Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Masculinity/Femininity And The "Return Of Kings" (ROK) Complex: An Anthropological Perspective

I know, I'm sorry, I'll get to some topics that people are asking for eventually. I have several in my queue that I want to get published some time soon, but the large majority of them are going to be covered by Nick who, as I'm sure many of you have noticed, is MIA. I promise to keep things interesting, though, until that time comes; that is, I'm going to try (at least in this post) to give the attitude he may have, had he done this himself.

This is actually on behalf of a new friend of mine who will go unnamed for personal reasons. He's unfamiliar with typical Western culture and is confused easily by the way we approach issues, topics and ideas in general. Not so recently, he dug through my search history (I know, right?) and found a website that I'm pretty sure is going to inadvertently mentally scar him. This website is none other than Return Of Kings.

I have more game than Roosh V.
Return Of Kings (ROK), in my own words, is a misogynistic website filled with misogynistic people who have fringe, uninformed ideas of the way society (and people) operate. I'm fairly certain most of the stories told on that website are made up, or at least exaggerated, but that's beside the point. Its central focus rests on the concepts of masculinity and femininity, which they use as universal terms which only have one meaning. It's run by a guy who goes by the moniker "Roosh V," who has been dubbed the internet's most infamous misogynist. When I say misogynist, I mean the traditional definition of the word (not the meaningless semantics that surround its modern use): woman-hater.

Nothing particularly new or interesting here, so let's get to the point: what did my friend see that confused him so much? Well, it was this:
"Return Of Kings is a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine."
He didn't understand what it meant for men to be masculine or women to be feminine; that is, he didn't realize that men could be anything but masculine, or women to be anything but feminine. I knew instantly what he was confused about: the difference between "sex" and "gender" in our culture (and all others), and how those roles can sometimes not be coincident with one another. For those of you unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, it's easily summed up in this way: sex refers to the biological differences between males and females, while gender refers to the interpretations and expectations of them prescribed by society. What ROK means by "men should be masculine" or "women should be feminine" is that the sexes of humans should maintain their "traditional" gender roles, which have been prescribed to them by their biological predispositions (or so ROK says). This is an issue that has been addressed exhaustively by people from many disciplines, but most recognizably by feminists.

I should be honest here: I'm not a feminist. I think that the goals of feminism, as it was originally intended, have long been achieved. I believe that the prejudices and discriminatory institutions/practices which may disenfranchise underprivileged groups are contingent upon complex social structures which hardly anyone actually understands (if you even understood that sentence, you're on the right track), and thus the remaining facets of the social movement are just about politics and shouting (or "critical analysis," cue laugh track). These kinds of topics normally aren't a huge focus of mine, because I'm not interested in them; quite frankly, I agree with the rest of the world that ROK should continue to be ignored, and that their idiocy is recognized by the majority of sensible people. It should really end at that.

Paraphrase: "Men should be masculine." - Cher
Someone accused me on my last post of writing specifically to apply social constructionism and "cultural determinism" to these topics; so I've figured out a way to tie this into my anthropological/psychological interests, namely by just examining their About page. Not only do I get the satisfaction of knowing that they're idiots, but I also get the joy of being able to incorporate an otherwise uninteresting topic (for me, personally) into something unique and cool. I don't think anyone else has taken the approach I'm about to take, and so this should be pretty exciting for some of you. For the rest of you, well... try anyway.

So here's what I actually figured out: the About page is, no duh, a representation of the premises the website is founded on. Rebut their premises, and you have dismissed their conclusions and insulted their ideas of masculinity and being douchebags. I don't feel like just saying that they're dumb -- I feel like explaining why they're dumb, rationally, so that other people can recognize their idiocy as well without sharing the kind of innate reactions I have to individuals/groups with behaviour similar to that of ROK. I'm going to do a point-by-point refutation of the seven premises that ROK is founded upon, and hopefully make a few people angry. Most importantly for me, however, I'm going to explain to my friend (who will, hopefully, read this post in its entirety) why none of what ROK says makes any sense given the knowledge we have, and why he may have been confused in the first place.

With that, let's begin.

1. Men and women are genetically different, both physically and mentally. Sex roles evolved in all mammals. Humans are not exempt.

This is not wrong at its face: the sexes naturally have their own physical/mental differences due to the fact that, as the nature of being male or female demands, they differ genetically. The error is in omission, or at the very least implication. Presumably, what they mean is that the sex roles found in humans (I will warn now that this is dependent on cultural context) are a result of genetic differences, and the physical/mental differences in males and females are genetic in origin. This is not the case. We hardly understand the nature of sex differences in many areas (as my last post shows), and so don't understand the origin of those differences, whether they be environmental, genetic, or a complex combination of the two. What's even more interesting is their admission that sex roles evolve in mammals. In fact they do, but these roles are not consistent with each other, and we often find "role reversal" among many species of mammals that is counter intuitive to what most people think, as many people believe that sex roles are the result of just having a sex chromosome.

Nobody denies sexual dimorphism.
Usually, one replies to these arguments by arguing Bateman's principle, which has generally been accepted as being true. It's important to note that Bateman's original experiment was flawed methodologically, although his conclusion appears to be true for most mammals, and the traditional argument that when sex roles are reversed in a species, so are other factors like reproductive success (RS) variance is not always the case. But is it true for humans? Not entirely sure, as reliable information is limited and human populations are quite diverse; however, analysis of what data is available brings some questions to Bateman's principles as applied to humans. This study has been batted around as both supporting and opposing Bateman's conclusions, but such debates should be suspect to scrutiny due to the fact that there were only 18 populations examined in the study. At present, as stated, we're not sure what the nature is of many complexities in the human species in terms of sex/gender differences. It is vital to remember, though, that the extent that culture plays a role in our species is unprecedented in any other species of mammal, and so the consequences are very possibly not what we'd expect.

2. Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them.

This is a peculiar claim. I'd venture to guess that the reason they included "if there are no incentives to engage in them" is that the people at ROK see monogamous marriage (i.e. to them, dedication to a woman) as a sign of weakness or inferiority in men, and so if they find themselves in this position, they can say "I had a logical reason to do this for my own benefit."

The reason it's peculiar, however, is that it's at odds with reality. While the majority of societies in the world do practice polygamy (about 83% of sampled societies), most people practice monogamy due to increasing industrialization and the fact that industrialized cultures have greater populations than pre-industrialized cultures. What I find funny about the argument, however, is that if we're speaking in terms of RS variance or just evolution, what incentive could be greater than having more children? Then I get confused, because it says they'll opt out of reproduction as well, which is antithetical to Bateman's principles and, well, evolution, which is (according to them) the cause of the differences between men and women that they so desperately want to preserve and declare. Maybe this is bad writing on the owner's part, but I think it's more likely that this is a result of stupidity.

