Psychology declares war on childfreedom.

The title of this entry may seem a bit overblown, but it’s hard to interpret the reformulation of Maslow’s pyramid of needs as anything but a conscious attack against childfreedom. At the top of the pyramid lies no more “self-actualization,” but rather “mate acquisition, mate retention and parenting.”

Yes, you read that right. It’s now been “discovered” by a group of horny white men that the highest and most sophisticated need that human beings have is finding someone to fuck and having children with them! And yes, they do make it clear that they are talking about propagating one’s own genes, so adoption is right out.

So this means that anyone who rejects “mate acquisition,” “mate retention” or “parenting” (propagating one’s genes by fucking) are not actually human, since they are missing a “biologically fundamental” need. There is something fundamentally wrong with them. They don’t outright say this, but it’s a natural conclusion from the nature of the pyramid of needs (it describes biological human needs and their order of fulfillment) and the new addition at the top of it.

This of course is a kind of rhetoric we’re already used to. Victims of the Conspiracy are always told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them, that they’re broken. Sometimes this is “confirmed” by the academia, as in the case of gay people, women or black people. There is no more self-righteous victimization than that which proceeds from scientific discourse (e.g. the “science” of economics justifying neo-liberalist genocides).

It is possible that this modification of psychology’s best-known icon is a prelude to a political attack against childfreedom in the United States. I certainly hope this is not the case, for all our sakes. Such an attack would only convince more women to have children, some of whom would go through a living hell because of it, not to mention the harm that the children will incur during their lives.

Most alarmingly, their arguments are based on the same “evolutionary psychology” quackery that has traditionally supported the oppression of non-white races and women:

Instead, many of the activities that Maslow labeled as self-actualizing (artistic creativity, for example) reflect more biologically basic drives to gain status, which in turn serves the goal of attracting mates.

“Among human aspirations that are most biologically fundamental are those that ultimately facilitate reproduction of our genes in our children’s children,” Kenrick explained. “For that reason, parenting is paramount.”

The researchers are not saying that artists or poets are consciously thinking about increasing their reproductive success when they feel the inspiration to paint or write.

We constantly have to face the claim that evolution has tasked us with procreation, that it creates in humans the purpose of procreation, and that anyone who refuses to procreate is aberrant. I have debunked such claims. But this time the argument is different: these psychs are not claiming that we must reproduce, but rather that reproduction is a fundamental motivation of our actions, whether we know it or not.

Like all evopsych quacks, they do not quantify their beliefs because then they could not defend such beliefs. Ultimately, anything can be reduced to “reproductive success” as long as you stay in the realm of purely abstract causation.

Sure, we can conclude that in some way, somehow, being a artist can lead one to have better “reproductive success.” But how much is a writer or artist’s “reproductive success” raised compared to the effort of being a writer or artist? Once we start quantifying, we realize that the argument is nonsense. Surely the exercise of one’s creativity is the main motivation for artistic endeavors, not wanting to fuck people and have children (actually, no kind of talent is required to fuck; anyone can do it, as the intelligence of many parents attests).

But, Kenrick adds, for humans reproduction is not just about sex and producing children. It’s also about raising those children to the age at which they can reproduce as well.

Well it’s nice that it’s acknowledged that you’re still responsible for the children after they’re born, too, but I fail to see why a human need for having children would come with an age requirement. That seems oddly specific and meant more as a disclaimer than anything else (yea we said for you to have children, but you have to take care of them too!).

The whole process seems very self-conscious, which is part of the reason why I think this change may be on purpose. We are rather far away from the naive “value-neutral” scientist who thinks his biology or culture is a universal fact. These people know what they’re doing.

The correct response in this case, I think, should not differ from the correct response in other cases of abuse of science: we must point out the reality of the situation and the bias of the “researchers.” Parenting is not a biological human need. People who refuse to have children are not incomplete or broken humans. People who refuse to have sexual relationships are not incomplete or broken humans.

