Why Misogyny is Never OK: NDP’s Pat Martin’s use of Sexist Slur on Twitter

*TRIGGER WARNING*

As most of my readers know, I am a leftist and I sympathize with left-wing groups and individuals, however, I try not to define myself by organizations or political parties. When I do vote in elections, however, I tend to vote for the New Democratic Party of Canada or the NDP. While I do not agree with all of their policies and perspectives, several MPs in that party are truly inspiring, honest and caring individuals. However, last night one MP from the NDP, Pat Martin, expressed his anger at the cuts to vital program funding for Aboriginal Canadian youth by sending out an angry message containing a sexist slur on twitter. Mr. Martin tweeted that the Conservative party of Canada was a bunch of “rat-faced whores.” In fact, his full tweet looked like this:

According to the Toronto Star, 

            “Martin’s night began by expressing anger over the role of Vic Toews’ involvement in Winnipeg’s Youth for Risk project for at-risk youth that has received $3 million in federal funding. He said the First Nations in the community were concerned that the “building was empty” and that the money for the “inner city youth went to ‘Youth For Christ’, who are Vic Toews’ donors and buddies.”

It is clear that Toew’s behaviour warrants outrage and dissent, however using blatant misogyny is neither an effective nor appropriate tool for opposing the Conservative Party. There many other words that come to mind that could effectively oppose the Conservatives, so why did Pat Martin choose “rat-faced whores?” Furthermore, why are NDP supporters and other members backing Martin and defending his words? Yes, we can despise the Conservatives but is it really constructive to use highly dehumanizing and patriarchal language that has and continues to be used against women and girls in order to make a point or oppose unjust policies?

Nevertheless, numerous NDP supporters and other leftists – mostly men, but some women – have been angrily messaging me on twitter, outraged with my outrage. People seem bewildered that I would “focus on something so stupid” instead of looking at why Mr. Martin was so upset with the Conservatives' Vic Toews. A man tweeted me with the Merrian-Webster definition of “whore” to inform me that, in fact, the term means “a person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.” I informed this man on twitter that the term “whore,” despite its formal definition has been and continues to be used to degrade, abuse, shame, vilify, and pathologize women and girls. Several other mansplanations were given to me, but a personal favourite was sent out by a charming young chap. After rejecting the dominant definition of ‘whore,’ this man informed me that I was “semantically singular” and “preposterous.” Well! let me tell you something – that had me set in my ways, I tell ya! What was I even thinking, trying to explain why I felt a man saying “rat-faced whore” in any context was absolutely fucked up? Another young fellow even reflected the awe-inspiring words of the lead “singer” of the faux-punk band NOFX, “blaming men will never change anything.” Yes, because of course, calling men out on their use of vile misogyny to express political opposition is “blaming men.” While various men and several women were excusing Mr. Martin’s 8^th grade boy’s locker-room patois, there was one male tweeter who seemed to get it. "David D." truthfully tweeted: It's entirely possible to tweet without regrettable or inappropriate language--or without bringing gendered insults into it.

Then there were others on Twitter expressing their belief that Pat Martin’s remark was “anti-sex work,” more than anything else. However, I would argue that women and girls are called “whores” for many, many reasons that do not depend at all on sexual activity or sex trade activity. The fact that several men and some women said that the term “whore” is and I quote, “an equal opportunity” term rather than a gendered term, is extremely troublesome to say the least. The attempt of those on the left and right to try and neutralize the political and gendered use of the term “whore” (as it is used today and historically) is incredibly irresponsible and harmful. If we pretend these terms have no meaning or are somehow apolitical, we trivialize the very realities of women and girls all over the world who are called "whores" and know how the word feels. “Whore” is often used in mainstream porn to degrade women and titillate misogynists, it is often used against women who have sex and women who don’t have sex. Women and girls are also called "whores" when they are being abused, bullied, and raped. 

The importance of language must be emphasized. The use of oppressive language is particularly important when it is employed by those in a place of power, specifically white, middle to upper class men in Canada’s House of Commons. 

If the NDP wants to continue supporting women’s rights in Canada they must stand up and reject the normative patriarchal sociocultural perception of women as less-than-human. They must do this by calling out other members when necessary. Blindly following everything that every member does in order to maintain a façade of party unity is irresponsible and reflects the Conservative’s approach to party politics. 

