30 thoughts on “Gender Feminist Bingo”

    1. You could put ‘these anecdotes are solid fact’ on an MRA bingo too.
      Yeah, I can agree with that. It seems that for everyone, whether they’re an anti-racist, WN, feminist, MRA, you name it, their anecdotes are everyone else’s reality.
      Perhaps it’s a human thing.

      1. Exactly. I frequent a board where several people claim to be “survivors” of “Ritual Abuse.” And everyone–including people not claiming this about themselves–will absolutely go insane on anyone even hinting at doubts about these wild and improbable stories. It’s considered impolite–I guess–to point out that these stories have been vaporized again and again by the light of reason and evidence.

  1. Haha, good bingo, Robert! The whole part about “rape culture” being a major tenet of feminist ideology is especially true.
    In fact, I would be interested to see a post refuting this whole “rape culture” theory.

  2. OK, DON’T delete it, then! 🙂
    While I’m on the subject: here’s a link to the pdf of the full text of Lynn’s new book, just released weeks ago:
    A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences
    by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen
    Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen argue that intelligence should be adopted as a unifying construct for the social sciences, akin to mass, energy, pressure and the like that unify the physical sciences. They show that differences in intelligence between individuals explain numerous phenomena including educational attainment, earnings, crime and health and extend this to the explanation of differences between groups including socio-economic classes, regions within countries and nations. They develop further their work on national IQs for all countries in the world and show that these contribute significantly to the understanding of numerous phenomena in economics, political science, demography, sociology, criminology, anthropology and epidemiology.

  3. When you hear someone claiming that their “insights” in social sciences are comparable to the laws of physics, you know you’re about to be crushed by a truckload of b***s***. In my experience, anyway…

        1. Hi Dota. I just read social science and thought about sociology. Forgot for a minute it included economics and psychology etc.

        2. If you include all those different areas, there is more chance of hearing someone claiming their insights are comparable to the laws of physics. Plus I would imagine that kind of claim would be more common in something like economics.
          Most research in American sociology is quantitative and done on scientific principles, but does anyone anymore think of sociology as a science with concepts, entities and laws that are of the same status as those of physics? is anyone claiming that there are social laws as universal and unalterable as the laws of physics? (Comte and Durkheim spring to mind but recently?) I’m not sure…you tell me. I wasn’t the most attentive sociology student.

        3. Nobody takes these bitches seriously.
          Lindsay, do you want to tackle the notion that feminists are pediaphobic and portray children as demons?

    1. @alan: Well, lesseee… According to you, Richard Lyn and that Finnish guy are claiming that intelligence is the social scientific equivalent of gravity and mass. I think he should stick to correlating p*nis and forehead size.

      1. Yes, lots of (sweeping) claims have been made. Read the work and decide for yourself whether they are sufficiently supported. As for penis and brain size correlations, I think you’re confusing Lynn with Rushton.
        I wish Robert had complied with my request to delete the comments, but he didn’t, so there there they are. I was just using the comment section as a way of messaging Robert. Perhaps a bad idea. But for anyone interested in this issue, there’s a bunch of hot new stuff there.

    2. “Comparable to the laws of physics” — depends on what you mean by “comparable”. Only an idiot would claim that sociological studies would result in conclusions of similar (immutable) nature as the laws of physics. As Steve said below: ” is anyone claiming that there are social laws as universal and unalterable as the laws of physics?” The answer is: certainly not. And that is true of the volume (Lynn and VanHannen’s) that precipitated this convo. They simply point out (see the first page of the introduction) that “the physical sciences are unified by a few common theoretical constructs”, and that social sciences lack such constructs. Fair enough. Nothing objectionable about that. They go on to describe their suggestion for a unifying construct. Also fair enough. Their suggestion might be wrong, or it might be right, but the making of it is not to be disparaged.

      1. It is a very smart suggestion. If their analysis is correct, intelligence is a powerful explanatory factor across a range of social sciences and I think could be considered a unifying construct.
        It also links the physical and social sciences, because of the relationship between genetics and intelligence. Evolutionary psychology already tries to do this. I think L&V see themselves as EPs, actually.
        This would genuinely be a scientific insight. It would be pretty revolutionary. I think you could talk of a a paradigm shift as the current thinking and assumptions in sociology and development studies are totally antithetical to their view. Plus their view is very taboo right now in mainstream discourse but it would have to be accepted and talked about.
        Not that I believe they are right. I’m just ruminating. Its all very complex and still an open question but they might be right.

