There is no reason for anybody to contradict themselves; therefore we all do and say what we believe to be right. In order to resolve any contradictions between each other, reality, and our beliefs, we must resort to another standard other than our beliefs; such as scientific objectivity. The quick fix alternative to science would be to divine our sense of belief through the ‘received wisdom’ of a cult.
You can think of as many things as you like, but what you believe will be measured against reality and logic. A thing is either real or not real; an idea is either true or not true; if we split our standards of reasoning so that we can make a subject both true and not true, then we lose integrity; like 'running with the hare and running with the hounds'.
Science and faith are two non-compatible standards, each refutes the other by virtue of the requirement of a unique fiducial reference, such as the demarcation symbolized by Occam’s razor: if you have two razor cuts that are not identical, then you have a region between the two, which is to the right of one, and to the left of the other. Hence anybody claiming two or more standards at the same time will risk contradicting themselves when occupying the middle ground; truth abhors a compromise.
A society infected with a cult, will show those symptoms characteristic of divided communities. When a cult imposes its ethos on the populace, and creates saints and sinners, according to its standards, then it has jeopardized the people’s morale twice over: the latter are condemned as pariahs, and the former are doomed to the disappointment of unfulfilled conceit. To survive such demoralizing effects whilst the cult persists, one has to oppose the cult’s ideals, or risk losing ones sense of reality, and the corruption of aspirations. Alas our psychological need to believe we are right, may undermine our intellectual virtues by acquiescing with the cult as our new found fiducial point; analogous to the Stockholm syndrome suffered by hostages; an expedient if your society is ruled by said cult.
When flattered beyond truth, the ‘victim’ may acquiesce via the saint syndrome, by losing their sense of reality; they may subsequently react against truth as an imposing threat, clinging to the notion of praise, and shunning the reality of objective truth as though it were a personal attack. Like riding the tiger, the saint sits upon the sinner, they dare not get off or they will be devoured by their own hubris; for everyone that is not a saint must be a sinner; the cult abhors a compromise.
Do the sinners ‘throw the helve after the hatchet’? To do so would be to renege on aspiration due to a set back. Only in mythology would the pariah persist to a pointless end when conscious of the futility; a real life Sisyphus or Tantalus would have to be yoked to their torment by either a fear of worse consequence upon defaulting, or being unconscious regarding the irrationality inherent of any hope of redemption; they have to believe to continue, and so acquiesce in their own misery via the sinner syndrome, as a new virtue; hope abhors a compromise.
Conclusion
If two or more ideals prove true on all the same aspects, then they must be the same ideal. But if these ideals differ, then there must be discord, else they were never ideals, and compromise is abhorrent.
In a society which espouses both equality and diversity, we should expect an inevitable conflagration; as diversity generates division, equality generates expectation, and the belief in both, generates saints and sinners. Since nobody believes they are wrong, our only hope for peace would come from objective scientific thinking; to help arbitrate between our ‘differences of equality’. Alas science is being castrated by the same agencies that promote equality and diversity, because truth and belief are incongruent; whilst cults are left to run rife through our lives via government initiatives and edict of law.
Science could have saved our society from the nature of itself; but by abandoning objective truth for belief, we have opened the floodgates of unconscionable nature. Over millions of years we have evolved through strife, where diversity was a strategic boon regarding survival in conflict and change; but now in times of ease, under the edict of equality, diversity is the bane of peace; and nature abhors a compromise.
Why should Islanders continue to pay the TV-licence fee? Apart from an annual saving to the Island economy of several £millions, not paying might help reduce what I believe is a psychological assault on British communities like ours.
Prior to the mid-nineties, the BBC was an icon of quality and integrity; it used to entertain and educate. These days it appears not only to have been dumbed-down, but to resort to: social-engineering-propaganda. Instead of entertainment we have lifestyle programmes to instruct us how to live; and instead of education, we have indoctrination of how to think, in line with ‘political correctness’. The BBC has surrendered its editorial independence to the growing army of ZaNuLabour spin doctors, with willing compliance from the legion of feminist producers.
Last week for example, I was listening to radio 4’s PM, and they had an item about the loss of a million miners’ jobs, “both men and women”; but when talking about another item on flexitime and how it effected the family, they never once during 10 minutes mentioned men or fathers in relation to families, whereas women and mothers were mentioned frequently. So when I pointed out on a BBC forum that there are more fathers than female miners, I was accused of misogyny by the forum regulars, who are happy to see men air-brushed out of the family, and into the nearest prison, no doubt; and when I called them feminist bigots, the BBC terminated my online account. If you don’t believe me, try it yourself.
Consider how much airtime is given to strident female artists singing of the glory of ending relationships with men, and in some instances, wantonly promoting homosexuality among girls; whilst boy artists sing as pathetic love sick puppies. Straw men feature extensively in the BBC dramas and soaps; where not only are they sidelined from the family but are often portrayed as idiots or villains. They are targeted as punch bags by ‘empowered’ women, who occasionally justify the murder of men on moral grounds; an attitude running through NuLabour, which wants to change the law from murder to manslaughter for women that kill men. Note also the prevalence of gay historians retelling our past regarding how bad men were, and how women and gays heroically survived their insurmountable prejudices, and are responsible for all the positive things in history. Men get plenty of airtime when it comes to crime and deviancy however, and the BBC manages to find news of rape and abuse, to keep the neurotic on message, and the didactic harridans in focus. The government, via the BBC, is remoulding our sense of decency and identity in its own image: a Chimera composed of the likes of Patricia Hewitt, Jacqui Smith, The Lord Mandelson, and Harriet Harman.
A community is held together by the nuances of decency, the social norms that help us identify with the sense of right and wrong we all share. Divisive propaganda, that splits society into saints and sinners, works upon those nuances, undermining cohesion and morale in the process. The lowering of morale would typically be the prime aim of an enemy to aid invasion; indeed, Lord Haw-Haw was hung for less. When contentious factions are mischievously rewritten into the identity of a community, then the social instinct will retract toward the intimate and familiar. We will see the formation of cliques and gangs in reaction to the perceived threat of the greater community; and those that hold the male pariah in contempt, will retract further into the insularity of the single parent home. This has already happened in the main cities, and is in the process of happening in small communities like ours. We need to act purposefully by not feeding the BBC palimpsest with our money; and positively reassert our natural and inherent sense of right and wrong, to openly thwart the feminist organ that is poisoning the communal well.
According to the Rape Crisis web site, they quote statistics derived from a 1991 survey of 1007 women, in 11 cities in northern England, in which 1 in 4 women had suffered rape or attempted rape; and according to Rape Crisis Lines of England and Wales, 97% of all reported rapes were committed by those that knew their victim:
UK Data on Rape and Sexual Assault
Finding
Source
Method
1 in 4 women have experienced rape or attempted rape
Painter, 1991
Survey of 1,007 women in 11 cities, Northern England
1 in 7 women have been coerced into sex, rising to 1 in 3 among divorced and separated women
Painter, 1991
Survey of 1,007 women in 11 cities, Northern England
The most common perpetrators of rape are husbands and partners
Painter, 1991
Survey of 1,007 women in 11 cities, Northern England
97% of callers to Rape Crisis Lines knew their assailant prior to the assault
Rape Crisis Federation of England and Wales
Analysis of RCF members' records, England and Wales
The majority of perpetrators are known to the victim
Kelly et. al, 2005
So what happened to Jill Saward’s campaign at the Haltemprice and Howden by-election on 10th July 2008?
