It jibes with the hemline length/economic downturn theory (hedonism) and the Lipstick Index (comforts) and everything.
I would add that it’s a combination of male quality and low quantity.
e.g. 20s dress in response to new migrants (high occasional risk) and rowdy war veterans pissed off you stole their job during WW1.
e.g. late 40s, early 50s dress in response to rarity of males (low average risk) after WW2 and the whiteness of many towns and cities (within group quality). The men also made more of an effort to show the status of their bloodline and future/current household, to leverage in competition.
If men won’t step up, obviously the women are going to do what they want. Some will be hedonistic.
With celebrities, it’s all about the virtue signal. First it was handbags, then it was posing with elephants or monkeys and other animal charity stuff and now it’s adopting Jolie style like the races are Pokemon. With their low IQ, probably a good thing they’re wasting their own resources for once.
The implications of the mid-Victorian story are far-reaching, because, unlike the paleolithic scenario, details of the mid-Victorian lifestyle and its impact on public health are extensively documented. Thus, the mid-Victorian experience clearly shows us that:
Degenerative diseases are not caused by old age (the ‘wear and tear’ hypothesis); but are driven, in the main, by chronic malnutrition. Our low energy lifestyles leave us depleted in anabolic and anti-catabolic co-factors; and this imbalance is compounded by excessive intakes of inflammatory compounds. The current epidemic of degenerative disease is caused by widespread problem of multiple micro- and phyto-nutrient depletion (Type B malnutrition.)
With the exception of family planning and antibiotics, the vast edifice of twentieth century healthcare has generated little more than tools to suppress symptoms of the degenerative diseases which have emerged due to our failure to maintain mid-Victorian nutritional standards.
The only way to combat the adverse effects of Type B malnutrition, and to prevent and / or cure degenerative disease, is to enhance the nutrient density of the modern diet.
The nutrient profile of modern food is inexcusable.
It’s literally killing us.
More food than ever, and we’re the malnourished ones. Some progress.
Part of it is vitamin or mineral leaching, caused by bad habits such as alcoholism.
A third or more of households were temperate or teetotal, partly due to the sustained efforts of the anti-alcohol movement.
To end, the sex-positive sluts won’t like this one.
Infection including TB and other lung infections such as pneumonia; epidemics (scarlet fever, smallpox, influenza, typhoid, cholera etc), with spread often linked to poor sanitation: and the sexually transmitted diseases.
Mentioned in passing as if the most obvious cause in the world.
With antibiotic resistance returning, this will return too. Famine, disease, death.
All the hallmarks of a PUA, including the over-reliance on drinking spots.
Man seduces woman, woman publicly shames him.
Sounds fair, actually. Even the r-selected are turning, slowly. It’s always the women who shift first.
Seduction laws will be brought back in soon enough and there’s no deadline on criminal prosecutions (no sexism either). I hope the PUAs have a savings account for all the lawyers they’ll need (name and other identity fraud will make it worse, as previously covered).
The best part is that, by PUA theory, it wasn’t harassment at all (and so he can’t legally claim that) because she was doing him a favour. AMOGing over local men and a severe DHV as a player. She might as well have written “Serial Seducer” above his name and photo.
Her reputation management would help her. His ‘shame’ would simultaneously protect K-women, who are forewarned, and attract the sluts. Gossip is totally legal and it isn’t defamation if it’s true, he has no legal recourse whatsoever.
Comparing it to violent rape is pretty cheap but this woman is r-selected (Tinder) turning K, what do you expect in transition?
Seduction and its modern equivalent, rape-by-fraud are considered in many ways practically similar anyway (legally, coercion vitiates consent).
For those who dispute the existence of conditional consent, we have seen it already in the manosphere: consider that consent is always conditional between two parties. As a social contract. For example, a heterosexual man’s consent is conditional on his partner’s biological sex as female. Hence, a deceptive transsexual raped him. If it applies to men in dresses, it applies to men without.
This has been requested for a while but I think it’s such a simple case of provable linguistic (written evidence!) fraud I hadn’t bothered. Until I saw what they’re using it for.
