I don’t know if you’ve checked Sikhnet this week, but you’ve received another response which appears to be exactly what you’re looking for. Please take a look if you haven’t done so already.

There is an emailing function offered by that discussion forum too which would enable you to directly contact the person concerned (although initially you won’t see their email address, until/unless they reply to you).

(Apologies to everyone else for the off-topic post).

Rohin, you didn’t disprove my theory that tribal societies are matriarchal because i made no such ludicrous assertion. I said that ONE SOLITARY TRIBAL SOCIETY that I have studied was characterised by feminine men and dominant women. How in God’s name do you know what my knowledge of anthropology consists of? I KNOW what the societies of the Egyptians and Greeks were like, and it hardly requires special academic knowledge to know something so glaringly obvious anyway. I had a look through the posts you made and I can’t see anything directed at me that I didn’t respond to. You didn’t respond to my questions about masculine women and feminine men in modern Britain, beyond attributing it to industrial chemicals increasing the oestrogen in our bodies, whcih i find hysterical and utterly unconvincing. You obviously regard your own background in Biology and Medicine (which I respect) as being superior to all other disciplines. However, do not tell me what i do and don’t know about anthropology or any other subject and don’t attribute opinions to me that I don’t have.

http://kenya.com/runners.html

The second link was written by Steve Sailor, one of
V-Dare’s main contributors.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/fiji.htm

This is his take on Fijian-Indian relations

“The indolent but warlike Fiji natives are black, surprisingly African-looking, Melanesians. They are proud of their unique Fijian culture, which is largely based on the concept of taking it easy…The British Empire brought the Indians to Fiji as indentured servants, since Indians tend to be more diligent, shrewd, and nonviolent than the natives.”

His take on Rushton’s Black-White-Asian rule of three.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/rule_of_three.htm.

I agree we should try and break away from the norms and stereotypes which are put to us but in many peoples cases they cant help it.
Its like a fight with yourself for them to understand what everyone else is going on about as they are that way.
You can’t change it, what happens is due to extreme environmental pressure is something else will come out of that particular person.

With any example of a working society where no laws are forced upon anyone, i say forced as in even in a perfect society you would need to force laws upon many.
Even if at first everyone understands the concept of no murdering or rape, and have come from that world and don’t want it anymore.
Give it time, and you will see new generations of people fighting for anarchy or their right to kill another man, or their right to express their feelings of rage and hate.

Its depressing knowing that you cant change everyone to think the same as some people, infact probably loads of people wont understand, no matter what environment there in, because thier genes will always play a part.

“I was saying that it is up to us to rise above such things through enlightenment, questioning, free will, free thought, intellectual endeavour, and that we must not be slaves to our genes”

No one has disagreed with you on that. I have said again and again that we have a choice to do what we like. But you’ve said there are no differences between men, women, black, white, Asian. You’re the one making sweeping statements, not me.

BTW, we’re not descended from Neanderthals.

Sonia, I don’t really know what you’re trying to say.

Paul, you are either hopeless at arguing or just being deliberately obtuse. You REPEATEDLY omit to answer the difficult questions I’ve posed and instead take one thing out and ignore the rest.

I said IDENTICAL twins. You mentioned Tracey Emin and her twin BROTHER. What the hell is going on in your brain? I was talking about people with the SAME DNA.

Your bizarre assertion that athletic ability is down to wealth is, again, false. You didn’t click on my links – the kalenjin dominate middle and long distance running, but come from a poor part of a poor country in a poor continent. And as El Cid said, the average height of Japanese men is shorter than Somalians, for example. Why? Japan is a rich country, Somalia isn’t. Japan has one of the best diets in the world, lots of protein (fish – protein = growth). Why are they shorter? GENES!

Why am I not as tall as my neighbour? Was I not fed as a child? No, my genes determine my height.

If you and Sonia are saying that it’s “nonsense – precisely the sort of thinking that arises when people insist on tying personality to gender characteristics and biology.” then I’m sorry to be blunt, but you have no understanding of biology nor genetics.

