While the article cant say why, many people may realize that when you get bad life advice, like the kind your family would not give you, but feminists are willing to, then your life may not turn out the way they dictate.

After all, all the assertions of feminism have been blind assertions looking for proof. Though as we move forward in biology, and other thigns, we are finding out that our parents and elders knew more intuitively about us than we know empirically in our daily lives.

That Prader Willi syndrome can be mitigated by father participation. That a female child living without her blood father has earlier onset of first menses (fathers let them live in a learning time longer). The list can be quite long, and will certainly explode as we find out more.

Well, just as men who are disenfranchised, tend to commit suicide because they are a net drain rather than a provider, why would it be so far from our ideas that women have similar mechanisms, though along her bailiwick, fertility.

Middle aged white women are the group that signed on the most to the feminist ideas of put off children (till infertility), put off marriage (till adaptability ossifies), claim abortion has no mental effect (except it does), and the list goes on.

Is it unreasonable to think that white middle aged women have reached the point of no return? That by kissing off good men, having fun without building a future till its too late, missing your biological clock, and finding out that the men aren’t interested any more (in contradiction to what all the magazines have been telling her), might be causing a problem that lack of religion, nihilism, hedonism, just doesn’t suffice to give meaning when your standing on the doc watching your “ships bearing your dreams, sail out of sight” to paraphrase Jackson brown.

The fact that new friends are made seldom, being warehoused in a clinic is a high thing for longer living women, no family to care, no family to call and keep in touch with, no companions…

Is it any wonder that this group might be dissatisfied with the new potential of their lives as it stares them in the face?

Where is the man to share my life? Where are the children, grandchildren, cousins and such to dote over? Where is the house and visitors to be with? The list can go on large given little inventiveness.

Pay close attention to the part in the press release that points out that “recent studies find that middle age is mostly a time of relative security and emotional wellbeing”. The reason is that they were interviewing those who came BEFORE the feminist advice to a utopian female life.  these women don’t have the things that this group has that gives them that.

Basically they are like men on their own after they get older. On their own, with no one, no family, and nothing left but dealing with it.

Personally, I don’t know the reason. However I do know that they will never figure out the reason, if the reason is in shibboleth land. Which means that as long as there is an ideological fence around answers, some answers will forever be out of reach, as will their solutions.

 

US suicide rate increasing:

Largest increase seen in middle-aged white women

The rate of suicide in the United States is increasing for the first time in a decade, according to a new report from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Injury Research and Policy. The increase in the overall suicide rate between 1999 and 2005 was due primarily to an increase in suicides among whites aged 40-64, with white middle-aged women experiencing the largest annual increase. Whereas the overall suicide rate rose 0.7 percent during this time period, the rate among middle-aged white men rose 2.7 percent annually and 3.9 percent among middle-aged women. By contrast, suicide in blacks decreased significantly over the study’s time period, and remained stable among Asian and Native Americans. The results are published online at the website of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine and will be published in the December print edition of the journal.

The researchers also conducted a detailed analysis of suicide methods across specific population groups. While firearms remain the predominant method, the rate of firearm suicides decreased during the study period. Suicide by hanging or suffocation increased markedly with a 6.3 percent annual increase among men, and a 2.3 percent annual increase among women. Hanging/suffocation accounted for 22 percent of all suicides by 2005, surpassing poisoning at 18 percent.

“The results underscore a change in the epidemiology of suicide, with middle-aged whites emerging as a new high-risk group,” said study co-author Susan P. Baker, MPH, a professor with the Bloomberg School’s Center for Injury Research and Policy. “Historically, suicide prevention programs have focused on groups considered to be at highest risk—teens and young adults of both genders as well as elderly white men. This research tells us we need to refocus our resources to develop prevention programs for men and women in their middle years.”

Baker along with colleagues Guoqing Hu, PhD, Holly Wilcox, PhD, Lawrence Wissow, MD, MPH, analyzed data from the Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) mortality reports, which provides data on deaths according to cause and intent of injury by age, race, gender and state. WISQARS mortality data are based on annual data files of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The reasons for the increase in the suicide rate are not fully understood. “While it would be straightforward to attribute the results to a rise in so-called mid-life crises, recent studies find that middle age is mostly a time of relative security and emotional wellbeing,” said Baker. “Further research is warranted to explore societal changes that may be disproportionably affecting the middle-aged in this country.”

Source: Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health

Our concept of litter is often situated in our aesthetic vision of the world, and a short time view…

One of the largest problems in how we view the world is in how we consider the concept of litter and pollution. Ultimately these are false concepts because they are only related to how we see something, and in how long we live and the band of time we live in.

So if there are bacteria and living things that eat the oils and use them for fuel of life, then is oil a polluting chemical?

In other words, when there is an oil spill, you are not damaging a coastline forever, but only making it different to how we saw it a short time ago. What you have done is create a huge pile of food for bacteria to feast on. Is food pollution?

The only difference is the time scale you look at it. Look at it at an hourly scale and it looks different to you, and you are disgusted that the common natural aesthetic vision has been broken. Mostly because WE can’t eat oil and the creatures we like can’t eat oil, and so we don’t appreciate it as much as the bacteria that will eat and live and travel on it.

Give it time, and it will fade into the background again…

The same is true of all our pollution. Give it time, and they will break apart, and degrade. We don’t like plastic soda bottles because they ‘last 100 years’. Well glass bottles can last more than 1000 years!!! So why do we like them more than the plastic ones?  Also the solution is there in the statement. Wait 300 years.