Wiki: The by-election was triggered by the surprise and controversial resignation of the sitting MP David Davis on 12 June 2008. Davis’ stated intention was to spark a wider public debate on the perceived erosion of civil liberties in the UK by re-contesting his seat on this single issue platform, launched as the David Davis for Freedom campaign. The two other main political parties Labour and the Liberal Democrats declined to field candidates, due to opposing and supporting Davis’ stand respectively.
The top 8 of the total 26 Candidates
Party
Candidates
Votes
Conservative
David Davis
17113
Green
Shan Oakes
1758
English Democrats
Joanne Robinson
1714
National Front
Tess Culnane
544
Miss Great Britain Party
Gemma Garrett
521
Independent
Jill Saward
492
Monster Raving Looney
Mad Cow-Girl
412
Independent
Walter Sweeney
238
Total turn out
23911
Total eligible to vote
70264
Turn out 2005 gen. election
48029
Of all the candidates, Jill probably received as much media attention as David Davis, prior to the election, with many a political pundit predicting a shock result; yet she only got 0.7% of the total eligible vote (2% of the turn out).
With half the turn out of voters compared to the 2005 election, and the other two main parties not showing, we can conclude that there was not a party political cause to split the vote away from someone wanting to vote on the issue of rape. Indeed, what incentive was there for a rape victim not to vote, since David Davis’ stance was contra to that of Jill’s? Compounding this with the fact that non-rape victims who had an interest in Jill’s cause would have contributed to the total votes, and you will have to conclude that the number of rape victims amongst the good people of Haltemprice and Howden will be much less than 0.7%.
Hence, less than 1.4% of the local women, assuming the genders are equal in number, which is extremely wide of the claimed value of 25% of the women, as reported by Rape Crisis; an error of about 18 times, if both hypotheses are true. So there is a clear contradiction between the two hypotheses, either the Rape Crisis statistics are completely bogus, or thousands of the good people of Haltemprice and Howden are perpetrating a bizarre cover-up.
Lies, damn lies, statistics, and feminism; what was intended as a public exposure of the unpopularity of the Draconian measures exemplified by the 42 day detention, turned out to expose the dubious foundations of the paranoia of modern misanthropic feminism.
Each and every unemployed Wightman has 2 CVs; the one he writes for himself, and the one written for him by the media led populace. Who would employ a man if his CV had entries such as: “work shy”; “dirty and rude”; “drunken layabout”; “benefits fraud”; “untrustworthy”; “criminal”? And what chance of securing a job interview, when your two referees are Ms Fear and Mr Greed. This self fulfilling prophecy ensures the victims are not only blamed for their bad fortune, but condemned to further persecution by the pejorative label ‘unemployed’: “Give a dog a bad name and hang him.”
A moments thought as to who would willingly choose to be poor, and you might question the validity of blaming job seekers for their predicament. You might ask who benefits from this scurrilous and mendacious chorus of blaming the poor for their poverty? The answer is those shallow and insecure parvenues amongst us, whose need to curry favour from the orthodox mob, helps console them for the betrayal by their own conceit; and the greedy, who are never satisfied until they have secured for themselves every last crumb.
In our free market, ask yourself what an efficient economy means, if not the ever greater gain for the minimum of outlay; and does that not imply down-sizing the work force in both number and wages. If so, then there is the true blame for unemployment and the strife of workers; the greed that got Wightmen sacked yesterday, and then treats them as scapegoats today, to cover the shame of maximum profiteering. Where most of those profits go abroad in the expanding markets of the tiger economies; the rest goes into the public sector as tax, and the civil service grows like a giant incurable cancer, in danger of becoming larger than the ailing patient it feeds upon. The public sector ship is so full of rats, that they are the cause of its sinking. Such a neurotic environment will not be open to Wightmen, as the sisters union has closed the hatches to them; women and minorities first, de jure now, de facto before.
What of the many jobs advertised in the County Press each week? They are but the ephemeral vacancies, likened to ‘musical chairs’ played by the unhappy workforce that jumps from one lowly paid job to another, at the tune of “Things can only get better”, played on a Chinese manufactured jukebox. The unemployed rarely get invited to play in this game, except as a cameo bogeyman, to frighten naughty children to play nice.
And is it beyond your understanding that some of these once proud men, betrayed, and in a fit of despair, should ‘throw the helve after the hatchet’, and become the very pariahs that modern society seeks to hate? Lucky for you that most unemployed Wightmen are civilized individuals; lucky for you they aren’t 4000 angry miners; or shipbuilders; or steelworkers; with a unified belligerence, that might take grievous offence at being blamed.
But help is at hand in the guise of the government’s Department for Works and Pensions, which fund various support agencies that teach the job seekers to better apply themselves. We need to sell ourselves more; an honest CV just wasn’t good enough, you need to be better than honest. Maths isn’t good enough either, it’s far too judgemental; you need to know the new democratic numeracy rules, such as: the DWP employs 85% women, which proves relatively that equality and diversity works, even if you’ve been removed from the equation, so that you can’t. And minimum wages aren’t low enough, you must be willing to earn your giros via community service, thus stealing the punishments meted out to petty criminals, so as to atone for your sin of poverty: “Hungry dogs eat dirty pudding”.
Within the CCTV culture we risk the feeling of no longer being integral to our own society when we are permanently scrutinized; pre-emptive guilt alienates us from law, order, and each other; we become as strangers in our home towns.
If two dogs meet, they are curious about each other; unfamiliar to themselves and possibly on unfamiliar ground, they go through a routine of scrutiny. One manoeuvre is the taking turns to smell each others private parts; possibly to determine the scent that marks a dog’s territory via urine or faeces. This procedure is fraught with tension, as each dog being scrutinized is temporarily vulnerable to the other should they decide to attack. The act of compliance to such intimate scrutiny maybe a social form of appeasement offered to purchase acceptance. Conversely if the dog being scrutinized feels more dominant, then a contest may ensue as the superior dog bulks at the other dogs approach.
Similarly for men, visiting a new place, especially a closed community, or entering a strange pub, full of regulars; you can be forgiven for the sense of alienation you feel. You will almost certainly be sensitive to any quirks and customs that the locals display, and probably be willing to accommodate to flatter, should any contact be made. Eye contact is very much a contention, as it is the means we scrutinize each other be that amongst familiars or strangers; it is our dog equivalence of smelling private parts.
Pointing is rude, and when on mutually uncontested ground, eye contact is frowned upon, cf. travellers on the tube trains, where the seats face each other across an open aisle; the passengers assume a display of spectacular asocial behaviour, by pointedly avoiding eye contact.