Bevan, those articles are a bit out of date and do contain errors. But I linked to them to illustrate how not all people have the same innate aptitude for sport, I’m sure that’s obvious. Athletics, as the sport I dedicated years to, is one I know about. And running is perhaps the most true measure of natural ability. Of course there is a huge amout of technique to learn, which is why Warriner, Kenteris etc. win. But to say that because black people don’t ALWAYS win the race undermines the notion that a particular tribe has a specific genetic ability is to misunderstand the theory. Of course I agree that no one should be told they can’t succeed at something due to their race, that’s ludicrous. Anyway, I’m really not that bothered about the sports argument right now.

Again Paul, you’ve taken a strange tack in pursuing the gay thing, as I personally DON’T believe there is a ‘gay gene’ and I think it’s apparent upbringing plays a more important role in being gay. But what I said is that nobody knows, so no point arguing about it. Which you ignored.

“Rohin, please answer the question as to why societies that are so very close to a primitive state of nature remian matriarchal with feminine men?”

Well, apart from your rather offensive description of ‘primitive’, they don’t. The societies that have remained unchanged for thousands of years, i.e. a few remaining tribes in Africa, S. America and New Guinea, are over-whelmingly male-dominated. Other cultures have tried to progress into more equal societies and rightly so. We can see a continuum. In the middle East, women remain very inferior, in much of Asia, urban women enjoy more rights than rural and in Europe women are close to being on the same level as men, although sexism and discrimination do remain.

The communities you mentioned are few and far between. You’ve demonstrated your lack of knowledge in another field, anthropology. The cultures of yore – the Egyptians, Greek, druids, Indus Valley. All were male-dominated. I’m not saying that’s right, I’m just disproving your assertion that primitive cultures are female-dominated. They’re not.

I really can’t be arsed to go on any further. It’s been an eye-opening thread as I didn’t know how poor people’s knowledge of science is. So, to echo El Cid:

“I went to a boys school and was brought up completely by women.

Right, this is definitely my last contrib on this thread.”

This is still being studied, because after weve all been taught that were all equal, regardless of race, gender etc and its all environment and social circumstance, were finding out that actually its both, and it differs in the degree of how much your genetic makeup or environment will play a part according to different individuals.
Not groups of people, individuals. Noones saying that this or that happened due to genetics.

The only reason why this is an issue is because people(or should i say scientists) are realising that this isn’t true.
For years they never touched on these differences even when discovered, because it would cause controversy.
It would give excuses to the wrong people.

A Natural history of Rape by Randy Thornhill and someone else i forget, argues that rape is not simply a product of culture and environment but also has roots in the nature of mens sexuality.
I have trouble understanding why someone would want to rape someone, but some men won’t.
Its to do with their genes and environment.

I actually wanted Rohin’s professional opinion on the matter of masculine women and feminine men, both here and in the primitive socieities I mentioned, for the simple fact that I would like to hear the perspective of somebody whose training and background are different from mine. i also studied these subjects academically for 5 years and do work that is relevant to the topic, but I don’t feel that gives me special knowledge.

Oh, and anthroplogy.

Wrong. These issues haven’t been resolved 100% BUT there has been a huge amount of scientific research and progress on the area. Plus, if you read my posts carefully, I never said it was one extreme or the other, but a combination of both — but the underlying neurological hard-wiring and hormones play a much greater role than you may realise.

Considering that the people supporting what I have said include individuals from a medical background, then it is unwise to disregard or patronise commenters with such viewpoints unless one comes from a biomedical science-related background oneself with regards to some aspect of one’s education and/or profession, and one therefore has the requisite level of understanding of endocrinology, neuroscience, human reproductive science, and genetics to really know what one is talking about.

I can fully related to Rohin’s obvious frustration with people not taking on board the hard science involved — it feels as though we’re listening to people attempting to convince us that the earth is flat.

RE: Hegel, yes I’ve got thesis, antithesis, synthesis coming out of my ears, it was drilled in to me as a student. I did say that people and culture would change, develop and evolve over time, and that masculinity and femininity were not set in concrete.

