Evolutionary psychology: David Warren on beautiful women

In "The mystery of beauty", Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren (August 2, 2009), skewers another "evolutionary psychology" shish-kebob:

One of the great attractions of popular Darwinism, as a financial investment, is its appeal to what we in the media refer to, in our jaded way, as the "tabloid audience." That is to say people who, through no fault of their own (lack of education, native dullness, mental injury, etc.) are extremely credulous. You can sell stuff to them that you just couldn't sell to -- you know, "people like us."

From another point of view, it may be a misfortune that our schools and media have been working, for decades now, on expanding this "tabloid audience." But that has been a subject for many other days. Today we're only looking at the business angle.

The incredible tabloid Darwinian story of this last week was about the evolution of beautiful women. "Scientists," led by Markus Jokela at the University of Helsinki (flag that name), have now "proved" that, for reasons of "sexual selection," women are becoming ever more beautiful, while men remain as ugly as we were in the caves.

I have never been able to figure out why Darwinists don't just denounce and get rid of this crap. Their theory has enough problems in real issues around bacteria and fruit flies, without this tabloid-friendly nonsense.

Surely this isn't all they have to go on? Or? Jathink?

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Intellectual freedom in Canada: A letter to Ezra Levant, our Canadian civil rights lawyer

Ezra, Janet Keeping's column is a symptom of the rot pervading our society in the sense that it *does not matter* whether a given individual lied.

It is wrong to call someone a liar - because it hurts their feelings. That is all. Period.

It hurts, and that's all that matters. = Mommy! Mommy! Nanny! Nanny! I have a boo-boo!!

So if someone lies about you or me, we must swallow the awfulness of false accusation in order to protect that liar's feelings, instead of demanding that the lie be taken back and that a correct statement be issued.

[= There is no real world so our reputations don't matter.]

As far as I am concerned, the only important consideration in this whole matter is that Canadian civil servants actually posed as racists, bigots - and Nazis!

Look, my father is one of the few survivors of RCAF Bomber Command in World War II, when we had real, honest-to-goodness, no-fooling Nazis to deal with.

You think that was easy? Sure. Most of his fellow officers died. He survived, more or less accidentally.

As for these civil servants sporting Nazi handles, I can only say this:

Fire the lot. Sure, give them their pensions, their sick days, whatever those cushy toffs get, but just get them OUT. Whatever they were doing, I don't want them doing it any more.

I think we need a totally different approach to hate in Canada - one to which those people wouldn't contribute anything useful.

Like, what about hatred against women who don't follow some guy's religious line? You know, honour killing, and all that?

If a woman can't decide - in Canada - to just go live her own life somewhere else, what was Canada FOR anyway? Like, why did we do it all anyway?

It was a lot of work, you know. One thing we thought was really an achievement: Religion as a matter of personal, heartfelt choice, not compulsion or coercion.

Okay, any HRC I would support would have a strong focus on issues like

- honour killing

- child marriage [child WHAT?]

- female genital mutilation

- women imprisoned by lack of knowledge of English and the requirement to be heavily veiled in public (so how can such a woman know her rights? - and anyway, she can't even attract attention)

- women in arranged marriages who really have no say. Note: I do NOT count "No, I do not want to be murdered" as a "say." If I met that woman for coffee, I would say,

"I will help you establish yourself here, and you will not more likely be murdered than that woman who waters the plants in your apartment building lobby. (=not likely, anyway)

Like, she can go right now and be free. Of course, she must learn and work, but learning and work are not the same thing, if done freely for an agreed reward.

Free is free. Some want it, others don't. In my view, all must choose for or against it.

And while we are here anyway - how about illegal immigrants? Are there people held captive on Canadian farms, terrified by threats that they will be returned to the despotism from which they emerged if they do not agree to some disgusting regime that no decent Canadian would support? (A great way to get loyal employees!) There could be a huge scandal here that no Canadian news rag has the courage to investigate.

Yes, there is lots going wrong in Canada. My point is that the "human rights" commissions are nowhere within scraping distance of real human rights issues. They are a disgrace and must be shut down and a real human rights regime that honours Canada's true values is desperately needed.

(Note: The estimable Franklin Carter of the Book and Periodical Council of Canada advises that Stephen Boissoin plans to take his free expression case before the Court of Queen's Bench in September, and that The Calgary Herald editorializes here. Okay, so today some pastor like Boissoin is shut down for "offending" someone, and tomorrow it is the entire Herald that is shut down for "offending" someone. Why wait? Why not protest now? Why isn't every Canadian medium doing it?

Look, if you say anything important here, you risk offending someone, right?

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: