Oh look, there’s one now
Took in Richard Dawkins doing a reading, question-answering, and book-signing for his most-recent publication tonight, in a sold-out theater at the U of Toronto…The theater contains around 600 seats, and of the 80 people I counted, about two dozen were women. That’s approximately 30%. By comparison, Ophelia Benson was carping yesterday about women only comprising 20% (i.e., 4 out of 21) of the speakers at the Atheist Alliance conference. I say that the latter figure is within engineering/experimental accuracy (or whatever confidence interval), especially since the speakers at any conference should be from at least the top 20% of the professionals in it; and unless the conference is a Celebration of Womynstruation, you’ll already be “scraping the bottom of the top of the barrel” to get to within 10%, in caliber and quantity of work.
Wow. Because he (Geoffrey Falk) doesn’t know that – at least I’m pretty sure he doesn’t, because he doesn’t show that he does, and because I don’t, and because I think it is not obvious from the whole list. That was my point – not ‘hey why just Dawkins and Coyne and Dennett and no women’ but ‘hey why those 17 men and only 4 women’ – given that the men farther down the list aren’t such obvious candidates as Dawkins and Coyne and Dennett. It’s not remotely obvious that all 17 men on the list are ‘from at least the top 20% of the professionals in’ atheism – whatever that would even mean (atheism not being much of a profession, as far as I know).
And, of course, it’s also not even faintly obvious that ‘you’ll already be “scraping the bottom of the top of the barrel” to get to within 10%, in caliber and quantity of work.’ It’s merely assumed that that’s the case. We talked about some of the Name female atheists who could have been invited; some Name female atheists are in fact bigger Names than some of the male atheists on the list. We now know that the AAI did invite some Name female atheists who didn’t accept, such as Taslima Nasreen and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Katha Pollitt. We also now know that it’s possible to lobby to be invited to these things and that it’s possible that some of the men on the list lobbied to get on it. What we don’t know is that under 10% of all high-caliber high-productivity atheists are women.
As an indication of how blinded people can be by their twisted little half-wit ideologies, I doubt that the question of racial representation on that panel has even occurred to Benson. But really, if she’s not happy about women being a mere 20% (translation: less than half) of the speakers at Ye Olde Convention, she should be just as unhappy about the races not being proportionately represented, even independent of their actual contributions to the field. (“Meritocracy? We don’t need no steenking meritocracy!” No, what they want is “fairness,” where every group gets the same rewards, regardless of whether or not they’ve worked for them. You can see how such people would be strongly attracted to socialism/Marxism, no?) Otherwise, you see, she’s a racist bitch.
Except that that’s just what I didn’t say. I think we decidedly do need stinking meritocracy, despite the psychic and other drawbacks to meritocracy. One reason I loathed the Bush presidency was because it was so wildly defiantly insanely anti-meritocratic; ditto the Palin candidacy. One thing I love about Obama is that he never plays dumb – he never spits in the eye of the meritocracy that got him where he is. No, I don’t want automatic numeric “fairness,” and I never said I did. But I think wild disproportion needs some explaining.
As for all the other nonsense – one, women are half the population – so if they are under-represented, that is not a small issue. Two, I have no idea what the racial makeup of the list is, so any disproportion there might be didn’t jump out at me the way the male-female ratio did. Three, of course, it’s my ox that was being gored – but then I did say that. Yes, I fight my corner sometimes. So?
That lively contribution to the debate led me to an earlier intervention that was also quite…sparkling.
Falk challenges some post about representation in desert island discs (I didn’t read it) and then goes on…
I wound up on that utterly insane posting indirectly via Ophelia Benson’s slightly less nutty feministing about how only four of the twenty-one speakers at the upcoming Atheist Alliance International conference are women. They certainly could have invited her. Female, atheist, two cogent (if not particularly page-turning) albeit co-written books to her credit, no taint of the sin of “white male privilege” (though still not purged of the sin of being white—and thus inherently privileged—in general; not that I can recall her ever owning up to that obvious issue, as basic consistency would demand).
Three books! Not two; three.Co-written, but three.
