The Council has spoken. 2  1/3Change & The Cessation of British HistoryWolf Howling2CalifornichusettsBig Lizards2/3Obama-Rezko and Media Ignorance of “The Chicago Way”Right Wing Nut House2/3The Cook County Fiscal MessThe Glittering Eye2/3A L…

First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,  and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Change & The Cessation of British …

I truly was shocked to read that article on Title IX and the sciences. If they succeed the ramifications will be huge. I can already picture the deconstruction of science and engineering if they have their way.

I have mentored both women and men, of all races, and have found no appreciable difference in their abilities based on gender or race. The main thing I have observed over the years is that to be successful in the field requires specific personality traits, one of those being an innate curiousity.

Yes, there are fewer women than men in many of these fields and I would like to see that changed. The question becomes how does one do that without changing the fields themselves. Which by the way is what these Title IX proponents are really after. The problem lies early on in the education system. I don’t think girls are given enough role models and encouragement early on, and they tend to drift away from those areas. Thus a concerted effort is needed down at the earlier grades to encourage girls in math and science. Some restructuring of classes may also be needed as we all know how boys act differently than girls when they are younger. This might entail (shocked silence) gender segregated math and science classes.

I do not really buy into the biological differences theory on this, but I do buy into the idea that we might need to take into account behavorial differences based on biology when we think about educating boys and girls.

The Watcher’s Council nominations are up. Change & The Cessation of British History - Wolf Howling describes how the government of Gordon Brown ran roughshod over democratic principles to join the EU. If anyone is familiar with how the Oslo Accord…

First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,  and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…

Nothing whatever is “new” about that paradigm….it’s what I was taught by my parents, who were taught by their parents, etc. ad infinitum in the Christian West.

“Back to the future…..” is much more like it.

Read Wendy Shalit “A Return to Modesty” — this return will not be a “sacrifice” of anything worth having….it will be the saving of our lives and our communities.

>>While being fully aware that probably 75% of society’s laws, rules, and expectations are efforts to control male behavior.>>

A wise man.

I’ve always laughed at the idea that religion was a “female” thing devised in order to control men’s sexual behavior. The second half was true, but the first half…Hah! _Men_ imposed religious restrictions on sexual behavior in order to control _other_ men’s sexual behavior.

And as for women - their strongest biological urge is to get pregnant - and their bodies will demand sex until they _get_ pregnant - which of course, is a bit of a problem if they manage to frustrate that occurrence.

Pretty sad. Of course, the reason for much of this is that we have achieved a point of technological development where the fruits of the labor of women and men is mostly mental, and therefore, with good education, mostly equal. In earlier times, when labor was mostly physical, the output of the two sexes was _not_ equal, and each knew their job. As you say - it may take centuries to adjust.

Although, to be honest, when I see/read about the behavior of way too many prominent females(maybe I should say “notorious” rather than “prominent”), I find it embarrassing to be included among them. One of the other problems that goes along with the sexual part is that young women don’t learn their own power over men until they’re between 25-30 or so. When society encourages them to be sexually active as early as 12 and 13, that leaves them 10-20 years to really mess up their lives. What’s more, their brains are too numbed with the dumb stuff of trying to attract men to learn anything useful. Like they need to do the dumb stuff. If you want a permanent mate, you need to work at it. If you just want a turn, stand in line - some male will come along.

Add to that that if you don’t demand that a man be willing to take on the responsibility of supporting a family in order to get sex, he won’t. “Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free”. Why take on the responsibility of adulthood if you can get all the bennies without “growing up”. So we now have a generation of immature males, who aren’t prepared to take on adulthood. And imo, we don’t become adults until we have children. There are some substitutes, but for most of us, it’s children who can succeed in forcing adulthood, where parents were not able.

Personally, I’m in favor of segregated schools after 8th grade… Male/female segregated, not black/white segregated. The color part isn’t important - the sex part is.

As to biology having its way, I’m not convinced biology does have its way. Far too much of human society is set up in opposition to its doing so.

Biology really has only one role for males: fertilize. As often, with as many partners as possible. Fight with each other for the right to do so, then do it, the winner passing on his successful genes. Well, society makes the fighting illegal, and the mores of human relationships make the mass breeding equally illegal, (or at the very least “immoral”), so we mostly don’t do it. Has biology really triumphed? Dunno, doesn’t look like it to simple-minded me; in fact looks rather the oppsite..

The human race, by setting itself up squarely in opposition to biology, has thereby created a multitude of other situations (unintended consequences?) - like the creation, on Day One of civilization, of the profession of prostitute, the point of which was to deal with the male biological urge to procreate early and often. We aren’t stallions, we don’t lead prides, nor are we elk, mountain goats, or rams: we aren’t allowed to collect harems (unless we’re Mormon). So, as a virtually inevitable result, the moment the first village appears, so does the first prostitute. Ever ask yourself why?

Sexual variety being lessened isn’t so much a great hit to men as it is a hit to the instincts that drive them, and the biological imperative that says: “Do it! A lot! Spread the seed! Pass on the genes!” Sadly, “safety, affection, stability and ease of access” aren’t things that biology, or male instinct and drive necessarily values - remember: nature/biology dictates that fighting is the necessary prerequisite to bopping. Where exactly do “safety, affection, stability, and ease of access” come into it?

They don’t. Guys like to fight, drive fast, fly high, play smash-mouth football, compete to exhaustion physically, and indulge in stuff that sanity would indicate is stupid and dangerous. But we do it. We have always done it. I have taken the Ferrari around that 45 mph corner on the east end of town at over 100 just to prove that both me and the car could do it. Which I knew anyway - did I need to prove it? I have a splendid life - what am I doing risking any part of it on this kind of idiocy?

The answer is simple, though (being resolutely opposed to biology) most of the world doesn’t like it: I’m being a guy. It’s all I have left: I don’t fight anymore. My harem days are long over. I’m married to a woman I adore on whom I do not step out. Don’t skydive, bungee jump, or rock climb. But I remain a guy, and those instincts remain in place. Have to do something now and then. So, once in a while I go out in the prancing horse and do the ton. (While being fully aware that probably 75% of society’s laws, rules, and expectations are efforts to control male behavior.)

The interesting thing that’s happened, and is perhaps at the root of much you write about, is that the advance of science has freed women from the necessity of motherhood. Thus they are indeed able to become “drive-thru” conveniences for males, with both less and more (different) consequences than ever before. Regrettably the science moves very quickly, the instincts and drives (the biology) moves very slowly; and it’ll take a couple of centuries to establish an equilibrium, if one is ever established. But note: it’s women who’ve changed, not men.

The horse is out of the barn (chasing the mares) as regards the idea that sex is for adults. It isn’t that everyone doesn’t know that: of course everybody knows it. The problem is most 12 year olds know they’re smarter and capable of more adult behavior than half the adults they see (Brittney Spears? Paris Hilton? Katie Couric? Michael Jackson? Chris Matthews? Bill Clinton? Harry Reid?) around them, so they consider that they are in fact sufficiently adult to be free to do what they will. They aren’t, of course - but it isn’t that they don’t know it’s an adult perquisite: they do. They just lok at the way we’re currently defining “adult” and figure they’re there.

I conclude with one comment from Charlie Sheen on the subject of prostitutes: “I’m not buying the sex, I’m paying them to leave.” Again, back to biology: how many creatures with whom we share the planet live in constant company with whomever they’ve just fertilized? A few, of course - but certainly not the majority. Charlie Sheen, I guess, lives a lot closer to his instincts than most of us do.