To say any different is to demonize the childfree. And not only is such demonization plainly false, but it is the first step to hatred. We can’t let them get away with it.

Right-wingers confuse rights and entitlements.

I’ve been talking a great deal about both rights and entitlements because they are key concepts in framing socio-political issues. They are, to a certain extent, opposites: rights are things we believe people are rightfully owed, and entitlements are things people believe they are owed on the sole basis of their social role. The former is seen as reasonable and legitimate, the latter as unjustified greed.

This can lead people to make switcharoos by framing rights as entitlements or vice-versa. Right-wingers rant that poor people feel “entitled” to get free food or money. This is linked with hatred for the poor. This is also applied to other segments of society.

Why do lazy people and abominations feel entitled to the money of those who work?

Why do people assume it is fair to take money from somebody who bothers to get out of bed and work, to feed the lazy cockroaches who don’t bother to take responsibility for their lives and such?

It is not. To force somebody to pay for the idle and unworthy is no more than an abomination.

In the view of many commentators and pundits, all citizens have an entitlement to be relieved of their poverty, which they believe, would best be accomplished by throwing other people’s money at the poor. This article makes the case that not only do the impoverished not have any such right, but the attempt to furnish them with wealth earned by others constitutes theft and does not help them in any case.
Sexual harassment and child rape advocate Walter Block

Feminists as a whole have a sincere belief that they are entitled to having society – and in particular men and taxpayers – adapt to and support their absurd beliefs. They feel women are entitled to murder their unborn babies if they can’t be bothered look after them, with the taxpayers picking up the bill. The feel entitled to maternity leave on full-pay, compensation if their feelings are ‘hurt’ in the workplace, jobs they’re not qualified for through positive discrimination. They feel the world not only owes them a living but that it owes them a comfortable and responsibility-free life as well, and they feel entitled to carry on whining even when they’ve largely achieved this.

There is a strong link with the concept that this “entitlement” is wrong because it’s about taking “other people’s money.” But this argument is predicated upon an atomistic view of labor, that those who are rich “earned their money through their own labor,” which right-wingers also hold. This of course is nonsense. If we earned our resources through our own labor, we would not have cars, computers or electricity, as no one person has all the knowledge to produce any of these things. Everyone’s labor is intricately linked to everyone else’s labor. So however much money you have, it’s not “your money,” and if you claim more than your share of the social product, you are the thief.

From the right-wing perspective, an entitlement is something we “assume,” something we “feel,” it is a “belief.” This language demonstrates that they believe they are the rational response to the “emotional” minority (as minorities are always portrayed as irrational and angry). So we find that their distinction is based on the same old stereotypes that they use to stigmatize poor people, black people, women, and so on; they are rational, fact-based and honest, and poor people are irrational, belief-based and dishonest thieves who are just looking for an opportunity to steal people’s hard-earned money (if you’re a poor woman, then you’re doubly irrational and dishonest).

In the right-wing view, rights can only be negative rights (i.e. rights to not be subjected to something), and there is no such thing as positive rights. So welfare must necessarily be an entitlement, not a right, since it involves receiving something from others. But as I’ve argued before, it does us no good to say a person has a right to something if ey does not have access to the resources necessary for that something (e.g. talking about a right to health in a society where most cannot afford health care). There is no difference between stating an exclusively negative right and no right at all; a right that cannot be expressed or enforced in any way is a mere theoretical curiosity, not a reality.

It’s interesting that these right-wingers, who berate poor people for feeling entitled to welfare, don’t identify their dependence on firefighters when a building goes up in flames as “a culture of entitlement,” or the presence of lifeguards on a beach as “swimmers feeling entitled.” The difference, of course, is that people who need the help of firefighters or lifeguards are not as easily stereotyped as poor people, so they are bad targets for right-wing prejudice.