The 4/21 number is obviously not “Because there are no atheist women.” But when you’re talking about the upper echelon in the field, i.e., the people who’ve published the most high-quality material … are you certain that more than ~20% of the best in the field have tits? (Benson barely does; but I digress.) Are you sure that the one-in-five number isn’t just the product of, you know, meritocracy?
Fascinating, isn’t it?
I was talking just the other day about how quickly and how easily a lot of men fall into sexist taunts the instant a woman disagrees with them or they disagree with her. Well…I wasn’t making it up. (No, I haven’t the slightest idea how he thinks he knows.)
He goes on to discuss my intellectual limitations, which is fair; he points out that I’ll never have a Big Idea, which I certainly agree with. I’m at most a commentator of some kind, I’m certainly not an originator. Then he raises an interesting question.
And I still really doubt that she would have ever figured out what a menace Islam is—or maybe even that multiculturalism doesn’t work—if it didn’t disproportionately affect her (female) group negatively. Sure, Islam, theocracy and Sharia law are against every principle of classical liberalism; but if those (or socialism, or communism) benefited women, and helped them get even with the (esp. white) men who’ve had it so easy and been so privileged for so long…
And that’s where it ends. Well…yes, and? If…then what? If Islam, theocracy and Sharia law benefited women, then they would do vastly less harm than they do as things are, so my opinion of them would be very different. And? I mean, if Nazism hadn’t had such a thing about Jews, then Nazism would have been very different, and so would people’s opinions of it be. There would still be other things wrong with Islam, theocracy and Sharia, but there would be fewer such things, and they would be less savage. I would still be opposed to them, but things would be different. Falk says that if things were different then they would be different. Well yes, I quite agree, but I don’t see that as suspect the way he apparently does.
He may well be right about his first point. But there again – my ‘(female) group’ is after all half of all humans. That’s a lot of people being ‘negatively affected’ (I would just say harmed, it’s so much blunter and simpler).
Woof.
Well, this guy sure is an insufferable smartass! And not only a smartass, but a misgynistic smartass too. Only the last year or so has made me aware how prevalent misogyny is. I lived a sheltered life. Partly that’s because I’m a man, no doubt, but also, I think, despite all its faults, because the Anglican Church (in Canada at least), which was my home for so long, has made serious efforts to root out this kind of prejudice. Anything, though, that can bring out something as obvious as Falk’s misogyny, indicated by his dismissive ‘Womynstruation’, for example – and and other gems of insult and innuendo – really needs to be exposed for what it is. It’s probably a problem of testosterone, so we’ll never cure the internet, or society or atheism of it; but it needs to be exposed an reviled where it shows itself so obviously and so invidiously.
I guess Falk thinks it’s alright to write like this, because he’s written a book called “Hip Like Me”, and feels that he’s been marginalised too because of his long hair and other eccentricities. So it’s okay to slag other people, because he’s been slagged. But he could at least try to make sense, which he doesn’t.
Take this for one:
What on earth is that supposed to mean? All conferences should have speakers from the top 20% of professionals in a field? Quite aside from the accuracy of his figures, and his pseudo-expert reference to engineering/esperimental accuracy, this doesn’t make sense, given the number of conferences that there are. All conferences?!
But when he goes on to say (skipping through his rather inane text as rapidly as possible) that he doubts whether she (Benson) “would have ever figured out what a menace Islam is—or maybe even that multiculturalism doesn’t work—if it didn’t disproportionately affect her (female) group negatively,” this is really, really stupid. (At least we know why he wasn’t invited!) If Islam didn’t disproportionately affect women, it wouldn’t be the kind of menace that it is, presumably. In fact, it would be an entirely different thing altogether, because one of the most obvious features of Islam, as of Geoffrey Falk, is their misogyny!
…uh…what!? Just what in the high holy hell is that about? What’s in this guy’s drinking water? What possible thought process could have led to that sentence? I, just…wow.
Thank you Spalanzani. I’m afraid I just could bring myself to mention it. The whole thing is really over the top, very troubling speech from someone who thinks that Dawkins, the picture, despite what everyone says, of courtesy and moderation, ‘rawks.’ This language, and the attitude it expresses, is very deeply embedded in most human societies, I’m afraid. That is one reason why atheist organisations simply must begin to recognise that great harm is being done, not only to the cause of unbelief, but the cause of reason, by their very obvious prejucdices.
This would be a good opportunity to point out that Geoffrey Falk has a very small dick. But I digress…
The lame justifications of sexism are bad enough but this still caught me off guard:
I’ve seen the unconscious but pervasive way that, when women politicians speak the media spends more time analyzing their clothing than their words but this overt attack is something else. And remember that he’s ostensibly trying to deny being sexist!
Woof indeed.
I read B&W almost everyday, but this is the first post on which I couldn’t help commenting. What kind of shitstain is this Geoffrey Falk?! Does he honestly think this rubbish is ‘humourous’ or something?
Delurks to say ‘WTF’??
Yeah right, women are there at the instigation of their husbands. No husbands there to keep their wives company, uh-huh.
This thought not occurred.
Who is this idiot?
So this irreligious software “hairism” wannabe musician, who suffered discrimination, should be thankful that he is not overweight. As it would not do him any good, whatsoever, going around with racks big enough to hang more than his own hairy sexist ego can carry. Happy hair-day, dude!
OK, I also have to delurk just to say – What!? Who the hell does this Geoffrey Falk think he is?
And for the record the 95% confidence interval around 50% representation for a group of 21 is 6 to 15, so with 4 women as speakers they are at least 2 short of having a plausible claim to representativeness.
What a fool. He’s quite obviously not an atheist, but a worshipper of the Almighty Cock, and believes you are profaning his temple with your icky polluted femaleness.
But when you’re talking about the upper echelon in the field, i.e., the people who’ve published the most high-quality material … are you certain that more than ~20% of the best in the field have tits? (Benson barely does; but I digress.)
Wow, I just noticed this.
I think we can all take that as an unforced confession that he has no argument or intelligence to speak of, and move on.
Actually, that last bit about how you wouldn’t care so much about Islam if it weren’t misogynist is quite telling: Mr. Smalldick Falk doesn’t think the misogyny of Islam is a big deal at all. He thinks it’s a side issue that you’ve gotten distracted by.
And I will certainly complain about the lack of racially diverse representation! Because there’s no reason to assume that that is due to meritocracy, either, given the number of atheists of color who go unnoticed. In fact Greta Christina’s blog, in addition to tackling atheism and gender, has also tackled atheism and race.
The falking motile gamete misogynist ought to be sent to the cocky forest in coventry. But then again, they might reef the head off his male manly mane there. And where then will he evidently return to then seeking solace? I should reckon that it would be none other than the raw bosoms of his mates. Happy hip day, mate!
I thought that quaint Columbo guy was suffering dementia. Whoops, wrong Falk. See, I can be an ignorant arse too!
Bloody hell, what a load of dick waving bastardry. Guy must have huge issues…
As Brian says, he must have huge issues. What he says goes beyond normal locker-room macho-speak. It’s sick.
Well, I went and read some of his blog.
And some of the “books” he’s written.
And listened to some of his music.
Who *is* Geoffrey Falk, anyway?
As far as I could make out, just another software/techie dude with ‘intellectual superiority’ issues, and a blog with which to display them to the world.
Maybe he feels the world hasn’t given him the recognition and rewards his ‘talents’ deserve…? Well, he sure ain’t at the front of a very long queue…
I’m sure he’s delighted he’s got a reaction, of course.
“Beyond *NORMAL* locker-room macho speak?”
I think all locker-room macho speak is abnormal, especially the sort which specifically uses denigratory language towards women, to make the – herd mentality – males feel more powerful.
No matter how mild the banter is between them – no mild level of derogatory remarks against women should be acceptable to men.
When this attitude prevails, it has the propensity to breed more contempt towards women as the bar can gets raised even higher and higher to boost male ego’s.
Males should feel equal amongst other males, without having to resort to belittling women and taking negatively about them behind their backs as if they were objects.
Men like G.F. must be somehow lacking in essential secure ‘software’ somewhere, when they have to steep so low beyond the belt, and drag female body parts into the picture to express themselves.
Quite, Hazel aka Corylus; that line about wives got up my nose too. I didn’t get to it only because there was so much other stuff. Or because I was too busy injecting silicone into my inadequate tits.
Hapless Hippy: I use the word “normal” in the sense of “the statistical mean” or “the average”, not in the sense of “what is sane”. I’m not a fan of locker-room macho-speak myself nor do I participate in it, but I sense that G.F. goes beyond what I’ve over-heard in various locker-rooms, that’s all.
After reading the above I clicked on OB’s opening link ‘Wow. Just…wow’ and got the message “Internet Explorer cannot open the webpage.”
Out of embarrassment I assume. Or else good taste. Even IE has its standards.
Finally got to it via my little palmtop which runs on Linux. You could drop it down a sewer and it would still run.
Which is just as well.
“Just wow” says it all. Aside from the rampant (gleeful, really) misogyny, this guy has such unbridled and baffling hostility to OB. I don’t get it. I’m trying to put myself in his position – to imagine that I disagree with OB’s claims – but I still can’t reckon how he gets from there to such obvious anger.
Oh, and also – having a blog that, as a matter of practice, does *not* accept comments is diagnostic of an egotist. And of being a dick. I can’t for the life of me fathom why internet nobodies think their pronouncements are so fascinating that blog readers will be soooo interested in them they won’t mind that they can’t join the conversation. A blog is not supposed to be a laying out of any and all idle thoughts that occur to you throughout the day, with no feedback from readers. That’s a diary. Andrew Sullivan does this too, which is one of the many things about him that irritate me.
Having a “no comments” policy on one’s blog strikes me as smug and preening. The appeal of blogs, for most readers, is the ability to join in to agree, disagree, or wrestle with an issue. Preventing readers from engaging with you on your blog seems to almost an act of rudeness and disrespect.
There’s a place for stand-alone pieces. They’re called “essays” or “articles.”
Oh, and also:
Uh, what? Of the 80 people that he counted? This is certainly reliable statistical data, eh? We have information about the number of seats, and information about the number of people he counted, but not how many people there were in total, why he decided to stop counting at 80 people, or how he decided which 80 people to count.
(Perhaps I am in error, and these issues are addressed in the guy’s post. I don’t particularly feel like clicking over to find out).
Free love, Geoffrey. Keep on reaching for that rainbow.
“he points out that I’ll never have a Big Idea, which I certainly agree with. I’m at most a commentator of some kind, I’m certainly not an originator”
Is that the criteria now? ‘Cos, not being rude, but Dawkins, PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne – what’s their “big idea”? That we should tell everyone that evolution is true and that God claims are bullshit? That’s not really a theoretical advance or a “big idea”. Don’t get me wrong, remedial science and philosophy class to try and wean people off Glenn Beck and back on to reality is an important thing – but it’s not some original theoretical advance.
We’re not talking about theory, we’re talking about politics and advocacy. That’s the point of something like AAI. And there is something important here: if you are advocating a position, you need people to advocate that position who are representative of the whole of society.
In the technology industry, there has been significant amounts of consciousness raising about the lack of women speaking at technology conferences. People have done things like put up images showing all the people speaking and then attaching symbols showing the lack of diversity. Anyway, the point we’ve come to learn in the tech conference area is that it’s absolutely not – as opponents of ‘affirmative action’ always say – simply selecting who is going to speak at conferences based on their gender. It’s about giving a few very subtle little nudges in the right direction, and allowing those nudges to be the start of a conversation. There are plenty of women in the field who do work that’s just as advanced and interesting as their male colleagues, but they aren’t particularly interested in speaking about it – they keep themselves to themselves and just quietly get on with it. Then when you try and organise an event, you don’t actively seek to exclude women – but you still end up with very few women.
Then you get the “Political Correctnes is sending us to hell in a handcart” boors saying “oh, bugger this, we need to get the best people”. But are you getting the best people? Unless you make an effort to reach out to those who don’t normally speak at events (regardless of gender), you don’t know. As I’ve said, there are certain areas where the best people *are* women, but they aren’t the best speakers because they’ve convinced themselves they shouldn’t be speaking publicly about their work or their interests. The gentle nudge to include more women is to basically help all people who are in the same situation – well-qualified, excellent people who do great work but have, for whatever reason, been told that for some reason or another that they shouldn’t be talking about what they do.
Josh Slocum: blogs without comments are perfectly fine. I’m always tempted to turn the comments on my blog off because they require more maintenance than they provide in value. Plenty of people I know who aren’t egotistical maniacs or chauvinist assholes don’t turn comments on for quite rational and sensible reasons.
Perhaps by “Big Idea”, he really meant “big penis”?
Falk does that common internet thing of starting off vaguely rationally and then revealing himself to be a complete bigot – it’s rare to see this swerve happening quite so quickly though!
@Tom Morris – yes, blogs without comments can be quite soothing! I agree with your points about affirmative action. My husband works in a very techie field and was involved in an online debate about the small numbers of women who presented at conferences. It was observed that, although the proportion of female speakers was low, women who proposed a paper were more likely to get accepted because their proposals were of higher quality. This might suggest that women have to be more actively enthusiastic/skilled than men to go into that line of work – or that women are more self deprecating about their worthiness to speak.
Who is this Falk? Peter’s brother? ‘Just one more thing… my wife loves your work, but she’s not here to tell you because she stays at home in the kitchen.’
Well and truly hoist by his own petard, I would say…
Well, I just had a listen to some of his “music” and I think he should forget about being a musician and just stick to being a misogynistic prick, he’s much better at that. After reading the blog post I dread to think what his books must be like.
@Tom Morris –
You’re right; I probably overstated the case about blogs without comments. I’m sure there are sensible reasons someone would choose not to allow comments. Still, I don’t see the point of having a blog that doesn’t allow comments. It strikes me as an exercise in narcissism. By all means, blog owners can and should moderate comments in any way they see fit.
Yes, ‘Wow’ about covers that piece of nastiness.
In my day the chap would have been horse-whipped on the steps of his club.
Surely somebody can find a good word to say about the hapless Geoff Falk?
No? No one?
Taking a closer look at his blog (yeuch), he does usually allow comments (although it seems no-one ever has commented) but closed them on this post.
He also appears to have pronounced views on matters of race, as well as women.
http://www.geoffreyfalk.com/wp_blog/?cat=17
Okay. I’ll give it a try…
Despite the fact that this guy is a complete asshole and his comment on bra size was inexcusably ad hominem and misogynistic, he does have a (small) point buried in all the garbage.
According to every paper or study I’ve read, women do tend to be significantly more religious than men, by whatever metric you choose–church attendance, expressed belief in a personal god, or whatever. The figures vary, but they tend to cluster around 25% of men and 15% of women saying they do not believe in any god. On that basis, I’d expect any random group of atheists to be about 5:3 male/female male rather than 1:1.
Not much of a point, granted, but a small one. I’d really hate to be a defense attorney for this guy.
Well done!
My case for inviting more women actually pulls the other way though – it’s that women need atheism to be made an available option even more than men do, because of the stats cited and also because of the way religion fits into what is expected of women – conformity, obedience, meekness, submission, ‘niceness,’ compliance, etc etc etc. Women aren’t supposed to be noisy or rebellious or eccentric – that’s not ‘womanly’ – it’s not ‘feminine’ – it’s too butch, too aggressive, too out there, too in your face, too everything women aren’t supposed to be. Women know this, because of the names they get called. Men are less aware of this, because they’re not the ones who get called those names.
And the thing is – there are a lot of vocal Name female atheists. I mentioned Taslima Nasreen and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Katha Pollitt in the post, as 3 the AAI invited; Susan Jacoby and Jennifer Michael Hecht are two more. There are also Polly Toynbee, Joan Smith, Wendy Kaminer, Natalie Angier. There’s Louise Anthony, editor of Philosophers Without Gods. There’s Susan Haack. There’s Maryam Namazie. There are lots – and they should be as visible as possible, so that everyone will start to realize that women don’t have to be fluffy bunnies.
I’d just like to add that the notion that the top N% of whatever field should be speaking at a conference is totally bogus. Speakers should be chosen because they have interesting ideas to share, and as a science grad student I get my share of “please, submit an abstract for a talk” emails from conference planners. Even MS students like myself are welcome to present at a conference if the abstract is sufficiently interesting.
So, on top of being a misogynistic idiot, this fool doesn’t even understand what a good conference is for.
Maybe my ample bosom is getting in the way of my lucidity, but who, even among the men on the list of speakers, is a professional atheist? How could one even measure who is in the top 20% of such professionals? Other than disbelief, what credentials would you have to present?
Haack is an atheist? You don’t say; neat. I was only familiar with her via her foundherentist epistemology.
Wow! I just followed that link that Don posted. Unbelievable, the only way this fuckstain could be more repulsive is if he was a fundie. He’s lower than whale shit.
Ben, yes; she has a chapter on science and religion in her book Defending Science. She does not think the two can just exchange vows and live happily ever after.
Ophelia, I have something good to say for Mr. Falk: he’s not as bad as this guy.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-should-polygamy-be-a-crime-20091002-gfdg.html
Read it, you’ll think it parody.
From Brian’s link:
Well, if he can’t treat his wife as an equal, why should he have even one?
. . . What’s that you say? Oh, he only has to be able to treat them as equals to each other, not to himself. Silly me.
Also, I’m just dying to know what are the “medical reasons” why women shouldn’t have more than one husband. Surely he’s not saying that “heheh, married women hate teh sexx0rz, amirite guys?” is a medical reason? That would be stupid!
Well, I have to say that I agree with that guy in part. I don’t think it’s any of the government’s business or any church’s business how people decide to live their lives. Male/female and one-to-one/one-to-many/many-to-many is the business only of the people involved. I see nothing wrong with the idea of sister-wives and brother-husbands. In fact, it makes a lot of sense in many respects, including economics and family stability. I can envision group marriages that last many generations, with new spouses (spice) being added regularly.
Robert, you don’t notice that it all works in the favor of guys, but not girls? Polygamy good, after all what are women for but to get married and carry children? Polyandry bad, after all, a guy might not be the father of a kid and then his property (wife included) belongs to another guy…….Seems pretty much straight out of 7th century Arabia.
Eh? I never said polyandry was bad. I think people should be free to marry in whatever combinations they prefer; gay/straight, female/male, one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many. If that means a group marriage with several straight women, several transexuals, several gay men, several gay women, several straight men, three border collies, and a large turnip, I say that’s their business and no one else’s.
Robert, I agree, just so long as the turnip is consenting. My point was that that guy is using liberal sounding arguments to justify misogynistic behavior. He’s not interested in a free for all.
RBT: Amanda Marcotte has an alternate explanation of why women seem to be more religious which is worth reading – http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/why_are_women_slightly_more_religious/
He’s not very good at statistics.
Or not being a misogynist.
I’m not lending him my GHDs…
Some classic comments on that article’s page now. Go girls! Fry that mysoginistic f***er!
A few weeks ago when Ophelia posted about sexism on atheist websites, I objected that it was unclear to me just how much I could say before being branded a sexist and dismissed — for which I was branded a sexist and dismissed.
Falk’s comments, though, put the debate into a little clearer relief. I had assumed that female commenters had been complaining about this sort of language originating from trolls, but if this is typical of what’s being said by male commentators as opposed to anonymous idiots, then…well…I retract by objection from a few weeks ago. This sort of thing clearly does not contribute to any sort of worthwhile discussion, and seems intended to marginalize anyone who wants to start such a discussion.
That’s very generous of you, Dan.
You were right, at least in my case, that I was ‘complaining about this sort of language originating from trolls’ – well no not trolls, but pseudonymous commenters. It seems and perhaps is a trivial thing…and yet…if it’s common and pervasive it does (I think) drive women away, not out of fear or intimidation but just disgust and aversion – and that means those sites just get more all-male than they were to begin with – and then the commonplace accepted misogyny just gets worse – and so on.
How very depressing that an actual atheist wrote that garbage. I’m taken aback by how hateful it is.
– Rieux, white straight male who would be very happy to see atheist gatherings more prominently feature terrific folks like Ophelia and Greta Christina and Amanda Marcotte, et al.
Don’s link at 2009-10-04 – 12:16:11 takes one to ‘Biggus Dickus’ Falk’s site. Yep, he’s also a racist, though not an overly bright one.
But here’s a problem of his philosophical position. I think he would agree that the young Japanese man he encountered and assessed* was his social inferior. Not only that but his undoubtedly gibberish-talking parents (yes both of them) would also be Falk’s inferiors, at least IAWTM (in all ways that matter). Thus they gave rise to an inferior son. In fact the whole Japanese nation (which ‘we’ should have wiped out at the end of WW2) would be his inferiors IAWTM. Irredeemably, I venture to guess.
Similarly, women are inferior to men IAWTM. There sexism is consistent with racism. But Biggus Dickus had a mother; ipso facto his social inferior. Irredeemably. Biggus Dickus may have sired a daughter. If so, she will likewise be his social inferior IAWTM . He ‘knows’ that the same way he knows Japanese are inferior and worthy of mass extermination, But how can an innately social inferior produce an innate social superior, who then can go on to sire a social inferior; innately so IAWTM? Superiors and inferiors leapfrog one another down the generations in this sort of universe.
As Shakespeare might have said: ‘Tis a shit pot, but a puzzling one.
*”So you can see why he was in such a death-defying, being-an-imported-kamikaze-asshole hurry, can’t you? (I know, I used to be just about that impatient myself; but at least I never dissed people in imported gibberishlanguage, in their own country. All of which merely adds fuel to my argument that we maybe kinda shoulda wiped the Japs off the face of the Earth at the end of WWII.” [sic]
Here’s another extract from Falk’s effluvia:
“Conversely, the more our educational system gets dumbed down so that even the blacks and wetbacks can “succeed” in it; and the more incompetent minorities and Native Americans are hired for jobs they don’t have the brains or the work ethic to do, to make things “fair”; and the more we import middling East Indians and stereotypically hard-working but uncreative Asians who “cannot think independently or creatively, and cannot solve practical problems”—the two Chinese database administrators I’ve worked with were both utterly hopeless, even aside from the language barrier—the greater the value of legitimately skilled professionals will be (especially in I.T.), for being able to kick ass in solving difficult technical problems, and building stuff that actually works.”
Like you said – Wow! Just wow!
So – misogynist, racist AND an IT professional. He must be a big hit with the ladies.
Maybe it’s all…um…postmodernist irony.
This reminds me of a quote from Garth Ennis’s comic book “Preacher”: “Why is it that the champions of the white race are always the worst examples of it?”
This asshole kinda reminds me of an atheist version of Vox Day. Is anyone else getting that vibe?
[…] show, let’s pay another visit to Geoffrey Falk. We’ve visited him only once before, in October 2009, so let’s do it again. He’s been calling me a bitch and assorted other choice names at […]
What a vile, hateful, arsehole this Falk character appears to be. Along with all his revolting misogyny, he calls black people “monkeys” and “tar babies” and uses “niggers” as a post tag. Yeech.
I know I’m a bit late to the party, but I couldn’t resist adding a comment — this Falk guy apparently makes a living by ‘renting out’ his body to big pharma companies to do tests on — I guess that’s how he makes his money to continue to support his musical and writing ambitions: http://www.geoffreyfalk.com/wp_blog/?page_id=55 His story is actually kind of tragic: deluded ex-hippie who tries to redeem his sad past by putting his wrath to the power. Still, absolutely NO excuse for the rampant, hate-filled racism and sexism. I think he would have been better off staying in the cult. Then again, maybe he’s doing good for humanity by subjecting his aryan body to drug tests for the benefit of others.
His aryan male body.