Galileo, the Rainbow, and Guido

Researchers at Brown University recently came up with some surprising research results. So, of course, the Ivy League School did what any institution committed to science and free speech would do.

They quashed the results.

That’s because the findings upset the Perpetually Offended in the LGBT community. It didn’t please them, so Brown University knew they had to remove the results from their web site, even though it appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, PLOS One.

We know that’s the right thing to do, because that’s exactly  what happened to Galileo:

“Hi, Gal! What’s up? Anything new on that telescope?”

“Oh, hello Cardinal Snooticus. I just discovered that the sun does not revolve around the earth. It’s the other way around.”

“Oh, that can’t be right, Gal! You need to look again. Maybe you’ve got a smudge on your telescope. Yeah, that’s right. It’s a smudge.”

“Well, I don’t know about that. I can only report what I observe, Cardinal.”

“Gal, or perhaps I should say Mister Galileo. I don’t think you are getting the picture. Your scientific results do not sit well with the Church. “

“But that doesn’t matter to me. It’s science.”

“Maybe you should talk to Bishop Guido here. He’s from the Inquisition.”

“Actually, uh, Cardinal, I do think I may have a smudge after all. Never mind. It never happened.”

Of course, we all know that’s not what happened. Western society for centuries has put science in a high position in our culture. Christians of all stripes have learned to consider science as another important source of truth, but not the most important source. (And my apologies to my Catholic friends. This was just a silly story.)

But for people who have abandoned Christianity, there is nothing else that’s authoritative to turn to other than science. Secularists like to say that they count on science, and science alone, as the source of truth. We are constantly reminded of that by celebrities and luminaries, lecturing Conservatives about how we need to just focus on science, not opinion. One of the most recent examples of this was Harrison Ford, who spoke out against the anti-science leaders who are skeptical of climate change.

This is thrown at us all of the time. The Perpetually Offended accuse us of being anti-science. But, at the same time, those same accusers only accept the science they like.

And that’s where the research at Brown University comes back in. It was entitled “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports”.  The study had a number of interesting findings:

  • The parents of many female adolescents reported “outbreaks” of gender dysphoria that were statistically unlikely. These girls never reported any instances of gender confusion until they began to hang out with other girls who engaged in heavy Internet use and binge-watching of videos of transgenders.
  • There is a high probability that the outbreaks of gender dysphoria were due to social and peer influence and pressure
  • Peer influence in adolescent girls is typically linked with depression, eating disorders, and drug use

These findings do not fit the template put forward by the LGBT community. Their story is that transgender people are “born that way”, and that it’s not a trend you can just try out and adopt because your friends are doing it.

So the Perpetually Offended were offended again. Adopting the same bully tactics they use with practically anything else they object to, they raised a ruckus with Brown University and demanded that the paper be deleted. Brown University complied. These days, it doesn’t take actual death threats to bring universities into compliance with the Perpetually Offended. It only requires the possibility of death threats. Or perhaps a visit from Guido.

Past studies have shown that the vast majority of adolescents who identified as homosexual or transgender as a minor no longer do so as an adult. I think it’s fair to say that it probably would happen to the children in the Brown University study as well.

The earliest American attempt to determine the percentage of adults who are homosexual was a 1948 book by 1948 book by Alfred Kinsey called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. That study claimed that 10% of the male population was homosexual, but it was based on a count of incarcerated men. It is well understood how “group pressure” in prison often makes those men homosexual, at least while they are in prison. (It should be noted that the 10% figure has been discredited, although it is still repeated throughout the culture. Subsequent studies have shown homosexuals at somewhere between 1.5% to 2.4%.)

Interestingly, a recent survey of Americans showed that most Americans believe the rate of homosexuals in our population is about 21%, which is much, much higher than the actual population. Much of that is probably attributed to the fact that the lifestyle is pushed and promoted throughout the media. That media gives the general impression that homosexuality is more prevalent than it really is.

In addition, there have been a number of recent studies that focused on “sexual fluidity”, or the concept that at least some people can flow between heterosexual and homosexual behavior easily. There certainly are a number of celebrities who appear to have done so, including Drew Barrymore, Elton John, and Anne Heche. But the other studies cited earlier show that the vast majority of people who have ever engaged in homosexual acts will not continue to do so throughout their life.

We are beginning to get a better picture of how homosexuality has become such a “big thing” in our culture. It is a cultural phenomenon that is primarily spread by group pressure. After that pressure is lifted, there is only a very small fraction that remains attracted to the same sex. The homosexual lifestyle has an influence that reaches far beyond the actual population, primarily due to their allies. However, it appears that the vast majority of those who have tried that lifestyle did so because of pressure. It was tried by them and rejected. Let us help those who want to leave that lifestyle. Let us also continue to allow academic freedom to pursue science wherever it leads us. And let us resist the Guidos of this world that pressure us.

Advertisements

Do Super-Women Really Exist?

 

There are many times when we are discussing difficult issues and the issue is staring us right in the face. But the reason we don’t go there is because we think it’s not permissible in the current culture. There was an article recently on CNN.com that is a great example.

A digital producer, Alexandra King, recently wrote about an interview that the Harvard Gazette gave to Lauren Groff, a novelist. During the interview, Groff was asked how she achieves a balance between work and family. King was really interested in what she would have to say. Most women struggle to balance the two, so King was hoping to get some insight into how to juggle both work and family. Instead, Groff said:

Until I see a male writer asked this question, I’m going to respectfully decline to answer it.

Social media picked this up, and many women heartily agreed with her answer. But King was disappointed.

King does not have children. She must be thinking about it, although I have no idea what her marital status is. But Groff did not answer the question for King. All she did was have a snappy comeback.

King is struggling here. She’s wondering if super women really exist. In her view, work/family balance for most women is achieved:

WITH GREAT DIFFICULTY. BALANCE ISN’T EVEN THE RIGHT WORD. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DO SOMETHING.

King was searching for some help, some advice, but she received none. Most women in today’s society, bombarded by the feminist message, don’t see why women should be hindered in their careers by their family. They want to be unhindered, just like men appear to be. King feels the same way, yet, she says:

But more broadly, I’d argue, whether we like it or not… current circumstances do make this a woman’s question. It’s an undisputable fact that it’s the ladies, not the gents, who have to endure the physical onslaught that is pregnancy, birth and postpartum recovery.

And later, she says:

It’s safe to say that American mothers live in crisis. Yet your average working mother is rarely asked how she balanced work and family. She just has to figure it out.

The problem, says King, is that successful women such as Groff never really say how to achieve work/family balance. They never answer the question. And most women in our society are simply struggling. They believe everyone else is doing it except them. Most women believe the successful women have actually figured it out. However:

The sort of women who are publicly asked about what it’s like to be a working mother in the United States are almost always the ones more likely to have more resources to address the myriad challenges every working woman in America faces.

Exactly, celebrities and top business women seem to have it all together, but that’s because they’ve got money to hire “resources” to take care of their children. They may have nannies, tutors, or well-paid babysitters. Or they send the kids to top boarding schools where they don’t have to worry about them. Or they can take off a year or two from work without seriously damaging their family’s finances. Meanwhile, most women today aren’t at a financial level to have those “resources”.

So what is the answer?

In her article, King seems to believe the answer is for the U.S. government to give women more paid maternity leave. She misses the point that it’s not the government who has the answer. Even if a woman were to get 3 years of paid maternity leave, she might not be present for her child. The answer is for the parents to allow the mother to take time away from her career in the early years to be present for her children.

But what if King could actually question whether her premises about feminism are true?

  • Why do women struggle so much with this?
  • If women are liberated, why is childcare still a burden for them?
  • Why does the daily burden of caring for children still mostly fall to the mother, while men still feel most comfortable with being the primary provider for the family?
  • If nature or God equipped women with the means for giving birth, for nourishing them when they are infants, and with empathizing with their children more than men, then is feminist ideology really true?

I’m sure some of you reading this are wondering what cave I crawled out of. Where have I been for the past 50 years?

I get it. I’m not trying to say that women are not equal with men, nor am I trying to say that women are the only ones who should be raising children. Women are just as smart and capable as men. Women should be allowed to have the same careers as men, where physical strength is not an issue.

But why not look at whether mothers should look be spending more time with their children and less time at work? Perhaps suspend their career, especially when the children are very young. Perhaps super women don’t really exist.

This is the recommendation of Erica Komisar, a psychoanalyst who wrote Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters. She writes about many studies that show how children do much better physically and psychologically when their mothers – yes, their mothers – stay home and take care of their children. This I not a religious belief. It’s something she discovered through her own work. She herself worked part time in the early years. She writes:

From my firsthand professional observations, I have come to understand the connections between these symptoms and disorders and the emotional and physical absence of young children’s mothers in their day-to-day lives. An increasing number of parents come to see me because their child is suffering from a variety of social, behavioral, or developmental disorders. It’s clear to me that these symptoms are often related to the premature separation of children from their mothers.

What is the primary problem?

Too often, mothers are putting their work and their own needs ahead of their children’s. I know this issue is a very controversial one – so controversial, in fact, that few dare to address it.

There it is again. No one wants to talk about it. Young children need their parents’ time, especially their mother’s time.

The obvious answer for King’s question of work/family balance seems to be to put career on pause, at least for awhile. Stop struggling and searching for an answer that doesn’t seem to exist. Instead of stretching both you and your child, give yourself time to be with your child by taking time away from your career.

But the feminist leanings in King don’t seem to allow her to go there. I suspect it’s hard for most women to consider that. Most probably still think there’s a way to do both excellently.

It has only been since the 1970’s he women have entered into the workforce in large numbers. It remains to be seen whether the social experiment of feminism actually works. We have already seen that no-fault divorce, which was a well-meaning approach to helping couples get out of a failed marriage, has been a disaster. It may be that we will see that with feminism as well.

 

The second of two “oil spill” news about the culture

It took me a little longer than normal to get to this second blog post, primarily because I got so nauseated from the first one. This news has already got me reaching for the Pepto.

Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is in a romantic relationship with Sophia Hutchins, possibly even about to marry him/her. As far as I’m concerned, this is a cultural oil spill, leaving sludge all over the cultural landscape. It may be impossible to clean up the environment. And it will only bring harm to everyone who ignores it.

First, both of them are transwomen. For those of you not keeping up with the lingo, that’s a man pretending to be a woman. Jenner has already undergone the surgery. I’m not sure about Hutchins, but it sure looks like Hutchins is already undergoing chemo treatments. You would think that someone who wanted to be a woman would be interested in attracting men, but that doesn’t seem to be Jenner’s motive. Jenner is a (fake) woman interested in a (fake) woman. 

The more I read about these trans relationships, the more I find that trans only tend to get romantically involved with other trans. I suppose that makes some sense. If you have undergone chemical and/or surgical changes to your appearance, it would not tend to be attractive to most heterosexuals. Perhaps only others who have altered their bodies in the same way would find that attractive.

You would think that both Jenner and Hutchins, who were born male, could have avoided a lot of the pain, cost, and disfigurement of changing into the opposite gender by simply remaining as they were: men. Would they have been attracted to each other as homosexual men? 

Apparently not. A transgender, from my limited understanding, seems to be focused on “possessing” the other gender. They aren’t changing into another gender to attract others but to completely absorb themselves in the opposite gender. 

Jenner certainly seems to be well on the way to complete self-absorption. Jenner is 68 and is romantically involved with 21-year-old Hutchins. Yuck! Even in heterosexual land, a 47-year-old difference is bizarre. In typical relationships like this, it makes you wonder what the 21-year-old is after, or whether Hutchins is somehow being pushed into this relationship by Jenner. In addition, in typical heterosexual relationships of this sort, the 68-year-old is simply trying to rediscover a youthful sexual prowess, yet it can never really be found again. The senior is simply preventing this young adult Hutchins from moving ahead with their life. Jenner’s self-absorption is evident here again. 

And finally, Jenner has already been married to 3 women. This is not seen in the story as what it really is: Jenner’s abandonment of women he entered into a lifelong commitment to. He failed to live up to his vows to 3 other women. What would make anyone think Jenner would live up to the vows of a new marriage?  Jenner’s abandonment of those vows is yet another illustration of self-absorption. Basically, Jenner can simply stroll away from those marriages because he/she is trying to be “fulfilled”. The sad thing is that most transgenders really never feel fulfilled. They get more depressed the more they pursue their transformation. 

And with those women came 6 children. Jenner can no longer be a father figure to any of those now-adult children or the grandchildren who will come after. His children knew him as a father. They now know him as someone who abandoned that role. His grandchildren will have a hard time understanding why grandpa is now grandma. Some family may accept Jenner’s transformation, but others will reject it, causing breaks in family bonds. All because of Jenner’s self-absorption. 

But the most amazing thing about this story is that it isn’t seen as amazing to much of our current culture. Many who accept this non-reality believe it to be good, but it merely provides additional kindling to already-wet firewood, which will burn itself out unless stoked by stories of fantasy, constantly stoked by the Perpetually Offended. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5683993/Who-Sophia-Hutchins-Caitlyn-Jenners-rumored-fiancee-revealed.html

The first of two morally bankrupt stories from our culture

Sometimes, the popular culture serves up a story so morally vacuous that I sometimes wonder if we’ve been invaded by aliens. How can anyone be so narcissistic?

This story is about a stripper named Blac China who rose to fame through her “exotic dancing” and “modeling”. (I wonder if ‘Chyna’ is cultural appropriation? But I digress.)

Chyna is apparently pregnant again. This will be her third pregnancy, and it’s by an 18-year-old boy rapper. Chyna apparently really knows how to pick men. She previously got pregnant from two other boyfriends. The first was boyfriend Tyga (Is that really ‘Tigger’ from Winnie the Pooh? If so, he’s got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.) This happened in 2012. That relationship lasted a few years. 