So then the problem is one of space, not one of pollution. And the kicker is that the problem of space will eventually fix itself. If one wants to find the richest deposits of minerals and materials, a garbage dump is the richest supply of such things. it is only a matter of short time that it will be more expensive to mine things from the earth than it will be to mine garbage dumps and render the garbage into raw materials.  

We are approaching that level now with the ability to grind up cars and tires and things and sort the particles recovering around 80% of the material. What is left over would be buried and in another 100 or so years technology would exist to recover that material. By then we would be getting new material, and disposing of material in space sending it with a push to the sun.

The whole idea of burying our nuclear waste for 10,000 or 1,000 years is absurd. we are well within 100 years of safe individual space flight (when we are allowed to each have lots more energy, we then will all be able to do this. restrict energy, none of this higher order life is possible as each new level requires a new level of energy consumption). This means that nuclear waste will eventually be solar destroyed, as the sun is the greenest of all green garbage disposals for humans. (Not to mention that soon it will be easier to manufacture the most nasty things in space where venting stuff gets carried away by the solar wind)

We are on the verge of a new level of freedom… which is why the politicians are all siding with socialism. Like the industrial revolution before it, each new modern level of capitalism makes the politicians less relevant. And they then use their power to hurt the machine, so that it has crisis and it seems to make them very relevant. However the machine would run better without them, and space and all the new nationality type things it will bring, will fracture whatever globalism we have, and again, foil the feudalists who can’t control distributive power AND collect its fruits.

So what if the world runs out of natural resources?  The solar system has more than we could ever possibly use, and we are on the verge of private flight. So we are not long away from our natural resources being scaled up by planetary quantities. Which would make the economics shift and make things like CO2 air scrubbers worth making and not hurt doing so.

Ultimately Marxist ideas and the movements it spawns is nested in the old world idea of running out of ideas, and that progress can’t solve problems (that it now has already solved!). That they are the ones fixed in time that do not see that the wonders will continue if we are allowed to progress to each new levels, and the ideas that they hold are ideas in which validity MIGHT only exist if such new progress was impossible to make.

They are the modern luddites hiding themselves in a veil of belief that allows them to think that halting progress is in some way making progress. that by restricting opportunities, you can create opportunities. That we are going to run out of ideas because Marxists are such very poor visionaries (which is why they keep trying to make a unworkable system work), that they cant see that as the total monetary scale grows, things that were impossible before become possible because they are now cheap. That being green and having a better world is a luxury that the poor can’t afford, or even make, as the expense of the luxury comes at the expense of their lives.

The socialist countries have been the worst polluters, and the ex leaders of such are the largest proponents of having to control all of us, to make stagnant the planet in a totalitarian rule that will then ration all the resources of the solar system before we run out. the western capitalist countries are not only orders of magnitude greener, they are also going back and cleaning up past dirt, and will do so in an endless process till its clean to our satisfaction.

To actually do that, one must be so bourgeoisie that one has the excess wealth to spend it on the luxury and energy to clean things up. Which is why hunters are greener than greenies, and put up money when the greenies want to steal with the power of the state to get theirs.

Without the kind of luxury that makes socialists want to puke, the pools of money are not large enough that the amount taken from them is small enough that we don’t mind making the world clean, green, and truly a better place. The one problem is that those leading the green movement, are not at all interested in actually making a cleaner greener world. They are only interested in using the desire for such as a premise to dictate I fine detail how you or I should live.

The restriction of cheap oil from drilling ANWR and other areas is often touted by these people as a way to make a greener world. However, as claimed above, the proof is in the actions and outcomes, not the platitudes and soft words they use to seduce us into a false idea. This season thousands of Americans and Canadians will go out and chop down trees to burn in their inefficient fire places to make heat and lower the oil costs. Rather than burn dead plants from several million years ago, we will go out and cut the live ones that are scrubbing co2 out of the air, and burn them at 1/6 the efficiency of oil, and throw much much more pollution up the chimneys, than even a poor oil or gas furnace.

Even worse, is that in areas like Kentucky, which is heavy coal country, many people will be taking high sulfur coal and using that in their stoves to get heat rather than buy gas or oil as they are land rich and money poor.

It’s all in how you look at it and how you wish to perceive the situation. They are dictating the ‘right’ perception, and so we are up in arms over a false situation that ultimately will make us respond in ways that we think will help, but will hurt a lot more, and later justify more intervention, till no more justifications are needed and the sham can be throw aside.

Maybe its time for us to take a look at things and start to think about why we see things the way we do, and perhaps not listen to those who only pretend to have our interests at heart, and who clearly only have their own in place. The USA is greener than most other places on the planet, even though we use more material, and use more power. Over time, that will get much better, if we do not stagnate in our progress to solve the problem by creating a dark age. At best, that would only hold off such progress till we forget why we aren’t progressing and a new age dawns.

Lets skip the progressive dark age, and move on to the next renaissance were we might cast away these feudal throwbacks to socialist demagoguery and proceed to expand into the universe that is all around us and provides literally more than a trillion humans could ever use in a thousand years. We are not bound to just the small dreams of big people, we are supplied by the unlimited imaginations of billions of free people. We need not look to the few with such poor views of the world, and of people like us to get to the future; we will get to the future despite them, and in spite of them, as we have always done, if we do not let the left stagnate us in the name of progress.

Study reveals an oily diet for subsurface life

 

Click here to see image

 

Thousands of feet below the bottom of the sea, off the shores of Santa Barbara, single-celled organisms are busy feasting on oil.

Until now, nobody knew how many oily compounds were being devoured by the microscopic creatures, but new research led by David Valentine of UC Santa Barbara and Chris Reddy of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts has shed new light on just how extensive their diet can be.

