The Beast Within

This entry makes comments that are "politically incorrect". If those sorts of comments bother you, and keeping in mind that I am a beast that speaks the truth, then you shouldn't be reading this, and you're a fucking retard.

That was an exaggeration. I hope I didn't offend you, because if I did, you should have left and not be reading this. Masochists have no beast in them. Preferably you're feeling very cynical or bored right now, because I haven't begun to get to a point.

The Beast Within is a book by criminologist Neil Boyd. It attempts to explain why men commit over 90% of violent crimes in any human society, independent of place or time. What I really care about is why beast women are so scarce (i.e. I can name only two, which I am not even certain are beast, and are dead). In fact, this is why Matt Magee and Spencer bought the $35 book for me as a heartfelt gift, when I was depressed that I did not know any beast women. Actually, they bought it off the bargain rack for $2, and Spencer left it in my backpack and forgot about it; and I am far too beast to be depressed. But I just like making outrageous statements that nobody can tell are sarcastic because my manner is so serious. (Look, I did it again!)

Despite the title, Neil Boyd is not actually a beast. Not that it matters to me, since he's a man. The real "beast within" is the beast within this post. Or, as Spencer aptly pointed out, The Beast Without. But that's another rant.

However, the book was still useful to me. While I am much more beast than Neil Boyd, he was still able to accomplish much, since he was given an enormous amount of time. In fact, he did a shitload of research, which is not beast at all (he has 11 pages of references), but nonetheless useful. And his research has allowed me to get valuable information through a much lesseend amount of research (namely reading his book) and relating it to you in an even shorter form.

For instance, Boyd says

But once again biology does not imply male superiority in any given instance. My wife would almost certainly be one of the 2 women in the top 10 per cent of test scores for a hypothetical group of 100 people; I am confident that I am not one of the men in the top 10 per cent. I turn to my wife for instruction and advice about carpentry, especially when framing a structure, for experience has taught me that in dealing with three dimensions, I do better to trust her instincts than my own. (78-79)

And experience has taught him what he has to say to get sex. How ironic that Boyd also criticizes political correctness in his book. This reminds me of my Dad at the dinner table, who was scared when he found out I was reading The Fountainhead, since he forsaw that I logically would not be able to deny that Howard Roark is extremely beast. I thanked my mother for dinner. He said, "Howard Roark never said 'thanks for dinner'." I said, "I'll keep that in mind for next time."

But enough of that, it's time to start getting to a point:

The Beast Within has convinced me that there is a natural reason for the lack of beast women. I somehow thought that sociological factors played a major role in this, almost certainly because of the enforced illusion of biological equality after the Second World War. Of course, this is completle nonsense.

One of the most obvious differences is the external biology of men and women. Men are obviously larger, faster, and stronger, and this is natural. Men are on average 15% fat, and women 27% (69). Even more obvious is the genitalia difference. As Boyd points out, this makes a difference in violent crime, since it is much more difficult for a woman to rape a man, since in sex the man is "inserting" his penis, and the woman requires an erect penis; while men in raping do not have these difficulties (86). (Boyd fails to note, however, that men, unlike women, will frequently be raped willingly; this is commonly known as "seduction".) In addition to the very practical effects of this difference in genitalia, there is also the very symbolic difference; that the man is "giving" and the woman "receiving".

Second of note from Boyd is that the greater the genius in mathematics and spatial reasoning, the more likely the person is to be male. In 1972 to 1979 a study of American SAT math scores showed that those scoring over 700 (out of 800) were male 13 out of 14 times (75). In a study of sex differences by evaluating skill in mental rotations, the top 10% of scorers were 80% male (78). Boyd also notes that women on average have better verbal abilities (83) and are more caring and sympathetic (86). (This makes sense philosophically, since women are naturally born to be mothers and thus will be more caring than men. In addition, as Boyd points out, by natural selection, more sexually violent, and thus less caring, men will be more likely to reproduce and have their genetic traits carried on (52).) He emphasizes that the greatest contrast in verbal abilities is at the low end, with there being four times as many male stutterers and severe dyslexics than female (85). Boyd makes sure to be politically correct and emphasize that there is no good measure for intelligence, and thus that one gender is not superior to the other. This is true but obvious, given moral relativism.

However, given that I am looking for a female beast, the above results are disastrous. I picture a female beast having excellent math and spatial abilities; but the high percentiles are overwhelmingly male. In addition, the advantages that Boyd cites females have are of no consolation to me. He says that on average females have better verbal abilities, and certainly beasts have excellent verbal abilities, but there is no indication that there is a marked difference in the high percentiles. And the second point, about women being more caring, is in fact disadvantageous to being a beast; beasts are not caring and "nice", they are scathingly honest and even jerks.

Boyd does talk about environmental factors, but they are in relation specifically to male violence, and do not carry over to explaining the lack of beast women.

One possible consolation is CAH, "congenital adrenal hyperplasia". This is when a female has an unusually high level of testosterone, and displays behaviour at a young age more similar to males than females (61-62). However, whether this is really a consolation is doubtful, since I expect I would have great difficultly determining correctly the gender of such a female.

In conclusion, it is biologically natural that beast women are scarce. And while they are scarce, they are not in fact nonexistant, though I will have a hell of a time finding one.

Join me next week when I'll make sense.