Is Peter Klevius lhe least racist of anthropologists? And is he right about the birth of the truly modern humans in Siberia?

Is Peter Klevius lhe least racist of anthropologists? And is he right about the birth of the truly modern humans in Siberia?

We live in a strange time when the worst ideological crime history knows about, now is called "a peaceful religion"

Everyone who reads Klevius knows he is the least sexist person around. However, Klevius is also the least racist person  - and has been so throughout all of his writings. So what's Klevius' secret?

When Klevius long time ago had to replace his broken down VW which had replaced his broken down Saab, and saw a beautiful used Japanese car he knew nothing about, he asked his good pal who was considered an expert on cars. 'You can't buy that!' 'Why not? It looks wonderful.' 'It's a rice cooker!' 'So - does it gonna easily break down or something? Is it bad quality?' 'No - but it's a RICE COOKER!'

So Klevius bought a rice cooker that lasted more than double the miles of the Saab and the VW TOGETHER and with much less service etc. And it was faster and had everything the Europeans lacked incl. much better brakes, lights etc. The perfect car for a poor young man with a family. Soon Klevius realized that what held for Japanese cars also held for other technology products from Japan. Btw, did you know that the final transformation from a European steel union to EU was triggered by a European fear of the superiority of Japanese technology at a time when more than two third of the world's industrial robots were made in Japan.

Soon Klevius realized that Japan wasn't only high tech but perhaps even more superior in cultural achievements, all the way from the world's oldest true ceramic pottery to art and literature and music. And all of this despite its relatively small size.

This made Klevius aware of the racist Mongoloid complex. So later on Klevius wrote about the Finnish Miss Universe, Armi Kuusela, and how her win, in the eyes of most of the Finnish people, distanced them from the East and its Mongoloids.

The wonders of Manyoshu (Ten Thousand Leaves) were produced between the fall of the Roman empire and the rise of evil islam and the dark age that followed. Makes one think.

However, an other trigger for Klevius was when he realized that Africa's native population was Mongoloid and heavily suppressed by the black Bantu speakers (see chapter Khoi, San and Bantu in Klevius Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor 1992). Why did African natives carry features for cold adaptation?

Next step was to scan the origins of mongoloids. So Klevius ended up in central Asia, northern China and Siberia. There he then encountered the Altai language theory that sounded extremely interesting for someone who masters Finnish and who is familiar with Japanese.

This was the starting point for Klevius Out of Africa as pygmies and back as global mongoloids. (please, do note that the page hasn't been altered for about a decade - reason for this will be explained sometime in the future).

Homo floresiensis appeared after Klevius outcast, and in one stroke confirmed what Klevius had thought for more than a decade. And this notion isn't to boast about Klevius but to criticize those who let their prejudices steer their science. Yes Klevius got an equally capable brain as Bolt's legs, but he still thinks that it was his lack of (or reasonably low) bias that was the real power.

Finally, Klevius appearance on the web started with Peter Klevius' definition of The HOLY (negative) HUMAN RIGHTS vs. RACE & SEX SEGREGATION (i e rapetivism).

No one who has been in touch with Klevius can report anything else than a 100% lack of racism and sexism. And this is the reason Klevius can't approve of racist/sexist islam! In other words, exactly the same reason why OIC abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia.

Mohammed suffering with open chest in Dante's Inferno

New data push early modern humans even further to the north - and further into Klevius' out of Siberia theory*!

When will Svante Pääbo and others eventually admit that they are driving in the wrong direction on a dead end road that starts in Altai/Siberia. Why can't they read the signs - or don't they dare to?!

This art/tech track MUST be counted for. If not then something is horribly wrong in anthropology.

This more than 40,000 year old sophisticated stone bracelet from Altai/Siberia represents the hereto most advanced early artifact ever found. It was located nearby the non-human "Denisovan" and its manufacturing process is beyond anything we have seen at this early stage. Whereas everything else older than this found in other places follow a smooth cultural transition, this bracelet (and to a lesser extent the Lion man) represents an explosion out of the blue.

Sergey Isupov from the Russian Institute of Archeology and Ethnography says:
“The cave seems to be filled with artifacts. I doubt that scientists have ever found a similar amount of artifacts in one place anywhere else on Earth. Probably, the most interesting layer of sediment is the one which has received the number 11. This layer dates back to the transitional period between the middle Paleolithic Age to the upper Paleolithic Age. It is here where remains of humans of an earlier unknown species were found.”

The Denisova cave is situated near the Anuy River in Gorny Altay in Siberia in a mountaineous region known for its many caves. It's included in the UNESCO World Heritage List. Artifacts found in this cave are so scientifically significant that some compare it with the artifacts of Egyptian pyramids. That's however, like comparing a Lexus with a Mini. The Egyptians just copied Sumerians and fanatically exaggerated the ziggurats. Senseless piling of stones on top of each other has nothing to do with intelligence or sophistication. And look at the lousy Egyptian portraits and compare them with this that was made 24,000 years earlier! Give Klevius a break.

In Dolní Věstonice, Eastern Europe a 3d portrait is now scientifically dated to at least 29,000 BP. The performance of its creator is on an extremely high cultural level when considering it predates Mideastern civilizations with some23,000 years, and that it evolved in a cultural tradition that has never been found in Africa or Mideast.

This lion(bear?)-headed figure from central Europe and associated with the archaeological Aurignacian culture is the oldest known zoomorphic sculpture in the world and one of the oldest known sculptures in general. The figurine has now been redated from 32,000 years to about 40,000 years old by carbon dating material from the same layer in which it was found. It is then almost contemporary with the Denisova bracelet from Altai which is a far more sophisticated product.

According to Klevius theory (modified only to fit Homo floresiensis, Denisovan and the Red Deer Cave people) the new brain was genetically transported in small but growing skulls from SE Asia to the Altai region where it finally spread into the spacious skulls of northern Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. In other words in the opposite direction to what Pääbo and others have suggested.

Ust-Ishim man

Oldest modern human DNA found in Siberia.'The femur belonged to an H. sapiens man who had slightly more Neandertal DNA, distributed in different parts of his genome, than do living Europeans and Asians. His Neandertal DNA is also concentrated into longer chunks than in living people.'

Neandertal DNA in the Ust-Ishim man indicates that he lived soon after the interbreeding estimated at between 50,000 to 60,000 bp.

This is early enough to place the modern human before and north of the Denisova bracelet.

However, before Pääbo & Co reveal their findings nothing more can be said at this stage. But Klevius will be back when it happens.

Klevius' final solution to the problem with islam

Klevius' final solution to the problem with islam

Klevius question: How come that BBC (world leading media) and Aftonbladet (Scandinavia leading media) both completely miss the world's biggest fascist organization and its new Fuhrer against Human Rights?

When do we start checking for the oil leaks in these fascism supporting media engines?!

 Klevius suggestion: Dear reader, do contemplate the real meaning of this  world wide media deception!


Aftonbladet has with all its media power relentlessly doped its reader about Sweden's only islam critical party Sverigedemokraterna (SD) - to an extent that the party is now about to fall in pieces because a split on its view on islam. Or put in other words, Aftonbladet's extreme demonizing of islam critics, which Aftonbladet call 'islam haters', has opened up for not only general disgust but also physical violence against SD-members - in short the same tactics as used by Hitler, Pol Pot etc. 

But I've got a muslim friend - don't generalize all muslims and all islam!

 Klevius answer:

 Ask your muslim friend if s/he supports OIC and its Sharia against Human Rights!

At this point you really also need to re-check your knowledge ignorance about islam: If you're not 100% convinced as yet that islam has been by far the worst slave raider/trader ideology in world history - then you need some really serious reading you won't find in yours or your children's school books.

Then ask her/him why s/he is against Human Rights for all! That will force your friend to either abandon islam or reveal that s/he is an islamofascist!

And finally a warning to all girls/women falling in love with a muslim boy/man: Your basic Human Rights are doomed if he is a real muslim and Sharia marries you!

BBC's muslim Sharia presenter Mishal Husain now gets her disgustingly racist/sexist islamofascist Sharia law implemented in Britain - bit by bit. But why doesn't she want to talk about this first important step and its real consequences?! As a taxpayer and payer of BBC's compulsory fees every Brit should pose that question!

Under ground-breaking guidance which would be recognised by UK courts, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will, in a first real Sharia step, be able to write islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether. The documents will also prevent children born out of wedlock or adopted, from being counted as legitimate heirs. Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia, which recognise only islamic marriage.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect girls/women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including UK Sharia courts in Britain: It's deeply disturbing. This violates everything that we stand for. It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.

Klevius question: Who are 'we' in 'everything that we stand for'. Does it include BBC's islamofascist Sharia presenter Mishal Husain?!


To be honest Klevius feels a little nostalgic of the demise of the "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiots from the crew of funny Sharia clowns but as the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid (and therefore also islam) Klevius has to take responsibilty for what these idiots have already caused and may cause in the future.

Is this the last of the "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiots?

