Nandini's Niche

Any fashionable ideology quickly attracts its share of idiots eager to agree with its most outlandish propositions and be its Number One Fans, yessirree. The most obvious examples are religions: scratch the surface of any “Hindu”* and underneath you’ll find a moron willing to seriously entertain the possibility that Ganesh statues drink milk and Lord Krishna’s Pashupata Astra was really a nuclear bomb.

As annoying as Hindus can be when they get going on the subject of How Hinduism Anticipated Every Major Scientific Breakthrough Of The 20th Century, they’re nothing compared to the imbeciles I’ve just come across on, of all places, RichardDawkins.net.

Read this article on Psycology Today (dismembered at length under the “Read More” cut). Then look at some choice comments to the article from the members of RichardDawkins.net: this one and this one and this one… and oh, you’ll find loads.

Ugh. Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh. I cannot believe this garbage is piggybacking on the name of science, that it’s put up on the website of a man whom I quite respected (in spite of his rantiness, but because of his innate sensibility), and that there are such MORONS masquerading under the honourable name of “atheist”. AAAARRRGGGHH.

Who’s in the mood for some dismemberment? For an Exclusive Edited Revised And (Snarkily) Annotated look at the original Psycology Today article, read on! (Warning: long.)

*self-described

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature
Why most suicide bombers are Muslim, beautiful people have more daughters, humans are naturally polygamous, sexual harassment isn’t sexist, and blonds are more attractive.
By:Alan S(hithead). Miller Ph(at).D(oofus)., Satoshi Kanazawa Ph(rickin’).D(oo-doo-head).

Human nature is one of those things that everybody talks about but no one can define precisely (who gave YOU a PhD?). Every time we fall in love, fight with our spouse, get upset about the influx of immigrants into our country, or go to church, we are, in part, behaving as a human animal with our own unique evolved nature—human nature (nature-human nature? As opposed to… clones? Robots? God’s intelligently designed creatures?).

(Yadda yadda yadda)… our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are shared, to a large extent, by all men or women (remember this, lads n’ lasses, remember this mighty ALL), despite … large cultural differences.

(Yadda yadda yadda)… evolutionary psychologists postulate wild theories on thin air see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways. …

The implications of some of the ideas in this article may seem unsupported, divorced from “reality”, stupid, immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive. We state them because we had fun making them up they are true, supported by documented scientific evidence that exists somewhere other than reality. Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct.

Excerpted from Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, by Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa, to be published by Perigree in September 2007.

Men like blonde bombshells (and women want to look like them)

Long before TV—in 15th- and 16th- century Italy, and possibly two millennia ago—women were dying their hair blond. And that’s all I’ll say about blonde hair in this section. A recent study shows that in Iran, where exposure to Western media and culture is limited, women are actually more concerned with their body image, and want to lose more weight, than their American counterparts. (And Renaissance women apparantly wanted to be absolute COWS. Your point?) …

Women’s desire to look like Barbie—young with small waist (all right, that’s pretty constant all through human history), large breasts (small breasts are in fashion quite often, but go on), long blond hair (unheard of in more than half the world’s population), and blue eyes (again, unheard of in most parts of the world) — is a direct, realistic, and sensible (WHA-?) response to the desire of men to mate with women who look like her though, of course, in India and China and Africa, people are making billions of babies without the benefit of this very sensible desire. There is evolutionary logic behind each of these features and if you are from a non-white race that has no naturally occurring blonde hair or blue eyes, you’re just not evolved enough.

Men prefer young women… One accurate indicator of health is … is hair. Healthy women have lustrous, shiny hair, whereas the hair of sickly people loses its luster. …(All right! Logical assertions for once, even if they are only assertions.)

Men also have a universal preference for women with a low waist-to-hip ratio. They are healthier and more fertile than other women; they have an easier time conceiving a child and do so at earlier ages because they have larger amounts of essential reproductive hormones. … (Yes! Conclusions drawn from real evidence… maybe there is hope for this article yet.)

(Yadda yadda yadda)… Harvard anthropologist Frank Marlowe contends that larger, and hence heavier, breasts sag more conspicuously with age than do smaller breasts. Thus they make it easier for men to judge a woman’s age (and her reproductive value) by sight—suggesting why men find women with large breasts more attractive. (Oh crap. Serves me right for speaking too soon.)

Alternatively, … a new study of Polish women shows that women with large breasts and tight waists have the greatest fecundity, [so that may explain men's preference for large breasts]. (Conclusions based on evidence: “alternate” theories. Conclusions based on wild speculation: mentioned first as the primary theory!)

Hmm, I wonder what the title of this section was? Oh yeah - Blond hair is unique in that it changes dramatically with age. Typically, [young women] with light blond hair become [older] women with brown hair. … It is no coincidence that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia and northern Europe, probably as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth, as their bodies were concealed under heavy clothing. (So how did Scandinavians pass on their evolutionary preference for blondes to ALL (remember that almighty ALL?) of us?)

…

Humans are naturally polygamous
(But I will immediately change the word “polygamy” to “polygyny”, watch for it!)

The history of western civilization aside, humans are naturally polygamous. Polyandry (a marriage of one woman to many men) is very rare, but polygyny (the marriage of one man to many women) is widely practiced in human societies, even though Judeo-Christian traditions hold that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. …

(Yadda yadda yadda… about why polygyny means bigger males who are the best protectors have the most offspring.

In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man. (Ah, you’re walking into dangerous territory… tread carefully. So far, so good…)…

Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy. (Aaaaand you blew it! Most women? As in, most women TODAY?!)) When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human (current?!) society — most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man (!!!). Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man because who’s heard of a woman capable of making her own fortune nowadays? Huh? Haha, what a suggestion.

The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. …They can monopolize the wealthiest men because for men to “share a wealthy woman” would just be icky; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that’s much better than not marrying anyone at all. (There is something just so wrong about that sentence, but my brain has exploded too recently for me to figure it out.)

…

Most suicide bombers are Muslim

Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim. Why? The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines) (Two lines? Has this guy READ the Koran?). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny.(I thought he said this had nothing to do with Islam?) … If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don’t get any wives at all.

So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates.

However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. … The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. (I thought he said this had nothing to do with Islam?) … the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser. (You have to hand it to them, though – they do have a sense of humour.)

…(Big snip of many other ridiculous sections.)…

Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist

An unfortunate consequence of the ever-growing number of women joining the labor force and working side by side with men is the increasing number of sexual harassment cases. Why must sexual harassment be a necessary consequence of the sexual integration of the workplace? (Whoa! Take a step back. Read that sentence again. “Must”? “Necessary consequence”?)

Psychologist Kingsley R. Browne identifies two types of sexual harassment cases: the quid pro quo (“You must sleep with me if you want to keep your job or be promoted”) and the “hostile environment” (the workplace is deemed too sexualized for workers to feel safe and comfortable). While feminists and social scientists tend to explain sexual harassment in terms of “patriarchy” and other ideologies, Browne locates the ultimate cause of both types of sexual harassment in sex differences in mating strategies. Ha! Gotcha! I’ve now successfully diverted your attention to the following irrelevant blathering.

Studies demonstrate unequivocally that men are far more interested in short-term casual sex than women. In one now-classic study, 75 percent of undergraduate men approached by an attractive female stranger agreed to have sex with her; none of the women approached by an attractive male stranger did. Many men who would not date the stranger nonetheless agreed to have sex with her. (Okay, so men are sluts. Yawn. Your point? )

Feminists often claim that sexual harassment is “not about sex but about power;” Browne contends it is both—men using power to get sex. (All right, but how does this prove that the sexual harassment is NOT sexist? It’s all exclusively about gender, so far.)

Sexual harassment cases of the hostile-environment variety result from sex differences in what men and women perceive as “overly sexual” or “hostile” behavior. Many women legitimately complain that they have been subjected to abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment by their male coworkers. Browne points out that long before women entered the labor force, men subjected each other to such abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment. (Wait. When indulging in such “abusive, intimidating and degrading” treatment, men treat women EXACTLY like they treat men? So they grope and pinch one another? They express lewd admiration for each other’s bodies? And they repeatedly suggest having sex to “cool the sexual tension” between them? They compare each other’s man-breasts to fruit?)

Abuse, intimidation, and degradation are all part of men’s repertoire of tactics employed in competitive situations. In other words, men are not treating women differently from men—the definition of discrimination, under which sexual harassment legally falls—but the opposite: Men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women.
(Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.)