Male victims, screening and victim-blaming »« I’m only writing this to get laid. Or am I?

A quick update on moderation policy

There’s something that I’ve had to take action on several occasions in recent weeks. It is something which I personally consider very serious and I thought I should spell it out.

I will not tolerate references to someone’s (supposed) mental health status as an ad hominem attack.

I’m particularly thinking of things like

  • References to people being on or off their meds.
  • Descriptions of people as ‘mad’ ‘nutters’ or ‘looneys’

In general, I’d ask you to think twice before using words like that at all, but in general I’m not that fussed when people describe ideas, concepts or arguments as ‘nuts’, ‘crazy’ etc, and I certainly don’t have a problem with phrases which clearly refer to ideological and political positions (eg wingnuts, whackadoodles or whatever)  – but a direct assertion of mental illness against other commenters is strictly off limits.

Why? Two reasons. The first is that there is a fair possibility that some of the people reading your comments at any given time do indeed have mental health problems and comments like those could quite reasonably make them feel excluded or alienated.

The second is that many of the people I know who have mental health issues – including some that have quite serious psychiatric diagnoses – are highly intelligent and/or educated  people with experiences, opinions and viewpoints that are vastly better thought-out and informed and vastly more intelligent than most so-called ‘sane’ people.

This type of comment is extremely stigmatising and harmful and will not be tolerated here.

You are welcome to discuss this issue below, but I’ll tell you now, this decision is final.

Please take this opportunity to let me know of any other issues you have with moderation here.

Thanks all for your co-operation.

 

Comments

  1. Thil says

    What about calling people “idiot” or “stupid”? ad hominem attacks focused on low intelligence?

    I wouldn’t do either but I figure someone is going to ask this so might as well be me

  2. Ally Fogg says

    What about calling people “idiot” or “stupid”? ad hominem attacks focused on low intelligence?

    In an ideal world we would have no ad homs at all, of course, but I’m trying to stay realistic.

    As it happens, I don’t think it is quite comparable anyway. Stupid people are stupid by virtue of saying and doing stupid things.

    I think there are more tricky issues with words like ‘moron’ and ‘cretin’ which I would ask people to consider, but I’m not suddenly going to become a fan of the censor’s pencil or the banhammer. This will continue to be a light-touch moderation location.

    It’s just that the mental health ableism thing had ran wildly out of control in some recent threads, so a moment of foot-stamping was required.

  3. Schala says

    What about people like sirtooting who are completely disconnected from reality? Who reply to no one in particular, spouting book-length comments full of falsehoods, exaggerations, and accusations of what amounts to genocide for being born male?

    And that commenter does multiple back to back comments, too. Even if most people ignore it, it clutters the blog.

  4. Ally Fogg says

    Schala

    If someone is writing posts full of falsehoods, exaggerations, wild claims or accusations, you are perfectly free to point that out, to point out where someone is being irrational or flying in the face of the evidence, etc etc etc.

    There are whole swathes of ways you can do that without implying that the reason s/he posts such things is something to do with mental illness.

  5. Paul says

    Well said Ally. Making crass references to mental illness is every bit as unacceptable as making comments which are racist,sexist,homophobic etc.

  6. JT says

    My brother had mental illness and killed himself while off his medication? My sister needs to be medicated by a physician but chooses to do it herself as in self medicate and we all know what that means. I’m sure there are many on her who are on medication but the key is they take it. And then there are others, time for PC I will now cease and desist

  7. DanDanDan says

    Can someone pass the message onto those ignorant assholes at Pharyngula? For all their holier-than-thou attitude about “ableist” comments by newcomers and outsiders, the regulars are a hideously toxic bunch of shamers and bullies, and are far too fond of requesting that those who disagree with them die from some painful disease or self-inflicted wound. Disgusting bunch of hypocrites they are over there.

  8. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    The only issue I have is you do not ban people I disagree with.

    (note for the humor impaired: this is supposed to be a joke)

  9. Stacy says

    the regulars are a hideously toxic bunch of shamers and bullies, and are far too fond of requesting that those who disagree with them die from some painful disease or self-inflicted wound.

    DanDanDan may possibly be referring to “go fuck yourself with a dead porcupine,” which was a Pharyngulite variation on “go fuck yourself” until it was retired–by agreement among the commenters themselves, who weighed the hyperbole of the image against its violence–about two years ago.

    DanDanDan’s claim is false.

  10. Archy says

    What about using the term MRA/feminist as an insult, applying it to those who do not identify as such?

  11. badgersdaughter says

    Please be careful about construing the terms “MRA” or “feminist” as insults when they are fairly accurate characterizations of the behavior and/or speech. (That is, “not so fast there… you’re not going to stop people from calling a spade a spade”.)

  12. Lucy says

    I think some of the men here forget that the few women here are vastly outnumbered and they have a tendency to gang up.

    It is a tough call for a woman to try to comment when there are six men attacking her aggressively and simultaneously on different fronts (most of them displaying that sweet Internet-man combination of aggressive self-righteous smugness and total ignorance that I’ve come to know, admire and then get totally bored of).

    So far here I’ve been told “FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU….” over about 15 lines. I’ve been told that I’m off my meds, that I’m mentally deranged in a variety of ways, that my comments are the most stupid thing they’ve ever heard in their lives, that objecting to all women being referred to as “racist filth” is a sign of my personal white lady racist self-entitlement, I’ve had monkey sex suggested to me. And when all else fails, “lucy is a troll” comes out.

    All this for expressing fairly mainstream opinions, that are neither crazy, nor actually wrong.

    I’d just like to clarify that I’m not mentally ill, unless you count existential despair. I’m not on any meds. I’m not a troll, although I do like provoking – there’s a difference. I don’t want to have sex with anyone on this board, not even if you are a monkey. And I am above averagely intelligent, I have a certificate to prove it.

  13. Lucy says

    And another thing

    This tendency of certain people to talk/laugh about other posters (ie. me) in the third person, in this “all the guys together” way you do is poor form. Quote me by all means, discuss my opinions by all means, but don’t tell each other what I think or what I’m like or try to whip up a little, surreptitious, quasi gang bang together.

  14. says

    Myers (8)

    Oh? Cite examples, please.

    For ableist behavior on your blog? You in your comments were responsible for

    Wait, is that a joke? You say you’re “fairly neurotypical”…and that discussion didn’t have you running away shaking your head from the first paragraph on?

    after I linked to a discussion about fairly splitting money I found interesting.

    comment 225 in this link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/15/hot-tip-for-comedians-humor-pieces-are-supposed-to-be-you-know-funny/comment-page-1/

    I called you out repeatedly on it and you and your ineffectual gang of sycophants while using every cheap shot I ever heard of in this discussion did not touch it with a ten foot pole.

  15. Ally Fogg says

    Lucy (13)

    I hear what you say about feeling like others are ganging up on you. I also see it happening. I’ve also seen the same thing happen on every internet forum etc I’ve ever been on.

    If one person posts a point of view that is unpopular and / or controversial, it is likely that he or she will have lots of different people all replying and arguing back, and it feels like one is being attacked by a co-ordinated gang.

    It’s not just a gender thing. Sid used to complain about the exact same thing and he was a male MRA. It generally happens to people who post a lot things which others find contentious, controversial and/or offensive.

    I prefer to stick to light touch moderation here. That includes allowing people like you, sirtooting and Sid to post repeatedly, often half a dozen comments one after the other, each containing huge amounts of claims and opinions, many of which are hugely contentious. Unsuprisingly you then get a lot of responses, including angry responses. You, are also yourself not averse to the occasional ad hom attack on others.

    There are some people who have asked me to block you or restrict you from posting your opinions. I have absolutely no intention of doing so. Likewise, I’m not going to block or restrict others from arguing back. I will, however, step in to restrict the extremes of personal abuse or attacks which threaten or discriminate.

    I also agree that talking about people as if they’re not there is bloody rude. But I don’t think I’m here to be nanny to every bit of bad manners.

    If anyone has any suggestions as to how I could do all of this better, I’m all ears.

  16. Ally Fogg says

    Dandandan and others

    As I’m sure you all know, FTB bloggers all manage our own moderation. I have no more influence over what happens at Pharyngula than PZ has over what happens here.

    As I’ve said many a time before, I find arguments about what other people do on other blogs quite brain-shrivellingly tedious, never mind off-topic.

    If this conversation turns into a barney about the rights and wrongs of what happens at Pharyngula I shall begin to zap with all the glee of a nine year old with a lazer gun,.

  17. says

    Again Myers, (8)

    Oh since my experience on pharyngula cemented my then building view that the average reading comprehension and analytical skill of your regulars is comparable to preschool I will point out what exactly is wrong with your statement:

    The implication of your statement is: “If you were neurotypical, you would run away from such a discussion.”

    The logically equivalent contraposition is: “If you do not run away from that, you are not neurotypical”.

    Given that I linked to it as an example of interesting discussions, the if clause is fulfilled, making this an immediate implication about my mental state.

  18. says

    Ally 17, Sry for responding again to myers. Some hypocritical deathist assholes just get under my skin.

    Lucy, I want to apologize for claiming that your views sound like those of a lunatic, given the uncertain connotation this actually has. Rest assured, I still find your views hilarious. In any case if yu want to see examples of people ganging up on outsiders, the comment section of pharygula were I got ganged up on li no tomorrow is a good example. Rest assured, I am still a heterosexual white male, so this is definitely not a gender thing.

  19. carnation says

    @ Ally

    I’ll be more temperate with “cretin” – I had already curbed “imbecilic”.

    Regarding bullying, ganging up etc – it’s too subjective to really clarify, I think. I’ve been on the receiving end of a fair bit of attack, but it’s part of the rough and tumble and to be honest, I enjoy it.

    I have thought about a form of words to advise against overly long comments, they can make following the thread difficult, ditto with derailing, but have come up with nothing.

    @ Lucy.

    I hate to say it, but your sex is irrelevant – I didn’t come out as male for a while (on this blog!) and did enjoy accusations of female privilege etc

  20. carnation says

    @ Ally & everyone else

    OK, at the risk of sounding like I’m on E, you know, I feel that on Hetpat there is a tiny little online community. People who feel passionately about their respective politics and, with a couple of exceptions, aren’t overtly sexist/misogynistic/misandric. Sure, we live in a state of constant conflict given our views, but there have been more than a few nods of respect from across the metaphorical trenches and a very broad range of views expressed.

    I think this is quite unusual for a blog… The standard of discussion is far higher than CiF and a million miles from the masturbatory lamb to the slaughter of a rogue voice on manboobz or avfm (as examples, I do not think they are equivalents),

    Ally offers guidance, sure, but it would be great if calling someone out on errant commenting styles was as big a put down as offering a contradictory piece of evidence.

    OK, I’ll off to burn some incense and to dust off my kaftan.

  21. wtfwhateverd00d says

    When I am being piled on, I remind myself of my personal rules of commenting:

    0) I try to comment in a way that I won’t be overly embarrassed myself if someone figures out who I am
    1) I try to comment in a way that I won’t embarrass myself if I turn out to be stunningly wrong
    2) I don’t have to respond to every comment
    3) Not responding to a comment does not imply agreement or concession
    4) If I feel I’ve said my say, I don’t need to respond to a comment to get the last word
    5) I certainly don’t have to respond to any comments that show any sign of abuse
    6) Or any comments later on even if non-abusive from a person who has been abusive
    7) That is, it’s a one strike rule on abuse
    8) This is not a poker game. Since no one is paying me to comment, after I respond for a reasonable amount of time of my choice, it’s okay for me to say I need to get back to work. It doesn’t mean I “lose” or am being unfair.
    9) If I am shown to be wrong, I acknowledge it as quickly as I can.
    10) I don’t try to be an authority when I am not.

    That usually winnows a pile on to a conversation with 1 to 3 people. Everyone else can go hang.

    I tend to think a lot of blogs would have improved comments if they limited every comment thread to some number of comments like 3, or 5, or 7 per commenter. In several comments you can state your thesis, clarify your thesis, respond to one or two objections, and then step aside. With such a rule in place everyone would realize that their position has been stated, that the argument will continue in a future thread, that your arguing on the net does little, that ending their commenting on a thread does not somehow concede anything, and that thread comments are a social matter not a last stand at the Alamo.

    I’ve mentioned that from time to time at what I think of as hyper partisan blogs filled with intellectually dishonest bullies and not a single other commenter has ever thought that might be a good idea. I think that’s because it would destroy the value they most people get from a good Internet pile-on.

  22. Superficially Anonymous says

    @Lucy

    Part of the reason it can seem like you’re being ganged up on is that, to be candid, you seem to comprise approximately 30% of any given thread. Everyone is arguing with you because you’re quoting everyone.

  23. Phil says

    @Lucy

    It’s kind of arrogant to imply that because you think your opinions are correct it makes it worse to attack you verbally.

  24. wtfwhateverd00d says

    @25 Phil,

    Are you referring to Lucy writing “All this for expressing fairly mainstream opinions, that are neither crazy, nor actually wrong.”

    And hell, I’ve written what are clearly mainstream views, Obama’s views in fact at various forums and have been called every name in the book, and told I am mentally ill, or a racist/sexist, or a troll, or a concern troll.

    Of course when I read this from her

    “It is a tough call for a woman to try to comment when there are six men attacking her aggressively and simultaneously on different fronts (most of them displaying that sweet Internet-man combination of aggressive self-righteous smugness and total ignorance that I’ve come to know, admire and then get totally bored of).”

    And her later comment, all I can think of is the normal commenting behavior on every single feminist blog anywhere. And yes, asinine juvenile bullying behavior is asinine juvenile and bullying and has little to do with the gender of the commenter.

    But I think she is right to say that it’s easy to write down mainstream views and be called every name in the book including mentally ill.

  25. Gjenganger says

    @Lucy 13
    No offense. Lucy, but yours are not mainstram opinions. Neither are mine of course, in fact we share a couple. I tell myself that you cannot expect to write controversial opinions on an internet forum without getting some heated answers. It took a bit of practice (and some inspiration from Ally), but ultimately it makes more sense to let people call me what they want. It is just too boring to argue whether it is me or the other bloke who is a moron, evil etc. Someone thinks I am a misogynist or in favour of child mutilation? Fine. let them. Meanwhile, let us talk about something more interesting. Actually, the worse your opponents behave, the better you look by comparison. Just don’t answer people if you do not think the discussion will be worth while – on this forum there are lots of peope with different opinions and styles, so you do get a good discussion now and then.
    Definitely-answering-your-posts’ly yours,Gjenganger.

  26. Schlumbumbi says

    Slurs / Abusive language towards another commenter => The door.
    It’s not like these people are doing it ouf passion for a topic. They just want to shit on other people. Away with them.

  27. johngreg says

    Descriptions of people as ‘mad’ ‘nutters’ or ‘looneys’

    That strikes me as a pretty darned lightweight slur to be so offended about. And, as Archy alluded to, especially when you appear to be OK with direct accusations of being a liar, an MRA, anti-feminist, etc.

    In my opinion. But yes, it is your blog, and of course you call the shots. I’m certainly not disputing that.

    Other than all that, I think you have the best moderation policy on FTB — and certainly the most specifically and clearly explained and stuck to — I mean you appear to not only actually stick to your own rules, but you even give some sense of fair warning and a titch of leeway too. Good on you.

    I hate to say, but perhaps it would benefit you, and us, if you created a new post with a comprehensive and specific list of do’s and don’ts. Perhaps.

    Also, as he has posted a comment in this thread, are we allowed to respond to Myers (as in abear’s post c. 29 above)? Or is that now verboten?

  28. sirtooting . says

    I’ll quote one Mr Fogg and I will quite you
    “This type of comment is extremely stigmatising and harmful and will not be tolerated here”.

    “You just don’t have the wit or imagination to come up with rational arguments against the men you target, so fall back on hoary old misandrist cliches?”

    Tell me what are hoary old misandrist cliches..? And then tell us what exactly misrandy is and give us the history behind it and in return I will do the same for Misogyny.
    Then we will see if we are comparing apples and apples or apples and pairs. This is called constructing and defending arguments.
    You made the above claim, so be a decent chap and do me the courtesy of defending it.
    After all, that is what we are here for, isn’t it?

    And what do you think of this explanation for misogyny? .. it is due to the male despising femaleness,and he fears it being discovered in himself and he despises it in other males.

  29. Ally Fogg says

    johngreg

    Also, as he has posted a comment in this thread, are we allowed to respond to Myers?

    Nope.

    Dandandan made an entirely off topic attack on Pharyngula. I allowed that to stand.

    PZ replied and I allowed that to stand too.

    Shortly after that I declared that particular conversation officially brain-shrivellingly boring. It is over.

  30. sirtooting . says

    @ No, 25
    “Its kind of arrogant to imply that because you think your opinions are correct it makes it worse to attack you verbally”

    Please allow me to correct you ..
    Whilst It is not arrogant to believe your opinions & arguments are correct, it is arrogant and also pathetic to attack the person verbally but not their arguments because you are unable to counter them.
    These are called ad feminam and ad hominem attacks

    These kind of tactics are usually employed to undermine and attack the person, this because whoever is employing them lacks the ability and intelligence to attack their arguments, so in a final desperate resort attacks the person instead.
    These attacks are trite and vacuous and ultimately only reflect the character of the person who uses them

    If you ask me what I think of people such as these?. Well,.. I never think of them.

  31. abear says

    Ally; I’m curious as to why my replies to PZ’s #8 post were memoryholed.
    I made no false statements, I engaged in no name calling, I merely supplied evidence that contradicted the comment#8 that Professor Myers gave.
    I apologize if I have violated your comment policy.
    Also it would be nice if you could let me know what I wroye that was inapropriate.
    Thanks in advance!

  32. Thil says

    @sirtooting @30

    no one is saying misogyny and misrandy have to be equally harmful to an equal number of people, for misrandy to be considered an important issue. That’s a false dichotomy

  33. Thil says

    @sirtooting@34

    “Its kind of arrogant to imply that because you think your opinions are correct it makes it worse to attack you verbally”

    it’s arrogant because it implies that you believe people who disagree with you are so obviously wrong that they don’t deserve the same consideration you do.

    You are never going to go away are you? You’re going to ruin all of Ally’s comment section from now?

  34. sirtooting . says

    What I propose is Misandry is not a thing, it does not exist.

    They are killing millions of female fetuses in India and China & various other countries across the world, because they aren’t going to be born male and they kill millions of them because they were born female ..

    The male declared the female and her labour was not as valuable as the males .. And he determined never to credit her where credit was due ..
    There is no misandry, it has never ever existed .. It is men deflecting attention away from their own hatred of women .. It is deflection .. Hatred of a gender .. Is a male construct ?. Is a male idea?

    Anything to do with anything feminism is despised by men who applaud maleness over femaleness .. Because it is not something they want themselves to be associated with.
    In patriarchal male run totalitarian cultures .. Males promote the male, masculinity and all things male and despise anything outside of that.
    This word Misandry is a pure male conjecture, males who despise the female and this hate they hold for them, has a very very long history indeed ..
    To accuse women of hating men, is not to recognise the pure hatred men have shown women for their entire history .. Who they have despised because they aren’t born male ..

    Just because a woman disagrees with a man and dares to criticize him, it doesn’t mean he can then claim the woman or women despise or hate the male gender because they themselves are being crticised, .. That would be just pure conjecture on his part .. Misandry you say? What the fuck is that?

  35. sirtooting . says

    @ No. 38.

    What the hell are you talking about, I am in favour of people who hold strong opinions, having strong arguments, what I am not in favour of is contemptuous stupidity.

  36. Thil says

    @sirtooting@39

    1) That fact that misogyny is a thing does not preclude misrandy from being a thing

    2) stop talking about men as if they are a hive mind with one will and aim

    3) Ally never said people were misandrists because they disagreed with him. He said they were misadrists because they think men are sociopaths motivated by nothing but lust

    4) it’s not conjecture that some people hate the male sex. That’s not in dispute and no reasonable person could insist it is

    5) considering your abortion arguments you are in no position to criticise others for basing their reasoning on conjecture

  37. Thil says

    @sirtooting @40

    nothing you say encourages good arguments because everything you say is based on misunderstanding and logical fallacy

    “I am not in favour of is contemptuous stupidity”

    …..Too easy

  38. sirtooting . says

    @ No. 41.

    Just because you say something is true or isn’t true doesn’t mean it is, that is only your opinion and opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one
    So, see my comment No.34 .. Counter argue with evidence or shut up.

  39. JT says

    Simple question Toot, what do you call your disdain for most if not all men? I’m not arguing anything only asking for clarification. A one word rational response is all that is needed.

  40. Schala says

    sirtooting is clearly misandrist, whether they are themselves male, female, or a Cylon, it doesn’t change things one bit, whether misogyny exists doesn’t change things one bit about misandry.

    Their hatred is stronger than Amazon Heart’s, Julian Real’s and dirtywhiteboi’s combined. And that’s saying much since those 3 hate men (and trans women, since they’re considered tainted-by-maleness) with a fiery passion.

  41. sirtooting . says

    Apparently criticizing men is hatred of men .. Really? This is getting quite boring and is pathetic logic .. Yawn .. The same old same old .. I usually ignore these piffling pleas .. Of leave us alone .. We can’t take criticism of our gender whilst they merrily crucify women.

    Poor men, suffering from domestic oppression and tyranny. Discriminated against in job interviews for their ability to get pregnant, paid less than women, juggling their jobs with child care, cleaning & cooking, objectified and characterized in popular culture as fickle creatures who lie about rape….

    Imagine going to work every day & having people, come up to you and say things like, “Die, you dumb cunt” and “you deserve to be raped” .

    An endless tirade, of mobs of men, gleefully typing to women they don’t even know.. You should be raped and killed, suck it up you bitches .. And it goes on unabated year in year out, ..
    Bloggers tell women ignore these haters, grow a thick skin, & eat whatever shit is targeted at you.

    Woman haters, their pupils dilated and their sweaty fists clenched, faces bright red, all pumped up and raging inside, screaming at their targets.. You got your equal rights, what you got to complain about now? So stfu and get in the kitchen and make a sandwich, you stupid dumb bitch..

    Laws may have changed, but those laws couldn’t change, self absorbed, self important, self satisfied violent smug little men, who collectively feel entitled to endlessly threaten to rape and kill women because they have a need to get It off their chests and it makes them feel all smug & cosy inside .. Aah .. That told em .. Now they know exactly where they stand ..

    Apparently criticizing men is hatred of men.. anyway that is the way men see it, because they ain’t used to being criticised whilst crucifying women for the sadistic little thrill it gives them.

    Historically the male gender, is used to determining the rights and freedoms of the female gender and this control can be seen in world cultures in general.
    The male on a males whim decides what rights he will allow the female and what rights he will deny her.
    So, you need to have a serious think about how women feel about that.

    If you seriously thought you would get a one word answer, then I suggest you are on the wrong blog. perhaps a blog with less serious content, would more suit your level of maturity, maybe a comic blog , where words like zap and pow and biff are in common usage.
    Anyways, good luck with that.

  42. JT says

    Sort toot

    But that’s the issue. It’s not a man or just some men. You are very clear that it’s men altogether and they do have a word for that kind of disdain for the gender. Come on, you can do it. The truth shall set you free. Name it and own it. :)

  43. Thil says

    @sirtooting @43

    Literally all I would have to do is find one example of a person who hates the male sex to prove misrandy exists. can tell me you seriously believe that’s not possible?

  44. sirtooting . says

    Historically the male gender, is used to determining the rights and freedoms of the female gender and this control can be seen in world cultures in general.
    The male on a males whim decides what rights he will allow the female and what rights he will deny her.
    So, you need to have a serious think about how women feel about that.

    I criticize the male gender as in .. the male gender, is used to determining the rights and freedoms of the female gender ..

  45. sirtooting . says

    Misogynists, hate and fear females because they believe them to be inferior as they are not male, so to claim misandry exists in reverse, you have to match like with like ..

  46. Thil says

    “Misogynists, hate and fear females because they believe them to be inferior as they are not male, so to claim misandry exists in reverse, you have to match like with like”

    You don’t get to redefine words just because it suits you

  47. sirtooting . says

    Define the word Misogynist for us all to see then and whilst you are at it, tell us why women couldn’t have the vote?

  48. says

    The existence of gender selection in India and China is used as a argument against the existence of misandry.

    Would that mean that the fact that when people in the US gender select girls to a larger extent than boys in the cases where gender selection is offered (adoption and prenatal sex selection techniques such as sperm sorting and in vitro fertilization embryo selection) is an argument against the existence of misogyny?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/gender-selection-_n_1889991.html
    http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=1315

  49. Steersman says

    sirtooting (or Madame Toot since that seems likely to be more accurate):

    You may wish to consider Ally’s “HetPat First Directive”, the substance of which is:

    Thou shalt not generalise about gender activist movements or judge people’s arguments by their association.