Getting back to the argument, it could be countered that the "incentive" (or rather, the pressure) for more people to practice monogamy is industrialization; that is, to keep up with the status quo, men are practicing monogamy at "unnatural" levels. But societies change -- if we go back far enough, all of our ancestors were hunter-gatherers (H/G). These changes don't just occur as preemptive self-pressures from the future status quo, but as responses to many different pressures as a result of cultural adaptation, a unique phenomenon mostly exclusive to humans. It could be argued that this is "bad," but to what standard do we hold this to be true? Because it's assumed to be biological? This is an appeal to nature, as what's "natural" isn't always the best, and what's biological isn't necessarily the prevailing pressure on how we behave and think.

What's even more interesting about this is that our origins aren't even polygamous. Many H/G cultures did and do exhibit monogamy. This is because marriage systems only make sense in the context of culture, not as part of some evolutionary preference in our species.

3. Past traditions and rituals that evolved alongside humanity served a net benefit to the family unit.

Of course, but this is a universal statement for a multifaceted phenomenon. The structure of a family unit changes from culture to culture, from consanguineous to nuclear to polygamous to extended families dominating whatever given society, and so "traditions and rituals" (as vague as that is, but I'll go with it) "evolved" alongside human cultures in a way that these complex social systems make sense when combined together. Here, it's assumed that "traditions and rituals" holds no ambiguity and makes sense even when not given a particular time or space in which those traditions and rituals were found, but this is consistent with the assumed universality of all of the claims made on ROK as the basis for their beliefs. This one isn't too interesting, so let's move on.

4. Testosterone is the biological cause for masculinity. Environmental changes that reduce the hormone’s concentration in men will cause them to be weaker and more feminine.

Here we get into the definition of masculinity. I can't make any assumptions based just on what I see here, but what I can say for sure is that "masculinity" changes, again, from culture to culture and has no set definition. Presumably what they mean is that their definition of "masculine" is the right one, and so that is the basis for their claims. Circulating testosterone levels are higher in males than in females and do result in the enhancement of sex traits, and to this extent I might agree with this premise. The difficulty to be found here, however, is the burning question: what is masculinity?

Notice how most of these effects are non-behavioural.
Testosterone can be linked to a suite of traits, including muscle growth and efficiency, alcoholism and aggression (although the evidence for the latter is up for scrutiny); yet I wouldn't start calling a man less "masculine" for not being an alcoholic or being able to control his temper. This is because masculinity is up for interpretation, and testosterone is not the only thing which influences this trait. For example, one might consider it gay for men to be hugging and kissing in a bar, yet this is quite common in Spain and Italy after a celebration or a winning football game. It might be considered feminine for men to be shy and timid, avoiding direct eye contact in America, but this is the norm in Japan. Gender roles are culturally constructed, and so to say that hormones cause men to be "masculine" is only one perspective. It would be more accurate to say "testosterone is important in the expression of sex traits in males and females, and some attributes of those traits, such as increased muscle or more hair, are considered 'masculine' in American society." There are no universal claims to be made here, however.

5. A woman’s value significantly depends on her fertility and beauty. A man’s value significantly depends on his resources, intellect, and character.

This seems contradictory to the "men will opt out of reproduction" claim, unless of course "beauty" is the incentive to marry and reproduce... but then what is beauty? There are different standards of beauty around the world, again: probably the most well known example of this is the 'peculiar' tradition of women of the Kayan tribe in Thailand to add gold rings to their neck when they're young and keep adding to stretch out their necks. Another example might be self-scarring in the Karo tribe of Ethiopia, which is seen as a beautiful trait for women. This same habit of self-scarring is seen among the Nuer of southern Sudan, only it is also seen as a sign of maturity and masculinity among the men (the boys receive gaar on their foreheads to enter manhood, while the women have their skin plucked to create bumps on their skin).

So we see that beauty has different definitions; but whatever the case may be, is it true that fertility and beauty are what women are valued for universally? This is not so. Women in many horticultural societies with bride-wealth systems of marriage exchange are seen as valuable purely for the fact that once they are married off, they receive wealth from the groom, and this wealth is shared with their brothers so that they are able to marry. A woman's value in these cultures, then, is dependent on their ability to get their brothers married as well. A woman's wealth is her value in systems where the marriage exchange is through a dowry, as (although this is unintended) her wealth is then transferred to the husband's possession (unless the woman is smart enough to bury it, or something).

So, a woman's beauty is subjective, her fertility should be irrelevant according to ROK, and neither of these are necessary/sufficient conditions for her to be seen as valuable. What of men? Is their value dependent on their resources, intellect and character?

"Beauty" to the Nuer.
Notice how these three traits enable the man much more leniency than the woman. ROK sets strict standards for beauty and denounces many things which may be seen as beautiful to other people from other cultures or backgrounds, such as piercings or tattoos. Their fertility is not up for interpretation. A man's character, intellect and resources, however, are all up for interpretation, with the former probably having the strictest conditions of the three. What makes a man intelligent? I doubt they ask for a man's IQ upon meeting him, or expect women to do so. I also doubt that their only condition for intellect is "think like us" (though this wouldn't surprise me). What is "character," too? Confidence? Is that it? Who knows? I certainly don't, but I can say quite easily that a man's value can be dependent on other things as well.

Consider the Nuer again. A man's value in their culture is the beauty, strength and health of his cattle, which he worships as being his connection to God. Could this be considered a resource? Perhaps, but you could say then that everything is a resource: beauty is a resource if used correctly, as are power tools. Resource is a vague term, and so if this is the standard of value for men, men have a lot of leeway; and coming from ROK, it's not hard to see why this may be the case.

6. Elimination of traditional sex roles and the promotion of unlimited mating choice in women unleashes their promiscuity and other negative behaviors that block family formation.

We've already discussed how the family unit is also a cultural construct, but what of this claim that if "traditional sex roles" are eliminated, and unlimited mating choice is promoted, that women will become promiscuous? This is also not so, but this is by their own admission. As we've seen, a woman's value is dependent on her beauty and her fertility. If, then, a woman is "ugly" and infertile, she can try to be as promiscuous as she wants and violate all the traditional sex roles that they want her to have; her desires will not come to fruition, and "true men" will shun her as being low in worth and not appropriate for marriage. Also, what family formation do they see as being desirable? Presumably not one contingent on monogamy, but then what is their standard for the family unit? Polygamous marriage and subsequent creation of an "odd" family unit in America, for example, would be antithetical to personal liberties and individualization which marks industrialized societies.

Let's get past that, though. Do women become promiscuous if sex roles are destroyed and unlimited mating choices are granted to them? Apparently not, as the fertility rate (according to them) drops when these things occur, as we will see in their final premise. In addition, as one of the articles reveal, they find this perfectly acceptable and go out of their way to benefit from such behaviour.

So their arguments are contradictory, we get that, but I know that someone is going to say "contraception!" So, assuming contraception is available to all women, and they meet the qualifications again, does their promiscuity increase? Again, it is not so. If this were the case, we should expect that women who are more promiscuous would use more contraceptives to counter their behaviour, but this isn't the case. Women who use contraceptives are no more likely to engage in promiscuous behaviour than their counterparts. At every facet of this argument, it falls apart. Now, for the final point.

7. Socialism, feminism, cultural Marxism, and social justice warriorism aim to destroy the family unit, decrease the fertility rate, and impoverish the state through large welfare entitlements.

I wanted to make a post about this in the past, but since it has come up here, I'll just state the facts. First off, the concept of "cultural Marxism" is a joke. Secondly, there's no connection between socialism and fertility (otherwise the United States TFR would be skyrocketing, and Sweden's TFR would be plummeting, but they're comparable). There's also no connection between feminism and fertility (otherwise Japan's TFR would be skyrocketing, and America's TFR would be plummeting, but America's TFR is higher than Japan's). We've already gone over the family unit, and socialist nations are by far not the most impoverished states in the world. Fertility rates are dropping because of economic downfall, higher rates of education, government policy actions (i.e. China, India), etc. This is not too interesting to talk about since the data is out there and readily available. It's just wrong.

Fertility rate by country. No signs of socialist interference here.
We're finally done. For those of you who kept up with all of this, good job. Now it's time to talk about the Return Of Kings Complex. As we've observed ROK seems to set standards that are much more lenient on men than on women, and do so without any backing. They are also contradictory in their stances, and so will say that one thing (feminism) causes fertility rates to fall, but will also cause promiscuity to rise. We know this to not be the case. Another example was that they claim promiscuous behaviour is bad and destroys the family unit, and yet they indulge in it.

So what are their motivations? Why is it that they make so many contradictory claims, and are so strong about how they think men and women should behave, when they have little-to-no support for their views? Let's consider a combination of things they believe:

1: Women will be promiscuous if given certain pressures, and this is bad; however, they're okay with it.
2: Men will not engage in monogamy unless given incentive to, yet the family unit (presumably the nuclear one) needs to be preserved.
3: Feminism is causing the destruction of the family unit and the fertility rate.
4: Women are only valuable because of their fertility and beauty, nothing else.

What can be inferred from each of these beliefs?

1: Women shouldn't be promiscuous, but men should be promiscuous and thus it's okay to be promiscuous with women who are promiscuous, so long as they're beautiful.
2: Men will naturally want more than one wife, but the family unit is being destroyed by women.
3: Empowering women and bringing them up in society causes the destruction of fertility rates and the family unit.
4: Women are not valued for anything besides how useful and appealing they are to men.

The motivation? No shit, they just really don't like women (but love them) and really love men (but they're not gay) and want men to be in charge (they like it like that). The conclusion?

The folks over at ROK are bisexual misanthropes who like to take it doggy style. This is the ROK Complex.

Thank you all very much for reading.

Follow me on social media!



  1. Thank you so much for explaining this to me, exhaustively. By that I mean it was exhausting for me to read this whole thing. What are you, some kind of blonde thesaurus? I don't even understand half of the things you said here, except the second-to-last sentence which made me shit giggles (yes, I mean that).

    By the way, they didn't say women are ONLY valuable because of their beauty and fertility, but significantly so. This means they leave room for women to be valuable for their intellect, their wealth, their ability to cook, their ability to kick another woman's ass, and their ability to shove corn cobs up their nose while talking about the patriarchy. They don't hate women, they just want to acknowledge how beautiful they are so they can tell them how bad they are without society strapping them to a chair and electrocuting them whenever their pupils dilate at a picture of male buttocks. This is good! They're good people!

    But most importantly is that they don't CARE what's going on in other parts of the world. Remember: everything centers around them and what they see as being important, natural, and conducive to positive things like nuclear families that they hate, and women and men that they love AND hate. Who cares about the Nuer? They're just living in Africa. They're not important to REAL traditional roles because they're INFERIOR and belong to DEGENERATE CULTURE. Haven't you read a decent encyclopedia recently? Here, I'll give you one:

    And click my name for their manifesto.

    Thanks again Lex. I really did appreciate this, and now I can see that, well... People are stupid.

    Your Friend,

    1. Oh my god! You're horrible! How do you even know about Metapedia? Did you go through my web history again? Seriously, your last major paragraph was all stuff they (Metapedia) ACTUALLY believe.

      I'm glad this was helpful to you, but sheesh.

    2. Haha, I don't really know. I just came across it I guess. I can tell, just by reading that comment from this morning. (I noticed after refreshing the page that there's a lot more to read now. I'll look at that later). I did all that for a reason though: I figure people might trivialize the fact that you mentioned other cultures, or point out that you said they only care about beauty & fertility, but these are stupid arguments. Yeah, they said "significantly," but what the heck does that mean? 9%? 90%? It's so ambiguous that you could interpret it as meaning anything. As for the other stuff, if even I can understand "relativism," then it should be ten times easier for anyone else...

      Thanks again!

    3. Some people just don't listen. You're welcome friend, I hope this won't be the last time I see you here!

  2. Shall we cut loads of holes in your face to make you more beautiful? If you seriously believe that scarring and disfigurement is beautiful, you are seriously mentally disturbed. Although relativists can't really believe in mental illness, can they? A paedophile, a necrophiliac, they're just as valid as a heterosexual, right?

    1. "Shall we cut loads of holes in your face to make you more beautiful? If you seriously believe that scarring and disfigurement is beautiful, you are seriously mentally disturbed."

      Congratulations, you've just written off hundreds of indigenous peoples as being "mentally disturbed," including but certainly not limited to the Nuba, the Karo, the Nuer, the Kaleri, and the Kayapo. As I stated in the article, many cultures view self-scarring as a symbol of beauty and may use it as a rite of passage, such that you are only a "man" to the Nuer once you receive gaar. These are their values, traditions and symbols -- they're all traditional, and thus you should technically be supportive of them. Let me ask you this: what makes your standard of beauty more valid than theirs from an objective point of view?

      "Although relativists can't really believe in mental illness, can they?"

      Of course they can; however, mental illnesses are defined relative to what is considered normative in a given society. There may be biological symptoms to these illnesses, yes, but whether or not one is considered mentally ill for displaying these symptoms is dependent on culture. For example: we believe that if someone has a prolonged struggle with their self-worth, emotions, and ability to work efficiently and eagerly, they may be depressed. In other cultures, this may be a normal occurrence and not worthy of being deemed a mental illness. Quote from the DSM:

      "An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder."