Chyna was clearly so devoted to her young toddler that she got another boyfriend and had another child in 2016. This relationship also lasted a few years. 

But recently, Chyna decided to be more discriminating, so she looked on a Christian dating site. Is this a thing now, trolling for guys to bed on a Christian dating site? What’s the attraction? That they’re morally straight? That’s a sad reflection on the fact that Chyna went there, and that her new beau was hanging on that site as well. 

We know it must have been a success because she found a new guy named Jay. He’s 18. I’m sure he’s got strong parenting skills, which is obvious in his statement about his relationship with Chyna: 

 “I don’t wear condoms. . . I would not want to f— a b—- I did not want to get pregnant,” he says. “If Chyna got pregnant, I would keep that s— like ‘ohh daddy love you,’ I love that a-“

Hmmm. I think we can all see the admirable qualities of such a man. 

The sad fact of the matter is that Chyna has really no care for those children. To her, they are nothing more than souvenirs of her temporary sexual relationships with the boyfriend-of-the-month. 

Recently, I’ve been reading a book called Primal Loss, in which adults who endured their parents’ divorce as a child get a chance to talk about the pain and suffering they have endured because of that divorce. Children who have parents that come and go suffer for a long, long time. Parents who spend an inordinate amount of their lives focusing on the next relationship inevitably end up neglecting the real needs of their kids. 

Those children deserve to be brought up in a stable home with a father and a mother who are married to each other. Chyna, like many other celebrities, have children as they wish, believing that those kids will be resilient and will never suffer from their mother’s lack of attention and revolving-door relationships. These children suffer real harm because of a self-absorbed mother. 

Those children will never know what it’s like to sit down for a family meal with mom and dad who love each other, help their kids with their homework, and go to their soccer games. Instead, they may get dropped off at some guy’s house for a weekend, while he himself focuses on his next girlfriend. 

Unfortunately, I doubt this will be the end of the story for Chyna. After all, she’s only 29 and there are plenty more teenage guys left on Christian dating sites. 

The worldview of Sexual Autonomy says that the only thing that is important is that one be fulfilled sexually. It doesn’t matter if you have to find a teenager. It doesn’t matter if you get pregnant. It doesn’t matter if this teenager is anything but a good prospect as a father. As long as you can fulfill your wildest sexual dreams, then everything’s okay. Forget about who has to pay for your very limited life goals. 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/01/blac-chyna-having-baby-with-18-year-old-boyfriend-met-on-christian-dating-site.html

‘Smallville’ actress Allison Mack arrested for alleged sex cult involvement | Fox News

It is often a question I ask myself when I hear about a new cult and their beliefs and practices:

Why would they believe/act that way, when it is so different from conventional beliefs and behavior?

I’m this case, the cult Nexium was a financial and motivational personality cult that ended up sex trafficking it’s own female members. They even branded those women, literally, with an iron.

Most cults are a twisting of Biblical concepts, so they feed off of people who believe the cult has finally found the “real truth” about God. Nexium, however, fed off of people with no appetite for God. Instead, it lured people in using things out current culture finds important: money, prestige, and sex.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/04/21/smallville-actress-allison-mack-arrested-for-alleged-sex-cult-involvement.html

Study confirms: #FakeNews travels faster than real news | Watts Up With That?

In our age of sensationalism, it seems that anything that gets the attention of the crowd is what drives the news. Even if that information is proven to be false later. I’m sure there are some unscrupulous people who are taking advantage of this. This makes it even more important to investigate any claim of truth in our culture. How do we know that some quick news item is actually true?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/08/study-confirms-fakenews-travels-faster-than-real-news/

Clinton Health Initiative Spent Only a Fraction of Expenditures Directly on Programs

We have all heard about the Clinton Foundation, which includes the Clinton Health Initiative. The CHI was supposed to help treat HIV/AIDS, and raised $129M. Unfortunately, only $23M actually went to treat people. A whopping $72M went toward “salaries”. 

So, let’s go beyond politics and outrage. What was in the mind of those who oversaw all of this? You would have to have a pretty seared conscience to let this happen. You would have to accept that lining people’s pockets was worth more than actually treating them. 

Then there are the donors. Without a large outcry from donors, it would seem that most of all were okay with how the money was spent. They must have known it wasn’t going to be used to treat people, but enrich people.

There are the HIV/AIDS activists. You would think they would be angry, but I haven’t heard of any outcry. Were they okay with this? 

What about the people who received this as their “salary”? Presumably this included lots of people working at the Clinton Foundation.  How do they live with themselves?

The sad thing is that so many people were okay with this. Is the American society really that corrupt?

Http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/24/clinton-health-initiative-spent-only-fraction-expenditures-directly-programs/