Quantcast

«

»

Nov 23 2012

We get email: Manly Man is Manly

I never cease to be impressed by the courage of anti-feminist, MRA Freedom Fighters!

That was sarcasm.

Dillahunty is off his rocker if he thinks feminism is merely the idea that men are equal to women. Feminism is a paranoid leftist ideology with a whole slew of dogmatic principles. A person can believe in equal rights and oppose feminism, without said opposition being contradictory. If I had called into the show to argue about this, I would have easily torn Matt a new one on this topic.

Screw you, Matt. I believe in equal rights and equal opportunity for EVERYONE. And I hate feminism with a passion. Are you going to argue that my belief in equal rights for women makes me a feminist? Then you’ll have to explain why I disagree with 99% of feminism’s core ideology. Feminism is a hate group that seeks to elevate women above men.

Uh-huh.

The day of Judgment will one day come. And on that day, when you are called to account for your actions, your fellow Men will stand upon the field of victory, doff their green berets, and humbly intone, “Well fought, Brave Warrior. Well fought.”

309 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Jasper of Maine

    If I had called into the show to argue about this, I would have easily torn Matt a new one on this topic.

    Is that a CHALLENGE?

    1. 1.1
      Jasper of Maine

      Are you going to argue that my belief in equal rights for women makes me a feminist? Then you’ll have to explain why I disagree with 99% of feminism’s core ideology.

      That’s where his cognitive dissonance comes in. We don’t believe that feminism has a dogma. We think that’s absurd.

      If Matt is arguing the first sentence, the second sentence is a complete non-sequitur.

      Just like you can have atheist groups that are dogmatic, and atheist groups that aren’t, you can have feminist groups that are dogmatic, and feminist groups that aren’t.

      Given the parallels to atheism, in terms of structure/setup, I don’t get why this is so apparently difficult to get.

      It’s like we’re talking to someone who thinks Stalin defines atheism.

      1. Jasper of Maine

        Not to mention that “dogma” gets thrown around about as erroneously as “misogynist” is at times, which we acknowledge.

        1. Lord Narf

          Think, then post, man. Do you want to look as incoherent as I do? ^.^

          1. Jasper of Maine

            It’d help if my brain stopped thinking about a topic after I posted.

          2. Lord Narf

            Yeah, I can understand why they don’t let you edit posts, but it’s a pain in the ass, sometimes.

          3. Valde

            I have the same problem Jasper.

            I also have an annoying habit of ‘not being able to find the right words’ which results in many a post filled with grammatical errors and run-on sentences. I often figure out how to *properly* express myself about 5-10 mins after I post. Sigh:(

      2. Lord Narf

        If he disagrees with 99% of feminism, then he sure as hell isn’t supporting equal rights between the sexes. He sounds a bit deluded to me.

        1. bologna

          If feminism, not in principle but as it is practiced and as a social movement, were just about female equality THEN feminist theory would not exist and things like this http://radicalhub.com/radfem-101/ would not exist.

          When criticized simply falling back on feminism simply being about female equality is like a group using the name atheist to promote a specific agenda and then (when disagreed with) stating “well, we are just about a lack of belief in a god”. That would be rather convenient and disingenuous.

          1. Lord Narf

            99% though? Even if you’re ignoring the principles and focusing on just the actual activity, the over-compensation isn’t even vaguely that high. And I’d argue that what is viewed as over-compensation by some is just a necessary counterbalance to the sexism that STILL exists within our society.
            It’s the same as with environmentalism. You can’t just remove the protections, because we’ve cleaned up the colossal mess that was made. You need to keep the regulations in place to prevent back-sliding. If we didn’t have the counterbalance of feminism to maintain equality (which we still haven’t reached, in most areas), the misogynistic assholes would have us back to the 50′s within a couple decades.

          2. Jasper of Maine

            bologna

            When criticized simply falling back on feminism simply being about female equality is like a group using the name atheist to promote a specific agenda and then (when disagreed with) stating “well, we are just about a lack of belief in a god”. That would be rather convenient and disingenuous.

            It’s like you get it, but don’t.

            I’m curious if you know what “feminist theory” is, because I don’t see how you think its existence supports your case. There may be an “atheist theory” in the future where they look back at the atheist social movements. That doesn’t mean that atheism is dogmatic. Atomic theory isn’t dogmatic either. It’s the collection and understanding of a topic.

            Do you understand that “atheism” can be a modifier, just as “feminist” can be?

            For instance, “atheism” is the lack of belief in a god, whereas a particular atheist movement can involve other things, like social justice or bowling. Do you comprehend that these are two separate things? You seem to be equivocating quite a bit.

            Atheism+, for instance, is a mixture of atheism and feminism, however, they are not the feminists or the atheists. They are a particular incarnation, with modification.

            What’s happening in reality, in regards to your complaint, is that someone (like you) is complaining about a particular application of feminism, and then erroneously extrapolating that to some broad generalization of “feminism”.

            Then, when we point out your mistake, all of a sudden we’re being “conveniently disingenuous”. No. You just need to learn words.

            We get this a lot. People will run in, start bellowing about “DOOOOOOGMA” AND “FEMINAZI!” as an oversimplified over-generalization with zero specific examples or even a hint of awareness that the situation is a tinge more complicated than they appear to be grasping.

            The reason you get criticized is not because of dogma. It’s because you’ve said something stupid and uninformed, such as equating “feminist theory” (the study of women’s movement to gain equality) to being “more than being about equality”, which is technically true, but then again, if you don’t do those “extra” things, like debate and protests, that equality might not actually happen. That would be another dumb point to make, like saying that something is more than just “eating” because you also drove to the store to get food.

            If there’s an actual point of contention, please bring it up. Most of the time, I have no idea what you people are talking about, because all we get is incredibly generic and vague accusations of dogma, etc, without any specifics, leaving me wondering “… such as?”

          3. julian

            That wouldn’t be 99% of feminism. I’m not seeing your point. To say you can be for equal rights while objecting to 99% of feminism is complete nonsense. I’m far from an expert but even factoring in the worst of feminism you’d still be left with a predominately progressive movement addressing legitimate issues in our society.

            So how can anyone claim with a straight face they’re for equal rights but against 99% of feminism?

          4. bologna

            Narf said…

            “And I’d argue that what is viewed as over-compensation by some is just a necessary counterbalance to the sexism that STILL exists within our society.”

            This statement and those of Narf’s that follows can, I believe, be paraphrased as “the ends justify the means”. You are basically advocating that people believe or say the incorrect in order for women’s rights to be maintained. That is the clear implication of what you wrote, I feel.

          5. bologna

            Jasper, you wrote all that (enough for your own blog post) about what is happening to me here, why I’m getting criticized, why I wrote what I had……based upon my first, single paragraph comment on this blog post? Okay.

            I’ll make a few observations. There is obviously something called feminist theory which is not only the study of feminism as a historical movement but also encompasses the study of gender inequality and feminist theories of society and history. This theory is part of the intellectual underpinning of many in the movement.

            I see that you are also hiding behind heterogeneity. Ever watch a theist take on an atheist’s criticism of Christianity by saying something like “well, not all Christians believe exactly that”. Fair enough, but it is merely setting up a moving target. If something is as diverse as you seem to claim for feminism then it seems it cannot be discussed at all, unless we spent a few hundred words hashing over a mutually agreed upon definition. Or, it could simply be not correct to discuss the thing in general, but instead must discuss very specific actions by a single person or collective. This would be rather convenient for feminists.

            Your dismissive tone is noted. I just don’t have a good enough vocabulary to communicate with someone as brilliant as yourself. Par for the course. I suppose I started it in some way that you will make clear.

          6. bologna

            Jasper referred to me as “you people”. My delicate sensibilities have been bruised. I think you need to check your privilege here at FTB, Jasper. You are obviously part of the in crowd here. You need to keep checking that privilege until you agree with me. I’ll check back in after 3 days to see how you are coming along.

          7. michaeld

            The not all Christians believe something can be more valid then other times. If someone said that all Christians believe the pope is infallible and someone responded calling them out on the fact that protestant and eastern orthodox denominations don’t follow anything the pope says isn’t exactly a dodge its a legitimate point of difference. You would frankly look really stupid in most cases trying to use arguments around the pope that maybe very powerful to Catholics on a Pentecostal.

            The bigger problem with the comparison is that a lot of the power to pointing out that not all Christians agree comes from the bible. Since they claim to follow a divinely inspired and some claim flawless book pointing out disagreements and areas they don’t follow etc casts doubt on this claim. This isn’t a claim that applies to feminism where you can disagree with some beliefs, claims or research (for skeptical or credulous reasons) and still agree with larger aspects of feminism.

            Or for another example, the existence of a group that uses evolution to support eugenics, racism etc doesn’t undermine the core of evolution. Saying that they are a fringe that doesn’t reflect the views of most evolutionary biologists or the ones on FtB wouldn’t be dodging the issue so much as the original point was a red herring to begin with.

          8. Lord Narf

            Oh, I didn’t read what MichaelD said, before adding my own, similar response. My own way of phrasing it is down at the bottom of the comment section, at #14.

          9. Jasper of Maine

            There is obviously something called feminist theory which is not only the study of feminism as a historical movement but also encompasses the study of gender inequality and feminist theories of society and history. This theory is part of the intellectual underpinning of many in the movement.

            “the movement”? You do realize there is more than one movement? We lazily say “the atheist movement” by meaning the biggest and common one, but there could by multiple, and they could have drastically different attributes.

            You seem to be assuming, and I say this because I can’t make your statements make much sense without taking it this way, is that one can’t be a feminist without being part of one of the “movements”, but that’d be untrue. Just like you can be an atheist without being a part of an atheist movement. You can be a feminist without the feminist theory.

            Also, if I’m connecting the dots here right, you’re either hinting that feminist theory is dogma, or that dogma is a source, but I’m afraid you’ll have to make a case for that. If there’s an actual official movement, it makes sense that it has a good grasp of feminist history. That’s not dogma.

            I see that you are also hiding behind heterogeneity. Ever watch a theist take on an atheist’s criticism of Christianity by saying something like “well, not all Christians believe exactly that”.

            Yes, and that’s why I think it’s much better to ask the theist what he/she believes. And that’s despite them having a supposed common dogma.

            Fair enough, but it is merely setting up a moving target.

            No, it’s being realistic. It’s being realistic with the word “feminist” which means “supporting equal rights for women”, and the fact that a particular feminist group does not set what “feminist” is, any more than an atheist knitting club establishes what atheism is. The common demoninator for all groups and individuals that call themselves “feminist” is the definition above, so a “dogma” can’t exist since the overlap is so small.

            You might assert that studying the history of femininism becomes a dogma, but that would be about as silly as being upset with your plumber because he has established himself a process for plumbing which you’ve now deemed dogmatic.

            If something is as diverse as you seem to claim for feminism then it seems it cannot be discussed at all, unless we spent a few hundred words hashing over a mutually agreed upon definition.

            And yet, for our “atheism is the lack of belief in a god”, there’s plenty to talk about. There’s the history of what atheists have done. There’s the discussion of the question about our role and place in society, establishing rights, etc. And yet, atheism is still just “the lack of belief in a god”.

            The question for feminism is establishing equailty between men and women. The topic, which can be quite diverse, is how to get there. Some of that discussion is based on past events (feminist theory), and some of it is new.

            Or, it could simply be not correct to discuss the thing in general, but instead must discuss very specific actions by a single person or collective. This would be rather convenient for feminists.

            You’re starting to come across as paranoid. It’s not a question of convenience. It’s a question of understanding the nuances of reality. I would be opposed to most generalizations of Christianity. I don’t find that a useful topic. It helps to be able to have a single book (The Bible) to discuss/dismantle, but then we get accused of taking it too literally, and the discussion breaks down even then.

            Your dismissive tone is noted.

            Funny, that’s what the A+ people tell me too.

            I just don’t have a good enough vocabulary to communicate with someone as brilliant as yourself. Par for the course. I suppose I started it in some way that you will make clear.

            There was nothing to dismiss, and that was kind of the point. You’re yet another person who comes in and make inane comments like “I support women’s rights but I’m not a feminist” like one might say “I don’t believe in God but I’m not an atheist”, combine with unsupported vague accusations of dogmatism. The closest you got was some reference to the study and understanding of women’s rights historically.

            Jasper referred to me as “you people”. My delicate sensibilities have been bruised. I think you need to check your privilege here at FTB, Jasper. You are obviously part of the in crowd here. You need to keep checking that privilege until you agree with me. I’ll check back in after 3 days to see how you are coming along.

            I’m curious which privilege you’re talking about. This would be a good test to see if you get what it actually is.

            Hint: privilege isn’t one group talking to another group.

      3. bologna

        “That’s where his cognitive dissonance comes in. We don’t believe that feminism has a dogma. We think that’s absurd.”

        Do you see how these sentences are self-refuting (unless you are using “we” in the royal sense)?

        1. SallyStrange

          Nope.

        2. Russell Glasser

          No.

          1. Lord Narf

            Ditto.

        3. Jasper of Maine

          Do you know what dogma is?

          Hint: it’s not an opinion.

          When I say “we”, and I should have been more specific about this, are those people who are generally my side of the isle in this debate.

        4. Jasper of Maine

          Let me ask. I take it “your” side doesn’t think it’s absurd. Does that make you dogmatic?

    2. 1.2
      patrickdoyle

      Since you start from a false premise, I seriously doubt this. While I admit that there are radical feminists who fit your portrayal of feminism, that is not a blanket condemnation of the entire movement. You sound just like theists who try to ascribe straw man belief systems to atheists in order to discredit them. There are reasonable feminists who simply seek equality. There are also some who (either because they are deluded or evil)think that men are evil and need to be subjugated. I sincerely doubt this is the majority of feminists, and you are wrong to assert such an idea without evidence.

      1. Lord Narf

        The Men’s Rights assholes have already been banned. Those left, who can still comment, won’t argue with you on that point.

        If anything, your statements are a bit too cautious. Almost all feminists are the moderate sort. The number of crazy man-haters is probably less than 1%.

  2. 2
    Lord Narf

    If I had called into the show to argue about this, I would have easily torn Matt a new one on this topic.

    Sounds like this posturing asshole:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYeoTFbLo_Y

    How much you want to bet the outcome would be more or less the same?

  3. 3
    sheila

    Anti-equality and leftist simultaneously?

    I daresay there are some anti-equality feminists, but I haven’t met one yet, not in the hundreds of feminists that I’ve met.

    1. 3.1
      Lord Narf

      They’re out there, but they’re fantastically rare. I’ve never met one, either, but the Faux News assholes like to hold up the couple that exist as examples of all feminism.

      1. Valde

        I have met angry feminists, esp around here, but I would not say any of them are anti-equality. Not in the least. Mainly they are angry over the attitudes taken by righteous assholes like the guy in the article.

  4. 4
    Pink No More

    So is this font change permanent, or did you just leave a tag open somewhere?

    1. 4.1
      michaeld

      Is that comic sans? O.O scary….

    2. 4.2
      Pink No More

      I just checked the source – in the quote, the “>” around the /font tag is a “?” instead.

    3. 4.3
      Martin Wagner

      Sorry. Tag fuckup. Fixed.

  5. 5
    michaeld

    I feel like I just had this argument…. minus the stupid I could have won argument.

  6. 6
    Lord Narf

    Say, was that base picture taken humorously? I’d hate to think someone posed for that without irony.

  7. 7
    Dago Red

    Are you going to argue that my belief in equal rights for women makes me a feminist?

    No, I am going use the Indigo Montoya defense. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    1. 7.1
      Drew

      That’s Inigo

      /Pedant

  8. 8
    SallyStrange

    There’s no such thing as a “Men’s Rights Activist” (MRA).

    In the group that self-labels as such, the vast majority are male supremacists seeking to cling to their male privilege and accusing feminists of seeking female superiority, mostly out of un-self-aware projection, but there’s also a bit of conscious deflection thrown in there.

    A small minority are genuinely concerned with addressing gender inequalities that negatively affect men, but, since those inequalities stem from the same root causes as the gender inequalities that negatively affect women, they are best called feminists.

    1. 8.1
      mofa

      This statement is utter rubbish…where do you get this drivel from? This is just a tactic constructed by feminists a long time a go to thwart discussion. Tell your adversary they have no position and no validity before the debate begins. It is pathetic and to any truly sceptical person it makes you look lazy, naive, brainwashed or all three at once.

      1. Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

        Thats odd. I read what Sally said and it all made perfect sense. Since you seem to disagree, can you explain why? Remember, men are not in danger of losing rights, so you have an uphill battle convincing many of us that the MRAs are fighting a battle that is justified. State your position. Argue your points. What your post did was essentially say ‘nuh uh’.

  9. 9
    Tax

    Can identify for me the authoritative body that defines feminism? I’m curious about all of this feminist dogma. Can someone give me a link to the organization that hands down dictates that you must live by in order to call yourself a feminist?

    It’s all the right wing media folks. They have a window into the world of every tom dick and harry who never went to college or met someone outside of their small social circle. They get exposed to the SCUM Manifesto and Andrea Dworkin Malarky and no alternative viewpoints. They are so sure they know so much about so many things, thought they’ve never bothered to research any of it for themselves.

    1. 9.1
      Tax

      Note: I meant to press preview and instead pressed post while I was still spell checking it and made some rather bad mistakes in my previous post.

      Can anyone identify for me the authoritative body that defines feminism? I’m curious about all of this feminist dogma. Can someone give me a link to the organization that hands down dictates that you must live by in order to call yourself a feminist?

      It’s all the right wing media folks. They have a window into the world of every tom dick and harry who never went to college or met someone outside of their small social circle. They get exposed to the SCUM Manifesto and Andrea Dworkin Malarky and no alternative viewpoints. They are so sure they know so much about so many things, though they’ve never bothered to research any of it for themselves.

      1. MCB

        Based on what I have been able to gather from my anti-feminazi sources there is in fact one person charged with deciding what feminism is. And that man’s name is Rush Limbaugh.

        1. Lord Narf

          Ah, sounds fair. He’s as fair-and-balanced as Faux News, right? I recall him having some kind words for a femi-nazi testifying before the Senate, a few months ago. His words of support are an inspiration.

          1. MCB

            He’s a national treasure.

  10. 10
    F [i'm not here, i'm gone]

    Hm. Either full of shit, or doesn’t know what feminism is (also making him full of shit from the other direction). No specific example or argument, called in or written elsewhere.

  11. 11
    Muz

    I can’t look at that picture without imagining a tornado out of shot.

    1. 11.1
      Psychopomp Gecko

      And now I can’t look at it without thinking of him yelling either “God@#$%! Mongolians!” (South Park reference) or “Wolverines!”

      1. Lord Narf

        Damned Mexican kids! Get off my lawn, and quit tooken ‘re jobs!

  12. 12
    terrycollins

    >I believe in equal rights and equal opportunity for EVERYONE.

    I’m with you.

    >I hate feminism with a passion.

    And, you lost me. Which type feminism? According to Wikipedia, there are at least 17 movements and ideologies. Liberal feminism has a good philosophy imho, and I can’t support certain aspects of Radical feminism. But after reading through the objectives and strategies of each group, I find the percentage of what I object to much lower than yours. Please elaborate on what feminist actions you have a problem with.

    1. 12.1
      Lord Narf

      Pretty much my reaction, yeah.

    2. 12.2
      Sonorus

      The game that people like this play is to take one whackjob out of context and then smear an entire group with some ridiculous statement.

      I will say this just for myself, but I doubt anyone here will disagree with me: by agreeing with a person or group of people on one or more things does not mean I have to agree with everything that person or persons ever say. That should seem self-evident, but as someone who against his better judgment sometimes listens to right wing talk radio, it has to be said, and often.

      These “feminist theory” types are academics that wrote a dissertation that is on a library shelf somewhere and never read except by right-wingers looking to quote-mine. They don’t represent anyone but themselves. Feminists are people who advocate for full rights for women under the law. For some reason there are still those who oppose that, and therefore there is still a need for feminism.

      1. terrycollins

        > Feminists are people who advocate for full rights for women under the law.

        This does not seem to be the mandate of Cultural feminists, and Liberal feminists already assume those rights are there but up to the individual to assert them. If you told me there were two atheists in the room, I could be fairly certain they both agree there was no justification to believe in a god. I still have no clue what two feminists agree about.

        1. SallyStrange

          Really? That takes some deliberate ignorance on your part, I’d say. I’m 99.9% confident that any two self-identified feminists will agree that women are autonomous adult human beings with all the rights and responsibilities attendant thereto. All the rights and responsibilities that have, until quite recently, or even currently in many places, been the purview of men only.

          In other words, “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”

          1. terrycollins

            >deliberate ignorance

            Reading about feminism is the only time I’m presented with the issue. My workplace is 75% female, which until recently had a female manager, our president is female along with several other members of the board of directors, we just elected a female Premier in my province, there are laws against gender discrimination, and abortion is legal. Ignorant maybe, but I have tried to inform myself. If someone in my community called themself a feminist, I’d have to ask them what they were fighting for.

          2. michaeld

            So lets take you at your word that things are totally awesome where you are (I don’t know where that is but it’s not terribly important). Does that mean that things are also good everywhere else and that all feminists everywhere have nothing to do anymore? Or is it possible for things to be good in one place and still need work in other countries. So if a woman from Pakistan or Mississippi says they’re feminists would ask they are fighting for cause things are totally fine where you live and work? I hope you get how weak that sounds.

            Here for example is are a whole bunch of things to fight for and fix in various States. http://www.alternet.org/story/150878/10_worst_states_to_be_a_woman

          3. Lord Narf

            terrycollins

            If someone in my community called themself a feminist, I’d have to ask them what they were fighting for.

            Take a closer look at what’s going on in American politics right now, man. The religious-right has the Republican Party by the balls. I don’t know which country you’re in, but the evangelical fundies from the US have allies in your country; I guarantee it.

            If the nut-jobs in the US somehow managed to make abortion illegal and made major advances attacking the employment rights of women here in the US, your country would be next, or at least somewhere down the line.

            Even without your country potentially being at risk, at some point, what about the Islamic world? There’s so much that needs to be done, over there. Feminism is a global, species-wide effort, not one isolated to your local community.

        2. Lord Narf

          terrycollins

          … Liberal feminists already assume those rights are there but up to the individual to assert them.

          You’re a little incoherent there. What do you mean that they assume those right are there?

          Either way I interpret that doesn’t make much sense. If you’re saying that Liberal Feminists assume that we have those God-given rights (to borrow a phrase from the Christians), and we just have to codify them into law … well, duh, we’re trying to pass laws to legally establish rights that we think every human should have. If you’re saying that Liberal feminists already think we’ve accomplished codifying all of our goals into law, and we just have to enforce them in the courts … I couldn’t disagree more. We have massive, gross inequality in the laws of most of the US.

          ‘Splain please, Lucy.

      2. baal

        These “feminist theory” types are academics that wrote a dissertation that is on a library shelf somewhere and never read except by right-wingers looking to quote-mine. They don’t represent anyone but themselves.

        I disagree. Here’s my take. The right wing pays for a huge number of ‘think tanks’ (scare quotes to denote the naming is ironic in their case) that create talking points or who convert extreme ideas into things that can be said in public. I (and lots of folks here) get on the case of liberal or moderate christians specifically for not calling out the public friendly versions. The failure to do so is a tacit acceptance of the extreme views. It is disingenuous of the moderate christians to disclaim their tacit support for extreme christians.

        Do I find the dissertations on the back shelfs as harmful as the extreme religious ideas? No. Do I find feminist voices speaking against feminist talking points? Never*.

        *interestingly enough, the only place I’ve seen extreme feminist ideas argued against w/o the metaphorical jumping up and down (as seen in this comments section) is on actual feminist for feminist blogs. In my model above, feminist blogs are the ‘think tank’ level. This blog comments section is the public version friendly level and it’s not ok to apparently even suggest that women’s studies departments even exist or to suggest that those departments put out publicans or that you can refer to academic feminists collectively or that….

        My complaint is the same. Until and unless there is some bandwidth in conversation for some nuance in the discussion, the self-labeled feminists are going to be guilty of (at least appearance of) being disingenuous.

        I’ll stop here for length. I’d otherwise include a paragraph to caveat that the self-identified feminists have a good argument about context absolving the disingenuous claim for them and not for the moderate christians.

        TLDR; The default is that you own your neighbors (all christians, all feminists) and must either claim or disclaim them explicitly.

        1. jdog

          TLDR; The default is that you own your neighbors (all christians, all feminists) and must either claim or disclaim them explicitly.

          So, if you don’t explicitly claim or disclaim them, should we assume you claim them until disclaimed? Or disclaim them until claimed?

          The fault lies with the persons making the assumption (and those who listen to them), often rooted in a lack of understanding about the thing they’re assuming.

  13. 13
    katenrala

    The quoted person in the OP reminds me of people who think it’s racist to be anti-racist because being aware of a real problem the thing that is making the problem real, somehow.

    These people are the group part of the problem and trying to cover up the fact with nonsense, or the very people who buy the nonsense who in turn provide cover for the problem and who must be taught to use their noggins right before they can even comprehend racism and sexism and other oppressions. The latter can be turned for the good of people.

    Unfortunately commentator bologna is a fancier of bigotry and not a rank fool worthy of a doubt judging by their posts. Typical, as one cannot talk of oppression anywhere on the net without an oppressor contributing their defenses to and obfuscations of their bigotry.

    1. 13.1
      Valde

      quote: “The quoted person in the OP reminds me of people who think it’s racist to be anti-racist because being aware of a real problem the thing that is making the problem real, somehow.”

      I despise these people with a passion. I’ve come across a couple of them so far. *Very* scary, violent sounding people. Anyways, they like to preach about how leftists are the real racists, cuz we keep non-whites down with the welfarez, and the health caree, and the affirmative action. And all lefties seem to want to do is kill off good, God fearing white men by elevating the wimmenz and the non-whitez!

    2. 13.2
      bologna

      “Unfortunately commentator bologna is a fancier of bigotry”

      THIS is a great comment to help me prove my point. I agree that women should have equal rights but think much of modern feminist rhetoric is groan worthy, and I must therefore be a fancier of bigotry.

      Come on. You are being a caricature of yourself here.

      1. mofa

        hear, hear!

      2. katenrala

        I can tell from what you write that you are a bigot and as much as you say you are for womens’ and female persons’ equality, you write things that say you aren’t, things that major sexists say.

        You come off as a bigot and I’m not going to give you the benefit of a doubt.

  14. 14
    Lord Narf

    Bologna

    And I’d argue that what is viewed as over-compensation by some is just a necessary counterbalance to the sexism that STILL exists within our society.

    This statement and those of Narf’s that follows can, I believe, be paraphrased as “the ends justify the means”. You are basically advocating that people believe or say the incorrect in order for women’s rights to be maintained. That is the clear implication of what you wrote, I feel.

    Nope, you’re completely off-base. It has nothing to do with ends justifying the means.

    The primary place in which your statement fails is that the feminist movement is generally an advocacy movement. They’re not a bunch of dictators going around and chopping off offending male-bits (well, most of them aren’t; we did have that Bobbitt incident); they’re a movement petitioning action from the entity with the actual ability to act. It’s an acknowledgement of our society’s (particularly the media’s) love the the fallacy of the middle ground.

    To compare it more directly to basic atheism, I’ve recently heard a bunch of statements to the effect of finding the middle ground between religion and secularism. No, we don’t need a middle ground between religion and secularism, you fucking morons (not speaking to you, there; I’m speaking to our hypothetical media observers). Secularism is the middle ground between religion and atheism.

    And that’s me, from the outside, saying that the effect of some of the more extreme elements of the feminist movement are helping do that. I accept them as a necessary component of the movement, which is needed in order to secure the objectives of the more moderate position. From their perspective, they probably are advocating equality.

    In a biological/societal system, in which only one side can get pregnant, and in which one side is physically weaker and more vulnerable to assault (on average), where is the equality point? It’s not a simple matter of treating both sides equally, without making any kind of acknowledgement of existing societal imbalances. You need to take action with that in mind. What is the necessary compensation for the existing and inherent imbalance?

    That’s where the difference of opinions between the more extreme and more moderate feminist positions come in. No one is necessarily dishonestly advocating a position. That’s me, after the fact, concluding that the more extreme elements of the feminist movement make the moderates seem more reasonable and more likely to actually achieve their stated goals.

    To draw it back to the atheism movement, the attack-dog style of American Atheists makes the Humanist Society seem more reasonable and will draw the media towards their more moderate stance. It isn’t even necessarily a difference of position, but may just be a difference of style in their advocacy.

    1. 14.1
      bologna

      Narf said..

      “That’s where the difference of opinions between the more extreme and more moderate feminist positions come in. No one is necessarily dishonestly advocating a position. That’s me, after the fact, concluding that the more extreme elements of the feminist movement make the moderates seem more reasonable and more likely to actually achieve their stated goals.

      To draw it back to the atheism movement, the attack-dog style of American Atheists makes the Humanist Society seem more reasonable and will draw the media towards their more moderate stance. It isn’t even necessarily a difference of position, but may just be a difference of style in their advocacy.”

      I can’t agree with this. For all the machinations that you describe, there is equal or more guilt by association, and some of that may be legitimate. Plus, all individuals in a movement should make honesty and valuing truth their explicit goal.

      I’ll give the following example. I think there is nothing wrong with non-felons having a firearm in their home for defense, given that the planet can be a dangerous place. If I discuss this with someone I do not shy away from expressing that the views of the NRA do not align with my own. People should be reasonable, express that reasonableness, and call out their supposed allies in the struggle when they overstep.

      The media has not been drawn to the moderates in the gun rights debate. If they have some sort of a panel discussion, they typically pick 1 or 2 individuals from each end of the spectrum (Ted Nugent vs. someone who thinks all guns should be banned).

      The guilt by association that occurs in my example would be if I touted gun rights and ignored that the face of it is the NRA. If I discuss it, I purposefully set myself off from the NRA and others like them by criticizing their positions and contrasting them with my own. I acknowledge that they are crazies. If I did not do this, then someone might be justified in thinking that I hold hidden beliefs that I am not making clear.

      Not marginalizing the crazies that are at the extreme in your movement in order to make yourself seem more reasonable, is a case of the ends justifying the means. You should want accurate information to be put forth in all things.

      Radical feminists are crazy. Other feminists should marginalize their views. Of course, that might be viewed as some sort of sexism ;)

      1. jdog

        I’m sure that the more moderate feminists are very sorry that they aren’t meeting your personal standards in objecting to the views of the more radical feminists. However, this doesn’t mean that “feminism” should be defined by the radical views of the fringe groups.

        Maybe an example will help you. Let’s say that the members of the Flat Earth Society suddenly realized that they unanimously supported equal rights for women and joined the feminist movement en masse. Furthermore, let’s say they all realized they didn’t believe in any gods and joined the atheist movement. Would you say that you are neither a feminist nor an atheist because you reject the belief that Earth is flat? Of course not.

        Why then, would you think that the radical ideas of some of feminism’s fringe groups would have any bearing on what the core definition of feminism is? Just because the radical ideas are somewhat more on topic than the shape of the planet doesn’t mean they have any more validity with everyone else in the group.

      2. Lord Narf

        We do criticize the people who are way the fuck over the horizon, as you can see further down the comment section, regarding Radfem Hub. Those people are fucking insane.

        At the same time, being grateful for the cover they provide isn’t anything approaching ends-justify-the-means.

        I can’t agree with this. For all the machinations that you describe, there is equal or more guilt by association, and some of that may be legitimate.

        So, how am I guilty of the actions of American Atheists, because my base stance of atheism is the same? You just killed your own argument, with your followup about the NRA. We speak out against the more insane elements, like Radfem Hub, the same as you say you do in regards to the NRA.

        Yet, feminists are guilty by association with Radfem Hub, which they speak out against. You seem to want the net up when I serve but the net down when you return.

    2. 14.2
      bologna

      Narf said….

      “In a biological/societal system, in which only one side can get pregnant, and in which one side is physically weaker and more vulnerable to assault (on average), where is the equality point? It’s not a simple matter of treating both sides equally, without making any kind of acknowledgement of existing societal imbalances. You need to take action with that in mind. What is the necessary compensation for the existing and inherent imbalance?”

      Given that the sexes are different (I’m surprised you admitted that), then it is likely impossible to equalize all of the following: opportunity, treatment, and outcome.

      Of those 3, what do you desire the equality of most? Pick that one, and work toward it if you’d like. But it is impossible, given actual differences in the sexes, to make all 3 the same.

      I’d say start with equalizing opportunity without sacrificing standards. For instance, both sexes can work toward being firefighters, but if they are to perform the same job then men and women must meet the same standards that are sufficiently rigorous for the job at hand.

      Also, treatment should be equalized as much as possible. But given actual differences, this is likely impossible. I suppose treatment will therefore need to be appropriate and not equal (equal here meaning exactly the same).

      If opportunity is equal and treatment is as equal as possible, let outcomes fall as they may. At a certain point, you must admit that differences in outcome are a result of actual differences between the sexes. A problem is that opportunity and treatment are being tuned in order to equalize outcomes. It is incorrect.

      1. Sonorus

        Again, a strawman argument created by the right to justify equal rights under the law. No one is arguing that there aren’t biological differences between men and women or that some individuals aren’t stronger or taller or better at math than others. None of that has anything to do with the legal discrimination under the law that still plagues various segments of our population. No one is arguing for equal outcomes in spite of what you hear on Fox News. No one. A leveler playing field would make for significant changes in our society however. I said levelER on purpose. I’m not naive enough to believe it will ever be level, but I do see a rather obvious unlevel field at the moment that affect a great many in our society.

        No we are not all literally equal. That is different from the fact that the Constitution requires our government to apply the same rules to us all, not to some more than others. When I hear these arguments, it is ALWAYS from someone who likes the lack of legal equality and wants to rationalize that inequality while not sounding sexist, racist or homophobic. They aren’t fooling anyone but themselves and others like them.

        1. bologna

          Sonorus in “”…

          “Again, a strawman argument created by the right to justify equal rights under the law.”

          I don’t get this. The right is trying to justify equal rights? And I’m not a right winger. I just don’t seem to agree with on this issue. I’m not a left winger either.

          “No one is arguing for equal outcomes in spite of what you hear on Fox News. No one.”

          This is incorrect. For many, differences in outcome are evidence for differences in opportunity or treatment. Tuning opportunity in order to equalize outcome is in part what Affirmative Action is attempting.

          “When I hear these arguments, it is ALWAYS from someone who likes the lack of legal equality and wants to rationalize that inequality while not sounding sexist, racist or homophobic. They aren’t fooling anyone but themselves and others like them.”

          You read what someone writes and instantly you know so much about them? That is unfair. What you are doing is using your preconceptions to further confirm your beliefs, it seems. After reading my arguments, have you chocked up one more instance of you being correct about someone’s underlying intent? It should be obvious why that is not a good way to process information.

        2. bologna

          You stated no one is advocating for different physical requirements.

          When asked in an interview to comment on less upper body strength handicapping women in carrying the injured in fire rescue roles, what feminist stated this?

          “It’s better to drag them out, because there’s less smoke down there. I mean, we’re probably killing people by carrying them out at that height, you know, so — I mean, you know, we really need to look sensibly here at these jobs and what they really require, and not just some idea of what macho is.”

          Is Gloria Steinem someone? Again, it seems we are not allowed to comment on the general thought process and zeitgeist of something unless it is unrelated to feminism.

      2. michaeld

        I’m curious how far you think these actual differences you go. Is it limited to having to take 6-9months off work for durring pregnancy and having on average a weaker build or does this extend to nuturing ability, mathmatical aptitude and other more nuanced traits?

        1. bologna

          I know very well that you are trying to set a trap for me to make me seem bigoted so that I can be dismissed. But I’ll bite.

          It is noncontroversial that, on average, the male and female human brain differs anatomically, among other bodily differences (e.g. endocrine system) that likely influence behavior. The only controversy is what part of this can be attributed to nature versus nurture. It cannot be definitely pinned down because the controlled experiments necessary are not ethical with humans. I don’t think it much matters to answer your question. Whether caused by nature or nurture, these average differences exist in the samples that are collected today.

          What differences in brain function have been detected? Well, it is not controversial that women on average score higher than men on test of verbal ability while men score higher on tests of spatial reasoning. Anyone interested in actually observing reality can see these groups differences as well.

          The only controversy I can see is whether or not verbal and spatial abilities are things and if carefully crafted tests likely correlate with these things (again something that is not provable but I think a very fair assumption). I think these tests differences are likely telling us something, but it is easy to wave hands over multiple intelligence, culture bias, and test anxiety. Comparing test scores to what I observe about a person, I believe that scores on carefully crafted tests are a sufficient but not necessary condition to conclude that someone is likely gifted in an area. Simply, I have known more than a few people that had perfect (or near) scores on the SAT and GRE and also very high scores on official IQ tests (this is something nerds discuss before they are old enough to realize it is rude). They were all, to a person, exceedingly bright (please reply with a joke about how you have no idea why they were friends with me then). I know some very bright people who scored rather low compared to what you would expect. However, I have not met a seemingly dull person (and sorry but you can detect when someone is not very bright if you’ve known them long enough) who was capable of scoring highly or that did so. Therefore, I conclude that these tests obviously are tracking something and that we cannot write off the fields of psychometric and aptitude testing, although many would like to do this.

          1. michaeld

            I’m more just curious as to your knowledge of social psychology. There seems to be strong evidence that differences in math is a creation of culture for example. The idea that nurturing is a female trait would also hurt the position for more equality in child custody cases. So I wanted to see what your position on the subject was (I’m not actually trying to trap as I am trying to understand your position).

            I’m also not so sure as you are that it would be so hard to make some rather educated deductions on the nature/nurture argument especially as we unravel more and more about the brain. Ultimately a strongly nature driven result is going to have to have a biochemical pathway for the differences in ability. Either a gene for an ability will have to be sex linked or gene creating a repressor/promoter protein will be sex linked. If neither exists or can be found that affect the traits then that pretty much kills the nature argument. Psychological experiments and longitudinal FMRI studies can also be used to examine the cultural impact and the developmental aspects. It could also be useful to look at the effects of hypogonadism on brain development.

            As to the relevance it seems quite clear to me. Ultimately if one knows to a greater extent what is cultural and what is genetic you can make more educated policy actions to affect positive change. If something is primarily cultural for example you can work to change the culture to give your children and their children greater opportunities in life. If something has a greater genetic effect then affecting culture may not have an appreciable effect.

          2. bologna

            Michaeld said…

            “Either a gene for an ability will have to be sex linked or gene creating a repressor/promoter protein will be sex linked. If neither exists or can be found that affect the traits then that pretty much kills the nature argument.”

            It is highly unlikely that something like math ability is a monogenetic trait that something like a Punnett square can be used to analyze.

          3. bologna

            “Either a gene for an ability will have to be sex linked or gene creating a repressor/promoter protein will be sex linked.”

            Not at all. Drastic oversimplification (along with your implication of monogenetics). You agree that protein function and gene expression occurs in a complex biochemical environment correct? You agree that males and females have different biochemical environments, correct? See proteins and nucleic acids need nurture too.

          4. michaeld

            Yes biochemistry is messy but it all comes down to the same thing but frankly so what. The fact that biochemistry is complex is nothing but a hurdle to be overcome. We are as we speak unraveling the complex gene interactions in the multitude of cancer cell lines using microarray technology (among other techniques). Labs are working on expanding our knowledge of gene interactions, functions, localization, regulation and there’s no reason to think that they won’t continue to improve their methods and develop newer and better tools.

            If there is a natural explanation for differences between the sexes something ultimately biochemical has to cause it. That something is almost certainly linked to either the X and or Y chromosome. There needs to be 1 or more effectors either new genes that directly cause the increase in ability or act as a messenger which effects the expression of other genes either by repressing or promoting their activation. They don’t even have to be unknown genes it could be something as common as hormones for example.

            While you’re right it was an over simplification on my part to suggest one gene at the end of the day there must be genes. It would code for a protein that directly or indirectly affects the traits in question by affect brain development or function. Given all this you can look at people with genetic abnormalities (hypogonadism for example if the effects are caused using hormones as the effectors of the change), or look into brain maturation etc and actually find these things. These nature nurture arguments are not unsolvable its just going to take time, money and research.

          5. bologna

            “Either a gene for an ability will have to be sex linked or gene creating a repressor/promoter protein will be sex linked. If neither exists or can be found that affect the traits then that pretty much kills the nature argument.”

            Google

            genes for intelligence on x chromosome

            Sex-linked genes for intelligence have been found. Those genes being on the x is believed by some to be a potential explanation for why men typically exhibit greater variation on tests of cognitive ability (even in many abilities where the averages between the sexes are very close).

            Things are obviously complex and nature and nurture both have their own effects and also interact in this area. It is much simpler to show a nurture effect. It can be done by testing children before and after an enrichment program, which is totally ethical. We know that intellectual traits are at least partially heritable based upon twin adoption studies and the like. It is much more difficult to do something similar with different sexes. However, given this, it seems that you are setting the nurture argument as the default and that absence of evidence of a specific genetic pathway is evidence for absence that genetics plays a role. In other observable sex differences, this line of reasoning is not usually taken, it seems.

            You seem to realize that a genetic difference can be caused by a cascade of pathways involving many gene sequences and other biochemicals that would be very difficult to pin down.

          6. michaeld

            Nah actually its an entirely different bias then the one you present. I have a degree in biochemistry so I simply have more to say on a discussion of the biochemistry that can be done to investigate this. The absence of our knowledge is of course not an argument that it doesn’t exist but if one goes on to look for the biochemical causes and they can’t be found it does speak very badly for the elements on nature in a trait. I also don’t care that its difficult to do it can be done and barring a collapse of civilization will only become easier with time.

          7. bologna

            Were you aware that genes related to intelligence have been found on the X?

          8. michaeld

            Yes there are genes associated with various mental retardation on the X chromosome (not necessarily intelligence as its possible for the effects on intelligence to be secondary effect). The question is are they responsible for the measured differences in say, mathematics, language, spatial skills, empathy etc. This may or may not be the case and the correlation of the two does not imply causation which must be proven. Are you aware of further research that links these genes to specific areas of intelligence or mental processing? If not then while it is an interesting possible cause it would be too early to claim them as responsible for the differences.

          9. bologna

            An interesting review article that michaeld might like

            http://eugen.leitl.org/striz/striz.org/docs/craig-2004-sexdiff.pdf

            that discusses research related to spatial ability.

          10. michaeld

            I’ll have a look. I’ve only glanced at it so far but Just glancing through at first I’ll be interested to see how/if they try to reconcile that the X chromosomes being acted on by evolution in the males will be passed on to his daughters. It seems very hard to select for different things in men and women on the same shared chromosome without them both sharing the trait(although there may well be some solution).

          11. bologna

            I found the parts that relate sex hormones to spatial reasoning to be most interesting. Spatial ability was observed to change within an individual as a function of sex hormone levels. The exact mechanism was not (I don’t believe) elucidated, but based upon the description in the review it seems relatively close to a controlled experiment that can establish causality with some confidence. Of course, you would need to read the original research as well.

      3. Lord Narf

        Given that the sexes are different (I’m surprised you admitted that) …

        Then you should stop arguing against the Faux News straw-man of feminism. Real feminists make arguments based upon these differences all the time.

        … then it is likely impossible to equalize all of the following: opportunity, treatment, and outcome.

        Your solution seems to be that we should give up on any aspect which we can’t perfectly equalize. I completely disagree. If an approximation is all we can achieve, then an approximation will do.

        Of those 3, what do you desire the equality of most? Pick that one, and work toward it if you’d like. But it is impossible, given actual differences in the sexes, to make all 3 the same.

        Since we can’t get all three in perfect, eternal balance, like a perpetual-motion machine, your argument is that we should abandon two of your prongs and only focus on one aspect of equality? That’s just freaking silly, man.

        At a certain point, you must admit that differences in outcome are a result of actual differences between the sexes. A problem is that opportunity and treatment are being tuned in order to equalize outcomes. It is incorrect.

        And again, real feminists acknowledge that outcomes are going to be a little bit off. Completely abandoning any attempt at balancing the outcome because you can’t get all three perfectly aligned is ridiculous. It’s like any complex system; you tug a little at one string, and the other two will be pulled off a tiny bit. The best result is usually one in which all three strings take a little of the load.

        Are you an anarcho-capitalist Libertarian? If you’re not, then why do you recognize the need to balance some for outcome, when it comes to economics, but you won’t do the same for equality between the sexes?

        1. bologna

          “Your solution seems to be that we should give up on any aspect which we can’t perfectly equalize. I completely disagree. If an approximation is all we can achieve, then an approximation will do.”

          I didn’t say that. I do feel that if opportunity and treatment is equalized that seeking to equalize outcome is MUCH less justified. It would not be done out of fairness but pity. Do you want that? Lastly, I brought this up because it is common in your circles to take differences in outcome to necessarily indicate a difference in opportunity and/or treatment. It is usually smuggled in as a hidden assumption. I’m just making it clear.

          “Since we can’t get all three in perfect, eternal balance, like a perpetual-motion machine, your argument is that we should abandon two of your prongs and only focus on one aspect of equality? That’s just freaking silly, man.”

          I stated in the following sentences that you conveniently (for you deleted) that you could also seek to equalize treatment, but that would be very difficult, and that outcome should just result as it would. Taking me out of context in an obvious manner is supposed to do what? Also, unless certain criteria are established (they are monotonically increasing), if two or more quantities are a function of one or more of the same variables, then the two quantities cannot be simultaneously maximized (here equality would be maximized). Add in a third, and it is impossible. So you are trying the impossible. I thought you should know. It seems feminism in practice is to increase the outcomes of women and assume that they are perpetually below those of men. Please prove me wrong by finding a gender imbalance where it is popular in feminists ranks to suggest helping me instead of women.

          “And again, real feminists acknowledge that outcomes are going to be a little bit off.”

          No True Scotsman.

          “Completely abandoning any attempt at balancing the outcome because you can’t get all three perfectly aligned is ridiculous.”

          If opportunity and treatment are equal, why, except for compassion, should you seek to balance outcomes? Balancing outcomes in a manner other than balancing opportunities and treatment is not what feminism is usually touted to be about. It would be embarrassing if it were and would undermine many of your tenets. It would basically be gender-based socialism based upon an appeal to compassion at that point, no?

          “Are you an anarcho-capitalist Libertarian? If you’re not, then why do you recognize the need to balance some for outcome, when it comes to economics, but you won’t do the same for equality between the sexes?”

          Out of pity for the less fortunate. Do you want feminism to be about that?

      4. Lord Narf

        I’d say start with equalizing opportunity without sacrificing standards. For instance, both sexes can work toward being firefighters, but if they are to perform the same job then men and women must meet the same standards that are sufficiently rigorous for the job at hand.

        This argument is also a bit off. No one is saying that a 5’6″, 130 pound woman needs to be allowed to join the NFL as a defensive tackle. No one is saying that a woman who can’t physically do the job should be allowed to be a fire fighter, in order to fill some sort of misguided quota system. Besides, the sort of women who want to be fire fighters tend to be some pretty tough,

        What we are saying is that in a vast number of fields, women are severely underrepresented in management, even relative to the number of women in the field. If 10% of fire fighters are women, and 2% of the management personnel in that field are women (to pull numbers straight out of my ass), there’s very likely a serious problem there.

        We have plenty of instances in which the numbers may not be that bad, but they’re pretty bad. There are also lots of other indicators of an extant problem.

        Things are obviously far better than they were in the 50′s, but there’s still a lot of ground to cover. And you know what has gotten us closer to equality than it was in the 50′s? Feminism.

        1. No Light

          No one is saying that a 5’6″, 130 pound woman needs to be allowed to join the NFL as a defensive tackle. No one is saying that a woman who can’t physically do the job should be allowed to be a fire fighter, in order to fill some sort of misguided quota system.

          But surely you must realise that all women are under 115lbs, frail and petite, and unable to lift anything heavier than a baby. They would also demand fire-skirts, and giggle demurely whenever anyone says “Hose”.

          Men, OTOH, are all tall, strong, rugged and macho. They can just as easily pick up a car, as they can pick up a pretty lady.

          That’s why stealing man-jobs to pacify uppity bitches is a bad idea. Plus, how the hell can you have a female policeman or fireman? The clue’s in the name!

        2. bologna

          “No one is saying that a woman who can’t physically do the job should be allowed to be a fire fighter, in order to fill some sort of misguided quota system.”

          This is incorrect. In many physically demanding jobs, women have different performance standards. You seem to be reflexively defending feminism and are either not informed or not being truthful. This is true of many police and firefighting departments.

          http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/blazin_mad_firegals_cryin_discrimination_4By2ECiNj8NlzO0twbeUuL

          Also, preferential admittance practices in STEM and other fields is obviously having different standards. Two folks with exactly the same background apply to a math dept. that values diversity. One is a white male and one is a white female. Who is more likely to get in? Are you going to tell me that many feminists were not behind wanting greater female representation in historically male fields and one tool they wanted used was a form of affirmative action?

          I’m now surely a bigot in everyone’s eyes because I’m showing you that you are wrong in your statements of defense.

          1. Lord Narf

            This is incorrect. In many physically demanding jobs, women have different performance standards. You seem to be reflexively defending feminism and are either not informed or not being truthful. This is true of many police and firefighting departments.

            And of course feminists put those into place …
            I know plenty of feminists who speak out against that sort of thing.

          2. bologna

            “And of course feminists put those into place …
            I know plenty of feminists who speak out against that sort of thing.”

            This is the argument by heterogeneity I’m talking about. The zeitgeist of feminism cannot be discussed then. We cannot discuss the general structure of it, but in this comment thread we’ve seen men’s rights advocates broad-brushed and also patriarchy can be discussed. Why can’t feminist discussion of patriarchy be defeated by stating that “many men are not like that”?

            Trying to equalize outcome between the sexes often entails differential requirements.

          3. michaeld

            http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/scientists-your-gender-bias-is-showing/

            If you have the same resume but change the gender from man to woman the woman is less likely to get hired.

          4. bologna

            That may very well be true, that hiring practices are, on average, still sexist. This does not combat my point that the sex-based affirmative action practiced in many places is not setting differential performance standards in those places in an effort to equalize outcomes.

  15. 15
    Lord Narf

    bologna

    Fair enough, but it is merely setting up a moving target. If something is as diverse as you seem to claim for feminism then it seems it cannot be discussed at all, unless we spent a few hundred words hashing over a mutually agreed upon definition. Or, it could simply be not correct to discuss the thing in general, but instead must discuss very specific actions by a single person or collective. This would be rather convenient for feminists.

    Unfortunately, that’s actually a pretty fair assessment of the situation, here, only it doesn’t favor your position. Let’s break down the two groups you’re equating.

    When the Christians use the argument, it doesn’t matter. The base assumptions/goals of their position are wrong, or at least unsupported by evidence. We don’t care how their worship of their invisible friend differs from that of the fundamentalists, because their base argument is invalid.

    The base assumption/goal of the feminist movement is that the sexes should be treated fairly and equally. The difference between the moderates and the extremists matters significantly, because it’s the tactics and specific positions that you seem to be disagreeing with.

    At least I hope that’s the part you’re disagreeing with. If you’re disagreeing with the base goal of fairness and equality between the sexes, I no longer value your opinion.

    1. 15.1
      michaeld

      Great minds think alike :P.

      Probably a better example I’ll add here is socialism/communism. The existence of a political view taken to an extreme doesn’t mean that a more moderate version doesn’t have good ideas. USSR can be pretty bad while while Sweden can be quite good. Feminism is probably a lot closer to political movements like socialism, or social movements like enviromentalism then it is to religion.

  16. 16
    Sonorus

    It’s a strawman argument. I’ve never met any feminists like what this guy describes. Not even one. I agree with Molly Ivans who said, “If you agree that if a man and a woman do the exact same job they should get the same pay, then you’re a feminist.” Making up some definition based on your own prejudices and then strawmanning that, isn’t being against something. It’s being delusional.

    1. 16.1
      bologna

      I have met few. But meeting someone is not the only way to be exposed to the existence of people and their ideology. Go over to radicalhub.com and dig around a bit. Do those folks not count because you haven’t met them face to face?

      1. Martin Wagner

        Why do you keep insisting the views of some radical within a movement are representative of the movement’s mainstream thought?

        Radical, man-hating feminists exist. They are not all feminists, or even most of them. You seem reluctant to process this.

        1. terrycollins

          What do you perceive as the mainstream thought? The only commonality I find between the different feminist factions is empowerment of women in some way. But they disagree on what those empowerments should be or on how they should be gained.

          1. SallyStrange

            Mainstream? Equal pay for equal work. Abortion rights. Better political representation, fighting sexism in school and the workplace. That sort of thing.

            Just my personal impression as someone who’s been paying attention to feminism for about 15 years now.

        2. mofa

          Radical and moderate alike all interpret their version of Feminism from the same literature, from the same ‘patriarchy theory’. Radicals and moderates all have the same right to the name ‘Feminism’. There is no one brand of Feminism, so to declare that you are one requires a further qualifier (or two). So let people declare themselves to be Feminist if they wish but do not tell others that they MUST be Feminist if they believe in gender equality. Because that is a false statement.

      2. michaeld

        You’re right bologna Radfemhub is a perfect example of the whole of feminism. Just like the USSR is a good example of socialist politics and Marc Lépine is a good example of someone who opposes feminism. Glad we’re on all the same page.

        1. bologna

          Hmm…haven’t read where I stated that radicalhub was mainstream feminism. It certainly is a type of feminism along a continuum. It seems they are neither owned or disowned by the folks that have commented so far. Curious.

          If feminism was merely about equal rights for women, I doubt it would be very controversial among those familiar with it, folks that seem to be well intentioned and not bigots.

          Please be aware that the heterogeneity of feminism can be used as a shield from any criticism (it seems that is at play here). Point out the bat shit crazy branch of feminism? Well, not every feminist is like that, don’t ya know? Concerned that feminists typically ignore issues related to gender equality where men are at the short end of it or that feminists often consider anyone disagreeing with them or speaking up for men instantly as a misogynist (this was done a few posts up by someone stating that men’s rights advocates don’t actually exist, that it is all just bigots)? Well, don’t ya know that we can find a few feminists somewhere that might be a bit more friendly in that area?

          Overall, there is a general unwillingness for feminists to call each other on each other’s crap. That is because, as Narf clearly implied, the ends justify the means. You are all on a team against a common adversary and pushing toward a stated goal, and that goal does not often enough seem to be truth, transparency, and true equality.

          I’d suggest everyone look squarely at radical feminism and see where the crazy ends and the mainstream begins, in your estimation. Try to thicken that divide a bit.

          Now, please reply in a condescending way that implies that I’m stupid because I don’t agree with the echo chamber.

          1. MCB

            “Please be aware that the heterogeneity of feminism can be used as a shield from any criticism (it seems that is at play here).”

            Isn’t the counter to this to simply be more specific in your criticism? If feminism is a broad category and includes both things you agree with and things you don’t, why not target your criticisms to those specific ideas you have a problem with?

            I think it’s a little silly to try to have a debate about what feminism really is precisely because it encompasses so many different things. The best we could say is what most feminists do or do not believe, but absent some kind of actual social science on that subject we are reduced to simply referring to our experiences with feminism. I have met few feminists who appear to fit the narrative you want to tell; you claim to have encountered these ideas you want to fight. Where exactly can the two of us go from there?

            Instead, why not explain clearly what ideas you have a problem with, and people can respond with what they think of your criticisms without bothering with the silly “this is/is not real feminism” argument.

          2. Martin Wagner

            Point out the bat shit crazy branch of feminism? Well, not every feminist is like that, don’t ya know?

            Yes. This is a fact. It is not a particularly hard to process fact. Why is it hard for you?

            Concerned that feminists typically ignore issues related to gender equality where men are at the short end of it

            This has not been my experience, and I have seen numerous feminists doing quite the opposite…

            or that feminists often consider anyone disagreeing with them or speaking up for men instantly as a misogynist

            I have encountered this on occasion, but not enough to say it’s standard operating procedure. Most times, when I see someone called a misogynist, I go back to read what they wrote, and often find something stupid and misogynist when I do.

            Overall, there is a general unwillingness for feminists to call each other on each other’s crap

            Again, do you have data to back up this stereotype? Or will continue to point out that radfems exist, and claim, also without backup, that we’re making an inaccurate or irrelevant point when we remind you they’re radicals? Are you just that desperate to keep your stereotypes carved in granite?

          3. michaeld

            http://marclepine.blogspot.ca/

            http://bobstruth.blogspot.ca/2009/12/happy-marc-lepine-day.html

            http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/a-better-use-for-december-6/

            Here you have 3 posts about Marc Lepine day. Named after the killer who went to a technical college and singled out women to kill. Either praising him, saying that the campaigns to stop violence against women are the kind of thing that should be fought, generally downplaying the horrific event etc. There are people who view him as a folk hero or martyr. AVFM calls to question whether it even deserves the title massacre (it is the worst mass shooting in Canada in the 20th century).

            In all the time I’ve spent on feminist blogs particularly of the skeptical leftist kind (feministing, skepchick, people on FtB) I have never heard of radfem hub. To me that speaks of its irrelivence that no one had anything to say about it at all. Feminists and other social justice activists have however been critical of their positions. Radfemhub is in their words “We are female-identified, women-born women and are collectively anti-pornography, anti-prostitution, trans-critical, and PIV-critical.” . These points have all been criticized to varying degrees on freethought blogs (look at Greta Christina and Natalie Reed off the top of my head) as well as writing posts about the sexism and harms that men can face. The fact that they haven’t mentioned a site by name doesn’t mean people have criticized their views.

            If you want me to take your argument seriously then I hope you’re working to clean your own yard at least as hard as the bloggers at FtB are at addressing the positions of Radfem hub.

            (if this gets stuck in moderation thanks to whom ever frees it.)

          4. Lord Narf

            bologna

            If feminism was merely about equal rights for women, I doubt it would be very controversial among those familiar with it, folks that seem to be well intentioned and not bigots.

            And since that is what feminism is about, that’s why we consider people who do what you’re doing to be bigots who are creating a straw-man of feminism, yes. You’re parroting the bullshit that Faux News and other ultra-conservative talking-heads spew about feminists.

            Please be aware that the heterogeneity of feminism can be used as a shield from any criticism (it seems that is at play here). Point out the bat shit crazy branch of feminism? Well, not every feminist is like that, don’t ya know?

            I already addressed this in comment 16. MichaelD has done the same. I notice you haven’t said a thing to refute my point. Either address our criticisms or stop repeating this bullshit argument.

            (this was done a few posts up by someone stating that men’s rights advocates don’t actually exist, that it is all just bigots

            Have you been to a Men’s Rights forum? They’re fucking insane, man.

            That is because, as Narf clearly implied, the ends justify the means.

            No. No, I didn’t. Add this one to the comment above, about ceasing to repeat bullshit arguments that you haven’t justified.

            You are all on a team against a common adversary and pushing toward a stated goal, and that goal does not often enough seem to be truth, transparency, and true equality.

            And here’s bullshit argument #3.

            I’d suggest everyone look squarely at radical feminism and see where the crazy ends and the mainstream begins, in your estimation.

            And this just goes back to the point you haven’t addressed in comment #16.

            Now, please reply in a condescending way that implies that I’m stupid because I don’t agree with the echo chamber.

            I didn’t say you were stupid, just using bullshit arguments.

          5. Lord Narf

            *comment #15, not 16

          6. bologna

            Me…

            “That is because, as Narf clearly implied, the ends justify the means.”

            Narf counters…

            “No. No, I didn’t. Add this one to the comment above, about ceasing to repeat bullshit arguments that you haven’t justified.”

            You stated that the radicals serve a larger goal to help the moderates. I called this out as you clearly thinking the ends justify the means, which is true. You offered a counter-argument that was unconvincing. Clearly, if you disagree with the radicals but want them around for the purposes then the ends justify the means.

          7. Lord Narf

            And I see it differently.

            I’m still waiting for a response to comment 15. I’m getting tired of these stupid little side-semantic debates which do nothing to address the base point of the post, while you ignore problems with things you’ve said which do matter.

  17. 17
    mouthyb, Vagina McTits

    bologna, if you are ignorant of the movements of feminism, as well as of the studies of human behavior associated with feminism and history of feminism (as you obviously are if the only thing you cite is radfem hub), what business do you have telling everyone what feminism is?

    That’s essentially like opining on evolution to a biologist if you’ve only ever read someone’s opinion on the general subject. It’s arrogant and stupid to presume that, having read something online, you know all there is to know about the subject.

    For better information, I refer you to the feminism and social justice wiki pages for Pharyngula. The information is there, and if you’re going to opine on it, you might as well bother to read something about it.

    1. 17.1
      mofa

      bologna does not appear to be ignorant about feminism at all, in fact the reverse. mouthyb what business do you have telling anyone what feminism isn’t?

      1. michaeld

        In the previous post on an episode of the atheist experience you claimed you weren’t well read on feminism so you didn’t want to get to far into what feminists said. So how can you know who is or isn’t well read if you yourself are not well read?

      2. mouthyb, Vagina McTits

        Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because I do research for various subjects in feminism. Or perhaps because of my professional degrees. Or maybe because I spent a significant portion of my summer adding research studies to that wiki.

        Hence the analogy between some asshat lecturing a biologist and this situation.

  18. 18
    mamba24

    Yes! Another feminist story about some loser talking crap. So interesting!

    1. 18.1
      michaeld

      Ok we get it you don’t like the blog. You didn’t like the Markuze story and you don’t like the we get email story. Maybe you should find something else to read?

      1. mamba24

        I used to like the blog, but over the last year or so it’s all about obscure sexist, misogynistic, internet trolls making threats on blogs and emails…….and the atheist experience crew thinks it’s really really important that we rush to the blog and talk about red neck losers who write stupid emails to them. And this has been the focal issue they want to discuss it seems. From elevator-gate to things like this. You might as well just change the name from “The Atheist Experience” to “The Feminist Experience”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for equal rights among men and women, but rushing to our little blogs every time we get some stupid email from a redneck and making fun of him isn’t going to change the world. I didn’t learn anything new from this blog post. Yes there are dumb and ignorant people out there who say stupid things. I just happen to think that we don’t need to point out and comment on every little incident, especially emails like this one. It’s okay to disagree with Martin and the AE crew sometimes. And the “Well you just don’t get it” card doesn’t validate your point any better.

        1. Martin Wagner

          Mamba, people here might actually take your opinions seriously if you gave any indication that you knew what you were talking about, or even cared. Here, just since October 1, are the posts that have appeared on this blog that have had nothing whatsoever to do with “obscure sexist, misogynistic, internet trolls making threats on blogs and emails.” (And this is excluding weekly episode open threads, or the ones where we brag about our awards and such.)

          FFRF sues IRS for allowing flagrant electioneering by religious nonprofits
          Presuppositionalism Redux with Deacon Duncan
          Post election open thread
          Matt Dillahunty vs. Kristine Kruszelnicki debate
          Texas Freethought Convention, with political thoughts
          Open thread: In which Stephen Feinstein talks to himself
          Egypt from the Eyes of an Egyptian Atheist
          Reply to Stephen Feinstein, final round
          It’s election season. Time to dust off the Christian Nation myth.
          Atheist asks for ideas for dealing with religious people who hate god

          Of course, you could be someone who looks at the three most recent posts on the blog, declares that their content is representative of the entirety of the blog over the last year or so, and expect to be taken seriously. But it would be kind of a stupid thing to do.

    2. 18.2
      Lord Narf

      Shhh. Adults are speaking here.

      1. mamba24

        Oh. What a very “adult” thing to say in response. Person B disagrees with me, therefore he isn’t a mature adult….. We atheist experience bloggers, who love slapping each other on the back for being so smart and right on all issues know better than this person who dares to speak up to us!! Give me break man.

    3. 18.3
      mouthyb, Vagina McTits

      Pobrecito! Having to hear shit you aren’t interested in– oh, the humanity!

      1. Martin Wagner

        A cruel place, the internet, isn’t it?

        1. mouthyb, Vagina McTits

          Indeed. I know I can barely type for fear of the internets.

  19. 19
    Rutee Katreya

    Quick reminder: Radfenmhub, the feminist Satan according to MRAs, rarely, if ever, posts something that “hates men”. They shitloads of stupid shit about the poor, poc, or trans people, but it is a rare article that “hates men”. Contrast AVFM with it sometime if you want.

    And I fucking hate Radfemhub for its cissecism, racism, classism, etc. But hating dudes is just not a thing that really happens.

    1. 19.1
      bologna

      I disagree. The subtext there is very often misandric. The actual blog writers rarely state “I hate men”, but their disdain for most males is rather obvious.

      1. Rutee Katreya

        Bzzt, you lose. Misandry isn’t a thing, because there is no systemic prejudice against men. Further, AVFM posts outright violence against women, and supports that violence when others do it. AVFM wants to reclaim ‘misogynist’, and you’re trying to say ‘subtext’ that only you imagine equals it. No. Even the great feminist satan is better than your moderates.

        1. bologna

          “Misandry isn’t a thing, because there is no systemic prejudice against men.”

          Keep comments like this coming, it is helping me.

          First, you actually believe that misandry does not exist? I’m baffled by your assertion.

          Second, it is obvious that along certain dimensions there is systemic prejudice against me. If you do not recognize this, then again I am baffled. You might think it is not as bad as the prejudice against women or that it is often perpetrated against less powerful me by more powerful men, but really to state that it doesn’t exist is very peculiar.

          If the particular feminist that I am replying to really was for “equal rights for women” (and this entails that men and women are equal in terms of rights as defined somehow, right?), then they would recognize that misandry exists, that men are sometimes systematically disadvantaged, and they would be concerned regarding both these things just listed. So, I can safely conclude that wanting equality between the sexes is not the primary goal of the person to which I am replying. You cannot decide to help one group when it is disadvantaged and ignore or deny all other situations and still want equality. This is by definition.

          1. Rutee Katreya

            Oh, btw, I notice you are ignoring that the great feminist satan doesn’t post violence, but your ‘moderates’ exalt it. Even if everything you said about misandry were real (it isn’t), you’d *STILL* be crying about things far less horrible than the weak-ass ‘movement’ you support.

          2. bologna

            “Oh, btw, I notice you are ignoring that the great feminist satan doesn’t post violence, but your ‘moderates’ exalt it. Even if everything you said about misandry were real (it isn’t), you’d *STILL* be crying about things far less horrible than the weak-ass ‘movement’ you support.”

            This is a horrible reply. I am sympathetic to the rights of men and women. I have in no way stated that I am an MRA or a member of the MRM. I am not. I have been to AVFM a few times. I have read things from moderates that calm themselves MRAs and they have not been hateful toward women. I agree that there are misogynists within that movement however. If anything, I consider myself a humanist. And you stating what I would do in a certain situation is ludicrous. You seem like a very angry and possibly hateful person, that is my impression.

        2. bologna

          “Misandry isn’t a thing, because there is no systemic prejudice against men.”

          Here. This is a perfect opportunity for a real feminist to correct a so-called feminist. Will it happen here? Do any feminists agree with me that misandry exists and isn’t just a word for a made-up concept?

          1. michaeld

            I don’t know that I would call it misandry. For one thing a lot of the problems men face are problems they help to create or are strongly linked to sexism against women. When men are raped in prisons for example it’s a man being raped by a man surrounded by a prison system that is also mostly run by men.

            Similarly the problems men face in custody goes back to the idea that women are more nurturing of children and would make the better caretaker. The greater role women play in raising kids due to historic gender roles also favors women’s custody as that’s “women’s work”.

            Similarly with conscription prevailing views have been that women are not up for combat units even when they are volunteering. So its no surprise most historical instances of conscription have put men into harms way.

            When it comes to feminism fixing these kinds of goals may fall into a zone of mission creep where people prefer to stay focused on their core problems instead of branching out into other goals (Skeptics have been discussing this idea as to the place for atheism etc).

            There’s definitely areas where men face some discrimination, prejudice, and horrible conditions. There is also some small group of people who are for various reasons biased against men in which misandry is an appropriate word. I’m just not sure that its nearly as prevalent as you seem to think it is.

          2. Rutee Katreya

            Some of those are also outright fictional, or aren’t gendered; women are raped in prison, for instance, and men actually do pretty well in custody court if they actually fight for custody.

            Military service actually is a class benefit, when one looks at both the rights upheld because of it, the benefits that frequently and historically accrue to warriors (especially a warrior class, but even peasants in medieval europe and the like typically draw some benefits from having fought), and the danger civilians are in compared to soldiers in the real world. And it’s a benefit that I’m just peachy keen extending to women in full; active service in the front line, for countries with an active military.

            Except inasmuch as I want to end war for, you know, everyone, anyway. But if it comes to that, women should serve in the front as well as men.

          3. Rutee Katreya

            I’d also point out, Michael, that ‘misandry’ is meant to echo ‘misogyny’. That requires sustaining actual systems of oppression that exist. *THAT* is why I say misandry doesn’t exist, rather than is just incredibly rare; there are indeed a small number of women who do hate men. But they can’t sustain, spread, or set up existing a form of oppression against men, because the idea utterly lacks support in the populace.

          4. bologna

            michaeld,

            I wrote this

            “I disagree. The subtext there is very often misandric.”

            in relation to a defense of radicalhub.com. I was then told that misandry does not exist. I disagreed. You seem to agree with me, I am gladdened.

            I do not see why it matters whether or not most discrimination against the majority of men was created by a minority of men or the patriarchy or whatever. It still exists as a thing and should be visited. Discrimination against females is addressed without as careful of parsing. In fact, even when it is enforced by females, it is still often laid at the feet of the patriarchy. Patriarchy might be a useful concept, but I view it the way Karl Popper viewed Freudian psychoanalysis.

          5. No Light

            Cooeee, over here!

            There is no such entity as institutionalised, systemic oppression against men. “Misandry” isn’t a thing, it isn’t a weapon keeping men down, or rendering them subhuman.

            Every example MRAs produce as a “Gotcha!” is a result of the very same patriarchy they’re desperately trying to uphold. Feminists accept that patriarchy hurts men too, hence the drive to dismantle it.

            But y’know, your little Solano Strawfeminists are easier to produce, so why not give into to your bizarre visions of second-wavers coming for your balls, with secateurs held high.

            Also – ‘intersectionality’ is your word du jour. Please try to understand, if you can, how the kyriarchy functions to oppress marginalised groups.

          6. bologna

            Rutee,

            I know that my continued reply to you is counter-productive. I think that a careful read of what you have written will reinforce my arguments in the minds of the fair-minded. I find the easy at which you can discount anyway that men are disadvantaged by a convoluted argument that often turns these things into advantages to be utterly despicable. Also, I utterly despise how you discount these things because you insist that women still have it worse overall.

            I’d love to here your rationalizations for measurable ways in which outcomes for men are lower than women. I am heartened that you seem to want selective service for women and frontline combat. I agree within certain parameters, but I won’t go into them here.

            This statement though by you though….

            “the benefits that frequently and historically accrue to warriors”

            really sticks in my crawl.

            Do to patriarchy or whatever you’d like, do you realize how many men have been killed in combat during let’s say just WWII and the Civil War? So many warriors die horrible deaths. If they survive actual combat, they may get preferential hiring for certain jobs and receive money for school and some respect for their sacrifice. These are advantages that they wholly earned, however. You speaking of it in such a romanticized yet sterilized fashion is very bothersome.

          7. bologna

            It is interesting that the words misogyny and misandry are being re-defined here. It seems this would be to make misandry a word that is not part of discourse, other than claiming it doesn’t really exist.

            So, to exist misandry would have to be systematic, institutional oppression of men. And I assume that it would need to be very broad in scope. I think this is a bar that is much to high for this word to mean something. There is a great deal of writing by feminists that trumpet the positive traits of the feminine and points out the negative traits of the masculine. There seems to be at least informal organizations that do this quite regularly. Now, is this an example of misandry? I dare someone who did the converse would be labeled a misogynist, no? I must say I admire your re-definition of words in a purely Machiavellian way.

          8. mouthyb, Vagina McTits

            Yo, feminist here, and misandry does not exist. What you’re objecting to, I assume (the standby custody issues and higher suicide rates) are a function of misogyny, which is typically defined in practice by allotting strict gender roles in a hierarchy which allots specific specific behaviors only for one gender and punishes any deviation with things ranging from shunning and/or public ridicule to physical violence and death.

            But thank you for not reading anything about misogyny.

        3. Rutee Katreya

          Second, it is obvious that along certain dimensions there is systemic prejudice against me.

          Not if you’re a straight, white, cis, middle class dude with an able body and neurotypical mind.

          You might think it is not as bad as the prejudice against women or that it is often perpetrated against less powerful me by more powerful men, but really to state that it doesn’t exist is very peculiar.

          Only if you don’t understand what the words involved mean. Able Whitey McStraighterson III benefits from structural biases against the default; himself. Any axis on that able whitey mcstraighterson lacks sucks, but is leveraged harder against women who lack that axis.

          [quote]If the particular feminist that I am replying to really was for “equal rights for women” (and this entails that men and women are equal in terms of rights as defined somehow, right?), then they would recognize that misandry exists,[/quote]
          I would only have to recognize that it exists if it were real, at least in the sense you mean it. There is a kind of misandry that exists, but it only applies to the gendered oppressions on another axis; latin@ men suffer a different kind of racism than latin@ women, for example. But Latin@ men get the better end of that stick; men are the dominant gender, and don’t suffer from systemic bias against men qua men.

          [quote]then they would recognize that misandry exists, that men are sometimes systematically disadvantaged, [/quote]
          Well, some men are poor, or black, so there’s that.

          [quote]So, I can safely conclude that wanting equality between the sexes is not the primary goal of the person to which I am replying. [/quote]
          ..or your premises are wrong, and they are. Misandry isn’t real.

          [quote] Do any feminists agree with me that misandry exists and isn’t just a word for a made-up concept?[/quote]
          Not as an independent axis of discrimination, because it doesn’t.

          1. bologna

            Rutee,

            I find it best to not refute posts like yours, but rather to simply underline them. I can’t believe that anyone actually thinks in such a convoluted way as yourself. I loved your mcstraightiewhiterson or whatever word you used. You are demonstrating much hate that I’m sure you leverage into righteous indignation.

          2. Rutee Katreya

            Whatever fairy song you need to sing yourself to protect your unevidenced, inaccurate beliefs dude. It isn’t convoluted to deny dudes qua dudes are discriminated against while pointing out discrimination on another axis can vary by gender. You’re unfamiliarity with Intersectionality is not my problem.

  20. 20
    Warp

    Yet another “let’s laugh at an idiotic sexist anti-feminist” blog post. Exactly how does this advance the feminist movement, improve people’s understanding of women’s rights or better the discussion between different camps?

    It’s easy to take extreme examples, generalize, and build straw men out of them that are easy to attack and laugh at. That’s all that this type of blog post accomplishes. (It also happens to be a common tactic among fundamentalist apologists and creationists.)

    1. 20.1
      Rutee Katreya

      I don’t know if you’re aware, but I don’t exactly have a lot to discuss with people who feel I should be less than a person for my gender.

      Fool accomodationists need to get a real hobby; maybe they should work with nerds, who have stupid arguments where it actually doesn’t matter who’s right.

      1. Warp

        You see, it’s exactly this kind of attitude why so many people detest the entire concept of feminism. They do not oppose women’s equal rights. They oppose this kind of attitude. The kind of attitude presented in this type of blog post, and many of the comments to it, including yours here.

        The sad thing is, no matter how many times this is explained you just don’t get it. You keep pounding on the “accomodationist” and “tone trolling” crap, probably just as a way to put your fingers in your ears and sing “lalala, I don’t hear you, you are just a sexist anti-feminist accomodationist”.

        And then you wonder why discussion is impossible.

        1. Ingdigo Jump

          TLDR version “Uppity”

        2. Rutee Katreya

          You see, it’s exactly this kind of attitude why so many people detest the entire concept of feminism.

          They don’t. They detest the foolish stereotypes of labrys-wielding amazons castrating men.

          you are just a sexist anti-feminist accomodationist”.

          Well, you specifically are, for telling me to treat with these people seriously.

          And then you wonder why discussion is impossible.

          I don’t have common ground with people who utterly deny reality. I don’t wonder.

          1. bologna

            Your claim that you see reality and that those that disagree are deluded and their points beneath your consideration is despicable.

        3. katenrala

          Oh, like your attitude is going to help. Hey everyone let’s be nice to oppressors, maybe they’ll listen one day.

          Actually what will help is making the oppressors listen and whatever you do to get them to listen won’t be something they consider to be “nice” as you ar not to speak out of their lines to them in any way.

          Bologna, people who don’t think you are a full person because they are bigots aren’t worthy of any consideration beyond the consideration necessary to defeat them.

          1. Valde

            Yeah, just recently, on another thread, some people were told, I believe, to be nice to anti-choicers in order to convince them to grant women abortion rights. Demonizing anti-choicers = big no-no.

        4. mouthyb, Vagina McTits

          Or maybe those of us who talk about feminism have been told to be nice over and over to people who are only talking to us via their misconceptions, and being abusive to boot.

          Maybe, just maybe, you could be intellectually honest enough to try to learn about the subject on your own power, instead of demanding someone regurgitate fifty odd years of theory and research to you while you pretend that none of it matters because it involves the concerns of women.

          It’s even possible that the refusal to do so might be, you know, frustrating to others.

        5. SallyStrange

          You see, it’s exactly this kind of attitude why so many people detest the entire concept of feminism. They do not oppose women’s equal rights. They oppose this kind of attitude.

          News flash: anyone who detests the entire concept of feminism because *mean ladies* is actually a raving misogynist.

          1. Martin Wagner

            It could be because of all those spears you guys chuck. Those really hurt!

          2. Warp

            “anyone who detests the entire concept of feminism because *mean ladies* is actually a raving misogynist.”

            That makes absolutely no sense. You do understand that a good portion (if not even the majority) of people who make these blog posts here and comment to them, are actually male?

            Prejudice and hostility towards people who disagree with you even in the smallest things is not restricted to females. Being appalled by this kind of mentality has nothing to do with gender.

            Misogyny would be to say “women are always hostile and prejudiced towards people who disagree with them.” Nobody has said that, but of course people like you are masters at reading between the lines.

          3. Lord Narf

            That makes absolutely no sense. You do understand that a good portion (if not even the majority) of people who make these blog posts here and comment to them, are actually male?

            That’s not the point. We’re not talking about the reality of feminism. We’re talking about the strawman of feminism, which is what Bologna and a couple others were arguing against. It’s the Faux News caricature of feminists as a bunch of man-hating lesbians who want to abort every straight woman’s baby that is the problem, because that’s what the Men’s Rights assholes are arguing against.

          4. Lord Narf

            Misogyny would be to say “women are always hostile and prejudiced towards people who disagree with them.” Nobody has said that, but of course people like you are masters at reading between the lines.

            The implication is that anyone who fights for women’s rights is like that, though. That’s how anyone with rhetorical skill does it, when they can’t come right out and say something that society has recognized as hateful. That’s misogynistic.

            Not all women are hostile and prejudiced, just those evil dykes who fight for birth control, bodily autonomy, and being allowed to make their own living, rather than being bound to a man, as is proper.

    2. 20.2
      mamba24

      I wouldn’t go as far as to call this blog post a straw-man, but I generally agree with your point here. There are more important issues to talk about than this.

      1. jdog

        Is starting your own blog a difficult thing for you? Because the people who run this blog choose what to post and you do not.

        1. mamba24

          Thanks for the update! Ha ha I’m not interested in starting my own blog though, but thanks. Is it so hard for you to talk with people who hold different opinions from you? So you just tell them to go away? Nice. I’m just letting my opinion known about this. You don’t have to respond to me if you don’t want to.

        2. mamba24

          “Because the people who run this blog choose what to post and you do not.”

          -I’m also fully aware that Martin and the crew can post whatever they like. I’m not opposed to this. But that doesn’t mean I can’t speak up and let my opinion be known about whether or not we need to talk about every little email dealing with redneck anti-feminists or Dennis Markuse being arrested for the umpteenth time. I don’t have the time nor the inclination to start my own blog. I come to this blog as an atheist…..because I want to see news pertaining to atheism. And I’m sure there are more important and interesting stories out there to talk about than Dennis Markuse or some random redneck who opposes feminism.

      2. katenrala

        Yeah mamba24, of course there are more important issues than the oppression of more than half of humanity by the other half based on what’s between their legs. Rolleyes.

        1. Warp

          “Yeah mamba24, of course there are more important issues than the oppression of more than half of humanity by the other half based on what’s between their legs. Rolleyes.”

          This is a quite exquisite example of distorting what someone says, and building a straw man out of it, which is easy to attack.

          He didn’t say “there are more important issues than sexism (and therefore we should just leave sexism be.)” What he *did* say was “there are more important things than blogging about an email sent by some redneck”, which is a completely different thing.

          Sexism and inequality are a problem. However, the best way to fight that problem is not to blog about some random emails. (In fact, I would say that it might well be the opposite. Picking out the extreme cases and laughing at them does not help the problem, it only instigates animosity, making it even harder to actually fix the problem.)

          The major problem I see with the kind of feminist that TAE crew and most people commenting on this blog is precisely this kind of overly antagonistic prejudice and distortion. Whenever someone disagrees with even the slightest thing, it’s immediately distorted to mean something completely different, and then attacked and ridiculed, as you just did. That’s *not* how you fight sexism. That’s only makes things worse. You are not going to get your message across that way.

          1. Lord Narf

            Sexism and inequality are a problem. However, the best way to fight that problem is not to blog about some random emails. (In fact, I would say that it might well be the opposite. Picking out the extreme cases and laughing at them does not help the problem, it only instigates animosity, making it even harder to actually fix the problem.)

            I completely disagree. Mockery can be a very effective means of changing a social paradigm. It makes people want to be less like the example that’s held up, except for the handful who are assholes and are proud of it.
            Just look at the rape contingent running for congress, this year. The media grabbed their worst statements and mocked them like crazy. Most of them were projected to win, until their evil stances were exposed. All of them lost. We do it because it works … and it’s fun.

            This example is particularly effective, because it has the double-punch of empty bravado, making this idiot that much more ridiculous.

            This isn’t about winning over people like the guy who sent the e-mail. It’s about bringing the people in the middle further over towards the feminist side.
            We have a real crisis of women’s rights, in this country, when a major political party can be as evil and misogynistic as they were this past election. We need to get the apathetic center to realize that and get off their asses and join us.

          2. Martin Wagner

            Picking out the extreme cases and laughing at them does not help the problem, it only instigates animosity

            Among whom could that sort of thing “instigate animosity,” other than apologists for sexism? And who cares?

            Also, if you think that blog posts about moronic emails are all we at AXP and ACA are interested in doing to combat sexism and misogyny, you’ve got a little distortion of your own going on there, chum.

          3. katenrala

            Did you know that there is such a thing as meta-text and all sorts of anti-oppressionists, especially feminists, get told to shut up and talk about something else?

            I don’t care about your exact words in this instance, you’re complaining about others talking about something very important, which happens to be feminism.

  21. 21
    mike

    Shouldn’t the fact that “bologna” is for equal rights for women be the main thing here? I know lots of ppl that are for women’s rights and equality for the sexes but do not and would not refer to themselves as feminists and I have had a few women tell me that men cannot call themselves feminists because they are not women and don’t know what its like to be a woman.

    Like the label “atheist”, “feminist” seems to have some unnecessary negative baggage attached to it, and I would only refer to myself as a feminist in certain circles

    1. 21.1
      katenrala

      You’re being fooled if someone like bologna tells you they are for womens’ equality and they still spout sexist, misogynist stuff, and you conclude they are for equality.

      As for the reason things like “feminism” and “atheism” have negative connotations, those connotations come from oppressors who don’t like it when those they oppress stop taking it without a fight.

      If you are really for equality for the equality of women and female persons, stop being a coward and say you are a feminist.

      1. Russell Glasser

        Think I’ve seen enough obnoxiousness and personal attacks by bologna.

        My bologna has a first name, it’s B-A-N-N-E-D.

        1. bolognasrevenge

          Editor’s note: Oh, I can’t NOT let this one last message from “bolognasrevenge” through.

          I will only cloak my IP address once in order to tell Kazim (Russell) to go fuck himself for banning me.

          I was called fool, child, bigot, and a whole host of things here. My posts were FUCKING MILD in contrast.

          Fuck you and your utterly distorted perceptions of people’s behavior based upon whether or not they agree with you. Things like this is why FTB is becoming a total joke to so many. Good luck.

          1. No Light

            I was called fool, child, bigot, and a whole host of things here

            Ladies and gentl….

            *breaks down*

            Sorry. I was overcome, I’ll try again.

            Ladies and gentlemen, here we see the cruelest, devastating, most ruthless form of oppression at work. That of the whiny manchild being called out on his actions with hateful slurs like “child” and “fool”.

            *weeps*

            In order to end this scourge I want to host an event to publicise that fact that being called out on your bigotry is the worst oppression of all.

            It’s called MRAid, and will feature performances by whiny white guys like James Blunt, Coldplay, Snow Patrol, The Fray, and more to be announced later.

            With your help our oppressed, broken brothers can be free to discriminate against whoever they want to!

          2. Martin Wagner

            This is one of those moments when I wish FTB comments had a “like” button.

          3. MCB

            I will only cloak my IP address once

            A gentleman and a scholar.

          4. Rutee Katreya

            “Just once”. You’re a liar, MRAL.

          5. Lord Narf

            I forget; what’s the L in MRAL?

          6. Martin Wagner

            My guess is “loser”.

          7. Lord Narf

            Dammit, Martin, you’re riffing off of my joke. :-p

            I always considered that the A is for asshole.

          8. Lord Narf

            Things like this is why FTB is becoming a total joke to so many. Good luck.

            I love parting shots like this, by the way. Their actions are completely at odds with their statements. If FTB is becoming such a joke then why are they here?

            Oh, sure, the Men’s Rights assholes may think we’re a joke, but strangely, we don’t give a fuck.

        2. Valde

          Keep up the good fight Bologna!

          You are a true hero…or something :P

          /sarcasm

        3. Lord Narf

          What I find even more obnoxious than the personal attacks is his method of arguing. He straw-mans like hell. He’s the sort of person that you really need a hold button for.

          I’d say something, and then he would respond by saying, “You said [my statement, with 2 or 3 key details changed], and this is why that’s wrong: [explanation of why those 2 or 3 details he changed are wrong].” He’s a walking, talking straw-man and equivocation fallacy factory.
          You need to be able to put his ass on hold and say, “No, that’s not what I said … and once I take you off hold, I’d like you to go back and address this fucking major problem with your argument, which I pointed out to you, and you’ve been aggressively ignoring.”

          1. Jasper of Maine

            His entire take on feminism was a straw man, which was what I was trying to address.

          2. Jasper of Maine

            I think the actual schism here is between those who know what feminism is, and those who don’t.

  22. 22
    leni

    I support equal rights for people of color but I disagree with 99% of what radicals say. Why would that be a helpful clarification? Should we all head over to the Black Skeptics blog to ask them how they could possibly call themselves civil rights activists while black supremacists exist? I bet if we look hard enough we could find a few black supremacist atheists, the horrors!

    Yeah that sounds like a really good idea. You should try that next bologna. I know the next time Pat Robertson says something stupid I’m totally going to contact Barry Lynn and demand an explanation.

    1. 22.1
      Valde

      +1

      i wish we could ‘like’ posts here!

  23. 23
    Lord Narf

    bologna

    It would not be done out of fairness but pity. Do you want that?

    Simple, one word answer? Bullshit.

    It’s not pity. It is fairness.

    Lastly, I brought this up because it is common in your circles to take differences in outcome to necessarily indicate a difference in opportunity and/or treatment. It is usually smuggled in as a hidden assumption. I’m just making it clear.

    And it’s common in the anti-equality circles to ignore the basics of what this is all about. All of these measures we’re bickering about are in response to one thing: the misogyny inherent in the current (and to a worse extent, the historical) system. How you go about that is a long debate that neither of us have the statistics and information to properly debate, in this forum.

    You’re refusing to acknowledge the base issues. You’re horribly straw-manning feminism, and you’re refusing to address the issues with the basics of your argument, which MichaelD and I have both brought up. I have no wish to discuss details, when you won’t even properly settle the basics.

    I stated in the following sentences that you conveniently (for you deleted) that you could also seek to equalize treatment, but that would be very difficult, and that outcome should just result as it would. Taking me out of context in an obvious manner is supposed to do what?

    I took nothing out of context. I responded to the truncated details in my response. Are you new to message boards or something? Somehow, I doubt that.

    What you do is quote the punchline to give a reference point to what a block of your text is in reference to. If you quote an entire 3 or 4 paragraph section which is already in evidence directly above, it makes your posts needlessly massive.

    Also, unless certain criteria are established (they are monotonically increasing), if two or more quantities are a function of one or more of the same variables, then the two quantities cannot be simultaneously maximized (here equality would be maximized). Add in a third, and it is impossible. So you are trying the impossible.

    And here, you’re completely misrepresenting what I said. I said that you strike a balance and bring up all three prongs to as close to equal as you can manage. If you maximize two prongs and completely ignore the third, you’ll end up with a fucked up, unfair situation.

    Anyway, I’m done with the details, when you won’t even address a problem that I’ve repeatedly brought to your attention.

    1. 23.1
      bologna

      “Simple, one word answer? Bullshit.

      It’s not pity. It is fairness.”

      Huh? Okay, two different men have the same opportunities and treatment. The only thing different is what the two of them intrinsically bring to the table. One of the men has a better outcome as a result. Equalizing the outcome here between the two men is done out of fairness? When two teams play a game, is the game considered fair when things are arranged so that they both receive the same score at the end?

      I think your simple “bullshit, it is fairness” argument was delivered because you really have been painted into a corner here.

      1. jdog

        When two teams play a game and one team consists entirely of members who are at a disadvantage when it comes to how the points are scored while the other team does not have that disadvantage, then it’s fair to apply a handicap to make sure both teams can compete on equivalent footing.

        1. bologna

          The argument is whether it is fair to equalize outcome AFTER opportunity and treatment are equalized. What you are stating assumes first that treatment and opportunity have not in this example. I know that treatment and opportunity have not been equalized yet, but the person to which I replied stated that even if they were that it would still be fair to equalize outcome. I am stating that this goes against most definitions of fairness.

          1. jdog

            No, they weren’t arguing that. They rather specifically told you that you were misunderstanding their argument when you brought it up the first time.

      2. Lord Narf

        Huh? Okay, two different men have the same opportunities and treatment. The only thing different is what the two of them intrinsically bring to the table.

        And this example demonstrates that you’re living in a fantasy world. If two people bring the same thing to the table, they’re often not treated differently, due to racism or sexism. I notice you’re using an example of two men. You continue to ignore the basics of the problem.

        One of the men has a better outcome as a result. Equalizing the outcome here between the two men is done out of fairness? When two teams play a game, is the game considered fair when things are arranged so that they both receive the same score at the end?

        And you continue to ignore my basic point that examining the outcomes can tell you a lot about the system that is difficult to quantify. You keep comparing it to the rationing system under strict Communism or something, which is just wrong. You’re not arguing honestly.

        I think your simple “bullshit, it is fairness” argument was delivered because you really have been painted into a corner here.

        No, it’s disgust at your refusal to acknowledge basic problems with your view of what this blog post is actually about … which I notice you still haven’t addressed. When you’re so wrongheaded at the base, about what feminism is, I really don’t care what your opinion is about the details, and I’m sick of it. I’m through wasting time on you is all.

  24. 24
    leni

    Huh? Okay, two different men have the same opportunities and treatment. The only thing different is what the two of them intrinsically bring to the table. One of the men has a better outcome as a result.

    Let us know when things actually work like this, would you?

    1. 24.1
      bologna

      I have no idea how to answer this. You deny that ordinarily, if two men are up for the same job, etc., that the more talented of the two will win out? You believe that decision makers are so stupid as to ignore merit?

      1. Rutee Katreya

        You really have no idea what effect gender, race, class, and other factors play into these things, child.

        1. bologna

          Let’s control for all those things (which is what I was getting at by stating two men, etc), you think that actual ability is ignored? Come on. Especially when the skill level difference is large, the effect of true merit is ordinarily undeniable. If you cannot admit this, then I truly don’t know what to say. There are many studies relating IQ scores to life outcomes. The two are positively correlated. This tends to lend support to my claim.

          1. Rutee Katreya

            Networking, even when it doesn’t come down to nepotism, trumps outright merit as well. So even if you controlled for class benefits, there would be, at best, a weak correlation.

          2. Rutee Katreya

            Oh lord, IQ. Child, I’m on my phone so an extended discussion is precluded, but if you think IQ is a particularly useful measure of anything, let alone merit, you are behind on the literature.

          3. bologna

            I think I am just behind on the literature that supports your views.

            The idea that the most carefully crafted aptitude and cognitive ability tests are useless in measuring something other than ability on that test is an idea typically supported by: 1. those who scored lower on them they think should have given their own self-assessment and 2. those that see that it might have uncomfortable implications in regard to their own ideas.

            A test is crafted that mimics spatial manipulation and visualization that would be useful in the real world (heck, even explicitly including real world skills like map reading), and men score higher on average than women. Could it be that men, on average, are actually better at this skill set? Oh no, that test is biased in some way and only measures ability to take that specific test and doesn’t translate to anything in the real world. G I V E M E A B R E A K.

      2. Rutee Katreya

        ‘play into’ = ‘have on’

        Yes, people are stupid and ignore merit; or rather, they read merit into traits they identify as positive, like dudeness or whiteness, rather than looking at actual merit. You are an ignorant fool if you think merit is the primary selector. And it’s ironic that you outright state ‘two men’ and ignore the possibility that a member of half the human race might compete for the job while insisting that merit is the primary determinant of who gets hired.

        1. bologna

          No, it is not ironic. I stated “two men” on purpose. I was attempting to control for gender differences. If you read my comment in context you will see that I was arguing against the idea that equalizing outcomes leads to fairness. This is the pattern here. I am called stupid and a fool because I disagree with you. This is why freethoughtblogs has a certain reputation outside of itself. It is very difficult to have a debate here.

          1. Rutee Katreya

            So you started with the assumption that real world conditions don’t apply.

          2. bologna

            Huh? I am attempting to isolate a single difference. This is a hallmark of clear thinking. I think your basic argument is “everything is so complex and you rarely find a situation like you used in your example, therefore I’m right and you’re wrong”.

      3. mouthyb, Vagina McTits

        Hey, nice just world fallacy.

  25. 25
    Rutee Katreya

    I know that my continued reply to you is counter-productive

    Self awareness at last!

    I think that a careful read of what you have written will reinforce my arguments in the minds of the fair-minded.

    I am aware you live in a realm of self-deception.

    Do to patriarchy or whatever you’d like, do you realize how many men have been killed in combat during let’s say just WWII and the Civil War?

    I do. It was less than the number of civilians murdered by military personnel, especially outside of wartime. That’s a pretty consistent trend too.

    If they survive actual combat, they may get preferential hiring for certain jobs and receive money for school and some respect for their sacrifice

    All of which are higher level concerns than those faced by immigrants and nonwhite people during the civil war (and now, for nonwhite people.), a farmer who fights for a season to pay for tops. Heaven forfend we discuss an actual warrior caste, or people who serve outside of war, but is treated equivalently. Military service has a lot of benefits, like most risky work. The biggest though, is the social capital. Its sacrosanct. Like how you’re treating it now.

    These are advantages that they wholly earned, however

    And categorically denied to half the population on the basis of their class alone, who aren’t permitted to earn them.

    1. 25.1
      Rutee Katreya

      Hwemming threaded comments.

    2. 25.2
      bologna

      The ability to write very long passages that do not make direct claims is not a strength, Rutee. It is a way to be like jello that cannot be nailed to a wall.

      So, it seems that when women have unequal outcomes in reference to men, it is due to patriarchy. A response should be to address the specific inequality and also attempt to dismantle the patriarchy that is its cause, according to your beliefs. Do you agree with this? I know it will not have the appropriate subtlety (cough, convolution). Please feel free to modify this into a question you can answer, but please keep the spirit of the question at least somewhat in place and do it in less than 1,000 words.

      Now, when someone mentions a measurable inequality that does not favor men what should be done and how does it compare to what you would do when men have better outcomes? Again, modify within reason and within 1,000 words.

      1. jdog

        You don’t get to determine how people reply to you.

        1. Rutee Katreya

          He’s a penis holder, I’m just a silly fluff for brains woman, of course he does.

          Though I would trade my kingdom for an edit button on ftb in general.

          1. bologna

            If your position is so strong, why do feel the need to impute characteristics to me that you have no way of knowing based upon, perhaps, some bad experiences you have had? Have I stated anything about you simply because you are a woman? I have not.

        2. jdog

          You don’t realize it, but you’ve made it obvious that you’re male. Women simply don’t make the arguments you do, because they’re not operating from your position of male privilege.

          1. Rutee Katreya

            He’s also pretty clearly given preferential status towards dudes. I see this all the time in trolls, and occasional ‘allies’. But you know, he hasn’t outright said ‘bitchez ain’t shit’ so he can pretend he’s just peachy keen.

      2. bologna

        Oh my, what a non-complaint. I asked a few questions and said it was okay to modify the question, implying of course that the person wanted to answer at all, but to PLEASE keep it within reason. So, a simple request using the word the please is now a dictate?

        I think part of the underlying strategy here is to be so utterly insufferable that everyone that is not of a similar mindset will leave and never come back.

        1. jdog

          Did you forget you also said you wanted replies limited to 1000 words?

          1. bologna

            I said PLEASE if you must restate my question as something you feel comfortable asking keep that restatement to less than 1,000 words.

          2. jdog

            Why bring it up if you didn’t expect people to follow it? So you’d have another complaint about how we ignored your “entirely reasonable” request?

          3. bologna

            Huh? What? A request is now a demand. Welcome to bizarro world.

          4. Rutee Katreya

            A request most certainly can be a demand. And you were pretty clearly trying to set the terms by which I may respond to you, so I don’t know why you’re trying to weasel out of it now.

    3. 25.3
      bologna

      “I do. It was less than the number of civilians murdered by military personnel, especially outside of wartime. That’s a pretty consistent trend too.”

      Number of civilians killed/total number of civilians

      Number of soldiers killed/total number of soldiers

      Hmm….I wonder which has a higher risk rate per capita? I wonder why I would be interested in that rate?

      1. jdog

        Because you’re attempting to bog down the discussion with a derail.

        1. bologna

          Not true, death per capita is OBVIOUSLY a better descriptor of the risk of various categories than a non-normalized number. Limiting ourselves to the European theater of WWII, those that went to fight the Axis powers were obviously putting themselves at greater risk than a guy who stayed at the village to mind his crops or whatever. I think this is germane, sensical, and why people did not rush to join the military because of the greater safety it afforded!

          1. Rutee Katreya

            ‘limiting ourselves to the european theater of WWII’
            Yes, by all means, ignore the asian theater, which saw more loss of life and the only use of atomic weapons on civilians in history.

          2. bologna

            Let’s lump in both Europe and the Pacific. Low estimates of civilian and military deaths are 40 and 20 million, respectively. This makes military deaths roughly 1/3 of the total. Now, were 1/3 of the civilians of the countries involved in this conflict in the military at some point during WWII?

          3. jdog

            Soldiers in combat having a higher risk of death than others isn’t relevant to a discussion about feminism. If women are allowed to choose that as a profession, the ones who do so will have that same risk of death.

          4. bologna

            It certainly is if belonging to the class of soldiers is painted as historically to male advantage. Also, it is as far as future conditions if there is a demand for defense and women may or may not be as likely to meet physical requirements for frontline combat. I can see your future utopia now where half of all navy seals are women.

          5. jdog

            And, yet again, you misrepresent the position of the person you reply to. Find the place where I said that 50% of all Navy SEALs must be women. You can’t, because I didn’t.

            Whatever the requirements are for being a Navy SEAL (besides gender), if a woman meets those requirements and wants to become a SEAL, then she should be given the same opportunity to become one as a man who meets those requirements.

            As a SEAL, she will have the same risk of death in combat as any other SEAL.

          6. bologna

            That a certain are needed and men are more likely to qualify per capita and so will likely be overrepresented is not germane to a discussion of average benefits/sacrifices to the sexes?

            This discussion is a case of the unsinkable rubber ducks. No matter how backed into a corner the regulars here are, they cannot in anyway reconsider their position or state they were not absolutely correct from the get go. They’ll even go so far as to say that civilians protected by soldiers did not receive a benefit from the death of said soldiers. Geeez……

          7. jdog

            If women (who meet the requirements) can become SEALs, then a female SEAL will have the same risk of death in combat as a male SEAL. It’s a red herring to say that because fewer women than men are SEALs, the average risk of death in combat for all women is lower.

            It’s like the lottery. Anyone who chooses to play has a (significant) risk of losing the $2 they paid for the ticket. Women and men are both allowed to purchase lottery tickets. If the statistics showed that half as many women chose to purchase tickets as men, then you would be arguing that the average woman has less of a financial risk than the average man. While true, it’s not relevant to the discussion of whether or not women should be allowed to buy lottery tickets.

      2. Rutee Katreya

        Hmmm.I wonder which has a higher risk rate per capita? I wonder why I would be interested in that rate?

        Let’s see, civilians, on the whole, get nothing but death for their risks, and soldiers get recognition, pay, and support for their rights as human beings. In the USA, they get health care too.

        As to mortality, it is somewhat worse for soldiers, unless you’re a dweller of a colonialist superpower, or that colonialist superpower’s target du jour. The target’s civilian population suffers several time’s more than it’s military population, and the superpower’s soldier population, to the extent it bears risk, bears it mostly (although not entirely) alone.

        The gap, however, is not the gap you imagine.

        1. bologna

          So, when soldiers fight to defend a civilian population the no benefits accrue to the population being defended? Curious.

          1. Rutee Katreya

            Considering that fewer soldiers die, and bear only marginally more risk, no, no benefit is had.

          2. bologna

            I see what you are doing. You are averaging the benefit to civilians over all populations, and not the benefits bestowed to a group of civilians by the soldiers specifically fighting for them. Sneaky.

            Okay, so a band of soldiers from village Y is invading village X. A group of soldiers from village X rushes out to meet this band of marauders. They drive them off but take on casualties. Okay, the villagers of X did not receive a benefit from the death and sacrifice of those soldiers from their village?

            I don’t know how you could possibly parse things so as to not make this obvious. Are you perhaps a pacifist that thinks countries should not respond to threats or something?

          3. Rutee Katreya

            Okay, so a band of soldiers from village Y is invading village X. A group of soldiers from village X rushes out to meet this band of marauders. They drive them off but take on casualties. Okay, the villagers of X did not receive a benefit from the death and sacrifice of those soldiers from their village?

            For a guy whining about sneakiness, you seem to have a lot yourself. More clearly, there’s no unique benefit. Either way, both the soldiers and the civilian populace benefit from the harvest that’s left after Y is driven off. Because this is the real world and not a video game, a pretty sizable portion of both groups of soldiers will live, because routing happens long before either side is actually destroyed, and wars are generally lost well before the army is actually destroyed.

            Oh, and you forgot that regardless of who wins, X will lose civilians from their outlying villages, and X and Y will lose civilians from their supply train.

            I don’t know how you could possibly parse things so as to not make this obvious. Are you perhaps a pacifist that thinks countries should not respond to threats or something?

            Yes, but silly me, I thought you were smart enough to pick up that benefit shared by the nation as a whole isn’t really germane to a discussion about benefits of soldierdom vs. civilians. I see I thought too highly of you.

    4. 25.4
      Rutee Katreya

      The ability to write very long passages that do not make direct claims is not a strength, Rutee. It is a way to be like jello that cannot be nailed to a wall

      Just because you’re an ignoramus who doesn’t understand how people have benefited from serving as a soldier doesn’t mean I didn’t make a direct claim. I highlighted two broad classes in US history that demonstrably benefited from their ability to serve in the military.; Irish got off the boat and had the option of NINA signs or service killing confederates/indians/whatever enemy du jour the US had. The latter did risk getting shot back, but it was a hell of a lot better than starving. Non-white people actually, very very briefly, were recognized for their service. Do you not know how huge these things are?

      I referenced warrior classes; do you need an explanation of how, say, Ieniceri or Mameluks (Nominally slaves) may have benefited by being in charge of their empires? Or how politically powerful warrior classes leveraged their fighting into, you know, more power, as was the case with European nobility, Japanese samurai, or Indian kshatriya? I can teach you basics, but I’ll insult you while I do.

      Even when warrior classes exist, rank-and-file men see benefits for fighting. That bit about paying for tools is a thing that happened; european farmers would individually serve for a season or two, tops, and use that money to repair or repurchase metal tools, livestock, or other sundries if necessary. A rare few who were good at it would be mercenaries, and although few lived so relatively grand a life as those of a condotierre, they were on the whole better off.

      fyi, the wives of those farmers went with them on the campaign; they frequently died, to enemy action. Sometimes more than their husbands, though it’s extraordinarily difficult to draw proper data on that, and journals are rare resources. Their wives did necessary work the armies needed doing, and of course, received no pay for it.

      But you know, I don’t know how to mention exact specifics at all. I’m just a silly, irrational woman.

      Fool.

      [quote]So, it seems that when women have unequal outcomes in reference to men, it is due to patriarchy. A response should be to address the specific inequality and also attempt to dismantle the patriarchy that is its cause, according to your beliefs.[/quote]
      More or less correct.

      [quote]Now, when someone mentions a measurable inequality that does not favor men [/quote]
      You haven’t. You’ve only mentioned benefits that hurt individual men. Take the example of custody you’re so fond of misrepresenting; let’s put aside that men win a disproportionate number of those cases, as well, when you actually remember what they’re allegedly decided on. Let’s pretend everything was *exactly* as you fools present it; some individual men, who do want to be primary caretakers, don’t get to be. That’s a legitimate shame. Every other dad just got child-rearing paid for at a bargain, and can continue working uninterrupted full time work without people thinking he’s failing his purpose as a father. That inequality benefits men as a class, even while it hurts a few individual men.

      In the mythical case of an inequality that didn’t favor men, (Say, if military service were as you fools present it) yes, I’d want to correct it, and that’d mean working on the source of the matter. The problem isn’t that you allege to want to fix inequalities, it’s that you invent them out of wholecloth and persecution complexes. If, to continue the example, military service really was so terrible, I would still want women to be pressed into it equivalently, and to be valid draftees

      1. bologna

        And you said misandry doesn’t exist! ;) If your post doesn’t qualify….

        Now, this thing of

        “You’ve only mentioned benefits that hurt individual men……

        That inequality benefits men as a class, even while it hurts a few individual men.”

        So, the benefits are to be accrued to the men category but the hurt is to be diced up to individual men? I think what you are mistaking for the “men category” is the small group of power elite that historically have been mostly men. I can show you that men commit suicide at much higher rates than women, and you would say what? The stress that causes higher male suicide benefits men in general while killing off individual men? What if the opposite were true and women were offing themselves so much? Would your analysis be so nuanced, or would you straight away state that patriarchy is doing this and it obviously hurts women from the category down to the individual?

        Finding a way to make any individual male hurt (that actually moves averages so that it shows up as a significant difference) to something that helps men overall is just so…dirty. And so flexible for you. If a few university departments were dedicated to it, I’m sure we can come up with a theory that all the inequalities that individual women seem to suffer are actually helping you as a category.

        I don’t have to read all the history books and underline 5 or so examples that specifically help my case to know that wars were usually instigated by rulers that were male. They sent other men off to die in combat because of perhaps some chivalry but moreso because men are more efficient killers, whether we’d like to be or not. Women often stayed home to take care of child rearing and domestic tasks. After wars, there was a preponderance of female widows. What you say was a benefit to men is just a few small condolences for dying (or taking that risk) at the request of someone more powerful than yourself that happened to be male. It seems you’d like to rob male history of even our deaths related to fighting wars and paint women as just as much up to their knees in the blood and guts. It truly takes a great deal of “specialized” education for you to cast as a myth something so blatant.

        It is actually a trope that males are more expendable than females, it is so written in our popular mind. Do you see it? When women and children were given sets in life boats ahead of men, was this just a side effect of a patriarchial system that benefit the category MEN but just had to have those individual men die? I guess those individual men are not key parts of this system.

        I’m honestly saddened that your compassion towards men seems so minute. I actually like women and feel for them.

      2. Rutee Katreya

        And you said misandry doesn’t exist! If your post doesn’t qualify….

        It doesn’t. It’s not propping up a systematic inequality against men.

        So, the benefits are to be accrued to the men category but the hurt is to be diced up to individual men?

        A small minority, yes, just as a few white collar criminals are occasionally prosecuted to give the appearance of fairness in the justice system just before it goes back to hammering the poor and nonwhite people.

        I think what you are mistaking for the “men category” is the small group of power elite that historically have been mostly men

        Not really. Poor men benefit from cheap child rearing, and free household labor more than a middle class man does, really.

        The stress that causes higher male suicide

        Nonexistent; Women attempt it more frequently, they just choose less lethal methods due to socialization. That’s the socialization that also makes you more likely to be armed. But you know, that’s socialization I oppose for other reasons anyway, so that’s covered.

        What if the opposite were true and women were offing themselves so much?

        It would depend on why they were. I’m not familiar with the factors on why they try to do so more than men, so I don’t caution specific action against it.

        They sent other men off to die in combat

        Do you actually know anything about ruler mortality for approximately 6500 years of human development, out of curiosity?

        They sent other men off to die in combat because of perhaps some chivalry but moreso because men are more efficient killers, whether we’d like to be or not.

        You really, really, don’t know shit about what you’re talking about, it seems.

        After wars, there was a preponderance of female widows.

        Not really. Plenty of women died in the campaign trail as they were a large part of the supply train and from the civilian populace at home; the latter, in greater numbers. Well, in Europe and parts of hte middle east during the medieval, the former holds, at least. The latter is… frighteningly consistent.

        What you say was a benefit to men is just a few small condolences for dying (or taking that risk)

        Since you seem to be going off europe, you’re aware the peasantry typically had to actually volunteer to enlist, and did so because they stood to benefit directly, right? That option being open to them was part of a class benefit. Yeah, some of them died. They thought the risk worthwhile. It exists in raiding societies as well, which is why in the various viking societies, women volunteered happily to fight; they actually could, knew they’d benefit, and therefore, did. The Christianization of the region saw their equality drop drastically, as well as their military service though.

        And again, you totally ignored that wives of these same soldiers were rarely out of risk; they went along, and died like anyone else on the nebulous front. As part of the supply train, they were actually bigger targets. These things are actually documented, you know, you don’t have to make up bullshit based on gendered stereotypes and halfassed history they taught you in meriken history class.

        It seems you’d like to rob male history of even our deaths related to fighting wars and paint women as just as much up to their knees in the blood and guts.

        Where it’s true, yeah. Women die a lot in war. When possible, we killed a lot too, although that’s less common by a long shot.

        It truly takes a great deal of “specialized” education for you to cast a myth so blatant

        Not really. A dispassionate view of primary sources is sufficient.

        It is actually a trope that males are more expendable than females, it is so written in our popular mind. Do you see it?

        Considering that men occupied a disproportionate amount of lifeboat space compared to women and children, not really.

        http://www.nek.uu.se/Pdf/wp20128.pdf

        When women and children were given sets in life boats ahead of men

        In other words, you only know about the titanic.

        I’m honestly saddened that your compassion towards men seems so minute.

        Well, it is towards figments of your imagination like most of your version of history, so there’s that.

        I actually like women and feel for them.

        Which is why you try *so hard* to minimize our suffering.

    5. 25.5
      Valde

      quote: “Do to patriarchy or whatever you’d like, do you realize how many men have been killed in combat during let’s say just WWII and the Civil War?”

      Let us not forget about all the women and children who have suffered from *mass* rape in all wars.

      Asshole

  26. 26
    d00st3r

    Without being as kneejerk and using stupid stats liek the OP, I do agree with their general sentiment. Feminism only advocates women rights. I advocate equal rights.

    So when there are Domestic Violence cases where it’s the man is the victim, an Equal rights advocate would want their to be a good support system in place for the victim. A lot of feminists oppose this and idea and say that DV with male victims does not exist.

    When a Man gets raped by a woman, an equal rights advocate would want their to be good support system for the victim, and a full term prison sentence for the perpetrator. Feminists again generally argue that this is not something that can happen.

    In Asian countries that allow corporal punishment, many have banned it’s use against women, which implies that it is okay to use it on men, even if they commit the same crime. This is absurd, and legitimizes torture of male. Feminists generally applaud the law, anyone who is an equal rights advocate would be appalled by it.

    Equal rights naturally includes all the positives of feminism, whilst excluding all the vitriolic and harmful bigotry that the extreme feminist (and many who are most involved in feminism and it’s lobby groups are extremists, some self-admitted misandrists)

    I don’t buy into the argument that just because most feminists are not extreme, it follows that feminism is okay. Most Muslims are not extreme, yet Islam is still a very dangerous anti human religion.

    We don’t even need feminism in the western world. We are all aware in inequality and the need to fight against it. And the answer is a strong Equal rights movement, that fights for the rights of everyone, men, women, children, gays, ethnic minorities, atheists. It isn’t really about the various groups, it is only about removing laws and practises that give any group a special right, or prohibits any group from any right. (that is an over simplification as age restrictions on alcohol, driving, etc are legitimate, but that’s not really the point I’m making)

    Having an equal rights movement that focuses only on womans rights automatically creates problems while it solves existing problems. In general things are getting better (feminism does solve more problems that it creates) but that is not an excuse to stick with such a narrow sighted viewpoint.

    I have yet to hear a compelling argument that supports the idea that the feminist movement is in any way better that a full equal rights movement.

    *nb, my spelling and grammar here is probably very bad, as I don’t have time to go through and check everything over.*

    1. 26.1
      Martin Wagner

      When a Man gets raped by a woman, an equal rights advocate would want their to be good support system for the victim, and a full term prison sentence for the perpetrator. Feminists again generally argue that this is not something that can happen.

      Every feminist I know acknowledges that men can be and are rape victims, and demands full justice for them when it happens. A feminist who dismissed the experience of male rape victims — and there may be some out there — would be one who’d get a lot of angry rebuttals from others not so insensitive. Maybe you should be more attentive to what feminists actually say, instead of criticizing them over what you think they say (or don’t say). Like all the other men attacking feminism here, you seem to work on the assumption that feminists are all Borg-beings of One Mind, who all think One Thing about whatever subject is up for discussion. Equality? Feminists think X! Men’s rights? Feminists think X! Peanut butter or chocolate? Feminists think X!

      1. bologna

        Martin, why can’t the zeitgeist of feminism be discussed? It seems there is not much difficulty when the general form of something else is being critiqued. Perhaps the disclaimer should always be: not all feminists do this but many claiming to be feminists do and so I would like to address them specifically. Lastly, I’m glad that the feminists you know personally aren’t like this. Perhaps they are actually closer to being equal rights activists?

        1. Rutee Katreya

          Because you’re liars. You don’t know the first thing about feminism itself, let alone the world at large. You can’t discuss the ‘zeitgeist of feminism’ because you don’t know what that is. You have nothing to talk about but stale stereotypes. If you had even the smallest bit – the tiniest iota – of human decency, you would leave this site and never speak about feminism again, or you would shut up and learn. But you don’t.

          1. bologna

            Abuse comment acknowledged. I simply don’t know much about the world as YOU see. You are behaving in a horrible manner that you justify based upon the horror done to your movement by those that question it or don’t see it as you do.

          2. bologna

            ” If you had even the smallest bit – the tiniest iota – of human decency, you would leave this site and never speak about feminism again, or you would shut up and learn. But you don’t.”

            Absolute par for the course, you simply can’t stand people that were not “educated” in a way that make them agree with you, huh? Yours is a too typical reaction to having key pieces of their mental model challenged.

          3. bologna

            I’m fairly certain that being educated, in your mind, is to be brought to a place where one agrees with your basic tenets. Sorry, I’ve stared into your personal labyrinth and I see emotions leading to conclusions.

          4. Rutee Katreya

            Really, MRAL? After 4 years, you still don’t have anything better to do with your time than troll feminist sites? Get a fucking hobby, seriously. There’s a new pokemon out.

    2. 26.2
      Rutee Katreya

      So when there are Domestic Violence cases where it’s the man is the victim, an Equal rights advocate would want their to be a good support system in place for the victim. A lot of feminists oppose this and idea and say that DV with male victims does not exist.

      Less common, not that they don’t exist. And every male victim support center I’ve heard of was staffed by feminists who identified outright as such.

      When a Man gets raped by a woman, an equal rights advocate would want their to be good support system for the victim, and a full term prison sentence for the perpetrator. Feminists again generally argue that this is not something that can happen.

      What feminists, where, argue that it can’t happen? I have certainly heard it argued – and supported – that men are raped considerably less, but never heard anything but support for men who are raped. Because while I agree with you that anyone – feminists included – who makes that argument has failed horribly, I’ve never seen it happen even once, much less commonly.

      And again, every support center for male victims of rape that I know of was staffed by feminists who identify as such.

      Feminists generally applaud the law, anyone who is an equal rights advocate would be appalled by it.

      Do they applaud it for ending any of the corporal punishment, or for permitting it against men? Be specific, and frankly, provide a citation. Any reduction in corporal punishment is better than none, but it should obviously be ended.

      I don’t buy into the argument that just because most feminists are not extreme, it follows that feminism is okay. Most Muslims are not extreme, yet Islam is still a very dangerous anti human religion.

      Islam isn’t really that much of a threat to you unless you actually live in an islamic theocratic country. Feminism is a threat to you all of nowhere, unless you’re a feminist targetted by antifeminist extremists at least.

      We don’t even need feminism in the western world.

      Wrong.

      We are all aware in inequality and the need to fight against it.

      If only.

      aving an equal rights movement that focuses only on womans rights automatically creates problems

      Objection- statement assumes facts not in evidence

      I have yet to hear a compelling argument that supports the idea that the feminist movement is in any way better that a full equal rights movement.

      Provide for me a full equal rights movement that doesn’t prioritize Able Whitey McStraighterson III and I’ll consider joining it. In the real world, kyriarchy almost ensures such a thing would be hijacked immediately by able-bodied, neurotypical, straight, cis-sexual white dudes of middle class. I’ll take feminism, which actually works towards equal rights.

  27. 27
    Nathan

    “I’ve stared into your personal labyrinth and I see emotions leading to conclusions.”

    Deep

    I knew when Martin posted this thread it would go in this direction.

    1. 27.1
      Lord Narf

      Heh, yeah. I’ve long since realized that this idiot isn’t worth talking to, also. He evades like crazy, when we’re trying to discuss the actual blog post, then takes it down into the weeds.

    2. 27.2
      Rutee Katreya

      Pretty sure this is an old troll from Manboobz, actually. Been at it for years.

      1. mofa

        The never ending story. Your kind are so use to ‘safe’ places where your crooked theories are never questioned. When your dogma is attacked on a more open forum (like this one) first you all play the “troll” card (don’t debate them because they’re just a troll) Then if they stick around you play your second card, the “misogynist” card. (don’t debate with them, they’re a misogynist) Then if they still hang around you rely on your ‘gang’ of buddies to assist you in bullying your adverasy into submission. If none of these tactics work you revert quoting or linking to Manboobs? (why would anyone listen to more than a sentence from this buffoon?) All the time avoiding, at any cost, a sensible discussion on the matter. Why? Because Feminism and its constructs are vulnerable to criticism because there are flaws present and the movement has many sexist bigots as members. Calling someone a ‘misogynist’ (without really knowing them and having evidence to make that call) for the sole reason that they disagree with your point of view is bigotry.

        1. Martin Wagner

          If that’s why they’re being called misogynists, then true (though I’d actually suggest it’s more likely poor rebuttal skills than bigotry).

          But if, as I often see, anti-feminists get called misogynists because they actually say misogynist things, then that would be different. And I also, quite often, find that when someone does say something misogynist and gets called on it, his response is not to reflect upon his remarks, try to understand why they were misogynist, and offer an apology for causing any unintended offense. His response is to protest that he was “just offering his opinion,” that his critics “simply can’t handle having their dogma challenged,” followed by wondering out loud why feminists “hate free speech” and are such “intolerant bigots.”

        2. Rutee Katreya

          That’s a dumb-ass thing to say to people who spent hours ‘debating’ the guy to find only emptiness inside. And yeah, this particular one has all the calling cards of one, exactly one, particular troll from that site (and no, I don’t follow it now, but he was there for years).

          Because Feminism and its constructs are vulnerable to criticism because there are flaws present and the movement has many sexist bigots as members.

          Keep telling yourself that, jimmy, keep telling yourself you’re totally in the right for hating a movement that fights kyriarchy on a particular axis. Anything but admit the truth that you’re just a bigot.

          (without really knowing them and having evidence to make that call) for

          That’s actually irrelevant. If you’re a human that wasn’t raised by wolves, you are at least somewhat misogynist. People who oppose equal rights for women, however, are moreso. Like you.

          And yeah, I know he’s banned :D

  28. 28
    Muz

    Man (hurrr), it’s going to whack a mole with this one for years to come isn’t it.
    Every time the F-word comes up give a countdown to some doofus saying “Feminism in my Atheism?! What’s next? A pass for the Klan?!?! Don’t you people know the dark truth? I have read The Protocols of the Elders of Amazon. They want to castrate all men and keep a select few as breeding drones like Bees! Have you seen The Wicker Man?! It’s all there.
    Evil brain poison; Solanas; Rebecca Watson: Guard thy balls fellows! I’m all for equality though. Love the ladies. Some of my best friends are women” etc etc

    If I may borrow a Christian expression, holy fucking christ.

    It’s my own fault. I hang around in video game circles and it’s pretty much the same there. A delightful double dose. I’m sure plenty have it worse (actual identifying feminists probably get it 24/7 if this is any indication)

    Although, as some have perhaps indicated in a round about way in recent threads, perhaps it is time to consider the PR war was lost to Rush Limbaugh et al some time ago, in a large segment of the population at least, and it’s time to start afresh. What that involves I’m not sure.
    (and before anyone says they hate Rush and are as Left as they come. Well if you’re parroting anti-feminist claptrap you probably have bought his bullshit, knowingly or otherwise. Pity your own intellectual independence. Skeptic, heal thyself.)

    1. 28.1
      Rutee Katreya

      I really, sincerely doubt the PR war was lost to the point of starting fresh, at least not with white people.

      1. Muz

        No? Well it could be just the internet magnification effect I suppose.
        The number of guys who stumble in to impart their wisdom about the evils of feminism, who otherwise seem at least broadly of good intent is amazing to me. Some of them are thoroughly middle of the road people you’ve known for a while who seemed quite level headed, even tempered, generous of spirit.
        Feminism gets mentioned and they erect a little pulpit for themselves (no pun intended) and start thumping away. They’re baffled that anyone they thought reasonable would defend it. It’s obviously and evil man hating cult, every body knows that; where have you been?

        Perhaps they are relatively small in number. It does make me think something was lost along the way.

        1. Russell Glasser

          Yeah, not gonna hide this… I give people the benefit of the doubt for a pretty long time before administering a ban, but invariably the “I hate feminists” crowd gets ugly much faster than most, including fundamentalist Christians. That probably accounts for the vast majority of bans on this blog.

          It’s probably why I get irritated so quickly with callers like Mark from Adelaide (aka “mofa”) as soon as I find out what their topic is. I don’t want to assume the worst of them, but I’m generally about 75% sure they’re going to go that way.

  29. 29
    katenrala

    Sorry, I’ve stared into your personal labyrinth and I see emotions leading to conclusions.

    The old “you’re just being emotional” canard by someone arguing against women’s and female persons equality.

    NOT SEXIST AND MISOGYNIST AT ALL!

  30. 30
    Nathan

    You know what this reminds me of. There is an old episode of AE where Russell and his sister Karen (I think sister, not sure don’t get angry if I get this wrong) are hosting the show and someone calls in and says that women cannot be raped. Karen responded along the lines of “I don’t thing that is true at all”

    and the caller responded, “Of course you don’t your a women”

    Hopefully, someone can find that clip on youtube, but that summarizes this conversation.

    1. 30.1
      mofa

      What is the point of this comment? Some idiot made some stupid remark long ago? What sort of argument are you trying to bring to the table? You are pathetic. You are a bully (but a piss weak one at that)

      1. Martin Wagner

        And the Mallet of Loving Correction has now come down on mofa. Bye.

        Nathan was making a point about people who make stupid arguments based on bogus assertions, and dismiss those who disagree (despite actually being in a position to know what they’re talking about) with such things as well-poisoning fallacies. That it didn’t sink in is, shall we say, unsurprising.

        1. Nathan

          Thanks Martin, that was my point exactly. I thought it was pretty straight forward, which is why didn’t feel the need to explain my comments. Though I find it funny that he attacked me personally (not even sure how I was bullying anyone, I guess that’s why I wasn’t very good at it) when I was talking in general about some of the posts.

          If anything I should be bitched at because of my grammatical errors.

      2. Lord Narf

        What sort of argument are you trying to bring to the table? You are pathetic. You are a bully (but a piss weak one at that)

        Heh, WTF? Where the hell did that even come from? Even from the perspective of an MRA, I can’t see what could have triggered that.

        1. Lord Narf

          Thanks for the cleanup, whoever did that. :-)

    2. 30.2
      Jasper of Maine

      1. Jasper of Maine

        Trying again:

        1. Jasper of Maine

          Son of a…

          It starts at about 47.4 minutes.

          1. Valde

            Wow, that guy is an ass!

            Great episode though, its one ive never seen, ty!

          2. Jasper of Maine

            I miss the old canvas backdrop. What’s with all this new confangled technology backgdrops? What’s next, CGI hosts?

          3. Lord Narf

            Eh, makes it look more professional and impressive. I like it.

  31. 31
    Valde

    so what do these MRA whiners want then?

    they claim that all feminists are out to punish men and deprive them of rights, even when presented with evidence of the opposite.

    they talk about the ‘dogma’ and ‘the zeitgeist’ of feminism, and how thats the stuff thats really negative and awful, and that its the ONLY stuff that matters, b/c how can there be any good feminists if there are a few bad ones…or something

    so guys, what do you really want? what is the purpose of all this whining? do you just want to see women’s rights rolled back, b/c you think a few feminists (which somehow translates to all) are evil like Satan?

    1. 31.1
      Valde

      Hey guys, perhaps if women lost the right to vote, the ‘right’ to drive, and the right to work.

      Then women would not be able to unfairly disadvantage men anymore, right? you know, sexually harassing men, firing men when men get pregnant, all that stuff!

      1. Lord Narf

        Hey guys, perhaps if women lost the right to vote, the ‘right’ to drive, and the right to work.

        Get a few more assholes on the Supreme Court like Scalia, and it would be a possibility.

  32. 32
    mouthyb, Vagina McTits

    And, for the general record, I’d like to point out that feminism is an academic discipline, not just a social movement, with the attendant body of theory, research and, in recent years, studies in social science to support or falsify its theories.

    Calling oneself a feminist does not imply knowledge of that tradition, and the goals of various sub-movements are wildly, WILDLY disparate.

  33. 33
    mouthyb, Vagina McTits

    Truly, I weep for our species.

  34. 34
    Valde

    Just for interest sake, the cop who pepper sprayed young non-violent female protestors IN THE FACE at occupy wall street was named…Bologna! Anthony Bologna !

  35. 35
    DaveL

    Men’s Rights Advocate: A person who has discovered with horror that patriarchy hurts men too, and demands it be immediately modified to hurt only women.

  36. 36
    Valeria

    Hey this is somewhat of off topic but I was wondering
    if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have
    to manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding knowledge so I wanted to get guidance from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

    1. 36.1
      Martin Wagner

      WordPress allows either. Just play around with it and see what works for you.

  37. 37
    Lord Narf

    Christ, 276 comments. 277, now.

  38. 38
    thalamay

    Well, the term “feminism” has come to mean so many things, that it’s hard to put any real meaning to it anymore, kinda like “spiritual”. What people like the person mailing are probably talking about are the kinds of professional victims floating around the A+ forum. I think Matt has gotten a taste of it when he entered the forum anonymously, but only a small taste obviously.

    Since this kind of discussion will immediately draw the “no true Scotsman” reply, I guess it would be best to ditch the feminism label and simply address specific views.
    Affirmative action for example is the very opposite of equality, “Schrödinger’s rapist” is an immoral, sexist argument akin to “Schrödinger’s black mugger”. The idea that our society was designed by men in order to suppress women is no better than 9/11 conspiracy theories and the gender pay-gap is simply factually false.

    Generally it seems that people who subscribe to ideas like the ones I mentioned above are driven by ideology rather than a drive for truth and hence they commit all the same fallacies creationists commit. They may call themselves “Skepchicks” but a lot of what they preach has little to do with skepticism. Another great example is Rebecca Watson’s latest pet theme of bashing evolutionary psychology. She obviously didn’t even take the effort to study up a bit on the issue before attacking it. That unscientific – or rather anti-scientific stance once again puts her in the same camp as creationists, arguing emotionally instead of rationally, cherry picking “evidence” from tabloids that she can debunk instead of looking at what the science actually says.

    1. 38.1
      Martin Wagner

      “Schrödinger’s rapist” is an immoral, sexist argument akin to “Schrödinger’s black mugger”. The idea that our society was designed by men in order to suppress women…

      Schrodinger’s Rapist does not say that, nor does it even say that all men are potential rapists. You’ve made the same basic mistake in understanding it that I’ve heard everyone else who’s criticized it make.

      1. thalamay

        I guess that Schrödinger’s rapist can mean different things to different people. The way it is portrayed in places like the A+ forum, Schrödinger’s rapist is the ultimate guide for men who want to interact with women, and that is objectionable.
        But even as a parable in order to show “male privilege” it fails miserably, just as Schrödinger’s black mugger fails to show “black privilege”, because it doesn’t even reflect reality. Men are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than women, for instance the vast majority of murder victims are male. So if anything, women are privileged if you want to go that route.
        All it shows is that those feminists who subscribe to that idea are paranoid and would be better off in psycho therapy than trying to shape society according to their own shortcomings. And I don’t mean that in a patronizing way, for example, I have issues of my own because of which I sought professional help. There’s no shame in that. But there is shame in being a professional victim and trying to guilt everybody into acting according to your own inklings.

        1. Martin Wagner

          It is hardly paranoid, or “being a professional victim,” to be wary of a stranger, particularly if you belong to the class of people disproportionately affected by sexual violence. And that is the only point Schrodinger’s Rapist is making: that when a woman doesn’t know you, she doesn’t have the luxury of automatically assuming you’re a Nice Guy™ until you’ve proven yourself…and even then, her safety is not guaranteed, as the majority of women who are sexually assaulted have it happen at the hands of men they know well. If you think this does not “reflect reality,” then you and reality have never met.

          None of this, I am sure, will persuade the kinds of men who are so invested in dismissing as paranoid raving any concern women express for their well-being in what only an utter fool would deny is a male-dominated world. This isn’t to say there aren’t “professional victims” out there. But they tend to be a minority. And it’s senseless to use them as an excuse not to take seriously even the most common-sense concerns women have about navigating the hazards of the world.

          1. thalamay

            It is hardly paranoid, or “being a professional victim,” to be wary of a stranger, particularly if you belong to the class of people disproportionately affected by sexual violence. And that is the only point Schrodinger’s Rapist is making: that when a woman doesn’t know you, she doesn’t have the luxury of automatically assuming you’re a Nice Guy™ until you’ve proven yourself…and even then, her safety is not guaranteed, as the majority of women who are sexually assaulted have it happen at the hands of men they know well. If you think this does not “reflect reality,” then you and reality have never met.

            Granted, but my point is that by the same token, men don’t know whether or not a stranger is nice or not, and they’re overall more likely to suffer harm. Why only single out rape? It doesn’t make sense to disregard all other possible harms.
            By the same token, I could argue that women are privileged because they don’t know what it’s like to fear dismemberment. But it’s stupid to draw that kind of line, because there are all kinds of other things that can happen to either men or women.

            In real life, men are not in the least more privileged when it comes to danger by exposing oneself to the public. The types of dangers might differ, but one is not more severe than the other.

            None of this, I am sure, will persuade the kinds of men who are so invested in dismissing as paranoid raving any concern women express for their well-being in what only an utter fool would deny is a male-dominated world. This isn’t to say there aren’t “professional victims” out there. But they tend to be a minority. And it’s senseless to use them as an excuse not to take seriously even the most common-sense concerns women have about navigating the hazards of the world.

            Having concerns is one thing. I don’t want to take away anybody’s right to be afraid. What I don’t accept however, is for an entire segment of the population to be excluded from the discussion because they’re supposedly “privileged”. And I especially don’t accept that this perceived privilege justifies special rights for the “not-so-privileged”.

            BTW, I don’t think that I’m an utter fool and yet I don’t see how this is a male dominated society (I’m not talking about Saudi Arabia, but the West, i.e. Europe and the US, but then neither do the professional victims, see the reaction to Dawkins’ “Dear Muslima” comment).

          2. Martin Wagner

            Why only single out rape? It doesn’t make sense to disregard all other possible harms.

            thalamay, it’s a particular way of addressing a particular crime. It doesn’t disregard the fact that other crimes exist at all. It’s simply one woman’s way of addressing how she, as a woman, has to weigh her personal risk of sexual assault, and she does so in a way that other women can relate to as part of their daily experience.

            You could make almost exactly the same argument about pedophilia. A parent of a small child must consider the possibility, however remote, that literally any strange adult their child encounters could sexually abuse them. Even if the parent has fully vetted the adult, and even knowing that the number of child molesters in actual society is a tiny minority of people, the possibility still exists that a molester may be lurking under any safe and friendly facade; consider all those kind, trusted priests and Boy Scout leaders. You might find it horribly offensive and unfair that the parent of a small child would entertain the notion that you could be a potential risk to their child, and that you might do something you’d never dream of doing in a million years. But their perspective is just a bit different. When it comes to erring on the side of their child’s safety or your feelings, they’re going to lean towards their child’s safety.

            It’s silly to assume that simply having a discussion about one crime means the people having it are deliberately ignoring that there are also victims of mugging, murder, identity theft, terrorist bombings, random UFO abductions, being eaten by bears, or any other Bad Thing you can come up with. Schrodinger’s Rapist occurred within the context of a discussion about rape, not a general discussion about all crime.

            BTW, I don’t think that I’m an utter fool and yet I don’t see how this is a male dominated society

            Try doing your current job for 3/4 of what you’re presently being paid, then tell us what you think.

          3. thalamay

            I don’t have a problem with people seeing me as a potential rapist. I do have a problem however with people trying to construct “privilege” out of this. I have just as much reason to be wary, even more so according to crime statistics. Maybe not of being raped, but other and likely worse crimes. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Arbitrarily picking out one area where one group is more likely to be negatively affected and then trying to generalize this, that’s the problem with Schrödinger’s rapist.

            But on a broader point, I think that this kind of argument is even detrimental to the goal of equality, even though as I said, I can generally understand the drive to be wary. Because this kind of argument focuses on the division of groups.
            A mental exercise to visualize that would be to take your last post and replace man with black and rapist with mugger. Sure, it’s probably justified to be more wary of blacks than of whites from a statistical point of view, but it’s the wrong message to bring across if your goal is equality, because ultimately it focuses on division instead of unity and that division is what then goes on to foster mutual misunderstanding or even outright rejection.

            Try doing your current job for 3/4 of what you’re presently being paid, then tell us what you think.

            Well, where I work, everybody gets exactly the same payment. Actually, since I’m a junior employee, I get less than most women there.
            But as I mentioned in my first post, even on a broader view is the gender pay gap a modern myth. A woman doing exactly the same job as a man gets exactly the same wage. Even if that weren’t the case, free markets would take care of it, because businesses would only hire women and those who don’t would soon be out of the market for being uncompetitive. You need to believe in a massive conspiracy theory to keep up the idea of the gender pay gap. But again, it’s bogus to begin with. See here http://goo.gl/eq0cc and here http://goo.gl/cNYFM for example.

          4. No Light

            Shorter thalamay:

            I don’t understand the basic concept of kyriarchal privilege, or specific examples like ‘Schroedingers Rapist’. I don’t want to admit that, so I’ll deflect using lies and distortions.

            Anyway, so what if women are raped more, and paid less than men? Fair’s fair, bitchez ain’t shit, except for Ayn Rand who totally g…. Ohhhh. Oh god, I just came in my pants.

          5. thalamay

            @No Light

            Wow, if this is the intellectual level you’re moving about, I definitely won the argument. You have nothing of substance to reply to my points, instead you try to attack my character by attributing positions to me that I certainly don’t hold while at the same time calling me a liar without addressing the evidence I provided or even providing evidence of your own. Well done I say, well done. If you wanted to discredit your position, you’ve certainly succeeded.

        2. Lord Narf

          Men are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than women, for instance the vast majority of murder victims are male. So if anything, women are privileged if you want to go that route.

          There’s an important distinction you’re not making. Are men more likely to be victim of random violence? Are they more likely to be the victim of sexual violence?

          I think a lot of the male victims of violent crimes and murder are out doing things that seriously increase their chances of being a victim. For example, I’m sure gang violence and drug violence are much more likely to be perpetrated by and on men. I want to see a breakdown of the situations of the male and female violence and murder victims.

          1. thalamay

            So now we start blaming the victim? Like women who dress sexy are at fault for being raped? I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. The person who does the murdering is to blame and that’s that. Fact of the matter is that a boy who is born in the US today is three times as likely to be murdered than a girl, just for being a boy.
            Does that mean that women are privileged? I certainly wouldn’t argue like that.

            As to your claim that men are more involved in gang violence, that certainly sounds reasonable. But it’s only part of the picture. While it is gang violence that gets most news coverage, they only make a very small part of actual murders (in the West at least, things are probably very different in Mexico at the moment for example). I think the real reason has more to do with people generally putting less value on a man than on a woman. You know, the whole “women and children first” routine. Which makes sense from an evolutionary point of view, as it is the number of women that determines the population growth of a group, not the number of men. There’s a lot more that plays into this of course, starting from old societal values that a man doesn’t beat women, all the way to an old idea of chivalry where you at least want to give the appearance of having an “honest” fight and where fighting women is taboo as they’re physically weaker and hence not fair game, but I think that in the end it all comes down to the fact that ultimately the life of a man is less important for a society than the life of a woman.

            BTW, here’s your data…Google’s your friend:
            http://goo.gl/82OVi

          2. Lord Narf

            So now we start blaming the victim? Like women who dress sexy are at fault for being raped? I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.

            Are you really comparing engaging in gang and other violent activity with dressing sexy? It’s not victim blaming to say that people who are engaged in illegal activity which is closely connected to violence are more likely to suffer from violence.

            You’re making an utterly false comparison.

            I’m not seeing a breakdown by sex, at that link.

          3. thalamay

            Well, you are blaming the victim, because the only reply to the statistics that you could muster is to say that men are more likely to actively seek dangerous situations. That is in effect blaming the victim.
            You did invoke the gang/drug violence example. Now there could be instances where the victim does in fact have some blame, for instance in a gun fight between two gangs because in this case the shooters on both sides force each other in a situation where they may have to kill to survive. But even there, in the vast majority of cases, the victim doesn’t deserve blame. Selling drugs on the street might put me in danger of being shot by a rival dealer, but even though I would have sought out a more dangerous situation, I deserves no blame whatsoever for being shot, only the shooter does. If you think that seeking out a situation in which I know others are more likely to harm me makes me (at least in part) deserving of that harm, then by the same token you have to accept that a woman who dresses sexy puts herself in a more dangerous position and therefore deserves (part of) the blame.

            But worse, your example doesn’t even begin to explain the gender gap. So the only conclusion I had to draw from your comment was that you blame men in general for being more likely to be murdered, even beyond gang/drug related violence.

            BTW, here’s the correct link, I posted one from a sub-site:
            http://goo.gl/OJEqV

          4. Lord Narf

            When the victim only ends up a victim because he failed to victimize his victim … fuck him. He deserved it.

          5. Lord Narf

            And no, going out to a club in a short skirt is not the same as going out and dealing in illegal narcotics. It’s just not. If you can’t see that, then I give up on trying to reach you.

          6. thalamay

            Obviously it’s not the same. But I would draw parallels it in terms of personal responsibility for harm done to you. In other words, you could minimize the risk for yourself by not acting in such a way, but it’s still the person doing the harm that bears full responsibility.

          7. Lord Narf

            I don’t agree with that. It depends upon the situation.

            In the case of the girl with the short skirt at the club or wandering around the college campus, yes, the responsibility rests solely upon the shoulders of the rapist. In the case of the guy killed in a drunken bar brawl, or in the drug deal that went south, or in the dust-up between gangs, I don’t necessarily find the victim particularly innocent.

          8. thalamay

            1) The guy getting killed in a bar brawl usually isn’t considered a murder victim, so that’s beside the point to begin with.
            2) I explicitly excluded gang shootings, there the victims obviously carry part of the blame.
            3) As for the drug dealer, he certainly isn’t “innocent” as he’s doing something that is illegal. But he’s not to blamed in the least should he get killed while doing so. You’re conflating the two things here.

            Let’s use a second analogy to better illustrate this point. Cops put themselves at risk by doing their job. Would you say that a Cop who got killed while doing a regular check on a random car carries part of the blame for being shot, because he willingly put himself at risk?
            The only difference to the drug dealer is that the motive for putting themselves at risk is different, one noble, one not so much (I let you decide which is which). But that doesn’t take any blame away from the murderer. He’s still the only one to be blamed for the murder.

          9. Lord Narf

            1) The guy getting killed in a bar brawl usually isn’t considered a murder victim, so that’s beside the point to begin with.
            2) I explicitly excluded gang shootings, there the victims obviously carry part of the blame.

            Yes, let’s exclude many of the ways that men get themselves murdered and make our arguments based upon those skewed results. Brilliant.

            By the way, your statement is pretty hilarious, when you consider that the first link you sent me, for “Murder Circumstances, 2006–2010,” lists a category for “Brawl due to influence of alcohol” and “Brawl due to influence of narcotics.”

            The FBI disagrees with you. I think I’ll side with them.

            3) As for the drug dealer, he certainly isn’t “innocent” as he’s doing something that is illegal. But he’s not to blamed in the least should he get killed while doing so.

            He’s not blamed in the least? Bullshit. I blame him, at least in part, and I bet most others would, as well.

            Let’s use a second analogy to better illustrate this point.

            I have a better idea. Let’s not.

            I’m not talking about police and military deaths, even if the former often count as murder. Besides, law enforcement deaths are a tiny blip on the murder statistics of the country, relative to other deaths.

          10. thalamay

            Read my posts again. I didn’t bring up the policeman analogy in order to explain the statistics, I brought it up in order to illustrate my point about putting blame where it belongs. If you put part of the blame on the drug dealer for being shot, you also must put part of the blame on the policemanr being shot, because the only difference is the reason why they put themselves at risk, not the fact that they do.

            As for the bar brawls, that would usually fall under manslaughter, unless there are deeper motives. Also, me acknowledging that participants of gang shootings are at least in part to blame for what is coming to them doesn’t mean that I brush it away somehow. It means that I conceded your point in that specific instance from the start, nothing more. But as with dead cops, this is a mere blip in the statistics.

            But be that as it may, I guess we won’t come to an agreement here. But that’s ok, because it is a non-sequitur regarding my original point anyway.

            It is well understood that men are by and large more reckless than women and more prone to putting themselves at risk, especially in adolescence. And it’s quite well understood as well, it’s called testosterone. It’s no coincidence that the Darwin Award winners are usually male.

            Whether you want to pin any blame on that or not doesn’t change the fact that it’s inherently more dangerous being a man than a woman.
            By disagreeing with my point about where to put blame, all you do is to take the same argument onto a different plane.

          11. Lord Narf

            Read my posts again. I didn’t bring up the policeman analogy in order to explain the statistics, I brought it up in order to illustrate my point about putting blame where it belongs. If you put part of the blame on the drug dealer for being shot, you also must put part of the blame on the policemanr being shot, because the only difference is the reason why they put themselves at risk, not the fact that they do.

            My point is that it’s an invalid analogy. The policeman is doing something slightly higher risk than most people. But someone who assaults a police officer is the one wholly at fault there. A drug dealer is doing something badly illegal and thus shares at least some of the blame for his own injury or death.

            As for the bar brawls, that would usually fall under manslaughter, unless there are deeper motives.

            Heh, you’re the one who narrowed it to murder, when you threw up the link to the FBI site. Manslaughter is close enough that I don’t care about the difference. I was just talking about violence and rape, comparing men to women. This all started with rape, after all. To restrict the discussion to murder over manslaughter, at this point, seems silly.

            Even with those random, domestic violence cases, I don’t see the need to pull up statistics. Men are more aggressive assholes, on average, and are more likely to cause this sort of situation, in which they might be injured or killed, themselves.

            But be that as it may, I guess we won’t come to an agreement here. But that’s ok, because it is a non-sequitur regarding my original point anyway.

            This is pretty far down into the weeds, yeah. You’re the one who brought it here, though, trying to prove a point that I think most of us on this blog reflexively disagree with. :-p

            Whether you want to pin any blame on that or not doesn’t change the fact that it’s inherently more dangerous being a man than a woman.
            By disagreeing with my point about where to put blame, all you do is to take the same argument onto a different plane.

            I think you’re missing the whole point of the Schrodinger’s Rapist argument. I don’t care if it’s more dangerous to be male, statistically speaking. Women are more likely to be assaulted by a man, for no good reason. When men do actively stupid shit, as you yourself admit they do, I have no sympathy for them and am far more likely to hold them responsible for the result.

            Basically, to sum it up, the “more dangerous” argument, in general terms, is irrelevant. If you don’t control for behavior, you entirely miss the point.

        3. katenrala

          Men are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than women, for instance the vast majority of murder victims are male. So if anything, women are privileged if you want to go that route.

          Funny how you left out the fact that men and male persons who are victims of violent crime are more likely to be attacked by other men and male persons.

          Considering that that men have institutional power in the US and western world, it is not a privilege of women and female persons that they are attacked less frequently. Privileges are reserved for a society’s chosen members, women happen to be attacked less because of sexist concepts that say women and female persons should not be attacked because they are women and female persons; rather than them not being attacked because it is simply the right thing to do, just as it is the right thing to do to not attack men and male persons.

          And you don’t think feminists care that men are attacked? They do, women and female persons happen to like men and male persons for the most part and have close friends and family who are men and male persons even if they still take shit from them. Feminists don’t want those they like and love attacked and murdered.

          I’m pro-feminist for similar reasons, I don’t want the women and female persons close to me, friend, family, co-workers, whatever, to be shafted and assaulted or murdered by our “he-man woman haters’ club” of a society and I’ve simply extended that desire that they not be harmed to all women and female persons.

          Fucking harm reduction; how does it work?

          1. Valde

            thalamay sounds just like a bunch of MRA’s I was reading on another thread on another site…

          2. Lord Narf

            Nah, not nearly as bad as those guys, for the most part. That bologna asshole was one of the MRA guys.

          3. Valde

            No, not as bad

            But, the whole ‘stop victim blaming men’ thing sounds eerily familiar!

            ‘men are victims of crime too, so women shouldn’t complain, bitches should just be quiet’

          4. Lord Narf

            Yeah, but thalamay yielded when it was obvious he wasn’t getting anywhere. MRA’s tend not to do that. They just get more vile and avoid the tough questions, like bologna.

            He refused to answer simple, straightforward questions that were actually related to the base subject and tried to obfuscate with bullshit. I’m still pissed at myself for letting myself get pulled so far, before I woke up to it and tried to bring us back to the point … at which point, he turned into a vile, flaming asshole, until Russel banned him.

          5. Valde

            MRA’s are pro at mental gymnastics!

            “Respek” as Ali G would say :P

            On this thread I was reading I could not believe how they twisted things. Truly amazing, the ease with which they twisted data, or just dismissed it.

            Did you know that violence against women data from the CDC is unfairly weighted in favour of women,and this is why we do not hear about the millions of men who are brutally raped and murdered by their wives every year!!

            They remind me of the craziest climate change deniers, UFO nuts and religious apologists.

            They also remind me of people who say “we need more prisons, cuz the crime rate is up, even though data says the crime rate is down, its *unreported* crime thats up, so we need more prisons’

    2. 38.2
      katenrala

      Affirmative action for example is the very opposite of equality, “Schrödinger’s rapist” is an immoral, sexist argument akin to “Schrödinger’s black mugger”. The idea that our society was designed by men in order to suppress women is no better than 9/11 conspiracy theories and the gender pay-gap is simply factually false.

      Oh fucking bull.

      Did you know that there is this little thing, oh maybe it’s just trivial and unimportant, called history that plainly shows that women and female persons the world over have been treated as second class citizens if they are lucky, property if they aren’t so lucky, and orgasm dispensers for men and male persons if they drew the short stick, which was nearly all of the sticks as the fact it is?

      Affirmative Action is a measly attempt to get more minorities and women and female persons into positions otherwise dominated by white men and male persons. The people who have benefitted from Affirmative action are no worse than their white male peers, and have to be better in an academic or job setting than their white male peers just to get noticed for Affirmative Action in the first place. White and male individuals who blame Affirmative action for their lack of placement are in denial of the fact that they do not perform up to snuff and are not wanted until they can show they can better than they did the first time, but if they are so bad at thinking that they think they got cheated somehow because as being persons of privilege they are used to getting their way, hey ain’t going to bother to study and try again, they’ll just keep the resentment stoked to warm their hearts on a cold night.

      “Schrodinger’s Rapist” has to do with the fact that any man or male person could be a rapist in any encounter, as 25% of them are monsters, and a woman or female person has to consider any man or male person to be a potential rapist until they actually know that particular individual may be safe… maybe most of the time.

      Men and male persons have absolutely earned the worse women and female persons can think of them, but they’re actually worth worse as women and female persons, even if they are feminists, even as radfems (cissexism notwithstanding) still have a soft spot and hope and love for the other half of the human species.

      Me being male though, I’ll absolutely hate men and male persons as hard as I can until they meet the bare minimum of decency.

  39. 39
    MCB

    One of the issues I have with framing the issue simply in terms of victimizer/victimhood is that paradigm distracts from some more subtle problems that I think likely exist with respect to gender in America (for example). I think this simplification often leads to a kind of male-centered vision of normalcy. In other words male outcomes are taken as “normal” and making women and men equal is then interpreted as making women more like men.

    But, I think in a number of ways men have a lot to learn from women in terms of living healthy productive lives.

    Take the crime statistics. The focus the discussion has gone is in whether men can properly be called “victims” of violence. But I think that tree of victimhood obscures the forest of male disfunction. Why the hell are so many men committing murders? (take a look at the jaw dropping gender disparity in murderers). Why are men so much more likely to make these terrible life choices of violence, criminality, and gang affiliation? What the hell are we telling boys that is leading them down this path? And what are we telling girls that is making it so much less likely that they make the same mistake?

    For some reason the conversation seems to always come down to how much we blame men or women for these issues, but I find that trivial and pointless. That is distracting us from the outrageous calamity of male criminal behavior, a phenomenon we are not going to comprehend by figuring out who to blame for it.

    I have less compelling statistical evidence, but I would say some similar things about some of the career statistics. The idea seems to be that women are earning too little, because they aren’t making as much money as men. But, what if the answer is that men are making too much? Here, my evidence is anecdotal, but my life experience is that I know far more men who sacrifice so much of what makes life meaningful in order to be the “best” in their career. I know women who do the same, but I know fewer of them. And it seems that when I talk to these folks, particularly later in their lives, all the toys their careers bought them don’t necessarily make them happy.

    Perhaps men have something to learn from women about work/life balance.

    That is not to say that women in the past and present have not been burdened by social norms regarding gender. An obvious example would be the body image problems women appear to suffer from more frequently than men. I just think that it might be worth reframing the discussion as being one about whether our notions of what is “manly” and “womanly,” of the habits and expectations we inflict on genders is really productive.

    1. 39.1
      thalamay

      You make some very good points and while I don’t fully agree with everything you say/imply, this would be a good basis for a productive discussion, quite unlike Schrödinger’s rapist.

  40. 40
    JCowley

    Are you going to argue that my belief in equal rights for women makes me a feminist? Then you’ll have to explain why I disagree with 99% of feminism’s core ideology.

    But the idea that men and women are equal IS Feminism’s core ideology. He’s contradicting himself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>