      You can read more about this sort of thing here:

      I'd encourage you to reach beyond the constraints of your mind and understand that there are millions of people in the world who do not share the same views that you do, and these people are completely normal and functional.

      "A paedophile, a necrophiliac, they're just as valid as a heterosexual, right?"

      Depends on the culture. Pedophilia is defined differently across time and space, such that it was pretty normal once for a male tradesman to have sex with his young male apprentice (both pedophilia AND homosexuality by modern standards, however was not so at the time). Necrophilia is the same, where one might consider ghost marriages to be necrophiliac, but however can be seen throughout many cultures. By western standards, these are all rejected behaviours and are seen as being indicative of social deviancy, but it's just that: deviance from socially or culturally normative practices.

      To me, these things are not appropriate, but from an objective standpoint they may not be to other people, and this is okay.

    2. The scientific consensus concerning beauty has been well established since the early 20th century, once religious prudery and puritanism were shrugged off. Of course there will always be insecure individuals/groups who don't like the fact that they are unattractive or unintelligent, hence you get the "oh but what is beauty/intelligence anyway?" knee-jerk responses. It is the classic "pull the rug out" technique of the social constructionist left, to complicate or outright deny definitions. Doubt is a very powerful tool in their hands. Moral relativism is also, of course, integral to their "education" and is readily deployed in intellectual combat.

      A good starting point:

      I must say, your response is one that I wholeheartedly anticipated. You're mind has obviously been saturated by the postmodernist education system, and you have come out a fine little deconstructionist. Isn't it funny, that while the socio-cultural model is assumed to be true unless proven false beyond any possible doubt, the innate biological model is assumed to be false unless evidence is completely unassailable.

      I don't support a tradition if it is superstitious in nature or makes no rational sense. There are many of examples of these still with us today, such as monarchies, for instance. Just because something is old that doesn't make it automatically good or classical. Many ancient works of art, like the Venus de Milo and the Mona Lisa, are awful by comparison to what celebrities and models look like today, because now we are not ravaged by disease, we have excellent dental care, better diets, products to optimise our hair and skin, medical procedures to correct defects, and have abandoned our obsession with androgyny in depicting the human form (gender bender weirdos remain an exception). The science corroborates this, but relativists also take issue with the concept of improvement. However, they would probably relent if faced with prospect of being burnt alive as a sacrifice. Then perhaps the concept of primitive people wouldn't seem so offensive to their "progressive" (the irony!) sensibilities.

      I feel compelled to bring up an important point regarding objective truth in human terms. Clearly the universe does not operate in accordance with our innate preferences, which makes the human view of the world the only one that matters, precisely because there is no other sapient conception of life. This makes our preferences, both moral and aesthetic, objectively true in human terms. To determine the quality of any given thing requires judgement, standards, reason and logic. The fact that there are disagreements between certain people does not serve as an invalidation of objective truth, because some people are either mistaken, illogical, or of unsound mind. To point this out is heresy in the current climate of what Gross and Levitt have called "perspectivism" that has swept through Western academia since the leftist radicalism of the 1960s secured its place in mainstream education. Academics, especially in the social sciences and the liberal arts, are committed to the doctrine of relativism; that is to say, that there are many truths, all of them equally valid and worthy of respect. This of course culminated in the "science wars" of the 1990s, which never stopped and in fact continue to this day.

      Rest assured, we have plenty of realist academics who are prepared to carry the torch and fight the good fight. E.O. Wilson, James Watson, Richard Lynn, Dan Dennett, Henry Harpending, Peter Frost, John Tooby, Nancy Etcoff, Paul Gottfried, Steve Sailer, David Benatar, Satoshi Kanazawa, and many others are worth looking into in detail, if you are not aware of them.

    3. Your first paragraph is at odds with reality. Again, beauty is defined within the context of culture. To say "oh these people are just insecure" or "the definitions of beauty are objective and have been established in the 20th century" is just ridiculous, because then you have to explain why the cultures I've mentioned don't have those standards of beauty. Also, please read the Comment Guidelines before commenting again, as you ignored this rule:

      "Do not use other links/articles in place of argument. Make your own arguments, then cite other works as evidence for your claims."

      And this one:

      "If prompted, you must provide evidence and sources for your claims. This is almost always primary, peer-reviewed sources."

      And this one:

      "Remain relevant to the post." (Since intelligence is not relevant to this post).

      A blog is not a primary source of information, and you used that link in place of making your own argument for how beauty is objectively defined. Revise your argument, otherwise I will not publish your next comments. At an initial glance, however, most of these studies were conducted in the west, most of these test subjects are westerners (note how I keep saying most, as I acknowledge the Taiwanese sample for example), and the list of populations sampled is by no means whatsoever exhaustive of the entire world. In addition, these factors are not contradictory to the ones mentioned in my post. What arguments you may make, it cannot be denied that the definition of beauty is not universal and depends largely on cultural context, such that we can't say "beauty is always defined by x, y and z." We don't even come close to having enough data on that.

      "You're [sic] mind has obviously been saturated by the postmodernist education system, and you have come out a fine little deconstructionist. Isn't it funny, that while the socio-cultural model is assumed to be true unless proven false beyond any possible doubt, the innate biological model is assumed to be false unless evidence is completely unassailable."

      Read the Comment Guidelines: no political/ideological polarization. Also, it's not "assumed to be true." I provided evidence for it. If you want, I can recommend some great ethnographic documentaries on the cultures I mentioned in case you're not convinced. The data is readily available, however.

      "I don't support a tradition if it is superstitious in nature or makes no rational sense."

      Great, then again you're writing off thousands, even millions of people! It may not make sense to you, but it may make sense to other people, and it's not your place to judge whether or not that places a higher value on that tradition.

      "Many ancient works of art, like the Venus de Milo and the Mona Lisa, are awful by comparison to what celebrities and models look like today, because now we are not ravaged by disease, we have excellent dental care, better diets, products to optimise our hair and skin, medical procedures to correct defects, and have abandoned our obsession with androgyny in depicting the human form."

      Oh, so the standards of beauty change across time and space?

    4. "However, they would probably relent if faced with prospect of being burnt alive as a sacrifice. Then perhaps the concept of primitive people wouldn't seem so offensive to their "progressive" (the irony!) sensibilities."

