More on group selection by men of other men

And how it plays out.

First of all, I'm going to state what I was thinking awhile ago when i started thinking of this topic earlier. Namely, let's start out by saying human beings engage in kin selection -- and multi-level group selection is just a version of that. Why? Because, at some point, go back enough generations, and we are all relatives. In which case, selection means favoring a group closer to us over a group farther away from us genetically -- based on percentage of genetic material shared.

And, that's the thing. If evolutionary biologists insist that I, as a human being, want to maximize my genes, it also holds true I have an interest in maximizing the reproduction of those who share a significant amount of my genetic material in common with me, meaning relatives. However, in doing so, I want my genetic material to combine with superior genetic material that is COMPATIBLE and COMPLEMENTARY to it -- even if totally unrelated. Thus, my interest in spreading my genetic material results in an interest in encouraging the reproduction of other genetic material I merely decide is "good." Even if not "familiar" or "same" as mine. 

Furthermore, I do think in today's super individualistic culture, most evolutionary biologists exaggerate human tendency to compete -- which DOES happen in the face of scarce resources but, otherwise, there is no reason not to support the reproduction of others unrelated to you UNLESS overpopulation and scarcity means a need to figure out WHO is going to die or leave and who is going to stay. 

Otherwise, we have an interest in maximizing the population and supporting everyone's reproduction, to better ensure our own survival since we can all breed with one another and that's precisely what our descendants are going to do. We do, however, have an interest in ensuring those with the best survival characteristics breed in higher rates than those who are inferior, and favoring those who are superior over those who are inferior. Since, after all, many generations ahead, those who are superior will eventually mix their genes with our genes, even if we are among an inferior class.

This interest, however, gets moderated by one thing. Only my senses -- sense of eyesight, hearing, memory, etc., help me determine who is genetically superior material whose reproduction I want to favor, in the interests of ensuring my progeny breed with GOOD breeding material rather than POOR breeding material. 

I use the word "memory" for a specific reason. Namely, before I discussed men's inherent tendency to cooperate, but what does cooperation mean? Cooperate means pushing genetically superior men to the top of the hierarchy. But, you can't do that without having objective measures to determine who is superior and who isn't. That might explain a great deal of violence between men -- much of which is in good humor. It's a testing mechanism. Sports are a testing mechanism too. All sorts of competition men engage in are testing mechanisms, to figure out which men are the best -- and they end up at the top and reproduce the most. 

I am just saying this in order to point out that much of what we call "competition" can actually be seen as a form of cooperation or of altruism. We just don't see it that way because we disapprove of it -- irrationally so. So, when two men get into a fight, the fact is that everyone notices who won, and it has an impact on his social standing later on, or it could. Sometimes it helps both of them in different ways. It's not inherently competitive if both survive. Only when some get killed can we call it competition.

In any case, the reason why I am talking about kin selection versus group selection and bringing in the term "measurement" is, let's say human beings are trying to engage in kin selection. At some point, our senses give us only a blurry ability to distinguish kin from non-kin, and its pointless. It becomes better simply to distinguish who is a better mate for a female version of you, if it is a man you are judging. Our senses are more attuned to distinguishing THAT than attuned to distinguishing whether someone is related to us.

Though, if any senses out there are able to determine kin more than others, it is our sense of smell. Which, guess what, women have a better sense of than men do. And, if there are any senses out there that better enable us to engage in very good GROUP selection, it is our sense of EYESIGHT -- which MEN have a better sense of than women. At least men have a better geometrical visual sense. Which is extremely important, when it comes to the ability to size up other people. 

Among certain animals, it is impossible to get a mother to accept a baby that is unrelated to her, because she can SMELL that the baby is foreign and she will not take care of it. And you cannot make her -- kin selection is a very instinctual "on off" switch. Irrational, in some ways. The mother whose loyalty for her child will never be compromised no matter what -- try to explain to her the child is bad and doesn't deserve it, you won't get anywhere. Similarly, there is a stereotype out there which I think is valid that female friendships tend to be defined by blind loyalty. Among certain female peer groups, queen bees develop totalitarian reign, and any outsider the queen bee has any kind of problem with is deemed automatically wrong, regardless of individual behavior or objective reality. It matters only WHO someone is and NOT their behavior. 

This is a social behavior pattern that shows up among those who practice KIN SELECTION and not GROUP SELECTION. Whereas, among men, there is a bit more of a meritocratic process to determine who is right, who is wrong, who has a right to have a problem with someone else, etc. They will decide to side with outsiders who are meritocratically correct, even if not part of the "in crowd." That's group selection. Not kin selection. They will BRING outsiders INTO the group who they decide are cool or in some way have characteristics they feel are superior and admirable in some way -- according to certain objective or semi-objective measures. Again -- group selection.

So, already, the distinction between whether we engage in group selection or kin selection are moderated by what SENSES we use to JUDGE who to "select for" or "favor" and who not to. Eyesight = group selection. Scent = kin selection. The part of our brain "trying to" engage in kin selection will, when it filters that "kin selection" instinct through our sense of eyesight, inevitably transform it into group selection simply through inability to measure anything better than that through eyesight.

This is in line with quantum mechanics theory in physics which holds that your ability to figure out a particle's exact velocity and position is marred by "blurry" measuring tools. Thus, strict "kin selection" is going to be blurred by one's inability to fully distinguish kin versus non-kin. Or, if kin selection is one where you are supposed to favor others in proportion to what percentage of DNA you share in common with them -- the limitation of your senses will make you only able to select for certain markers which raise only the PROBABILITY that the person you favored shared more genes with you than someone else. 

Slate comment on gender and kin v group selection

I decided to copy and paste this to here, because I liked the way I articulated it. 

It also dovetails with plenty of other data showing that, among the upper echelons of society, men seem to have more power than women, but the opposite is true among the poor. 

What I left out in this comment was how, when rich men are pushed to the top of "the hierarchy," they are actually ending up at the top of complex society/economy based on division of labors, social insurance, and trade that creates efficient production enabling many to subsist on the labor of a few, and the higher up you are, the bigger a claim you have on the labor of others. The hierarchy is one where, in case of famine or food shortages, those at the top are the last to starve, those at the bottom are first to starve.

However, in absence of a food shortage, the end result is that the men on the top can impregnate many more women and have many more children than they -- alone and by themselves -- have the physical capability of providing for, yet it all works out in ways so that their WEALTH (labor of others they draw on) results in OTHERS providing for their children. Other men, for the most part, assuming that men are the most productive class compared to women -- which was true before technology made muscles less important. 

What you end up with, or could end up with, are situations where the best men have harems, while other men provide the resources for the children of other men. But, women who are genetically superior and more beautiful will tend to find themselves isolated from other (jealous) women, and tend to marry high ranked men anyway since men do not listen to the concerns of the female peer group when picking their mate, but isolation from other women WILL prevent a genetically superior woman from having the clout to STOP her husband from breeding with other women as well. Among the poor, however, wives CAN enforce monogamy among men and prevent cheating. This is something, by the way, a huffington post article bears out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marrie-lobel/shedding-light-on-the-myt_b_5001326.html

Fact: Research suggests men and women equally seek the loving arms of a committed partner. Studies indicate when a low sex-ratio is present (more marriage-aged men to marriage-aged women), infidelity in committed relationships decreases because women are in demand and set the rules in which sex and relationships occur. When contrasting with instances of high-sex ratio (higher number of marriage-aged women to marriage-aged men) where men are in demand and have more options, the rate of cheating increases. Still having doubts? Consider sexual satisfaction and why women cheat. When measuring the BIG O (orgasm) women report a much higher level of gratification when sex occurs in a committed relationship rather than casual hook-ups. As for why women cheat, if having a lot of sex were the defining factor then you would assume that most women would be unfaithful for the novelty, thrill or pure opportunity. However, that is not what the data shows and you would be wrong! The majority of women betray their spouses to fill an emotional void or to feel a deep connection with another.

Furthermore, women who are promiscuous always tend to be promiscuous with higher ranked men. Promiscuous women RAISE their expectations vis-a-vis casual sex. Promiscuous men LOWER their expectations vis-a-vis casual sex.

In any case, the tendency of women to ostracize genetically superior women (while men do the opposite with genetically superior men) leaves superior stronger women isolated from other women -- and LESS ABLE TO CONTROL their husbands, or stop them from cheating. Go lower down in society, and women end up with more control over their men, limiting cheating, and forcing them to work HARDER in their labors -- which creates surplus value that benefits the wealthy at the top.

At the same time, in the highest levels of society, the fact that women engage in kin selection while men engage in group selection also means, disempowered rich women will be unable to use their instincts towards kin selection to try too hard to get a rich man to engage in TOO MUCH kin selection (or nepotism or cronyism) since, after all, the leaders of a group must think about the poor and not throw them under the bus too much -- but their wives will tend to myopically favor close family members and, in so doing, encourage their husbands to be too ruthless with other members of society. Thus, it is in the interests of society to try to prevent the wives of rich powerful men who are "managers" of society to have too much influence over him. This is especially true with regard to political leaders who might benefit financially by forcing the children of OTHER FAMILIES to fight in bloody wars, while their OWN WIVES will do whatever they can to spare their OWN CHILDREN from the fighting, at least if left to their own devices. 

I also have to say, this also reminds me of the degree to which rich women were extremely dependent on servants, say in Newport Mansions, where they were required to submit to having tons of servants follow them around, cater to their every whim, and even dress and undress them. Men had more independence. Yet, this social custom could be seen as reflecting a societal understanding that women are more prone to kin selection and more prone to favoring those they are close to, rich women are influential, and extra measures would  be taken to ensure extra close connection between rich women and the lower classes in society, who made up the servant class. Whereas rich men might be seen as more likely to understand such issues in absence of close personal connection.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/04/11/complaining_about_a_bad_customer_experience_men_and_women_do_it_differently.html

1 hour ago

If you look at the debate among sociobiologists over kin selection versus group selection, you will not find much of a discussion of gender, however you will notice that there are some who persist in attempting to discredit group selection theory, insisting human beings behave MOSTLY according to the dictates of kin selection. The ones who discredit group selection theory seem to be those who are in line with certain neoliberal policies, including neoliberal feminists, and it seems pretty clear to me, they want to cover up the fact that men engage in altruistic group selection far more than women, who are more likely to favor kin which usually is described not as altruism but as nepotism or cronyism.

The fact that WOMEN strongly engage in kin selection with regard to whom they cooperate with, while proving hostile to non-kin outsiders, can be tied to their comparable physical weakness and the fact that, in the absence of technology, they were dependent on men for resources, especially when with children. Men's physical strength and greater ability to gather resources for more than just themselves explain why MEN are the ones who engage in multi-level group selection, are less hostile to outsiders but, instead, are willing to COLLABORATE with outsiders and FAVOR non-kin men, though they do have a large tendency to be selective about WHICH outsiders they collaborate with, or invite into the fold, always favoring other non-kin men who are genetically SUPERIOR. Whereas, women instead tend to form groups of equals who gang up on or isolate genetically superior women, which generally guarantees that these women will end up with a man and have less independence in their relationship with him. 

Given that genetically superior women tend to mate with genetically superior men, the tendency of women to marginalize genetically superior women, even while other males lift him up to the top of the hierarchy generally creates conditions where the genetically superior woman will breed and have many babies with a top ranked man, but also not have the kind of social clout or bargaining power with her husband sufficient enough to prevent him from cheating on her and siring as many children with other women as possible. All in all, this converges in a direction that results in genetically superior males maximizing their offspring AND genetically superior females maximizing their offspring too without the genetically superior females having the power to limit the man's offspring to ONLY what she can give birth to. Men can have more children than women, and it is in the interests of all human beings to ensure that genetically superior humans have as many children as possible. Meaning, harem structure for top males, but not for lower ranked males who often won't breed but will be providers to other peoples' children.

What I notice is that those theorists who try to deny or minimize group selection also tend to be consistent in some way with those feminist forces who, while they do sometimes talk about "old boys clubs" and "patriarchal conspiracies" otherwise don't like talking about male cooperation with other males in a positive light. Richard Dawkins is a particularly vociferous opponent of group theory and promoter of kin theory. And, instantly after reading an article of his denouncing group theory a bit too ferociously not to arouse my suspicions, I decided to google "richard dawkins gates foundation" and discovered just what I expected to discover. That he is heavily involved in some of the Gates Foundations activities.

Because women engage in kin selection of the sort that results in them being hostile to non-kin outsiders, the influence of women results in nepotism much more than that of men. This is of especial interest to powerful rich Western influences who love exploiting third world countries by using their wealth to corrupt elites. Thus, the Gates Foundation has a huge investment in the kind of gender equality that results in empowering rich women's tendencies to engage in nepotism of the sort that characterizes what Western Elites like doing with third world countries: pay off elites, distribute wealth to rich elites who pocket it and ensure that wealth is limited to THEIR OWN FAMILIES, in return for same elites agreeing to throw the rest of the population under the bus and help Western Businessmen enslave populations in third world countries. 

