Tuesday 21 November 2017

26 Questions Asians Have For White People

It's the next edition in this blog's long history of bashing Buzzfeed, and what a better way to do it than answering those stupid questions they aim at all white people. We've had questions from black and white folks, but now it's the turn of our Asian compatriots. Fire away guys.


1. Yeah nobody ever generalises the world's white population, yet alone Buzzfeed. No, mistaken identity is definitely just a problem Asian people face. Although it's not really a problem is it, considering Chinese people are the world's largest demographic, so realistically anyone with a similar complexion has the risk of being mistaken for another ethnicity.

2. I don't give a flying fuck about diversity in films. What I do fucking hate is forced diversity in films. You don't have the right to be included in a film, so the ethnicity of actors should not be a reason to push an agenda.

3. Yeah there's never been an Asian actor that plays anything other than a nerdy character. I always make it a point to make this comment when I see the lack of Asian actors in films surrounding martial arts. Can you just imagine if such iconic actors as Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee weren't always typecast into that nerdy role? Oh wait.

4. I don't give a fuck about your penis. I'm sure even blind gay men don't give a fuck about your penis. In fact I'd pay you good money to never mention your putrid specimen ever again.

5. Yeah there's zero leading actor spots for Asian actors. That's just a fact. You could certainly argue that Asian actors are underrepresented in Hollywood, but to try and force these said actors into films solely because of their race is fucking pathetic. Obviously evil whitey over here would never let you have leading roles, even in Japanese films. In all seriousness you're a fucking idiot if you buy into this ridiculous conspiracy theory. If you don't think diversity is adhered to in the movie industry there is nothing to stop idiots like you from making your own films. Interestingly I never see white people complaining about the lack of diversity in Bollywood or Nollywood productions.

6. I fucking hate K-Pop and Korean dramas and have never claimed to be an expert on Korean culture. Why are these questions aimed at me? I would just say that giving the example of 'watching girls' is really fucking creepy mate. Creepiness aside, false expertise is certainly not a problem solely found with white people. Anyone whose ever been on somewhere called the internet could tell you that.

7. God what is your obsession with shoehorning actors into specially designated roles. You're not the director for a good reason, so respect their fucking decision. Asian actors don't have a god given right to play Asian characters. Please respect artistic creativity in the film industry.

8. Yeah don't say 'namaste' ironically period. It makes you sound like a fucking idiot.

9. Jesus-fucking-Christ, the people trying to speak Chinese were probably trying to be friendly. How dare a white person use the one word they've learnt of a foreign language. If they say this one word they better be fucking fluent because sometimes trying to be respectful isn't good enough for these racist bigots. Fucking hell, you can't advocate for tolerance towards different cultures and then shoot down the people trying to bridge gaps. Are you starting to see how counterproductive these questions are Buzzfeed?

10. Oh I don't know why people would associate you with your own culture. I don't know much about Korea, but I have heard that eating dogs is a thing in Korean culture. Of course this scenario only happens to Asian people. Yeah this British guy over here has never been stereotyped by Buzzfeed over having bland food.

11. I'm sorry I didn't know the difference between Hindi and Hindu. Fucking hell Buzzfeed, you're know mocking people because they are unaware of cultures on the other side of the world. Seriously fuck you. If any website should be preaching about ignorance it's not fucking Buzzfeed.

12. I'm surprised you speak fluent English because you work for Buzzfeed. I'm amazed anyone at Buzzfeed has a basic comprehension of anything.

13. Terrible delivery of a classic joke. I'm sorry if I'm interested in your heritage. I really don't mean to be disrespectful when I ask where your family originates from, but maybe I can be forgiven for thinking that people with an Asian complexion are usually not born in America. I can't read minds, sorry to disappoint.

14. I'm British, so you are a foreigner. You know that point about assuming everyone with a certain skin colour is from one place? Yeah, not all white people are American. Fucking hypocrites.

15. Sorry, who the fuck thinks British Raj is not in Asia?

16. Because India and Sri Lanka are very similar countries with very similar cultures. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's hardly as bad as calling an Irish person English, which I remember non white people doing in your video on labeling the British isles. Funnily enough that was an Asian guy. Mistaken identity isn't just a problem with white people. Why can't you have a sense of fucking perspective for once?

17. I agree with you that the term 'person of colour' shouldn't just be applied to African Americans, although that is understandable given it's use is central in US based race relations. I personally don't buy into this 'Buzzfeed person of colour oppression index' bollocks and so treat people as individuals. That must be a foreign concept to a Buzzfeed employee.

18. Pretty sure white Americans knew that Osama Bin Laden wasn't Indian. Pretty sure he was a pretty big thing at one point.

19. Firstly, I don't high five people anymore as I'm not eight years old. Secondly, I'm really shit with names, especially those where the pronunciation would be unfamiliar. I'm sorry if I can't be allowed to get excited about learning a complicated name.

20. I don't believe increasing workplace diversity decreases the quality of work. Sweat shop labour from the Asian continent has produced some of my most durable and well made products. Funnily enough I don't think these glorified slaves are nerds, which is yet another irritating generalisation you won't shut up about.

21. Exotic: 'Something originating in a distant foreign country.' That sounds like a pretty accurate description of Asian people to me, and has nothing to do with population demographics. When you go on holiday to an exotic destination it's not to a place with a large population you fucking morons. In any case, 'exotic' isn't a fucking racial slur is it. Grow up.

22. I don't assume you can't see, but surely you must understand that to some uneducated person there would be an association between smaller eye size and the ability to see well. I'm not defending these people, although I'm really not sure who the hell this generalised white person is. Try as hard as you might I'm not buying this 'evil whitey' stereotype.

23. Wait, when the fuck does anyone think it's weird when Asian people hang out with each other? Who are these people that are so obsessive over everyone's social groups?

24. What the fuck has sunburn got to do with anything? What sort of a question is that?

25. I take it you're referring to Yellow Fever as a sexual preference, and not the disease, although you did a piss poor job at explaining that. Yellow Fever kills over 5,000 people every fucking year, whereas a harmless fetish does fuck all. Pretty big distinction you failed to mention here.

26. The stereotype of being cheap and stingy is based around the idea that Asian companies tend to make cheap knock offs of Western items. It's not a particularly harmful stereotype is it. Again, this is just another case of Buzzfeed not understanding how a stereotype works.

27. Oh look Buzzfeed can't do basic counting either. This is the 27th question they asked and again, it's to do with common stereotypes, based on the truth, that never hurt anyone. Oh no, someone has assumed I'm intelligent. The horror. Stop trying to make race based issues out of such harmless actions.


Monday 13 November 2017

Top 10 Best Movie Sequels

Modern day sequels usually revolve around how much money can be milked from a franchise, and as such often fall flat when compared to the original. That isn't always the case, and over the years there have been some brilliant films dedicated to furthering the foundations of potentially great franchises, some even bettering their original compatriots. Just a quick note: These are all the direct sequels to the original film in the franchise, and so any further sequels are banned. Without further ado, Here is a list of the ten best sequels that stood on their own two feet:

#10: The Bourne Supremacy (2004) (7/10)

The recipe for this one is simple: Bring in a British director who knows what he's doing, allow him to add in some realism and political themes, and you have some added spice to an already action heavy franchise. The Bourne Supremacy is somewhat faithful to the original style, yet doesn't hesitate to bombard the audience with some gritty realism, and not just the slightly formulaic action we got from the original. Director Paul Greengrass hails from the world of documentary making; and it shows. This film is more a focus on Jason Bourne as a character rather than the explosive action you would expect. It's a very profound style, and you feel like you're right there with Bourne during every chase sequence and gunfight. You almost get the sense you're unraveling the plot in the style of an investigative journalist. What Greengrass manages to do well is expand on the original film, adding in new approaches instead of relying on the same formula.

I would argue this is the best of Matt Damon we see from the 'Bourne Trilogy', and the one that cements his place in the franchise. The idea is simple; he's a former operative with amnesia trying to reclaim his past. However, Damon turns the character into somewhat of an enigma, whilst still giving off the impression he's just some ordinary guy. You may think he sounds like a shit James Bond, but trust me, the performance is so much more than that. It's a very understated performance, yet incredibly effective. Arguably The Bourne Supremacy is even more action packed than the first, which is an impressive feat, although not as impressive as its switch in direction to a more realistic approach.


#9: Mad Max 2 (1981) (8/10)

When you think of action blockbusters Mad Max 2 is possibly the most macho filled testosterone ride you can possibly imagine. It's exhilarating, and one hell of a ride from start to finish; something the original could have done with. The original was full of forgettable sequences, whereas the sequel has several astonishing scenes that have to be seen to be believed. It's fucking mental in short, whether that be the characters or the wild car chases. Special mention has to be given to those car chases, which are just epic to watch unfold.

This is not the apocalyptic world we were presented with in the first film, which appears rather dreamy and idyllic in comparison. This is a world devoid of any prosperity. A literal wasteland that would go on to form the basis of almost every other post apocalyptic universe in cinema. This theme rubs out on our central protagonist as well. He now looks like a man about to go through hell, and this look is possibly the most memorable feature in the whole franchise. We don't find out a whole lot about anything, in fact there really isn't any sort of plot, just a guy blowing things up because he feels like it. All we do get to witness as a viewer is a world full of deranged bandits in the asshole of nowhere, but that's not to say this dirty story of a man with a lot of firepower and a surprising amount of heroism is in any way poorly thought out. Mad Max 2 presents a brilliantly brutal world where violence tears through everything in shocking fashion. It's a world as wild as the speed of the action.


#8: Back to the Future Part II (1989) (8/10)

Whilst the second Back to the Future is not quite as good as the original, it's certainly not a disappointment by any means. If anything this was the film that made this franchise iconic in the eyes of many. It's like a juiced up version of the first, and whilst there may be not be the diverse cast of lovable characters or that same charm, there's a hell of a lot more stuff going on in this second film. The use of time travel as a plot device is so revolutionary that even modern films still struggle to stay in it's shadow. Somehow three drastically different time zones, each packed to the brim with detail, are effortlessly warped together to form one coherent and intriguing storyline. It makes perfect sense as well, which for its humorous tone is certainly an impressive and surprising accolade.

The scenes from the future in particular have become so iconic that modern life seems ridiculously mundane in comparison. Okay, it may not be the most accurate depiction of a future world, but who fucking cares? It's a damn awesome world where such ridiculous concepts as hoverboards and flat screen TVs would have blown away anyone watching in the 1980's. It's not just time travel though, there's some serious themes lurking around, something that the innocent first never bothered with. Not that anyone will remember these darker scenes, but then why would you? This film presents such a colourful and charming world that's so easy to get thoroughly sucked into. In my opinion this is a sequel that really went for it. You could tell they wanted to push the boat out for this one, and it almost pays off.


#7: Toy Story 2 (1999) (8/10)

A common theme in this list is that the second film manages to stand by itself when compared to the original, even if they don't quite hit the heights of that said original. This is also true of Toy Story 2, which I found never really managed to rekindle all the magic found in the original Toy Story. That may have something to do with the fact that the plot was completely rewritten in a single week and development took just nine months, which is ridiculously short for an animation film of this caliber. The animation, script, and story are still great however, with Pixar once again pushing the boundaries of what's possible with animation. The characters feel completely lifelike, creating a more believable tale than most realistic dramas. It's yet another Pixar film that forces you to take animated films seriously.

Toy Story 2 is just as emotionally charged as the first film, and although the plot is intended to be relatable to kids, it's also one that will resonate with adults everywhere. I couldn't give a shit about my age when watching a Toy Story film, and this film to this day is damn entertaining to sit through. The big highlight of this sequel is the character additions, which are just great. There was so much room for error when adding to the stellar cast from the first film, but new characters such as Jessie have their own intricate stories written into this loving tale, arguably hitting more heartstrings than any other characters in the franchise. Toy Story 2 may well not quite hold up to the first film in my controversial opinion, but it's still a welcome addition to a beloved trilogy.


#6: The Dark Knight (2008) (8/10)

Batman Begins was an interesting and revolutionary direction for a comic book film to make, but this vision of a modern comic book film really came into play with The Dark Knight. This film was not camp men in capes, but a realistic crime drama that took more dark turns than any comic book had dared to in history. It's a film that really makes you ponder the thin line between a hero and a villain, and the plot is a gripping explanation of this common trope. This new direction works fantastically, thanks in no small part to the brilliant performances from the talented cast. I'm sure even amateur actors would have a field day with the excellent script, turning boring bureaucrats into central players of a thrilling crime drama.

The most notable performance is Heath Ledger's legendary portrayal of The Joker. Ledger took the role of comic book villain into a realm of its own, with a performance so unique it's never likely to be replicated. I doubt anyone will ever give The Joker that now iconic unhinged and deranged performance that Ledger manages here. Only a performance of that magnitude could make Batman look like a fucking twat in comparison. That's the desired effect however, and The Joker is a perfect catalyst to set the foundations for a darker comic book flick. Batman looks relatively human in comparison, which I suppose was the purpose; and this is fucking Batman we're talking about. In days of yore superhero films contained stupidly over the top action scenes with scarcely believable stunts, and they still do in fact. Not here though. The stunts here almost feel lifelike, with a narrative that's actually conceivable. It likes to travel at 100 miles an hour without pausing for a split second, but I never felt overwhelmed. It was just exhilarating to watch. A trick that many sequels fail to accomplish.


#5: The Silence of the Lambs (1991) (9/10)

Hmm, this is a tenuous pick, as it's not technically a direct sequel. It is however the second film to feature creepy psychopath Hannibal Lecter after the mediocre Manhunter, and because it's so bloody good I had to give it a mention. The main reason I love this film so much is the narrative, which is so engrossing. There's never a dull moment, and couple that with some skillful directing you have one of the most intense and psychological thrillers of all time. Special mention has to be given to the iconic Anthony Hopkins performance. Dr Hannibal Lecter is frankly chilling to watch in every single sequence he features in. That's some feat when the supporting cast also pull their weight and deliver some great performances themselves. Lecter even manages to outshine the main villain, Buffalo Bill, and he likes to skin women alive.

That's all I'm going to say before you start accusing me of ruining the list by breaking my own rules, but I will just say Silence of the Lambs is brilliant. Do yourselves a favour and just watch it.


#4: Aliens (1986) (10/10)

I loved the original Alien film. Ridley Scott's claustrophobic nightmare left audiences in a perpetual state of fear, but the James Cameron directed sequel was a whole different beast. There's still a tonne of sci-fi gimmicks and nightmarish sequences, but the real emphasis is now on a band of action heavy soldiers rather than some random crewmates. Cameron then sticks in a load more of those badass xenomorphs, including one huge fuck off queen, to set up some intense battle sequences. A simple move, yet so ingenious. There's still Sigourney Weaver hanging around, but she is anything but dead meat, and actually ends up in a fight more badass than any of the marines could manage. She is in effect the original tough female heroine, and even managed to pick up an Oscar nomination for her iconic role here.

Aliens tells the story of the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object, built up with immense tension throughout. You know shit's about to go down, and boy when it does it's like a volcanic eruption on a biblical scale, leading to some epic clashes that tantalise the alpha male in all of us. Aliens is such a fascinating spectacle to watch from start to finish. The real trick Cameron managed to accomplish was still giving the aliens that sense of horror that they had in the original, only now there's a whole hive of them instead of a single stowaway. When you place this hive in a dark and claustrophobic setting you have the recipe for one hell of a thrilling viewing experience.