Michael Smerconish (a Philly "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiot): How ironic that when Susan Jarema questioned Sohail Mohammed's nomination (as a US judge), she was particularly concerned about whether he would defend the rights of women when under sharia law. I doubt she'd have anticipated how he'd rule in a domestic dispute between an unmarried couple over who could be present in a delivery room.

Klevius: How idiotic that Michael Smerconish didn't notice that neither of them were muslims! Had the man been a muslim in a simple Sharia liason (do you know how simple Sharia "marriage" can be?), then the woman's right had ABSOLUTELY NOT been recognized by "judge"* Mohammed - or, alternatively, judge Muhammed would have become an apostate in no time at all!

And how idiotic that Michael Smerconish (and his dhimmidiotic-alikes)

An other tragic dhimmidiot: What point does it make to say a person is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist if they do something wrong?

Klevius: The point is whether s/he does it because of religion! Simple as that. Yes, I know I made your day. Btw, Atheists are the only ones without an excusing ideology!


United Kamikaze Islam Protectors

Nigel Farage's (UKIP leader) pledge that he was proud UKIP politicians could "say what they like" lasted all of around 30 minutes at the party's spring conference, with panicked organisers apparently attempting to remove six journalists from a party debate on Sharia law. Journalists from the Financial Times, Bloomberg and the Telegraph were among those told they could not stay in the half-full conference room in Torquay for the party debate on the use of Islamic law in Britain. Jim Pickard, the Financial Times' political correspondent, said he and his fellow journalists had refused to leave when asked to by party staff.


Tags: Iyad Madani, Kent Ekeroth, Linus Bylund, Mishal Husain, OIC, sharia,

'Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes' dhimmidiots

'Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes' dhimmidiots

 

BBC's muslim Sharia presenter Mishal Husain now gets her disgustingly racist/sexist islamofascist Sharia law implemented in Britain - bit by bit. But why doesn't she want to talk about this first important step and its real consequences?! As a taxpayer and payer of BBC's compulsory fees every Brit should pose that question!

Under ground-breaking guidance which would be recognised by UK courts, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will, in a first real Sharia step, be able to write islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether. The documents will also prevent children born out of wedlock or adopted, from being counted as legitimate heirs. Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia, which recognise only islamic marriage.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect girls/women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including UK Sharia courts in Britain: It's deeply disturbing. This violates everything that we stand for. It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.

Klevius question: Who are 'we' in 'everything that we stand for'. Does it include BBC's islamofascist Sharia presenter Mishal Husain?!


To be honest Klevius feels a little nostalgic of the demise of the "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiots from the crew of funny Sharia clowns but as the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid (and therefore also islam) Klevius has to take responsibilty for what these idiots have already caused and may cause in the future.

Is this the last of the "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiots?

Michael Smerconish (a Philly "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiot): How ironic that when Susan Jarema questioned Sohail Mohammed's nomination (as a US judge), she was particularly concerned about whether he would defend the rights of women when under sharia law. I doubt she'd have anticipated how he'd rule in a domestic dispute between an unmarried couple over who could be present in a delivery room.

Klevius: How idiotic that Michael Smerconish didn't notice that neither of them were muslims! Had the man been a muslim in a simple Sharia liason (do you know how simple Sharia "marriage" can be?), then the woman's right had ABSOLUTELY NOT been recognized by "judge"* Mohammed - or, alternatively, judge Muhammed would have become an apostate in no time at all!

And how idiotic that Michael Smerconish (and his dhimmidiotic-alikes)

An other tragic dhimmidiot: What point does it make to say a person is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist if they do something wrong?

Klevius: The point is whether s/he does it because of religion! Simple as that. Yes, I know I made your day. Btw, Atheists are the only ones without an excusing ideology!


United Kamikaze Islam Protectors

Nigel Farage's (UKIP leader) pledge that he was proud UKIP politicians could "say what they like" lasted all of around 30 minutes at the party's spring conference, with panicked organisers apparently attempting to remove six journalists from a party debate on Sharia law. Journalists from the Financial Times, Bloomberg and the Telegraph were among those told they could not stay in the half-full conference room in Torquay for the party debate on the use of Islamic law in Britain. Jim Pickard, the Financial Times' political correspondent, said he and his fellow journalists had refused to leave when asked to by party staff.

And here is the Saudi based OIC's Sharia Fuhrer over all the world's muslims (incl. Mishal Husain), Iyad Madani

Ask if your pilot is a real muslim before you fly! ALWAYS!

Update: This posting was made on the basis of the information Malaysian authorities gave us. Now alternative info starts coming. Is it real or is it an attempt to cover it up? However 9/11 and thousands of other muslim terrorist attacks were real and sanctioned by islam!


There's no way for you to know whether a muslim is a mosque rat or a mosque mouse. But you do know that muslims commit most of religiously motivated crimes against humanity and Human Rights!

Muslim pilot/s (Zaharie Ahmad Shah and/or Fariq Abdul Hamid) may have caused the death of over 200 on  MH370. Why? Because of islam and "islamic studies"! Because of sloppy checks of landing gears etc?

We do know these pilots previously behaved in a way completely inappropriate for pilots responsible of human lives. 

Fariq Ab Hamid's neighbourhood mosque's imam, Ahmad Sharafi Ali Asrah, defends Fariq - the youngest son of Selangor public works department deputy director Abdul Hamid Mad Daud - as a mild-mannered "good boy" who also attended islamic courses.

Fariq Ab Hamid is also said to be "community-minded".

It has also been reported that Fariq often played futsal with neighborhood youngsters and even paid for their sports shirts.

Fariq was reportedly planning to marry a muslim pilot from another airline.

A report said that Captain Nadira Ramli, 26, who is attached with AirAsia, is a daughter of a senior Malaysia Airlines pilot.

Klevius question: But, after all, is there only one sort of real muslims?

Obama fines the cleanest cars and the highest quality - while the culprit is a US company and a rotten legal system!

Obama fines the cleanest cars and the highest quality - while the culprit is a US company and a rotten legal system!

What Obama & Co did against Toyota is perhaps the worst of crimes against consumers

but quite in line with other evils of his administration - like the eager support of medieval islamofascism.

Electrical failures (like other types of failures) rare in Japanese cars - because of a superior production policy compared to all others. 

Decades of quality surveys paint an unambiguous picture.

Just one of hundreds of examples. In a study of the worst models, two thirds of all Chrysler Sebring’s (66 per cent) experienced electrical breakdowns, while the Hyundai Matrix (63 per cent) and Mercedes-Benz E Class (60 per cent) followed closely behind. The study also found that over 25 per cent of Renault, Saab, MG, Audi, Citroen, Seat and BMW models suffered electrical failure each year.

In contrast, just one out of seven Subarus developed an electrical fault each year, whilst there were no recorded claims with the Honda S2000 (the best high rewing non-turbo 4 in line engine ever built), Mazda 5, and Toyota Prius (the world's first mass produced hybrid already in 1997).




Why Toyota Must Replace Flawed CTS Gas Pedal With Superior (Japanese) Denso Pedal
By Paul Niedermeyer on February 1, 2010
Update: a portal to all of TTAC’s articles on the subject of Toyota gas pedals is here:

Toyota uses two different electronic gas pedal designs in its cars. The version built by CTS (lower) is the subject of a massive recall, and the 2.3 million units in affected Toyota cars are to be “fixed” by the insertion of a steel shim. This CTS design is also being modified for new Toyota production, currently suspended. To our knowledge, Toyotas built with the other design (by Denso, upper) are not subject to any recalls or NHTSA investigations,. We have spent the last two days tearing down both units, and familiarized ourselves with their designs, reviewed Toyota’s “shim fix”, and replicated the fix ourselves. Toyota’s planned fix will undoubtedly reduce the likelihood of sticky pedals in the short term, but after examining both units, we are convinced that the CTS unit is intrinsically a flawed design, and poses safety risks in the long term, even with the fix. The only right action for Toyota is to acknowledge the long history of problems with the CTS-type unit, and replace them all with the superior Denso or another pedal unit that lacks the intrinsic flaws of the CTS design.

Before we briefly review the key design differences, we must acknowledge that Toyota is ultimately responsible for both designs. CTS has stated that its product was built to Toyota specifications. What we don’t know (or understand) is why Toyota has two such fundamentally different units in production. Is one unit cheaper to build? Or was CTS tooled up to produce its unit because of other similar units it builds for other manufacturers? What we do know is that the CTS unit has been used in Toyota products since 2005, whereas the Denso unit has been in use since well before that time. Toyotas sold in Europe are also subject to a similar recall, and based on the description of the issues and the unit, it appears that it is the same or similar design as the CTS unit, but we do not know if it was built by CTS or another supplier.

The key component in question is the friction arm of the CTS. It is both essential and desirable to have a certain defined degree of friction in these electronic gas pedal assemblies. The amount of friction is designed to be some degree less than the return spring, so that when the pedal is released, it returns to the closed position. But the friction (hysteresis) makes it easier to maintain a steady throttle setting, and relieves strain from pushing against the spring continuously. It simulates the intrinsic friction that is present in the traditional throttle cable as it passes through the cable housing.