What is the root of the right-wingers’ complete confusion between rights and entitlements? It is quite obviously a case of projection. Right-wingers constantly accuse the dispossessed of feeling entitled because they themselves are, or support, entitled assholes:

Britain, like much of the developed world, is imploding under a culture of entitlement, a species of socio-economic pestilence that collapses the superstructure of modern life into its soft and rotten core. The trouble is that the people with this dangerous and misplaced sense of entitlement aren’t jobseekers, homeless youngsters and single mothers. They’re the people sitting on the boards of investment banks, none of whom will be worried by the Prime Minister’s recent proposal of further cuts to the welfare budget – including stopping housing benefit for under-25s.

Entitlement, you see, is relative. Poor people tend to feel entitled to three meals a day and a place to live that doesn’t make their kids sick. Rich people occasionally feel entitled to enormous tax breaks, speedboats and, in some cases, actual titles. Only the first type of entitlement is being outlawed, even though a reasoned, widespread sense of entitlement to a decent basic standard of living has been one of the few things dragging human progress forward over the past several centuries.

So we’re talking here about a level of blaming-the-victim as insane as right-wingers claiming that “immigrants” are responsible for sinking the economy or taking away jobs, or that women are responsible for their own rape. We are the victims of rich people’s sense of entitlement, and their supporters deflect attention by talking about the “entitlement” of people who just want three square meals a day. The rhetoric of entitlement is a strategy used to nullify human needs and human rights so the rich can benefit. But furthermore:

Evidence suggests it is rich, well-educated, higher-status people who feel entitled, not the poor.

A Berkeley University study last year found that people in the upper echelons of society were more likely to lie, cheat, take things meant for others, cut off other road users and endorse unethical behaviour in others. Why? Because they feel entitled. They are clever and have the money to cut corners and hire lawyers if needed. These elite are less empathetic to others, less altruistic, more individualistic and more greedy.

Another study by Professor Howard Gardner at Harvard University, on the meaning of ”good work”, asked professionals how they juggled their ambition to succeed against their desire to work responsibly and ethically. They claimed that values such as fairness, scientific objectivity, truthful reporting and work-life balance were important to them. But, in practice, many compromise these principles to advance in their professions. They will, they say, change their behaviour once established and successful.

Note that, unlike right-wingers who believe that all poor people are lazy dishonest cheats, I am not arguing that rich people are all lazy dishonest cheats: people are people, no matter how much money they have. But radicals are well aware that, while they are decried as angry and irrational and do their very best to remain objective and fair in order to escape that stereotype, they face off against opponents who have no incentive or desire to be objective or fair. Anything from beating up protesters up to genocide is fair game to “suppress dissent.” Any excuse can justify attacking people’s basic human rights, as long as it sounds good.

So we must state clearly that having enough food and having a place to live in are basic human rights, and that no amount of elitist whining can turn it into an entitlement. We must state clearly that the equality of all persons is necessary and that arguing against this is bigotry. We must state clearly that people who already are equipped with everything they need not only to live but to flourish should not be laying claims over those who do not or suppressing their rights. We must state clearly that we are sick and tired, as workers, as consumers and as taxpayers, of subsidizing rich people’s lifestyles.

Ayn Rand was wrong: the leeches, the moochers, the second-handers, are not the socialists, but the capitalists. Incidentally, Ayn Rand herself made a fortune off preaching the trader principle and a neo-liberalist government, and then drew government assistance for the rest of her life, so she truly is a great symbol for the current parasite class.

IAS dumber, stupider and more F’d up! 2012

Some anti-feminist bingos.

BinKa reproduced an anti-feminist bingo from another blog, and also made two of her own. Go check it out.

Watch out for terrorists! There’s one right behind you!!! THE THREAT IS REAL!!!!!!!111

Thanks to Sociological Images. The post they wrote is also excellent. (this link was chosen by myself before I stopped reading Sociological Images for being bigots)

SNL skit “First He Cries”…

Here is the transcript of the SNL skit “First He Cries,” which makes fun of men’s attitudes towards women’s boobies.

