie and inform political philosophies and positions.

Specifically, I’m concerned with how people answer the following question: What is sex for?

There are, of course, two answers to that question. And yet, in the attitudes and actions people display in their lives it is obvious that one of the answers for them is primary and the other secondary. But for other people, the one is merely secondary and the other is primary. And I’m sure that people have been coming down on both sides of the divide for as long as people have known where babies come from.

What is sex for? For procreation. This is the position of one side.
What is sex for? For pleasure. This is the position of the other side.

The procreation side believes that the purpose of sex is to make babies – to bring new life into the world. Sexual urges are there in order to encourage people to procreate, as is the pleasure one feels when having sex. They help us to want to procreate. These believers in the natural law view sex, then, as a grave responsibility which should be supported by cultural institutions in order to maximize the success of the getting and rearing of children. The primary institution for this is marriage. Governmental support for the married at the expense of single people (such as in the tax code) is for the benefit of the children.

The pleasure side holds that one has sex for the pleasure it gives. The begetting of children may or may not be a biological consequence of the action, but pleasure is the reason for it. What’s marriage for then? Well, obviously, it is an institutional means of having a regular sex partner.

In part two of the epistemology of sex, I will attempt to take a look at some of the implications of each of these two belief systems.

Brits can’t have a minister for men

December 7th, 2007 Egghead
brits-cant-have-a-minister-for-men

You know, sometimes I feel quite sorry for our British brothers. I applaud their attempt to help out men, but not their means (increasing government). But anyway, the backstory.

British MRA’s sent around a petition asking the Prime Minister to create the position of “Minister for Men,” to balance out the earlier creation of a “Minister for Women.” Well, the petition was sent to the government (Brit-speak for administration) and the government replied to the petitioners with this missive:

Minister-for-men – epetition reply

7 December 2007

We received a petition asking:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to restore equality for men by creating a minister for men.”

Details of Petition:

“In this era of single parents, divorce and blended families, the role and reputation of a man has been diluted to a point where he is severely discriminated against in almost all arenas. I call on the Prime Minister to show true equality to men by creating a Minister for Men to reflect balance in Parliament as Ruth Kelly is currently the Minister for Women.”

The Government’s response

Thank you for your e-petition about the creation of a Minister for Men. Though the Government recognises that there are areas where men face disadvantage or discrimination, a glance at the income and poverty figures will show that, overall, inequality in our society affects women to a far greater extent than men. That is why the Government appointed a Cabinet Level Minister for Women in 1997 whose remit was, and is, to promote equality of opportunity in our society. The current holder of this office is Harriet Harman QC, MP and she is supported by Barbara Follett MP.

Despite the passing of the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination legislation over 30 years ago, and other improvements since 1997, women in Britain still experience significant disadvantage in our society. For example:

  • Women account for over half of the United Kingdom’s population, but only make up 19% of MPs and 29% of local councillors.
  • Black, Asian and Ethnic minority women account for 8% of the UK’s female population but make up less than 1% of local councillors.
  • Only 10.3% of the directors in the boardrooms of the top 100 FTSE companies are female;
  • The gap between the pay of male and female workers is currently 12.6% for full time and a staggering 40% for part-timers.
  • Women are the main victims of domestic violence in the UK and 83 of them are killed by their partners or ex-partners in 2005.
  • Women still shoulder the lion’s share of caring for the old and the young and 90.5% of lone parents are female.

However, the Government recognises that men do want to spend more time with their families and this is reflected in the action we have taken to improve work life balance. That is why, in 2003, we introduced the right to request flexible working for all parents with children of under six years old or with disabled children of under eighteen years old. In April this year this right was extended to include people who care for adults.

Our Government is determined to fight discrimination and ensure everybody in Britain can make the most of their talents regardless of their gender, race, sexuality, age, faith or disability and we are committed to tackling these inequalities to create our vision of a fairer society and the role of Minister for Women is crucial in delivering our aims.

The Government have established the new Equality and Human Rights Commission which will champion equality, diversity, and human rights as defining values of our society, encouraging all our institutions to operate for the benefit of every individual.

Harriet Harman will be working across Government with Ministerial colleagues to ensure that we deliver on this ambitious agenda.

Did you notice that three of the “facts” they use to support their position are out-and-out lies, and that the rest are due to women’s own choices (Don’t women keep going on about “Freedom of Choice?”) and not some sort of patriarchal oppression?

A little message to British men:
The Labour government hates you. You are only useful to it insofar as it can make you pay for everyone else in society.

I’m pretty sure there’s a revolution coming, and that it will shake the entire western world. I just wonder on which side of the pond it’s going to start.