Inspired by this new form of child grooming: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3420203/Are-gender-fluid-demi-girl-intersex.html that outright lies about the basic meaning of words and asks intimate questions of minors that would get anyone else arrested.
The form of gender they use applies to grammar (words, objects), not people.
Considering who English really belongs to (the English people), the American terms do not have definitive supremacy, that would be cultural appropriation, although culturally they are considered relevant (to deconstruct in debate and ignore).
Note how, even in the MW dictionary, this novel form is the secondary meaning.
Compare with the English definition of the English word.
This is the dictionary that recently included emoji. They cave.
Yet we see an interesting pushback by the etymologists.
Grammar is pushed down (as it’s less frequently used in this manner) and it reads “Grammatical gender is only very looselyassociated with natural distinctions of sex.” An acknowledgement that they are not, in fact, synonymous. The use is social, not factual.
It is only considered comparable, by definition, in sum (as a mass or count noun). As in, gender taken as male or female cannot apply to individuals.
We see another guideline for this colloquial usage (casual, informal) in “typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones”, a snide passing reference to its use in psychology (generally true) and sociology (generally bollocks).
Many people are unaware of this but all sciences (and soft sciences) have their own dictionaries. These are not the true or common meanings, they are niche and limited to discussion within the field itself. Hence the importance before any debate or academic discussion of Defining One’s Terms.
“Non-technically, a synonym for sex” – the psychological definition of gender.
What does it means then, technically? As a variable? Gender is simply the degree to which one is masculine or feminine. That is it, in psychology. That is 100% true and I’ve never seen anyone dispute it.
Bem’s Gender Role Inventory: http://personality-testing.info/tests/OSRI/
The confusion began with the fraud Kinsey, who conflated it with sexuality in his methodology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
Yet sexuality is a behaviour, under sexology, and gender is innate (lack of gender is impossible) mode of cognition with the slightest fluctuations over lifespan.
Often confused or used as if the terms were the same, sex and gender are in actuality different designations of human behavior based on physical capabilities and social expectations.
Fine so far… not (external) expectations, it’s endogenous cognition, but okay…
Unless you wanna argue that monkeys and other non-human primates, that exhibit the same gender differences, have verbal expectations and Patriarchy: http://animalwise.org/2012/01/26/born-this-way-gender-based-toy-preferences-in-primates/
Sex is related to the biological distinctions between males and females primarily found in relation to the reproductive functions of their bodies.
Implicit admission of non-gonadal sex differences. Wait for it…
Biological sex is usually stated as if there are two, and only two, distinct bodies: male and female. But, in fact, there are gradations between male and female accounting for at least five sexes.
There it is.
That’s why psychologists laugh at sociologists and get offended (fairly) if you confuse the two. Why not four? Why not six? Opinion. Pure, contrived, subjective bullshit.
It goes on in such an embarrassing way a small child could call their bluff.
Sex is not a clear-cut matter of chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia that produce females and males. All humans have hormones, such as estrogen and testosterone, but they are found in varying and changing levels ( Fausto-Sterling 1999 ; Kimmel 2004 ). Men as well as women have breasts. Some men have bigger breasts than some women and some men get breast cancer….
The pedophile who forced two brothers to engage in sex play and kept photographs.
The academic ‘authority’ for the type of ‘campaign’ above.
Gender was seen as a role because behaviour is easier to measure and harder to fake, it isn’t all of what gender entails, but the final product of the motivation and thought process that leads to decision making and external action, and takes after behaviourism, which was popular at the time. Nowadays, we can watch that thought process in real time, synapse to synapse, yet these people cling to their nonsense words like Christians to the Holy Spirit. Gender is their Ghost of Patriarchy.
It is easy to fake what kind of special snowflake one is. Pink? Purple? Blue? Tri/bi/a/fluid? Cultural Marxism wages a battle of acceptance in popular culture for these linguistic falsehoods, contrary to reality but believed in fervently by its worshipers. At least Christians aren’t claiming the Holy Ghost is a science and bleeding the taxpayer.
However, Money’s meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender.
