Jim's Blog

Eyeballing the graphs in the Journal of Endoctrinology, looks like American blacks become physically adult roughly four years earlier than American whites.  Which makes them approximately intermediate between chimps and men.  This is consistent with black females typically experiencing menarche at nine and white females typically experiencing menarche at twelve.  Data on puberty in black males seems curiously hard to find, suggesting that it is horribly politically incorrect.  Just eyeballing American blacks, looks to me that black males experience puberty at about the same age as black females or close to it, while white males experience puberty about two years later than white females, but that is just a wild assed guess.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a study that says the difference is only one year, as measured by the start of testicle growth.  Maybe I am prejudiced, but I find that hard to believe.   The interesting measure that people should care about is not growth of testicles, which no one can see, but growth in bones, which everyone can see, and which can be objectively measured far more accurately.  Maybe there is not much difference in the age and which testicles start to grow, but there is surely a pretty big difference in the age at which bones have substantially grown.  It is also kind of suspicious that there is a only a one year difference in the start of testicle growth, which is hard to define and hard to measure, and a three year difference in menarche, which is entirely unambiguous to define and measure.  Much as indications of climate change are more alarming the less they can be accurately measured, and the less alarming the more they can be accurately measured.

Which makes educating whites and black children in the same classrooms segregated by age, rather than by physical development, pretty much insane.

Similarly, stupid to put girls and boys in the same classroom by age during puberty, though not as stupid as putting whites and blacks in the same classroom by age.  Indeed, it is pretty obvious that during puberty, kids should be sorted by their puberty stage, not by age.

The reason we don’t do what we obviously should do is that what we are doing advantages female children over male, and young black men over white male children.

One of my commenters had never heard of the Feminine Imperative, and it is not listed the social matters compendium, so here is a description and definition.

The Feminine Imperative is that when a woman follows her pussy, it should have good results for her, and if it does not have good results for her, it is the fault of some dastardly man and not an indication that women are too childish and irresponsible to be allowed to follow their pussies.

Whenever illicit female sexual desires lead to illicit acts which have bad consequences, those consequences are deemed to be the fault of men, and it is the duty of men to make female sexual desires come out with good consequences for the woman, even if it means bad consequences for the man. Man up and marry those sluts!

Thus, for example, serial monogamy is deemed to be perfectly moral, while polygyny is totally unacceptable meaning that women are allowed to be permanently on the prowl to trade up from their current husband or boyfriend, while it is absolutely terrible for a man to sleep with multiple girlfriends, or to sleep with other women in addition to his wife.

When women do bad things, they are treated like children morally, let off the hook, protected from the consequences, yet they are allowed to make potentially disastrous choices without adult supervision, choices that men will pay for when those choices go wrong. Thus women receive substantially lesser penalties for crimes, and are not really expected to honor contracts – yet any business that discriminated against contracts signed by women would be in big trouble, even though it is also in trouble when it tries to enforce those contracts.

A pregnant woman can abort, or give the child away, but if she decides to keep it, she can demand child support from the father – while denying the child a father.

The system that the father and the mother get married at shotgun point, and the father is forced to support his wife and child, and the mother forced to honor and obey the husband makes moral sense. The system that a single mother is on her own would also make moral sense, if women could be treated as independent adults, equal to men, but when we tried that the result was far too many women giving birth to fatherless children in the rain in dark alleys. So now we have a system where pregnancy obligates men, but not women, where women make the decisions and men pay for the consequences. That is Feminine Imperative.

The underlying mechanism leading to the Feminine Imperative is that adult women are assumed to be adult, to be capable of making responsible decisions about sex and reproduction. And when it becomes painfully obvious that they are not, then men have to pick up the pieces, without however having the power and authority to restrain women from making bad decisions.

The Feminine imperative is a result of the fact that letting women take the costs of their decisions leads to intolerably bad outcomes.  So men have to take the cost of women’s decisions.

But even if we try to ameliorate the costs of bad decisions, these decisions are still terribly harmful and should never have been permitted. For example Kate Gosselin should not have been permitted to be rude, hateful and shrewish to her husband, and should not have been permitted to frivolously divorce her husband, as these choices led to extremely bad consequences for her and her children, and making her husband pay for her wicked, foolish, and self destructive behavior did not much diminish the self destructiveness of it.

Movie star, grad school.

Some white knight in the comments has been defending the virtue and chastity of womanhood and how warmly they treat nice guys, and how if you treat women as equals, or even better, the superiors that they naturally are, you will get laid.

Jian Ghomeshi’s procedure consisted of beating them up on the first date, having sex with them on the first date, and then brutally dumping them to make way for the next girl in line.

A woman will crawl nine miles over broken glass to have sex with her demon lover.  It is not in the nature of women to be chaste except that they submit to male authority.  If you are not having sex with your wife, she is getting it somewhere else.

Monogamy and chastity was invented by men to reduce conflicts between men, and imposed on women with a stick.

Castalia house has produced an excellent booklet “Safe Space as Rape Room” 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I, II, III.

Which documents how the fetishization of consent allowed gay science fiction authors to prey upon young boys attracted to science fiction fandom.

In other words, a pedophile with the Delany mindset is given carte blanche under the Scalzi-endorsed code to attract children “desperate to establish some sort of sexual relation with an…adult figure” for invited sexual and physical attention.

“Why? Because I want my friends and fans to be able to come to a convention and feel assured that the convention is making the effort to be a safe place for them.” – John Scalzi

Scalzi’s desire for his friends’ and fans’ safe place becomes a nightmare if just one of those friends or fans happens to be a molester like fellow SFWA member Ed Kramer, who attracted children to his hotel room at the conventions he ran.

When we came down from the trees, children and females were dependent on males for protection from predators, and males were dependent on each other.  Contrary to Locke’s original state of nature, we were not distant and equal, but instead close and unequal.

Chimps and men are unusual among apes in that we hunt, and unusual among mammals in that we make war.  Lions and hyenas are instinctively and permanently at war, but conflicts between lions are normally one on one, and at most one pair of brothers against another pair of brothers.  Chimps, on the other hand, while mostly at peace with neighboring tribes of chimps, are frequently at war, and these wars often total and genocidal.  Since chimps and men are omnivorous killer apes, it is a good bet that the common ancestor of chimps and men were omnivorous killer apes.

When our ancestors first came down from the trees and out of the forest onto the plains, they could not walk or run very fast or far, and to this day, we are lousy sprinters compared to almost any predator.  So, our ancestors avoided being eaten by being the meanest sons of bitches on the plains, with a team of killer apes using their superior ability to cooperate and coordinate against a team of lions.

Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that women got any opportunity to consent to sex or refuse sex.  It is also unlikely that females were shared, as this would undermine group cohesion.  Yes, the male penis is shaped to scoop out competing sperm, but the male hands are designed for a more permanent and final solution to sperm competition.  In the trees, females could screw around because they did not need male protection, and because meat was less important in the trees.  On the plains it would likely be a really bad idea for a female to wander out of sight of her owner.  Human and chimp males are both shaped for violence, but human males arguably more shaped for violence than chimp males.  Humans are more sexually dimorphic than chimps, and the dimorphisms all bear a fairly obvious relationship to the capability for violence.  Almost every human male can easily subdue almost any human female.  This is not true among chimps.

The ancestors of men, the omnivorous killer apes that came down to the plains, survived because they loved their comrades and cooperated well.  And the main thing that they cooperated to do was to slay their enemies.  Humans are more specialized for cooperation than chimps, for example the whites of our eyes that make it easy to accurately tell what direction a human is looking.  Our ancestors were, compared to most other creatures, and compared to chimpanzees, loyal, good, and kind – good to and kind to their comrades – brutal and deadly to everything else.

Consent does not make sex right. Nor does lack of consent make sex wrong. Lots of societies have arranged marriages, and some societies have marriage by abduction. Women seem to like such marriages just fine.

In the early settlement of Australia, the authorities regularly applied shotgun marriage on a large scale, and often assigned a woman to a man without bothering with the formality of marriage or any pretense at female consent, and it does not seem to have led to any difficulties. Whereas porn stars give carefully recorded consent to everything, and usually wind up badly disturbed by all the disgusting things they consented to.

Sex is far too important to be left to the decision of those directly involved.  And women are not much better at making the decision at thirty than at ten.