In a report to be published in the Oct. 1 edition of the journal Environmental Science & Technology, Valentine, Reddy, lead author George Wardlaw of UCSB, and three other co-authors detail how the microbes are dining on thousands of compounds that make up the oil seeping from the sea floor.

“It takes a special organism to live half a mile deep in the Earth and eat oil for a living,” said Valentine, an associate professor of earth science at UCSB. “There’s this incredibly complex diet for organisms down there eating the oil. It’s like a buffet.”

And, the researchers found, there may be one other byproduct being produced by all of this munching on oil - natural gas. “They’re eating the oil, and probably making natural gas out of it,” Valentine said. “It’s actually a whole consortium of organisms - some that are eating the oil and producing intermediate products, and then those intermediate products are converted by another group to natural gas.”

Reddy, a marine chemist at Woods Hole, said the research provides important new clues in the study of petroleum. “The biggest surprise was that microbes living without oxygen could eat so many compounds that compose crude oil,” Reddy said. “Prior to this study, only a handful of compounds were shown, mostly in laboratory studies, to be degraded anaerobically. This is a major leap forward in understanding petroleum geochemistry and microbiology.”

The diet of the single-cell microbes is far more diverse than previously thought, Valentine said. “They ate around 1,000 of the 1,500 compounds we could trace, and presumably are eating many more,” he said.

Research for this project began seven years ago and much of the testing was done at one of the planet’s best natural labs. “We have the world’s most prolific hydrocarbon seep field sitting right offshore of Santa Barbara, about two miles out,” Valentine said. “We have something on the order of 100 barrels of oil a day coming up from the sea floor.”

The source of this oil seepage is near Platform Holly, but it’s not being caused by the drilling. “It’s just oil that is naturally oozing out, probably has been for thousands of years,” Valentine explained. “Holly just happens to be near some of these seepage areas, which is fortuitous because we were able to get samples from about a mile deep.”

By studying samples from the subsurface, the ocean floor, the mid-water, and then from the surface, the researchers could determine how much of the oil was being degraded and digested by the microbes.

Using a new technique devised by Reddy, the scientists were able to pick apart the differences in the makeup of the oil, which is migrating to the surface through faults from deep below the sea floor. The microbes prefer the lighter compounds of oil, the gasoline part of the black goo. They tend to leave behind the heavily weathered residue, which is what makes its way to the surface and, sometimes, to the beaches in the form of tar.

“There always seems to be a residue,” Valentine said. “They (bacteria) hit a wall. There seems to be stages in which they eat. There’s the easy stuff - the steak. And then they work their way to the vegetables, and then garnish, and then they stop eating after awhile. Just depends on how hungry they are and what’s fed to them.”

Reddy’s new diagnostic technology is called a comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GCxGC). Typically, chromatography involves heating up a sample and putting it into a column around 60 meters long. Compounds are then separated based on their boiling points, which works well with light crude oil, Valentine said. But, with the two-dimensional test, the compounds are put into a cooled trap, for about 10 seconds, and a flash pulse of hot air releases them into the second column. This two-dimensional separation allows the researchers to pick out the many thousands of compounds.

“This new technology was actually too good at its job,” Reddy said. “It was able to separate and help identify significantly more compounds in the oil samples than traditional analytical techniques. The end result was that we were handcuffed with too much data afforded by the GCxGC. However, we overcame this hurdle by using new algorithms to help us interpret the data, which in turn led us to these milestone discoveries.”

The next steps in their research are already under way, according to Valentine. They are following the oil diet in controlled laboratory conditions, and tracking the fate of the oil once it forms a slick at the sea surface.

“When you fly out of the Santa Barbara Airport, you can look down and see these massive slicks,” Valentine said. “You can follow them for about 20 miles. A lot of the oil comes up on the beaches, but then what happens to it after that? Certainly the microorganisms continue to act on it. Evaporation occurs, but most of it can’t evaporate. Some of it breaks down from sunlight. So where does the rest of it end up? We want to know how far the organisms will go in eating the oil and what happens to the residual tar. It doesn’t all stick to our feet and there must be a lot of it out there somewhere.”

Source: University of California - Santa Barbara

 

More and more we are seeing articles, and science that debunks and causes problems for feminism, and left wing ideological “truths”. What is clear is that more often, we are seeing a view that maybe the bad old days are better than the good new days will ever be. Follow the link to read the interesting comments from both sides.

Be honest: we all love the sexist alpha male

Many women will tell you that one of the most irritating things about life is that alpha males - great silverbacked gorilla types - strike us, maddeningly, as being rather more attractive than their kinder, gentler, more considerate dwarf-monkey counterparts. We know intellectually that it shouldn’t be so, since the gorillas are often sexist pigs (just to mix the animal metaphors); but when push comes to shove and we’re picking a boyfriend rather than a friend, few of us find beta males especially appealing.

In real life as in Georgette Heyer, the reprehensible, oddly sexy brute fares rather better than the sensitive flower. Now it turns out that the unreconstituted, sexist male chauvinist is not only more attractive to many women, but earns more money and is more professionally successful than the kind man who sympathises when you have period cramps and offers to make you a nice cup of camomile. Not fair, is it?

The Journal of Applied Psychology has just published findings from a University of Florida study based on interviews with more than 12,000 men and women. Between 1979 and 2005, they were questioned regularly about how they viewed male and female roles - whether they believed a woman’s place was in the home, whether employing women led to more juvenile delinquency(!) and whether it was the woman’s job to take care of the home and family.