Announcer: “First He Cries”. [ over SCROLL ] “The following docu-drama deals with a senstive social issue: mastectomy and its psychological effects on the men who must endure the anguish of living with “half a woman”.

…

Dr. Jensen: [ angered ] Oh, why don’t you come down off your high horse?! Larry’s going through HELL right now! You took away something VERY important to him!

Irene: My breast?

Dr. Jensen: Precisely! You see, breasts are very important to men — in our culture. Women with attractive breats are considered sexually attractive, and exciting. Now, some men like round breasts… some like pointed breasts… some like large breats, some like small breasts — although most men do prefer large breasts. But all men — I mean, with the exception of a very, very few — all men like their women… with two breasts.

The proto-fascistic language of optimism.

Positive Thought is the name given to a movement which started in the 1860s but only started to flourish a century later with such luminaries as Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale, and Napoleon Hill. Its ideology is one of optimism writ large, and followers are exhorted to only think positive, hang around with other positive people, and good things will… somehow… come to you. The Secret is only an extreme manifestation of a belief system which has taken over the Christian megachurches, the economy, and modern psychology (see Bright-Sided by Barbara Ehrenreich for more information).

Very few people have made the connection between Positive Thought and fascism. Yet it seems to me that there is some connection, insofar as Positive Thought advocates often use violent imagery when they talk about negative thought and negative people (the enemy). Here are some examples of this propagandist imagery:

.
* Exterminate negative thoughts

http://www.killnegative.com/
Killer Strategies to Kill Negative Thinking
Quickly And Easily Become More Confident And Powerful Automatically With This FREE Video Showing How to Kill Negative Thinking

Exterminate negative thoughts. First offensive against negative thoughts is to bring them into the open where we can see them.

Imagine a strong sun radiating a powerful light. Use this mental sunshine to kill your negative, undesirable thoughts, emotions and images as and when these are detected. Take this sun as a mighty weapon which is always on the alert and which automatically chases any negative thought and kills it with a flash and then withdraws.

Negative thoughts like cockroaches are better at hiding than we are at finding them, and their eggs are so deep seated they’re practically protected from extermination.

* Negative friends are a disease

Now that you’ve categorized everyone in your life as either uplifting or draining, it’s time to pluck the leeches from your life. Think of these people as having a nasty and contagious disease.

How negative friends can infect your relationship…
Your emotions and behaviours are similarly susceptible to contagion.

* Negative friends should be fired

Be prepared for negativity and to hear your family and friends criticize your desire for a better life. Don’t let it throw you off track. Use it to propel you forward. Of course, if it gets to be too much, you could always fire your negative friends.

Has God been telling you that there are some people you need to let go of? There are some people in your life who are plain old unnecessary. My mom always calls these people liabilities because they do nothing but slow you down, hold you up, and take away from you. Get rid of the unnecessary baggage if you’re looking to stay in this race called life.

* Pessimism is a disease

Pessimism is a disease of impaired vision which, unfortunately, cannot be corrected with eyeglasses. It is a state of mind caused by a limited perspective that shows us only the bad side, the problems, the difficulties and the reasons why something can’t be done.

Negativity and pessimism is a disease your staff can catch like a bad virus. And who wants to work for someone like that anyway?

Pessimism is a disease. It disrupts all forms of positivity and eats away at hope… Like any disease, if not controlled, pessimism can take over your life. Every waking thought and every waking action. It’s easy to fall victim to it because it provides such seemingly logical explanations for circumstance, albeit however dark and gloomy the outcome is.

De-motivation and pessimism, is a disease and it spreads like a virus as we grow up. It spreads from one person to the whole society. The sooner we kill it the better.

.