Where flexibility is key, East Asians shine, such as in diving and some skating and gymnastic events — hence the term “Chinese splits.” Just watch the Olympics and you will see: There are no prominent Chinese sprinters, no runners of any note until you get to the longest distances and no jumpers, but the Chinese flourish in diving and gymnastics. Is this totally a product of cultural factors? It’s extremely doubtful.

Would Entine ascribe a genetic basis to “Driving while Asian”, “Italian Sausage”, or “Greek Sex”. Why impart flexibility especially to the “Chinese race”. The term “Russian, Japanese, British (Beth Tweddell) split” could equally apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_phrases_based_on_stereotypes.

If you state that genetics are responsible for men’s balls then that of course is a truism. If you seek to invoke the same hard-wired genetic argument for Kenyan’s supremacy in middle-distance running, then the fact that in the last two olympics Kenyan have lost 800m to a German and Russian(Yuriy Borzakovskiy) , then these results put a dampener with regards to the Kenyans myth of infallibility over middle distance racing.

Beyond running (correctly or incorrectly), I don’t think genetics can be invoked for sport and certainly not in the wholehearted way Entine does. For example, Entine on football:
Kenya, the most populous and affluent country in East Africa, is regularly trounced by far smaller countries in West Africa. In fact, there is no such thing as an East African soccer powerhouse…(Difference later implied to be down to genetics strong, muscular West Africans against meek East Africans.).
Bullshit. Add the rankings of the top 5 teams in areas designated as Western Europe and Eastern Europe and you will find a difference in the scores of 32(W.E) to 96.
Is this attributable to genetic differences in the populations of East and West Europe? Have countries like Germany, England, Italy, Holland and France decreased or increased their superiority over the Eastern bloc with the increase in the number of Black players. To raise such a question is a little offensive but this is Entine’s aim;to get people to observe any situation where there are “racial differences” and then answer the question in terms of genes (ignoring evidence which doesn’t fit the White, Asian, Black template) and stereotypes accorded to race.

The idea, that a particular race, cannot succeed in anything should be pooh-poohed at every oppurtunity. The walls (paper-thin, based on incredibly loose generalisations) that Entine puts up have thankfully been broken by people such as Liu Xang, winner of 110m at the Olympics, Jeremy Warriner, white-Texan winner of 400m who has PR of 43.93 , second only to Michael Johnson. Curiously, Liu Xang had to overcome his own and his country’s prejudices with himself acknowledging “congenital defects” with regards to Chinese sprinting.

Entines work constitutes a starter for Rushton and Jensen’s main course. If we can cobble together a few generalisations to “prove” inherent, genetic differences with regards to race and sport, (always determined by colour; Entine does not stray too far from the White, Black, Asian triplet you will see in the work of Rushton, and on sites like VDare. ) why not apply to other field such as education (Jensen)and wealth of nations (Lynn).

Kenan Malik in Nature gives a good spanking to Entine’s book “Why Black Athletes dominates Sports and why we are afraid to say it”.

http://www.kenanmalik.com/reviews/entine_taboo.html

It also includes the fact that Fijians are closer genetically to Norwegians the populations derived from sub-Saharan Africa. This is something Entine conveniently ignores in his Black colour as Black genes definitons.

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/science/news/stories/s1153697.htm

“If Chinese people want to make their mark in the major Olympic competitions, they have to break through the fatalism that race determines everything.” from the People’s Daily. How many people 10 years ago, would have thought that a boxing world (2
years max) champion would be of Pakistani heritage?

Examples I’ve used, such as matriarchal tribes; the experiment where people are given the same baby – first being told it is a boy, then being told it is a girl – and recording their different responses; the role of upbringing and environment on sexuality; are not ridiculous, they are entirely valid and reasonable.

Rohin said that the feminisation of society was the result of increased oestrogen in our bodies due to industrial chemicals, and I’M ridiculous.

Right, this is definitely my last contrib on this thread.