#3: Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) (9/10)

Possibly the ultimate action flick in existence. If you want cool sequences, quotable dialogue, and a bucketload of thrills then this film is just perfect. Surprisingly for an action blockbuster even the storyline is brilliant. I usually detest the contrived nonsense that action blockbusters call a deep storyline, but Terminator 2 gives us exhilarating over the top action from larger than life icons. The original was essentially a showcase for Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that's all fine, but here he was complemented by a great cast and a great script. When this all comes together the results are one of the coolest antiheroes out there. Somehow this artificial cyborg ended up being cooler than any character based on humans. Arnie doesn't have the best acting range, but a role where emotion is purposely absent is the perfect role for him to flourish in.

Surprisingly the rest of the cast aren't overshadowed by Arnie, and there is a powerful villain that can stand the starpower of Arnie, and even represent a formidable foe, culminating in one hell of an epic finale. It's a combination of everything that makes this film great; larger than life characters, fighting an epic battle, that goes over the top as much as possible. Just fantastic to watch. And as for those special effects. They still to this day look absolutely orgasmic. The film in total did cost 102 million dollars to make, a record at that point, and every penny of that budget has been put to good use. The special effects never feel like they're shouting at the viewer for attention, but instead complement every breathtaking action sequence. In terms of on screen spectacles this action blockbuster is one of a kind. It really is an experience you have to witness in person.


#2: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) (10/10)

What hasn't been said about this masterpiece? The first Star Wars film will always be my personal favorite. That's A New Hope by the way, not the god awful Phantom Menace. That's an example of a fucking shit sequel. Episode five on the other hand took the original galaxy that first blew our minds in the original and turned it on its head. This film had had enough of that dreamy sandbox where the good guys always prospered against adversity. Instead viewers were shockingly faced with a world were the bad guys, who are fucking epic, can dominate and prosper too.

The real beauty of this sequel is that it gave viewers this darker twist whilst building on the original setting. There is still this sense of childlike awe you got with the original iconic space saga, like you just knew an epic tale was to be told. The Battle of Hoth for example is gripping to watch, as is the lightsaber battle between Vader and Luke. Maybe not the best choreographed lightsaber battle in the franchise, but certainly the one with events that drop like a tonne of bricks. There are a whole collection of memorable and epic scenes in this one film, but none quite like the finale. You know, the one that gave every single nerd a collective heart attack in the 80's. It is perhaps the greatest plot twist of all time, and one huge element of a gripping finale that would go down in cinema history for good reason. The first Star Wars film was a cult hit, but this sequel MADE the Star Wars franchise the powerhouse it is today. This was the episode that gave the franchise a universal appeal, and the one that promoted Star Wars into a serious work of art. 


#1: The Godfather Part II (1974) (10/10)

It's pretty tough to rank the sequel to what I consider to be the greatest film of all time. Having said that the second Godfather film is yet another ambitious masterpiece that doesn't quite top the original in my humble opinion. That's not a criticism, as this film is still an all time great that expands on the original premise in epic proportions. In effect, the perfect sequel. Here the mob takes a backstory, along with fifteen million other symbolic themes the film has hidden away. Instead we get an exploration of Al Pacino's legendary protagonist in all its gritty depth. Some of the most intense scenes in cinema history can be found tucked away in this three hour epic, but it's the ones with Pacino at the heart of them that carry the most impact. He commands every scene from start to finish. It is perhaps the greatest character exploration in the history of cinema, but one that still explores the larger picture, with foes and antiheroes popping up in the most unlikely of places.