You might think that calling this “proto-fascistic” is a flight of fancy, that there’s nothing fascistic at all about talking about how to treat thoughts or not contacting a friend. That’s true. What I am highlighting is not that positive thought advocates are fascists, but that their ideology lends itself to metaphors and ways of seeing the world which can lead to fascism. Fascism was big on images, and one of these images is that of society as an organism. The Jews were seen as a disease that had to be exterminated.

When the Führer took power in 1933, the German people’s body was severely ill. The poison of foreign worldviews ran through the veins of all the people’s organisms. Hardly anyone was immune. Then Providence sent the German people a doctor, the Führer. He knew the disease; he know that the German people suffered from a corruption of its racial strength. Using every possible medication, including if necessary the most radical, the bacterium was removed from the people’s body. Our people is becoming racially healthy once more.

Pity, brotherly love and forgiveness are useless. There are no good or bad parasites, decent or indecent parasites (lice!). The parasite always creeps up looking harmless, innocent, as if it belonged there. It is often attractive. It acts as an infection. A small cut, swelling, an abscess, poisoning, the destruction of the whole body. The infested body grows weak, sleepy, it resists no longer, produces no antibodies. The doctor notices, gives injections Perhaps it is still not too late…

The Jew is the parasite among humans.

I hope the analogy is obvious. Society is an organism, and pessimism is a disease of the social organism that should be killed. Negative friends are contagious and transmit the disease (some even say that negative friends can give you actual diseases and even cancer). Negative thoughts in your mind must be exterminated. It is only one step from calling individuals a disease which transmits propositions that must be exterminated, to justifying the actual killing of people.

There is however one major difference between Positive Thought and fascism as we’ve known it. In fascism, criticism is exterminated as a means to an end, the end of having a population compliant to the government’s extremist measures. In Positive Thought, the suppression of criticism is done for its own sake; it is an axiomatic principle that criticism must be suppressed at all costs, and literally nothing can be more important than that.

It has something else in common with failed political ideologies, and that’s the failure cycle. In religion, cults, politics, and other areas, you are set up for failure, and that failure is meant to make you work harder to succeed. When your faith lapses, you’re supposed to believe harder. When a system collapses, it’s because it wasn’t tried hard enough. When you think negatively, you’re supposed to self-censor even harder.

But the simple fact is that none of these things can work because they go completely counter to human nature. It’s impossible to control most of one’s thoughts. So the Positive Thought believer falls into a cycle of failure and ever stronger recommitment. But because of the shame of failure, ey also feels a great deal of frustration and anger. This frustration and anger can then be directed by the elite at their opponents (having trouble in your faith? it’s because of the gays/atheists/evolutionists/liberals in your life or environment). This is aggravated by the fact that Positive Thought already teaches people that they must purge “negative people” from their lives. How many steps from a metaphorical purge to a real purge?

As Ehrenreich points out, one of the salient things about the Positive Thought movement is that, while it was a reaction to the bleakness of Calvinism, it itself became bleak and restrictive:

If one of the best things you can say about positive thinking is that it articulated an alternative to Calvinism, one of the worst is that it ended up preserving some of Calvinism’s more toxic features- a harsh judgmentalism, echoing the old religion’s condemnation of sin, and an insistence on the constant interior labor of self-examination… To the positive thinker, emotions remain suspect and one’s inner life must be subjected to relentless monitoring.
Bright-Sided, p89

It is the combination of relentless extreme individualism (the entire universe exists to serve your personal needs…) and self-repression (… but you have to exorcise all your negative thoughts and live in constant near-utopian optimism) which makes it such fertile grounds for tyranny; it sends people into a spiral of self-obsession where they are too concerned about their own power and suppressing their capacity for criticism to care about human rights or even their own freedom. After all, criticizing your own government, the very government you’re supposed to believe exists to protect you, is negative and depressing. Better spend more time thinking about you getting that raise this time, for real!

julyna cervical cancer PSA

Thanks to Meghan Murphy. Go read her entry about this bullshit.