You can actually blame the feminists themselves for making it up. Their supposed support for their word definitions are… themselves. It’s circular reasoning at its ugliest.
The psychological definition of gender has historical eminence, as noted:
The definition of a nuclear family becomes amenable to distortions.
All this talk of sex and sexuality is bluster, a ruse to prevent discussion and even definition and scientific study of masculinity and femininity. Feminists (sociology’s nu!gender theorists) are deliberately failing to cover masculinity unless preceded by the word ‘toxic’ but it is the word femininity which goes unspoken like Lord Voldemort. Femininity, that they fear to even discuss, that they shroud even in their dictionaries and insular definitions.
Here is something I have done you might want to try if you don’t believe me.
Homework: when confronted with a (3rd wave) feminist, let them finish, let them wind down and look serious and concerned. With a grave expression, say something like “I have a question, since you’re a feminist, you must be an expert… What makes a feminist, feminine?
*mic drop, as they twist themselves into a pretzel of logical fallacies*
When they desperately ask you a question on a tangent or to change the subject, ask the very simple question again, emphasis how simple it is and watch them trigger themselves into an amygdala hijacking rage. They don’t know. They don’t know what femininity is. This is their weakness, publicly exposed. That’s why they chose to call it that, hoping nobody would ever ask. They claimed the ground they feared others would use to strengthen the hearth of the nuclear family.
Medicine and public health are compromised by the highest echelons of science, industry and public administration for the geopolitical objectives of international cohabitation, preservation of resources, environmental conservation and decarbonization, all of which hinge on depopulation. Under the cover of reproductive health involuntary sterilizations are implemented throughout the developing world through adulterated vaccines, while in the developed world flu immunization programs weaken the immune systems of the old and civil servants to shorten lifespans and spare governments from meeting insolvent health care and pension plan obligations in the last stage of the demographic transition. Endocrine disruptors inserted in the basic elements of life to presumably prevent caries chronically subvert the human reproductive system to lower the total fertility rate of every country to replacement level. In the name of sustainable development, experimental carbon capture and sequestration methods as well as solar radiation management methods double as weapons against longevity by subjecting billions to unnaturally high exposure levels of heavy metals so the world’s decarbonization goals are tackled from two directions, by reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and increasing morbidity and mortality among the general population to proactively lower future emissions. Poverty and hunger are used as fronts for the deployment of GMO crops that purportedly increase yields, improve nutrition and require fewer fertilizers and pesticides, but that in fact misuse the latest bioengineering advances to cause subfertility, immune deficiencies and crop failures and thus lower the population by limiting births and increasing deaths. Unless stopped, this engineered genocide will damage the genetic and intellectual endowment of humanity and cause population collapse within 20 years, time during which the incidence and severity of NCDs will grow exponentially irrespective of health system investments and medical breakthroughs. Only a political solution can restore our health as individuals and as a civilization.
The feminists won’t touch forced sterilization programmes but the Guardian has reported on it.
Short post, horror.
Atheists in particular need to bear this in mind. If there’s nothing but your body, guard it!
I have a distaste for the rhetoric but the medical points are true. BP rises in distress from the supposedly ‘dead’ donor, for example. That reaction test should be a standard for life, the body is reacting to the environment, they aren’t even locked-in. They say they don’t drug the victim because the chemicals would taint the organs. No really, that’s why, to keep it pure. It’s murder, they keep cutting until the person is dead, probably from shock. There’s actually no such thing as brain death, it’s a philosophical term. It cannot be proven medically. You cannot prove a negative, they simply fail to detect, an issue of the technology. There are many alternate states of consciousness and you can still feel pain while completely unconscious, say, in a deep sleep with REM cycling. They carefully say “brain dead” instead of just ‘dead’ despite how, if there’s blood flow (cardiac standard) the brain is still biologically alive. We don’t die everytime we fall asleep, do we? We slip into another, hidden state of consciousness. And that’s why coma patients can wake up 30 years later and people can recover from real, huge brain damage that should’ve made them ‘a vegetable’.