Today Mr. Martin deleted his Twitter account after sending out this apology.

However, this is not enough because Pat Martin did not directly address why his tweet was so problematic. I truly hope that he decides to offer an apology that is directed to women and girls.

Also, to Pat Martin I’d like to suggest that maybe it is time to wonder why the first thing that came to your mind whilst enraged was “rat-faced whores.” Are those the words of a progressive? How do such words reflect the Canadians that voted for you?

Finally, and this applies to all people of all political ideologies, in the words of Toni Morrison:

"Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge." 

Sexual Harassment and a Culture of Misogyny In the RCMP Pt. 2: More Women Speak Out

      TRIGGER WARNING for sexual abuse, rape, eating disorders, and victim blaming

      Since Cpl. Catherine Galliford came forward with sexual harassment and abuse allegations against the RCMP, many other women have begun speaking out. There are now as many as 150 women who have joined in the lawsuit against the RCMP. 

      

      Here are just some of those accounts.

Image from Cop Watch Vancouver

When Cst. Susan Gastaldo launched a lawsuit against her boss, Staff Sgt. Travis Pearson, accusing him of raping her on more than one occasion, she found herself taking the blame. Pearson denied the allegations, arguing that their "affair" was consensual and the sex was never forced. He admitted that he had an inappropriate affair with an officer but affirmed everything was completely consensual. Pearson even gave his cellphone to the reviewing panel to show them the text messages of an apparent sexual and/or affectionate nature that he exchanged with Gastaldo as "proof." After reviewing the text messages, the panel called for discipline but decided that only Gastaldo's job would held in question. 


Gastaldo's lawyer argued against the penalties, “He is the supervisor, she is the subordinate. He gets a $4,000 fine. Are we really going to impose upon her loss of job, loss of income, pension, promotional opportunities, benefits in the range of $4 million? That would be very disconcerting."


Gastaldo maintains that she was raped on numerous occasions and that their “relationship” was not consensual. Nevertheless, the panel reviewing the complaints decided that she was lying. “The board isn't convinced that a person who has been sexually assaulted would readily communicate with their assailant," stated male chairperson John Reid on the exchanged text messages. Even the lawyer representing the British Columbia RCMP concluded that Gastaldo has "never accepted responsibility for her actions." [Emphasis mine]

Photo from Flickr

Another lawsuit that gained publicity was launched last December by Cpl. Elisabeth Mary Couture who accused the RCMP of upholding a work environment of "fear and control." The men involved in her civil claim include the BC Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General as well as three RCMP officers and the Attorney General of Canada. Couture worked with the drug and organized crime awareness service but found herself becoming more panicked and anxious on the job. These symptoms, she affirms, were caused by her work environment. The panic and anxiety worsened to the point where Couture was forced to take a sick leave. 

Her civil claim states that “the defendants wilfully engaged in this outrageous conduct, deliberately and intentionally imposing the various unreasonable rules on Couture and deliberately and intentionally interfering with the conduct of her work." 


Everything she did was scrutinized and controlled, she says, even out-of-office coffee and lunch breaks were frowned upon if the top management was not involved. On one occasion she was even accused of being “too wordy” and was instructed to speak to her supervisors only “in a minute or less.” Nevertheless, on another occasion, when she spoke quietly to a co-worker, she was yelled at harshly by a supervisor.

Cpl. Couture remains on a sick leave from the RCMP but her lawsuit is growing stronger and larger, with many more women speaking out. 

The first Aboriginal female Mountie in Winnipeg, Cst. Marge Hudson, who worked on the force from 1979 to 2009 brought forth her own sexual harassment and abuse allegations in May 2012. Hudson did not only experience sexual harassment on the job, she also endured racism, bullying, and discrimination throughout her 30 year career.

Photo from Flickr

Further, while non-Aboriginal officers worked their way up the ranks, Hudson spent three decades without budging from her position as constable. “Am I brown, is that the reason? Am I female, is that the reason?” she told the CBC’s Sheila North-Wilson in an interview. “I had two shots against me right there — being aboriginal, being female.” 

She encourages more women to speak out about the clearly pervasive abuse in the RCMP, “Women are not just going to disappear … and they must treat us women fairly, which I know they haven’t. And that’s obvious to see, with 150 female members coming forward.”

One of the 150 has filed her second lawsuit against the RCMP. The most recent allegations come from Cst. Karen Katz, a prominent officer involved in investigating biker gangs in BC.  Her lawsuit which was launched in early July outlines similar incidents of abuse, harassment, and humiliation within the RCMP.  Her first lawsuit, which has yet to go through the courts, named fellow officer Baldev Singh Bamra, the Federal Minister of Public Safety, the Attorney General of Canada, and the Solicitor General of British Columbia as the offenders. Similarly to Galliford, Katz states that she endured harassment and abuse as soon as she began her career in the RCMP in 1980.

Katz filed a second suit this month, alleging disturbing harassment campaigns such as “fat parades” on the job, among other things. These “fat parades,” she recalls, consisted of male officers telling the female officers to “weigh-in” and then “parade” around the station and reveal their weights to the male corporals. The male officers and superiors would then proceed to shame, humiliate, and belittle the female officers about their bodies, size and overall physical appearance. The male officers continued to tell Katz that she was fat whenever they could, going as far as screaming at her for eating dessert in the cafeteria. 


 But it did not stop there.


A male officer even requested oral sex from Katz. The accused colleague worked alongside Katz in her first placement in Prince George, BC and had reportedly told Katz, “you are just the right height to put a beer on your head and you can give me ... (oral sex)." Other male RCMP officers would inquire about her sex life, describe their penises to her and boast about their own sexual experiences. As if this was not enough, Katz was even subjected to pornography on the job, unwelcome cheek kisses, and shoulder rubs. Due to the traumatic experiences of humiliation and sexual harassment, Katz developed bulimia, unbearable stomach pains, and post-traumatic stress disorder. "The reasons I stayed was because I've always wanted to be a police officer in the RCMP and serving the Canadian public," she said.
"I tolerated it, but I tolerated it with a notebook on the side, taking notes ... getting copies of my health services files, my personnel files, my every file, keeping track, knowing I was a target." Katz has been on sick leave since 2009.

Unfortunately, these are not the only women who have been harassed or abused in the RCMP or in any workplace for that matter; there are many more women in many more jobs. Women are frequently subjected to workplace sexual harassment, abuse and bullying by male co-workers and superiors. Jobs traditionally held by males and that are perceived under patriarchy, as being “masculine” or “male”–such as medicine, engineering, mechanics, trades, business as well as policing and fire-fighting–can be volatile work environments for women. These male-saturated workplaces may try to preserve their ‘boys club’ perv-o-sphere through harassment campaigns to push out female employees. Sexual harassment is about male power. As Burn states so simply in her women's studies text, "it [sexual harassment] arises from and reinforces the subordinate position of women in society. By intimidating and discouraging women from work, male dominance occupationally and economically is assured" (p. 118).




















notes:


S. M. Burns, 2005, Chapter 5 Women's Work, Sexual Harassment in "Women Across Cultures: A Global Perspective," 2nd ed, p. 119.

For those who don't conceive...

Life has been a tad unpredictable lately, forcing me to adapt to everything, resigning my desire to feel in control. Such unpredictability refers to my recent loss of a lady-bit due to possibly lady-cancer. Yes, I underwent a preventative oophorectomy. This procedure removed my left ovary, a hideously large mass attached to it and the accompanying fallopian tube. Further, since they were gyno-cancer-surgeons-specialists, they procured some other slabs of tissue (appendix and a hunk of belly chub) for possible cancer staging. 

My sister had ovarian cancer in her early twenties-- totally random, but she survived. And so, with her past and my 9cm mass, they figured they would not risk it. Luckily, and as I predicted, I am so far void of any cancer. However, my inkling leans more towards endometriosis, explaining the painful-nausea-inducing menstrual cycles I have endured for 10+ years. But I have yet to receive this confirmation. 

So, what the fudge does this all have to do with feminism and the personal/political divide? 

Well, the reactions to my situation have been shocking, to say the least. 

The first concern that many had when they learned of my health issues regarded my (in)ability to make babies - Not a worry for my health, no does she have cancer? Is she okay?

 No, No..
Instead more the responses were more akin to

"Oh my god, will you be able to have kids?" 

and even, "Well, no kids for you!" 

After my initial shock over the realization that many people have already affirmed my position as incubator, I informed the so-called concerned folks that in fact, I have no plans of creating, housing, and raising babies (can you believe it?!) and, further reminded them that a woman with only one ovary can get pregnant. 


What I find so troubling, however, is how concerned people are - particularly other women - with my (in)ability to conceive offspring, as if my body was merely a holding capsule for a fetus and nothing more. Also, if a woman shares her refusal to house a fetus and take on the role of mother to another person, she will likely be shamed for her decision. Why? Because all women are taught that our bodies, particularly our reproductive organs, dictate our "womanliness" - our place in the world is defined by our ability to bear children. If we are not smiling while tossing shit-drenched diapers into the trash, we are bad women. If we refuse to conceive at all, or cannot physically do so - we are useless women. How would any decent woman find any joy in life without becoming a mother?


Women's universal role of man-loving baby-producer is so embedded that many fail to understand how anything but producing children would be of concern in the case of a gynecological health issue. It was bordering on comical for me, as fertility was the last thing on my mind, in fact - until my male surgeon quickly informed me that he could put me through some crazy fertility-industry treatments if I wanted. He, of course, was assuming I would be wanting it. I mean, what 22 year old wouldn't be into shitting away a bunch of money to further fuel the baby-making-business that preys on women's bodies and their perceived 'failures'? It was as if the only worry that I should have had was whether or not I could reproduce, not whether or not my body was healthy and not engulfed in cancer.


Fortunately, my recovery is going well and I am trying to stay positive (and cancer-free) - however, a point of advice for the  many well-intentioned baby-enthusiasts, not that intent really matters in the end, but - consider your words before you speak to a woman who is suffering with gynecological issues. Female sex organs serve a multitude of purposes beyond producing and housing babies.  As someone who values my body's holism, I am saddened the loss of my ovary - not because it involves fertility, but because it is a part of me. 

Prescribing Patriarchy: Dr. Oz

                     found here

With the recent upsurge of television doctors and shrinks (targeting mainly women) it should come as no surprise that patriarchal propaganda is alive and well in the West. Television aficionado's spend hours every day in trances, listening to these so-called “professional” doctors spew advice on everything from what a healthy turd look like to how to maintain a boner. As someone who knows many people who tune into gawk at these star-struck docs, I feel obligated to discuss the trend. Since this post will likely be lengthy, the others may be discussed separately. Nevertheless, these “experts” include:

Dr. Drew Pinsky (addictions specialist)

Dr. Mehmet Oz (heart/lung surgeon)

Dr. Phil McGraw (psychologist)

Dr. Laura Berman (sexual health educator, relationship therapist)

Dr. Laura  Schlessinger (right wing commentator, private marriage/relationship counseller, radio host)

I want to focus on Dr. Oz as he has a strong hold over the "medical-entertainment" market and spouts the most "advice" regarding women's bodies, sexual activity, and food consumption. 

Oz's cuddly promo!!

The infamous Dr. Oz is actually a cardiothoracic surgeon with a net-worth of 7 million dollars. Before nabbing his own day time show, he was a habitual "expert guest" on the Oprah Winfrey show. With her help, The Dr. Oz Show was on the air and continues to be a popular choice for televised health enthusiasts. On the show,  Oz conducts interactive demonstrations that seem to have been inspired by kindergarten classes in order to explain bodily processes. He often has guests from the audience take part in these demonstrations. His range of expertise, apparently, extends from heart surgery to mental health, sexuality, weight-loss and something he refers to as "Anti-Aging." 


Preventing  aging  is a hot topic on the Dr Oz Show,  he has a "superfood" to make you stop "looking old",  because old people are not beautiful nor are they valuable (he openly uses the term "anti-aging" and has created an entire section for it on his website!) In this section, Oz asks, "Are your bones making you fat?"  Clearly, our very bodily structure - our skeleton, is really to blame for our wrinkled woes! Dr. Oz's  anti-aging agenda is closely linked to his obsession with the size of women's bodies.The surgeon in scrubs measures guests' waist sizes and weighs them on novelty scales. He has all kinds of diets and suggestions that are aimed at making everyone's body's the same - slim/fit
He manages to cram his weight-loss advice into other markets such as magazines and books. But his obsession with women's body size also ties in with his obsession with women's sexual activity. In his 100 weight loss tips, he suggests "Healthy sex may help control the amount of food you eat and it's great exercise." 


Healthy sex? As opposed to unhealthy sex? Does the type and healthiness of the sex act change the number of calories burned? 

This "you" expert has also stirred up controversy in the last few years. He featured a debatable topic referred to by his show as the "Arsenic Apple Juice Crisis!" This Crazy-McCrazerson episode has been referred to by some as nothing more than a  "ratings ploy"  but hey, Fox News thinks its all legit because a consumer report told them so!


With so much expertise and loyal viewership, the Dr Oz show has a lot of "buzz-creating" advice on sex and sexuality. 

"Shocking Ways Your Hormones Are Affecting your Marriage!" 

Oz makes his millions by giving his  millions of viewers “doctor-approved” 
sex advice, or should I say, intercourse advice. This advice is easily marketable and likely ups Oz's ratings. 


He even offers sex advice on his website. Here, users can take the quiz, "How healthy is your libido?" Such a quiz does nothing more than perpetuate (hetero)normative ideas about sex-drives and sexual activity, the notion that high-libido is the standard and "normal." This is considered "normal" for men have high-libidos, it is "normal" for men, but a woman with a high-libido would likely be perceived much differently. However, low-libido in women is much more medicalized than a high-libido, this is because men are perceived to be hyper-sexual at all times and women are expected to be sexually available at all times. In fact, one of Oz's  key-to-a-healthy-life tips is to have as much heterosexual intercourse as possible. Indeed, he claims up to 3+ times a week is adequate to maintain health. This degree of intercourse, he claims, will actually make you live longer!

Such advice fails to really discuss how "normal" sexuality has been socially constructed within a society that has a history of male dominance, colonialism, racism, and heteronormativity. Dr. Oz spouts out the same old, same old - he offers the same regurgitated, limited view of sexuality. His view is clear in this statement:

“It means, number one, that the penis works and for the male, the penis is a dipstick for your health. If it's working, everything else is probably working, too. When it's not, it could be a bunch of things, but something's not right. So it's a good litmus test if things are shaping up the way they're supposed to. For women, it's not about amount of sex. It's about quality of sex. They need loving, nurturing, sexual relationships in their lives.” 

His incredibly phallocentric and sexist perspective is obvious from this quote. He proposes that men and women are so incredibly different, that is why they need different sex. For men, it is all about getting laid as much as possible, but for women, being as passive and sensitive as we are, require “quality” sex, which essentially means that our assumingly male partners must be able to “nurture” us while they penetrate us four times a week. This will gratify our apparently universal sexual needs as women! Our silly woman-brains are to blame! But, his advice is patronizing and downright silly. It is ridiculous to suggest that women require “different” sex simply because we are women, as if all women are heterosexual and that ALL heterosexual women desire to have intercourse. Of course, Oz points to a study that dates back to the 1960s to prove that men require intercourse. I have an inkling that Oz is alluding to Kinsey's sex research. To understand why such studies are not the best sources, one only needs to read Andrea Dworkin, who took to deconstructing Kinsey's work and his biases. Also, couldn't Oz pull up some recent studies? Possibly studies not conducted by a man...

Self-Explanatory 

Like many doctors, though, Oz claims that this need is complicated and is due to the extensive “biological differences”  in men and women’s brains (he even insists women's brains shrink during pregnancy!) Also, like many other doctors operating from a male-centric perspective, Oz believes in the seemingly new problem of “sex addiction." This "diagnosis" informs men that they actually cannot control using and buying women's bodies or consuming pornography. But men have different brains!
With this sexual equivalent of a “get out of jail free” card, it is easier for men to see themselves as victims and “powerless” over their decisions and actions that affect women, women's status in the world and society as a whole. Why don't we ask ourselves: what does such a diagnoses say about our society and what does it say about how we construct our social realities?

Patriarchy has a way of normalizing itself and the media assists in that normalization by providing men with reassurance that they indeed are not in control of themselves. Not only do men need to maintain sufficient erections, but they need to place that erection into a woman’s body or "deal with" their erection through using pornography. Women are then held responsible. Women are told to facilitate this apparently "inevitable" need that men have, this apparent healthy-life requirement. Women are to do this by providing constant access to their bodies -- through physical access, the male gaze and consuming self-criticism. How dare any woman (assuming, as Oz does, that she is heterosexual) try and shorten her husband’s life and negatively impact HIS health by not having intercourse with him?

