Moving On.....

Selling one's soul to feminism is a guaranteed self-delusional experience. One that cannot be justified or neither can it demonstrate any improvement in common sense. Rather, it forces you to lie and continually deny the obvious.

Here we have Josh Harris, a dilusional self-confessed feminist useful idiot.

Read more...

Here we go again, the old saying "Like Mother Like Daughter" comes alive with this research.
If mother's a bitch, daughter is going to be one too.
Simple....


Bad-tempered women 'can blame it on genes'

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 1:56am GMT 10/03/2007

Ever wonder why some women seem to be more ill-tempered than others? The answer may partly lie in their genes, according to a study that suggests a blood test could one day be developed to detect feminine belligerence.

Genes as well as the environment - in the form of provocation, annoyances and miscellaneous bugbears - could have played a role in angry outbursts, say University of Pittsburgh researchers.

They report that anger, hostility and pugnacity may be genetic, rooted in variations in a serotonin receptor gene, that is the gene responsible in the protein that picks up the brain messenger chemical serotonin, one which plays a variety of roles, including in personality disorders. These findings "may aid in establishing a potential marker for certain conditions associated with aggression and anger", the team adds.
advertisement

Dr Indrani Halder of the Cardiovascular Behavioural Medicine Programme at the University of Pittsburgh, will present the findings at the American Psychosomatic Society's Annual Meeting, held in Budapest, Hungary.

Previous studies have associated the hormone serotonin with anger and aggression in both humans and animals and have shown that increased activity of serotonin is related to a decrease in anger and aggression. In the study being presented by Dr Halder, researchers sought to determine if this relationship was genetically determined.

The study, the first to look at the relationship between variations in the serotonin receptor 2C gene and anger and hostility, focused 550 unrelated women of European descent. In order to find normal variations in genes and behaviour, the women were not prescreened for behavioural type.

Researchers found that those who had one or both of two alterations in the promoter region of the serotonin receptor 2C gene - the part of the gene that turns it on - were more likely to score lower on two common tests for anger, hostility and aggression.

Testing for these markers could have wider implications. "Aggression and hostility are predictors of hypertension, glucose metabolism and heart diseases," said Dr. Halder. "The genetic marker we found for hostility also may be useful for predicting a person's predisposition to such diseases," adding that this will be the subject of follow up studies.

But the work was greeted with some scepticism. "It's wildly premature to envisage the serotonin receptor 2C gene, or any gene, being used as a test for a tendency to angry aggression," commented Prof Terrie Moffitt of the Institute of Psychiatry, London. "However, this study fits another key piece into a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle: why are extremely emotional people more likely to develop heart disease?"

"Individual differences in aggression and anger are influenced by genes -- as are all personality traits -- but progress in identifying the genes has been slower than researchers expected," added Prof Robert Plomin, deputy director of the Social, Genetic and Development Psychiatry Centre, London. "Thousands of reports of this gene or that gene being related to complex traits or common disorders in the end fail to replicate, not just for behaviour but also for medical problems such as dementia and heart disease." Rather than looking at one gene at a time, most researchers have moved on to more systematic approaches that scan the entire human genetic makeup - genome - with hundreds of thousands of DNA markers, he said.

"In addition, most researchers now assume that we are looking for many genes of small effect which implies that very large samples with many thousands of subjects are needed in order to detect these associations of small effect size."

Prof Plomin is also sceptical. "Because the Halder paper looks at only one gene in a relatively small sample, I bet that this report will join the ranks of thousands of other reports that fail to replicate. On the other hand, in dozens of studies of humans and rodents, serotonin has been shown to play a role in emotional responding so it is not unreasonable to consider DNA variations in the serotonin transporter as a source of individual differences in aggression and anger. I would just need a lot more convincing."

Dr Halder told The Daily Telegraph: "I agree that our study needs replication in larger samples, but a genomic scan does not negate the necessity of testing known candidate genes, one at a time if necessary, to understand exactly how the gene causes/influences a trait. We were not scanning the genome, rather attempting to investigate how variations in one particular gene influence a personality phenotype, based on certain hypotheses regarding the function of the gene."

An Astronaut and attempted murderer and homewrecker, not a bad effort for one demented female....

Astronauts suffer “stresses” - women hardest hit...

This is the usual spin that the "feminised media" prefer to take. The poor little woman just could not cut the mustard but rather than declare the truth, they prefer to push the "women are such victims" angle.

Today's media is becoming so boringly obvious.



The attempted murderer and homewrecker...

Here is a really great expose by thurston861.......lead on.

thurston861 said,

Stresses aside, it appears that reports are coming back to my original thesis about women working closely with men over long periods of time.



FoxNews:
“CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — The star-crossed space cadet who allegedly made it her mission to murder the woman dating her Cape Canaveral crush helped break up his 17-year marriage, his former mother-in-law said yesterday.
Shuttle pilot Bill Oefelein’s ex-wife’s mom claimed yesterday that Lisa Nowak’s gravitations toward the flyboy caused his marriage to crash and burn in 2005.
She said their relationship devastated his wife, Michaella, who filed for divorce, and whom Oefelein had dated since high school.

“She broke my daughter’s heart,” Charlene Davis said by phone from Kona, Hawaii.

Although Davis did not say her son-in-law was having an affair with Nowak, she strongly hinted that an inappropriate relationship had begun between the two married astronauts.
“To infer that she had something to do with breaking up their marriage — well, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions,” Davis said. “He did know her. All these people work very closely together.”



In letters found in Nowak’s car, the crazed moonbat professed her love for the spaceman.
At the same time, though, she told police that they had “more than a working relationship but less than a romantic relationship.”

So she gets caught and lies to the Police. Nice! More ance fenina excusat!



“It is not clear what exactly sent Nowak flying off into the void, but her younger sister, Andrea Rose, said she never recovered from losing three friends in the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster, which killed seven astronauts.

“We knew Lisa was under a lot of stress,” Rose told People magazine. “But there’s no way of knowing how a particular person will react to stress. We love Lisa and we’re worried about her well-being.”

But NASA Was not.!?! And she just recently flew in 2006!?!?!?!?! (Blinking unctonrolably)

Eh, Houston she’s got a problem. Houston, you are the Problem!



“As the new details emerged, Nowak — a married mother of three, who recently separated from her husband of 19 years, Rich — flew back to Houston.

Upon landing, a police escort whisked Nowak to the Johnson Space Center for the mental and physical examination.”

Errr, it’s a bit late, don’t you think that is a job for the CIVIL Authorities of Earth now, since NASA has been proved now to be psychologically incompetent to identify these things? Duh!



“Nowak’s meltdown stunned everyone who knows her.”

Wait! What? I thought her sister knew she was under stress?

Ending a 19 year marriage…that was not an indication to Houston that she has a problem?



“An Orlando police officer who booked her said she kept saying, “I can’t believe this is happening to me,” as she was being processed.”

Da Nile aint’t just a river flowing through Egypt baby! Oh yes, that is right! I forgot, you are an entitled white witch who just destroyed the hearts of your husband of 19 years, and your three children, another family, because your DUTY to those close to you is not important enough to override your Estrogen Poisoning! Pardon us - ance femina excusat.



“A few times, she told us, ‘I’ve never done anything like this before. I’m really sorry.’ You could tell that she knew she had blown it,” the officer told People magazine.”

How nice, an admission! She was doing something bad and she knew it! Even has the little lady feigning “I’m sorry” line. But all she did was drive 900 miles in a space pamper and assault another woman with pepper spray, armed with rubber tubing to tie her up with! No, she could not have possibly known what she was doing- ance femina excusat.



“Meanwhile, a terrified Shipman — who in her order of protection alleges that Nowak has been stalking her for two months — has gone into hiding.”

As she said to the cops, “…never done anything like this before.” Certainly not! The prior two months of activity were stalking, being parked for hours on stake out while wearing a space pamper, when the previous few hours were a terrestrial mission driving while wearing a space pamper stalking at in international airport and assaulting the target.

Reconoitre and Attack, Completely different things to an F/A-18 Pilot!



“She’s(Shipman) a very pleasant person and now everyone knows her. She feels very violated,”

Woman violates Woman! Think it will make the feminista victim of the day news?



“At Shipman’s old high school in Monaca, Pa, school superintendent Edward Elder, who is related to Shipman’s grandmother, called her “perky, bouncy and compassionate.”
“If you wanted a profile of ‘the girl next door,’ that would be Colleen,” Elder said.

Aside from Elder sounding like a dirty old man who remembers Shipman’s breats (perky and bouncy) fondly…

There you have it, her love interest (Space Studmuffin)went for the girl next door 13 years her junior.

A typical woman scorned:

1. pulls a middle aged guy away from his childhood sweet heart and a marriage of over a decade with a couple of kids,

2. Destroys her own family of 17 years

3. carries the usual self deluded notion that she has found something true when all of the facts of Space Studmuffin walking away from a life long relationship and two hero adoring children prove otherwise,

4. he goes for the girl next door displaying her assets named bouncy and perky, and:

5. whiz bang boom to the moon, guess who is crazy as a loon?

It must be me, because I do not see any of this appearing to be realted to the Columbia Disaster.



“Meanwhile, Jon Clark, a former NASA flight surgeon stands by Nowak.
“She was the epitome of managing a very hectic career, making sacrifices to accommodate her family,” he said.
“All those stresses can conspire to be overwhelming. Clearly, she suffered a lot of mental anguish.”

What?! Sacrifices to accommodate her family? Excuse me? How did she do that and still end up in space?! Not to mention that family a primary duty and obligation of a marriage, which is the first duty (mission) of a person who is married.

Since I am confused she must be confused even more so. Must be that feminista tripe that NASA Flight surgeons have been spewing “sacrifices for family”…!? (head shaking like being round housed)

No wonder she is “stressed”, “overwhelmed”, and mentally suffering, Her life telemetry guidance system has been fed conflicting data!


“He chided the space agency for not doing enough to monitor the mental health of its astronauts.
“They don’t have to have any evaluation before or after a mission. It is only when something catastrophic happens that this ever comes to light,” said Clark.
NASA plans to review its psychological screening process, and recommendations for changes could be issued as early as June, said NASA official Shana Dale.”

Oh my Gosh! Something that we can ALL agree on and does not sound confusing!

Maybe they will discover that women are too unstable in stressful situations (why mothers kill their children more often than fathers), and this advancement of science and the space program can become a new technology that can reach the stressful environs of Courtrooms and Judicial Benches in America’s Family Courts?



“She said the agency does not usually “meddle” in the astronauts’ private lives, but “we expect [them] to conduct themselves in a way that does not bring any dishonor to the space program.”

That is why you have been covering up their divorces and affairs all of these years?

This is why you have ignored Shipman’s complaints of stalking for two months?

Looks like meddling time has long since passed… Ya think?!

Makes me wonder if Andrea Yates was collateral damage to the Feminista/Logic Free zone/Black Hole of Houston Center.

Feminism for Idiots


WELL-BEHAVED DOES NOT EQUAL INTELLIGENT
Another chestnut from The Australian newspaper.

On the 15th of January of 2001, I stumbled upon a piece of blatant sexism by Susan Mitchell in The Australian newspaper, titled, "Let's face it: women are decidedly brighter". She begins with, "It is perhaps time to admit something that has been staring us in the face. No one has been game enough to spell it out. Let's tell the truth and admit that women are more intelligent than men."

She continued with the predictable references to women's maturity, better behavior and superior performance at school. Whilst, from one perspective, my first impulse was to want to agree with her - after all, the gullible men of today are letting feminists get away with this sort of nonsense - my commonsense prevailed, and I penned the following reply for the "Letters to the editor" section. Again another masterpiece vanishing into cyberspace, only to reappear here for your reading pleasure:

INTELLIGENT FEMINISTS?

Susan Mitchell's recent contribution (The Australian, 15 January) raises questions about the nature of intelligence. Girls do indeed do better than boys in today's namby-pamby, touchy-feely curricula that discourage competition, to emphasize "facilitation" and cooperation. This is hardly a sign of intelligence. Indeed, one could argue that having a prefrontal lobotomy might be more conducive to the mind-numbing conformity required of what passes for curricula these days.
Conformity is not the same thing as intelligence.

And how does "maturity" relate to intelligence? If, by girls maturing earlier than boys we mean that girls are more inclined to conform to socially acceptable norms of behavior, well, once again, we would do well to ask what on earth proper behavior has to do with intelligence. People shielded from the expectations of saying or doing much of anything have little to be responsible for. Privileged, protected and provided for, they do not have to put themselves on the line, to risk revealing their more vulnerable sides. Without ever having to confront anything more challenging than having to decide between brands of hairspray, of course one is less likely to make mistakes and, ipso facto, appear more "mature". In this context, we might regard sheep as being more mature than either men or women.

Locking oneself out of hotel rooms? Again, similar argument - well-behaved conformists reveling in detail are less likely to lock themselves out of rooms, while absent-minded geniuses are more likely to do so. Far be it for me to suggest that managers are anything on a par with geniuses. But I'm sure we get the point.

Chivalrists have long succeeded in conning everyone as to the superiority of men over women, all the while protecting and providing for women at every turn (does anyone else see the contradiction?). Now it's feminists' turn. But as feminism is just chivalry demanded by feminists (rather than chivalry bestowed by men), it is similarly sexist, and it is now feminists who are trying to pull the same stunt. But instead of running to protect men and to provide for men, feminists are treating men rather more differently. On this point alone, I agree with Mitchell - for surely, is not men's willing complicity in their own oppression, as perpetrated by feminists, an indication of their own stupidity and gullibility?