Being self conscious when overtly scrutinized, such as omnipresent CCTV coverage, will cause uncertainty. In a social setting, eye contact is part of the game to negotiate towards familiarity, and to help gauge each others moods and intentions. But how does one negotiate with a perpetual, unyielding, and impersonal observer?
Remember the self conscious sense of guilt when the headmaster at your school’s assembly barked out a report of the latest misdemeanour discovered by the caretaker? If you were like me, then you would have had your fair share of wrongful accusation, and can not help but to anticipate further injustice from pre-emptive guilt. Does the sense of safety professed by those that advocate CCTV compensate for the ill ease felt by those groups which are judged to be the usual suspects: youths, blacks, the unemployed, drinkers, combinations thereof? Could this all pervasive guilt inducing scrutiny result in a convulsion of antisocial crime: “Give a dog a bad name and hang him.”?
I have a relative whose partner operates the local CCTV system, and feels that when ever she is walking through town, her partner is watching her every step. What will happen if they have a falling out? Will she avoid the town? In George Orwell’s “1984”, Big Brother is a contrived face to evince strength and trust; but what is the face we have, that sits behind our CCTV system? Is it a convivial local bobby; a leather clad member of the Gestapo; or maybe a disgruntled council worker?
The people that gloss over these issues with the excuse that “those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear” are simply overlooking how we interact as a social species. And I would guess that this is very much a gender issue, as men and women interact differently, with women being more comfortable than men at making eye contact; possibly due to sexual competition prevalent between men, lending itself to aggressive feelings; therefore civilised men will generally keep eye contact down to a minimum to avoid confrontations. In a CCTV environment, the system becomes an uncivilised and all pervasive opponent; putting men under high aggressive stress: “Are YOU looking at me!?”
We have instincts, both social and individualistic; therefore we have grounds for internal conflict between these motivations. Is hate the natural emotion utilised to arbitrate between them?
Just as the Valkyrie Brunhilde was torn between Wotan’s law, which condemned Sigmund for breaking an oath, and Wotan’s wish to preserve Sigmund, his son; Brunhilde was tasked to fulfil the law of the oath, and see that Sigmund fell in battle as a hero. But love won through, and Brunhilde saved Sigmund from his ordained fate, thus sealing her own downfall, and subsequently that of the gods.
Nature has a less elaborate means of resolving personal conflict between our selfish desires, and those that conflict with our social duties; and that is hatred. With hatred we can more easily separate the mingling of otherwise contradictory standpoints.
Individuals together
Our beliefs are what hold our minds together; confutation with others, and personal cognitive dissonances are prone to strong defensive reactions, with correspondingly strong, adrenaline charged emotions. We are also social animals with a strong sense of worth and placement within society; which can lead to the urge of domination through evangelical persuasion; again adrenaline charged.
In order for a society to work there is a natural and dynamic tendency for hierarchies to form, there are motives to preserve the individual’s beliefs whilst simultaneously negotiating within the beliefs of the group. Domination and compliance are two obverse sides of the same coin; the more we try to dominate, the greater the risk of alienating the others by not complying with their efforts of domination. We are not content with our own beliefs but vie to persuade others as a by product of sexual evolutionary competition; it takes two to tango; therefore we try our hand at domination only so far as we dare, lest we lose the prize.
Faking honesty
The stronger our ego and social proclivities, the greater the hatred required in resolving any dissonance; feckless asocial people, rarely have cause to raise their voices. To swear and rant convincingly, you require earnest conviction; not many frauds or charlatans, if any at all, resort to expletives; it’s as though true hate is almost beyond faking; even the best actors resort to method.
Importance of being earnest
Some academics and politicians, which are prone to rationalizing their world views in somewhat cool and measured ways, are susceptible to being sidelined owing to their apparent lack of passion in discourse, giving the impression they lack earnest integrity. Emotional intensity therefore is affiliated with the credibility of our beliefs, especially when challenged.
More successful speakers may learn the art of mannerisms and expressions to boost their appeal through impassioned rhetoric; but they are shrewd to the effects of excess, lest they intimidate the audience that may have their own distinct views. Hence such a speaker may deploy tests to gauge the audience’s compliance to their words, by gradually increasing the tone, and waiting for audience’s reaction during the performance. When the speaker is confident that his audience is in tune with his message, he may save the most important points for the fulminating climax.
Too nice
In the absence of hate, we risk appearing shallow; we would also reduce our emotional and intellectual boundaries to some extent, aiding compliance with the domination by others; but this is countered by appearing less of a stalwart ally, and so less attractive to earnest people. Do these ‘nice’ people, who lack strong hate emotions, open themselves up to fads and a nebulous array of superstitions? Since the social urge within these people may overwhelm their weak selfish defence mechanisms, so they may fall prey to the dominating evangelical religions and fads; nice people maybe the dupes of society.
Imbalances between the selfish and social urges, which are not accompanied by hate emotions, may account for symptoms encountered in conditions such as autism and Williams-Beuren syndrome respectively. It is noted however that sufferers of these conditions may have sporadic attacks of anger, possibly as a neuro-chemical catharsis for otherwise un-utilized hate emotions in their everyday behaviour.
Too hot
Conversely, a greater tendency to hate, increasing the selfish urge, may lead to staunch bigotry; shutting out most alternate views to the point of obstreperous cussedness. Such an imbalance toward the selfish side may lead to extreme forms of politics and religion, especially when accompanied by a need to belong, but without the compromise of social negotiation.
The school bully, excessive police or military force, feminist misanthropy; these are all examples of how excessive hate can be used in place of rational persuasion, to achieve a social conformity: “You are either with us or against us.” The Eichmanns of this world, from callous bureaucrats, to over zealous guards or priests, all perform under the illusion of moral superiority bequeathed from the sense of the greater good; so the greater the hate, the greater the prize of social belonging by defaulting those outside the cult.
And what if the sophistication of politics and religion become less important; can the extreme social urge be fulfilled by blind hate alone? Consider the public executions in the Colosseum of ancient Rome, or the gathering of a lynch mob, which melds, however briefly, in a social self affirming maelstrom, at the expense of some hapless victim. If so, then we should not be surprised that primitive religions and politics require sacrifice and pariah as a matter of form, with the vast number of players oblivious as to the reasons for their prejudices they have imbued from each other.
Demarcation: “Out damned spot”
Internally we may have conflicts with our own beliefs, the so called cognitive dissonances. Many ideas we acquire from different sources simply clash with our sense of right and wrong. Take for example sexual deviance; because sex is a fundamental motivation, there is no meaningful rationalization to negotiate between acceptance and non-acceptance; hence we resort to a primitive demarcation via love and hate. This is because we risk contaminating our emotions regarding fundamental urges; we could provoke similar disturbance by incongruent choices of food or entertainment, as our minds are made up of those pleasurable notions we call ‘decency’. Hate serves to segregate in our own minds those unpleasant thoughts that could otherwise interfere with our primitive motivations by inadvertently crossing over and contaminating those pleasurable thoughts. Hate filled phobias are therefore perfectly natural; they induce strong hormonal emotions that serve to hard-wire neuronal pathways by thickening relevant synapses, and fixing our minds on the ‘ointment’, whilst avoiding the flies. It would take a lot of time and love, to persuade a monkey to like a snake, as some of our phobias are ready formed by evolutionary benefit; and it would be a disaster for our sex lives, and evolution, if every time we looked at our lovers, we saw our parents or siblings instead.