It's easy to get a sense of just why this film was so influential. The narrative is so nonconforming that by the end you want know what to believe about the characters, with the plot pulling twist after twist during this marathon. It has possibly the greatest screenplay of any film in history, engaging the viewer in such a lavish and sophisticated narrative. Seriously, this film manages to pull off two epic storylines, which is something even the first masterpiece can't gloat about. Two contrasting storylines that intertwine for one hell of an experience, eventually conjoining in a symbolic final scene that perfectly encapsulates the themes of the storyline. The cinematography in this sequence and each of these narratives is absolutely sublime. It perfectly accompanies the often dark and cinematic tone of the franchise. Seriously, The second Godfather is a must see. Cinema history is made in a film they thought couldn't possibly top the first. But here is yet another landmark in film from undoubtedly the greatest sequel of all time.

Saturday 4 November 2017

Q&A With Everyday Feminism

Oh yeah, after years of slagging off this pitiful source of comedy Everyday Feminism finally contacted me and asked for an interview. They may have spelt my name a bit wrong, as I'm now called 'pro science, anti-feminist advocate', but I'm sure that's due to their terrible quality control. This definitely is a one on one interview about my negative opinions on modern feminism, and I will do my best to answer these questions in a respectful manner as possible. 
________________________________________________________________
https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/pro-science-anti-feminist/
________________________________________________________________
Cheers for the intro Ginny, although for future reference my nickname is really 'The Uncrowned King of France', and not just some general idiot who you always paint everyone who disagrees with you. I'm not sure you where you got those quotes in the intro from, but my bet would be from a certain Mr. Straw Man. They certainly aren't from me, or anyone in existence for that matter, although having said that I've probably shouted out the second quotation, as that's just a basic fact. It's not a great line of argument to claim that feminism and science support each other, yet simultaneously deny that something as basic as sexual dimorphism exists. That behaviour is the very essence of contradicting scientific methods.

I will certainly agree with Ginny here that feminism as an ideology does not contradict science. If you're talking to people that claim there's scientific evidence against an overall ideology then it suggests you keep the company of people who, like you, don't understand basic scientific principles. It should also be stated that science certainly doesn't support feminism considering the latter is an ideology founded on the promotion of social rights. In any case, good old Ginny is going to dig into my reasoning. Truly a journalist of the ages. This interview is like Frost-Nixon of the feminist world.

Oh Ginny could we please stop conflating gender with sex. One is biological, the other is purely sociological. When you make an argument from science you're referring to sex, which feminist theories seem to strategically ignore. I thought I was being interviewed about my pro-science standpoint, so please don't insult me by shifting the goalposts and confronting me with debatable issues outside the realms of science.

I never thought I would ever see an Everyday Feminist writer lecturing me on the validity of evidence. I'm sure this sentence won't come back to haunt Ginny at all. I do actually agree with you here Ginny, although I would argue sensationalised news bulletins are of no fault to the scientific community, so spare us the lecture and get down to the questions already.

Ah, an actual question, and a very open one subject to meticulous heavy debate in the scientific community. I would personally argue that behavioral science is an incredibly complex field determined by a combination of genetic variation, environmental variation, and genotype by environment variation, as is the case with almost all phenotypic traits in the human body. It's hardly fair to ask me a question which in theory I could write a whole thesis on and then criticise my reasoning for being overly simplistic. I'm sure you're using this question in order to turn around and say, 'well it looks like science cant answer every feminist issue', but this in no way validates your sociological approach to the question which suffers the same faults.

Again the straw man is incredibly strong with this one. I do not believe the reduced number of women in science and maths is solely because of differing brain structure, although I do think this is an element of the scenario. What I certainly don't appreciate is having words put into my mouth about how I believe women are naturally submissive, and that I take the idea of biological determinism literally. What I will say is that the evidence of nature having a substantial effect on the roles of society is far more alluring than to simply blame everything on some mystical power structure called the patriarchy.

I would just like to add that the source used here was from Everyday Feminism. You remember that comment you made on the validity of evidence? You couldn't even make one point without becoming a massive hypocrite. This lack of evidence underlines what I don't like about this argument. Here you appear to simply dismiss a point because you don't agree with it, and actually provide nuanced remarks instead of actual reasoning. Fundamental differences in brain structure mean a great deal in terms of behavioural sciences, so there's always going to be a discussion whether you like it or not. Scientific theories are reliant on assumptions, even hypothetical ones, so this question acts as a very weak generalisation. Speaking of hypothetical points, Ginny has made us a little thought experiment to demonstrate her point. Why how scientific that would be Ginny. That's certainly a viable substitute for actual fucking evidence.

