They claim that it’s because Planned Parenthood is under investigation

Funny how liberal organizations are always guilty until proven innocent. And often they never bother to get around to proving them innocent. But seriously, anytime an organization that fights for the rights of anyone but straight, white, rich men is put “under investigation,” everyone is tripping over themselves to sever ties with it before any conclusions are even reached. Witness ACORN as the most obvious recent example.

Komen is a front for the bullshit “pink” everything solution to socialite boredom & mass-marketing trickery. Only something like 23.5% of their budget goes toward actual cancer research (from charity check). Regardless of Komen’s sketchiness, this move is a complete and total capitulation to the right-wing witch-hunting (excellent analogy…or rather, excellent trace of past conservative behavior to its modern incarnation). Komen just made this political and made clear that they are right-wing identified, full stop. There other 5k’s I can run, heck, we should really do an annual PP 5k (Run for Women’s Lives?)...

& by run, I mean run the first mile and walk really fast the next 2.2…

Glad to see a PP ad show up here just now.  For once the ad-choosing algorithm actually worked right…

Yay Planned Parenthood…

Boo Serena Joy’s Koman Foundation for the Promotion of Women’s Cancers…

Two words: Karen Handel. Even before this clusterfuck, her hiring as Senior VP for Public Policy would have told you all you needed to know about Komen.

I couldn’t help but notice that many of the tweets supporting Susan G #komenforthecure were dudes. Several of them saying they would be donating to that organization for the first time. Which makes it painfully obvious that they’re only willing to donate to a women’s health organization after they’ve proven they’re actively working against women’s health. I find it amusing that they don’t realize it proves they could give a shit about actual women’s health despite anti-choice claims that they’re doing this to protect the health of stupid fragile women from themselves and doctors that provide contraception and abortion services.

I’ve kind of soured on most of the cancer prevention organizations as of late. From ACS deciding that they didn’t want dirty, atheist money, to SGK deciding that any woman who has ever made the horrifying decision to have sex while poor should die of cancer, I’m really having a hard time giving any of my money to cancer charities, and I used to do it all the time. I’ve been to Relay for Life every year since one of my grandmother’s was diagnosed with lung cancer, and donated hundreds of dollars over the years, but I won’t be back, and they won’t get anymore of my money, and neither will Komen.

progrocker, as a former life-science researcher I wouldn’t give a plugged nickel to any of the big corporate disease-of-the-month monoliths. The hope of a “cure” that they continually hold out for their own corporate purposes is a snare and a delusion, and real progress in biomedical research rarely comes from narrow disease-targeted projects.

The whole notion of the ‘Cure For Cancer’ goes back to the 1970’s when industrial processes and waste were linked to cancer. Suddenly all of corporate America wanted a ‘Cure for Cancer’ rather than curbs on pollution and toxic chemicals that were by-products of industrial production.

So this quixotic quest for the ‘Really Really BIG’ cure has always been a kind of fig leaf for Corporate America. Sure, lung cancer is linked to coal fired plants and auto emissions -bu..but…let’s have a TELETHON! C’mon kids, let’s put on a show - it’ll have sexy models and singers and a lotta heart!

This literally blew my mind yesterday when I heard it. How can an organization (or a person, really) claim to be an advocate for women’s health and not support PP? I don’t know the percentages (I’m sure its been mention on Pandagon before, but I haven’t searched it out), but doesn’t PP provide healthcare to a majority of the women in this country?

The whole notion of the ‘Cure For Cancer’ goes back to the 1970’s when industrial processes and waste were linked to cancer. Suddenly all of corporate America wanted a ‘Cure for Cancer’ rather than curbs on pollution and toxic chemicals that were by-products of industrial production.

This.

Exactly, shak. They don’t care about women’s health and women living free, but they can back up the idea that as long as we’re alive we should have our boobs.