Sexist men, the scientists found, made an average of $8,500 (£4,600) a year more than men who viewed women as work-place equals. Meanwhile, feminists earned more than their more traditionally minded female colleagues (but not a great deal more - £800 a year, on average). And while there was only a small difference between the pay packets of “egalitarian” men and women, sexist men’s wages outstripped everyone else’s.

Surprised? Me neither. It’s one of those stories that, even without being corroborated by the figures, has the horrible ring of truth about it: we’ve all worked in an office where the sexist monster is (a) very good at his job and (b) gruesomely and guilt-inducingly attractive despite his antediluvian attitudes.

The existence of such men is why sexism persists: it is obviously wrong on every level, as many an industrial tribunal will attest, but the combination of power and, shall we say, lack of political correctness can be a potent one - which is why everyone in Britain fell in love with Gene Hunt, the hulking great throwback in the BBC series Life on Mars, which was set in the 1970s. On paper the character was entirely despicable; in full flow he made his intelligent, evolved, sensitive sidekick look like a ladyboy. Men wanted to be Hunt; women wanted to be with him. This says a great deal about men’s sense of being emasculated at every turn in modern Britain - a complaint that is, I think, pretty much justified and needs to be addressed before it does considerable damage.

It is surely no coincidence that men seem angrier than they have ever been; you notice it especially when it comes to pornography. Wanting to subjugate and violate powerless women used to be a specialist minority interest; it has now become mainstream. Nobody seems to mind much. I find that pretty alarming.

See also the extremes men now go to in order to punish their former wives or girlfriends: horrific news stories about fathers murdering their children and then killing themselves have become, if not quite commonplace, frequent enough to ring loud alarm bells. There was another one just last week. There’s not much point in women saying, “Oh dear, how horrid - but anyway, about my right to breastfeed in public . . . ” These are issues that need to be looked at urgently before the situation gets wholly out of control.

Women aren’t powerless - au contraire. What is interesting about the sexist pay packet is that it doesn’t happen despite women, but rather with their consent and, in many cases, their covert approval. The fact of the matter is that biology will always get in the way of gender politics; you can cogitate and reason all you like, but it isn’t easy simply to eradicate attitudes and desires that have been hard-wired into us for millennia.

Wet men aren’t generally considered desirable or attractive; manly men are. Manly men, knowing they are considered attractive, continue to behave in their retrograde way and are rewarded for it with popularity, success and, if they’re good at their jobs, a heftier pay packet than anyone else’s. And then everyone likes or admires them even more, secretly or otherwise: success, money, esteem - what’s not to like, apart from the little matter of gender politics? And so it goes on.

Meanwhile, confusingly, everything we read and observe and are taught shows us that the object of our admiration is to be condemned and that being a victim of sexism is one of the most terrible things that can befall a helpless woman (in fact, it really isn’t and we’re not helpless: there are many worse things than people making jokes about your bosoms, especially if the jokes are quite funny. If they aren’t, we all have a tongue in our head and, if need be, recourse to the law. Part of the problem with all this is the irritating assumption that women are constantly doomed to victimhood and need protecting from the big, mean boys).

No wonder people get muddled. So this is a little plea for the sexist alpha male – the one we all secretly think isn’t as dreadful as he’s made out to be. Isn’t it time that we gave him a break from the full force of our disapproval? We live in a furtive sort of society where lots of women fancy men they feel they shouldn’t and many men go through life pretending to be a great deal sweeter and more feminine than they actually are, because they’ve been told it’s the only way to be.

It’s unhealthy, really - smoke and mirrors masking the unavoidable fact that, underneath it all, women prefer manly men, even ones who make sexist jokes; and men prefer womanly women, even ones who whinge about being fat. Perhaps that’s a terribly self-hating and sexist thing to say. Or perhaps it’s just the truth.

+ Writing in 1605, Luisa de Carvajal, a Spanish nun who was brought to London by the Jesuits and risked her life in pursuit of martyrdom (she was especially good at the gruesome task of collecting relics from the freshly murdered bodies of Catholic martyrs), opined as follows: London is overcrowded, dirty, rowdy, especially on Friday nights; the food’s not up to much, everything’s too expensive and it rains all the time.

“The food looks good,” she wrote in letters home, “but it has no smell and almost no taste.” As for the neighbours: “At times, they grind me down with the noise that comes through the wall where I sleep. All you hear is the sound of meat being roasted and others cooking, eating, playing and drinking.” She is repulsed by the lack of sanitation - one day she sees carrots transported in a cart that had just been used to carry the corpses of plague victims - and is shocked by thieving children “of 10 or 11” being sent to the gallows.

No change there, then, despite the intervening 400 years (you can substitute the vilification of child criminals for the gallows, as though babies were born evil). The nun’s letters have been translated for the first time by Dr Glyn Redworth, a history lecturer at Manchester University. His book, The She-Apostle: The Extraordinary Life and Death of Luisa de Carvajal, published last Thursday, is an absolute treat - utterly gripping from start to finish.

Well, It’s about time. After 40 years of junk science with feminists claiming equality but better, and flipping any positive quality to being a positive quality only if women do it, and inconsequential if men do.

This type of feminist logic really had its biggest push in things that they could paint sounded better. They would say, we have a larger cable between the two hemispheres, so we think we are superior. Or that women are multitaskers, and that is better (this after studies now show that multitaskers are not as good). The list of this kind of thing literally being endless as long as the inventiveness to spin something was healthier than the truth.