Oh dear, Ginny can't even evaluate her own hypothetical studies. What would be the fucking point in concluding 'D'? What this imaginary study proves is quite fucking straight forward. Men are generally better at anticipating lightning strikes which is associated with the increased size of their so called 'platypus cortex', which may I add should not be capitalised considering it's not a proper noun. I don't where your conclusions come from, but these could only be later determined by further discussion, and so the study doesn't prove any of your conclusions, which I suppose is the point you're trying to make. I still don't know how you could conclude 'C' from the study, as that's just completely irrelevant to the topic.

We can't deduce whether this fictitious ability is biologically determined or socially conditioned with the information provided, but that wasn't the point of the study. That's the problem with using this sort of hypothetical evidence. Yeah great you've created a little scenario that highlights a particular flaw in evolutionary studies, but this doesn't reflect the range of differing papers in the scientific community. I can assure you that scientists in the fields do not make the sort of tenuous connections that you portray here. Well maybe social scientists do, but they're the sort of people who end up working for 'Everyday Feminism'.

Careful about using 'studies' plural when in actual fact you've provided just a singular study. Not making assumptions are we now? You are right to say singular studies aren't any good at making huge generalisations, and that's why findings rely on a scientific community to put their research into context and create an analytical discussion on their findings. Again, this article really does not reflect the discipline of science as a whole.

I would also like to add that your brain is assembled by homeobox genes during development, so yes it is built a certain fucking way, otherwise you wouldn't be functional. You are right that brain development is subjected to different variants in each individual, whether that be natural or environmental, but again you're making this biased assumption that natural processes are trivial. I'm still confused at how any of this disproves the argument that science and feminism are in conflict. Sure you may have argued against some fictional person in your head, but how does any of this relate to feminism? Just because some traits are purely environmental doesn't instantly invalidate the idea of biological determinism and its application in neurosciences.

Psychology is not a fucking science Ginny. This point suffers from the same flaws as the last in that it doesn't refute my anti-feminist arguments. You'll actually find a lot of my arguments are from an evolutionary perspective. In this context you have to generalise from one group to the next irrespective of notable differences, as these biological assumptions are not subjected to your sociological scrutiny; they are merely finding processes universal in nature. Obviously feminists would never keep banging on about generalisations. The idea of toxic masculinity and white privilege are certainly not generalised in any way are they? My scientific generalisations are far more rational than the shit you spew considering the dichotomy between the two sexes is universal irrespective of culture. Remember, environmental variation does not make genetic variation obsolete. Even more importantly gender is not a scientific term, so fuck off with this sociological bullshit.

Oh for fuck sake, you can't complain about generalisations in science and then make possibly the most tenuous point possible about how the system is institutionally sexist and racist. As I've said countless times transgender and intersex individuals do not constitute a biological sex. They are abnormalities, and are rightly discarded from studies concerning biological sex, as they would skew the results far past any meaningful conclusion. And yes, we absolutely can draw major conclusions from these studies. It's not about trust, it's about analysing the empirical evidence between different sexes. My points are based on biology. Are you telling me the biological mechanisms behind sex are fundamentally different in poorly educated pensioners living in the depths of Malawi? Take your sociological nonsense and fuck off.