Such televised medicalizing and public devaluing of women’s bodies, health, and sexuality, which is masked as“liberation” furthers sexual inequality and oppression. When rich people with lots of power spout out restrictive advice as "scientific truth" they truly allow propaganda to flow freely; propaganda that is intended to maintain the patriarchal status quo and keep women in a subordinate social position.

Sociobiology Study: Low voices more "trusting" and why the discipline is sexist, racist nonsense

For the last two nights now, listening to cbc radio one, I have found myself hearing of a ridiculous study conducted by a woman who has clarified her interest in discovering the "evolutionary basis of human behavior" aka sociobiology - you know, the train of thought that fascists hold of human behavior being fixed and unchangeable that lead to war, genocide and oppression.


But I digress.


This new study focuses solely on human voices and how lower voices are apparently more likely to show "dominance" and "leadership." According to this study, several people were asked to listen to the voices of men (yes, they failed to even include women in the study) and judge which voice is more "dominant" -- the findings showed that the lower voices were preferred for whether or not the person speaking could be trusted.


All of this was brought to my attention last night during the airing of my favourite radio programs, "As it Happens" and of course, the amazing Carol Off called her out on her clear sexism by asking why she did not include women. Whenever Carol would ask about what her study presented, especially about non-masculine voices and women in generally in political leadership positions, the woman kept responding with, "we didn't really think about that one..." or "well, that is a good point." She even went so far to highlight how Margaret Thatcher went through voice training to make her voice lower. Rather than critiquing WHY this might be, they simply seem to believe it is all "natural" and not something caused by a sexist society.


And so, tonight as I was listening to a separate program on CBC, the same study comes up as a way to say that a female politician in Canada may be at a "disadvantage" because of what this study has found. There is so much wrong here and no one is discussing this -- this problem is with the study itself. This study is biased in its biological deterministic, sexist, and restrictive approach to research. First of all, why would such research be conducted to begin with? Why would a woman be interested in such a study?


As someone who spends days of her year studying human evolution in Anthropology, I can confidently say that human behavior cannot be studied in the same way that other, non-human animal behavior are for the simple reason that we have culture. Our cultures and upbringings teach us behaviors, socialization skills and ways of being in our world  -- a voice, whether deep or low, is not a starting ground to discuss who makes a better or worse political leader, or who is more "dominant" -- it simply tells us that a group of people who were asked to listen to voices and happened to find the lower ones more "trustworthy." Why are we circulating the story around like it has made some groundbreaking scientific discovery? How can we draw such huge, sexist conclusions about ability to leadership from such a ridiculous "evolutionary trait." Dominance in human societies is something that has a social basis -- dominance in chimps is very different, for example, than dominance in humans and should not be studied using the same guidelines. The pathetic part of this study, too, is the realization that such ideas still exist -- ideas that human behaviors are fixed and unchangeable, relying solely on evolutionary processes that take place in a naturalist scenario. The people who have supported such ideas include eugenicists, racists, sexists, and fascists. These are the people who are "concerned" with trying to "prove" that human behavior has some intrinsic, biological cause. Why must we continue on with such harmful misinformation disguised as "scientific data."


Notions about people being "naturally" one wayor "naturally" another has lead our world into bloody wars, oppression, discrimination, and genocides. This is all in the name of "science" which is allegedly above all scrutiny. An example of this that I did an extensive research paper on regards one  J. Philippe Rushton, a evolutionary psychologist who continues to publish academic papers trying to show that cranium size dictates intelligence. With this, Rushton conducted "research" of measuring skull volume and skull size to support his fallacy that some "races" as he asserts, are of "superior intelligence" than others. Of course, all of his conculsions illustrate a deep racist bias as he constnatly places people of African descent on the lowest level of intelligence. And yet, his work continues to be published because some people still think that sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and the like, are legitmate schools of thought and have a basis in reality when they do not. Sociobiology attempts to create a "science" of segerating humans and pigeon-holing groups of people by attempting to say their learned behaviors and cultures are some how rooted in a "difference" in biology. It takes the "nature vs. nurture" debate and takes a steaming dump on the "nurture" and thus breeding a climate of ignorance and segregation based on "science." This published study is no different.




Here is an opinion piece regarding this topic