        1. It is not so much their view, itself, that is taboo. It is the associations, the context. For example, when I first learned of Lynn’s new book, I looked for it on Bing. And what did I find? I found that the fifth or sixth link from the top was to stormfront, the nazi site! And a couple other similar links. What does that tell you? If the same ideas had come from a different person, from a different institution, and (especially) with a different intellectual orientation and context, then there would be no interest on the part of the Stormfront crowd. Those people have no interest in science or scholarly studies. They have no interest in the complexities of the determinants of I.Q. They just want stuff that takes them quickly to their desired conclusion: That whites are innately, genetically superior to blacks. And guys like Lynn, for the most part, give it to them — with scholarly appurtenances. I’m not saying that Lynn is a nazi, but I am saying that he has done very little to distance himself from their ilk. The proper thing for Lynn to do would be to denounce, in no uncertain terms, that whole crowd, and to make VERY clear his concerns about potential misuse of his work by such elements. But he does not do this.
          Lynn’s orientation and emphases, and failure to clearly define his position (as I just suggested), result almost inevitably in such unsavory and repulsive associations. And THAT is what results in the “taboo”.
          Lynn’s orientation in this new volume seems to be (and I’ve only read 30 pages or so, and skimmed a bunch more) strongly implied genetic determinism (or “strong hereditarianism”), and a big emphasis on only one half of the causal circle — to wit, I.Q.–>wealth. Same as his previous writings. A more fair- and broad-minded scholar would include considerable detail on the other half of that circle, and would display more insight as to probable causes of the observed phenomena. For example, he has an entire chapter on the association of clean (or dirty) water, and sanitation, with national I.Q. But as far as the nature of the relationship goes, he only speaks of how people with higher I.Q.s develop better water and sanitation systems; he cites the Roman aqueducts, and the building of reservoirs. Well, yes, but the elephant in the room is the fact that the diseases caused by lousy water and sanitation (malaria, parasitic infestations, etc.) are among the main causes of the nutrient depletions that are known to cause low I.Q.s. There’s MUCH more to talk about regarding the latter (dirty water –> low I.Q.) than the former (high I.Q. –> better water systems). The former is a low-value observation, since it does not take great mental talent to build reservoirs and sewer systems; it is unlikely that low population I.Q.s are a limiting factor in the building of them. But it is all he sees. It is remarkable that he is so ignorant of (and/or chooses not to talk about) the main influences on, and very probable causal chains related to, the very thing about which he is supposed to be such an expert.
          Having said all that, I do think that he and coauthor VH are on to something very important. I give them grudging credit. 😉 It is just unfortunate that the force of an idea this important will be vitiated by the problems I just described. If only it were coming from someone else. “Right message, wrong messenger”, as they say.

  4. BTW, Matt, if you want fresh ammo in the War on Lynn and Race Realists and Other Reactionaries Of His Ilk (or whatever you want to call it), you might lift your eyeballs about three inches from your original post, and read the material I linked on the Ron Unz article and its fallout. It is making a lot of waves. It is easily the biggest event in this whole debate for this year, or longer. The race realists HATE it, which means you’ll probably love it. For your convenience:
    As for me: I think Unz hit on some important points, which go to Lynn’s tortured inner character. Lynn is an old man who came up in a different age, and he carries heavy racist and racial-supremacist baggage within. This was evident in several things that he has done, including (to take one example, earlier on) fiddling with the numbers so as to make some of the sub-saharan African countries look even worse in terms of I.Q. than they really are. (And they ARE bad! He didn’t need to fiddle. But he just couldn’t help himself — so anxious he was to show that those dark black jungle bunnies are soooo dumb.) The conflict arises because he has seen for himself the dramatic results of the Flynn effect, and other data which challenges his racialistic predispositions. And, in addition, he sees that the whole trend of the modern world is away from the racial attitudinal patterns that existed when he was coming of age. The world has, you might say, passed him by in this respect. At a deep level, he KNOWS that his old prejudices are mostly wrong, and grossly inconsistent with contemporary realities, and yet, and yet… they are so strong! He just cannot help himself. That is why you can see in his writing a vacillation between strong hereditarianism, which he holds most of the time, and a more moderate (and more consistent with reality) weak hereditarianism, to put it in the terms that Unz uses. A part of him wants to align full-bore with the genetic deterministic white supremacisitic authoritarian eugenic crypto-nazi crowd, but the other, better part of him pulls the other direction. You can see this for example in his nods toward the importance of micronutrient nutrition with respect to low African I.Q.s, in the original book I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations, and elsewhere. He KNOWS from the Flynn Effect data that such stuff is having huge effects, and it is obvious that the low-I.Q. nations are low I.Q. in large part (though perhaps not entirely) because of this stuff. But he just cannot help himself. It must be a drag, being him.
    PS: Robert: are you listening? Might it be a good idea to remove this stuff to an appropriately-titled new thread?

    1. This could be seen as a conflict between his prejudices (I thought he was exaggerating African IQs) and his scientific mind.
      I tend to agree that if the hereditarian position is true, it is weaker than he makes out and isn’t the single, all important factor in developmental differences as he makes out. I personally think there are significant environmental, non-genetic, reasons for the correlation between latitude and development. But he doesn’t even seem to consider this. I detect an over simplicity in his analysis.

        1. I don’t feel like doing that. You can do it yourself if you like. It will look a lot better. Just repost all of your posts over there. I can’t really do it right and it won’t show up under your name.

    1. I am interested in it of course, but I have my hands full doing other things ATM. And I would like to welcome you back! I have not seen you in a long time, and I am glad you have returned. And it is because of you that I got into masculinism. You might want to check out some of the other threads on gender feminism and masculinism/MRA.

      1. RL: Cheers! I had no idea that your men’s rights (etc.) interest started with anything from me. I have not kept up with that area since the early 2000s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)