All nerves are intact (pain) when organ donation is commenced, paralytics are given to keep the body still so the organs aren’t damaged and ‘patient’ doesn’t move and I pity the idiot who signs up for this. If they waited until you were actually dead, any atheist would logically call that organ death, at which point they don’t want them! We can 3D print organs or use pigs but they think that’s too expensive. There is ongoing discussion in neuroscience on full sentience in alternate states of consciousness, like how one is intact as the Self in a dream, with memories and motives intact, experiences, but these OD people say it’s either awake and blinking or dead to the world, despite how we all know this to be false e.g. you incorporate local sounds into your dreams without consciousness.
They often refuse to connect an EEG to measure brain activity to check, they just say it to the distraught next of kin hoping to manipulate them with grief. If the person is truly ‘brain dead’, yet they categorically refuse to check for activity, that should tell you EVERYTHING about their unethical, evil deception.
““The evidence we have so far is that human consciousness does not become annihilated,” said Parnia, a doctor at Stony Brook University Hospital and director of the school’s resuscitation research program. “It continues for a few hours after death, albeit in a hibernated state we cannot see from the outside.”
Compare to: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Organ-donation/Pages/Donationprocess.aspx
“A team of specialist surgeons is called to the donor’s hospital to remove and preserve the organs for transport to the transplant unit. Timing is crucial because certain organs need to be transplanted within four to six hours.”
aka While the cells are still alive.
Why aren’t the atheists onto this, seriously? Without a belief in spirit their concern for their physical being should be high.
Some doctors are valiantly trying to fight against this.
Like the US “whole brain criteria,” the UK criteria—held to define death conceptualised as permanent loss of the capacity for consciousness and the capacity to breathe spontaneously23—did not require the electroencephalogram (EEG) as a test for continuing life in the brain. If recorded, continuing EEG activity was to be disregarded—along with other evidence of persisting brain function—as lacking “significance.” It remains unclear, however, on what grounds such activity is disregarded, bearing in mind the present very limited understanding of brain physiology.
Although the term “brain death” is supposed to have gone out of use in the UK,22 comatose, ventilator/dependent patients are still being certified “dead” for transplant purposes using similar tests but on the basis of some idiosyncratic concept that remains far from clear.
Because ‘brain death’ doesn’t exist, medically. They are using the word ‘dead’ because…
The UDDA and the “dead donor rule” still govern transplantation practice. Truog and Robinson, like others before them,24,25 propose the abandonment of all obfuscation where requests for transplantable organs are concerned. They accept that “brain dead” individuals are alive. The issue then becomes: “Given that brain dead individuals are not dead, is it morally acceptable to remove their organs for transplantation?”
Hence the title:
Does it matter that organ donors are not dead?
Truog and Robinson answer “yes,”
Remove their organs, the very things keeping them alive. Like taking out a rotten tooth. Remove…
For Truog and Robinson, the case for taking organs from still living donors depends upon “shifting the key ethical question from ‘Is the patient dead?’ to ‘Are the harms of removing life sustaining organs sufficiently small that patients or surrogates should be allowed to consent to donation?’”
They’re literally trying to change the ethical question to look less like murderers. Murdering to save lives is like, to quote Carlin, fucking for virginity.
Once we recognise that the dead donor rule is not morally necessary for organ procurement, the “concept of brain death will then disappear from textbooks, illustrating the degree to which the concept was never more than a social construction, developed to meet the needs of the transplantation enterprise during a crucial phase of its development”
To answer the charge that vital organ removal kills the living patient, ……the physician acts, and this act is the most proximate cause of the patient’s death……the physician is not morally responsible for the patient’s death—the morally relevant cause of death is the patient’s disease. In both cases, the physician is acting with the patient’s consent in ways that respect the wishes of the patient and that are in the pursuit of morally worthwhile ends.
“I was just following orders.”
What about the medically relevant COD? Cutting out their heart as the piece de la resistance, skinning them for grafts, the mental shock of chopping off the tip of the eyeball?
No. The patient’s consent is invalid if it isn’t fully informed.