Now women say this even though there is millinea of evidence showing that women select their men on the basis of the men and their families competency in the world. Unsuccessful need not apply.  One would expect from darwin that men were being selectively bred for competency in world actions. Men on the other hand, select women for fertility, of which beauty and companionship are a part of it, there is little selection for women to be competent in the world, and definitely less selection, even today, that they be so. In truth the mythical patriarchy is the result of women selectively breeding men to be good in the world for their mutual benifit in fecundity and familial success.  In general, their exhaltations about reality rarely make sense in light of prior scientific knowlege and concordance.

So its really interesting to go over my usual science fare. From the journals i read to their representation in the press I came along this interesting piece ni the UK Telegraph.

Men’s brains are ‘better connected’

Previous studies have revealed differences in the density of nerve cells and other brain features but none of these gender differences have been linked to behaviour or function in a very convincing way.

Now, Dr Lidia Alonso-Nanclares and Prof Javier De Filipe of the Instituto Cajal, Madrid, Spain; and colleagues there and at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid, used fresh brain tissue removed from epileptic patients during brain surgery to explore microscopic differences in the brain structure of men and women, revealing a consistent difference.

The authors of a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences used an electron microscope to study the brain tissue and discovered that in the temporal neocortex, a key part which is involved in both social and emotional processes, located near the ears, among other skills, that men had a one third higher density than women of synapses - the junction between two brain cells that enables precisely tuned cell-to-cell communication.

However, men had more brain cells, though the excess was slight compared with the excess in the number of synapses.

Prof De Filipe said that the difference in synapses was “very consistent” and surprising, though he stressed that in other regions of the brain women may have more connections.

Other work said that the anterior commissure, which connects several regions of the frontal and temporal lobes, is 12 per cent larger in women than in men, for example.

There has been little attention to the anatomical differences between men and women at the level of the synapse, adds Prof De Felipe.

Although these differences contribute to the way men and women differ, he could not say exactly how, though he said there had been much speculation and hilarity in the lab about how this higher connectivity could contribute to male interest in sex and football, not least because the study was led by “two very clever women.”

Because they team only studied four men and four women, since the main object of the study was to compare human brains to those of rats, mice and monkeys, the authors emphasise that more research is needed to understand how these differences influence brain function.

Brain function has been shown to differ between men and women in various respects.

Intelligence is not one of them. Much more convincing, says the team are studies that show differences that relate to spatial and language abilities, and whereas men excel in mental rotation and spatial perception, women perform better in verbal memory tasks, in verbal fluency tasks, and in the speed of articulation.

These differences are not thought to be a only consequence of the influence of sex hormones - oestrogen and testosterone - on brain organization during development but also of genetic factors.

Brain scans have found structural differences in the cortical volume of the Wernicke and Broca areas, involved in language, as well as in the frontal and medial paralimbic cortices, and in the thickness and density of the gray matter in the parietal lobes.

Women are smaller than men, on average, and tend to have smaller brains.

But Prof De Felipe points out that the intelligence of humans with brains weighing as little as half the average, may be normal or even above average. “There is not a clear correlation with the size of the brain,” he says.

The differences were in a social area of the brain. I would guess that the men have more complex areas since they have to deal with not only positive social interaction, but also negative and conflicted social interaction where backing down is losing, not a means of finese. In other words, the social landscape of men encompasses the social landscape of women AND the social landscape of complex conflict. Rather than men not being as socially developed, they are more socially developed to handle social interactions where social rules are less able to be enforced, applied, or imposed. Such a development would naturally lead men to see a wider landscape of social possibility which encompases choices that women dont use or are mitigated from (by size as one example), and to lead women to not be capable of even seeing the potentials of conflicts and outcomes as their machinery isnt gearted to think of them as options. 

There is great pressure for this kind of Darwinian development as it relies on women not seeing options that exist but are always negative to them (like fighting over a male mate), which proscribes their solutions. Just as living in a world where there are more options to social conflict that work to a end result, would make men have a larger richer panoply of potential social actions that would include behaviors and outcomes that are not open to the women due to their size and higher fertility value.

The truth is that men have to work in both worlds, the worlds of potential conflict without limits, and the world of women where conflicts have hard limits. This naturally would set them up to have more in this area than those that dont have this need, and have other needs in relation to young children.

As science goes forward, we are finding out that the customs of our culture were important ways to act in light of our biology, and that the pronouncments of feminism and other 5th column groups that they know biology would be a certain way before investigation has been nothing but politically motivated malarky that has wasted our lives and time.

Recent findings in genetics have shown a very interesting effect from fathers to their children. While a rare condition PWS (Prader-Willi Syndrome) is thought to be the leading cause of genetically caused obesity, its effects can be mitigated by the participation of the father. So our cultural changes may have led to the expression of negative genes in our environment causing obesity through father absence.  

To quote the release:

The research by University of Tennessee, Knoxville, professor Francisco Ubeda finds that the amount of care a father gives to his child may cause a shift in the syndrome in which its symptoms, in essence, reverse themselves.

In a world where fathers are now considered akin to the appendix, its interesting to find more information that the presence of a father changes the outcomes for the children in drastic ways. Yes I said more, as females raised without a blood father present have lower ages of onset of first menses. That if a human female is raised without a father, or with a stepfather, she matures earlier, and so her time to learn is clipped by biological urges appearing earlier than later.

Until now, scientists assumed that those genes and their level of expression—how much their effect was felt on the individual who carried them—was based on how the offspring drew resources from their mother. In this case, resources can mean anything from basic nourishment to less-tangible resources such as affection and attention.

Such an assumption area a modern thing, as that was not how we thought when we had a more solid culture handed down generation to generation by families. After all, there are a lot of feedback loops in biology, and this discovery shows, that since we can feel things in the abstract, those abstractions can have a serious effect in how our genetics plays out the story of our lives.