      Not really. One can oppose a practice (i.e. being burned alive for sacrificial purposes) but also not allow their ethnocentrism to blind their objective analysis of the world around them (i.e. not call a tribal society primitive for doing something of the sort). Where I come from, such practices are not acceptable, and thus I do not find them acceptable. This does not mean I should or can impose my values and beliefs onto other people who disagree with me. What you're suggesting is that the relativist approach says "all the values from my culture are invalid because subjectivity, but all the values from other cultures are valid because subjectivity." That's not how it works: relativism states that one will always look at another culture from the perspective that their own traditions, values and principles are better and preferable to that of the culture they're inspecting, and that one can only understand the worldview and practices of a people from the perspective of that culture in which it is contained. The goal of the anthropologist is to move past these prejudices and objectively study other cultures. I'm an atheist. I'm also familiar with anthropology; thus when I see a culture that believes their cattle brings them closer to God, while I may not agree that that's the case, I acknowledge that my standards of truth are different than theirs, that they may or may not accept this, and that it's not my place to tell them otherwise, because my etic perspective is not enough to understand the culture. Read my arguments before you respond to them.

      Also, you don't know what progressivism is, and it's irrelevant. Read the Comment Guidelines, I urge you.

      "[...] This makes our preferences, both moral and aesthetic, objectively true in human terms."

      Not so. Please look up the definition of "objective" and try again. We may be able to convince everyone that something blatantly false is objectively true (i.e. the dirt is made of cotton), and for all intents and purposes it would be CONSIDERED objectively true (because nobody can tell you otherwise, and this biases your perspective), however it is not the case that it is, in fact, objectively true. Here we are, though, arguing literal versus practical interpretations of objective truth. Please address the arguments, as I've already had someone bring this up to me before.

      "The fact that there are disagreements between certain people does not serve as an invalidation of objective truth, because some people are either mistaken, illogical, or of unsound mind."

      This is true; however you have failed to explain how or why these people who do not hold the same standards as you do are mistaken, illogical or of unsound mind, as you put it. Without doing so, you have no case.

      As for your last list of "academics" (I'd hardly consider Steve Sailer, for example, an academic when it comes to this topic), name dropping is not an argument.

      One final reminder (and you're lucky I'm doing this, since you're warned to read the comment guidelines both above/below the comment box and by virtue of the guidelines being there): Read the Comment Guidelines tab:

      If you continue to violate these rules, I will not entertain further discussion with you. You have not addressed the substantial number of my arguments. Refocus your efforts and try again, this time in the proper manner.

    5. This commenter is now barred from discussion for the following reasons:

      1. Failure to read/comply with the Comment Guidelines clearly spelled out for this blog.

      - Resorting to political/ideological polarization and propaganda.

      - Commenting with irrelevance.

      - Refusing by consistent omission to substantiate his/her claims.

      - Using insults over argument.

      - Failing to review the guidelines as revealed by their latest unpublished comment.

      2. Failure to read preemptive arguments under the Comment Guidelines.

      - Accusations of censorship.

      - Claiming I am incapable of hearing, listening to, or reading opposing arguments.

      - Not accepting that the rules will not change just because they desire it.

      Commenters are urged to learn from this one's mistakes and read the Comment Guidelines and follow them. Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. The rules are in place for a reason and we expect everyone to follow them.

    6. I just want to repeat something that made me laugh a lot. Just ask Mykala: I kept saying it over and over again when we were walking together.

      "Many ancient works of art, like the Venus de Milo and the Mona Lisa, are awful by comparison to what celebrities and models look like today, because now we are not ravaged by disease, we have excellent dental care, better diets, products to optimise our hair and skin, medical procedures to correct defects, and have abandoned our obsession with androgyny in depicting the human form."

      How did he honestly not realize that what he was admitting was that the standards for beauty change, and therefore aren't universal? "Improvement" of standards still means they aren't universal and are subject to some kind of "improvement," whatever that may mean to any individual. It was the biggest slap in the face I've ever seen, though I haven't read or heard many academic arguments before. Really good job pointing out all of that stuff Lex. I feel lucky to have someone as informed as you for a friend and guide. :)

    7. Like I said, they just don't learn. I got an email saying a frequent commenter who goes by the name "Simon" (although he changed it to Elliot this time, but linked to his Facebook, which was stupid) saying that it's a matter of perspective. Europeans couldn't conceive of feminine beauty as it stands today because it was suppressed by religious indoctrination.

      The problem with that is that he's admitting religion plays a role in how people see beauty. Though I'd disagree and say Europeans from centuries ago might shudder at the sight of certain things we might see today, but this is all speculation. The point is this: standards of beauty change across time and space, and these things are affected by external and internal influences.

      One last point he made was that babies are seen as cute cross-culturally. This is true; however that can easily be explained because it would be counter-productive for babies to be unappealing and grotesque to their parents. They wouldn't have them.

      I'm just responding to all of this here because Simon has been barred from future discussion, as has the Anon above, and so I won't be approving any of their comments. I'm glad you and Mykala got a kick out of it!

    8. Sorry that I keep coming back, but I noticed something. The Anonymous commenter here listed the following names:

      "E.O. Wilson, James Watson, Richard Lynn, Dan Dennett, Henry Harpending, Peter Frost, John Tooby, Nancy Etcoff, Paul Gottfried, Steve Sailer, David Benatar, Satoshi Kanazawa"

      Then, as I was reading your argument with Simon on Destroy Cultural Marxism, I noticed his list:

      "Charles Murray, E.O. Wilson, James Watson, Richard Lynn, Dan Dennett, Henry Harpending, Peter Frost, John Tooby, Nancy Etcoff, Paul Gottfried, Satoshi Kanazawa"

      The only discrepancies are that he added Charles Murray to the beginning, and removed Steve Sailer and David Benatar. Otherwise the names, and the order, are exactly the same. I'm willing to place a bet that this problematic Anonymous commenter is actually Simon. If that's the case, then it's almost creepy how desperate he is to circumvent your decision to block him and take advantage of anonymous commenting just so he can keep pestering you and trying to argue with you. It's even funnier that he fails every time. I wonder if he'll be able to answer the questions you posed to him...

    9. When the Anon started ranting about relativism and things of that sort and dragged race into this discussion about gender/sex, I considered the possibility. I noticed the lists, though, and kinda figured it out, but thank you for bringing it up so other readers can see.

      It is creepy, but at the same time really funny. He constantly criticizes me for the way I handle comments on my blog, and yet he keeps coming back. Clearly I'm not as dictatorial as he says if he can continue to comment twice more simply by changing his name.

  3. Claims of comparing gender roles between humans and non-human species are always fatuous. The way in which other mammals and non-mammals operate in terms of gender roles is far, far different from what we would expect to see in humans, with the possible exception of our ape relatives. Human concepts of what it means to be a man or a woman are not comparable to how other animals see themselves because life to an animal is a game of reproduction, and they can't conceive of independent identities from their biological sexes. Humans can, however, and do.