In the absence of external scapegoats to offload our revulsions, this system can be a self harming pitfall, rather than a saviour of decency; as hate is strong enough an emotion to modify a content state of mind, to an unhappy one; for example, a neurotic tendency of over cleanliness; or phobias that serve no apparent rational purpose of survival, such as fear of blemishes on a painted surface; or the fear suffered by the obsessive compulsive when not completing a ritual.
Might it also account for sexual deviances by the revulsion of sexual maturity suffered by some unfortunate youths during puberty? Imagine a lad who was precocious enough to have sexual desire for girls his own age, but suffered under some aberration, induced or inherent, to become disgusted by the adult form, that this left an indelible proclivity towards the prepubescent by default. As he grows, he exorcises out of his mind those feelings towards the mature female that other boys develop; thence he is doomed by his modified sexual urge to desire the immature female form. A similar argument may be used to account for homosexuality, whereby the sexual urge is not lost, but rerouted by the hate and disgust of the heterosexual form. Let us hope that the increase of feminist teachers, and other religious influences in our schools, doesn’t pervert too many boys from natural healthy maturity.
Conclusion
Hate is then the primitive and natural emotion that guides our performance within a social setting; it clarifies the demarcation between what we feel is right and wrong. In rude health, we try to inseminate others with our beliefs, whilst preserving our own individuality by cussed rejection of the views of others, especially if they contradict our own. By implication, hate also preserves our sense of decency, in that we use it to exorcise those internal dissonances of thought, lest our primordial urges be contaminated with incongruence.
An excess of hate, results in bigotry and brutality regarding others not in our chosen group; and may lead to neuroses or deviances, especially if focussed on ourselves in the absence of pariahs and scapegoats.
There is a distinction between teaching the student and teaching the subject; the latter is what used to be called education. The present system is about training the student to achieve ‘outcomes’ for certification of compliance, and monitoring the ‘progress’ of teachers and schools; causing the revulsion by cussed youths that would otherwise engage and aspire to knowledge. It maybe the explanation of why girls are doing better than boys these days, owing to this change of emphasis, that aids the box ticking bureaucracies, whilst fobbing off the conceit of faddish herds, with empty inflated grades.
Girls tend to be more amenable, more willing to integrate, comply and collaborate, so as to be flattered by acceptance. Boys on the other hand, seek challenges and independence; they thrive on cussedness, and are flattered by hard won victories.
The present emphasis on inclusivity, “no child left behind”, has inevitably led to the reduction of standards, since skill and talent have a normal distribution in the population, therefore inclusivity and high standards work against each other. Standards have dropped both by reducing the erudition required in examination, and by dumbing down the syllabuses. The girls thrive on lowered standards and reduced contention, because the easier the tests the greater the compliance; however the boys correspondingly fail to rise to the diminished challenges, as the reduced difficulty robs them of any sense of kudos from winning their spurs; “An empty hand is no lure for a hawk”.
In frustration, the teachers resort to ‘training’ the boys; which simply results in their cussed rejection of the whole schooling regime; this in turn leads to the pejorative term ‘laddishness’, a wholesale condemnation of the Y chromosome. It now becomes a war of both sex and generation; the headmistress selected for this conflict is ‘Rita’, Ritalin, the chemical cosh for cussed kids.
Ritalin works by allowing the dopamine levels to accumulate at the synapse during neurone activity. Dopamine functions at the synapses during the anticipation of pleasure, such as the sex drive, and is believed to be integral with the process of learning. Correspondingly, adverse stimuli such as bad food or unpleasant situations will result in a decrease of dopamine.
In our formative years we learn more than just academic lessons, we learn social distinctions alongside emotions. Our reactions to right and wrong, or good and bad, are what make us the functional individuals we are within a social group. Part of the learning process involves the resolution of social and cognitive dissonances; Ritalin may well alter this natural process to the point of perversion. The presence or absence of dopamine at the synapses is nature’s way of making a demarcation between the learning of pleasant as opposed to unpleasant stimulation. Or put another way, a kid sparked up on Ritalin may learn a bad lesson just as well as a good one. And does the Ritalin wear off when little Johnny is hanging around bad company, or suffering the unnatural propaganda from ‘social engineers’?
Furthermore, with an ever increasing number of feminist teachers, who have a low regard for males in general, what possible disincentive is there to prescribe the drug wholesale? Considering the potential boon afforded to quota-filling teachers presented with a classroom full of ‘compliant’ students, my guess is that boys will be targeted for this abuse, especially as the media is busy frightening the public with stories of ‘feral kids’.
Imagine if Winston Churchill was a present day child... “I made very little progress in my lessons, and none at all at games. I counted the days and the hours to the end of every term, when I should return home from this hateful servitude and range my soldiers in line of battle on the nursery floor.” Would he be a candidate for ADHD, and after a course of Ritalin, would he then still be the man of the hour?
You can guess the outrage from feminists if husbands suggested the use of Ritalin on their obstreperous wives; or better still, if Ritalin is effective at focusing the mind for the learner, why not make the teachers take it so as to improve their lessons? It’s perfectly safe, after all, it’s been tested on children!
The idea of synthetically altering a child’s state of mind during his formative years, based upon the dubious politics of feminist teachers and the amoral school bureaucracy, smacks of brain washing; and is tantamount to the betrayal of the child’s future, to cover up the incompetence, and in some respects, the misandry of the teaching profession as a whole.
Below are the graphs for Teacher Gender ratios (Data set ST30308), and the corresponding A-level results by Gender for students with 2 or more A-level passes (Data set ST30317), for the years 1985 to 1998, according to the Department for Education and Employment for England and Wales. The data suggests the hypothesis that boys do not prosper in a feminist realm.
Presumably multi-cellular organisms evolved with a central nervous system first.
Consider the slime moulds: they are composed of individual amoebas, which have the ability to collect into a plasmodium group, whereby the membranes of the individuals are subsumed into forming a large multi-nuclear ‘super amoeba’. The collective plasmodium forms or dissociates according to the availability of food and the consequences and interactions between individuals is chemical, including temperature and humidity. It is tempting to ascribe this ability to the primordial mechanism by which multi-cellular organisms first formed into self organised entities. If so, then a rudimentary brain, or central nervous system, would be an expedient next step, to ensure mutual collaboration within the collective.
A brain is composed of nerve cells, these cells are composed of a body that grows and interconnects under chemical influence via dendritic protuberances that reach out to neighbouring cells, the interface between a dendrite and neighbouring cell body, is called a synapse. Information passes from cell to cell as an electro-chemical impulse; the pulse travels within the cell over distance determined by a special ‘dendrite’ called the nerve axon, which branches into dendrites that terminate at the synapses. These synapses determine the progress of the impulse to neighbouring cells; they process the impulse into a chemical response, the so called neurotransmitters, which are compared against the receiving cells chemical and physical receptiveness.