In order to have the opinions we do ideologically, the whole of the biology of life has to be simplified to the point where we deny the nuance and subtlety of how it works, and how utterly dependent it is on the structures that we lived under as we journey through time to reach the place and time we are now.

Left ideology, with particular attention to feminism, denies these subtleties so as to control behavioral outcomes of the people who choose to get their advice from the people that even make biology political. Mother Nature is about how things are; ideology is how things should be based on simplification, obfuscation, and goals identified by a select few justified by premises as a means of selling them to the many even if they have ulterior motives.

While they don’t think this could lead to a cure for the condition called PWS, it does lead to the understanding that we are much more sensitive to the things around us (and perhaps political tweaking of such is not such a good idea over letting us be who we are).

According to Ubeda, perhaps the larger implication of the research lies in his finding that a small contribution of resources by the father may influence how imprinted genes are expressed and trigger a change of expression during development.

Father’s presence in the home to provide resources is something that we respond to biologically.

Imagine that.

Though the larger question is: what will this mean, if anything, toward father policies in state interventions and law? While this is the first thing they have found that is clearly and unambiguously indicated, it will by no means be the last as long as modern genetics is allowed to proceed (and a form of Lysenkoism doesn’t take hold).

That resources are defined in this case by more than just a monetary donation to the house fund paid through state mediators, its also love, teaching, rewards, understanding, and all the other things that go with rearing children to be healthy, happy, competent adults.

Who knew that having your dad around could hide a genetic condition that makes you obese, and allow it to be expressed if he is absent?

Somehow fathers knew that their absences were causing more harm than they could express, maybe such research will help put real reasons to what they know deep in their hearts: that their children need them.

Explaining a genetic disorder’s unique shift

Findings reported in this week’s PLoS Biology give insight into the unique characteristics of the birth defect known as Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS), and at the same time, may help explain the way that a certain type of gene is expressed in all humans.

The research by University of Tennessee, Knoxville, professor Francisco Ubeda finds that the amount of care a father gives to his child may cause a shift in the syndrome in which its symptoms, in essence, reverse themselves.At birth, children with PWS experience great difficulty suckling and have very low weight. After they are weaned from their mothers, though, their appetites become voracious, and they become obese.

Ubeda believes that this shift results from PWS’ genetic roots on what is known as a group of imprinted genes. Humans typically get two copies of every gene—one from their mother and one from their father. Imprinted genes are prevented from working in one of the two copies, so that only the mother’s gene or father’s gene is expressed. This can be problematic when the working gene is somehow damaged.

Until now, scientists assumed that those genes and their level of expression—how much their effect was felt on the individual who carried them—was based on how the offspring drew resources from their mother. In this case, resources can mean anything from basic nourishment to less-tangible resources such as affection and attention.

Ubeda’s work, however, seems to show that as more of an offspring’s resources are provided by its father, that shift can also trigger a change in how those imprinted genes are expressed.

Ubeda said that PWS, which results from a deleted portion of the father’s copy of a group of imprinted genes, provides a clear example.

“Before weaning, the mother has the monopoly on providing resources directly to her offspring,” said Ubeda, an assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UT Knoxville. “After weaning, the father directly provides a greater share of resources to his offspring.”

Ubeda found that as the share of the father’s contribution of resources increases, there is a shift in which copies of the PWS group of imprinted genes is expressed, leading to the marked change in how PWS itself affects the child.

While Ubeda notes that this finding is unlikely to have an immediate effect on how PWS is treated, it provides implications for how diseases and conditions that are a result of imprinted genes are viewed.

“I don’t have any sense that this will somehow lead to a cure for PWS, but it does present a new area for those interested in the disease to study and hopefully a new understanding of how the disease functions,” said Ubeda.

According to Ubeda, perhaps the larger implication of the research lies in his finding that a small contribution of resources by the father may influence how imprinted genes are expressed and trigger a change of expression during development.

It’s a new finding, he said, and one that fills in a blank caused by conditions like PWS that seem to be influenced by more than just the mother’s contribution. It exemplifies how social structure may have shaped the symptoms of some diseases over the course of human evolution.

According to the Prader-Willi Syndrome Association of the United States, the syndrome is found in one out of every 12 to 15 thousand children, and while rare, is considered the most common genetic cause of obesity.

Citation: Úbeda F (2008) Evolution of genomic imprinting with biparental care: Implications for Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes. For more information on journals please see original article through title link.

 

 

 

Since a person out in the world of work experiences  more negative life events, perhaps the increase in breast cancer rates over the last 40 years, is because women no longer live in a nicer more forgiving and pleasant home life?  For years we knew that the stress of the working world leads to men having a lower live expectancy than women, of which women in the workforce have been catching up (now getting heart desease and other stress affected conditions).

Such findings are also similar to the findings that pregnant women who experience stress are also more likely to have problems too.

I guess, the results will be buried as are facts of peri-menopause, and mental states after abortions, along with anything else harmful to women, but inconvenient to a feminist communist state.

The more research they do, the more it seems that the old culture was doing things that made sense to our biology and knitted a lifestyle from it that was healthier than today. The old culture stemmed from our natural existence, the new culture is a modern design that just doesnt have all the facts, and the more we get them, the more we find out that in our rush to make a better world, all we made was a world that was sicker and less productive, full of more misery by doing so.

 

Women exposed to negative life events at greater risk of breast cancer

Happiness and optimism may play a role against breast cancer while adverse life events can increase the risk of developing the disease, according to a study by Professor Ronit Peled, at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel. An article on the study titled “Breast Cancer, Psychological Distress and Life Events among Young Women,” was just published in the British journal BMC Cancer (8:245, August 2008).