The War on Sex Traffic

October 24th, 2007 Egghead

I found this item on the Male Matters blog:

Sexual trafficking in the U.S., another ideological feminist complaint, has not been proven to be a huge problem: “Congress passed a law, triggering a little-noticed worldwide war on human trafficking that began at the end of the Clinton administration and is now a top Bush administration priority. As part of the fight, President Bush has blanketed the nation with 42 Justice Department task forces and spent more than $150 million — all to find and help the estimated hundreds of thousands of victims of forced prostitution or labor in the United States. But the government couldn’t find them. Not in this country. ‘Many of the organizations that received grants didn’t really have to do anything,’ said Steven Wagner, former head of HHS’s anti-trafficking program. ‘They were available to help victims. There weren’t any victims.’”

‘Nuff said.

On MRA’s

October 16th, 2007 Egghead
on-mras

KellyMac has taken on Jeff Fecke’s libel against MRA’s. Good. Now I won’t have to. Go read it.

For the record, I believe that human life begins at conception, not at birth. Ergo, abortion is morally indistinguishable from murder. I oppose ALL abortion. The typical abortion debate is usally framed as if there were only two people involved: mom and baby. Everyone forgets about dad. There are 3 people involved. And it’s usually a question of whether one person’s life creates an inconvenience for someone else. Well, a life is always more important than mere convenience.

Feminism has destroyed young women

September 26th, 2007 Egghead
feminism-has-destroyed-young-women

Julie, a commenter on Fidelbogen’s blog, The Counter-Feminist, left the following comment. I thought it was a good observation, and a sobering one at that.

Feminism has destroyed our young women in particular. Because feminism has been so busy to say that women were oppressed, and continue to hold men accountable, and give women every right to do as they please, and excuse ALL bad behaviour, our young women suffer.

Our young women WILL not and CANNOT be held accountable for their deeds thanks to feminism. This means that they have no boundaries. And their actions are begging for them.

They lie, steal, cheat and harm others as well as themselves – but nothing happens. They call males names, they hit, kick and even stab them. And nothing happens. They stand in public places and speak of their nasty deeds loudly for all the adults to hear and we CAN do nothing. We can’t help them.

Teachers and social workers cannot be one on one with them for fear they will cry rape – and they do cry rape! And they can’t discipline them.

But what they are crying out is, “Please love me. Please care enough to tell me where the line is”. And these females are angry, very angry. And they don’t understand why they can’t have a boyfriend and they can’t understand why they will be nothing more than used and discarded and they can’t understand why they have no good people in their lives. Well done feminism. You have empowered these young women, all right.

But then what about the 20 and 30 year olds. What has feminism done for them. Well, they gave them choices but now they want to take away these choices and force them to be independent because a man cannot be a provider and protector for them. Feminism is so concerned about women having equal money that they are forcing them to give their children up to daycares and work. They are so concerned for their welfare they enslave them.

And now they are fighting for the children’s rights against the mothers. Now mothers have no rights nor choices with their own children. Now the state takes their children straight from the hospital bed. Feminism doesn’t even give a mother a chance to be a mother. They are too busy putting cotton wool around the children yet when they take them away they abuse them through their own welfare system. The state will never love a child like a mother and father will. The state will never be a family to a child.

You can’t say that. Ever.

September 21st, 2007 Egghead

Kathleen Parker has a new column about the Larry Summers witch hunt. Doesn’t the PC crowd have any idea how ridiculous they look? Anyway, I’m reposting it here.

You can’t say that. Ever

By Kathleen Parker
Friday, September 21, 2007

WASHINGTON — The latest smack-down of former Harvard President Lawrence Summers should extinguish any remaining doubt that political correctness is the new McCarthyism.

Summers, you’ll recall, was driven out of his university post in 2005 after he suggested at a conference that gender differences might account for an underrepresentation by women in science, math and engineering.

Summers’ remarks were seized upon, taken out of context and misinterpreted by many, including one female biologist from MIT, who walked out on the president’s talk, later saying that she felt she was either going to faint or throw up.

And we say there’s no difference between men and women? Can you imagine a man bolting from the room with light head and upset tummy if a woman college president suggested that genetic differences might account for males lagging behind females in reading and writing?

Men, being the logical, bemused fellows that they mostly are, would probably say, “Hear, hear!” — and wonder how much longer before lunch. Stomping out of the room in a tizzy is not in the adult male repertoire. (Could it be genes?)

For thinking improper thoughts, Summers the Blasphemer was banished into the outer darkness. There’s no debating that he was punished for saying something that made a special group feel bad — the new blacklisting offense. To be called a sexist, racist or homophobe today is tantamount to being a communist sympathizer 50-60 years ago.

Fast-forward to this month. Summers was scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the University of California Board of Regents bimonthly board meeting.

And then he wasn’t.