The two units generate the desired degree of friction in very different ways. In the Denso unit (above), the return spring (steel coil) is squeezed on both sides of its housing. It rubs against the plastic housing as it compresses, which generates the desired amount of friction. Both sides of the full length of the Denso coil are in continuous contact with the rubbed are, spreading out the contact area size. And the metal to plastic interface seems to be relatively unproblematic.

The CTS unit is a fundamentally different design. The friction is generated by two “teeth” (A) that extend from the friction arm, and ride in two grooved channels of the housing (B). The friction arm is an extension of the pedal itself, and moves as the pedal is moved. Both the friction arm, its teeth and the surface it rubs against are plastic. Notice the small area of contact (dulled gray spot on tooth). This is the fundamental source of the problem with this unit, and one that Toyota has not come clean about. The friction unit assembled, showing the teeth engaged in the two grooves, is shown below.

In Toyota V.P. Jim Lentz’ appearance on the Today show, he claimed that issues with the friction arm go back to only October of 2009. Not so. According to a letter from Toyota to the NHTSA , in 2007 Toyota changed the plastic material used in the friction arm (from PA46 to PPS) in response to problems similar to those occurring now.

Furthermore, Toyota has been facing similar issues in Europe going back to 2008:

Toyota has been modifying the friction-arm (CTS) type assembly since 2007. Yet to our knowledge, the Denso design has never been implicated in any sticking-pedal issue, and has presumably been in production for some ten years. Why didn’t Toyota change over years ago?


Klevius answer: Because Toyota wanted to use US suppliers for more easy to do components on its biggest market outside Japan. This is in line with what happened to their Avensis model long time ago when its production started in UK. A Finnish car magazine (Tekniikan Maailma) made an extremely thorough comparison between Toyota cars made in Japan and same cars made in UK. The magazine even demounted the engines into its smallest parts before measurements and analysis. The results where striking and showed that the Japan made were clearly of better quality. However, the UK made Toyotas still easily outperformed the Germans and others!

Porsche is said to have the best quality of non-Japanese cars. Despite the fact that more expensive cars are easier to produce do to bigger profit margins. However, already in the 1990s Porsche's executive admitted that they can never achieve Japanese standard of quality. 

He was so right!


Porsche will replace the engines in all of its current model year 911 GT3 sports cars due to poor quality engines, and has told owners to stop driving the cars because they could catch fire, the Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE) unit said on Tuesday.

Last month, Porsche said it was recalling all of the model year 2014 911 GT3 cars produced because of oil leaks, fire risk and engine break down.

The action was taken after Porsche said it investigated engine fires in which a loosened fastener caused oil to leak, which then caught fire.

Porsche is allegedly cooperating with U.S. regulators (why isn't Obama suing VW?!) in the recall and engine replacements, and is in touch with each customer who owns one of the affected vehicles.

The GT3 is the sportiest of the 16 variants of the Porsche 911 sold in the U.S. market but the real question is how this poor production quality has affected other Porsches as well - not to mention all VWs with their enormous DSG (gearbox) and other quality problems that makes them stall when you overtake, catch fire, accelerate unintentionally etc. VW's (incl. Audi) severe quality problems have been going on for years. Actually, VW is most possibly the worst road killer ever. It all started with Hitler's revenge on the after world, VW Beetle with an air cooled engine (that consumed like a V8 and never lasted for long) placed in the trunk (compare Porsche) and the gas tank placed behind the tiny front bumper, and the battery inside the car! So, although the front was soft enough, the gas shower you got in your face through the broken windscreen then continued to the battery behind you. But most people didn't bother anymore - with a steering rod penetrating their body.

The two-seat Porsche has a base price of about $131,000 (94,200 euros) in the United States and about 137,000 euros ($191,000) in Europe.



more car safety etc info:

Monday, March 03, 2014

Real quality cars are made by Shinto - crappy overpriced cars are bought by stupid islamofascists - who can't produce anything themselves!

Ever seen a super car - or rather a small high quality car, which is much harder to produce, the French need state (tax payers) support to produce their low quality cars - or some other high tech made in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Abu Dhabi etc  muslim countries?!

But why is Top Gear's Richard Hammond so stupid. Has he converted to islam*?! Why is he lying? Why isn't he even trying to deliver some relevant consumer info?

* Only in islamofascist places like Abu Dhabi (built by oil money from the West) where it's proposed that only stupid wealthy people should be alloved to drive, can you find so many stupid cars, buyers and drivers. And contrast this with poor countries, what do you see if not loads of old Japanese cars. To be poor forces you to chose quality!

Unlike May, who openly admits the stupidity of his beloved Italians, Hammond seems to desperately try to rescue Porsche from drowning in the sea of real facts. It's a pity cause otherwise he too seems to be such a lovable creature. Btw, Porsche was made as a "sporty" Beetle (aka "Hitler's revenge") and because of the weight over the rear wheels caused by its tail engine, it got better acceleration grip and became popular as a race car in the 1950s and 60s in the hands of skillful drivers. However, precisely because of the same reason it also became a death trap for less skillful drivers.

Klevius (who is extremely* normal - possibly except for his driving skills he got on dark icy roads in Finland with used Japanese cars at maximum speed without a single mishap for decades) has always considered the Top Gear guys lovely insane. However, if pressed Klevius has to admit that before Jeremy saw the light in Nissan GTR and Lexus LFA (and Honda S2000 - not sure about his view), he appeared only marginally more intelligent than his dummy in Madame Tussaud's cabinet. What disqualified Jeremy as a human being was when he long ago, missed to truly recognize the technological wonder under the hood of a Honda Civic Type R. Not a word about the unparalleled high reving engine and quality that made it the world's only small and cheap but fast hatchback that could be used as a normal car on low revs (without a turbo) while turning into a sports car when needed on high revs. And unlike Ferraris and other costly big low quality stupidities, the Honda engine technology, because of its small size, has to stand much more of high revs in use than a four litre Ferrari with hundreds of more horsepower. You can't possibly utilize a big engine at high revs as often as a small one. This was actually the whole idea: Fiat makes small low reving cars and Ferrari makes expensive big ones that no one can use to the max very often and if used on the track warranties are gone. Actually, you don't need a track to destroy a Ferrari it does it quite often just by itself.Very unlike Honda S2000 which already 1999 managed to produce a 9,000 rpm 251 hp 1997cc engine without a turbo that also lasted due to superior production technology.

* Klevius is like most people. Most people are Atheists. Most people have kids. Most people adhere to the thought about Human Rights that everyone should be seen as equal - even women. Most people aren't addicts. Most people aren't violent or bad to other people. Most people don't have extremist political etc. views (adhering to Human Rights isn't extremism). Most people aren't sexual predators. Most people don't have criminal records. Most people are social. Most people like football. Klevius ticks every box - that's why he's extremely normal.

However, rumor tells Jeremy may have participated in a heroic demonstration against stupid and racist Euro 5 emission rules which punish Type R precisely for its technological capacity to pollute less than its turbo charged rivals. If this is true Jeremy has the Human Right to be reassessed as a human being. Don't you think?

Japanese Shinto continues ruling Nurburgring/Germany

Nissan GTR Nismo is the fastest non-hybrid serious production car on Nurburgring

2-seater (Nissan GTR is 4-seater) Porsche 918 is a RWD w 4WD when battery allows it (Nissan is 4WD whenever needed) extremely low, 1,167 mm (Nissan GTR 1,372 mm) plug in hybrid which is just an overweight RWD car easily beaten by a GTR Nismo after the short period the battery lasts. And even w fully charged battery, performance is about the same. The only reason it could creep under 7 min was the electric motor torque (compare the Americans which took their torque from even bigger engines!

Porsche 918 will cost US$845,000 while the better quality and performing
2015 Nissan GTR Nismo will cost from $149,990 with a 3.8l V6, 600hp, 481lb/ft of torque. It currently holds the lap record for a mass production vehicle at Germany’s famous Nordschleife circuit with a time of 7:08.679. It has a top speed just short of 200mph, 0-60 in 2.6 and features technology perfected by the truly Japanese Nissan Nismo factory (i.e. not the same as ordinary Nissans but the one behind Infiniti's Formula One success etc).

Fastest laps reported at Nurburgring

6:57 (this car was built only for repairing Porsche's damaged reputation - it's a stupid heavy monstrosity in all other aspects)
Porsche 918 Spyder 4.6l V8 + Toyota hybrid motors and tech
Marc Lieb
4 September 2013
Equipped w 'Weissach Package' with Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tyres. Observed by Sport Auto.

7:08.69
Nissan GT-R Nismo (2015)
Michael Krumm
September 30, 2013
'Track Pack' with 255/40RF-20 run-flat Dunlop SP Sport Maxx GT 600 DSST tires.

7:12:13
Dodge Viper ACR (2010) with an 8l V8
Dominik Farnbacher
14 September 2011
SRT conducted test. Video and manufacturer confirmed. OEM Michelin Pilot Sport Cup R compound track DOT competition tires. TTAC article.