In the study, researchers questioned women about their life experiences and evaluated their levels of happiness, optimism, anxiety, and depression prior to diagnosis. Researchers used this information to examine the relationship between life events, psychological distress and breast cancer among young women.

A total of 622 women between the ages of 25 and 45 were interviewed: 255 breast cancer patients and 367 healthy women. “The results showed a clear link between outlook and risk of breast cancer, with optimists 25 percent less likely to have developed the disease. Conversely, women who suffered two or more traumatic events had a 62 percent greater risk,” Peled said. “Young women who have been exposed to a number of negative life events should be considered an ‘at-risk’ group for breast cancer and should be treated accordingly.”

The researchers indicate that women were interviewed after their diagnosis, which may color their recall of their past emotional state somewhat negatively. However, according to Peled, “We can carefully say that experiencing more than one severe and/or mild to moderate life event is a risk factor for breast cancer among young women. On the other hand, a general feeling of happiness and optimism can play a protective role.”

“The mechanism in which the central nervous, hormonal and immune systems interact and how behaviour and external events modulate these three systems is not fully understood,” Peled states. “The relationship between happiness and health should be examined in future studies and relevant preventative initiatives should be developed.”

Source: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Who knew?

Swedish pharmacies’ sex toys ‘discriminate against men’

Swedish state-run pharmacy Apoteket has been reported to the Swedish Equal Opportunities Ombudsman agency JämO for only selling sex toys suitable for women, thus apparently discriminating against men.

As of June this year Swedes have been able to buy sex toys from their local pharmacy, but now the state-run pharmacy chain has been reported by two men who apparently feel insulted and excluded by the wide selection of clitoris vibrators, vagina balls and dildos that are marketed mainly to women.

One of the men complaining wrote that he thought the pharmacy’s selection clearly showed that the pharmacy chain “had a misguided and untrue view on sexuality where a woman with a dildo is seen as liberated, strong and independent, whereas a man with a blow up plastic vagina is viewed as disgusting and perverted.”

Eva Fernvall is head of products at the state-run pharmacy chain and told Expressen newspaper that they had no such thoughts whatsoever.

“As I understand it, there are no products of good quality for men on the market. Should there be such products specifically for men, then there is nothing stopping us from selling them”, she said.

The Equal Opportunities Ombudsman agency JämO has already decided that one of the reports filed has no grounds, and doesn’t discriminate against men.

“Apoteket’s goods are made available to men and women, and therefore Apoteket does not break the law regarding sex discrimination”, JämO writes in its decision.

          One does not need a complicated view to understand that a population’s way of life is learned in family, and to maintain a way of life, one has to maintain the population and the family is the entity that does this. Does it really take college level mathematics to figure out that for every woman that chooses to exterminate or prune the family tree that emanates from her, another woman would have to choose an abundance of five branches to maintain the population which maintains the culture, of which the structural block is the family?

 

Gender equality on the slide?

(PhysOrg.com) — Cambridge University study suggests growing numbers of people are concerned about working mums’ impact on family life.

Support for gender equality in Britain and the US appears to have peaked and could now be going into decline, research at Cambridge University has revealed.

The study, by Professor Jacqueline Scott from the University’s Department of Sociology, found evidence of "mounting concern" that women who play a full and equal role in the workforce do so at the expense of family life.

Although there are no signs of a full-scale gender-role backlash, there does appear to be growing sympathy for the old-fashioned view that a woman’s place is in the home, rather than in the office.

The study appears in a new book, Women And Employment; Changing Lives And New Challenges, which Professor Scott also edited.

"The notion that there has been a steady increase in favour of women taking an equal role in the workplace and away from their traditional role in the home is clearly a myth," she said.

"Instead, there is clear evidence that women’s changing role is viewed as having costs both for the woman and the family.

"It is conceivable that opinions are shifting as the shine of the ’super-mum’ syndrome wears off, and the idea of women juggling high-powered careers while also baking cookies and reading bedtime stories is increasingly seen to be unrealisable by ordinary mortals."

The survey compared the results of social attitude surveys from the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s - using recent data from the International Social Survey Programme as well as older polls. Professor Scott focused on the results from Britain, the United States and - because the earlier surveys pre-dated the fall of the Berlin Wall - the former Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany).

In each survey, samples of between 1,000 and 5,000 people were asked to say whether they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements. Statements such as "A husband’s job is to earn income; a wife’s to take care of the children," were designed to test their overall views on gender equality. Others, such as "Family life suffers if a woman works full time," examined whether they considered maternal employment as harmful to children or families.

The study shows that while British attitudes are more egalitarian than in the 1980s, there are signs that support for gender equality may have hit a high point some time during the 1990s. When it comes to the clash between work and family life, doubts about whether a woman should be doing both are starting to creep in.

In the 1990s, for example, more than 50% of women and 51% of men said they believed that family life would not suffer if a woman went to work. Since then, the figure has fallen - to 46% of women and 42% of men. Fewer people (54.9% of women and 54.1% of men) now take the view that a job is the best way for a woman to be independent than in 1991.

The results are even more extreme in the United States, where the percentage of people arguing that family life does not suffer if a woman works has plummeted, from 51% in 1994 to 38% in 2002. About the same number of West Germans (37%) agree; but the number there has risen, having been just 24% in the mid-1990s.

Professor Scott argues that each country is at a different stage in a cycle of sympathy for gender equality. In West Germany, where up until the 1990s a large majority of people still believed that men should be the family breadwinners while women stayed at home, acceptance for the notion of working mums is now increasing.