Maureen Stanton, an evolution professor at UC Davis, was “stunned and appalled” when she learned of Summers’ upcoming speech and circulated a petition to have his invitation withdrawn.

Sinning against the sisterhood not only isn’t forgotten, apparently it isn’t ever forgiven.

Summers’ invitation was “not only misguided but inappropriate at a time when the university is searching for a new president and continues to build and diversify its community,” the petition said.

One can’t help wondering what those cultural principles might be if they don’t include supporting free speech? As the university continues to build and diversify its community, will that mean diversity of thought or only diversity of gender identity and race?

The answers are implicit in the draconian reaction to Summers’ invitation. Diversity on the American campus of today — and increasingly in the broader culture — means a multiculti rainbow of like-thinking people. Say or think incorrectly and one will be censored and potentially ruined.

Summers’ original offense is shocking only if you ignore the fact that men excel in certain areas and women in others — outcomes more likely related to our hunter-gatherer genes than to contemporary bias. Whatever the case, there’s simply no denying that math giftedness is more prevalent among males, a fact some scientists surmise may have to do with testosterone exposure in the womb.

Blame the mother.

Meanwhile, if it helps mitigate nature’s imbalance, we might consider that there are also more male than female mass murderers. If males get to boast Einstein, Newton and da Vinci, they also get to claim Attila, Hitler and Pol Pot.

Women who object to Summers’ assertion can argue with facts, if they choose. One study found, for example, that women’s scoring on math tests is influenced by whether they believe their performance is a function of genes or socialization.

Other studies also show that the gender gap in math is closing. None of these findings negate what science has otherwise revealed about boy and girl brains: They develop and operate differently.

University women do have a right to be concerned about how they are perceived as they compete with men for tenure, which women receive less often. Studies suggest that bias may play a role, but other research points to conflicts between family and career. The system may need tweaking for fairness and balance, but educators have a higher moral obligation to nurture the marketplace of ideas.

In Joseph McCarthy’s day, academics were among the primary targets of the thought police, while women had barely earned a voice in the political arena. Of all who should rebel against the stifling of voices and unpopular ideas, university women should be leading the charge.

The best way to prove Summers wrong, meanwhile, is to prove him wrong.

Four items of interest

August 22nd, 2007 Egghead
four-items-of-interest

Today, while catching up on my reading, I came across 4 separate items that really caught my attention. I thought would be of interest to readers of this blog, and thus decided to provide links to them, so you can read them too.

So, without further ado, here they are:

News Update

August 20th, 2007 Egghead
news-update

More on the saga of the middle-school boys:

Judge dismisses case against boys

Posted by The Oregonian August 20, 2007 09:36AM

By Susan Goldsmith
The Oregonian

MCMINNVILLE — A judge dismissed charges this morning against the two Patton Middle School teens accused of sexual harassment for swatting girls on the buttocks.

Judge John L. Collins said he acted “in the interests of justice” after both prosecutors and the boys’ defense lawyers said four alleged victims had signed a civil compromise in the case, which drew national attention. The victims said they want to drop the charges.

The boys, Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, 13, read statements of apology to a packed courtroom today. Some of the four alleged victims — teary-eyed — also were present.

“Girls, if I offended you or your parents, I’m sorry,” Cornelison said. “I hope we still can be friends.”

Mashburn said: “I did not mean to offend you in any way. None of this is your fault.”

The boys initially were charged with felony sexual abuse in February after a teacher’s aide saw them running down the hallway at Patton and grabbing or swatting girls in the buttocks.

In interrogations — later ruled inadmissible by the judge — the boys also admitted touching two girls in the breast. Those two girls were among the four who signed settlements.

Debra J. Markham, the deputy district attorney who prosecuted the case, read letters in court today from some of the alleged victims and their parents.

One girl wrote that she was sorry the boys had to go through the seven-month ordeal, which included five days in juvenile detention and suspension from school. She said she forgave them “100 percent.”

Another girl wrote that “Cory and Ryan shouldn’t have been singled out” for prosecution because many kids at Patton also were swatting other students in the rear.

I’m glad that finally a little sanity appeared, and that the judge threw the case out. However, there something has obviously gone very wrong in a system that let it get this far. Five days in detention!

Mothers are twice as likely to physically hurt kids, government study finds

August 1st, 2007 Egghead
mothers-are-twice-as-likely-to-physically-hurt-kids-government-study-finds

MSNBC is reporting that child abuse rises when dad is away at war. Did you catch that? Mom is more likely to abuse the kids when dad isn’t there to stop her. This is an official government study, folks. And you thought women were the more caring, nurturing sex.

Furthermore, the study showed that when it’s mom who’s deployed, and dad that stays home with the kids, the frequency of child abuse doesn’t change. Why do you suppose that is? There should be a study on that. Did we get a study? NO! Instead, we get some idiot blowing it out his pie-hole. Apparently, the patriarchal support system gives men some sort of “help” that is denied to women. (I almost wrote that I’d never heard such hooey, but then I remembered that I’ve heard some real whoppers from the mainstream media.)