“We welcome Truog and Robinson’s admission that “brain dead” individuals are not dead and that brain death criteria were developed to allow vital organ donation, rather than being on a firm scientific or philosophical basis.”
Philosophy isn’t a standard for medicine. If I firmly believed in the philosophical hypothesis that waterboarding causes no harm, does it?
Compare to: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Brain-death/Pages/Introduction.aspx
After brain death, it’s not possible for someone to remain conscious. Combined with the inability to breathe or maintain bodily functions, this constitutes the death of a person.
Outright lie, they’re measuring the peripheral stem, not the central brain itself. Locked-in syndrome. Coma patients spontaneously awakening. Not possible either, but it happens.
Their heart is still-beating. Cardiac standard. There is blood flowing to and from the brain. fMRI of people in a deep coma? Reports of hearing and dreaming and feeling? People who feel during surgery under anesthesia?
Your brain naturally paralyses you in deep sleep, you can’t feel your body, are you still alive?
Ask anyone who’s had a case of sleep paralysis (many people, millions). Were they dead? Ask them. Look up the stories of horror and terror.
Studies of patients’ memories of their unconscious state indicate that they heard and understood conversations. Lawrence (1995) found that unconscious patients could hear and respond emotionally to verbal communication. One patient, when being neurologically assessed, understood the nurse’s request to squeeze her hand but was unable to move. Another stated: ‘I could think and I could hear, but I could not move and I could not talk or open my eyes.’
Medical ethicists are justifying this. Pretty sure I’ve posted this before but…
From a “professor of philosophy” – brain death is a philosophical term, there is no neuroscientific evidence for it. No neuroscientist would feel comfort calling it, it cannot be proven, it is simply impossible to measure.
As the Doctor in the wired article says;
“Death is really a process.”
If your organs are dead, why do they want you to donate them? How can they live on in another if they didn’t work for you? It’s tautological, calling death, creating death, calling death while using the proof of original death to give life somehow.
I agree with the BMJ author.
“We believe that removing vital organs from a still living donor is the taking of innocent human life.”
Human rights stand clear against it, despite how it’s come in in Wales.
If we own anything in this life, we own our bodies. No means no. The state cannot make active medical decisions prior to the will of the patient (the opt-out system). There are numerous cases of NHS data fraud and data sales and data loss. What’s to stop someone adding you to the registry, for their own personal reasons? From the outside, no system is uncrackable, magically exempt from hacking.
They can no more say “you’re selfish for keeping your organs for burial” than to tell a rape victim “you’re selfish for not sharing your vagina.” Why is the stranger family of an unchosen donor (who might’ve brought their illness on themselves) more important than the potential donor’s? Why aren’t donors paid, if everyone else is? Plenty of religions state the body must remain intact for reception to Heaven, going back to the days of mummification. Who owns your organs? The people calling this selfish, have they donated a kidney while they’re still alive? Then they’re as selfish as everyone else who dare call their very cells their own.
I know this looks like madness, not scanning when necessary and scanning when not. This is why women need to be fully informed of unbiased material on the research available so they can carry out their own risk assessment before deciding against or demanding upon an ultrasound. In normal routine scans to assess foetal growth I deem them unnecessary and harmful, but using them to see if I am ectopic, that my baby or myself is at fatal risk, I deem necessary. After I have understood and assessed the risks involved, for now at least, I realize that I do not understand enough and further research of updated material is always required.
As with most incompetence, upon further investigation, it seems that perhaps incompetence is trained, guided and managed perfectly well.
There was a huge study in China (called the China study in these circles) connecting the number and severity of birth defects with the number of ultrasounds. It was clear causal evidence, huge sample, great method. Ultrasounds haven’t been retested in decades, and since then their power levels have been raised greatly.
Under the new system of universal credit, polygamous marriages are not recognised at all.
But a House of Commons library paper, published earlier this month, has highlighted a loophole that will allow additional wives to claim a full single person’s allowance while the husband and his first wife still receive theirs.
Punishing the natives for being monogamous.
I think it’s pretty clear equality is a joke.
The entire premise of polygamy is self-limiting: if you want extra spouses, you must support extra spouses.