In Britain and the US, however, where support for equal opportunities for both sexes is much longer-standing, some people are now starting to have second thoughts. In most cases, this appears to revolve around concerns that the welfare of children and of the family are being compromised the more women spend their time at work and find themselves lumbered with the double burden of employment and family care.

The report adds that there should now be further investigation into whether the attitude shift is occurring because caring for the family is seen as predominantly women’s work, or because people feel there is no practical alternative to a woman fulfilling the role.

"A change in attitude is not the same thing as a change in behaviour, but attitudes do matter," Professor Scott added. "Women - particularly mothers - can experience considerable strain when attitudes reinforce the notion that employment and family interests conflict.

"If we are to make progress in devising policies that encourage equal working opportunities for women, we need to know more about what gender roles people view as practical, as possible and as fair."

Women And Employment: Changing Lives And New Challenges is published by Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. this week.

Provided by Cambridge University

 

Study: verbal aggression may affect children’s behavior

The methods mothers use to control their children during playtime and other daily activities could have a negative impact on their child’s self-esteem and behavior, according to a new Purdue University study.

"It’s hard to tell parents how to interact with their children based on one study, but what we see here is that parents who have a propensity for being verbally aggressive have a tendency to try to direct and control their children during a play period," said Steven R. Wilson, a professor of communication who specializes in family issues. "As a result, these children were less cooperative, and not only are parents setting up situations that are challenging for them to handle, but they also are subtly undermining their child’s self-esteem."

Wilson and Felicia Roberts, an associate professor of communication, are lead authors of a study that appears in the July issue of Human Communication Research journal. The researchers videotaped 40 mothers as they played with one of their children, ages 3-8, during a 10-minute, unstructured play period. The mothers also completed a series of questionnaires to assess their general tendency to be verbally aggressive toward others. For example, someone who is verbally aggressive is likely to insult others as a way to motivate them to comply or behave.

The researchers found that mothers who were high in the general tendency to be verbally aggressive often tried to take control of the play period. For example, the four mothers with the highest verbal aggression scores on average were attempting to direct their child’s actions once every 12 seconds, while the four mothers with the lowest verbal aggression scores tried to do so only about half as often. In addition to verbally aggressive mothers telling a child to play with a different toy or to stop playing, they also used negative body language, such as restraining a child by the wrist or shoulder, to reinforce their commands.

"Of course all parents direct their children, and people in general are always directing others to close a door or hand them something," said Roberts, who has a background in linguistics and is a conversational analyst. "It’s something we do all the time. But there is a qualitative difference in the kinds of directing going on by these verbally aggressive mothers. By looking at how and when directives occurred, not just how often, we found that moms who scored highest on verbal aggression used directives to control the child and, ultimately, the way the game or activity was played. The aggressive action is not overt, as in a parent hitting or yelling, but these small negative maneuvers can say so much to a child."

Parents interested in learning more about how to improve communication with their children should contact a pediatrician or seek out community family and social service programs, Wilson said.

"We all say things to our children that we regret saying, but saying a lot of things that attack a child’s self-confidence is not healthy," Wilson said. "These parents were in an unstructured, low-stress environment, and if we saw this behavior in such a brief setting, how could such negative interactions, even so subtle, affect a child over the long-term? For example, if the parents always have to control what activity they and their children are going to play - as well as for how long and how they are going to play it - you wonder if this communicates to the child that what they want to do doesn’t matter."

The researchers will be looking at how praise plays a role in these types of parent-child interactions.

Source: Purdue University

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

 

 

Overworking husbands drive working wives back into the home, study finds

Americans work longer hours than ever. That not only hurts women’s careers but also widens the gender gap and threatens to trigger a resurgence of the traditional homemaker/breadwinner family structure in dual-earner households, says a new Cornell study.

Presented Aug. 1 at the American Sociological Association’s annual meeting in Boston, the study found that "Women whose husbands work long hours are more likely to quit their jobs," said Youngjoo Cha, a Cornell doctoral candidate in sociology who expects her Ph.D. in 2010. "Yet men’s careers are not impacted when their wives put in long hours."

Cha found the phenomenon occurs among women across occupations, but the link is strongest among women with children and professional women.

Working long hours has increasingly become expected in the work culture, she noted, and her research shows how "seemingly gender-neutral workplace norms can result in discriminatory outcomes and perpetuate gender inequality."

To determine the impact of longer work hours on dual-earner households, Cha analyzed data from the 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation, a longitudinal survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Cha found that women whose husbands worked more than 60 hours per week were 44 percent more likely to quit their jobs, compared with similar women whose husbands did not overwork. Professional wives with overworking husbands were 52 percent more likely to quit than similar women whose husbands did not overwork. Professional women with children were 90 percent more likely to quit their jobs than childless women whose husbands did not overwork.

In 2002 more than 12 percent — up from less than 9 percent in 1983 — of employees in the United States worked more than 50 hours a week. Cha found that 30 percent of professional husbands in dual-income households worked more than 50 hours per week, compared with only 12 percent of their professional wives. This suggests, said Cha, women in professional jobs are less likely to expect spousal support than men.

"Many workplaces use ‘face time’ as an important proxy/signal for workers’ commitment or professional competence," said Cha. "However, it should be noted that increased work hours do not assure increased productivity, and more importantly, it can seriously disadvantage many female workers who put in fewer hours at work than men."

The research was supported by a grant from the Bronfenbrenner Life Course Center and the Center for the Study of Inequality at Cornell.

Provided by Cornell University