    What this means in practice is that I shall consider moderating any comments that make sweeping generalisations about feminists, MRAs or any similar group. This is not because all such generalisations are necessarily false (although in my view they usually are) but simply because such sweeping generalisations act, almost without exception, to derail threads and discussions, spark angry reactions and foster an atmosphere that is corrosive to debate.

    Seems to me that you’re shading into that territory with your Historically the male gender, is used to determining the rights and freedoms of the female gender … and similar statements.

  50. sirtooting . says

    You are having a laugh, a woman with three sons, who hoped for a baby girl, went for artificial insemination to produce a girl ..
    What the fuck has that got to do with China and India where they are murdering millions of healthy female fetuses and baby girls in the hope of replacing them with millions of more males to flatter the male and his ego.

    “Steinberg’s gender-selection patients are typically around 30 years old, educated, married, middle to upper class. They also typically have a couple of children already, unlike the women in his waiting room undergoing in vitro fertilization and hoping to conceive any child at all.”

    About 80 percent of prospective parents will choose a girl,” says Susan Myers, director of the Lutheran Adoption Network.

    There are dozens of reasons given for this preference, in combinations unique to each family. Sometimes, they already have sons, and want to have the experience of raising a daughter; or they already have daughters, and would feel most comfortable with another girl. “As the parent of two boys, we are thrilled about the option of having a daughter in our family,” says Susan Schmidt. “If we were not able to choose the gender, I am not sure I would have gone down this road.” Some families believe that a daughter will be easier to raise than a son, and more likely to be cuddly than a “rough-and-tumble” boy. And for single mothers, who overwhelmingly choose girls, it often comes down to the lack of a male role model for their child. “I chose to adopt a girl,” says Kim Gold. “I know that I will not always be able to help her or even understand her, but I can at least relate. Without male role models, I didn’t feel it was fair to adopt a boy

    In China and India and various other countries across the world, they reason why they choose to murder females, is because they believe the male is more valuable than the male.

    What a pitiful counter argument you have produced.. There is no hatred of the male here, there is no,” Oh we want a girl because we think she is more valuable than the male”

    That is the core of the argument .. the male is deemed more valuable than the female and due to that, they slaughter females by the MILLION.

    It is male propaganda in male run totalitarian states .. promoting the male masculinity and all things male, and anything outside of that is regarded irrelevant.. The male and his potential is regarded more valuable than the female of the species and is allowed to flourish, whilst the females is stifled and suffocated and that has been occurring for centuries.

  51. sirtooting . says

    I will tell I what I will do for you then, I will from now refer to them as Misogynists, because that is what they .. I mean, those who hate females because they aren’t born male of course .. There .. Problem solved for you ..I hope you can rest easy now ..

  52. Jacob Schmidt says

    Apparently criticizing men is hatred of men.. anyway that is the way men see it, because they ain’t used to being criticised whilst crucifying women for the sadistic little thrill it gives them.

    Depends on what you mean by “men.” If you simply mean the plural of “man” (as in more than 1 man), then no, such criticism is not necessarily misandry. If you mean the set of all men, then you’re generalizing specific negative qualities to a very broad group. Yes, I am quite comfortable in calling that misandry.

  53. sirtooting . says

    By the way.. “Seems to me that you’re shading into that territory with your Historically the male gender, is used to determining the rights and freedoms of the female gender”

    That is historical fact, unless of course you can prove otherwise? and if you can’t I am most definitely not in or on shady territory but stating a historical fact and you will not censor that or stifle the it and I will continue using those terms when they are part of historical facts.
    One gender determined & determines in many countries across the world the rights and freedoms of the other.

    FACT .. Not FICTION .. but Fact .. , So, now we have established that .. Tell us why women couldn’t have the vote?

  54. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg: “I hear what you say about feeling like others are ganging up on you. I also see it happening. I’ve also seen the same thing happen on every internet forum etc I’ve ever been on.”

    I’m a frequent poster on various news sites and political forums, including some of the anarchic ones, so I do know my way round Internet forum dynamics and I’ve got a pretty thick skin.

    The difference here is that it is a masculine blog, on masculine topics, populated almost exclusively by male commenters; some of them hostile to women. A woman is coming into this environment is at a disadvantage just by virtue of being here, then by being in a minority. When you then combine that with standard Internet-gang behaviour, standard Internet macho aggression from certain quarters, and the non-standard moderation policy that hamstrings some of the right to reply in kind, and a particular attitude that comes with believing one is part of the “good man” solution without needing to earn it, you can get a pretty toxic brew.

    On the one hand you have 5 guys brow-beating you with accusations of rank stupidity and insanity because they’re being introduced to an idea they’ve never heard of, on the other you have a bit of light sarcasm. Not a fair fight.

    I can honestly say that this comment board is one of the more difficult ones to be on, and I frequently feel like it’s time to call it a day. And I’m surely not the only woman who feels this way because there are only about 3 of us that comment here.

  55. sirtooting . says

    @ Lucy .. see my comment @ NO. 34 .. Chill out .. because if you get any more of these pests .. then refer them to my comments.. No. 34 & No. 35 . enjoy ..

  56. says

    sirtooting: You used gender selection in India and China as an argument against the existence of misandry anywhere. Nothing in my argument stated whether or not gender selection in India and China is motivated by misogyny or not and nothing in my argument stated whether or not gender selection in the US is motivated by misandry or not.

    Whether or not gender selection of boys is based on misogyny in India, China and other places is not really relevant to the argument that misandry doesn’t exist. Just as gender selection of girls in the US is not really relevant to an argument about the existence of misogyny regardless of whether the gender selection of girls is based on misandry or not.

    As for the rationality behind the anecdotes of people gender selecting – the ones I’ve heard from third world countries is that girls won’t be able to support their parents in old age, I am sure you’d find some saying that they already have x girls and can’t afford another girl and so on.
    Could I (as you have done) use those anecdotes as a way to completely dismiss the gender imbalance in gender selection in India as you have for the US?

    Please consider the last question to be rhetorical since I suddenly recalled the last time I tried to engage in a discussion with you and found myself deep in a rabbit hole where normal rhetorical logic doesn’t apply.

  57. Steersman says

    Sirtooting:

    What is a historical fact is that some men have worked to limit or curtail the rights of women. Another one – if you’re able to handle more than one – is that a great many other men also worked to extend those same rights. What you are doing is trying to tar the entire gender with the sins of the few – which looks rather like misandry from where I am, and apparently a few others are, sitting.

  58. Schala says

    The difference here is that it is a masculine blog, on masculine topics, populated almost exclusively by male commenters; some of them hostile to women. A woman is coming into this environment is at a disadvantage just by virtue of being here, then by being in a minority. When you then combine that with standard Internet-gang behaviour, standard Internet macho aggression from certain quarters, and the non-standard moderation policy that hamstrings some of the right to reply in kind, and a particular attitude that comes with believing one is part of the “good man” solution without needing to earn it, you can get a pretty toxic brew.

    Can you be any more essentialist?

    Come on, say it, men think about sex every 7 seconds, women every 5 weeks, right? Because what I just quoted from you amounts to the same.

    Sure, going in an environment where the ideas don’t generally agree with you will be fraught with perils (perils of the internet!), but it’s not due to the maleness of the commentators. Any more than me receiving a cold reception on Feministe is because of the femaleness of the commentators. Even less because of untrue generalizations and stereotypes about their sex.

    and sirtooting, carnation and Bee something are all men

    Because white knights who cater to women (women as a whole, not their wife) at their detriment are more common than the female equivalent catering to men at their detriment (men as a whole, not their husband). You’ll see a lot more male self-flagellating feminists a la Julian Real (who seem to think maleness is a disease) than conservative women who push for the shariah law (who think women cannot not-sin). Must be the very mainstream message that being male is evil that “took more” than the message that women bring crimes onto themselves.

  59. sirtooting . says

    Well which men are they, point them out and I will say those men .. “some men have worked to limit or curtail the rights of women”
    Oh and by the way .. Do you mean ALL WOMEN there? .. or just a few or just the majority? .. which ones shall we point out exactly? .. Shall we make it easy, simplify it .. as a general rule, it was the male gender who determined the female genders rights and freedoms .. I dunno .. you choose .. whatever you want .. I’m ready for any good logical input .. So, lets have it then?

  60. Lucy says

    “What about using the term MRA/feminist as an insult, applying it to those who do not identify as such?”

    Depends if you regard that as insulting.

  61. Lucy says

    Specifically Anonymous

    “Part of the reason it can seem like you’re being ganged up on is that, to be candid, you seem to comprise approximately 30% of any given thread. Everyone is arguing with you because you’re quoting everyone.”

    I’m usually quoting people who have commented directly to me, and only a representative selection of them at that. So by your estimation, over 30% of comments are directed at me, which rather illustrates my point doesn’t it.

  62. sirtooting . says

    @ No. 66
    Ah “white knights”, this is what Mr Fogg referred to in his previous blog, as men accusing other men who support feminists as only doing to only get a shag .. Nice. LMAO

    Mr Fogg is not going to be best pleased with you, is he? and I must point you to comment No.56 on this page, you are breaking their rules .. tut tut tut ..

  63. Lucy says

    Carnation

    “I hate to say it, but your sex is irrelevant”

    Irrelevant to whom? Not to me it’s not.

    “I didn’t come out as male for a while (on this blog!) and did enjoy accusations of female privilege etc”

    So when people thought you were female, they treated you one way, now they know you are male, they treat you another?

  64. Lucy says

    wtfwhatever…

    “Are you referring to Lucy writing “All this for expressing fairly mainstream opinions, that are neither crazy, nor actually wrong.”

    And hell, I’ve written what are clearly mainstream views, Obama’s views in fact at various forums and have been called every name in the book, and told I am mentally ill, or a racist/sexist, or a troll, or a concern troll.

    Of course when I read this from her

    “It is a tough call for a woman to try to comment when there are six men attacking her aggressively and simultaneously on different fronts (most of them displaying that sweet Internet-man combination of aggressive self-righteous smugness and total ignorance that I’ve come to know, admire and then get totally bored of).”

    And her later comment, all I can think of is the normal commenting behavior on every single feminist blog anywhere. And yes, asinine juvenile bullying behavior is asinine juvenile and bullying and has little to do with the gender of the commenter.

    But I think she is right to say that it’s easy to write down mainstream views and be called every name in the book including mentally ill.”

    It has to do with the gender of the commenter when the gangs are being formed along gender lines and when there are 3 of one gender and 30 of the other.

  65. Lucy says

    Thil

    ““Its kind of arrogant to imply that because you think your opinions are correct it makes it worse to attack you verbally”

    it’s arrogant because it implies that you believe people who disagree with you are so obviously wrong that they don’t deserve the same consideration you do.”

    It’s not that at all, I just find it curious that saying pretty run-of-the-mill things that are fairly accurate, not at all “out there”, ideas shared by many reasonable, knowledgable people should attract such derision and approbrium. I mean is saying that men and women have different working styles really the most stupid thing a person has ever heard? Really? Is saying that feminists have relatively little political power compared to other indentity groups really a sign of insanity? Really? People might not agree with that interpretation, but it’s hardly a sign of mental illness to hold it. It makes me think there is something else going on. Especially when I don’t see it being dished out equally here.

    The real arrogance on display here is the assumption that sauce for the 30 strong gander contingent on home turf is good for the 1-strong goose contingent on away turf. (Not that the same sauce is actually being dished out in any case).

  66. Steersman says

    Sirtooting:

    Well which men are they, point them out and I will say those men .. “some men have worked to limit or curtail the rights of women”

    You’re the one making the charge – you should be able to specify which specific individuals should be in the docket.

    Oh and by the way .. Do you mean ALL WOMEN there?

    You might actually try dialing your spleen back a notch or two, at least long enough to quote what it is that you’re referring to.

    But if you’re referring to the rights of women, maybe you could be a little less incoherent and actually specify which ones. You know of any current ones, at least in the “civilized world”, that are selective as to which subgroup of women they’re applicable to?

    … as a general rule, it was the male gender who determined the female gender’s rights and freedoms

    Even as a general rule I think you’re still very wide of the mark:

    The short-lived Corsican Republic (1755–1769) was the first country to grant limited universal suffrage for all inhabitants over the age of 25. This was followed by other experiments in the Paris Commune of 1871 and the island republic of Franceville (1889). In 1893, New Zealand became the first major nation to achieve universal suffrage, and the Freedom in the World index lists New Zealand as the only free country in the world in 1893.[3][4] In 1906, Finland became the second country in the world, and the first in Europe, to grant universal suffrage to its citizens.

    But never let facts get in the way of your dogma and prejudices. Or maybe you think it was the entire male gender which blocked the granting of that universal suffrage?

  67. Schala says

    I mean is saying that men and women have different working styles really the most stupid thing a person has ever heard?

    The most stupid no, the most conservative, yes. It reeks of puppy dogs tails and sugar and spice.

    Really? Is saying that feminists have relatively little political power compared to other indentity groups really a sign of insanity?

    Of blindness, not insanity.

  68. sirtooting . says

    Lets pick on Saudi Arabia, how would you describe that .. who determines who’s rights there?

  69. Lucy says

    Schala

    “The most stupid no, the most conservative, yes. It reeks of puppy dogs tails and sugar and spice.”

    Which is entirely avoiding the point I am making.

    “Of blindness, not insanity.”

    Which is once again entirely avoiding the point I am making. Splinter, mote and all that.

  70. wtfwhateverd00d says

    @Lucy 73

    (most of them displaying that sweet Internet-man combination of aggressive self-righteous smugness and total ignorance that I’ve come to know, admire and then get totally bored of

    It has to do with the gender of the commenter when the gangs are being formed along gender lines and when there are 3 of one gender and 30 of the other.

    It’s difficult to give any credence to your claim as gender victim when you use gendered insults yourself.

    Perhaps if you worry more about the shit you spew, you’d experience different sorts of comments in response. Or at least, your complaint about gendered comment gangs would not sound like you bring it on yourself.

  71. Steersman says

    Sirtoot:

    FFS, in case you hadn’t noticed, Saudi Arabian males happen to be a rather smallish subset of all men. You’re going to crucify the entire gender (of which you are apparently a member – a little bit of self-hate going on there?) because some happen to be dickheads?

    And you didn’t address my previous points. But I guess civilized discourse is a little beyond your means.

  72. Lucy says

    Wtf…

    “It’s difficult to give any credence to your claim as gender victim when you use gendered insults yourself.”

    The second thing you quotes about gangs on here being formed on gender lines isn’t a gender insult, it’s a neutral observation about gendered behaviour.

    The first thing you quoted is a gendered insult, but based on real behaviour. Aggressive, blustering, smug Internet-man is a genuine phenomenon.

    “Perhaps if you worry more about the shit you spew, you’d experience different sorts of comments in response. Or at least, your complaint about gendered comment gangs would not sound like you bring it on yourself.”

    See.

  73. sirtooting . says

    I asked why women couldn’t have the vote? Maybe you can answer that? before I comment on your points.

  74. Lucy says

    “Saudi Arabian males happen to be a rather smallish subset of all men. ”

    But depriving women of the vote was an almost universal trait, until recently. And depriving women of full enfranchisement a totally universal one, currently.

    That starts to look like a pattern.

  75. Steersman says

    Sirtoot:

    Last time I checked women are fully enfranchised in the Western world. You’ll have to ask the Saudi Arabian ambassador why that is not the case there. But the fault for that is not mine, nor the rest of western males. It is boorish and egregiously fucking stupid for you to suggest that that is the case.

  76. sirtooting . says

    @ No. 80
    And I haven’t yet addressed your previous points because I haven’t got through with reading them yet .. you are in such a hurry.”
    You copied and pasted from wikipedia, a simple job and little effort .. but that little effort is going to cost you .. because what I know is, that is all you know .. what you copied and pasted .. Well .. the commune of Paris lasted all of 66 days and then it was over run and over 30,000 people were killed.
    And what was life like for women in Paris at the time? , miserable, very miserable..
    The Women’s Union, believing that their struggle against patriarchy could only be pursued through a global struggle against capitalism, the association demanded gender equality, wages’ equality, the right of divorce for women, the right to secular education and professional education for girls. They also demanded suppression of the distinction between married women and concubines, and between legitimate and illegitimate children.
    Their hopes and efforts were in vain., they were murdered for seeking their equal rights and the vote…

    I haven’t got to the rest yet, but I will and meanwhile .. tell us why women couldn’t have the vote and on Saudi Arabia, how would you describe that .. who determines who’s rights there?

    These are simple enough questions, so for an intelligent person like yourself, there should be no difficulty in you being able to answer them.

  77. sirtooting . says

    @ No. 84
    Please focus .. We aren’t talking about the present but the past, so yet again,.. tell us why women couldn’t have the vote?

  78. Lucy says

    “Last time I checked women are fully enfranchised in the Western world. ”

    Vastly under-represented in our representative public-sector governance and legislative and enforcement structures.
    Vastly under-represented in our commercial governance structures.
    Vastly under-represented in our public communication channels (with ineffective protection against harassment and threats of violence)
    Religiously disenfranchised.
    Economically disempowered.
    Sexually disempowered by commercial forces.
    Physically disempowered due to fear of, actual experience of and lack of effective self-defence rights against gendered-violence.
    Legally disempowered by discriminatory anti-hate legislation.

  79. sirtooting . says

    @ No. 84 .. Hey I’m off to bed, so you will have plenty of time to think about it.
    :
    @ Lucy, that is a good point, it was Universal.

    A woman can’t be a Pope, and they say there is equality?… well that shoots that one in the foot already.

  80. Lucy says

    wtf…

    “gendered comment gangs would not sound like you bring it on yourself.”

    This is a crock by the way.

    Firstly, how does one bring gangs on oneself? No matter how much “shit I spew”, I’m just one person; unless I am a highly effective shit skewer, I can’t warrant an orchestrated, joint response can I? And by all accounts, I’m not that effective.

    Secondly, isn’t it rather circular reasoning to say that “spewing shit”/pointing out that (a subset of) men have previously behaved in an aggressive, self-righteous, smug way causes (a subset of) men to behave in an aggressive, self-righteous, smug way? That’s the old trick of saying “it’s unreasonable to point out my unreasonable behaviour.”

    Thirdly, the “shit” I “spewed” in this particular case wasn’t that shit or that spewy. The (most recent) story went like this: Somebody asked me about different male and female priorities in industry, I said that women tended to work more collectively, with horizontal structures, while men tended to work more hierarchically with vertical structures (a well-evidenced theory by the way) and that women entering the workplace was beginning to influence working practices, and this was greeted with an aggressive, self-righteous, smugness by a third party.

    I suppose, in the end, this all hangs off your definitions of “shit”, “spewing”, “aggressive”, “self-righteous” and “smug”, doesn’t it.

    Your pseudonym by the way, not the best platform to fight this point from.

  81. Lucy says

    Sirtooting

    “A woman can’t be a Pope, and they say there is equality?… well that shoots that one in the foot already”

    Indeed, nor patriarch of the Greek or Russian Orthodox Churches, nor a cardinal, or Catholic priest, nor a bishop quite yet, nor an imam or mosque leader in British Muslim mosques.

    And of course the reason for this is not incidental, but a direct result of Abrahamic theology that utterly disenfranchises women from full and equal spiritual value and autonomy. With its masculine Gods, heavenly hosts, prophets and representatives and human conduits, concepts, laws, morality and caste systems. I know it’s hard for atheists to appreciate what it is like to be a spiritual person and tend to dismiss the power of this stuff, but it causes real dissociation for women.

    And this is the philosophy that built the West, this iron-age, middle-Eastern, religious patriarchal value-system is in its DNA, running right through our legal system, our social system our capitalist system, our governmental structures, our social mores, our language. And while that is the case, it’s a nonsense to talk about full female enfranchisement.

  82. Steersman says

    Lucy:

    “Last time I checked women are fully enfranchised in the Western world. ”

    Vastly under-represented in our representative public-sector governance and legislative and enforcement structures.

    You’re talking about two very different things there and badly conflating them: one is the right to vote, the other is representation in various jobs.

    As mentioned, enfranchisement, at least in the Western world, is a done-deal. And while I will concede that discrimination hasn’t entirely disappeared, you might actually want to try wrapping your head around the idea that the jobs issue, the proportional representation or not, is very much a consequence of some genetic differences, some innate differences – statisticly speaking, on average, at least – in interests, talents and aptitudes. You might be interested in these observations from Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature:

    But there is something odd in these stories about negative messages, hidden barriers, and gender prejudices. The way of science is to lay out every hypothesis that could account for a phenomenon and to eliminate all but the correct one. Scientists prize the ability to think up alternative explanations, and proponents of a hypothesis are expected to refute even the unlikely ones. Nonetheless, discussions of the leaky pipeline in science [reasons why the percentage of women in STEM fields decreases with level] rarely even mention an alternative theory of barriers and bias. One of the rare exceptions was a sidebar in a 2000 story in Science, which quoted from a presentation at the National Academy of Engineering by the social scientist Patti Hausman:

    The question of why more women don’t choose careers in engineering has a rather obvious answer: Because they don’t want to. Wherever you go, you will find females far less likely than males to see what is so fascinating about ohms, carburetors, or quarks. Reinventing the curriculum will not make me more interested in learning how my dishwasher works. [pg 352]

    Further, something else from another woman scientist:

    As the economist Jennifer Roback points out, “Once we observe that people sacrifice money income for other pleasurable things we can infer next to nothing by comparing the income of one person with another’s.” [pg 357]

    You might want to at least consider that your information is seriously incomplete if not highly suspect.

  83. says

    Lucy @68:

    “What about using the term MRA/feminist as an insult, applying it to those who do not identify as such?”

    Depends if you regard that as insulting.

    Are you saying that whether or not something is an insult is solely dependent on whether the receiver finds the term used insulting in itself and not at all dependent on the context nor intention on the person stating something?

    Wouldn’t you find it insulting if someone said: “No need to pay any attention to what Lucy says because she’s a feminist”. ?

  84. Ally Fogg says

    abear (36)

    Ally; I’m curious as to why my replies to PZ’s #8 post were memoryholed.

    See my comment at (17) and again at (32)

  85. Schlumbumbi says

    #39 sirtooting

    They are killing millions of female fetuses in India and China…

    Disgusting.

    Arbitrarily changing the frame of reference from western societies to “here be dragons” whenever the misandry in western societies becomes too obvious to ignore – a superlame attempt to hide your own sexism against men behind your thinly veiled disdain for people in other parts of the world.

    If you’re trying to win the internet, you’re failing.

    Counter argue with evidence or shut up.

    Is this a Chris Christie doppelgaenger contest ? You just shit on the floor and expect us to wipe it clean with a smile on our faces ? Take your bully tactics elsewhere.

  86. says

    Steersman:

    Disenfranchisement in the west is not a done deal (by that I assume that you meant that it doesn’t occur).

    When it comes to disenfranchising (by which I mean not having the right to vote) it’s clear that it’s men, primarily black men, who are the most disenfranchised group in the US. Almost 6 million people in the US have had their voting rights removed – most of them men and disproportional about 30% of them are black men. Or put another way: 13% of adult black men in the US doesn’t even have the right to vote.
    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/black-vote-felon-disenfranchisement-laws-florida
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121724

    Only to states allow felons or ex-felons to vote while 11 states doesn’t allow ex-felons to vote even after they’ve completed prison and probation or parol – in other words: permanently disenfranchised.

    Claiming that women are the disenfranchised ones due to not having equal representation looks like an appropriation of something that’s primarily a racial issue (but also to a lesser extent a male issue) – an appropriation made even more egregious when considering that women have been the majority of voters in all US presidential election since 1980 and that women have been the majority of voters in US non-presidential elections since 1986.

  87. Steersman says

    Tamen,

    Not sure that I follow you – or that you followed the sequence with Sirtooting and Lucy which got rather convoluted. But I think the point was that Lucy’s “depriving women of full enfranchisement” was simply wrong as I argued: women have been fully granted the right to vote for some hundred years in the West, they have been enfranchised since then.

    Though I hadn’t realized the situation with black men in the US.

  88. JT says

    Sir Toot

    Thats a lot of talking and yet still no answer. So lets do a little comparison and then maybe you can come up with the answer to my question. I know it may be tough, but I have faith in you. Take a deep breath now.

    misogyny  

    mi·sog·y·ny [mi-soj-uh-nee, mahy-]
    noun
    hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

    misandry  

    mis·an·dry [mis-an-dree]
    noun
    hatred of males.

    Now, just for fun, lets apply the sound logic of number 1 definintion to your actions in regards to number 2 definition. Ding, ding, Youre a…………..come on, say the word, it will be a weight lifted off your shoulders.
    The thing I dont quite get is why does the definition of misogyny seem so much more all encompassing than the one for misandry. Methinks there might be something afoot in the PC world. If that was reversed there would be an outcry. Oh wait, that wouldnt happen here in the west.

  89. says

    Steersman:

    It was more meant as a relevant piece of information in the discussion on female disenfranchisement in the west – triggered in part by your statement that disenfranchisement for women is a done deal in the west (which I read to imply that it also is a done deal for men in the west). Let’s also not forget that although they are a clear minority of felons female felons and ex-felons are also disenfranchised.By the end my comment veeered into annoyance at those who conflated female disenfranchisement with not equal representation and conveniently ignore exactly who is impacted the most by actual bona-fide disenfranchisement in the US as well as ignoring the fact that since the 1980’s more women than men have voted in US elections.

  90. sirtooting . says

    @ JT

    See comment No.61

    To claim that Misrandy exists and mirrors Misogyny, then we have to know what Misogyny is and so, your definition only explains what it is.. so now tell us .. THE WHY.?

    Also whilst you are at it, tell us why women couldn’t have the vote?

  91. sirtooting . says

    @ No. 94

    As a general rule, it was the male gender who determined the female genders rights and freedoms.

    The world contains males and females and the majority of those males and females have access to the internet, so we must be inclusive and acknowledge they all exist and many might have viewed Mr Fogg’s Blog.
    We are not discussing the west and it’s treatment of the female. We are discussing the male gender and it’s historic universal treatment of the female.

    You don’t like that being discussed .. oh dear too bad.

    Tell us why women couldn’t have the vote, in the west or universally, it doesn’t matter which you chooe to include, the answer will be just as rotting apples falling from a tree, be exactly the same.

  92. sirtooting . says

    @ No. 98

    I’m glad we can discuss the word “MISOGYNY” and we should look at this word in great depth and it’s history, and where it has generated from and the full explanation of the actual term MISOGYNY.

    So, bearing that in mind, do you want to supply the historical background of it or shall I.?

  93. JT says

    Sir Toot

    I agree there is misogyny in the world. I agree that there needs to be work done to help correct that. That understanding has nothing to do with my question. So, one more time, just for fun. What would you call your feelings, thoughts, actions as related to men that you espouse on here? Youre almost there, the first step is calling it what it is. :)

  94. sirtooting . says

    @ JT

    To claim that Misrandy exists and mirrors Misogyny, then we have to know what Misogyny is and the reasoning behind it. The WHY?

    The history of the term misogyny is all we require.

    I never asked you to agree misogyny exists, so why you are telling me it does is a mystery? ..So read the question again, focus on it .. instead of dancing around it, answer it, otherwise one might imagine your refusal to supply the relevant information, is because you dislike the information you found.

    Misandry does not exist but my god I can prove misogyny exists.. and it’s history.

    To claim that Misrandy exists and mirrors Misogyny, then we have to know what Misogyny is and the reasoning behind it. The WHY

    You can supply i or I will .. it don’t matter to me either way

  95. sirtooting . says

    @ No. 103

    See my comment, No. 46 re your accusations.

    You will find the answer there,
    Also see my comment No. 34. regarding your comment which is a personal attack on me and not my argument.

    Any more of these personal attacks, and our conversation is over, because you will only be confirming, you have nothing of else to add.

  96. JT says

    My query started with asking you what term you would use to describe your behaviour on here in regards to men. You obviously do not want to answer it. So be an adult and just say no.

    @Ally

    I personally think sirtooting is “off one’s nut”

    off one’s nut, Slang.
    a.
    Sometimes Offensive. foolish, silly, or insane.

    b.
    confused; unreasonable.

    c.
    mistaken or wrong: You’re off your nut if you think such a plan can succeed.

    I also think sirtooting is a “Hard nut to crack”

    hard nut to crack,
    a.
    a problem difficult to solve; a formidable undertaking.

    b.
    a person difficult to know, understand, or convince.
    Also, tough nut to crack.

  97. wtfwhateverd00d says

    Lucy @89,

    “The first thing you quoted is a gendered insult, but based on real behaviour. Aggressive, blustering, smug Internet-man is a genuine phenomenon.”

    So you make a gendered insult followed by various rationalizations starting with:

    BUT IT’S TRUE!

    “Firstly, how does one bring gangs on oneself? No matter how much “shit I spew”, I’m just one person; unless I am a highly effective shit skewer, I can’t warrant an orchestrated, joint response can I? And by all accounts, I’m not that effective.

    Secondly, isn’t it rather circular reasoning to say that “spewing shit”/pointing out that (a subset of) men have previously behaved in an aggressive, self-righteous, smug way causes (a subset of) men to behave in an aggressive, self-righteous, smug way? That’s the old trick of saying “it’s unreasonable to point out my unreasonable behaviour.””

    Well, I have no idea who you are and have never seen you before, but not that you’ve demonstrated you think gendered insults are okay, and complain about “aggressive, blustering, smug Internet-man”, hell, I can like totes amazeballs understand why people get offended by what you write, see you as a troll and attack you.

    If you don’t want people to attack you, try not insulting everyone and then rationalizing your behavior.

    I know your parents and teachers told you this at some point.

    And as I said earlier, the commenters that are abusive? Explain that you don’t respond to abusive comments, and go on.

  98. Thil says

    @Lucy@74

    the implication of that line of thinking is that if the opinions a person were expressing weren’t what you consider reasonable, it would less unacceptable to accuse them of being mentally ill.

    “I mean is saying that men and women have different working styles really the most stupid thing a person has ever heard?”

    It depends if you mean in a physical or mental sense?

    “The real arrogance on display here is the assumption that sauce for the 30 strong gander contingent on home turf is good for the 1-strong goose contingent on away turf. (Not that the same sauce is actually being dished out in any case)”

    ….what?

  99. Thil says

    @sirtooting@104

    What are you saying? Misrandy and Misogyny have to arise from identical (but reversed) thought processes for them both to exist?

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again THAT IS A FAULSE DICOTOMY!!!!

  100. Steersman says

    Tamen (#99):

    It was more meant as a relevant piece of information in the discussion on female disenfranchisement in the west – triggered in part by your statement that disenfranchisement for women is a done deal in the west ….

    I still think you’re misreading what I said which was, in effect, that enfranchisement is a done-deal. That is, that women have had the vote for the better part of 100 years in most western nations. And that it hasn’t in any way, shape or form been seriously compromised or retracted.

  101. says

    Steersman, your original quote was:

    “As mentioned, enfranchisement, at least in the Western world, is a done-deal. ”

    I think Tamen rejected that claim, since a significant percentage of grown adults are barred from voting. Whether they are female or male is rather irrelevant to your original formulation. The fact that they are in fact mostly male makes Lucy’s views even more bizzarre though.

  102. 123454321 says

    sir tooting asks why women couldn’t vote despite there only being a few years between all men getting the vote and women following.

    I’ll remind sirtooting that, historically, most men have never had the right to vote either. Most men throughout history were not given rights or legal protections or indeed much freedom. And let’s not forget about the gendered roles that were forced on men through history either, like drawing the short straw for doing the most physically arduous and risky, dirty jobs. Men were forced into military service against their will and a lot of men couldn’t choose a career path either. Men, too, were also expected to marry and have kids and be the provider, whether they wanted to or not. I’m getting fed up of hearing how women have suffered worse than men throughout history and this voting card is a pathetic stoop of desperation. The truth is that men have also faced all kinds of sexism and oppression but unfortunately it appears never to get recognised. Men were held accountable in historic times and often faced far harsher punishment and consequences than their female counterparts. Has sir tooting ever visited a torture chamber and read the history?

  103. Jacob Schmidt says

    ….what?

    She’s saying that the response she’s receiving isn’t proportional.

    Ally, what’s the word on calling someone “delusional”? The term is associated with mental health issues, but delusion is bog standard human psychology; something that nearly anyone can suffer from.

  104. says

    Schmidt 113

    She’s saying that the response she’s receiving isn’t proportional.

    Nope, does not seem to be the message. She wrote

    “The real arrogance on display here is the assumption that sauce for the 30 strong gander contingent on home turf is good for the 1-strong goose contingent on away turf. (Not that the same sauce is actually being dished out in any case)”

    assuming “sauce” to be a code for “tone”, this seems to be saying that since she should get special treatment because she is not on her home turf.

  105. Jacob Schmidt says

    assuming “sauce” to be a code for “tone”, this seems to be saying that since she should get special treatment because she is not on her home turf.

    Right. She’s one person against a group of thirty. You’re not contradicting me.

