Home > Issues > Education > Happy Wife; Happy Life: Academic Patriarchs as both Victims and Perpetrators of Female Supremacism
	Empowering Men: fighting feminist lies
Happy Wife; Happy Life: Academic Patriarchs as Both Victims and Perpetrators of Female Supremacism Peter Zohrab 2019

 

(Open Letter to Professor David Sinclair)

 

Dear Professor Sinclair,

 

1. Introduction

2. Female Supremacism in Academia

3. Conclusion

 

Introduction

I have found your book "Lifespan: Why We Age -- and Why We Don't Have To" (the Biological part of it, anyway) absolutely fascinating and your original insight which led to it absolutely brilliant! I had already heard of research into halting ageing while studying Philosophy (as a mature student). In that case it was the work of Aubrey de Grey and SENS.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that I don't just keep quiet when I see or hear prominent academics, etc. say stupid anti-male things about females or Feminism and the like (see below). However, I do recognise that some of you are victims, as well, and feel the need to survive in the Left-politicised atmosphere of universities. However, the outright lunacy of some bits and pieces of your book is horrendously depressing to anyone who cares about Human Rights.

"If females and males are in the same environment, in general, females will live longer. It's a common theme throughout the animal kingdom. Scientists have tested whether it is the X chromosome or the ovary that is important. Using a genetic trick, they created mice with one or two Xs, with either ovaries or testes. Those with a double dose of the X lived longer, even if they had testes and especially if they didn't, thus proving once and for all that female is the stronger sex."

1. It is garbage to claim that the above has anything at all to do with strength, of course. You only said that "female is the stronger sex" because (even if only unconsciously) you realise that Feminists have a complex about being physically weaker than men, so they love men to lie and say that females are stronger than men -- that gives you massive Brownie points with the Feminists;

2. It is garbage to claim that the above proves anything "once and for all," of course. Nowhere else in your book do say that anything proves anything "once and for all," so for you to say it here is purely a political act of bowing down before the dominant Feminists in your working environment and kissing their feet. In fact, on page 16 you state:

"It is certainly no dishonor to those brilliant researchers that their theories haven't stood the test of time. That's what happens to most science, and perhaps all of it eventually."

3. As is well-known, testes produce male hormones, which influence behaviour. The article, Social dominance hierarchy type and rank contribute to phenotypic variation within cages of laboratory mice, states: "These findings highlight the importance of considering biologically relevant factors, such as social dominance, in experimental designs and statistical plans." Obviously, male competition for dominance and mating rights must produce very different stresses and/or injuries for males than for females in relevant species and this may have consequences for survival and longevity. Likewise, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome may affect how mice are treated by other mice, and this may have consequences for survival and longevity. These issues were not considered by you or the three female authors of the little study which you cited (Female XX sex chromosomes increase survival and extend lifespan in aging mice.)

1. You say on page 40 that "a mother cell divides to produce daughter cells." What's wrong with saying that "a parent cell divides to produce offspring cells?" I know that your sexist formulation is common in Biology textbooks, but we're not allowed to say "fireman", "policeman", or "businessman", etc.;

2. On page 219, you say, "We'll never destroy the global patriarchy if our children don't first practice on their fathers." There is absolutely no chance that you understand what "patriarchy" is or what system you are living under now. You also have absolutely no idea what you would replace patriarchy with if you destroyed it. Also, it seems ludicrous to me to think that a son overthrowing his father would result in anything more than a new patriarch -- if there was a patriarchal father originally. Surely you must recognise that you are now a patriarch, in the context of academia -- albeit one who is subservient to women and who is paving the way for a total matriarchy. You are a typical patriarch in that you appear to favour women over men, because men are your rivals and you appear not to realise that women are now competing with men too!

• Cambridge University is a Women's Kindergarten

• Harvard University President Summers

• Feminist Jurisprudence Proves that a Woman's Place is in the Home.

• Hostile Sexist Feminist Psychologist Misinterprets Research to Attack Men

• Dominance and Entitlement: the Rhetoric and Lies which Feminist "Academics" Use to Control Men

• Female Academics' Power and Control over Male Academics

• Feminist Dumbism in Cherry (1995)

• Feminist Mob Rule at Universities

• Incompetence and Unprofessionalism of the American Psychological Association

• Bruce Arrigo & Stacey Shipley are Incompetents or Liars.

• Is Professor Matthew Palmer incompetent and totalitarian?

• Moronic Women at Oxford University

• Psychologists and Women Don't Have the Brains to Study Intelligence

• Research Sexism

• Send Jan Jordan Back to the Uranium Tower!

• Universities Pass off Left-Wing prejudice as Intelligent Thought

• Vice-President Biden Lies to Chinese Students.

• What Female Politics Lecturers Do Instead of Thinking