Thorstein Veblen (‘conspicuous consumption’) would’ve had a lot of fun poking holes in our current show-biz concept of charity, since he regarded it as largely a display of wealth. The “charity ball” is the epitome of this true function of charity.  This is from Wiki…

“In the 2000s, the term conspicuous compassion was used to refer to charitable giving performed in a similar way and for similar reasons as conspicuous consumption.[4]”

Mark, PP’s own stats indicate that 1 in 4 women have used Planned Parenthood. It’s not a majority, but a substantial minority.

Steve LaBonne @8:

Yeah, it’s really manipulative they way they take these objectively Bad Things, like cancer, and use them to apply a moral heft to their begs for money. Finding a cure for cancer is a Good Thing, so if you don’t give them money, you’re a bad person.

It’s the same BS they used to justify the invasion of Iraq. “Well you don’t like genocidal dictators, do you?!”

I never donated to Komen because I knew someone who worked there and the things she said made me realize the place is bullshit and the funds go primarily to promote the pinking of America and not into research.

I guess as a blogger you can’t come right out and say, “send money to Planned Parenthood” so I will. They need it not only to care for the women they see but to fight their endless legal battles. You really hit it this time with the witch hunt analogy because that is exactly what this is. I keep waiting to see if the anti-choice crusade will end the same way the Salem witch hunts did—by going too far. It stopped in Salem when the witch hunters accused the governor’s wife of being a witch. Anti-choicers continue to go after ever larger targets (like Komen) and one of these days those fanatics are going to overplay their hand and go after someone rich and powerful enough to crush them.

I also bought enough Girl Scout cookies this year to give me type two diabetes because of the witch hunt surrounding a transgendered seven year old child. Enough is enough.

“I also bought enough Girl Scout cookies this year to give me type two diabetes because of the witch hunt surrounding a transgendered seven year old child. Enough is enough.”

Same here. And I was also glad to be able to buy them from my neighborhood GS representative, who’s mom essentially said (I’ll paraphrase to clean it up a bit) “Fuck that dumbass shit”.

Komen’s caving to pressure.

I think this is true in the same sense as “Democrats caved to pressure to support the AUMF.”  Which is to say, they didn’t require much convincing.

Popping out from under my lurker covers to thank you, Amanda. I couldn’t find anyone to rage with yesterday, and if it hadn’t been for your tweets & posts, I think my head would have exploded. I am so sick of this backward march, with pauses to get thrown under yet another bus, that if it weren’t for voices like yours I might really go crazy.

I’ve been seeing a lot of these “Save the Boobies” pink ribbon stickers and shirts and stuff in the past few years and it’s been getting on my nerves. I understand it was probably meant originally as a light-hearted slogan to get people’s attention, but seems like it’s been a big hit with the dude-bro types who care more about boobs than lives.

Well, I declare today a Red Sweater day!  I’m all for Red being our symbol, and I’ll wear it proudly.  I’ve always hated pink. Also, I just sent $100. to Planned Parenthood in “honor” of Komen. Fuck ‘em.  Assholes.

@8 Steve, can you recommend the good disease charities?  I already have reason to hate Komen, the American Cancer Society, and all the diabetes outfits.  My impressions of the National Kidney Foundation (no research, just helping poor people get to dialysis) and the American Lung Association are positive.

I have a wife, I have a mother, I have two daughters, and like most men, I have some mammary tissue myself and am not immune to breast cancer.

Why is the Komen Foundation crippling efforts to fight breast cancer?  Alas, like so many organizations, it seems to be run by members of the opposition.

I may have read about this site here, but it bears repeating:

http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org
“Think Before You Pink, a project of Breast Cancer Action, launched in 2002 in response to the growing concern about the overwhelming number of pink ribbon products and promotions on the market. The campaign calls for more transparency and accountability by companies that take part in breast cancer fundraising, and encourages consumers to ask critical questions about pink ribbon promotions.”

Unree, my inclination is to contribute to provision of care to people who would otherwise have a hard time getting it, rather than funneling even more money to the medical - industrial complex. So along with PP itself, I like what you say about the Kidney Foundation.

AnnPW @21—I’ve always loved pink.
And then the SGK Foundation went and ruined it for me.

This might have been sort-of predictable. Breast cancer gets a lot of support from the Right, because after shafting women on everything else, it allows them to say “Oh, we don’t hate women—see, we’re throwing a few bucks at one of their health issues.” (1)

So over time, as soi-disant conservatives get more involved, breast cancer charities (of which SGK is the juggernaut) become what conservative charities become: run more for the administrators than the causes. Eventually, they come to reflect reflect wingnut policy.

Is it possible to contribute to PP in Handel’s name?
__________
(1) You’ll notice that the women’s health issue they chose isn’t, say, ovarian cancer. Literally, it’s not sexy enough. Cancer of the Rack? Much more tragic.

I once saw a pink ribbon-branded non-stick set of pots and pans. Which is pretty ironic, considering that Teflon is a known carcinogen.

Anyway, this is just so depressing. I thank my lucky stars every day that my mother moved to Canada instead of staying in the US like her sisters. Because I have access to comprehensive healthcare without charge or hassle, while one of my USian cousins only got a pap smear because she got some kind of healthcare grant from a charity and had really limited prenatal care through both of her pregnancies. And she’s not that poor. Just lower-middle income self-employed, so too poor to afford her own insurance, but not poor enough for Medicaid.

And another one of my cousins just posted something on Facebook.about not letting her daughters join the Girl Guides because they support Planned Parenthood! And she doesn’t have insurance either! What is wrong with people?

They need it not only to care for the women they see but to fight their endless legal battles.

This has got me wondering how many women don’t get the care they need because PP is forced to devote funds to legal fees instead.

I couldn’t help but notice that many of the tweets supporting Susan G #komenforthecure were dudes.

Breasts cancer is an Approved Cancer (tm).  Witness “Save the TaTas” and that facebook “post your bra color to fight cancer” absurdity (those two may have been the same thing…)

I’ve definitely seen some medieval-style flights of fancy aimed at me personally, including a blogger putitng up a picture of me in a red sweater to make insinuations about the kind of woman who wears red. No, I’m serious.

Now I’ve heard everything.

Who’s working on the cure for being an incredible fuckhead?

I’m definitely telling the richest person I know about this. I bet she’s given Komen a dollar or three in her time.

@Cris, not that it matters, but only a minority of Congressional Dems supported the AUMF.  It was just a large enough minority that it passed easily.

I see Steve mentioned Karen Handel right off the bat.  Seriously, this is not a case of caving in to pressure; she, at the least, was looking for an excuse as she is one of the people exerting that pressure.

I never forget that SGK paid Hadassah Lieberman (Joe’s wife) over $300K to lobby Congress. 

Not to improve access to health care.
Not to improve treatment options.

No, to prevent breast cancer drugs from EVER being available as generics.  No reason women with cancer shouldn’t be charged 10s of thousands of dollars a year.  If they can’t afford it?  Well, they can wear pink and be an inspiring story for the next sucker.

They claim to be fighting cancer, but they are draining money, diverting attention, and enriching themselves and Bog Pharma. 

Complete and total fuckers.  No moral compass at all.

To top it off, they’re hiding from this cowardice with their trademarked “for the cure” bullshit.  No good preventing cancer.  Oh no.  They just want to cure it, even though next to no advances have been made on that front and early detection is really the best chance anyone has.

I’ve definitely seen some medieval-style flights of fancy aimed at me personally, including a blogger putitng up a picture of me in a red sweater to make insinuations about the kind of woman who wears red. No, I’m serious.

She’s a Republican woman in politics in the 1980’s or early 90’s?

My grandmother just finished treatment for breast cancer, the filthy slut.

I think we can close up the thread.  A. #34 wins the internet for today.