The computer can be considered as an elaborate synapse when part of the internet; connected to other synapses via the axons of the telecommunications systems. The ‘brain’ is then the physical matrix that we call the internet, composed of computers, servers, routers, and telecom exchanges. The software of the internet, the ‘world wide web’, is the ‘mind’ of the brain. The people that play on the internet are the neurotransmitters; the hormones that help give it life and emphasis. Johnny connects to the game servers, his sister to the social sites, his dad to the library, and mum to the shopping sites; each in their own way will contribute to the data traffic which in turn will determine how the physical network shapes and grows as the companies that provide the various services, accommodate the modes of their customers in accordance with the market economy. Therefore the food of the internet is money; it breathes in electricity and exhales thought.
In this rudimentary analogy, the internet as brain, there would be no singular set of eyes and ears such as higher order animals, but the vague input of sense from a myriad of users and devices. For example there is great effort to create ever better face recognition software; such achievements could lead to the internet having the potential equivalence of a billion eyes if connected to every cctv in the world.
And as for the language of thought, consider how Google translation works, without grammatical or syntactical rules, it simply compares words within phrases against respected standards, then allows the database to grow from the world of casual internet translators. The programmers of this software need not be multilingual to have created the program, and yet it works with the same efficacy as a child’s ability to learn their mother tongue, by continually gathering data examples from those around them.
Could the next steps include the ability to make moral judgements and even considered independent thought, based on the concatenation of simple concepts like Occam’s razor, and of learning by examples and comparing these against giant searchable databases? Admittedly the development and implementation of simple concepts into successful software, takes clever and sophisticated programming, but once achieved and proven, the fruits of one success can then be utilized in the next project, just as children develop their sophisticated learning in progressive evolutionary steps. With a world of opinion from the ever growing blog sites, and the phenomenon of Wikipedia, the Internet-God-Child has a truly universal education base.
As an aside, consider the atheist complaint against the so called “intelligent design” argument: the sophistications of the world imply a sophisticated creator. This argument is not proof of a god but merely proof of confounded reasoning. So consider the reply by some atheists: “Who designed the designer?” This is a valid challenge from an a priori point of view, but what if our world came between two evolutions; such that an a priori evolution generated a god creating species, whose god in turn generated the subsequent evolution, much in the same way as the fantasy hypothesis that aliens left DNA, and DNA evolved into man. I would conclude that intelligent design is wrong as an a priori argument and redundant as an a posteriori argument; and if simple evolution doesn’t light your candle, then neither would redundancy. The Internet-God would then be a further refutation incarnate of the need for intelligent design as an explanation, since it would be the supreme sophistication made by mere men. And so it will come to pass (the year 2012 is popular with religious ding-bats) that all god religions, created to explain creation, will be consumed by the Internet-God, and the world as we know it will come to an end/beginning (delete where applicable): “All your gods are belong to us!”
Some people like exams; some prefer battle; others lie… in wait. The UK government proposed a bill in June 2008 by Harriet Harman, in which positive discrimination should be offered to women and minorities regarding job selection. The bill proposes to address disparity in wages as well as selection criteria; if you honestly want equal pay for equal work, you must first ensure that the workers are equal, and by that we must mean equal in merit and not in token; positive discrimination can only ensure equal pay for unequal merit. And for those that insist this bill will only be used as a tie-breaker in cases where candidates are of equal merit, then I would point out that such instances may expose the inadequacy of the original tests used to distinguish the grounds of merit. It is not inconceivable that a simple test be given, where a large proportion of the candidates pass, and the erroneous conclusion be made that all that passed are of equal merit, thence to discriminate by political choices rather than true merit. The systems of selection, ranging from favouritism, to merit, include: quota filling, random lottery, interview, popularity, nepotism, game scores, and exams. The selection system must ultimately determine the integrity of the final selection in the same way that a natural environment determined the evolution of wild animals, and breeding determined the aesthetics and functions of domestic animals.
Quota Filling Trial by Procrustes; we need more pigs! A survey was taken, in secret, which showed that there were not enough pigs present at the nativity. Non-specific tests showed that sows were just as good as boars in almost everything; therefore we will be selecting more sows to lie beside baby Jesus, and sending the excess boars off to the slaughter house. The flip side of the quota coin is the selection based on what you are not; whole governments have been selected on this condition.
Random Lottery Trial by chance; this is the fairest way, and therefore stupid, but not as stupid as quota filling, which is stupid and divisive. Nature relies on this method because nature is not only red in tooth and claw, but is also blind. The animals may have various tactics to aid their group survival, such as sexual prejudice, but nature herself has no stratagem to guide evolution to a particular goal, therefore relies on genetic chance alone.
Interview Trial by chat; how often have you heard the palliative comment: “There are no right or wrong answers at interview.” It makes one wonder why they bother to ask such questions; if they want to see how you chat, then why not test you as well? Under inquisitional interrogation the candidate, and the interviewer, will reveal their skills at argument resolution; also a contentious interaction is more likely to expose any deceptive premeditations, as the players become intoxicated by their own hormones: “Let me tell you about my mother… BANG!!!”
Popularity Trial by vote, results in so many different types of outcome, that it can be compared with random lottery. Think of the menagerie of celebrities, some celebrated by virtue of looks, some by skill, and yet others by deeds or combinations thereof; there are as many types as there are reasons to like someone, be it desire or admiration. If somebody’s popularity is based on their admirable past record of success, it would be wise to be sure that the skills match the subsequent tasks, else you may fall foul of the Peter Principle, and select a parvenue.
Nepotism Trial by familiarity; blood is thicker than water. This will include friends and associates; it is as old as recognition. Would party politics, religions, and cults, bother to form if not aided by the mutual survival benefits of ‘keeping it in the fold’? Nepotism is part of human nature; it is also the greater part of feminist nature, therefore has absolutely nothing to do with merit.
Game Scores Trial by combat is the natural way; red in tooth, claw, and pixel. The aim is to win, and the winner requires the skill and luck to defeat the opposition. The greater the skill difference, the less luck is required to differentiate between winners and losers. The only issue is to ensure that the choice of games match the skills required for the system to which the winner will be selected; there would be no point in holding a 100 metre dash to select the next manager of a nuclear power plant, unless you expect an imminent core meltdown. One obvious choice of ‘game’ would be to score someone’s success in performing the very tasks for which they are to be selected. Especial care has to be taken when the outcome of a game is decided by judges, as a judge can introduce all the prejudices mentioned above. Another form of diminishing the integrity of a game in regards to measuring skill is to increase the luck or random element, such as games that include dice throws; would we have heard of Bobby Fisher if chess was played like the game of monopoly? Corrupting the integrity of the result can further be achieved by pre-selecting the competitors, so that top seeds are not included, such as all female candidates selected for a constituency, for instance; or more subtly, by arranging a knock-out tournament so that undesired top seeds are matched against each other in the early rounds in order to knock most of themselves out, whilst the ‘favoured’ competitor is matched against lower seeds to minimize their reliance on luck, in order to optimise their chances of reaching the finals, where luck or prejudice becomes more prominent between those of similar skill.
