Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

Expand Messages
  • Brad
    In a society there have always been obligations and choices. “What is significant about the involvement of the suffragettes is that it makes explicit what
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      In a society there have always been obligations and choices. “What is significant about the involvement of the suffragettes is that it makes explicit what was otherwise unspoken – women were claiming the right to inform males of their duty, and were demanding that they fulfill the obligation implied in the restriction of full citizenship and the franchise to males, the obligation to defend their womenfolk.”
      In other words, the white feather girls and the suffragettes understood that men had political franchise and women did not *because men had a duty to go to war, and protect women.*
      I find it strange how the suffragettes seemed to have forgotten that men and men alone had been burdened with this obligation–to protect their womenfolk and act as cannon fodder in the interests of their governments, according to their individual will or against it–long before universal male suffrage was a twinkle in ANYONE’S eye. But there you have it: Men had the vote and women did not, so men had better be prepared to suit up and do their duty.
      When the US government began sentencing draft dodgers to life imprisonment, years in penal labor camps, and death, a group if anarchists challenged the constitutionality of the draft. Their challenge failed. In the Court’s decision, it was stated that:
      “It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty *to the citizen* includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. … To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force.”
      In other words, men enjoyed the rights and privileges of citizenship granted by government *because they paid for it through the reciprocal obligation of the draft.* And the court considered this bargain to be so self-evident, it need do no more than state it.
      As late as 1917, the US government was executing men who refused to fulfill the obligation they owed in return for the right to full legal personhood in the eyes of the state.
      Three years later, women won the vote. Without even the obligation to do “war work” like sewing uniforms, or community service like picking up litter from the sides of highways.

       
      Brad



      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


      -- George Orwell

      From: merle lester <bmlester@...>
      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:01 AM
      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

       



      men and boys need to be educated.....liberated!..and that includes women

      all people need to be liberated..

      there are not just females who are oppressed there  are for example homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals   transvestites  and hermaphrodites 


      men who attempt to control women and other men are oppressed by the very way they themselves are condition on seeing the world... 

      women also oppress other women and have a fair go at oppressing men and children as well...

      "one size cap" does not fit all oppressions

      merle

      The Evolution of Female Oppression
       
      Studies done in the USA where individuals from a minority group have casually had suggested to them that they group performs worse on a particular test actually score lower than those who do not hear this casual suggestion.
       
      What effect does constant lowering of intellectual expectations have in male dominated misogynistic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and India?  In particular, it is suggested to females that they are unable to make certain decisions without male assistance or must hand over certain decisions to males altogether.  Even their choice of marriage partner may be taken out of their hands because of perceived incompetence.
       
      I have been chatting to several Indian and Pakistani women of college age over the past few months and they all have a problem with inexplicable blocking or access to their own intellect at exam time.  This may well be a more aggressive version of the lower scores shown to be the case in the studies mentioned above.
       
      My experience is that these females believe that what happens to them is destiny, even if the decision making or the crime against them is caused by or perpetrated by males.  If a female, for instance, was to pick up a cricket bat and hit a male it is not the male's destiny to be struck in this way but the female's destiny to be thrown into prison and any further abuse against her in prison is also her destiny according to this doctrine.
       
      Consider how you would control a particular sub-population.  If you are female, ask yourself how you would, as a male, control females.  Telling them that whatever happens to them is destiny or the will of God, regardless of what you do to them is one way.  Telling them it is unchangeable culture or tradition going back thousands of years even though these traditions readily change for males is another (e.g. in Bolliwood films the males explore new ways of doing things, often drawing on the west and acting ever more like Hollywood playboys, new places to go to find a wife but females remain largely traditional).
       
      What can the female do?  You have her where you want her.  You can force her to remain a virgin until marriage and have your fill of sex with the poor who will sell their daughters to you.  And why not?  It is the girl's destiny, isn't it?? (around 100 times more child prostitutes per capita than in any other modern western country if the Indian Government's statistics are correct).
       
      By thinking about how you would oppress a sub-population, say all females, we arrive at pretty much the Indian/Pakistan etc system that is so effective that perfectly normal intelligent girls can not express their intelligence in exams or sometimes even in any male company due to the oppressive nature of expectations coming from males, family, community, culture, educational system and even the government.
       
      This expectation bias is much stronger in children and led even the likes of Charles Darwin to think that inheritance made clerks of clerk's sons, blacksmiths of blacksmith's sons and so on.  Expectation bias is certainly not confined to misogynistic cultures, but surely national oppression has an egregiously oppressive effect on women and girls and may be a significant contributor to the poor performance of American Blacks.  A substantial population of Black military personnel after WWII settled in Germany and France where the intellectual and class divide seen in the USA is not apparent or as far as I know, even measurable.
       
      In what way, from the physiological perspective, can female's fight for what is rightfully theirs: their own intellectual potential?
       
      No doubt many of the intelligent women on this forum will think to themselves that this wasn't their experience, that they were not oppressed in this way.  But isn't this why these people are here, because they were the ones who either had a friendly encouraging environment, who were fighters of exceptional emotional strength or who were insensitive to societies misogynistic taunts?
      Also note that this was also the lot of Western women up until around the 1960s: it was a misogynistic cultural error left over from the dark ages of human ignorance, a stage that we passed through, in some countries, all the way to the sunny fields of freedom lying beyond.
       
      I remember the way that men assumed that females had little intelligence when I grew up in the 60s ~ it wasn't always egregious, it was just assumed to be true:
      It wasn't.  It isn't.  And it doesn't have to be this way any more anywhere in the world...
       
      Let's begin by understanding and measuring this phenomena from the psychology and Cognitive Science perspective.

      Robert Karl Stonjek





    • Brad
      Rights Versus Obligations:   As observed elsewhere, rights are the flip-side of obligations - one person s right is another s obligation.   * Your right to
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 20, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Rights Versus Obligations:
         
        As observed elsewhere, rights are the flip-side of obligations - one person's right is another's obligation.
         
        • Your right to not be assaulted is everyone else's responsibility to not assault you.
        • Your right to keep possession of your property is everyone else's responsibility not to steal it.
        These are obvious truisms, so let's apply the same logic to other things which are frequently claimed as 'rights':
        • "I have the right to a adequate medical attention" is the same as saying that others in society have an obligation to pay for your medical attention.
        • "I have the right to a free education" is the same as saying that others in society have an obligation to pay for your education.
        • "I have the right to a flush toilet" is the same as saying that someone else has an obligation to supply you with one, and to install and maintain it.
        • "I have the right to a comfortable house" is the same as saying that someone else has an obligation to build one for you.
        It's not really clear why someone who chooses to run with the bulls has a right to take someone else's money by force to pay their self inflicted medical bills.
        Whenever you declare a right for an individual, you are in fact declaring an obligation on others. This in itself does not make it a bad thing, but it is a useful parity check on those who make claims about the nature of human rights. A typical conversation goes:
        R: Give me an example of a fundamental right.
        L: I would say that everyone has the right to a flush toilet.
        R: So if you have the money, you are obliged to buy and install one for me?
        L: Well yes, if you can't afford it yourself.
        R: So even if I am not prepared to work for it, I am still entitled to it?
        L: Umm ..
        R: And what if I deliberately smash it after it is installed - are you obliged to fix it for me?
        L: No of course not.
        R: Then I don't have a fundamental right to a flush toilet.
        L: Umm ..
        Typically they modify their statement to say that everyone has the right to the opportunity to work to buy a flush toilet. Then the argument revolves around what a fair rate of pay is - which is clearly quite different in the first world and the third world.
        The clear conclusion is the right to flush toilet is not a right at all. It is simply a product which many of the Left want their fellow citizens to subsidize. We choose to place certain obligations on others because they suit ourselves. In a democracy we impose these obligations on people as sets of rules called laws. Because the majority of people voted for the representatives who make and enforce these laws, many of these are in the interests of the majority.
        In practice many of them are perceived to be in the interests of the majority, but are not. Like subsidization laws which just allow people to vote themselves money through the public trough, while causing much more hardship through economic damage.
         
         
        Brad



        "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


        -- George Orwell

        From: merle lester <bmlester@...>
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:01 AM
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

         



        men and boys need to be educated.....liberated!..and that includes women

        all people need to be liberated..

        there are not just females who are oppressed there  are for example homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals   transvestites  and hermaphrodites 


        men who attempt to control women and other men are oppressed by the very way they themselves are condition on seeing the world... 

        women also oppress other women and have a fair go at oppressing men and children as well...

        "one size cap" does not fit all oppressions

        merle

        The Evolution of Female Oppression
         
        Studies done in the USA where individuals from a minority group have casually had suggested to them that they group performs worse on a particular test actually score lower than those who do not hear this casual suggestion.
         
        What effect does constant lowering of intellectual expectations have in male dominated misogynistic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and India?  In particular, it is suggested to females that they are unable to make certain decisions without male assistance or must hand over certain decisions to males altogether.  Even their choice of marriage partner may be taken out of their hands because of perceived incompetence.
         
        I have been chatting to several Indian and Pakistani women of college age over the past few months and they all have a problem with inexplicable blocking or access to their own intellect at exam time.  This may well be a more aggressive version of the lower scores shown to be the case in the studies mentioned above.
         