AnnPW - Heart deases is actually the #1 killer of US women when the Red Dress campaign started (2003).
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/new/press/03-02-07.htm

was, not is

Amanda, I thought our Twitter interaction with the one dude neatly illustrated the point that it’s more about controlling sex instead of actual results. The way he kept complaining that contraception was eeeeeefil, while abstinence was a-ok, when abstinence IS contraception. (He also neatly illustrated a lack of biological knowledge about human stages of development in the womb, failure to understand the medical mechanics of birth control, and an overwhelming need to control my behaviour)

This kerfuffle inspired me to finally read through Barbara Ehrenreich’s Welcome to Cancerland. It painted a clear picture of Komen as a politically cowardly organization that allows corporations and other entities to appear to help women without appearing feminist, and it did it 12 years ago. Excellent read, very prescient.

Both of my parents died from breast cancer, and I’m almost certain to get it.  Despite that, I haven’t donated to Komen in at least a decade.  They have always been a bullshit organization, beholden to corporate interests, refusing to even *consider* a possible link between toxins in the environment and breast cancer.

FUCK THEM.

Hypercapitalist America seems to have forgotten the whole “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” thing. Well, I suppose it’s not that they’ve forgotten, just that they’d rather sell you a pound of something than an ounce of something.

to make insinuations about the kind of woman who wears red.

More proof they don’t care about women’s health. Don’t they know everyone is supposed to wear red this Friday to “raise awareness” of the fact that women have heart attacks, too?

Of course, let’s not mention how long it took to get a study of women with heart disease as opposed to just assuming that women with heart attacks would present in the exact same way as men with heart attacks. No, no, just shut up and wear red.

I find myself wondering how the war on filthy sluts and their “doctors” will square up against Big Pharma. I mean, BCP is a big moneymaker for lots of drug companies, seeing as how so many women are filthy sluts, um, consumers thereof. At some point, the drug lobby is going to butt heads with the anti-contraception crowd, right? They’re going nuts just because Liptior is generic, they can’t lose all their business in one year!

Of course, let’s not mention how long it took to get a study of women with heart disease as opposed to just assuming that women with heart attacks would present in the exact same way as men with heart attacks. No, no, just shut up and wear red.

The woman responsible for getting those studies off the ground just passed away, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/us/09healy.html?pagewanted=all

@Comment #38: PixelFish on 02/01 at 03:45 PM

PixelFish, I followed your Twitter conversation as well. I noticed how that guy almost immediately accused you and Ms. Marcotte of not caring about your unborn babies… without knowing either of you were pregnant! I guess if one only cares about fetuses, everything looks like an abortion?

Who’s working on the cure for being an incredible fuckhead?

Darwin, or Mssrs Smith and Wesson, depending on your inclination.

Incidentally, Tom Levenson <a >did the figures</a>.

This decision kills about 13 women over the next five years.

KOMEN’S CORPORATE SPONSORS:

http://ww5.komen.org/CorporatePartners.aspx

Those corporations might be interested in hearing how you feel about the way Komen isn’t dispensing their funds.

Always wondered where the anti-choicer misogynists learned about their slutty cousins and all their doins’... didn’t someone once say <i>it takes one to know one<i>?

If their activities weren’t so harmful and lacking in both empathy/compassion, the rest of us could laugh this kind of sexual-obsession off. In the meantime, I look for other ways to support women’s health issues, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and research.

I created a Facebook page to Defund SKG. http://www.facebook.com/groups/286595168069480/
Send a request to join and I will add you.

PixelFish, I followed your Twitter conversation as well. I noticed how that guy almost immediately accused you and Ms. Marcotte of not caring about your unborn babies… without knowing either of you were pregnant! I guess if one only cares about fetuses, everything looks like an abortion?

But don’t we all remember that Amanda announced she was pregnant back in August? She’s expecting little Suck Ass in December.

When I was in college, I was trying to make small talk with my new room mate, after living in the same dorm room for a few days.  She said she really like to wear turquoise shirts, and I said I like to wear blue and red.  She actually said, “Yeah, you seem like the type to wear red.”  So I guess it’s A Thing that some people judge others for wearing red.

But don’t we all remember that Amanda announced she was pregnant back in August? She’s expecting little Suck Ass in December.

I figured she aborted dear little Suck Ass and then had a party afterwards.

With the ground up remains of the fetus backed into the cake.

An acquaintance’s little girl is battling stage IV glioma (brain cancer).  I’m fundraising for st. Jude during the warrior dash this spring.  According to charity watch they get a b+ (so does komen apparently).

OT: The Beast has posted the list of The 50 Most Loathesome Americans - and Amanda got cited as evidence (see “Steve Jobs”)

Re: the wearing red thing.  I’ve seen this referenced before, once on a religious (Jewish, I think) modesty site preaching all sorts of restrictive rules at women.  One of them: no red clothing.  Burgundy, maroon, whatever else is allowed, but no red.  Is it associated with prostitutes in the ancient world, or what?

I wasn’t able to find any evidence or rational for it, but that’s not the only time I’ve heard that a modest, proper woman doesn’t wear red.  Makes me want to go out and buy another red blouse or two.

  The anti-choicers actually remind me of the Prohibitionists than witch hunters. Many of their strategies are the same. The ones that stalk and do violence to abortion providers or abortion clinics are like the Prohibitionists that routinely smashed up saloons. They both have the same lobbying techniques and single-minded commitment to their goals. The key difference is that the Prohibitionists were willing to support liberal policy like the income tax if it would advance their goal. The anti-choices really aren’t.

So the “no red for women” meme seems to be a cousin of “no guys wearing pink.” I look awesome in pink so fuck their couches. Gender essentialism (and anti-choice zealots) hit, we strike back twice as hard. Planned Parenthood broke even on donations in a day so Komen can eat it.

PiaToR - I have a problem with that list - specifically, at a glance, that Newt Gingrich is lower on it than Michael Bloomberg.  I could see both of them being on it, but IMO Gingrich did more long term and systemic damage and placing him lower indicates a lack of historical perspective.

In Jewish history, red and yellow are associated with clothing, badges or other wear required to differentiate them.  My understanding is that red is also somehow associated with menstrual blood and therefore unclean, but the only reference I found off hand to that is here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GxGPLju4KEkC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=Jewish,+red+clothing,+prohibition&source=bl&ots=XdagpWugsb&sig=4kbASENVxaWRAK99kcINuXXHvm4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DokqT97_C6eq2gXgqJD9Dg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Jewish red c,lothing, prohibition&f=false

Lee, the Prohabitionists also had a substantial subset that really were against drunkenness and its accompanying evils (irresponsible spending of family funds, fights, domestic violence were those usually cited) but too focused to see a less drastic means of stopping that or too pessimistic to think that anything short of a ban would help.  That, of course, backfired.  You can’t ban a highly popular activity or substance without blow back, at best it will just push the activity or substance into the dark where the bad effects can’t be curbed.

Since “pink is for girls” is a modern thing (early 1900s), dressing boys in pink (weak red) is traditional for western cultures.

The anti-choicers actually remind me of the Prohibitionists than witch hunters. Many of their strategies are the same. The ones that stalk and do violence to abortion providers or abortion clinics are like the Prohibitionists that routinely smashed up saloons. They both have the same lobbying techniques and single-minded commitment to their goals. The key difference is that the Prohibitionists were willing to support liberal policy like the income tax if it would advance their goal. The anti-choices really aren’t.

Helen’s points at 9:29 a.m. are for sure well taken. Prohibitionists were working for more worthy causes than banning fun. They were actually fighting against a bunch of things for which the answer was feminism, not banning intoxicants. Plus, my grandma was actually in the WCTU and she taught me everything important about politics in the early 90s when she noted that Michigan Gov. John Engler was a nasty little man who enjoyed beating up on the less fortunate and when she refused to read the scab newspapers from Detroit.

Which is honestly another similarity with antichoicers. They say their fighting abortion, but they’re actually fighting against most of modern society and the idea that people, especially women, are free to make their own choices about sex, families and just living free. They don’t want their kids to grow up in a world where society doesn’t yell at you if you don’t toe their line.

