BBC Injects Political
Even Into Science Programmes
You just cannot get away from it, can you? It's like having to live in a nightmare
world wherein, it seems, even those who are ostensibly intelligent and honest are
debilitated by some frightening mystery virus which completely shatters their
ability to link one thought with another.
In the third part of an excellent science series called "How To Build A
Human" last Sunday, the BBC again ruined much of its credibility by injecting more
man-hating politically-correct mumbo jumbo into the narrative via the mouths
of the scientific 'experts' themselves.
Here is what we had.
1. A brain-scanning experiment was performed which showed that when men were
trying to interpret the emotions of people from photographs, more areas of their
brains were active than was the case with women.
The professor concluded that this showed that men required 'more
effort' (more of the brain) to do the task than did women, because men, he
argued, found it much harder to interpret emotions.
Well. As most of my readers will already know, when men and women process
LANGUAGE, it is women, not men, who have more regions of their brains activated.
And from this, it is NOT usually concluded that women require more effort to cope
with language than do men. On the contrary, it is argued that this (OF COURSE) is further
evidence of their innate superiority with language.
In other words, if men's brains are more active than women's for the task in
question, then this is touted as evidence that the task is more difficult for men. The men just
cannot do the task as well as can the women.
But if women's brains are more active than men's for the task in question,
then this is further evidence of women's superiority!
Men are put down whatever the findings.
Men are put down whatever the findings.
In this particular case,
they are portrayed as emotional retards who have to get all their neurons
buzzing in order to figure out what emotions are being expressed in a
But, remember, this is the BBC.
2. Another professor gleefully pointed out that for thousands of years
societies were wrong to consider men to be more important than women, and that the
work of biologists now showed that women have always been more important than men.
What a load of hooey!
I would have choked on my tea if I had been drinking any.
For many thousands of years men
were very definitely more important to their
society's well-being, if only for the reason that if they were not treated as
a. ... they would have hastened off to join
a society that did see them to be more
important, or they would have happily invited another society to take over their own.
b ... their own society would have been wiped out by any neighbouring society which
treated its men more wisely.
The only way of protecting against
your own society being beaten to the ground was to ensure that your own
men actually wanted to protect it.
If they didn't want to protect their own society, then their own
society was doomed.
And the same probably remains true today.
The professor's main reason for
proclaiming that women were more
important than men was the usual one - that a single man can impregnate many women, who can then bear
all the children.
But the other way round doesn't work.
Men are therefore much more expendable in the sense that, reproductively
speaking, one man can do the job of many.
But of what value was this even 2,000 years ago!?
Can you imagine an ancient society surviving a takeover from its neighbours
when it had hardly any men in its ranks? - while its neighbours had huge armies of
Any society that lost its men LOST OUT.
It was wiped out.
And so our professor is making precious little sense.
In fact, he is talking politically-correct hogwash.
Yes, when it comes SOLELY to reproduction, and when there is a demand to
increase the NUMBER of offspring in a completely UNREAL world, a single man can
impregnate thousands of women. As such, the other men are redundant.
those thousands of surplus women would soon have been
carried off and plundered by any other men who wanted them
In the REAL world, however, those thousands of
surplus women would soon have been carried
off and plundered by any other men who wanted them, or, more likely, they would
have scooted off all by themselves in the hope of finding some decent men
to look after them - rich ones,
Furthermore, of course, if it was the case that men were expendable and less
important than women, then Nature would not have wasted her precious time creating so many of
Indeed, societies wherein
more females than males were born would have evolved and taken over the planet -
if such was true.
And one would have thought that an 'expert' in biology might have noticed this.
Now, of course, in a very
limited sense, men were, indeed, 'expendable'. For example, zillions of
them could be sent off to die in various battles while the men who stayed back home
impregnated their womenfolk when no-one was looking.
But those men on the
battlefield were only 'expendable' in the sense that they lost their lives
for a purpose. Their individual lives were sacrificed for
the 'benefit' of their societies - the 'benefit' usually being power.
In other words, the fact
that the lives of individual men were more 'expendable' than
the lives of individual women does not mean that 'men' - as a whole - as a
gender - were less 'important' - which is what this nincompoop of a 'biologist' was
men often contributed to the well-being of their
societies by putting their lives on the line.
It just means that many men
often contributed to the well-being of their societies by putting their lives on the line.
Or perhaps the professor was trying to suggest that soldiers,
construction workers etc etc etc are just less important than anyone else.
And, of course, when it comes to
thinking about a species as a whole, to argue that females
are more important to it simply because they are the ones to bear the
offspring - which is the case in all mammals - is about as daft as
suggesting that the most important part of a computer system is the wire
to the socket because it carries the electric current.
Yes, offspring and wires
are very important indeed, but only a simpleton would say that these are
the most important components when it comes to understanding what makes
humans - or computers - 'successful' compared to other evolving entities
that might be competing with them.
gay men and women must be the most useless groups of
Finally, I just cannot
resist making the point that if the importance of a group of people to
their own group is to be assessed simply on the basis of how fruitful are
their reproductive efforts - as per the politically-corrected views
promoted by the BBC and its little scientist friends - then, presumably,
gay men and lesbian women must be the most useless groups of all, while heterosexual male rapists and
philanderers are the tops!
So, BBC, stick that
in your politically-corrected pipe and smoke it!
3. The programme also informed its viewers that humans were basically
female - and that the male gender was a "mere modification" of the female
to say, the clear implication was that males are, somehow, a corrupted and inferior version
of the female form.
But one could also argue that women are just modified chimpanzees, which are
modified mammals, which are modified fish ....
And by looking at matters in this way, the male gender - modified from
the female gender
- then sits at the very
top of the tree.
The ultimate in modification!
But the biologist did not notice
Indeed, to suggest that a male is merely a modified
equivalent to suggesting that the magnificent Taj Mahal in India is merely a
The biological reality
seems to be that the 'default' position for the human body is that of the
female form. The male form is the female body with extra bells and whistles. Some of these
are enhancements, and some are the reverse.
But, following the same
lines of woolly thinking exhibited by the 'professor' in computer terms, it
would be just as valid to claim that women are more like the humble
version of Windows called 3.1, whereas men are more
like the sophisticated Windows XP that was derived from it.
it is the male gender mostly that leads, directs,
controls, creates, invents, and, indeed, shapes the society
Also, of course, with regard to the relative importance of males and females insofar
as 'society' is concerned, it must be obvious even to biologists that both
historically and in the present day, it is the male gender mostly that leads,
directs, controls, creates, invents, and, indeed, shapes the society in which
its people live, and it is also mostly the male gender that is likely to damage
or destroy it.
In either case, therefore, when it comes to the relative 'importance' of the
genders in the past,
the notion that women were more important than men is risible; because it is the men who
have had the greater influence on how society will be.
By force, if necessary.
Indeed, there has never been a
successful society or civilisation wherein the men have not been dominant
over their women.
Not even one!
(Besides which, of course,
how can women possibly have been 'oppressed' for thousands of years and yet still
have been more 'important' than men, eh?)
Finally, since I am feeling
mischievous, it is an evolutionary principle that the more intelligent is an
animal, the longer does it seem to remain in an immature state. In the human case, males
take longer to reach maturity than do females, and so it seems quite likely that
human males are more intelligent than their females. (And, indeed, there is much evidence
to suggest that this most intriguing possibility is, in fact, the case; e.g. see Men are More Intelligent than
Of further interest ...
It was also shown in the programme that the comparative lengths of a
person's ring and index fingers gives an indication of how much testosterone and
oestrogen were present at various foetal stages in their development. (These two
hormones promote maleness and femaleness respectively.)
The longer is the ring finger compared to the index finger, then the more was
the foetus exposed to male-promoting testosterone effects. Conversely, the
shorter is the ring finger compared to the index finger, the greater were the
effects of oestrogen.
Longer ring finger = Man.
Longer index finger = Woman.
Macho men should have much longer ring fingers compared to their index
fingers. Feminine women should have the reverse.
In well-balanced folk - such as
my good self - the two are found to be very similar in length.
On a TV program recently, a
group of six male athletes (runners) were asked to run a race of about
800m. Prior to the race, a scientist measured their finger lengths to the
nearest mm. This was the only information that he had about the athletes.
He then predicted the order in which the athletes would finish the race.
His prediction can be
portrayed as follows ...
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
And the actual outcome of
the race was ...
1, 3, 2, 4, 5, 6
Not bad, eh?