        My experience is that these females believe that what happens to them is destiny, even if the decision making or the crime against them is caused by or perpetrated by males.  If a female, for instance, was to pick up a cricket bat and hit a male it is not the male's destiny to be struck in this way but the female's destiny to be thrown into prison and any further abuse against her in prison is also her destiny according to this doctrine.
         
        Consider how you would control a particular sub-population.  If you are female, ask yourself how you would, as a male, control females.  Telling them that whatever happens to them is destiny or the will of God, regardless of what you do to them is one way.  Telling them it is unchangeable culture or tradition going back thousands of years even though these traditions readily change for males is another (e.g. in Bolliwood films the males explore new ways of doing things, often drawing on the west and acting ever more like Hollywood playboys, new places to go to find a wife but females remain largely traditional).
         
        What can the female do?  You have her where you want her.  You can force her to remain a virgin until marriage and have your fill of sex with the poor who will sell their daughters to you.  And why not?  It is the girl's destiny, isn't it?? (around 100 times more child prostitutes per capita than in any other modern western country if the Indian Government's statistics are correct).
         
        By thinking about how you would oppress a sub-population, say all females, we arrive at pretty much the Indian/Pakistan etc system that is so effective that perfectly normal intelligent girls can not express their intelligence in exams or sometimes even in any male company due to the oppressive nature of expectations coming from males, family, community, culture, educational system and even the government.
         
        This expectation bias is much stronger in children and led even the likes of Charles Darwin to think that inheritance made clerks of clerk's sons, blacksmiths of blacksmith's sons and so on.  Expectation bias is certainly not confined to misogynistic cultures, but surely national oppression has an egregiously oppressive effect on women and girls and may be a significant contributor to the poor performance of American Blacks.  A substantial population of Black military personnel after WWII settled in Germany and France where the intellectual and class divide seen in the USA is not apparent or as far as I know, even measurable.
         
        In what way, from the physiological perspective, can female's fight for what is rightfully theirs: their own intellectual potential?
         
        No doubt many of the intelligent women on this forum will think to themselves that this wasn't their experience, that they were not oppressed in this way.  But isn't this why these people are here, because they were the ones who either had a friendly encouraging environment, who were fighters of exceptional emotional strength or who were insensitive to societies misogynistic taunts?
        Also note that this was also the lot of Western women up until around the 1960s: it was a misogynistic cultural error left over from the dark ages of human ignorance, a stage that we passed through, in some countries, all the way to the sunny fields of freedom lying beyond.
         
        I remember the way that men assumed that females had little intelligence when I grew up in the 60s ~ it wasn't always egregious, it was just assumed to be true:
        It wasn't.  It isn't.  And it doesn't have to be this way any more anywhere in the world...
         
        Let's begin by understanding and measuring this phenomena from the psychology and Cognitive Science perspective.

        Robert Karl Stonjek





      • Robert Karl Stonjek
        RKS: The phenomena to which I refer has already been measured. All I did was to extrapolate it. Nothing I said was new which is why I did waste time looking
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 20, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          
          RKS:
          The phenomena to which I refer has already been measured.  All I did was to extrapolate it.
           
          Nothing I said was new which is why I did waste time looking up the sources that anyone interested could look up form themselves.
           
          Robert
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Brad
          Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 6:28 PM
          Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

          In a society there have always been obligations and choices. “What is significant about the involvement of the suffragettes is that it makes explicit what was otherwise unspoken – women were claiming the right to inform males of their duty, and were demanding that they fulfill the obligation implied in the restriction of full citizenship and the franchise to males, the obligation to defend their womenfolk.”
          In other words, the white feather girls and the suffragettes understood that men had political franchise and women did not *because men had a duty to go to war, and protect women.*
          I find it strange how the suffragettes seemed to have forgotten that men and men alone had been burdened with this obligation–to protect their womenfolk and act as cannon fodder in the interests of their governments, according to their individual will or against it–long before universal male suffrage was a twinkle in ANYONE’S eye. But there you have it: Men had the vote and women did not, so men had better be prepared to suit up and do their duty.
          When the US government began sentencing draft dodgers to life imprisonment, years in penal labor camps, and death, a group if anarchists challenged the constitutionality of the draft. Their challenge failed. In the Court’s decision, it was stated that:
          “It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty *to the citizen* includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. … To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force.”
          In other words, men enjoyed the rights and privileges of citizenship granted by government *because they paid for it through the reciprocal obligation of the draft.* And the court considered this bargain to be so self-evident, it need do no more than state it.
          As late as 1917, the US government was executing men who refused to fulfill the obligation they owed in return for the right to full legal personhood in the eyes of the state.
          Three years later, women won the vote. Without even the obligation to do “war work” like sewing uniforms, or community service like picking up litter from the sides of highways.

           
          Brad



          "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


          -- George Orwell

          From: merle lester <bmlester@...>
          To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:01 AM
          Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

           



          men and boys need to be educated.....liberated!..and that includes women

          all people need to be liberated..

          there are not just females who are oppressed there  are for example homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals   transvestites  and hermaphrodites 


          men who attempt to control women and other men are oppressed by the very way they themselves are condition on seeing the world... 

          women also oppress other women and have a fair go at oppressing men and children as well...

          "one size cap" does not fit all oppressions

          merle

          The Evolution of Female Oppression
           
          Studies done in the USA where individuals from a minority group have casually had suggested to them that they group performs worse on a particular test actually score lower than those who do not hear this casual suggestion.
           
          What effect does constant lowering of intellectual expectations have in male dominated misogynistic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and India?  In particular, it is suggested to females that they are unable to make certain decisions without male assistance or must hand over certain decisions to males altogether.  Even their choice of marriage partner may be taken out of their hands because of perceived incompetence.
           
          I have been chatting to several Indian and Pakistani women of college age over the past few months and they all have a problem with inexplicable blocking or access to their own intellect at exam time.  This may well be a more aggressive version of the lower scores shown to be the case in the studies mentioned above.
           
          My experience is that these females believe that what happens to them is destiny, even if the decision making or the crime against them is caused by or perpetrated by males.  If a female, for instance, was to pick up a cricket bat and hit a male it is not the male's destiny to be struck in this way but the female's destiny to be thrown into prison and any further abuse against her in prison is also her destiny according to this doctrine.
           
          Consider how you would control a particular sub-population.  If you are female, ask yourself how you would, as a male, control females.  Telling them that whatever happens to them is destiny or the will of God, regardless of what you do to them is one way.  Telling them it is unchangeable culture or tradition going back thousands of years even though these traditions readily change for males is another (e.g. in Bolliwood films the males explore new ways of doing things, often drawing on the west and acting ever more like Hollywood playboys, new places to go to find a wife but females remain largely traditional).
           
          What can the female do?  You have her where you want her.  You can force her to remain a virgin until marriage and have your fill of sex with the poor who will sell their daughters to you.  And why not?  It is the girl's destiny, isn't it?? (around 100 times more child prostitutes per capita than in any other modern western country if the Indian Government's statistics are correct).
           
          By thinking about how you would oppress a sub-population, say all females, we arrive at pretty much the Indian/Pakistan etc system that is so effective that perfectly normal intelligent girls can not express their intelligence in exams or sometimes even in any male company due to the oppressive nature of expectations coming from males, family, community, culture, educational system and even the government.
           
          This expectation bias is much stronger in children and led even the likes of Charles Darwin to think that inheritance made clerks of clerk's sons, blacksmiths of blacksmith's sons and so on.  Expectation bias is certainly not confined to misogynistic cultures, but surely national oppression has an egregiously oppressive effect on women and girls and may be a significant contributor to the poor performance of American Blacks.  A substantial population of Black military personnel after WWII settled in Germany and France where the intellectual and class divide seen in the USA is not apparent or as far as I know, even measurable.
           
          In what way, from the physiological perspective, can female's fight for what is rightfully theirs: their own intellectual potential?
           
          No doubt many of the intelligent women on this forum will think to themselves that this wasn't their experience, that they were not oppressed in this way.  But isn't this why these people are here, because they were the ones who either had a friendly encouraging environment, who were fighters of exceptional emotional strength or who were insensitive to societies misogynistic taunts?
          Also note that this was also the lot of Western women up until around the 1960s: it was a misogynistic cultural error left over from the dark ages of human ignorance, a stage that we passed through, in some countries, all the way to the sunny fields of freedom lying beyond.
           
          I remember the way that men assumed that females had little intelligence when I grew up in the 60s ~ it wasn't always egregious, it was just assumed to be true:
          It wasn't.  It isn't.  And it doesn't have to be this way any more anywhere in the world...
           
          Let's begin by understanding and measuring this phenomena from the psychology and Cognitive Science perspective.

          Robert Karl Stonjek





        • Brad
          Living under feminism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POa20i8Cm_E&feature=share A reading on Judith Grossman, some updates, and my opinionated self.   Brad In
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 20, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Living under feminism

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POa20i8Cm_E&feature=share

            A reading on Judith Grossman, some updates, and my opinionated self.


             
            Brad



            "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


            -- George Orwell

            From: Robert Karl Stonjek <stonjek@...>
            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 5:17 AM
            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

             
            
            RKS:
            The phenomena to which I refer has already been measured.  All I did was to extrapolate it.
             
            Nothing I said was new which is why I did waste time looking up the sources that anyone interested could look up form themselves.
             