The big similarity that struck me after reading your post is in political strategy. They don’t worry whether politicians or pundits are really living up to their version of sexual mores and female submissiveness, so long as the Vitters and Schflys and such toe the line in public and vote the right way. The prohibition movement made a canny decision to not worry about whether congress animals were drinkers in private and only worry about whether they’d vote the temperence way.

If you think about it, nonprofits are an even better form of graft than for-profit corporations. If you’re for profit, your product has to exist, do something, compete in the marketplace against other very similar products and so forth. You have stockholders who want a monetary return on their investment. If you’re a nonprofit, well, it’s your job not to make a profit. And if you’re fighting some disease or other, you typically have a near-monopoly on revenue from people who want to make a contirbution.

Wait, we’re not supposed to wear red now? Is it because it’s a whore colour or because it’s for men? Make up your minds, wingnuts!

I swear they keep making up rules just so I’m always breaking one.

Anyway, I love red and I look really good in it, so there. And I will dress my baby in red if zie has my colouring, regardless of gender!  OH NOES WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO!

I think females wearing red is OK but males wearing pink may result in confusion in their minds if they are young. I mean I’m all for freedom of expression but lets let the children choose that when they get older, yeah?

Are you being serious right now? It’s difficult to tell because this is a very stupid thing to say.

I took the comment at face value since I didn’t recognize teh name, but perhaps jorge1991 was joking.

If he’s the same jorge who’s been commenting over at Feministe, he’s definitely a troll and not joking. Also, that was probably his most coherent comment to date, anywhere.

This post has caused me to look down at my bright red (loose fitting, sensible, practical, cable, long sleeved, high neck) pullover and snicker.

If you’re a nonprofit, well, it’s your job not to make a profit. And if you’re fighting some disease or other, you typically have a near-monopoly on revenue from people who want to make a contirbution.

There’s also not much keeping the executives from enriching themselves at the charity’s expense.  Supposedly, Komen has 43 executives/upper management making six figures a year, up to $300,000 for some of them.  I, for one, won’t donate to charities that exhibit that kind of graft, with the exception of some arts charities that have to draw in talent with six-figure salaries (like symphonies where the executive director is also the conductor) and some extremely large charities that need someone with CEO-level experience (like the Red Cross).

There are other breast cancer charities out there, including cancer research centers, which are where people’s money *should* go.  Those centers do the actual research and treatment, fer Christ’s sakes.  But Komen has the best publicity, the best marketing scheme, and probably the worst return on investment.

I also have a great loathing for organizations that dominate certain segments of the fundraising world.  Since I have several extremely athletic friends (two Iron “Men”, several Crossfitters), I used to get hit up for 10k donations constantly, and every single time the money was to go to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.  And, that’s why I no longer get hit up for money, because I won’t have all my charity money going to one organization (and pretty strongly resent it), one that I didn’t choose myself, one that my friends don’t really care about that much anyway; they just want to do a 10k.

they’d probably gravitate to them naturally

And you’re probably talking out of your ass, but then, I don’t have a degree in evopsych.

Well my personal theory is that females probably developed an affinity for the color because that’s the color of nourishing fruit in a hunter/gatherer society.

And my personal “theory” (and by theory I mean fact) is that the “pink = girl, blue = boy” paradigm is largely a product of the 20th century, which makes your uneducated musings about hunter-gatherers look pretty embarrassingly stupid.

<sigh> I see I’m just in time for someone to start in about “hunter-gatherers.”  I figured this thread to be fairly safe from that.  I should know better.

Cultures that aren’t in tune with nature just die out… I mean look at Nazi Germany for example, or the Soviet Union.

You’re right, just look at all those more natural cultures that lasted forever, like, uh…

uh…

@jorge.1991
so how do you explain that in the early 20th century pink was a boy’s color, because it was thought of as a juvenile form of a manly red, and blue was for girls. Blue=feminine actually is a tradition that goes back to renaissance painting, etc, where Mary is pictured in blue 99.9% of the time, and is still pictured that way in contemporary iconography. Looks like gender colors have always been a cultural, not a biological, construct.

where did they find young children unaffected by culture? was it with the unicorns? we are affected by culture from the moment we are born.

