Sunday, October 15, 2017 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Far left terrorizes Dr Amy Farrah Fowler over her wise NYT essay on sex assaults

Mayim Bialik is an amazing woman. She was a kid actress but didn't get everything she needed so she also earned her PhD in neuroscience, much like Amy Farrah Fowler, her character in America's #1 watched TV series – who has just married Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory. At some moment, she realized that she can't live quite happily without her entertainment skills to be displayed and that's why returned to acting.

On Friday 13th, she wrote an op-ed for The New York Times

Mayim Bialik: Being a Feminist in Harvey Weinstein’s World
She wrote that she was "disgusted" by the magnitude of Harvey Weinstein's sexual predation. But the same sentence started with "though" and you may imagine – that was enough for a big problem for her.

Bialik explained that she has never been a target of any sex assault and she sensibly attributed that fact to her "not trying to make herself look too sexy" and to her not being a perfect 10 [score] beauty naturally, too. She says that more sexy and more sexily decorated women are more likely to become targets of sex assaults – and Business Insider has collected some hysterical reactions by the far left that wants to deny basic reality. See also

Sexual assaults are crimes and it's obviously right when the attacker, and not the victim, is blamed and punished. There are good reasons why the laws look at the situation in this way. Even if a woman is extremely attractive, every man is simply supposed to be able to control himself, anyway. Maybe he can't control the pumping of the blood into a certain organ because that's not quite controlled by the will. But he must still control his muscles in the legs and hands, among others. If he can't and does something illegal, it's too bad. The victim's being attractive doesn't work as a good enough excuse in the Western society.

Some kinds of non-physical assaults may be punished as well although I think that the prosecution of these non-physical attacks is very problematic and the "sensitivity" simply shouldn't grow with time.

However, the fact that the attacker is the only one who is blamed and punished doesn't mean that the probability of the sex attack is uncorrelated with the physical beauty. Of course it is correlated. It is really a matter of common sense that the more attractive – either naturally or because of her outfit or make-up – a woman is, the more likely it is for her to become the topic of men's sexually flavored dreams, plans, and maybe even acts. She's just saying that physically attractive women physically attract more than the less attractive ones. The previous sentence is true tautologically. The physically attractive (or attractively dressed etc. etc.) women are called in this way because they physically attract! What kind of an imbecile do you have to be not to get this simple point?

And yes, if you keep some combined "physical attractiveness" – which has terms related to Mother Nature as well as the decorative ones – beneath a certain threshold, you may reduce the probability of attacks almost to zero (however, you may increase unflattering comments etc. and those may be more unpleasant than sexually motivated efforts by someone). In Bialik's case, she was able to keep herself safe and focused on the work whenever she wanted. I guess that almost every woman can if she really wants to end up like that.

But many women just don't want to. Women naturally want to be attractive. They honestly dislike some unwelcome proposals let alone acts. On the other hand, they typically want to have the freedom to choose from a collection of men – and from their welcome proposals. They often need to look attractive for the latter – but it also occasionally implies the former. You know, even if you dress to be very attractive etc., you are still in principle assured that the courts will punish the man who will sexually assault you. But if you actually want not only that, if you also want to reduce the probability of the sex assault itself, then it's obvious that you should dress etc. more professionally and avoid spending hours with make-up and similar things.

An analogy: As a pedestrian at the crossing, I have the right of way. First I cross, then the truck goes. That's an idealized rule. I am still careful – and in fact, I personally always try to encourage the truck to go. In that way, I decrease the probability of sudden death in this context. If I were hit by the truck, he would be agreed to have violated the laws, the rules make it clear. But I would be dead which I find more important. These two things – the driver's responsibility for accidents at pedestrian crossings; and the increasing probability of death with the self-confidence of the pedestrian – in no way contradict each other.

Illegal sexual attacks always have a nonzero probability in the presence of men. The probability depends on many things. Its being nonzero may be viewed as an imperfection of the world but it's also a great virtue. If a Parliament erroneously outlaws coitus of all sorts, some men will break the law, anyway, and save the mankind or a nation.

In the sitcom, I think that Amy Farrah Fowler looks like a real professional scientist and, sorry to say, I think she's honestly painted as "basically a physically unattractive woman". I also think that in the real life, actress Mayim Bialik looks sort of nice and more attractive. The difference is enough of a proof (or a reminder) that the clothes and make-up and appearances also matter. I hope it's not too terrible to say that Penny or Kaley Cuoco's appearances may beat Bialik's. Yes, most of Rajesh's girlfriends were hot, and so was Missy and, in her way, Ramona. And by the way, I think that even though Penny is supposed to be a very unscientific character, Penny is still smarter than Kaley Cuoco. ;-)

Now, take all the far left loons who deny the positive correlation between the sexual attractiveness and the probability of a sexual attack. It's just so utterly insane. One must be either a brain-dead idiot to say such things or she must be a staggering hypocrite. They not only deny this relationship. They want to burn Bialik at stake for pointing out that she finds this correlation self-evident. How could she fail to understand this simple relationship if she has a PhD in life sciences?

These feminist psychopaths fill the social networks with the claim that the sexual attacks are "all about the power" and they have nothing to do with a woman's appearance. Please, give me a break. It's just totally ludicrous. When the instinctively estimated attractiveness of a woman is below a threshold, a given man simply can't even get a large enough hadron. How can the assault collider work in that case? ;-) Clearly, the power of a man increases the probability of an attack as well – but that doesn't mean it's the only variable on which the probability of the sex assault depends. There are lots of features that increase the probability of a sex attack – the man's power almost certainly increases it less than the man's Muslim faith, for example.

Bialik calls herself a feminist but she clearly uses the term in some outdated sense – her interpretation of the word "feminist" is from some ancient epoch when "feminists" could have been decent, wise, emancipated women such as herself. Today, the word "feminist" has been almost completely hijacked by far left loons who deny the reality completely and who fanatically harass everyone who doesn't buy their extremist propaganda. The earlier you adapt to the current terminology – and you realize that you're not a feminist in the contemporary sense, Ms Bialik – the earlier you will avoid all similar confusions and surprising conflicts with the "real" contemporary feminists.

OK, she's been obviously accused of defending the attackers, blaming the victims, and so on. She has done nothing of the sort. But because she became a new instant enemy of the far left, they started to invent lots of personal attacks going in other directions. For example, the not so gentle man above criticized her skepticism towards vaccination. Mr Goldsmith, what if you at least tried to consider the alternative hypothesis that it is you, an aggressive brainwashed savage, and not Dr Bialik, who has a scientifically unreasonable approach to this question about applied biology? Have you done and published an fMRI study, savage? Or what is it that tells you that you should place a self-evidently worthless piece of junk, namely yourself, above Dr Bialik and judge her scientific opinions?

At this moment, several pieces of hostile demagogic junk are being written against Dr Bialik by far left scumbags on Twitter every minute. The sheer number of psychopaths in the world and especially the U.S. that is unmasked by this high frequency is stunning. You just say that "attractive women attract more than less attractive women" and millions of activists want to stone you to death? WTF? It's enough to look at a few hostile tweets to see some gems such as:

It's a personal attack that recalls that she promoted breastfeeding. What a politically incorrect sin. But what is nice is that those who breastfeed are called "parents". I laughed out hard – those who breastfeed are normally known as "mothers" in my country. So fathers, be sure to fulfill your 50% quota on the breastfeeding.

P.S.: In The Big Bang Theory, Amy has repeatedly shown her sexual desire – and even dreams to be raped. There were many repetitions of the theme that she's jealous that she's not considered as a target of rape as frequently as some other women on the show. It's interesting that the current far left critics haven't attacked Amy or the show because The Big Bang Theory has arguably conveyed all the ideas that Bialik's op-ed did – at least if the viewer was intelligent enough.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :