Tweet
Like most True Christians™, I'm sick and tired of hearing Al Gore and his globalist socialist New World Order pin heads warning us about "global warming", the destruction of the earth and the extinction of mankind (let alone polar bears), through their so-called "tipping points" caused by the rise of CO2.
They want us all to go back to some Medieval feudalistic servitude, pay them carbon taxes, and give up our modern conveniences like light bulbs, indoor plumbing, SUVs, and air travel. Despite the fact that CO2 levels hit 400 ppm this spring, there has been no "global warming" for well over a decade - suggesting that the whole thing is a hoax.
Knowing that their "global warming" schemes might be exposed for the fraud that they are, the sinister liberals have been busy with their goal of ensuring the mass extinction of humans - the education of women. Once again this proves that the principles of Jesus and the Bible (KJV1611) concerning women are correct.
They want us all to go back to some Medieval feudalistic servitude, pay them carbon taxes, and give up our modern conveniences like light bulbs, indoor plumbing, SUVs, and air travel. Despite the fact that CO2 levels hit 400 ppm this spring, there has been no "global warming" for well over a decade - suggesting that the whole thing is a hoax.
Knowing that their "global warming" schemes might be exposed for the fraud that they are, the sinister liberals have been busy with their goal of ensuring the mass extinction of humans - the education of women. Once again this proves that the principles of Jesus and the Bible (KJV1611) concerning women are correct.
Should we care that smart women aren't having kids?
New research is fueling outrage that women who don't have kids aren't just selfish losers, but dumb ones as well Sadhbh Walshe theguardian.com, Wednesday 7 August 2013 09.56 EDT
It seems that women these days are too clever for their own good, at least when it comes to making babies. Research emerging from the London School of Economics examining the links between intelligence and maternal urges in women claims that more of the former means less of the latter. In an ideal world, such findings might be interpreted as smart women making smart choices, but instead it seems that this research is just adding fuel to the argument that women who don't have children, regardless of the reason, are not just selfish losers but dumb ones as well.
Satoshi Kanazawa, the LSE psychologist behind the research, discussed the findings that maternal urges drop by 25% with every extra 15 IQ points in his book The Intelligence Paradox. In the opening paragraph of the chapter titled "Why intelligent people are the ultimate losers in life", he makes his feelings about voluntary childlessness very clear:
That said then, Kanazawa finds it paradoxical that intelligent women apparently don't possess the desire to pursue what should be the ultimate goal of their biological existence, (hence the loser reference). He says that it's not yet known why intelligent women are having less babies but says it's not the reason most people assume, that women with higher IQs are more likely to go to college and have demanding careers. Basically he seems to come to the paradoxical conclusion that intelligent women just aren't all that wise.
I'm not sure why he dismisses the link between higher education and fewer kids as there's census data that shows women with advanced degrees are less likely to have children. (I should probably note that Kanazawa's judgement has been called into question in the past, regarding a study in which he found that black women are less attractive). His ultimate conclusion, however, is that intelligent women's failure to reproduce is bad for them because they are flying in the face of their biological destiny and it's also bad for society because fewer intelligent moms means fewer intelligent kids and that may have drastic implications for the nationwide IQ.
So put another way, smart women are doing society a disservice with their dumb reproductive choices. This plays nicely into the narrative that women who choose not to have children are selfish or sad or both. Time magazine's cover story this week deals with the phenomenon of "childfree" couples. Birthrates are at an all time low and couples choosing to forgo having babies are contributing to that. The article focused mostly on the female half of these couples, who explained their decisions to not have children.
….
New research is fueling outrage that women who don't have kids aren't just selfish losers, but dumb ones as well Sadhbh Walshe theguardian.com, Wednesday 7 August 2013 09.56 EDT
It seems that women these days are too clever for their own good, at least when it comes to making babies. Research emerging from the London School of Economics examining the links between intelligence and maternal urges in women claims that more of the former means less of the latter. In an ideal world, such findings might be interpreted as smart women making smart choices, but instead it seems that this research is just adding fuel to the argument that women who don't have children, regardless of the reason, are not just selfish losers but dumb ones as well.
Satoshi Kanazawa, the LSE psychologist behind the research, discussed the findings that maternal urges drop by 25% with every extra 15 IQ points in his book The Intelligence Paradox. In the opening paragraph of the chapter titled "Why intelligent people are the ultimate losers in life", he makes his feelings about voluntary childlessness very clear:
If any value is deeply evolutionarily familiar, it is reproductive success. If any value is truly unnatural, if there is one thing that humans (and all other species in nature) are decisively not designed for, it is voluntary childlessness. All living organisms in nature, including humans, are evolutionarily designed to reproduce. Reproductive success is the ultimate end of all biological existence.
I'm not sure why he dismisses the link between higher education and fewer kids as there's census data that shows women with advanced degrees are less likely to have children. (I should probably note that Kanazawa's judgement has been called into question in the past, regarding a study in which he found that black women are less attractive). His ultimate conclusion, however, is that intelligent women's failure to reproduce is bad for them because they are flying in the face of their biological destiny and it's also bad for society because fewer intelligent moms means fewer intelligent kids and that may have drastic implications for the nationwide IQ.
So put another way, smart women are doing society a disservice with their dumb reproductive choices. This plays nicely into the narrative that women who choose not to have children are selfish or sad or both. Time magazine's cover story this week deals with the phenomenon of "childfree" couples. Birthrates are at an all time low and couples choosing to forgo having babies are contributing to that. The article focused mostly on the female half of these couples, who explained their decisions to not have children.
….
Comment