            Robert
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Brad
            Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 6:28 PM
            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

            In a society there have always been obligations and choices. “What is significant about the involvement of the suffragettes is that it makes explicit what was otherwise unspoken – women were claiming the right to inform males of their duty, and were demanding that they fulfill the obligation implied in the restriction of full citizenship and the franchise to males, the obligation to defend their womenfolk.”
            In other words, the white feather girls and the suffragettes understood that men had political franchise and women did not *because men had a duty to go to war, and protect women.*
            I find it strange how the suffragettes seemed to have forgotten that men and men alone had been burdened with this obligation–to protect their womenfolk and act as cannon fodder in the interests of their governments, according to their individual will or against it–long before universal male suffrage was a twinkle in ANYONE’S eye. But there you have it: Men had the vote and women did not, so men had better be prepared to suit up and do their duty.
            When the US government began sentencing draft dodgers to life imprisonment, years in penal labor camps, and death, a group if anarchists challenged the constitutionality of the draft. Their challenge failed. In the Court’s decision, it was stated that:
            “It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty *to the citizen* includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. … To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force.”
            In other words, men enjoyed the rights and privileges of citizenship granted by government *because they paid for it through the reciprocal obligation of the draft.* And the court considered this bargain to be so self-evident, it need do no more than state it.
            As late as 1917, the US government was executing men who refused to fulfill the obligation they owed in return for the right to full legal personhood in the eyes of the state.
            Three years later, women won the vote. Without even the obligation to do “war work” like sewing uniforms, or community service like picking up litter from the sides of highways.

             
            Brad



            "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


            -- George Orwell

            From: merle lester <bmlester@...>
            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:01 AM
            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

             



            men and boys need to be educated.....liberated!..and that includes women

            all people need to be liberated..

            there are not just females who are oppressed there  are for example homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals   transvestites  and hermaphrodites 


            men who attempt to control women and other men are oppressed by the very way they themselves are condition on seeing the world... 

            women also oppress other women and have a fair go at oppressing men and children as well...

            "one size cap" does not fit all oppressions

            merle

            The Evolution of Female Oppression
             
            Studies done in the USA where individuals from a minority group have casually had suggested to them that they group performs worse on a particular test actually score lower than those who do not hear this casual suggestion.
             
            What effect does constant lowering of intellectual expectations have in male dominated misogynistic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and India?  In particular, it is suggested to females that they are unable to make certain decisions without male assistance or must hand over certain decisions to males altogether.  Even their choice of marriage partner may be taken out of their hands because of perceived incompetence.
             
            I have been chatting to several Indian and Pakistani women of college age over the past few months and they all have a problem with inexplicable blocking or access to their own intellect at exam time.  This may well be a more aggressive version of the lower scores shown to be the case in the studies mentioned above.
             
            My experience is that these females believe that what happens to them is destiny, even if the decision making or the crime against them is caused by or perpetrated by males.  If a female, for instance, was to pick up a cricket bat and hit a male it is not the male's destiny to be struck in this way but the female's destiny to be thrown into prison and any further abuse against her in prison is also her destiny according to this doctrine.
             
            Consider how you would control a particular sub-population.  If you are female, ask yourself how you would, as a male, control females.  Telling them that whatever happens to them is destiny or the will of God, regardless of what you do to them is one way.  Telling them it is unchangeable culture or tradition going back thousands of years even though these traditions readily change for males is another (e.g. in Bolliwood films the males explore new ways of doing things, often drawing on the west and acting ever more like Hollywood playboys, new places to go to find a wife but females remain largely traditional).
             
            What can the female do?  You have her where you want her.  You can force her to remain a virgin until marriage and have your fill of sex with the poor who will sell their daughters to you.  And why not?  It is the girl's destiny, isn't it?? (around 100 times more child prostitutes per capita than in any other modern western country if the Indian Government's statistics are correct).
             
            By thinking about how you would oppress a sub-population, say all females, we arrive at pretty much the Indian/Pakistan etc system that is so effective that perfectly normal intelligent girls can not express their intelligence in exams or sometimes even in any male company due to the oppressive nature of expectations coming from males, family, community, culture, educational system and even the government.
             
            This expectation bias is much stronger in children and led even the likes of Charles Darwin to think that inheritance made clerks of clerk's sons, blacksmiths of blacksmith's sons and so on.  Expectation bias is certainly not confined to misogynistic cultures, but surely national oppression has an egregiously oppressive effect on women and girls and may be a significant contributor to the poor performance of American Blacks.  A substantial population of Black military personnel after WWII settled in Germany and France where the intellectual and class divide seen in the USA is not apparent or as far as I know, even measurable.
             
            In what way, from the physiological perspective, can female's fight for what is rightfully theirs: their own intellectual potential?
             
            No doubt many of the intelligent women on this forum will think to themselves that this wasn't their experience, that they were not oppressed in this way.  But isn't this why these people are here, because they were the ones who either had a friendly encouraging environment, who were fighters of exceptional emotional strength or who were insensitive to societies misogynistic taunts?
            Also note that this was also the lot of Western women up until around the 1960s: it was a misogynistic cultural error left over from the dark ages of human ignorance, a stage that we passed through, in some countries, all the way to the sunny fields of freedom lying beyond.
             
            I remember the way that men assumed that females had little intelligence when I grew up in the 60s ~ it wasn't always egregious, it was just assumed to be true:
            It wasn't.  It isn't.  And it doesn't have to be this way any more anywhere in the world...
             
            Let's begin by understanding and measuring this phenomena from the psychology and Cognitive Science perspective.

            Robert Karl Stonjek







          • Nini
            Anyone who believes anything they see on YouTube is a bit naive. Pini ... Anyone who believes anything they see on YouTube is a bit naive. Pini On Apr 20,
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 21, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Anyone who believes anything they see on YouTube is a bit naive. 

              'Pini







              On Apr 20, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Brad <devilboy6x9@...> wrote:

               

              Living under feminism

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POa20i8Cm_E&feature=share

              A reading on Judith Grossman, some updates, and my opinionated self.


               
              Brad



              "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


              -- George Orwell

              From: Robert Karl Stonjek <stonjek@...>
              To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 5:17 AM
              Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

               
              
              RKS:
              The phenomena to which I refer has already been measured.  All I did was to extrapolate it.
               
              Nothing I said was new which is why I did waste time looking up the sources that anyone interested could look up form themselves.
               
              Robert
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Brad
              Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 6:28 PM
              Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

              In a society there have always been obligations and choices. “What is significant about the involvement of the suffragettes is that it makes explicit what was otherwise unspoken – women were claiming the right to inform males of their duty, and were demanding that they fulfill the obligation implied in the restriction of full citizenship and the franchise to males, the obligation to defend their womenfolk.”
              In other words, the white feather girls and the suffragettes understood that men had political franchise and women did not *because men had a duty to go to war, and protect women.*
              I find it strange how the suffragettes seemed to have forgotten that men and men alone had been burdened with this obligation–to protect their womenfolk and act as cannon fodder in the interests of their governments, according to their individual will or against it–long before universal male suffrage was a twinkle in ANYONE’S eye. But there you have it: Men had the vote and women did not, so men had better be prepared to suit up and do their duty.
              When the US government began sentencing draft dodgers to life imprisonment, years in penal labor camps, and death, a group if anarchists challenged the constitutionality of the draft. Their challenge failed. In the Court’s decision, it was stated that:
              “It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty *to the citizen* includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. … To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force.”
              In other words, men enjoyed the rights and privileges of citizenship granted by government *because they paid for it through the reciprocal obligation of the draft.* And the court considered this bargain to be so self-evident, it need do no more than state it.
              As late as 1917, the US government was executing men who refused to fulfill the obligation they owed in return for the right to full legal personhood in the eyes of the state.
              Three years later, women won the vote. Without even the obligation to do “war work” like sewing uniforms, or community service like picking up litter from the sides of highways.

               
              Brad



              "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


              -- George Orwell

              From: merle lester <bmlester@...>
              To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:01 AM
              Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

               



              men and boys need to be educated.....liberated!..and that includes women

              all people need to be liberated..

              there are not just females who are oppressed there  are for example homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals   transvestites  and hermaphrodites 


              men who attempt to control women and other men are oppressed by the very way they themselves are condition on seeing the world... 

              women also oppress other women and have a fair go at oppressing men and children as well...

              "one size cap" does not fit all oppressions

              merle

              The Evolution of Female Oppression
               
              Studies done in the USA where individuals from a minority group have casually had suggested to them that they group performs worse on a particular test actually score lower than those who do not hear this casual suggestion.
               
              What effect does constant lowering of intellectual expectations have in male dominated misogynistic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and India?  In particular, it is suggested to females that they are unable to make certain decisions without male assistance or must hand over certain decisions to males altogether.  Even their choice of marriage partner may be taken out of their hands because of perceived incompetence.
               
              I have been chatting to several Indian and Pakistani women of college age over the past few months and they all have a problem with inexplicable blocking or access to their own intellect at exam time.  This may well be a more aggressive version of the lower scores shown to be the case in the studies mentioned above.
               
              My experience is that these females believe that what happens to them is destiny, even if the decision making or the crime against them is caused by or perpetrated by males.  If a female, for instance, was to pick up a cricket bat and hit a male it is not the male's destiny to be struck in this way but the female's destiny to be thrown into prison and any further abuse against her in prison is also her destiny according to this doctrine.
               