Exams Trial by matriculation; just as game scores can be compared to natural selection, so exams can be compared to breeding; as the exam is fashioned by the requirements of the system rather than the requirements of the examinee. The examiner is looking for compliance between questions and answers, the examinee must mould their answers to fit the questions. The examinee must also be good at the format of exam, which is a kind of game in itself, requiring a set of skills; it is feasible therefore, that a good exam result could be achieved by someone less suitable for the system, than someone better skilled in that system but hopeless at exams. The obvious way to neuter merit is to make the exam so trivial as to render collateral skills pointless; consider for instance the recent report of an experiment where trained chimpanzees were faster and just as accurate at recalling and ordering numbers in a grid on a touch screen, than university students [Tetsuro Matsuzawa], which would you select for the job of postal sorter ... the male chimps or the female chimps?
On trial If feminism is a set of values rather than a quantity, how many more Harriet Harman types do we need to fill the required quotas to satiate feminist discrimination, after all, we take one aspirin for a headache, and not fifty? How do you think Harriet Harman got to be selected as a government minister, if she came to you for a job, would you give her one? Was it nepotism, merit, past success, or mere quota filling? How many people must you deselect to end up with a Harriet Harman; and what methods of discrimination would you have to use? The judge and jury is the army of unemployed men; they may want to know the answer to the above questions, as they fill out their job seekers agreement, and then pass judgement. Alas they may be somewhat biased in their judgement of this government bill, as they contemplate whether the sacrifice of their aspirations, family stability, nutritional requirements, and social standing, was worth the gain to feminists. Harriet Harman may fool the people, but she will not fool nature, and I say again, nature is red in tooth and claw… and the unemployed have least to lose.
What if the current emphasis on equality throughout society, was undermining the very mechanism by which society progresses, or even functions?
Parents and Teachers
Under the supervision of parents, the children grow until they reach biological and legal adulthood, though not necessarily at the same time. Consider the teenage rebellion, when the social function of parenting has matured prior to the legal requirements. The breakaway of the teenagers may be regarded as the natural consequence of erosion of the demarcation between child and parent, as the former grows in status towards ‘equality’. With time the young adults may become parents themselves, and the older generation convert to grandparents; this renews the basis for a demarcation, with corresponding family reunification. It is equality therefore that is either the cause or at least a concomitant to the break-up of family.
With this idea in mind, it might be interesting to speculate the difference between strict and lax parenting. Strict parents may cause the delay of maturity and independence in their children, whereas lax parents might cause premature maturation, with the consequence of stunted childhood.
Now let us bring these ideas to bear when assessing the effects of schooling. Few would argue that parents and teachers would or should have the same function, but they do have similar responsibilities, therefore what goes for the parent to child demarcation, should go for the teacher to student boundary; in that we should expect a profound change in the maturation process dependant on the strictness or laxity of the schools. Indeed the schools can add many other sources of aberration, as they will impose social and political dimensions not usually found in the family environment. Do parents for example need to impose gender equality between brother and sister in the same way that schools do between boys and girls?
Since the mid-eighties, girls began doing better at A-levels than boys, and the average grade has consistently risen to the point that a top grade is the default minimum standard for university entry. Clearly the introduction of the feminist vision of ‘equality’ in schools has had a culturally significant effect: boys are admonished for their “laddish” behaviour, whilst girls are allowed to be girls; so that the former remains somewhat immature, whereas the latter rapidly lose their innocence, in accord with the strict and lax gender regimes respectively. I would say that it is a detriment to academic and social standards in general; and a crass betrayal of the aspirations of boys in particular, who have been sacrificed on the altar of feminism.
Gender
If the sexes were naturally equal, then why have they evolved differently within most species? The Equal Opportunities Commission has the slogan “Different but equal”; if they meant “equality of opportunity”, they should have stuck with that, but by adding the qualifying “different”, they have shown themselves to be conniving; wishing to run with the hare and run with the hounds. Forcing equality upon the disparate serves nobody equally; you end up both promoting parvenues and demoting the worthy. If on the other hand they meant ‘different’ biologically, but ‘equal’ in law, then I’m sure that people would be willing to agree. Alas the EOC has shown its true colours by turning a blind eye to female overpopulation in teaching jobs whilst complaining bitterly about the overpopulation of males in the computer sector, for example; and again blind to the legal differences between men and women, as witnessed in the asymmetric settlements in the divorce courts, and sex discrimination tribunals.
Gender dimorphism is a natural and spontaneous breaking of equality; the fact that it expresses itself down to the chromosome level of XX or XY, indicating primordial evolutionary benefits. So we can safely conclude that the existence of gender is a corollary to social inequality, otherwise we would be hermaphrodites with the corresponding parental redundancy and possible evolutionary stagnation.
Labour Efficiency
Division of labour is trumpeted as the great production enhancement, by simplifying the multiple tasks so that each worker optimises on one aspect of production in demarcation with their colleagues. The conveyor belt is the mechanical statement of symbiotic industry. Each worker may be legally equal, but their functions are deliberately unequal.
Is not the hunter gatherer analogue of our former selves another corollary to division of labour along generation and gender lines; the inequality being an optimization of social survival?
Queendom
If we force the ideals of equality upon gender and labour efficiency, we may end up with systems resembling bee hives, ant hills, and termite mounds; all have a similar characteristic, in that they have devolved to a mutuality system whereby the individual has become completely subservient to the group; all for one, and one for all; natures little fascist states.
Within functional types, from worker, soldier, nurse, they are all virtual clones; and apart from the queens and drones, they are all sexless; the epitome of equality; an evolutionary dead end.
Military
Most armies deploy a multitude of different types, from archers to cavalry, in past ages, to the modern armies of today which deploy separate land sea and air forces, which are further subdivided in equipment and roles. Historically the multitude of disparate forces aid to optimize the strategies and tactics at the disposal of a competent command. Of course there are examples of successful armies that used limited types, such as the Mongols, but with time, their enemies can conceive stratagems to defeat them owing to the limited options available to unitary types of combatants; and in the simplest case they can be emulated by their opponents, thus losing any special advantage.
It is therefore imperative to maintain diversity of capabilities, and to be able to change with adaptations to counter ones opponents. Equality would not only stymie strategic options for the group, it could add inertia to improvisation on the individual level; if everybody is a captain, who gives the order to charge, and who makes the tea?
Friends and Enemies
Recall how many times you have been placed in an environment of strangers, such as the first days of school, a new job, or maybe a package holiday. Under these uncertain conditions we tend to gravitate towards those we feel are most like ourselves, if we socialise at all that is. Then recall how often the first choices cool off, as we become more accustomed to all the company in due course. We may be searching for those who have complementary characteristics to ourselves rather than identical traits, even so called identical twins will break parity by one being more dominant in the relationship; pecking order is seen in most social animal groups, humans are no exception. If we naturally aspired to equality why do we bother to look good, why do we compete? People are generally fussy, playing hard to get would be incongruent with equality, but in the natural world it is an attractive challenge.