7:14.64
Lexus LFA Nürburgring Package
Akira Iida
31 August 2011
Lexus conducted test. Video confirmed. Stock LFA with "Nürburgring Package". OEM Bridgestone Potenza RE070 street tires. Additional Roll Cage was equipped

7:19.63
Chevrolet Corvette C6 ZR1 (2012) 7l V8
Jim Mero
9 June 2011
General Motors conducted test,[24] base specification car with optional track DOT competition tires (Michelin Pilot Sport Cup Zero Pressure), video confirmed.

7:24
Porsche 911 GT2 RS the fastest non-hybrid Porsche
Horst von Saurma
Sport Auto

7:24.22
Nissan GT-R (2011)
Toshio Suzuki
1 October 2010
Nissan conducted test.[29] Semi-wet conditions. Video confirmed. Best Motoring (12/2010).

7:24.3
Maserati MC12
Marc Basseng
August 2008
Evo Magazine conducted test

Best Ferrari comes way down:

7:25.7
Ferrari Enzo
Marc Basseng
August 2008
Evo Magazine conducted test

Car quality study 2014

Do note that Acura and Honda are the same - just like Audi and Volkswagen. Also note that while Mercedes sell expensive cars in US Honda does the opposite. Same with BMW compared to Subaru. With such a reading you'll soon realize that among luxus cars no one is even close to Lexus and that among ordinary cars Honda and Toyota are the by far best brands. And although Toyota may have a lead in selling hybrids Honda has always been ranked the greenest car producer overall in the world.

Compare this to:

2006 Consumer report: "After Lexus, Honda and Toyota, the brands rounding out the top ten for reliability were Mitsubishi, Subaru, Acura, Scion, Mercury, Mazda and Suzuki. The ten lowest-rated brands were Audi, Infiniti, Saturn, Lincoln, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Land Rover, Hummer and Porsche."

Porsche can't even produce a high tech small car and BMW's Mini is a quality disaster! Compare this to the extreme quality and built-in drivability and Honda high tech feeling (also compare Honda Asimo) in a Civic made for ordinary users! Not to mention high tech Honda hybrid and Fuel Cell cars. Honda also makes the cleanest diesel engines.



Honda has the world's best engines followed by Toyota - and Germans are among the worst

German cars 'among worst for engine failures'

Audi, BMW and VW ranked in the bottom 10 of a study into engine reliability

German-made cars are not as reliable as many believe, according to new research (Klevius comment: German cars have never been even close to Japanese best brands - but the myth is still on). Warranty Direct has studied its claims data to compile a list of the manufacturers with the most reliable engines - and Audi, BMW and Volkswagen all finished in the bottom 10 out of a total 36 makers.

In fact, the only firm whose cars had a worse engine failure rate than Audi was MG Rover. MINI wasn’t much better, finishing third from bottom, while its parent company BMW came seventh from bottom. And, despite its reputation for rock-solid reliability, Volkswagen came ninth from bottom.

Honda scooped the gold medal – the study found that just one in every 344 Honda engines failed, compared to one in every 27 Audi engines.



Honda has the world's best engines followed by Toyota - and Germans are among the worst

German cars 'among worst for engine failures'

Audi, BMW and VW ranked in the bottom 10 of a study into engine reliability

German-made cars are not as reliable as many believe, according to new research (Klevius comment: German cars have never been even close to Japanese best brands - but the myth is still on). Warranty Direct has studied its claims data to compile a list of the manufacturers with the most reliable engines - and Audi, BMW and Volkswagen all finished in the bottom 10 out of a total 36 makers.

In fact, the only firm whose cars had a worse engine failure rate than Audi was MG Rover. MINI wasn’t much better, finishing third from bottom, while its parent company BMW came seventh from bottom. Volkswagen came ninth from bottom.

Car safety study

According to Swedish Folksam's insurance statistics on car fires only one out of the 55 most dangerous cars in Sweden was Japanese, whereas 34 out of the 47 least dangerous cars were Japanese (with Toyota and Honda in top)!

Japanese high tech in context

Although Japanese technology, in its "relentless pursuit for perfection", always has created the world's best swords, and the Arabs usually got their inferior ones from others, it seems that the latter ones have been in much more frequent usage for submission throughout history than the former!

Klevius wrote about HAYABUSA’s space mission 2005 (mainly because almost no one else did): To bring back samples from an asteroid and investigate the mysteries of the birth of the solar system. This Japanese ultra technology, and world unique performance, isn't even reported in Sweden, so far (9/2005)!?

Today we know Hayabisa landed not only once but several times on the asteroid and then successfully delivered samples back to Earth. An accomplishment no other nation has succeeded with so far.

The phony Porsche 918 and what Richard Hammond forgot to tell you about it

Porsche 918 Spyder has a big V8 engine coupled to a Toyots hybrid technology similar to that used in a Lexus SUV and, according to the official figures, emits just 70g/km of CO2 while using just 3.0l/100km. So we are to believe it’s faster than a Porsche 911 Turbo, and more economical and emits less carbon than a Prius.

The NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) test on which these fanciful and gravely misleading official emission figures are based, unreasonably favors cars that use plugs as well as petrol, and with no realistic assessment of engine size, real time driving etc.

These official CO2 (and associated fuel usage) figures are used to promote cars. But the figures are deeply flawed.

The official test is done at warm temperatures (between 20 and 30deg C) and cold weather reduces the efficiency of the hybrids’ batteries while you’ll also need to use the electric-powered heater or, when it's hot, air conditioner, increasing electric energy consumption and reducing range.

Moreover, air conditioning, lights and heated windows are all turned off in the test cycle, the test is statistically biased to a high amount of urban driving, where hybrids perform better.

The official test is even less accurate for plug-in hybrids such as the Porsche 918 Spyder, because the CO2 emissions from power stations used to charge their batteries are ignored. On top of this there are numerous assumptions, each of which flatters a plug-in hybrid’s fuel economy. Why? Because European car makers were so much behind the Japanese and now when they finally bought in to the Japanese technology they chose the plug-in variant

The NEDC test assumes a plug-in hybrid starts each journey with a fully charged battery on which it can run electric-only until the charge is depleted. Once the battery is exhausted, it assumes you’ll go no further than 25km on petrol power before charging again. Just a few km more with a near five  litre V8 compared to a 1,6 litre Prius makes a huge difference, not to mention that people buying a Porsche don't drive like Prius drivers in the first place.

If you don’t charge up as regularly as the test assumes, or drive longer distances between recharging, fuel consumption (and CO2 emissions) will be much higher.

The normal hybrid Prius officially emits 89g/km of CO2 while the otherwise identical ‘Plug-in’ Prius emits 49g, and consumes 3.9 vs 2.1 (L/100km).

 Plug-in hybrid "supercars" (918 Spyder, new ‘Enzo’ Ferrari, McLaren P1 etc) are easily beaten in overall performance by, for example the much cheaper but qualitatively superior, Nissan GTR Nismo and Lexus LF-A/RC1.

Honda engine fun in a lousy old fashioned BMW

Do note that this is already an old story.



Here's a funny story abt some crazy Japanese street mechanics enlivening a tired BMW by the help of an old 1999 Honda S2000 STANDARD engine - 250 hp from 2 litre WITHOUT A TURBO more than a decade ago! Kiss my ass Ferrari). Note the BMW's rev meter's redline at 6000 plus, & how the lively Honda engine pushes the needle all the way round to the start position at zero! see the hilarious video!



Here's what Klevius wrote 2005:

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Shinto meets Islam - Civilization vs "killing & raping fields"

Update January 9, 2006 (American Daily): "Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and Confucianism are all religions of the world. Islam says it is a religion among world religions. It is not. It is a killing cult, nothing more. Islam demands that those who do not convert to Islam be slain or taken as slaves. There is no third option. With the genuine world religions, they tolerate those who do not agree with their tenets. They do not declare that those who do not agree with their dogmas be slain or taken as slaves."


Klevius comment: Look at those pathetic males (pathetic if they are racist/sexist pan-Arabic Islamist mosque-building oil-billionaires who trade in Islamic darkness in mosques, schools, universities, youth organizations etc?)! Too busy spending oil-money on technical wonders their own slave & oil-fuelled pan-Arabic/Islamic culture is uncapable of producing? Whereas Shinto (the world's oldest* religion) created the world's best high tech, Islam (the world's youngest "religion") created terror and Koran-brainwashed suicide-killers in the service of fascist and sexist pan-Arabism (i.e. true Islam)! For a better world in Darfur and elsewhere - bury Islam! Islam has caused more suffering than any other ideology (incl. Hitler's & Stalin's socialism/communism), yet it has always been excused (and surprisingly often by its own victims, i.e. the opposite compared to the "black"/"white" situation)!

This (Saud based OIC and its Saudi Sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani) is islam today - and it's against the most basic Human Rights! No matter how many times you or your informants tell us islam is nice!

Saturday, August 17, 2013

How come that the best tech in the world comes from a non-muslim and non-Christian people?

Who moron bought Steinway?

And why do many churches, concert halls etc keep buying inferior grands?

Klevius has the answer - keep reading!


BBC's confused "piano expert" Chris Hopkins, didn't even mention the best brand when he named his favorite piano makers. Instead Chris Hopkins blabbed about Steinway and their top model D. And here comes the truly revealing part. When asked to motivate his opinion Chris Hopkins had nothing logical to say but instead admitted that the Steinway D's quality differed widely between individual pianos. But this devastating fact he then tried to turn positive in the old tiresome babbling about "hand made"* and "individuals", when the fact is that Steinway cannot produce the same quality pianos as Yamaha because of the same reason Ferrari, Porsche etc cannot produce the same quality as Lexus etc Japanese high tech cars.

* Compare extremely over-prized (part of the selling trick) handmade European watches - usually driven by some already outdated Japanese tech.

Kevin Higgins (about Yamaha CFX): I was pleasantly surprised by the warm round tone of each note. It was the best piano I have ever played. The action was easy and the keyboard had a nice textured feel that gave me confidence and security in my play. Much easier to play than the Steinway D. More clarity on the bottom end. This piano achieves real depth but with a better action. It's amazing.




Klevius: Not only that. Yamaha's superior and even production quality guarantees that you really get what you want.

Yamaha talked to hundreds of  the world’s most accomplished pianists, including those that did not play Yamaha pianos, and they asked them all what it was they most wanted to see in a concert instrument, and also what they hoped not to see.

Klevius comment: If they'd asked the buyers instead they'd likely got the answer that they hoped not to see the Yamaha brand name on the piano. Btw, have you noticed how TV cameras tend to be allergic to the Yamaha brand name while never missing an opportunity to show the Steinway brand name. Crypto-racism?!

The V10 engine in Lexus LFA is made by Yamaha.

Never buy a camera with a Zeiss lens

I got a cheap Sony bridge camera more than four years ago. I've taken thousands and thousands of pics and I've had it out almost every day in a variety of wet, sandy, dirty, hot and cold environments loose in the car or in some suspicious bags etc without any other protection. It has never failed (the only Japanese camera that has failed for me was a Panasonic with a Zeiss lens - which very soon lacked working both zooming and focusing while the rest of the camera works perfectly). I'm sure I'm not alone. Just check quality lists etc.

This photo was taken hand-held with my soon five year old cheap Sony HX1 recently.

Girls/women! If you really want equality (and why wouldn't you?), then challenge the treacherous use of the deceptive 'gender' concept!

Girls/women! If you really want equality (and why wouldn't you?), then challenge the treacherous use of the deceptive 'gender' concept!

If your feminist professor keeps talking about 'gender' as synonymous with 'sex', then you know for sure she is part of the problem!

Below you can see some previous writings by Klevius on the not only stupid but also extremely dangerous 'gender' concept. However, here's a very brief clarification of what it's all about. I use football (soccer) as an example because it happens to be the most contentious of sports in this respect.

Female football is defined by the biological sex of the players - not by their cultural or grammatical gender. No one would even consider questioning the right of a biological female to play in a women's football team no matter how "screwed up" her "expected gender appearance" or "femininity" or her physical appearance would be. Yes, she would possibly get the usual lesbian label, and demands to get more 'feminine' (gender) etc. but her status and rights as a player would still be rock solid.

Girls, whoever or wherever you are: Heterosexual attraction and reproductive capacity need not to confine/suppress your human being in your female body. As the Human Rights Declaration says, sex ought not to restrict any of your freedoms. However, islamic Sharia (in whatever* existing or future form) is an intrusion on your Human Rights! And remember: Human Rights give you and all others the freedom of choice - even if your choice is to live in accordance with Sharia. However, if you ask for Sharia you also commit an imposition on others incl. girls not even born as yet!

* Islam becomes immediately meaningless if girls/women are given equality. This is why all muslims' world organization, Saudi based, and Saudi led (Iyad Madani) OIC via UN has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia. According to this world-Sharia girls'/women's rights are restricted by sex "duties", sex "obligations" etc. And don't let yourself get confused by people telling you that everyone has duties and obligations - that's completely beside the islamic point and could easily have been dealt with within the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration that islam opposes.

Religious fascism - the curse of today

The fanatic boosting of religion today always favors the worst of them and in them! Hint: Saudi islamofascist Iyad Madani is now the Fuhrer of the most powerful totalitarian religious fascism (Wahabism, Salafism - or whatever you prefer to call it).

These women are no different from others applauding the suppressing of girls/women. Compare e.g. all compulsory veil supporters. Compulsory because if the veil is supported in reference to it as a symbol for religion (i.e. evil islam) then it can't simultaneously be defended as the wearers "personal choice". Why? Because there is no choice! If the individual chooses not to wear the veil in a religious (evil islamic) "veil community" she is immediately stepping out of the religion (evil islam) of her "community".

belong to the female patriarchy

Klevius sex and gender tutorial

Freedman (a Stanford professor teaching about feminism):
Defining Feminism
A. Today the term “feminism” is quite loaded politically. We will put
aside contemporary stereotypes and caricatures of feminism to
understand its history.
B. Feminism as a term in modern Western culture has very recent histori-
cal origins, as well as diverse contemporary meanings.
1. The French word feminisme first appeared in the late nineteenth
century—from the word femme (woman) and isme (social movement
or ideology)—as part of broader campaigns for social justice, includ-
ing labor and socialist movements.

3. After the rebirth of the women’s movement in the 1960s, more
activists in Western societies began calling themselves feminists.
Feminism gradually became an umbrella term for a variety of social
movements that challenged gender inequality in law and culture.



Klevius comment: Would you believe it! Not even a hint at the fact that there were two completely opposite "feminist" movements at the time Freud came up with his ridiculous "psychoanalysis" (see Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline) now lumped together under the 'feminism' label. One wanted equality with men and the other wanted separatism (incl. the rejection of the right to vote). And what the heck is 'gender inequality in law and culture'?! It's sex gender inequality in law and culture, dude! Gender is already inequal because it's unequal so how could it challenge its own premises?! Gender is an unequal relation 

Here's some very old and less old stuff Klevius pleads guilty of having come up with:

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Peter Klevius is the world's foremost expert on sex segregation - and it's easy because of a total lack of competition!

 Islamosexist women on UK universities

Dear reader, if you, like Klevius, agree that it's sexist not to let women do what they want, then you also share Klevius view that these women are not only deeply sexist, but also alarmingly hypocritical.

Moreover, these kind of influential women truly support Klevius (and Weininger's) conclusion that women constitute the main obstacle against women's emancipation.

Or how else would you explain these two women and many others who state that allowing women freedom is against women's rights? In other words, they want to force all women to conform to their view.

And of course, to become an influential sexist woman is today supported by the most sexist of ideologies, i.e. islam. An ideology that openly violates basic Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, especially regarding girls and women.

The disastrous "separate but equal" doctrine

Africa was suffering under a disastrous Koranic/islamic slave raid/trade Umma imperialism for some 800 years before the first Europeans arrived. Was Africa then "separate but equal"?

In 2013, Universities UK published the document "External speakers in higher education institutions" which provoked controversy over its acknowledgement that audiences might be segregated to satisfy the demands of muslim speakers. The guidelines follow the principle that segregation is permissible if the Equality Act 2010 is followed and equal priority is given to all groups, in a manner similar to the former "separate but equal" doctrine in United States constitutional law.

However, this is just the starting point of a slippery slope.

A well paid "specialist in equality" spits out the most unbelievable non sense in her desperate effort to cover up her support for islamosexism

http://www.youtube.com/feature=player_embedded

Listen to this guttural babbling Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive of Universities UK, vomited in a BBC interview when asked why she doesn't want to defend women's right to sit were they want: 'You're the one who suggests that they don't have the right to sit where they want'. I.e. she actually meant that all women's right to sit where they wanted was an infringement against those women who wanted to be segregated!

the whole interview is here


And here some more from the same woman in an other interview:


 Nick Cohen to Nicola Dandridge:

    Why not go further? Why not segregate all lectures at universities? Or as, I said to Dandridge, why not segregate by race?

    Well she replied, Universities UK cannot recommend racial segregation because Parliament has banned it.

    What about speakers insisting that homosexuals sit on one side of a hall and heterosexuals on another?

    Dandridge did not want to see gays singled out, she said. Not in the least.

    ‘What’s your problem with women, then? Why should they come last?’

    ‘Because gender difference is visible.’


Klevius comment: And by 'gender' she stupidly meant e.g. breasts, which do not belong to the gender category at all. Female breasts belong to the female sex, not to gender. You don't call a breast 'she', do you!

Warning to you girls who want to decide over your lives - and let other girls decide over their lives! Watch up for this woman!

Leicester University is one of the world's most sexist (i.e. islamized) universities. You may not believe me but the truth is (an other professor witnessed it) that a female professor, Barbara Misztal (an East European immigrant? as BBC uses to put it), when presented with criticism against islam's rejection of women's full Human Rights via Sharia, said "Why don't you want to let women lead their lives as they wish". Yes, you got it right. She saw Sharia restrictions of women's rights as a right! Why hasn't anyone taught her that impositions are not rights, and that Human Rights don't hinder muslim women from choosing to live under these impositions whereas Sharia denies them the choice to freedom. Moreover, she also blamed the messenger for not allowing women to NOT HAVE THEIR FULL RIGHTS!

Barbara Misztal's  female students need to know this, and as usual, it seems that Klevius is the only one daring to really address this ultimate and extremely disastrous and even dangerous sexism.

Sharia sex segregation or Human Rights for girls/women?

In every possible form of Sharia girls/women are forced to lead their lives in sex apartheid of varying degrees. And that includes OIC's all muslims covering Sharia law via UN. But according to Human Rights every girl/woman has the right to decide herself what kind of life she wants to lead - incl. a sex segregated life if she so wishes. So to live in a society where Sharia rules doesn't really give any fair options.

In islam women and non-muslims are all "infidels", and the only thing that really distinguishes a woman as muslim is her "duty" towards islam to reproduce (physically and/or culturally) as many new muslims as possible - and of course to have the Sharia duty to serve as a sex slave for her muslim husband.

Isn't that funny, muslims need a law to get sex while for me such compulsory sex equals rape!

In John Peters Humprey's world view "infidels" didn't exist

John Peters Humphrey (peace be upon him and Human Rights) is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he is utterly defamated by muslim Humanrightsophobes - yet all the Billions of Human Rights followers take it (too?) calmly.

John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him and Human Rights).

So what is modern islamofascism?

The main purpose of OIC is to gather all the world's muslims under a worldwide Umma that is protected from Human Rights criticism. And for that purpose OIC (ab)uses UN, and in an extension, via UN tries to implement national laws all over the world that not only keep islam out of scrutiny but even makes criticism of islam a crime! This lobbying is going on all the time with weak and vulnerable and/or just traitor politicians while most of the people are kept in deep ignorance about islam through extremely Saudi biased education and the threats of being accused of racism or "islamophobia".

And no, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's all to be found in UN's official documents and on the web.

And no, it's not the question of some "minor adjustments". No, this is big and OIC's own actions (e.g. officially abandoning some of the most basic Human Rights) in the UN easily proves Klevius right on this point.

And basically it's all about sanctioning islamic racism and sexism, i.e. the very original pillars that in the first place made islam attractive for the lowest of human behavior!



And finally


It's sex segregation, not gender segregation! It wasn't their gender but their female bodies that were segregated. No one asked them about their gender views before they were seated!

Peter Klevius has relentlessly for a long time tried to point out these stupidities surrounding sex segregation. Take a look at this for a starter:

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Klevius sex and gender tutorial

Klevius quest of the day: What's the difference between the Pope and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Klevius hint: It's all about 'not sameness' and Human Rights! Human Rights IS 'sameness' stupid!

When God was created he was made like Adam.

When the basic idea of Universal Human Rights was created it was made like Adam AND Eve.

And for you who think heterosexual attraction, i.e. that women are sexier than men, could be (exc)used as a reason for depriving women of legal sameness. Please, do think again! And read Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial below - if you can!

Klevius sex and gender tutorial

Judith Butler's* ultimate naivity/ignorance (or?!) on HSA & kinship & islam: "But in actuality, the burka...can be a sign of private faith; it can be a way of signifying a certain belonging to community; the burka can be a way of negotiating shame and sexuality in a public sphere, or preserving a woman’s honor, and even a way of resisting certain western modes of dress that signify a full encroachment of fashion and commodity dress that signifies the cultural efforts to efface Islamic practice. I cannot imagine that it only signifies one thing...Klevius comment: "Can be"!? Would you believe it, she misses (sic) the only relevant point namely that the burka signifies Islamic Sharia confinement of the female muslim reproducer - not resistance! In fact, the burka proper IS the opposite to resistance. Furthermore this "signifier" is un-democratic and hence unable "to undo restrictively normative conceptions of sexual and gendered life"! Btw, how many single-sex couples out there just name themselves lesbians for the sole purpose of being accepted as living together in a household for more than a period of studies etc? Also compare the tragedy of David Reimer (male "made female" and discussed in Butler's Undoing Gender) who suffered from social and physical mutilation caused by sex segregation now and then. He later committed suicide just like his schizophrenia suffering twin. Contrary to offered (s)explanations David could have been equally bullied as a non-mutilated boy. Furthermore, he was only in second grade when he became bullied etc. Perhaps his "secret" had leaked out. However, when HSA (heterosexual attraction) begun affecting him many years later it was easy for him to take the decision to not try to become a women. Also we don't know how much social sex pressure affected his short marriage. But we do know that Butler misses all of this precisely because she lacks essential knowledge and understanding of biology (i.e. kinship and HSA - see Marriage, Kinship and Friendship).

Butler's heterophobia is (mis)directed against the Freudian (hoax - see From Freud to bin Laden and From Klevius without love and Klevius love letter to Edith Södergran) oedipalised family structure (see Klevius psycho(social timeline). Butler: "In other words, the authorative force that shores up the incontestability of the symbolic law is itself an exercise of that symbolic law, a further instance of the place of the father, as it were, indisputable and incontestable" Klevius: No, not the "father" but HSA and sex segregation! Feminism IS genderized "heteronormative binariness" precisely because it has to be bio-essential for its own survival, yet also avoiding an identity based on the concept sex segregation because of its revealing characteristics, for example the burka.
"...should be in favor of opening the public schools to those who wear the burka, since it will be in those schools that cultural encounters will take place that allows both Islamic and non-islamic students the chance to learn something about how various people actually live... the particular cultural negotiations that an Islamic woman makes in the context of rural and urban Germany in these times."
Klevius comment: With Gender Trouble I thought abt Judith as a promising new female liberator from sex segregation. However, it turned out that she merely rode on a wave of "discourse confusion" in the aftermath of the feminist realization that focusing on sex would ultimately undermine feminism per se. And the more we hear from Judith the more conservative she sounds. And what would be more safe a positioning for a crypto-essentialist if not Islam. So perhaps her ending up as a sexist fundamentalist shouldn't surprise anyone. No, there's no place for "cultural negotiations" in a burka! Furthermore Butler (like many women) denies the existence of HSA (an uneven evolutionary bio heterosexual attraction) hence missing another important issue about the burka.

Gametes have no sex

Although it is almost trivial today to criticize Freud, child psychiatry and issues in sex-segregation still seem to be something like the last resorts for otherwise out-dated mainstream and reactionary psychoanalysis (e.g. GID - gender identity disorder). Freud’s all-embracing libidinal power of males and penis envy of females thus constitute excellent openings for sex/gender criticism. A considerable part of this criticism occurs within a continuously changing psychoanalytic movement itself. In this respect one can seriously question its internal coherency (For an alternative.view read about Childless female child psychoanalysts in search for motherhood and femininity).* Judith Butler, for example, questions the dichotomy of sex as well as the necessity of heterosexuality, and, contrary to S. Freud, presupposes that masculine and feminine are not dispositions. One of the most anxious aims of desire is hence to elaborate the difference between him and her, and to discover and install proof of that difference (1997:132-137). Despite a considerable body of ”evolutionary” speculations, however, there seem to be only two distinct facts to rely on in sexual reproduction: heterosexual attraction (HSA, for example what makes: a fish deliver his sperms on top of a heap of roe; a bee to carry pollen to the pistil etc.) and biological kin recognition/altruism. These, however, are almost extinct in the discourse of today. Both Freud and Butler seem to have neglected their essential relevance, maybe partly because of a general (unconscious) ambiguity towards modernity, and partly because of a view on sexuality that does not fully discriminate this most basic evolutionary aim of sexuality. Recognizing pure HSA (as separated from its popular and all-embracing cultural form**) would make controversies about sexual identity, homo-sexuality etc. less controversial, not the least because there seems to be limited access to what it really is except for that it has to be there because of how we conceptualise evolution itself (also compare L. Irigaray 1985).

As a conclusion Butler establishes that what is called power is in fact what makes one’s ambivalent emergence possible and, subsequently, a strict identity impossible (1997:198)! So where's the room of feminists' own? Or the door to, or, more importantly, out of it?

**)  Compare the fact that the class of women ultimately rests on the essentialist sex-interpretation formulated in the delivery room. The feminine hence belongs to a sub-class of "biological" women.
Gender trouble solved
Although gender, seen as an emphasise of a social, cultural or psychological dimension, is usually used in contrast to sex (seen as an emphasis on a biological dimension), there is no agreement on, not only where to draw the line but also on the internal  positioning of the concepts. Although (social) gender describes the state of being female or male in a social context the same can be said about sex. Sex ascribed to a living being may be described by assumed reproductive potential or plainly as a visual comparison to what is considered the other sex. However, these are clearly not the ones under consideration when we talk social gender. What we have to evaluate is whether sex is compared on an equal footing. What exactly is the meaning of having a concept, gender, that shares the conceptualization of another concept, sex, but also expands it, allegedly beyond its limits? But are there limits for ‘biological sex’ as a concept? In fact, it seems that its only limit is in the direction of its own essence, i.e. how precise or “biological” a body can possibly be in the interpreter’s eye while still keeping its distance to gender? A fair comparison  needs to account for both the comparative status of the concepts, i.e. that the initial purpose (dicholtomy) of the comparison is upheld, and that no additional “stretching” of the concepts are allowed. With such a ruling it will be argued that there is no meaningful difference between sex and gender. An insistence on a difference may then be interpreted as an extension of one of the compared concepts on the behalf of the other while still keeping in touch with the mutual base, i.e. the "biological" body.To what extent are gender and sex social or biological constructs?
What does it mean that sex is biological? Do other factors not solely limited to biological sex count? What about HSA (heterosexual attraction)? Whereas "femininity", "identity", "gender" etc. not well articulated (or at least not coherently used) concepts dominate "gender studies" (a cover name for academic neo-sex segregation) debates and political forums, HSA isn't even considered in the equation, whereas kinship is counter-productive.