              Consider how you would control a particular sub-population.  If you are female, ask yourself how you would, as a male, control females.  Telling them that whatever happens to them is destiny or the will of God, regardless of what you do to them is one way.  Telling them it is unchangeable culture or tradition going back thousands of years even though these traditions readily change for males is another (e.g. in Bolliwood films the males explore new ways of doing things, often drawing on the west and acting ever more like Hollywood playboys, new places to go to find a wife but females remain largely traditional).
               
              What can the female do?  You have her where you want her.  You can force her to remain a virgin until marriage and have your fill of sex with the poor who will sell their daughters to you.  And why not?  It is the girl's destiny, isn't it?? (around 100 times more child prostitutes per capita than in any other modern western country if the Indian Government's statistics are correct).
               
              By thinking about how you would oppress a sub-population, say all females, we arrive at pretty much the Indian/Pakistan etc system that is so effective that perfectly normal intelligent girls can not express their intelligence in exams or sometimes even in any male company due to the oppressive nature of expectations coming from males, family, community, culture, educational system and even the government.
               
              This expectation bias is much stronger in children and led even the likes of Charles Darwin to think that inheritance made clerks of clerk's sons, blacksmiths of blacksmith's sons and so on.  Expectation bias is certainly not confined to misogynistic cultures, but surely national oppression has an egregiously oppressive effect on women and girls and may be a significant contributor to the poor performance of American Blacks.  A substantial population of Black military personnel after WWII settled in Germany and France where the intellectual and class divide seen in the USA is not apparent or as far as I know, even measurable.
               
              In what way, from the physiological perspective, can female's fight for what is rightfully theirs: their own intellectual potential?
               
              No doubt many of the intelligent women on this forum will think to themselves that this wasn't their experience, that they were not oppressed in this way.  But isn't this why these people are here, because they were the ones who either had a friendly encouraging environment, who were fighters of exceptional emotional strength or who were insensitive to societies misogynistic taunts?
              Also note that this was also the lot of Western women up until around the 1960s: it was a misogynistic cultural error left over from the dark ages of human ignorance, a stage that we passed through, in some countries, all the way to the sunny fields of freedom lying beyond.
               
              I remember the way that men assumed that females had little intelligence when I grew up in the 60s ~ it wasn't always egregious, it was just assumed to be true:
              It wasn't.  It isn't.  And it doesn't have to be this way any more anywhere in the world...
               
              Let's begin by understanding and measuring this phenomena from the psychology and Cognitive Science perspective.

              Robert Karl Stonjek







            • Brad
              pini writes: Anyone who believes anything they see on YouTube is a bit naive . That s funny because the person making the videos has been invited to lecture
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 21, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                pini writes:

                "Anyone who believes anything they see on YouTube is a bit naive".


                That's funny because the person making the videos has been invited to lecture @ Universities across the US and Canada.

                 
                Brad



                "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


                -- George Orwell

                From: Nini <winyan7@...>
                To: "evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com" <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
                Cc: "evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com" <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:45 PM
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

                 
                Anyone who believes anything they see on YouTube is a bit naive. 

                'Pini







                On Apr 20, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Brad <devilboy6x9@...> wrote:

                 
                Living under feminism

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POa20i8Cm_E&feature=share

                A reading on Judith Grossman, some updates, and my opinionated self.


                 
                Brad



                "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


                -- George Orwell

                From: Robert Karl Stonjek <stonjek@...>
                To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 5:17 AM
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

                 
                
                RKS:
                The phenomena to which I refer has already been measured.  All I did was to extrapolate it.
                 
                Nothing I said was new which is why I did waste time looking up the sources that anyone interested could look up form themselves.
                 
                Robert
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Brad
                Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 6:28 PM
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

                In a society there have always been obligations and choices. “What is significant about the involvement of the suffragettes is that it makes explicit what was otherwise unspoken – women were claiming the right to inform males of their duty, and were demanding that they fulfill the obligation implied in the restriction of full citizenship and the franchise to males, the obligation to defend their womenfolk.”
                In other words, the white feather girls and the suffragettes understood that men had political franchise and women did not *because men had a duty to go to war, and protect women.*
                I find it strange how the suffragettes seemed to have forgotten that men and men alone had been burdened with this obligation–to protect their womenfolk and act as cannon fodder in the interests of their governments, according to their individual will or against it–long before universal male suffrage was a twinkle in ANYONE’S eye. But there you have it: Men had the vote and women did not, so men had better be prepared to suit up and do their duty.
                When the US government began sentencing draft dodgers to life imprisonment, years in penal labor camps, and death, a group if anarchists challenged the constitutionality of the draft. Their challenge failed. In the Court’s decision, it was stated that:
                “It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty *to the citizen* includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. … To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force.”
                In other words, men enjoyed the rights and privileges of citizenship granted by government *because they paid for it through the reciprocal obligation of the draft.* And the court considered this bargain to be so self-evident, it need do no more than state it.
                As late as 1917, the US government was executing men who refused to fulfill the obligation they owed in return for the right to full legal personhood in the eyes of the state.
                Three years later, women won the vote. Without even the obligation to do “war work” like sewing uniforms, or community service like picking up litter from the sides of highways.