I'M NOT A SOCIOLOGIST, I'M A SCIENTIST. Please stop shifting the goalposts. I also love how this theoretical study completely ignores the parameters you've been relentlessly barking on about. What about the fucking trans people you fucking sexist? In any case, suppose you've gone through the horror of having a P value lower than 0.05, which I'm sure every scientists has had this daunting moment at many times over their life. In this scenario your findings would not be significant, and you are right to highlight a serious issue stemming from these underwhelming results, although I'm pissed off you decided to link a fucking social sciences article to back it up. Fortunately for science publication bias does not equal grand conspiracy. Yes there may well be intrinsic biases at play, but this doesn't instantly invalidate the whole field, nor does a consensus instantly validate a whole field. Some of the most controversial studies in scientific history have proven to be the most revolutionary. The proof is in the primary literature, not the wordings of an echo chamber. And yes Everyday Feminism, that jibe was aimed at you.

Here we go. Let's promote sociological and psychological data that can't be falsified, whilst simultaneously bashing evolutionary psychology because it 'relies on guesswork'. There seems to be a gross misunderstanding in the difference of hypothesising and just pure guesswork. Evolutionary psychology is not just applying behavioural studies to archaeological finds, it's actually applying biological evidence that we see in nature to explain human behaviour. It's far more than pure imagination, and actually relies on testable hypotheses.

The example you give outlining a basic idea in evolutionary psychology is painfully simplistic, conflating several different ideas that are not reflective at all of the scientific field. It's certainly true that women have evolved to use far more resources in parental investment than men, which is a trend we see almost universally in nature. The reason why men are more aggressive is determined by female choosiness as a result of this investment; males compete for the right to mate. To be honest this biological process isn't even evolutionary psychology, it's basic sexual selection. Sexual selection I would also add is a separate process from the differential levels of survival you mentioned. That's determined by the process of natural selection, which is largely irrelevant in this discussion. Unfortunately for you this scientific theory cares fuck all about the opinions of feminism, yet that doesn't stop you from trying to disprove this theory with all the jargon of feminist biology:

It's important to note that absolutely none of these points have anything to do with disproving basic sexual selection. For starters there is absolutely no evidence for that first claim. Why would prehistoric humans suddenly have a radical shift in social roles? More importantly where the fuck do we see this in related species? What you're essentially suggesting here is that humans have undergone two radical evolutionary changes in behaviour throughout the past million years or so, yet at the same time you're doubting that a singular evolutionary event has the power to ingrain itself in human culture. Are you starting to see how warped your logic is here?

I don't quite understand the second point. Where is the evidence that humans have a social order resembling gorillas rather than our closest ancestors? Are you suggesting some sort of feminist utopia where a division of labour is not based on sex? And yet you have the nerve to criticise scientists for creating artificial narratives. The third point is rendered void by simple theories of kin selection. The idea of paternity is almost universal in nature, ESPECIALLY in social animals such as humans, where gene flow is crucial to their evolution. This idea touches on the controversial theory of group selection, but this is mainly reserved for eusocial insects with differing genomes to that of humans.

The final point is just one big hypothetical. You have no evidence that this ever happened, and it seems completely unlikely considering gender is purely sociological. Remember we're dealing with organisms here that haven't evolved rational thought yet. Contrary to your claims none of these points are in any way realistic. Maybe only start complaining about scientific methods when you actually understand them. Funnily enough contemporary science doesn't have much time for eccentric bullshit like this.

Here we once again go back to these revisionist historical arguments. Do you honestly think science still operates like it did in Victorian England? To be fair this 'archaic' science is still absolutely correct, or are you seriously telling me that male and female brains and bodies are clones of each other? The conclusion is surprise, surprise, not a point about science at all, but the power of sociology. And what better way to prove this than with a vague statement. As I keep saying, sociology is entirely separate from science dear. Science is a method for acquiring knowledge, where as you're preaching an ideology. How in any way do these totally different points support each other?

So thanks for the grilling Everyday Feminism. I'm sure you walked away with a feeling of moral superiority and the false assumption that you had countered my scientifically objective points. You didn't, and instead you chose instead to ramble on about irrelevant sociological points as per usual. Once again you displayed how much you love shifting the goalposts to areas where mature debate is obscured by feelings based rhetoric. Turns out feminism is not supported by science, just pure ignorance.