Cliques typically are composed of captains and lieutenants, with each a foil to the other, whilst maintaining their special intra-dependency, the captains win their assertions and dominance, as the lieutenants gain acceptance and belonging, though each tests the boundaries of the other. The interplay can seem quite aggressive to an outsider of the clique, but I would maintain that the clique becomes unstable, or stale, only when the captains and lieutenants lose their demarcation through equality. This entire adherence to the group, complete with mock battles, may be for the mutual strength of all within the clique; if it were not for the contingency to threats from without, in times of peace and harmony, who would need friends?
Conclusion
The problem with imposing equality is that it drags all uniqueness and diversity of the aspirations of individuals within a society, towards an artificial norm; the worthy are demoted in order to make room for the promotion of parvenues. Only the stupid are allowed to be encouraged, the smart ones will be at odds with the orthodoxy until they conform; since there would be no point to aspire beyond normality as this will deviate from ‘equality’. The evolutionary aspects of society risk becoming stagnant or even devolve to a base orthodoxy. Equality is essentially fascism by the mediocracy, the bounding of individual dreams and aspirations to the norm.
Equality isn’t the ideal, freedom is the ideal; with freedom for all individuals, regardless of sex, creed, race, or merit; the only laws we would need are self defence, and the ‘silver rule’: do not impose on others that which you would not have imposed on yourself. The freedom implied by inequality allows the optimization of industry and strategy, it is the driving force for the most favourable mate selection; it allows us to be generous to the less fortunate, rather than being shackled to their misfortune; it allows me to be me, and you to be you.
Karl Popper wrote: You can choose whatever name you like for the two types of government. I personally call the type of government which can be removed without violence "democracy", and the other "tyranny".
In a free state, any individual can vote according to their choice. But what mechanisms, if any, exist to stop a democracy devolving into the tyranny of a fascist state?
During elections, people are subjected to by the rhetoric of parties, individuals, or the media, to choose one way or another. It is not inconceivable for a majority to be persuaded towards a single party, as happened with Blair’s New Labour. When a sweeping majority occurs, there is usually a combination of motivations, typically the unpopularity of one party in conjunction with the perceived ‘changed for the better’ of the remaining party; we could call this the collapse of the opposition, which leaves an effective one party state by default.
There is no inherent reason for a people to avoid voting for fascism; after all, Hitler was voted for with sufficient number to cause the incumbent parties to form a coalition. In times of fear or threat, real or perceived, the people’s politics may coalesce to form a strong unified body of like spirit, whereby they yield their individual aspects from easier times in a Procrustean manner, to fit that of the common ‘greater good’. This after all is the purpose of the party politic, to present a winning unification at the expense of the individual.
Fear is the clue, during happier times people are more inclined to be cussed, to maintain their individuality when unthreatened in rude health. The notion of forming gangs and cliques are for those that feel insecure, or worse, for those who want to amplify their impositions upon others, by wielding the chorus. Notice how the clique will invariably revolve around central characters, who will maintain coalescence by finding victims to target; usually the loners, whose independence threatens to up-stage the clique captains; the lieutenants of the clique meanwhile, get an object lesson in the consequence of straying from the fold.
Fascism then, is the greater coalescence of the clique mentality, including captains and lieutenants; it is an extreme socially synchronized reaction of democracy, when the group feels threatened and allows itself, quite democratically, to be herded to a conforming mass. The greater the coalition, the greater the Procrustean compromises, and the consequent simplification of ideals; the only difference between the small town clique and the fascist state is that the state attacks ideas rather than mere individuals. The individual in turn devolves to a non-entity, becoming either friend or foe of the orthodoxy, which itself is sustained by the bigotry of the utopians, on behalf of the greater good.
“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” [Karl Popper]
When we compromise our individual principles to gain even a moments safety, or relent from agreeing to differ, but defer in order to agree, then we are prone to comply with our own subjugation by that tyranny and fascism that begs our vote.
If men and women were functionally equal, and there were no gender bias, then the relative proportion of men to women, in a 'gender neutral' workplace, should be similar; or at least reflect the numbers within the pool of available workers. Since bias effects these proportions, then, by induction, a simple measure of the ratio of men to women in the job market, compared to that of a particular employer, should reveal any bias inherent in the selection processes made by that employer or institute.
Poker Die
A perfect none loaded poker die will have, by symmetry, equal probability of landing on any of the six faces; this can then be considered an ideal probability based on logic (deduction). An imperfect or loaded die might, for example, score an Ace more often than any of the other faces; then we would measure the probability by repeated throws of this die until the real probabilities for each face are known, based on empirical measurement (induction), thus:
Ideal probability calculated by symmetry: \(P_{i}=\dfrac{1}{n}\)
Real probability measured experimentally: \(P_{r}=\dfrac{score}{throws}\)
The differencebetween the measured real results and the logical ideal results is the bias; in this case the physical imperfection or loading of the die. Hence:
Bias,it should be noted, can be positive or negative with respect to the real result of a particular outcome, and varies between the maximum limits of ±100%; for the example above we would conclude that bias is positive for the Ace, and by complement, negative for the other faces of the loaded die; that is:
Note that \(\text{(eq.2)}\) is true for all cases, both real and ideal. Substituting the real probability from \(\text{(eq.1)}\) into \(\text{(eq.2)}\) we get:
\(\text{(Eq.3)}\) can be regarded as ‘taking from Peter to give to Pauline’, and reflects the conservative nature of the complementary rule.
Equilibrium Bias
Now let us consider the job market and any bias that may occur according to gender; here the deduction or induction of probabilities,ideal or real, will be represented by the ratios of the proportions by gender in each vocation. The job market for the Isle of Wight is in the order of tens of thousands, the jobseekers divided by gender are approximately 3000 male verses 1000 female, and let us compare an institute of about 300 workers with a ratio of 80% female to 20% male. These are sufficiently large numbers to avoid error by ‘small number’ fluctuation.
If these proportions do not change over time, for example some years, then the system can be regarded as being in equilibrium. That is to say that the rate of male to female employment must equal the rate of male to female unemployment between jobseekers and the job market; otherwise if one rate were higher or lower than the other, then the numbers and proportions would change correspondingly until a new equilibrium position is established.