                 
                Brad



                "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


                -- George Orwell

                From: merle lester <bmlester@...>
                To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:01 AM
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Evolution of Female Oppression

                 



                men and boys need to be educated.....liberated!..and that includes women

                all people need to be liberated..

                there are not just females who are oppressed there  are for example homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals   transvestites  and hermaphrodites 


                men who attempt to control women and other men are oppressed by the very way they themselves are condition on seeing the world... 

                women also oppress other women and have a fair go at oppressing men and children as well...

                "one size cap" does not fit all oppressions

                merle

                The Evolution of Female Oppression
                 
                Studies done in the USA where individuals from a minority group have casually had suggested to them that they group performs worse on a particular test actually score lower than those who do not hear this casual suggestion.
                 
                What effect does constant lowering of intellectual expectations have in male dominated misogynistic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and India?  In particular, it is suggested to females that they are unable to make certain decisions without male assistance or must hand over certain decisions to males altogether.  Even their choice of marriage partner may be taken out of their hands because of perceived incompetence.
                 
                I have been chatting to several Indian and Pakistani women of college age over the past few months and they all have a problem with inexplicable blocking or access to their own intellect at exam time.  This may well be a more aggressive version of the lower scores shown to be the case in the studies mentioned above.
                 
                My experience is that these females believe that what happens to them is destiny, even if the decision making or the crime against them is caused by or perpetrated by males.  If a female, for instance, was to pick up a cricket bat and hit a male it is not the male's destiny to be struck in this way but the female's destiny to be thrown into prison and any further abuse against her in prison is also her destiny according to this doctrine.
                 
                Consider how you would control a particular sub-population.  If you are female, ask yourself how you would, as a male, control females.  Telling them that whatever happens to them is destiny or the will of God, regardless of what you do to them is one way.  Telling them it is unchangeable culture or tradition going back thousands of years even though these traditions readily change for males is another (e.g. in Bolliwood films the males explore new ways of doing things, often drawing on the west and acting ever more like Hollywood playboys, new places to go to find a wife but females remain largely traditional).
                 
                What can the female do?  You have her where you want her.  You can force her to remain a virgin until marriage and have your fill of sex with the poor who will sell their daughters to you.  And why not?  It is the girl's destiny, isn't it?? (around 100 times more child prostitutes per capita than in any other modern western country if the Indian Government's statistics are correct).
                 
                By thinking about how you would oppress a sub-population, say all females, we arrive at pretty much the Indian/Pakistan etc system that is so effective that perfectly normal intelligent girls can not express their intelligence in exams or sometimes even in any male company due to the oppressive nature of expectations coming from males, family, community, culture, educational system and even the government.
                 
                This expectation bias is much stronger in children and led even the likes of Charles Darwin to think that inheritance made clerks of clerk's sons, blacksmiths of blacksmith's sons and so on.  Expectation bias is certainly not confined to misogynistic cultures, but surely national oppression has an egregiously oppressive effect on women and girls and may be a significant contributor to the poor performance of American Blacks.  A substantial population of Black military personnel after WWII settled in Germany and France where the intellectual and class divide seen in the USA is not apparent or as far as I know, even measurable.
                 
                In what way, from the physiological perspective, can female's fight for what is rightfully theirs: their own intellectual potential?
                 
                No doubt many of the intelligent women on this forum will think to themselves that this wasn't their experience, that they were not oppressed in this way.  But isn't this why these people are here, because they were the ones who either had a friendly encouraging environment, who were fighters of exceptional emotional strength or who were insensitive to societies misogynistic taunts?
                Also note that this was also the lot of Western women up until around the 1960s: it was a misogynistic cultural error left over from the dark ages of human ignorance, a stage that we passed through, in some countries, all the way to the sunny fields of freedom lying beyond.
                 
                I remember the way that men assumed that females had little intelligence when I grew up in the 60s ~ it wasn't always egregious, it was just assumed to be true:
                It wasn't.  It isn't.  And it doesn't have to be this way any more anywhere in the world...
                 
                Let's begin by understanding and measuring this phenomena from the psychology and Cognitive Science perspective.

                Robert Karl Stonjek









              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.