    It's the same thing as with saying that homosexuality exists in other species of animals. Animals don't have a notion of sexuality, but merely act in ways that will either please themselves or will confer the success of their genes. Any homosexual behavior isn't actually homosexual, because homosexual implies exclusivity due to sexual orientation, not just actions associated with the sexuality. An animal that engages in "homosexual behavior" isn't gay.

    Why is this relevant? An animal that engages in "female behavior," but is a male, isn't fighting the patriarchy. They don't acknowledge gender roles. Humans do.

    In case it weren't obvious, I'm supporting you, Lex. Return Of Kings should consider the implications of their statements before they make their arguments, because comparing gender roles in humans to gender roles in animals implies that we have no sentience or awareness of the identities we hold in society, which is (as you might put it) antithetical to their very concepts of masculinity/femininity. It's ridiculous.

    1. That's an interesting point I hadn't considered before, both for sexuality and for gender roles. Thanks for your input, cB. I wish I could speak more to your comment, but there's not much left to say. You make a compelling argument, and that speaks for itself.

  4. ROK thinks that when women try to draw attention to themselves with their bodies or feel sexy because someone shows attention to them, they're being narcissistic, yet it's not narcissistic for them to try to draw attention to themselves through their articles because people (men) follow them:

    More inconsistencies with their views... They're focused on preserving tradition, right? They also want to increase the fertility rate and such. So why is it that they have standards for what women you should date longer than 3 months for? Standards that most "modern" women, in their view, wouldn't meet. Surely this isn't helping the fertility rate.

    ROK is stupid. They can't make up their mind about anything.

    1. The thing about the men at ROK is that they don't know what they want besides sex and power. They desperately try to find ways to justify their behaviour all the while supporting/opposing things which directly contradict it. Fertility rates, culture, etc. in my opinion are just banners to get more support; their true desires are clear, and they couldn't honestly give a damn what happens anywhere else.

      Keep 'em coming, though. I love seeing more inconsistencies.

  5. Alexis,

    Might we agree that simply because on average people prefer facial symmetry, smooth skin, etc. for biological reasons does not automatically mean beauty is objective? Biological, cultural, or both, beauty is still contingent upon the aesthetic value the individual finds in the thing in question. Perhaps it should be written out more clearly for your problem guest:

    "Objective" means a quality is inherent to the object in question by virtue of its nature, not the nature of the observer. A good example of this is comparing taste to weight. To say "that apple tastes good" relies on a subject to judge the taste value, if you will, of the apple. We don't inherently know whether or not the apple tastes good unless an individual tastes it, and there will be preference changes between individuals and groups. Though we may find that on average people find apples to be tasty because of some biological faculty this doesn't mean it is any more objective. On the contrary, to say "that apple weighs half a pound" is making a statement of its inherent nature. Whether we measure it or not, that apple does have a weight which is inherent to its existence. It does not require our interpretation for it to weigh as much as it does. It merely requires our interpretation to quantify it.

    As stated briefly "subjective" means a quality determined by the subject acting upon the object, hence the term. If the value or quality is determinant only by a subject acting upon the object, then the value or quality is subjective. As stated, it does not require our determination for weight to exist and be a quality of an apple, nor does it require our determination for that apple to be red as it reflects a certain wavelength of light irregardless of whether or not we see it. On the other hand it does require our determination to say "that apple smells bad." While there may be a biological reason that it smells bad to us (perhaps it's rotten and we have evolved to not like the smell of rotten food) it doesn't mean it's objective.

    Thus we can say that even if 100% of people agreed that facial symmetry for example is beautiful it would still be a subjective value, as would be the quality of taste and smell. Beauty is not objective simply because we have evolved in such a way to favor some traits over others. It can only be objective if the quality is inherent to the very nature of the object, not contingent upon our judgment.

    1. The problem Simon made (the anonymous commenter) was claiming that if we all share preferences, as a whole humanity, then those shared preferences are objective. This, of course, isn't true, because "objective" means it exists outside of our minds, as you pointed out. This is actually, if you want to call it this, an appeal to popularity; it just sounds a lot fancier because he put it in pseudo-philosophical blathering.

      I do agree with you. Biological predisposition to think something does not make that thought objective. I'm not sure how this was overlooked, but it seems people easily forget that their biology is not an objective standard for reality. I would have pointed this out, but for the purposes of this post, I have to pick my battles, and I admittedly didn't think of it at the time, and instead focused on whether or not, assuming it were true, the argument invalidated my own. It didn't.

      Thank you for your input!

  6. Simon I'll continue to block you regardless of how much "effort" you put into your comments. You have completely ignored all rebuttals against you and thus there's no reason to let you publish anything here. If you can't participate equally in the discussion (by not only addressing rebuttals but by backing your claims with proper evidence, i.e. one of the comment guidelines), then you're not welcome here.

    However, I'd like to address one thing:

    "Of course, relativism would mean that we can't even speak, not to each other, not to ourselves, since relativist semantics means words have no fixed definition! What's 5 to you is 9 to me, right?"

    The concept of relativism has been explained to you numerous times, and you still haven't managed to understand it. That's fine, I'll try one last time; and in fact, I think I'll make a post explaining what cultural relativism is and is not, because I'm sure there are plenty of idiots in the world who make the same strawman arguments against relativism that you do.

    Relativism doesn't say that words have no fixed definition between individuals. It says, for example, that different cultures have different manners of representing the same existence we all live in. What you may call one thing, someone from another culture may call it something else. What one explanation you may give, they may give another. Notice how the key word here is "culture" -- individuals from the same culture do not have this 'barrier' because we live in a society where our understanding of the world is, for the most part, similar to everyone else's. This is how cultures function within themselves, and this is not a flaw in the relativist approach, but is actually the crux of it. 5 is 5 to you and it's 5 to me because we share a common approach. We both speak English, we both share a similar culture (i.e. western or European), and thus we can understand what we mean when we say "5."

    So, let me repeat: relativism is not applied at the individual level, but at the level of CULTURE.

    If you don't understand it now, then perhaps I can explain it in my future post. If not then, then you're a lost cause. I'll try to help you rid of your misconceptions, but you need to help yourself too.

    1. You can try to confine it to culture all you want, but once you unleash it, relativism runs amok and infects everything. This disturbs me very much, but it doesn't disturb you. I would attribute this to nihilism, but people on the left do not really fit this description, because they do value their leftist cause/ideology. So calling a leftist a nihilist wouldn't work, for the same reason that calling an anti-natalist a nihilist wouldn't work.