By analogy with the postulate of the ‘zeroth law of thermodynamics’: Two systems in thermal equilibrium with a third are in thermal equilibrium with each other; and relating the thermal bias of temperature with the gender bias of employment, such that:
Implies that:
The rate of male to female employment into the institute is presumed to be proportional to the product of the real jobseekers gender ratio and that of the institutes. But since gender bias is suspected of the institute, we replace the institutes exhibited proportions with the ideal proportions claimed by that institute, modified by the gender bias from \(\text{(eq.1)}\):
\(\left[\dfrac{M}{F}\right]_{seekers}\times\left[\dfrac{(B_m+1)M_i}{(B_f+1)F_i}\right]_{institute}\propto \text{Rate of employment, male per female.}\)
Whereas the rate of unemployment from the institute will simply be a function of the real ratio of those already employed, since the jobseekers do not choose who is removed:
\(\left[\dfrac{M}{F}\right]_{institute}\propto \text{Rate of unemployment, male per female.}\)
Where:
\begin{array}{}M&=&\text{number of males}\\F&=&\text{number of females}\\M_i&=&\text{ideal proportion of males}\\F_i&=&\text{ideal proportion of females}\\B_m&=&\text{bias towards or against males}\\B_f&=&\text{bias towards or against females}\end{array}
At equilibrium,rates are equal, and assuming any constants of proportionality resolve to unity for dimensionless ratios, then:
That is to say, that if the institute claimed zero gender bias, then they would have to show that the female applicationrate \(A_{(m/f)}\), was 12 times more than that of males; alternatively they would have to show that women were more competent at the job, and having 12 times more skill \(S_{(m/f)}\), or some combination thereof.
On the other hand, if the institute insists that there is equal gender skill, and application rates, then \(M_i=F_i\), and \(\text{(eq.4)}\) would simplify to:
Solving for bias, and using the relationship \(B_m+B_f=0\), from \(\text{(eq.3)}\), the complementary principle, gives the results for the individual gender bias inherent in the institute:
\(B_m=\dfrac{-11}{13}\)
\(B_f=\dfrac{+11}{13}\)
If all else were equal, then this institute would be branded biased against males, and for females. They would need to explain the blatant contradiction within their policies of 'equal opportunity', to account for \(M_i\neq F_i\), The claim that the institute practices 'gender equality', is therefore bogus. Those responsible have transgressed the 'equal opportunities' law; unless this law is itself bogus, and blatantly biased against Wightmen!
Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
In the politically synthetic world of presumed equality, and suspected bias, it is possible to derive equations of probability for an individual male or female in situations where there are admixtures of the number of males \(M\) and females \(F\), applying for the same job.
Firstly, introducing and defining \(J_{(m/f)}\): as the prejudice coefficient, by consolidating the individual gender bias terms of \(\text{(eq.4)}\), into a single term for both genders:
The prejudice coefficient \(J_{(m/f)}\), varies between 0 and ∞, with 1 representing zero bias. Values less than 1 indicate prejudice against males, and values larger than 1, imply prejudice against females. This hyperbolic coefficient is reciprocal to \(J_{(f/m)}\).
Secondly, solving for bias in \(\text{(eq.1)}\), and substituting proportions for probabilities, we induce:
For pure bias we assume \(M_i=F_i\), therefore the prejudice coefficientbecomes the ratio of gender probabilities, derived by induction from the institute and seeker proportions respectively:
Note that the middle expression of \(\text{(eq.6)}\) is the same as the right hand side of \(\text{(eq.4)}\), except for the rearrangement of numerator and denominator in regard to gender rather than vocation.
The equation of gender probabilities for \(M\) males and \(F\) females, is derived from \(\text{(eq.2)}\):
When applying to the prejudiced institute in the section above, with \(F=1\) Snow White, verses \(M=7\) Dwarves, there would be the following probabilities of getting the job:
Snow White's probability \(\text{(eq.7b)}\): \(P_{f}=\dfrac{12}{19}\approx \dfrac{2}{3}\)
Probability for one of the Dwarves \(\text{(eq.7a)}\): \(P_{m}=\dfrac{1}{19}\)
Example 2:
For the situation of \(F=7\) Snow Whites, verses \(M=1\) Dwarf, at the interview:
One of the Snow Whites \(\text{(eq.7b)}\): \(P_{f}=\dfrac{12}{85}\approx \dfrac{1}{7}\)
The Dwarf's probability \(\text{(eq.7a)}\): \(P_{m}=\dfrac{1}{85}\)
Value, Prejudice, Application Rate, and Skill
In the real and natural world \(M_i\neq F_i\), since men and women have evolved to be functionally different, therefore an institute may judge the value of its employees based on a combination of both gender skill and bias. The gender ratio of employees reflects on this 'judged' value held by the institute, via the relationship of gender proportions of job seekers:
The value is measurable by the ratios of the job market; by intuition, it is composed of at least three elements: prejudice \(J_{(m/f)}\), applicationrate \(A_{(m/f)}\), and skill \(S_{(m/f)}\); it is therefore proposed that:
Applicationrate \(A_{(m/f)}\), is simply the ratio of numbers of males per female that have applied for a particular position:
\begin{equation}A_{(m/f)}=\left[\dfrac{M}{F}\right]_{\text{number of applications}}\tag{eq.11}\end{equation}
Naturally, we should recognise variation in gender competence for specific types of job, as possibly measured by test scores in entrance exams, or past proven experience, such as dwarves make better diamond miners, whilst Snow White may make a better gold digger, and replace the ideal proportions with those based on measured merit, or skill for that job:
Prejudice \(J_{(m/f)}\), has already been introduced in \(\text{(eq.5)}\) above, and now we can include the rearranged solution of \(\text{(eq.10)}\), thus:
Hence, with \(\text{(eq.9)}\) and \(\text{(eq.13)}\), for any institute, given the gender ratios of the job market, applicationrates, and any competency test scores measuring skill, we can determine the value, bias, and prejudice, held by that institute, regarding the selection of males and females for employment.
This shows that any effort made to address perceived prejudice in the work place, by quota filling towards desired gender ratios, thus artificially adjusting \(V_{(m/f)}\), must lead to real prejudice, and ultimately the corruption of value and skill in the workplace. Indeed, the feminist agenda encourages this cultural conceit, similar to a social variation of the 'Dunning-Kruger Effect'.
Example 3:
Now if skill and application rates were equal for men and women, then according to \(\text{(eq.13)}\), the prejudice of the institute would simply equal the value imposed by the institute, as in the previous section. So let us suppose that women were somewhat more virtuous than men for the sake of this example, and say that women's application rates were 3 times more than men's; and that their skill scores in pertinent tests, gave 2 times as many women passes than the men achieved. Using the market numbers from the previous section, and applying our fantasy values of women's virtue, we still get a measure of prejudice against men of 2 to 1:
And of course, if men were the virtuous ones, which applied 3 times more often, and passed 2 times more often in pertinent tests, then the prejudice against men would be 72 times that of women, in order to achieve the same job market figures!:
If this analysis is true, and the typical proportions exhibited by the job market are as estimated, then justice must be done to right this great wrong against Wightmen. The State must acknowledge the Marxist-Feminist dominated public sector, which is responsible for this blatant embezzlement of gainful employment from Wightmen.
Further, any demeaning exercises to 'improve the employability' of Wightmen, such as the mandatory 'Employment Training Programme', will not solve the inherent problem of misandric prejudice; since any gains of virtue by an unemployed Wightman can, and probably will, be countered by a proportional increase of the bias and prejudice lined against employing him.