I tell you, these sorts of gratuitous, back-handed slams against men just irritate me.

Hat tip: Just another disenfranchised father

Boys Will Be Boys? They’d Better Not Be!

July 31st, 2007 Egghead
boys-will-be-boys-theyd-better-not-be

Remember the middle-school boys who are facing trial? Well, Greg Crosby adds his two cents on the matter:

Boys Will Be Boys? They’d Better Not Be!

By Greg Crosby

As a man I can appreciate what gives women pleasure. Wait. Let me rephrase that. As a man I can understand the little pleasures of life that bring enjoyment to many women. A long soak in a tub, buying a new pair of shoes, going to a spa, having high tea at a fancy hotel, getting your hair done, having a make-up session with the girls are some of life’s little delights that many women take pleasure in. Even though these activities mean nothing to me, I can still recognize the value of these things for many gals. So why can’t women understand what gives men a bit of pleasure?

Smoking a good cigar, relaxing in a comfortable chair, having a stiff drink with a few other guys, and playing cards are some of the traditional small pleasures that men have enjoyed throughout the years, but many women either don’t understand them, or resent them to the point of attempting to put a stop to these activities altogether. It ain’t fair, girls, it really isn’t.

More and more the girls are taking over. There are fewer places to do man stuff these days, and even when there is a place, there are many more woman than there are men. I mean, I like the ladies, but sometimes a guy just wants to be without them for awhile, y’know? And it’s getting harder to just be a guy than it was for my father’s generation.

Little boys are put on tranquillizers at an early age to keep them from acting like little boys. Men are told to alter their natural aggressive tendencies, to act softer, to get in touch with their feelings. Girls are encouraged to participate in sports to the point that many schools can’t afford to do both girl’s and boy’s sports any longer, so they drop the boy’s sports. Dark, wood-paneled masculine bars have been replaced by light and airy open spaces that are much more attuned to women’s tastes. Men’s gyms are gone, now there are “health clubs” which cater to both sexes but with a significant soft edge for the gals.

But boys are supposed to be tough guys, not just larger versions of girls. Males want to act tough, swear, smoke, drink, raise a little hell, and be competitive. Not to say that guys should be loud, obnoxious, knuckle-dragging, drooling slobs, but they shouldn’t be the sugarplum fairy, either. Remember the old school rhyme, “What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice – that’s what little girls are made of. What are little boys made of? Snips and snails, and puppy dog tails – that’s what little boys are made of.”

But thanks to feminism just being a boy today is considered a criminal offense. Think I’m exaggerating? Consider the following news item as reported by The Oregonian as an example: It started when two 13-year-old boys ran down the hall at Patton Middle School and swatted the bottoms of girls as they passed. It was part of what students call “slap butt day” and what some kids said was a common form of greeting.

However, bottom-slapping is against school policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher’s aide sent the seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school interrogated them. After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the police officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days. Did you get that? FIVE DAYS IN THE SLAMMER!

And now Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13, face the prospect of 10 years in juvenile detention and a lifetime on the sex offender registry.

Since the incident first occurred, confidential police reports and juvenile court records have shed new light on the context of the boys’ actions. The records show that other students, both boys AND girls, were slapping one another’s bottoms. Two of the girls identified as victims have since recanted their statements against the two boys, saying they felt pressured and gave false statements to interrogators. But that doesn’t seem to matter to the politically correct authorities who are bent on throwing the book at the boys.

A second round of interrogation took place when the boys were in detention, then finally after five days, the kids were released. But the judge ordered them out of school, required constant parental supervision and barred them from contacting friends. Any deviation, he said, would result in more time in juvenile jail.

The boys’ families couldn’t believe the nightmarish situation. Neither boy had ever been in trouble. Now, they faced multiple felony counts. Their parents had to figure out how to calm two boys who were traumatized by their time in the Yamhill County Juvenile Detention Center.

Initially the boys were charged with FELONY sex abuse but later the charges were reduced to 10 misdemeanors – five sex abuse counts, five harassment counts. The boys will go on trial August 20th. A leading expert called the case a “travesty of justice” that is part of a growing trend in which children as young as 8 are being labeled sexual predators in juvenile court, where documents and proceedings are often secret.

And don’t think that this is just one isolated incident – this kind of crap goes on all over the country. You can thank women’s lib for this nonsense. Stories like this one prove time and again that the feminist movement isn’t about being “pro-woman” – it’s really about being anti-men. As the saying goes, “boys will be boys” but if they are, they just might get thrown in the pokey. Because in today’s world, boys really don’t stand a chance.