      With relativism you're playing with fire, and you'll find out soon enough whether that fire really is hot or not. You can't restrict relativism to culture. You can't control it, because it's too dangerous. No society could, or would, ever survive it. I don't need to go to a community college or Harvard to understand that relativism, in ALL its forms, will be the biggest challenge of this century, and most likely beyond. I'm not sure if it's escaped your notice, but relativism, in any discipline, is a 100% self refuting ideology. You will emphasize culture, of course. It's all you know to do. I was saying to MacDonald that it's extremely ironic that those on the left are a prime example of the very social conditioning that they ascribe to every conceivable behaviour. Brainwashing is, I suppose, an extreme form of mental conditioning, but you have to be (genetically?) weak first in order for it to work.

      Some of the books I recommend to you I have read, or am in the process of reading, and others I am waiting to get for my birthday or for Christmas. There's very little I want other than intellectual stimulation, and I take great care to be sure that my material doesn't come from politically correct sources. Mainstream education, long since overrun, is of course off the cards, not that my mother could afford to send me to university anyway. We don't even have a car.

      But like I said, Franz Boas sowed his seed and did his deed a long time ago. There is little I or any of the people I mentioned can do about it now. I know you don't like to hear it, but the influence of the left in the social science and the liberal arts has been so efficient and so effective, it's disciples simply cannot be changed, not by anybody or by anything. We are now facing a cult in academia. I have never been an optimist about anything, and my thoughts for the future are no exception. All we can do is name the demon in hope of throwing light on him.

      I never intended this to be a war between you and me, but rather you (as part of said academia orthodoxy) versus all the people I mentioned. They are far more adept at dealing with your kind than I am. In relativism we face a struggle that has such astounding implications, at which everything conceivable is at stake, I for one will bet that it will prove to be more insidious than, and may even outlast, conventional religion. Did you really think you could summon the devil and have him play by your rules?

    2. Published exclusively for hilarity.

    3. (Lex, as you know I just got back, so I don't have the time now to read your latest posts. I'll do that when I get the chance.)

      Hahahaha wait, let me get this straight Simon. Here are all of the things you've admitted to:

      1: Not being able to rebut the claims of relativists, but still holding to your stance on this issue.

      2: Not having read all of the books you cite, but pretend like they're relevant when you don't even know (let alone if they make good arguments).

      3: Not reading ANYTHING that disagrees with you (i.e. nothing "politically correct" as you may define it).

      4: Not having any reason to call relativists Nihilists, but talking about it anyway (lol pseudo-philosophy).

      5: Being totally okay with Lex's "dictatorship," since you keep commenting here but never answered her questions elsewhere, despite being banned here (or, rather, you're supposed to be banned).

      This is such intellectual dishonesty, I can't even fathom how you brought yourself to admit it all. You literally just admitted that you cite sources without reading them, and that you refuse to read anything that conflicts with your convictions. You aren't even familiar enough with the subject to take a stance against relativism with solid argument, and yet you still hold to the position that relativism is a poison.

      Tell you what, though: if you can provide ONE shred of evidence, using your OWN research, that Franz Boas was as toxic as you keep saying, I'll let you keep coming here. Otherwise, bye bye.

      I hope you pony up.

    4. I could just as easily ask where you get all your information from. You gobble up Fuentes and Marks, anything with the AAA seal of approval, but is any of that your own?
      I get mine from the books I've read, and it makes sense to me. You are no different. None of what you believe is what you, personally, have come up with. You're not scientists any more than I am. You're students who get you're ideas from teachers. You haven't produced anything like Boetel and Fuerst's 2014 paper, which is here:

      Proponents of relativism ride into battle very smug and cock-sure of themselves, because they know that relativism, much like Bertrand Russell's teapot, is an inherently slippery and deceptive line of thought. We may not be able to refute it 100% on the spot but common sense tells us that it is blatantly absurd. Relativism is acts like a phantom, a shapeshifter; forever changing the rules and moving the goalposts. Hence, it proves excruciatingly difficult, if not impossible, to engage.

      Imagine if I kept badgering a student of physics to come up with his OWN argument for the existence of gravity? Of course he will be dumbfounded, and more than a little exasperated I'd wager. His knowledge depends upon that of his tutors, and so it becomes and endless chicken and egg argument about who had the first original thought. Similarly, you would forbid me from consulting experts or relying on external sources, thus reducing me to a mute. In any case, I shall be using some links in my comment here, whether it's against you're rules or not. You're the budding geniuses, so why don't you follow the links and take your criticisms to the next level? Steve Hsu, Harpending and Cochran, Steven Pinker, there's dozens of them who'd be ready and willing to challenge you, so why don't you take them on? Go to their blogs and dazzle them with your never ending retorts. You have an answer for everything, after all. So I beg you, do it.

      I never personally knew Franz Boas, neither did Kevin MacDonald. But I don't have to personally sit down and interview Sigmund Freud to know that he was a fraud, any more than I have to personally read every page of Genesis to refute Christianity. Tooby, Cosmides and Pinker have all identified Franz Boas, Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould as instrumental in the development of what is now known as the SSSM, with many of Boas' core tenets later elaborated upon by his protégé Israel Ehrenberg. Social constructivism, tabula rasa, cultural determinism, and deconstructivism are all load-bearing pillars of postmodernism in general, of which Boasian anthropology has been a key component.

      There was an article published in 2002 about Boas and how his reputation has been coming under suspicion, both during his life and more increasingly after his death. It is recognised that the man had an ethno-political agenda and was highly sympathetic to socialism and leftist causes.

      I didn't write the article, but you can bet your life that I read it and understood the implications. MacDonald devotes an entire chapter of his book to Boas, and he sites enough sources to make your head spin.
      Like I say, you don't have to listen to me and what I have to say. If you want to debate people of a higher calibre, like all those I've mentioned, please don't hesitate. I'll be reserving a front row seat.

    5. You completely misinterpreted what I requested of you. I said using your own RESEARCH, which can include using the works of others so long as you display a sufficient understanding of the material and its applicability. You have just barely done so in this comment. I was saying this because you like to spam articles/books that you probably haven't even read, so I told you to use your own research, not theirs.

      "We may not be able to refute it 100% on the spot but common sense tells us that it is blatantly absurd." Argument from incredulity.

      "Hence, it proves excruciatingly difficult, if not impossible, to engage." Especially if you don't understand it, Simon.

      "You have an answer for everything, after all. So I beg you, do it." Mad raging.

      "Social constructivism, tabula rasa, cultural determinism, and deconstructivism are all load-bearing pillars of postmodernism in general, of which Boasian anthropology has been a key component." Boas didn't believe in blank slate or cultural determinism. This has been said to you a thousand times.

      As for your article, what's funny is how incredibly outdated it is. Boas's study was retested and his conclusions were validated once more, and the study by Sparks & Jantz was said to have misrepresented Boas's claims and use a methodology which was nowhere near as useful as what Boas conducted, noting that they had not tested the mother's presence in America, which is an incredibly important prenatal factor. Not only that, but they used a more updated statistical method which actually found even MORE plasticity in head shape [Gravlee et al., 2003; Gravlee et al., 2003b]. Sparks & Jantz then conducted another study where they essentially recapitulated Boas's point about skull shape plasticity [Sparks & Jantz, 2003].

      This is what happens when you don't read the literature, Simon. This is what happens when you read VDARE over actual peer-reviewed studies. You fuck up.

    6. But wait, Nick! The peer-reviewed process is riddled with political correctness, so we can't trust those studies! It's all part of the deconstructivist cultural marxist tabula rasa relativist postmodern indoctrination scheme that's set out to destroy science and culture!

      But wait... if that's all stuff Simon believes, why did he cite VDARE, which cited a peer-reviewed study to challenge Boas?

      Oh, that's right, because Simon has confirmation bias! Hoo, didn't see that one coming.

      Glad to have you back.

  7. Lol I can't believe you even addressed these guys. Their claims just seem so stupid. Men will opt out of reproduction unless given an incentive? Really? How far can we go to look for the incentive, because I'd say it's gad dam evolution.

    I saw in the post queue that you're preparing another post on gender differentials. Be careful: you might attract the stupid again.

    1. Hahaha I'll be careful, Nick. As long as they stay stupid, I'll be fine.

  8. Okay then, a much more recent article by those fabulous fellas over at WestHunt. The comments are particularly pertinent, discussing Boas' 1912 study and the Marxism of Gould and Lewontin. I think this would be a stimulating environment for your crowd to slither around in. Maybe you can explain why Harpending and Cochran are not in your camp.

    I think my favourite part would have to be,

    "The old-style physical anthropologists thought that there were noticeable average differences between what you might call sub-races, such as Celts and Germans. so that you could tell the difference between Celtic skulls and Germanic ones, at least if you had a number of skulls to work with. It seemed to them that there had been population turnovers in Europe associated with some artifactual changes, such as the Bell Beaker culture.

    As confirmed by ancient DNA studies, THEY WERE RIGHT.

    Franz Boas argued that the differences in skulls shape were environmental. He claimed that their shapes changed a lot when people moved to the US. That wasn’t the case: they changed a little, probably for the same reason that people in the US were noticeably taller than their Scandihoovian or Eytalian grandparents, but the changes were considerably smaller than the intergroup differences. It certainly looks as if he deliberately lied.

    I’ve run into some of the wonderful results of this horseshit. I had a friend who, as a student, was working with a physical anthropologist at the University of New Mexico to develop better classification methods for forensics. I remember how her professor had to fucking WHISPER when the door was open, because the non-physical anthropologist next door was offended by certain facts and would try to get him in trouble if she heard him mention them. In particular, the smaller average volume of African-ancestry skulls – just short of a standard deviation smaller. Just as the brain itself is about a standard deviation smaller in people of mostly-African ancestry in the US, as measured by MRI. Too bad S.J. Gould, that faker, isn’t alive to give us a hilarious story about the technical difficulties of magnetic resonance imagery. it could be as wonderful as Lewontin talking about mitochondria.

    Culture can make a big difference if you’re talking something like headboards. But of course that doesn’t happen much with Celtic or German babies, because they won’t put up with headboards. Navajo babies will, but then they are psychologically different at birth, as shown in that video by Dan Freedman. As for long-headed parents having long-headed babies, why of course they do."

    I'm more than confident putting my faith people of C&H's calibre. You can go on about me committing this fallacy or that fallacy or whatever you want, but you're still not engaging with the people I keep listing. I'm waiting for a showdown between the unwashed college snot gobblers and the real men of intellect. But Murray assures us that the day is coming, slowly but surely.

    1. Cochran didn't cite his source, and it was a non-answer to the fact that Boas's study results have been vindicated, both by Gravlee et al. AND the original study authors. He said Celtic and Germanic skulls could be differentiated from each other. This does not root out the possibility of these differences being environmental, hence the fucking reason for Boas's study in the first place.

      Also, why do I need to explain why Harpending and Cochran "aren't in my camp?" Do I need to explain the reason for every dissenting scientist? Perhaps you could explain why Fuentes, Coyne, Rosenberg, Coop, Nielsen, Barbujani, Boehnke, Paabo, Serre, Graves, Jakobsson, Hunley, Templeton, and so on aren't in your camp? Yeah, I can list names too.

      "They're not in my camp because they're indoctrinated by the postmodern liberal education system of anthropology!!!11!1one!!11"

      This entire post covers Lewontin. Lex already addressed Gould in another post as well. Please, try harder.

      But I get it. You totally fucked up your rebuttals on every account and got your ass kicked by some unwashed college snot gobblers, and now you're saying "Oh, but it was never my plan to have you argue with MEEE! I just want to see you debate with every individual, in or outside of academia, who disagree with your position!"

      Get real Simon. You're an idiot. You've displayed that you have no idea what you're talking about, cite sources you don't read, and refuse to read any literature which does not come to the same conclusion as your worldview. You admit you're not familiar enough with this topic to argue about it, and yet you keep going and insist that you're right. You're what I call a lost cause, or a Monty Python's Black Knight:

      "Look you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!"

      Now get the fuck off my blog.

  9. Sorry this is a bit late, but now that I'm here, I just wanted to make sure to comment on this:

    "Some of the books I recommend to you I have read, or am in the process of reading, and others I am waiting to get for my birthday or for Christmas."

    In the words of one of the wisest people I've ever come to know:

    "Get a fucking library card."

    Keep up the great work, Lex! Glad you're back, Nick :D.

    1. In Ocean City, library cards were free for residents, and they charged a small fee (I think like $15) for non-residents. Internet cards were $10. Same for Toronto. Now where I live, library cards are an unheard of concept. Citizens are just entitled to the literature. I can't imagine it's too different anywhere else: someone who is on as short a budget as Simon should be able to afford a ride every 2 weeks to the library to pick up some free books.

      Thanks for your input Mykala. Always nice to have you. :)

  10. Great post! I've been meaning to write a rebuttal to the "pick up artists'" and "men's right movement" nonsense, but now it seems superfluous.

    1. Hey, go for it! We need more anthropologists taking a crack at these guys.


WARNING: Please read the Comment Guidelines page before posting!

Sometimes comments won't go through properly, so if you write a lot and are concerned about losing your work, please save your comment in a separate text document before posting. Keep it saved until you're sure your comment has been received/published.