Bill Gates has given tons to charity -- yet somehow only gotten richer and not from Microsoft stock increasing. That is no accident. 

When you read articles written by "feminist economists," one interesting intellectual mistake you instantly see them making is their tendency to butcher the English Language, wherein they will describe women as "more altruistic" than men, and then when you read on further, you instantly can figure out, it isn't altruism they are talking about, it's nepotism and cronyism. Aka "women are more inclined to favor their own families." These "feminist economists" are heavily aligned with the neoliberal order, whereby they have taken advantage of the "sacred cow" status of feminism to figure out ways to define "gender equality" in a way that really is all about slavery, and the way money influences politics, they will try get away with it for as long as they can, even while they continue to skew feminism in a direction more and more designed to push the interests of the rich, and enslave the poor. And we can guarantee that all those who oppose this will have tons of barbs thrown at them along with accusations of misogyny, etc. Money makes lots of people go on the attack.

In any case, this article simply shows yet another example of many that show how women network with closer kin, while men tend to favor larger groups to network with that include non-kin.

----

I will also add to this a comment in AVFM forums where I first articulated the notion that I, as a man, care that the genetically most superior men (and women) around me breed as much as possible, and I have an interest in ensuring THEY BREED more than inferior ones do. Because, my progeny will, at some point, many generations down, likely benefit from breeding with a SUPERIOR population. 

This ultimately is true because my genes keep getting split off and separated from one another down successive generations so 50 generations down, my genes are going to be divided up and distributed in different ways among an enormous population. Breeding patterns will determine, though, whether certain patterns of behavior persist, however. And it gets very complicated. Ideally, I will develop an ability to "spot" which men have genes which, when combined with various genes I have, interact in complimentary ways to them, producing a descendant with similar sets of skills to mine, thus if I see someone who is similar to me but, possibly in some ways, a better version of myself, I will hope to maximize his reproduction in order to ensure my children have a better chance of reproducing with those whose genes best combine with mine. 

Think about this in terms of traits. I am very muscular and strong, and I sweat a lot and get dehydrated easily, making me perfect for Northern Climates. I'll want my children to reproduce with either muscular and strong types and I am hairy and sweat a lot and live in Northern Climates, or else in case they have to live in a Southern Hot climate, I might also want to favor men who are weaker but don't over-heat and sweat as much, hedging my bets and producing a set of progeny which include some adapted to cold climates and some adapted to warm climates. But I won't want to help anyone who is weak AND overheats easily. They won't do well anywhere. 

This is not unlike Richard Dawkin's selfish gene theory, where he argues genes want to replicate themselves. But, no, it's more like human beings want to spot good genes in others, and then encourage their preferential replication over that of inferior genes. 

However, women will encourage such replication in genetically superior women by treating them badly and excluding them from the group, which tends to leave them more dependent on marrying men, while men will celebrate genetically superior men and be drawn to them and be supportive of them. Surround them, as it were, which tends to result in them having a huge male labor pool to draw on, for when they choose the best of the isolated genetically superior women to breed with and support LONG TERM. 

Now, I'll caveat all this by pointing out, there is no such thing as an "up-down" one dimensional measure of superiority, either male or female. There are many divisions of labors in our society, with much complimentarily which renders it misleading to try to label one group as superior to another. Often among ruling classes you will have genetically inferior people in most ways, except possibly with respect to certain narrowly defined intellectual skills. At least, this is what happens when you get to certain very developed and perhaps decadent societies. Often the class labeled "superior" and at the top ISN'T really superior, and the classes of people lower down are truly the superior ones in many ways. 

In fact, sometimes certain "lower down" positions in societies are actually higher status in all objective measures, and it is almost like there are certain classes of people where we pretend they are higher status as a way to assuage their egos, not unlike the phenomenon of promoting someone incompetent "up" into a position with a fancy title and salary, and with all responsibilities removed from them. That is common in consumeristic societies where spending of money is important. 

In which case, the phenomenon I am describing below more is most accurate in describing how things work among genetically superior populations of males who are genetically superior with regard to LOOKS and ATHLETIC ABILITY. And who marry similar women. It also occurs among those with smarts too, I think. But maybe in different ways? And, of course, this leaves out any analysis of how things are sorted out regarding different sections of the population who have different TYPES of skills where the difference is QUALITATIVE rather than a difference in STATUS. 

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/archive/index.php/t-7899.html

What you are talking about I think is kin selection theory. There are others who prefer multi-level group selection theory. Both of these I don't fully understand. And I haven't researched it much. But as for evolutionary issues, I dislike most of the thinking I have been exposed to by others and feel most social scientists are fuzzy thinkers. So any theory I mention about natural selection or evolutionary issues is mostly what I have thought of myself and not gotten from anyone else -- and I do know, I am good at math. 

Regarding issues of kin selection versus group selection, there most definitely must be gender differences, and I think how big they are varies depending on whether you talk about certain white populations that lived far north where intensive agriculture done by men, along with significant hoarding over the winter, was absolutely crucial to survival and made women extremely dependent upon men, compared to populations in warmer climates where little hoarding or private property was needed and women could provide for themselves given the lush environment. 

I notice, among these white populations, men tend to be socially stupid and easily manipulated by women, who are more socially ept and better at emotional manipulation, whereas among more southern populations from warmer climates, those differences seem less pronounced. In any case, I do think gender differences vary according to population, so one can never fully generalize about gender other than that "one size fits all" thinking will always be wrong and potentially toxic.

In any case, women would tend to be much more kin oriented, men much more "group" oriented -- but then one has to ask oneself, what's the definition of kin and non-kin, and how does one tell kin from non-kin? How big can an extended family get before they are too big to be considered part of one family? In the end, it's all relative, the whole entire human race is kin to some degree. 

In any case, if one tries to think about it mathematically, it becomes so complicated that any theory would be nothing more than an approximation of reality. However, one thing I can say is, regarding survival of the fittest, if I want to propagate my genes that might make me want to have as many children as possible -- but having children is useless if they don't have children, grandchildren, and so on for tons of generations down the line. Instantly, it's necessary for my friends to reproduce too -- and it's always better if the particularly friends of mine who reproduce are genetically superior, so as to enhance the chances that my children breed with genetically superior humans so their children can compete better than others so, even though they end up with only a few of my genes, the fact that those genes are combined with SUPERIOR genes makes them more likely to last.

From my point of view as a man, I want to have some children -- but then I care a great deal that they will have opportunities to reproduce with the best and most compatible population out there. As a result, I will want to make friends with other men whose progeny would make the best partners to my own progeny, and then proceed to want to support and maximize the reproduction of genetically superior male friends over that of male inferiors. Particularly those whose genes are most compatible with mine or those of my children. From that you get the origins of inequality, and can understand why male inequality is always bigger than female inequality.

With women, motivations are slightly different because there is a limit to how many babies each woman can have, while there is no limit to how many children each man can have, other than that it's necessary that society bring them up. In any case, there are precedents set in past history regarding society encouraging and aiding and abetting mass reproduction of the best male members, with Genghis Kahn being known to have had thousands of children, so much so that in some parts of the world, maybe a full 10 percent of the population can count him as an ancestor. 

In any case, with women, if a woman is very attractive, the tendency is for society to want to control her and marry her off to the most attractive man, where attractive women are the most likely to be docile and monogamous to their high-on-the-food-chain husbands, even while more tolerant than other women of cheating. It makes sense, though, that human populations want to maximize the genetic contribution of the most attractive/genetically superior woman to future progeny by ensuring the most supportive environment with which she can not merely conceive the highest numbers of children possible, but also bring them up and ensure their best and highest social status so that their reproduction is maximized too. A man, however, can have so many children, all he cares about is enough of them are raised with high social status -- the rest of them don't have to be.

But I am not explaining this well. It's just, I've seen no evolutionary psychologist ever explaining why human beings have an interest in promoting the enhanced breeding of anyone with better genetic content than them, simply because among a group it's always better, many generations down, for your direct progeny to breed with a SUPERIOR population of humans than an inferior one.

On Zero Sum Feminism and Math Gender Gap

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?9397-Systemic-Sexism-in-Academia&p=85645#post85645

This is all zero sum feminism.

I watched the first one.

Her description of academia as very hostile to women makes it sound more like it's just very competitive, it requires a lot of sacrifice, and women just find it not worth it. Also, male professors who are "know it alls" and act very knowledgeable are very popular, whereas women teachers who are sweet and motherly are popular, and women teachers who are "know it alls" and knowledgeable and expert are unpopular and get bad remarks from students in student surveys. 

Furthermore, women also don't rise the ranks because they take time off in order to take care of their children. 

I also notice the feminist in the first video is a very angry woman and gets very angry about some things at times. 

Some of her solutions include how we as a society have to figure out how to make it so that women spend less time with their children and men spend more time with their children. She also tried to say it is unfair for women to do more housework and spend more time with their children because she is all unpaid labor. Except, no it isn't unpaid labor, since the end result of husbands earning more than their wives is their wives end up spending much of their husband's money on themselves. And if they get divorced, child support and alimony ensue. So, this is not unpaid labor, and I am not sure why they pretend it is -- except, it's pretty clear the choice of some women to stay home and live off their husband's money is a choice THESE feminists want women NOT to be allowed to make. 

Then, as regards students not liking know it all female teachers but preferring sweet nurturing motherly teachers, she thinks universities are supposed to stop basing their hiring decisions on teacher popularity with students, and instead institute some kind of female affirmative action program that outright tells students that their preferences are sexist, therefore they (the customer) is (not always) right but, in this case, WRONG. 

Imagine if feminists tried telling Hollywood they needed to pay no attention to audience preference in their casting of women. 

She also thinks "the system" should adjust to women rather than expect women to adjust to "the system." I'd say -- yeah that is a reasonable position to take, but only if you combine it with "but this means the two genders are not equal, and don't necessarily deserve equal pay." Pay should be based on 'service to society' or 'service to work' and not on presumed entitlement you are owed because you are a breathing living human being. Work is not a welfare program. What these feminists seem to want, in this instance, is welfare masquerading as work. Pretend work where they get paid the same as men, but don't do the same work. And they are white upper middle class and would find it beneath them to make use of the same welfare programs black women use. So that's why we need to go to all this trouble to institute a kind of gender equality that creates "welfare masquerading as work" programs for white women -- something, incidentally, which American society has consistently been doing with the welfare system since the end of the Civil War. And it has often employed the tactic of arguing that black women on welfare need the "supervision" of morally superior white female social workers, as a ruse to provide white women with larger benefits and boost their egos at the same time. That's a big reason why it is crucial that work not be confused with welfare, and if men are willing to put themselves through more inconvenience for more pay -- let them. And if you, a woman, want to be on welfare, then you need to be willing to accept the LABEL and STIGMA of being ON THE DOLE. And too bad if this creates intolerable equivalency between you and those black welfare queens. TOO BAD DEAL WITH IT!!!!! Or else, women can agree to do some of the dirty work too and get their hands dirty, if they want equal pay. 

As for the second video, well first of all this woman does not understand history. In the 19th century, science was actually much more a woman's occupation than a man's occupation, because most men were required to go into occupations where they had to use their muscles, therefore they were DEPRIVED of opportunities to do things like sciences and KEPT OUT OF THEM. Women were the ones to do science more. This has changed since the industrial revolution. However, studies show that women drop out of science if they don't get A's and favor fields with lots of grade inflation, whereas men keep on doing it even if they get a bad grade. Women are more likely to drop out of science if told science is for geeks, whereas men will keep doing science even if told it's geeky. In other words, if you put men and women in the same conditions -- ones where they are subjected to negative feedback or insults -- women will let the negative feedback and desire for approval factor into their decision as to whether to keep going, whereas men won't. 

Now this woman in the video argues that women need a much more supportive structure in order to excel in sciences. Well, in a way yes but she is never going to get any male support for such a thing as long as she fails to acknowledge the fact that men tough it out without such a supportive structure and deserve some amount of acknowledgement and credit for that. Lying is no way of helping women, assuming that is what you want to do -- which I don't think is what they want to do. 

Also, she says there are no gender differences between men and women in math and that women are just brainwashed into thinking they are not good at math, therefore they perform poorly. False. Though discouragement may take a higher toll on women than on men, there still are some gender differences it would seem, especially among the best and brightest in math. But, gender differences in math scores consistently widen in favor of men depending on math subject tested, with men outperforming women the most on subjects requiring spatial, visual, and certain kinds of intuitive skills. Even if society has insidiously brainwashed women into performing less well in "math" by convincing them they are inferior at it, it is a bit of a stretch to argue that this societal brainwashing of women is so well targeted as to brainwash them only in some areas of math and not in other areas of math. 

Failing to acknowledge that fact is zero sum feminism. Because, acknowledging that fact would allow for those small number of boys with exceptional math skills -- again, the gender gap in math is driven by those at the very top -- to get the extra help they need to fully perform up to their abilities, even while additional resources geared towards "fostering a affirming environment" for girls who need that could still be done, though perhaps it would need to be done in the context of sex segregated schooling. 

Ultimately, sex integrated schooling should not have favorable treatment of women. Either they compete on the same footing, or we acknowledge that women are different and they have their own track, which serves to help women achieve an environment more amenable to their preferences, without shortchanging men in the process. Zero sum feminism always wants to use women as an excuse to undermine men.

Women in welfare bureaucracies -- development of some points

My original response is below, along with a bunch of changes. 

"Human children cannot be carried around in one's pocket, and are not very suited to fending for themselves amid any kind of serious long distance travel. So you instantly have women staking out a territory before they have babies, while men are free to wander long distances. "

I just want to develop this point, thinking logically. Women "stake out a territory…" what does that mean? Ultimately, it means a steady stream of the resources needed for survival of her AND her children for long enough until they can fend for themselves.

Such a territory could mean land, or a fixed point in land. Or it could mean other individuals who are strong enough or childless enough so they are free to gather resources and bring them to the home. Thus, territory could mean a plot of land on which agriculture and cultivation takes place. But, for women, it also includes a "social territory" which is a group of individuals women can draw on for support. And which does not include ONLY the father of their children but extended family members, and broader society. 

However, women are unique in terms of having a long period of extended dependency when with children, and this would explain pronounced gender differences between women and men. Besides differences in physical strength and appearance, the only other differences that are also bound to be big are SOCIAL DIFFERENCES. 

------------

AND HERE IS MY RESPONSE:

Yes well a good way to understand evolutionary biology or -- I don't know what it's called, it's a kind of sociology -- is to imagine looking down at a population from above. In humans, unlike in Kangaroos for instance, you will see mothers with children practically TETHERED to the same spot for long periods of time, while men move around or travel around. Human children cannot be carried around in one's pocket, and are not very suited to fending for themselves amid any kind of serious long distance travel. So you instantly have women staking out a territory before they have babies, while men are free to wander long distances. 

The moment you have a woman with children stuck in one spot, you see how she will develop a relationship of dependency with other human beings around, usually men, but also other women so long as they are ones capable of attracting or keeping good men around. However, assuming you have a tight knit community where everyone knows each other, even if some of the men travel on hunting expeditions, you still have the issue of needing to hoard supplies over the winter (northern european especially) and to worry about thieves or marauders. In moments of scarcity, it always becomes every man (or family) for himself. A woman will need not just any man but a STRONG MAN to guard any hoarded food which is in scarce supply over the winter. Whole communities need LOTS of strong men to avoid incursions by large groups of thieves or opposing villages. 

I wince a little at the words "Women have a natural sociopathic tendency built in" but have to note, it's all about dependency, insecurity, fear for survival. And that is why we tend as a society to forgive women their transgressions much more easily than men who show the same behavior. Men are not expected to be clingy or grasping, because they are expected to be able to fend for themselves AND for others. This is especially true regarding women who are mothers. 

It is not at all surprising to imagine women going to criminal lengths on behalf of their children, and at the same time to be given a free pass for doing so. That's one reason why, in my mind, it's disturbing to note how "feminist governance" seems to coincide with three simultaneous things. Infiltration of the police force with "feminism." Mothers of young children being forced to continue in the work place after their children are born, with their children's well being dependent on these mothers doing whatever it takes to maximize their own personal income. Greatly expanded war on drugs and prohibitionism of the type we all know massively increases mafia power and police corruption. Those three things happening all at once isn't good for society. 

However, I should note, if feminists want to stamp out gender differences, and create an independent woman, they need to go just as hard on women for clingy grasping and overly controlling ways, or for nepotism and family favoritism, as they would on a man. Especially since some of the positions they want women to fill are ones where such a person in such a position would do a lot of harm to others, if they aren't "magnanimous-to-strangers" the way men are supposed to be. We have a government that provides a welfare system. Which is supposed to compassionately care for the poor rather than subject them to cruel financial schemes whereby employees of the welfare bureaucracies make lucrative contracts with businesses that boost business profits and help enrich the families of the welfare employees. Yet, the moment women are in control of the welfare bureaucracy, that is exactly what you can expect them to do -- enrich themselves, their families, and their children, at the expense of the poor -- much more than you would see men ever doing the same thing. 

In fact, it is my belief that one reason why our country, more than most other countries, hired women as bureaucrats much earlier may well have been the impact of race in this country and how much certain businesses felt they could trust FEMALE WELFARE WORKERS to much more enthusiastically "tow the line" with regard to the exploitation of blacks through strategic use of the welfare system during the Jim Crow era.

I say this knowing one thing. In my experience, if you ever have to deal with a government bureaucrat in a situation where bureaucratic recalcitrance could really do you a lot of harm, which would you prefer to deal with? A male bureaucrat? Or female bureaucrat? In my experience, female bureaucrats are often poison in this country, while male bureaucrats tend to be amenable to bending the rules in order to compassionately accommodate someone's unique needs. 

Which may not reflect a universal human difference -- because I do think that gender differences are not quite as stark as that, yet in our country, the government has invested a lot of energy and effort into attracting a particular kind of especially harsh and cruel woman -- strict -- into bureaucratic positions. And, indeed, one reason for the negativity of the feminist movement is, it's almost like requiring such a toxic feminism as pre-condition for employment of bureaucratic women WAS a way of weeding out any woman with a tendency to be soft hearted that might compromise all of the money that could be made from bureaucratic oppression and abuse of the poor and of minorities.

Women are not quite as bad as the ones who have all been systematically put out front and center by the feminist movement. And, if you want to examine the reasons for why really negative women have been put out front and center, ….. I just think in the end this all stems from the legacy of slavery and race in this country. Maybe not directly, maybe not in an obvious way, but I think it still does.

Huffington Post article on clownfish

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-s-rhodes/naturally-occurring-sex-change-and-the-rise-of-the-alpha-female_b_4968667.html?utm_hp_ref=science[/url]

I am interested in this subject because I am somewhat interested in the whole debate between kin selection and group selection. I was reading a "feminist economics" website and one thing that is very clear is that feminists butcher the english language, especially international feminists interested in corrupting local third world countries for economic reasons.

In that sense, the word "dominant" has had its meaning butchered, where they try to say women are dominant but then it's given this over-the-top meaning such as Angelina Jolie mimicking Arnold Schwartzenegger. Also, female dominance also is intended to mean women having equal or higher salaries to men -- yet, this contradicts all studies that show that social isolation and social networking determine which member of a couple has the upper hand over the other. Abusers, of course, try to isolate a victim from all other social contact, from friends and family. They rarely try to get a victim fired from a job -- because they know a job is a transactional relationship where the employer wants to exploit the employee, and co-workers are under the control of the same employer and thus not allowed to be friends and allies, certainly not the kind of ally that would band together and help in event of a problem. Somehow cutting women off from all voluntary social connections they might have time to make as stay at home mothers and force them into a work place full of frenemies under the tutelage of a CEO whose job is to maximize profit according to the capitalist regime is empowerment of women according to feminists?

Only if they limit "power" to include actual amount of salary paid. And, in addition, limit all discussions to carceral issues and assume that social power does not exist but all power is that which can be exercised in either the criminal justice system or the civil legal system, and since justice is bought, of course, gender equality can only be achieved by ensuring women have salaries equal in size to that of men. How simplistic.

Meanwhile, some studies I've seen do show that women are far more likely to network with KIN while men network with larger groups outside of just kin. This dovetails with the debate between kin selection and group selection, where scholars refuse to consider the possibility of gender differences between men and women and thus write very vaguely. 

However, oddly enough, feminist economists seem to know women are more likely to engage in kin selection while men are more likely to engage in group selection. However they butcher the english language in describing and distorting it, with one article I read by a feminist arguing that "women are considered to be more altruistic than men" but the qualifying that as meaning "more concerned for there own families." What that means, of course, is the moment a woman is put in a position of power -- say she becomes mayor of a small town, or is merely the wife of the mayor of a small town, of course she will ensure several people are fired and her own kids are hired in their place in government jobs. Aka, woman are far more likely to engage in nepotism favoring family members. And, guess what? That's not the definition of altruism, which involves helping people who are outside your immediate family -- which is what men do. That's called nepotism -- which is precisely what the West encourages in third world country elites, so they can rape and exploit the third world. 

However, I can see why feminists would want to butcher the English language, and then proceed to try to institute gender equality in foreign third world countries the USA wants to exploit, arguing women are more altruistic than men, and then proceed to "empower" the richest women of a third world country in the process of paying off the elites of third world countries.

The "altruism" of third world elite women ensures that the concerns of the poor not take precedence over the interests of their immediate family members smoothly ensures that the poor of third world countries are brutally exploited in service of the West. Furthermore, women are hypergamous while men are not. Women will favor rich foreigners and not want to turn down foreign aid, whereas local men will be much more hostile to intrusion by the West in service of exploiting said population economically, especially if it means all sorts of interference. They will stand up for their PRINCIPLES even if it means turning down MONEY, they will stand up for their local AUTONOMY even if it means sacrificing some amount of SECURITY.

Western Feminists are rightly obsessed with "gender equality" inasmuch as it distracts attention from the concerns of the poor or, indeed, anyone who isn't rich. Meanwhile, so long as third world poor women are exploited EQUALLY AS BADLY as third world poor men, all is good. "Empowering" (paying off) rich women and encouraging their "altruism" {nepotism} towards their family members means encouraging rich third world women to sell out the rest of the population and help enslave them to Western exploitation. Oh well, the more you study feminism, the more you notice, if there is one thing feminists worship above all else, it is money. 

My AVRM comments on Malcolm X gay prostitution welfare and race

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?8913-White-people-are-banned-from-participating-in-diversity-event

I need to figure out how to make the above a linkable URL. But, until I figure that out…..

In any case, here is what I wrote. Does it sound radical? Maybe so. Then again, the information I have been exposed to and all sorts of examples I have seen first hand, regarding rampant abuse of the poor by government bureaucrats in all sorts of areas and with themes consistently tying such abuse to business schemes really leaves me no alternative. There is something about seeing something for yourself first hand that is telling.

I write here:

I personally think, well it depends on what the definition of diversity is. You can have one type of diversity event that's billed as an opportunity for different backgrounds to mix together, in which case no party should be banned. The purpose is homogenization and mixing with people of different backgrounds. Otherwise, I personally do not think there is anything wrong with one particular group to want to get together with those of similar background to them. I know it's controversial to say that. At the same time, it happens all the time anyway. Why pretend we are not a society defined by nepotism? Why not admit to it but specify that what matters is that people of different races or classes or other status do not mistreat members of alternative groups? Furthermore, it should be ok to want to mix with those of other backgrounds in some circumstances, but not in other circumstances. 

My perspective on this is quite interesting because, as a gay man, I do like to sleep with men of other races, but I tend to like different races in different ways and what activity I do with one race isn't going to be the same as with another race. What I find, though, is that when I sleep with a black guy, I usually like to talk with him as well because there is something about black and Italian men where it's like their communication styles wake up a side to me that is usually dormant when I talk to most white men, but which I can exercise when I talk to blacks or Italians. It's that whole side to communication that relies less on analytical words and more on emotion and body language, and it's very hard for me to explain it but I use a different part of my brain when I talk to most blacks and most italians than I use when I talk with most whites or Asians. And I like it. But I like talking with whites and asian types too. Because I have that side to me too. 

All that is part of the human condition. I also have to say I criticize that side of political correctness that insists on total homogenization at all times. Society must be put in a blender and all evenly mixed up and homogenized with quotas in every single organization and no opportunity for different organizations to have specific unique characters. That's boring. Diversity shouldn't mean mandatory homogenization achieved in a top down command and control manner, where every organization out there lives in fear of the slightest criticism of having some kind of failing in the "diversity correctness" department.

In response perhaps not to me:

By Jack H.

So these people are IN FAVOR of Segregation?

I bet Martian Luther King Jr is spinning in his grave right about now.

By me:

Well this is an interesting issue. 

You should consider reading about Malcolm X. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X

and his criticism of the mainstream civil rights movement. 

And also try to contrast his life with that of Martin Luther King. 

I am trying to look up the article where I read about him, but what I remember is, the reason Malcolm X espoused black separatism was because he concluded that white society was a hopeless cause, and could never be trusted not to oppress and exploit blacks. When you look at how feminist control of the welfare system, along with how the welfare system shifted to one involving incarceration of black men along with "mental disability" diagnoses for black children of single mothers, along with requirements that they be put on debilitating neureleptics, which are erroneously four times the diagnosis rates of whites (at least), and this happened all on Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's watch, both of whom were responsible for a lot of deal making between the welfare bureaucracy, private prisons and healthcare companies. 

At this point, it's about time someone said maybe Malcolm X had a point. And for a white person to argue he had a point isn't a sign of racism -- rather, it is an indightment of the massive and extreme criminality of the US government and business world, along with the tendency for white society to use blacks as scapegoats ESPECIALLY when claiming to be acting "compassionate" and "wanting to help" towards them. When you look at what goes on in this society, some of the abuse that goes on in minority communities which is barely ever talked about, one cannot help but conclude that more people need to consider thinking like Malcolm X.

You should also note an interesting contrast between the life of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. Malcolm X did some work as a gay prostitute. Martin Luther King didn't. My opinion has always been, that one little distinction explains the difference in their viewpoints much more than people might imagine. 

Who is more right? 

Malcolm X had first hand experience dealing with some of those bastards.

He knew.

I don't think history is going to be kind to modern society's treatment of blacks post civil rights movement.

I should note, after the holocaust, Jews didn't all move to Germany in order to bask in and trust the German government's promises to make amends. They created Israel.

More points on women in welfare bureaucracies

This is copied and pasted from AVFM.

THE FOLLOWING IS A QUOTE FROM ANDROGEN OF AVFM:

Women have a natural sociopathic tendency built in by millions of years of evolutionary hardwiring. They only have a tendency to go for the strongest and most successful male for them at any time. If there's something a woman wants that her current partner isn't giving her, she will find someone who will give it. This is because they're more hardwired to dependency than men. Because females bear the energy expenditure in childrearing and pregnancy, the excess energy of the male disposes him to be a gatherer and protector. This leads females in dangerous environments to find the most suited mate due to the risk to her of an unsuitable mate and those who do not have the tendency to select the most protective and powerful male are selected against in the gene pool just like the weaker males are selected against.

Because millions of years of evolution really provided little to marital stability in the traditional sense of civilization, much less the protection of agrarian systems with stationary groups of people, dangers were plentiful. Now they are less plentiful, but the tendency to select the most capable male is still present which means that when one comes along that provides something the previous male didn't and she wants it, she'll go for it, because she's hardwired against the capacity to love - only to engage the best current available protector and provider.

It's the primary reason women hold the highest rates for divorce and still indoctrinate society to believe that men are the ones who won't commit when statistics quite clearly indicate that women are the most incapable of commitment. Because when a woman thinks she's found a good guy to latch onto, she wants him at her beck and call, but she also wants to be praised when she ditches him for someone better.

And, that, is why nature is a cunt: http://www.uplifting-love.com/2013/0...-filed-by.html

(note that even that article blames the men for women's failure to exhibit committed behaviors - but it is written by a man - one good man in a sea of inferior male scoundrels which he must compete against to maintain his status as the one good protector and provider for his genetically incapable of love spouse).

AND HERE IS MY RESPONSE:

Yes well a good way to understand evolutionary biology or -- I don't know what it's called, it's a kind of sociology -- is to imagine looking down at a population from above. In humans, unlike in Kangaroos for instance, you will see mothers with children practically TETHERED to the same spot for long periods of time, while men move around or travel around. Human children cannot be carried around in one's pocket, and are not very suited to fending for themselves amid any kind of serious long distance travel. So you instantly have women staking out a territory before they have babies, while men are free to wander long distances. 

The moment you have a woman with children stuck in one spot, you see how she will develop a relationship of dependency with other human beings around, usually men, but also other women so long as they are ones capable of attracting or keeping good men around. However, assuming you have a tight knit community where everyone knows each other, even if some of the men travel on hunting expeditions, you still have the issue of needing to hoard supplies over the winter (northern european especially) and to worry about thieves or marauders. In moments of scarcity, it always becomes every man (or family) for himself. A woman will need not just any man but a STRONG MAN to guard any hoarded food which is in scarce supply over the winter. Whole communities need LOTS of strong men to avoid incursions by large groups of thieves or opposing villages. 

I wince a little at the words "Women have a natural sociopathic tendency built in" but have to note, it's all about dependency, insecurity, fear for survival. And that is why we tend as a society to forgive women their transgressions much more easily than men who show the same behavior. Men are not expected to be clingy or grasping, because they are expected to be able to fend for themselves AND for others. This is especially true regarding women who are mothers. 

It is not at all surprising to imagine women going to criminal lengths on behalf of their children, and at the same time to be given a free pass for doing so. That's one reason why, in my mind, it's disturbing to note how "feminist governance" seems to coincide with three simultaneous things. Infiltration of the police force with "feminism." Mothers of young children being forced to continue in the work place after their children are born, with their children's well being dependent on these mothers doing whatever it takes to maximize their own personal income. Greatly expanded war on drugs and prohibitionism of the type we all know massively increases mafia power and police corruption. Those three things happening all at once isn't good for society. 

However, I should note, if feminists want to stamp out gender differences, and create an independent woman, they need to go just as hard on women for clingy grasping and overly controlling ways, or for nepotism and family favoritism, as they would on a man. Especially since some of the positions they want women to fill are ones where such a person in such a position would do a lot of harm to others, if they aren't "magnanimous-to-strangers" the way men are supposed to be. We have a government that provides a welfare system. Which is supposed to compassionately care for the poor rather than subject them to cruel financial schemes whereby employees of the welfare bureaucracies make lucrative contracts with businesses that boost business profits and help enrich the families of the welfare employees. Yet, the moment women are in control of the welfare bureaucracy, that is exactly what you can expect them to do -- enrich themselves, their families, and their children, at the expense of the poor -- much more than you would see men ever doing the same thing. 

In fact, it is my belief that one reason why our country, more than most other countries, hired women as bureaucrats much earlier may well have been the impact of race in this country and how much certain businesses felt they could trust FEMALE WELFARE WORKERS to much more enthusiastically "tow the line" with regard to the exploitation of blacks through strategic use of the welfare system during the Jim Crow era.

I say this knowing one thing. In my experience, if you ever have to deal with a government bureaucrat in a situation where bureaucratic recalcitrance could really do you a lot of harm, which would you prefer to deal with? A male bureaucrat? Or female bureaucrat? In my experience, female bureaucrats are often poison in this country, while male bureaucrats tend to be amenable to bending the rules in order to compassionately accommodate someone's unique needs. 

Which may not reflect a universal human difference -- because I do think that gender differences are not quite as stark as that, yet in our country, the government has invested a lot of energy and effort into attracting a particular kind of especially harsh and cruel woman -- strict -- into bureaucratic positions. And, indeed, one reason for the negativity of the feminist movement is, it's almost like requiring such a toxic feminism as pre-condition for employment of bureaucratic women WAS a way of weeding out any woman with a tendency to be soft hearted that might compromise all of the money that could be made from bureaucratic oppression and abuse of the poor and of minorities.

Women are not quite as bad as the ones who have all been systematically put out front and center by the feminist movement. And, if you want to examine the reasons for why really negative women have been put out front and center, ….. I just think in the end this all stems from the legacy of slavery and race in this country. Maybe not directly, maybe not in an obvious way, but I think it still does.

Here is my first political post discussing libertarianism

Since this can all be edited, I will post this and continue to make changes to it for awhile, as I hone my message and clarify what I am saying or what I mean. 

In addition, though my ideas sound very original, I have discovered there seem to be plenty of academics who seem to think this way, but they generally tend to write in esoteric sounding language not easily accessible to the uninitiated reader. However, the fact is that the ideas are actually quite simple, and academic speak often has this habit of obscuring meanings which are very easy to understand beneath a haze of jargon.

My previous writing experience, however, has always aimed at presenting ideas in ways that are SIMPLE. And easy to understand. 

This website is to allow me to present intelligibly my thoughts and insights on various social, political, historical and even scientific issues I've been studying in the past two years. 

Some of which I have background knowledge of due to having been involved with and interested in various political movements many years ago. 

My political viewpoint leans towards libertarian, except that I am not completely happy with the way some of them think. Libertarians want limited government and civil liberties. As a matter of principle, that is excellent. But then libertarians seem to suffer from this ingrained bias of Western Culture that you can somehow intellectually decide that government "should be" a certain way and then the perfect society can then be achieved by some legislative body sitting down and crafting some written rule decreeing that that is how society is to be from now on.

Actually, I think government and the larger society it is embedded in is more like some kind of living beast that you can train or that can morph in one direction or another, but it can't be so easily manipulated or changed as we think. Written rules don't have the exact effect they literally intend, but instead enforcement of the rules and all sorts of other considerations regarding government bureaucracies results in all sorts of ripple effects or unintended consequences. As a result, the most free society does not necessarily result from the one with the nicest and most free sounding written constitution or constitutional rights guaranteeing liberty.

A very good example of this issue is the liberal Warren Court expanding all sorts of fifth amendment procedural and technical criminal protections for defendants. Liberals saying they want to do this might be arguing this is to help the poor. The opposite is the truth. This is to help defense attorneys, and why is that a bad thing? Because criminal procedures and technicalities of the liberal Warren Court only resulted in defendants having protection IF they could hire an expensive enough attorney to do a good enough job PRESSING them. Public defenders are part of the corrupt court system, they deliberately do a bad job so as to make sure well heeled defendants find it worth their while to pay defense attorneys extra.

Huge sentences ALSO give well heeled defendants more incentive to pay extra. Thus, defense attorneys representing rich criminal defendants have a vested interest in maintaining the strict sentencing policies responsible for Mass Incarceration. Furthermore, there was a law school bubble which burst, and now law schools are doing poorly because lawyers are not finding it worth their while to spend so much money on a law degree. Fact of the matter is, those liberal Warren Court protections indirectly increased legal fees for defense attorneys, thereby contributing to the upward pressure on college tuition and law school tuition, simply because the amount of money attorneys could make from a law degree made it more worthwhile.

Those attorneys then need steady work afterwards. They then use their membership in bar associations to lobby for guess what? More law enforcement of a bad kind designed to increase crime rates or otherwise increase the number of defendants so as to increase their customer base. Combine that with businesses that make money off of cheap prison labor, and local politicians who like to award government or union jobs to public employees working in prisons or in all sorts of welfare or "social services" offices made necessary by so many fatherless homes and single mothers, and you can see a motive for defense attorneys, prosecutors, police, academia, and politicians to collude in a manner that results in large constituencies becoming dependent on such evils as mass incarceration and public housing and other welfare policies that sabotage the poor.

It also is true that this example I give with mass incarceration is just one of many examples. The regulatory state has actually increased in many other ways, all tied with the higher education bubble and a need to pass more regulations that force more companies to hire more white collar professionals to help them process red tape. This trend going on in all of society on a massive basis can, I think, be tied to the USA having won World War II, established something of an empire allowing productivity to be shipped overseas, but this can only happen if political constituencies are paid off to counteract political unions that worked on behalf of manufacturing in the USA. Obviously, the rise in mass incarceration and the regulatory state were necessary to increase employment opportunities for college grads and other holders of advanced degrees, and in this way academia was paid off and harnessed so as to split up old blue collar trade unions.

Along with all that, tons of liberal policies suddenly were enacted, ostensibly to help the poor, but really to help academia and related constituencies. And the Warren Criminal Defendant Protections, is just one of many examples showing how a policy that, examined in the most superficial way you think it's designed to help criminal defendants overall in the long run has the exact opposite effect. Because these protections are ones that only can be accessed by those with the money to pay for top dollar attorneys. And, it isn't always necessarily related to the facts of the case. The attorney usually has an incestuous relationship with everyone else in the court system, so much so that basically if you pay the right attorney enough money, you will get off because he is friends with all the judges and prosecutors, and parole officers, etc.

And for me to say that could lead to others thinking it is rather awful to have a court system so incestuously corrupt. Except, these are all nice people who know each other and court systems have ALWAYS been like this, more or less. And they always will be this way. Government is incapable of being perfect. Or at least government is incapable of being run by unfeeling human beings with no personal prejudice. Indeed, I am not sure I even want a government run by coldly calculating unfeeling automatons. Understanding its inherent imperfections such as this are necessary when it comes to avoiding passing laws which interact with such a culture in a way to produce very bad outcomes.

After all, we have always had government and, for some reason, it would appear if we always have had it, that is because we need it. The inner workings of government are so awful, you discover after you observe it, it can easily lead many to think we should just abolish it. But, given that that is impossible, the best alternative is to understand it as inherently flawed, and realistically think of how to make things "the least bad."

This is what I have thought for a long time, yet only recently have I stumbled across some law professors who subscribe to a movement called "legal realism." It turns out they think exactly the way I do, and see the same flaws in our society (or in the thinking of popular culture which leads to wrong-headed policies in our legal system) that I see.

Oddly enough, some of them seem to describe themselves as leftists yet they are not the kind of ordinary mainstream leftist most people would understand to be "of the left." Which is strange because I never would have thought of myself as a liberal -- but not a conservative either.

Of course, why categorize oneself? I like to not limit myself or pigeonhole myself into any one "box" or "category." 

This is a test post

So I can see if I enjoy using square space. 

Headline

OK this looks nice. At least I can do headlines.

1. And bullet points.
2. Nice
3. Now the question is, can I insert a picture or some kind of graphics too?

This is my great grandfather Angelo Monello

This picture is from a wine bottle or wine venture one of my relatives in the wine making business is putting out. My grandfather never really told me much about him, but what he told me I remember perfectly. However, apparently he was a genius and it would appear I got my extremely good memory from him. 

Embed Block

Add an embed URL or code. Learn more

Embed Block

Add an embed URL or code. Learn more