Of course, social or personal gender identity  or other characteristics may not be related to sexuality at all. However, this option seems quite limited in the discourse of today




2013:

What's the difference between the Pope and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Klevius hint: It's all about 'not sameness' and Human Rights! Human Rights IS 'sameness' stupid!

When God was created he was made like Adam.

When the basic idea of Universal Human Rights was created it was made like Adam AND Eve.

And for you who think heterosexual attraction, i.e. that women are sexier than men, could be (exc)used as a reason for depriving women of legal sameness. Please, do think again!And read Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial below - if you can!

                           The Plan of God

A Cardinal, a Pope and a Justice "from medieval times"

Keith O'Brien has reiterated the Catholic Church's continued opposition to civil partnerships and suggested that there should be no laws that "facilitate" same-sex relationships, which he claimed were "harmful", arguing that “The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships, we have failed those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wider society by our actions.”

Four male members of the Scottish Catholic clergy  allegedly claim that Keith O'Brien had abused his position as a member of the church hierarchy by making unwanted homosexual advances towards them in the 1980s.

Keith O'Brien criticized the concept of same-sex marriage saying it would shame the United Kingdom and that promoting such things would degenerate society further.


Pope Francis, aka Jorge Bergoglio: Same-sex is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." He has also insisted that adoption by gay and lesbian people is a form of discrimination against children. This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said the church's tone was reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition".

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 'Sex' is a dirty word, so let's use 'gender' instead!

Klevius: Let's not!

As previously and repeatedly pointed out by Klevius, the treacherous use of 'gender' instead of 'sex' is not only confusing but deliberately so. So when Jewish Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg proposed gender' as a synonyme for 'sex' (meaning biological sex) she also helped to shut the door for many a young girl's/woman's possibilities to climb outside the gender cage.

The Universal Human Rights declaration clearly states that your biological sex should not be referred to as an excuse for limiting your rights.

Islam (now represented by OIC and its Sharia declaration) is the worst and most dangerous form of sex segregation - no matter in how modern clothing it's presented!

Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial

What is 'gender' anyway?

(text randomly extracted from some scientific writings by Klevius)

 It might be argued that it is the developing girl, not the grown up woman, who is the most receptive to new experience, but yet is also the most vulnerable. Therefore we need to address the analysis of the tyranny of gender before the point at where it's already too late.  I prefer to use the term ‘female’ instead of ‘woman’ so to include girls, when appropriate in this discussion. I also prefer not to define women in relation to men, i.e. in line with the word 'universal' in the Human Rights Declaration. In short, I propose 'gender blindness' equally as, for example, 'color blindness'. And keep in mind, this has nothing to do with biological differences.

According to Connell (2003:184), it is an old and disreputable habit to define women mainly on the basis of their relation to men. Moreover, this approach may also constitute a possible cause of confusion when compared to a definition of ‘gender’ which emphasizes social relations on the basis of ‘reproductive differences’.

To really grasp the absurdity of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and others habit of confusing 'gender' with 'sex' one may consider that “normal” girls/women live in the same gender trap tyranny as do transsexuals.

The definition of ‘acquired gender’ is described in a guidance for/about transsexuals as:

Transsexual people have the deep conviction that the gender to which they were assigned at birth on the basis of their physical anatomy (referred to as their “birth gender”) is incorrect. That conviction will often lead them to take steps to present themselves to the world in the opposite gender. Often, transsexual people will undergo hormonal or surgical treatment to bring their physical identity into line with their preferred gender identity.

This evokes the extinction of the feminine or women as directly dependent on the existence of the masculine or men. Whereas the feminine cannot be defined without the masculine, the same applies to women who cannot be defined - only described - without men.

Female footballers, for example - as opposed to feminine footballers, both male and female - are, just like the target group of feminism, by definition distinguished by sex. Although this classification is a physical segregation – most often based on a delivery room assessment made official and not at all taking into account physical size, strength, skills etc. - other aspects of sex difference, now usually called ‘gender’, seem to be layered on top of this dichotomy. This review departs from the understanding that there are two main categories that distinguish females, i.e. the physical sex belonging, for example, that only biological women may participate in a certain competition, and the cultural sex determination, for example that some sports or sporters are less ‘feminine’ than others.

‘Gender’ is synonymous with sex segregation, given that the example of participation on the ground of one’s biological sex is simply a rule for a certain agreed activity and hence not sex segregation in the form of stipulated or assumed separatism. Such sex segregation is still common even in societies which have prescribed to notions of general human freedom regardless of sex and in accordance with Human Rights. This is because of a common consensus that sex segregation is ‘good’ although, as it is seen here, its effects are bad in the long run.

In Durkheim’s (1984: 142) view ‘organized despotism’ is where the individual and the collective consciousness are almost the same. Then sui generis, a new life may be added on to that of the main body. As a consequence, this freer and more independent state progresses and consolidates itself (Durkheim 1984: 284).

However, consensus may also rest on an imbalance that is upheld and may even strengthen precisely as an effect of the initial imbalance. In such a case ‘organized despotism’ becomes the means for conservation. As a consequence, the only alternative would be to ease restrictions, which is something fundamentally different from proposing how people should live their lives. ‘Organized despotism’ in this meaning may apply to gender and to sex segregation as well.

According to Connell (2003) whose confused view may be closer to that of Justice Ginsburg, gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a ‘general perception’. Cultural patterns do not only mirror bodily differences. Gender is ‘a structure’ of social relations/practices concentrated to ‘the reproductive arena’, and a series of due practices in social processes. That is, gender describes how society relates to the human body, and has due consequences for our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003:21-22). However, the main problem here involves how to talk without gender.

Sex should properly refer to the biological aspects of male and female existence. Sex differences should therefore only be used to refer to physiology, anatomy, genetics, hormones and so forth. Gender should properly be used to refer to all the non‑biological aspects of differences between males and females ‑ clothes, interests, attitudes, behaviors and aptitudes, for example ‑ which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' life styles (Delamont 1980: 5 in Hargreaves 1994:146).

It seems that 'masculine' and 'feminine’ in this definition of gender is confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s definition of gender. However, although gender, according to Connell (2003: 96), may also be ‘removed’ the crucial issue is whether those who are segregated really want to de-sex segregate? As long as the benefits of a breakout are not clearly assessable, the possible negative effects may undermine such efforts.Hesitating to run out through an opened door to the unknown doesn't necessarily mean that you don't want to. Nor does it mean that you have to.

According to Connell (2003:20) the very key to the understanding of gender is not to focus on differences, but, instead, to focus on relations. In fact, this distinction is crucial here because relations, contrary to differences, are mutually dependent. Whatever difference existing between the sexes is meaningless unless it is connected via a relation. On the one hand, big male muscles can hardly be of relational use other than in cases of domestic violence, and on the other hand, wage gaps cannot be identified without a comparative relation to the other sex.

Biological determinism is influential in the general discourse of sports academia (Hargreaves 1994:8). However, what remains to analyze is whether ‘gender’ is really a successful concept for dealing with biological determinism?

‘To explain the cultural at the level of the biological encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between men and women, and masks the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’ (Hargreaves 1994:8).

With another example: to explain the cultural (driver) at the level of the technical (type of car) encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between cars, and masks the complex relationship between the car and the driver. However, also the contrary seems to hold true;. that the cultural (driver/gender) gets tied to the technical/biological. The ‘complex relationship’ between the car and the driver is easily avoided by using similar1 cars, hence making the driver more visible. In a sex/gender setting the ‘complex relationship’ between sex and gender is easily avoided by distinguishing between sex and culture2, hence making culture more visible. The term ‘culture’, unlike the term ‘gender’ clearly tries to avoid the ‘complex relationship’ between biology and gender. The ‘complex relationship’ makes it, in fact, impossible to distinguish between them. On top of this comes the ‘gender relation’ confusion, which determines people to have ‘gender relations’, i.e. to be opposite or separate.

This kind of gender view is popular, perhaps because it may serve as a convenient way out from directly confronting the biology/culture distinction, and seems to be the prevalent trend, to the extent that ‘gender’ has conceptually replaced ‘sex’, leading to the consequence that the latter has become more or less self-evident and thus almost beyond scrutiny. In other words, by using ‘gender’ as a sign for ‘the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’, biological determinism becomes more difficult to access analytically.