An interesting study recently looked at the pictures drawn by very young children who are unaffected by culture. They found uniformly, that boys drew action scenes in grey and blue, reflecting the violent battles that their ancestors did with wolves. And girls drew pink and orange flowers and berries, reflecting their ancestors’ hunt for nourishing food for their families.

I can’t believe I’m bothering to ask - this sounds like some parody-troll shit - but what the hell: Link, please.

An interesting study recently looked at the pictures drawn by very young children who are unaffected by culture.

Literally one of the dumbest things I’ve read in comments in months.  There is no such thing as a young child unaffected by culture. Socialization begins from birth.  Maybe you should read the recent studies on infants which show how they already adjust their behavior based on their social interactions with adults.

Boring troll is boring.

You mean this Leonard Sax?  Surprise, surprise.

I think he’s referring to this, though it’s incomplete so I’m not clear ... unless even Sax is not jumping to quite the “reflecting their hunter-gatherer ancestors” conclusion that jorge is.

I figured she aborted dear little Suck Ass and then had a party afterwards.

With the ground up remains of the fetus backed into the cake.

You might be right PIATOR, or Suck Ass might have been fed to the demon familiar cats.

As for Jorge. I too may be banned from Feministe. Not sure as I have been scared to comment there after my post recommending methods of arson to deal with the “Who would you rape?” fraternity got deleted. Sorry, but I am a big fan of Arthur Harris who believed in the trauma of de-housing as he put it.

At first I thought Jorge was making a clever parody of the worst aspects of evo-psych with “blue wolves” claim, but he’s gone so far that I wonder if he actually believes it.

Well they’re like 4/5 years old. They can’t be that affected by culture.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .

Also, recent studies have also shown that culture has a very tiny if any effect on how people turn out at all.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .

<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393068382/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2GPB2DL07G1PF&colid=4EZSR37O68FQ”>Try again.</i>

but you can’t really argue with science.

Dude, science is not a prescriptive roll of the dice wherein the first theory someone craps out is the way things utterly and irrevocably are, regardless of the quality of the study. You argue with science all the time; that’s how you get past thinking that atoms are a miniature plum pudding and gravity is a sort of planet-scale vacuum cleaner sucking everything down to the ground.

It’s the sort of thing that you learn as you go and that you learn as much by questioning what’s already known as by building on it.

Shit. You win this time, html.

Komen should be giving to health clinics that only do health care.  Abortion isn’t health care.

reflecting the violent battles that their ancestors did with wolves

So we’re dealing with a troll who thinks 300 is a historical documentary?

he’s obviously doing these studies for ideological reasons… but you can’t really argue with science.

This is roughly the equivalent of reading a contract and saying, “Well, these terms are clearly illegal, but the letterhead looks very official so I guess it’s legit.”

Calvin and Luther can Kick you Atheist Behind

Then, like Luther, you believe that Reason is the Devil’s Harlot?

Stick rule, please.

jorge.1991 - Until the late 1800s/early 1900s, pink was a BOYS’ color.  Blue was for girls, back to the middle ages (provided the wearer/family could afford to be picky).  In most parts of the world, pink for girls is a new thing that comes with westernization.  It is very much not the way things have always been nor the way they are everywhere and therefore easily shown to anyone with a brain as not to be the “natural” color favored by girls.
Also, numerous studies by actual socoligists for the last couple of decades indicate culturalizations starts anything from weeks to 1 year (age range depending much on the bounds of the study).  Gendered expectations regarding themselves and others, including what color is “right” for themselves occurs generally between 2-3 years of age.
Math does not give you any insight into either sociology or history, of which you clearly know nothing about.
Second stick rule request.

Actually, two stick rule requests.

Well they’re like 4/5 years old. They can’t be that affected by culture.

Repeating the haaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa for emphasis.

Do you actually know anything about 4/5 year olds?  Their brains are fricking sponges at that age, sucking as much as in as they can.  Language, social cues, cultural pointers, the lot.  That is when they are most affected by culture, you twit.