The distinction between sex and gender implied in these quotations, however, does not seem to resolve the issue, precisely because it fails to offer a tool for discriminating biological aspects of differences from non-biological ones, i.e. those that are cultural. This is also reflected in everyday life. ‘Folk’ categories of sex and gender often appear to be used as if they were the same thing. Although 'masculine' and 'feminine' are social realities, there is a mystique about their being predetermined by biology. Furthermore the very relational meaning of ‘gender’ seems to constitute a too obvious hiding place for a brand of essentialism based on sex. Apart from being ‘structure’, as noted above, gender is, according to Connell (2003:20), all about relations. However, if there are none - or if the relations are excluding - the concept of sex segregation may be even more useful.

In Connell’s analysis, gender may be removed (Connell 2003:96). In this respect and as a consequence, gender equals sex segregation. In fact it seems that the 'masculine' and 'feminine’, in the definition of gender above, are confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s (2003:21) definition of gender. The elusiveness of gender seems to reveal a point of focus rather than a thorough-going conceptualization. So, for example, in traditional Engels/Marx thinking the family’s mediating formation between class and state excludes the politics of gender (Haraway 1991: 131).

What's a Woman?

In What is a Woman? Moi (1999) attacks the concept of gender while still emphasizing the importance of the concept of the feminine and a strong self-conscious (female) subject that combines the personal and the theoretical within it. Moi (1999: 76), hence, seems to propose a loose sex/gender axis resting on a rigid womanhood based on women’s context bound, lived experience outside the realm of men’s experience.

Although I share Moi’s suggestion for abandoning the category of gender, her analysis seems to contribute to a certain confusion and to an almost incalculable theoretical abstraction in the sex/gender distinction because it keeps maintaining sex segregation without offering a convincing defence for it. Although gender, for example, is seen as a nature-culture distinction, something that essentializes non-essential differences between women and men, the same may be said about Moi’s approach if we understand her ‘woman’ as, mainly, the mainstream biological one usually classified (prematurely) in the delivery room. If the sexes live in separate spheres, as Moi’s analysis seems to imply, the lived, contextual experience of women appears as less suitable for pioneering on men’s territory.

This raises the question about whether the opening up of new frontiers for females may demand the lessening or even the absence of femininity (and masculinity). In fact, it is believed here that the ‘liminal state’ where social progression might best occur, is precisely that. Gender as an educated ‘facticity’ then, from this point of view, will inevitably enter into a state of world view that adds itself onto the ‘lived body’ as a constraint.

It is assumed here that we commonly conflate constructs of sex, gender, and sexuality. When sex is defined as the ‘biological’ aspects of male and female, then this conceptualization is here understood as purely descriptive. When gender is said to include social practices organized in relation to biological sex (Connell 1987), and when gender refers to context/time-specific and changeable socially constructed relationships of social attributes and opportunities learned through socialization processes, between women and men, this is also here understood as descriptive. However, when description of gender transforms into active construction of gender, e.g. through secrets about its analytical gain, it subsequently transforms into a compulsory necessity. Gendering hence may blindfold gender-blind opportunities.

In conclusion, if gender is here understood as a social construct, then it is not coupled to sex but to context, and dependent on time. Also it is here understood that every person may possess not only one but a variety of genders. Even if we consider gender to be locked together with the life history of a single individual the above conceptualization makes a single, personal gender impossible, longitudinally as well as contemporaneously. Whereas gender is constructive and deterministic, sex is descriptive and non-deterministic. In this sense, gender as an analytical tool leaves little room for the Tomboy.

The Tomboy - a threat to "femininity"

Noncompliance with what is assumed ‘feminine’ threatens established or presumed sex segregation. What is perceived as ‘masculinity’ or ‘maleness’ in women, as a consequence, may only in second place, target homosexuality. In accordance with this line of thought, the Tomboy embodies both the threat and the possibilities for gendered respectively gender-blind opportunity structures.

The Tomboy is the loophole out of gender relations. Desires revealed through sport may have been with females under the guise of a different identity, such as that of the Tomboy (Kotarba & Held 2007: 163). Girls throw balls ‘like girls’ and do not tackle like boys because of a female perception of their bodies as objects of action (Young 2000:150 cited in Kotarba & Held 2007: 155).

However, when women lacking experience of how to act in an effective manner in sport are taught about how to do, they have no problem performing, quite contrary to explaining shortcomings as due to innate causes (Kotarba & Held 2007: 157). This is also opposite to the experiences of male-to-female transsexuals who through thorough exercise learn how to feminize their movements (Schrock & Boyd 2006:53-55). Although, according to Hargreaves (1994), most separatist sports philosophies have been a reaction to dominant ideas about the biological and psychological predispositions of men and women, supposedly rendering men 'naturally suited to sports, and women, by comparison, essentially less suited (Hargreaves 1994:29-30), the opposite may also hold true. Separatism per definition needs to separate and this separation is often based on biological differences, be it skin colour, sex or something else.

From this perspective, the Tomboy would constitute a theoretical anomaly in a feminine separatist setting. Although her physical body would possibly qualify as feminine, what makes her a Tomboy would not.

The observation that in mixed playgrounds, and in other areas of the school environment, boys monopolize the physical space (Hargreaves 1994:151) may lack the additional notion that certain boys dominate and certain boys do not. Sports feminists have 'politicized' these kinds of experience by drawing connections between ideas and practice (Hargreaves 1994:3) but because of a separatist approach may exclude similar experience among parts of the boys. Moreover, a separatist approach is never waterproof and may hence leak Tomboy girls without a notion.

Femininity and feminism

Feminism and psychoanalysis as oppressors

According to Collier and Yanagisako (1987), Henrietta Moore (1994) and other feminist anthropologists, patriarchal dominance is an inseparable socially inherited part of the conventional family system. This implicit suggestion of radical surgery does not, however, count on unwanted secondary effects neither on the problem with segregated or non-segregated sex-worlds. If, in other words, oppression is related to gender segregation rather than patriarchy, or perhaps that patriarchy is a product of sex segregation, then there seems to be a serious problem of intellectual survival facing feminists themselves (Klevius in Angels of Antichrist 1996). If feminism1 is to be understood as an approach and/or analytical tool for separatism2, those feminists and others who propose not only analytical segregation but also practical segregation, face the problem of possible oppression inherent in this very segregation (Klevius 1994, 1996). In this sense oppression is related to sex segregation in two ways:

1. As a means for naming it (feminism) for an analytical purpose.
2. As a social consequence or political strategy (e.g. negative bias against, for example, female football or a separatist strategy for female football).

It is notable that the psychoanalytic movement has not only been contemporary with feminism, but it has also followed (or led) the same pattern of concern and proposed warnings and corrections that has marked the history of ‘feminism’ in the 20th century. According to S. Freud, the essence of the analytic profession is feminine and the psychoanalyst ‘a woman in love’ (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:189). But psychoanalytically speaking, formalized sex and sex segregation also seem to have been troublesome components in the lives of female psychoanalysts struggling under a variety of assumed, but irreconcilable femininities and professional expectations.

In studying the history of feminism one inevitable encounters what is called ‘the women’s movement’. While there is a variety of different feminisms, and because the borders between them, as well as to what is interpreted as the women’s rights movement, some historians, incl. Klevius, question the distinction and/or methods in use for this distinction.

However, it could also be argued that whereas the women’s rights movement may be distinguished by its lack of active separatism within the proposed objectives of the movement, feminism ought to be distinguished as a multifaceted separatist movement based on what is considered feminine values, i.e. what is implied by the very word ‘feminism’3. From this perspective the use of the term ‘feminism’ before the last decades of the 19th century has to be re-evaluated, as has every such usage that does not take into account the separatist nature underpinning all feminisms worth carrying the name. Here it is understood that the concept ‘feminism’, and its derivatives, in every usage implies a distinction based on separating the sexes - e.g. addressing inequality or inequity - between male and female (see discussion above). So although ’feminism’ and ‘feminisms’ would be meaningless without such a separation, the ‘women’s rights movement’, seen as based on a distinct aim for equality with men in certain legal respects, e.g. the right to vote, could be described as the opposite, i.e. de-sex segregation, ‘gender blindness’ etc.

As a consequence the use of the word feminism in a context where it seems inappropriate is here excepted when the authors referred to have decided to do so. The feminist movement went back to Mary Wollstonecraft and to some French revolutionaries of the end of the eighteenth century, but it had developed slowly. In the period 1880 to 1900, however, the struggle was taken up again with renewed vigour, even though most contemporaries viewed it as idealistic and hopeless. Nevertheless, it resulted in ideological discussions about the natural equality or non-equality of the sexes, and the psychology of women. (Ellenberger 1970: 291-292).

Not only feminist gynocentrists, but also anti-feminist misogynists contributed with their own pronouncements on the woman issue. In 1901, for example, the German psychiatrist Moebius published a treatise, On the Physiological Imbecility of Woman, according to which, woman is physically and mentally intermediate between the child and man (see Ellenberger 1970:292). However, according to the underlying presumption of this thesis, i.e. that the borders between gynocentrism and misogyny are not well understood, these two approaches are seen as more or less synonymous. Such a view also confirms with a multitude of points in common between psychoanalysis and feminism. As was argued earlier, the main quality of separatism and ‘complementarism’ is an insurmountable border, sometimes contained under the titles: love, desire etc.