  106. JT says

    Sir Toot

    Because you as a man and all your male family members didnt let them. Our male family members struggled mightily against yours and finally helped women win the right they deserved. My mom did our genealogy. :)

  107. JT says

    Sir Toot

    Its because of the sick and twisted male ancestors that you had. Who knows, maybe that blood is still coursing through your veins waiting to come out and oppress your female relatives. You better keep a close eye on that.

  108. johngreg says

    sirtooting said:

    Tell us why women couldn’t have the vote?

    When and where are you specifically referring to?

    I mean, the answer is inevitabley going to be different for different times and different places — that is, if we stick with real reality rather than your play-doh construction factory.

  109. sirtooting . says

    This is no battle of wits between you and me. I never pick on an unarmed man.
    You are quite clearly as intelligent and as interesting as a piece of lint and still the piece of lint comes out tops, because at least the piece of lint has a use., which is more than be can said for you.
    Good day.

  110. Steersman says

    John Greg (#122):

    Sirtooting seems to think that just throwing out a comment without any context is likely to get any response, much less one relevant to whatever he’s getting at. Which seems largely to consist of trying to find justification for condemning all men – and for unspecified “crimes” to boot, although it seems to encompass all history and every last corner of the world. Which kind of looks rather like misandry – curious given that he’s supposedly a man.

    Methinks he’s more of a troll than an honest interlocutor.

  111. sirtooting . says

    @ 12345 . once I caught a fish alive
    “Most men throughout history were not given rights or legal protections or indeed much freedom.”

    A man’s home was his castle and he was sole ruler in his castle and he had an unpaid skivvy, a slave, who was denied options & was forced to keep his home clean, cook his food, wash his clothes, and produce him male heirs to inherit his name and his wealth and his daughters, who’s opinions were not thought relevant, when old enough, were forced to be, the slave, their mother had been, but to a new slave owner chosen by their father.

    The marriage vow .. Obey the man or else .. Not a relationship considered between two equals but a master and slave relationship and she was his slave, and whilst she slaved for him in his home, he enjoyed being able to focus all his attention on himself and his potential .. He could be anything, his world was his oyster, her world was a cage and her potential was never allowed to flourish, he saw to that, his he thought important, hers he thought not.
    His he thought important and hers he thought not ..
    How self centered and self obsessed and arrogant were those people.
    Can you imagine arranging for your daughter to be raped, by someone you had chosen yourself.?

    How strange, the rulers claim they were oppressed, they had complete control of a culture they engineered, they ran everything, owned everything, enforced everything and yet claim they were and are oppressed.
    Men act in dramas of their own making, and if they are oppressed in cultures where they have complete control of everything and enforce their rules on everyone, then one can only conclude, men are masochists, and all of this oppression, is self inflicted by acting in dramas of their own making.

    The law of coverture was introduced in the 12th century, all men had rights over their wives and daughters, who were nor regarded as people with potential but sale-able property. No laws existed for rape in marriage, because men didn’t regard raping their wives and daughters a crime, because wives and daughters were not regarded as people but a piece of property a man owned and they being his property, he could do as he pleased and he did.

    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector..

    The only thing men ever protected was men’s own self interests .. They enslaved females who they needed to skivvy for them .. This then freed them from their own domestic chores which they claimed were beneath them, because their potential they thought important and without exception thought women’s was not.

    Most men throughout history had rights over women but women had no rights in law and no rights in law equals no protection under the law and they were forced to be financially dependent on a man because men claimed men’s toil was more valuable than the females and so they decided to pay themselves the most and opted to always pay women the least
    So the female could never escape being financially dependent on a male but that was the intention, because men needed women as skivvies to do the jobs men thought a waste of time and a burden when they thought their time could be better spent realising their own potential.
    It was a culture that was engineered to be that way, it was no accident. It was a culture designed to help the male achieve and males decided the best way they could help themselves was to stop females from being involved and stop them from influencing any of of their decisions by caging them and limiting their options to zero, so females had no option but to accept the limitations placed on them just to survive male oppression of the self obsessed and self absorbed kind.

    Unpaid servitude to men, the slaves are clothed and fed and a roof over their heads .. What else do they need .. If we recognise their potential, then ours will not take pride of place. The kings of the castle, all agreed..

    Males had rights, they are the only ones who did have rights .. and they determined what rights and freedoms they would allow or not allow the female .. that was the males choice .. that was male privilege .. they gave themselves that choice, that right and they chose Unanimously to deny the females theirs.

  112. 123454321 says

    Firstly, a video from GWW (GirlWritesWhat) explaining what we’re seeing right here in this very blog. Definitely worth watching from start to finish if you’re tired of hearing the usual shaming tactics tediously executed by feminists in the media and on the internet. she covers the usual cliche shakers such as: the misogynist, potential rapist, and you’re scary and dangerous to women card etc….the usual crap, which takes everyone away from the actual debate.

  113. 123454321 says

    sirtooting asks: “Tell us why women couldn’t have the vote?”

    There were only 10 years between all men and all women getting the vote. This argument is now nearly a century old.

    Only 58% of the adult male population were eligible to vote before 1918. Only men who had been resident in the country for 12 months prior to a general election were entitled to vote prior to 1918. This disenfranchised a huge number of troops (ALL men, might I add) who had been forced via conscription to serve overseas in the war. You never mention this, do you! You only care about the women, no cares about the men getting their fucking heads blown off in trench warfare whilst fighting for their country and their family’s rights to freedom!

    Ok, it wasn’t until 1928 that all women were able to vote and women achieved the same voting rights as all men (overall) but FFS this was an evolutionary political reform path that, in the whole scheme of things, took only 10 years after the atrocities of war and you’re still whining about it a century later! FFS, quit with the whining and thing about the barbaric acts of violence that men experienced throughout the war around about the same era!!

    Having said all that i doubt you’ll get it, particularly as you found it particularly difficult to grasp the fact that being a man aboard the Titanic left you with a multifold lesser chance of survival than being a woman – like, by about 3 or 4 times, thus men are considered the expendable gender unworthy of having their lives saved compared with women. And you never answered my other question relating to why there was a ‘women and children policy’ and not a ‘parent and child’ policy’ which, incidentally, still applies today in many cases of disaster.

  114. sirtooting . says

    LMAO .. My historical fact against her Hysterical Fiction .. LMAO

    Of course you agree with her, she is flattering you, and I am not flattering you.. she throws you a fish .. and you all clap .. oink oink .. oink oink .. hahaha.

    Men created laws to stifle and suffocate women’s choices, & men deliberately left women with no alternatives via their man made laws to choose anything else but to be financially at the mercy of men.

    So in order to stay alive and to protect themselves and their offspring women were forced to accept a “patriarchal bargain”. That is, they were imprisoned in a male run totalitarian dominated state and because they had no where else to run to and no chance of escaping this male rampant violence, were then coerced to accept their fate, with no other options left open to them other than that of being killed.
    So a fate of enslavement was the only option, other than death in a male run totalitarian state and males called this enslavement.. A protection.

    Forced marriages, where weddings were no more than a financial transaction between two rapists, where the father forced his daughter to marry the rapist of his choosing and the husband to be aka (master), where the marriage was a sham of a so called relationship, because that relationship was nothing more than of a master and slave relationship. Where all the womans choices were zero and the man made all the decisions because he was a man, and he thought himself superior to she and denied her, her basic human rights because he was a thug and a rapist who achieved his position in his male run totalitarian culture by being part of a gang that forced women into corners, so they could rape them with impunity. OBEY THE MAN .. Or else

    Just to stay alive, women had to obey men, just as in Islamic states where fathers kill their daughters who disobey their orders, seig heil.
    The fathers and uncles, and brothers who murder their daughters, sisters and mothers believe it is an honorable thing for the male to kill the female.
    Honor killing reveals their absolute power over women who they believe they own, and the men treat them with nothing but utter contempt.
    How proud the man feels when he kills his property, he doesn’t see the woman as a human being, a person with potential, but he sees her as a slave who must obey his every word, so up his own arse his he and when she refuses to comply, he believes he has a right to inflict any punishment of his choosing on her, for disobeying him.. heil Hitler.
    ISLAM IS ONLY A MIRROR IMAGE OF THE HISTORY OF THE WEST, there is little difference between Islams history and the West’s and their treatment of the Female of the species.

    Men took power by violence, they weren’t reasonable or rational, they were violent thugs who enforced their rules on everyone else and they spent a great deal of their time conjuring up reasons to justify it all to themselves .. their religions spell it out .. man first, woman just an afterthought.
    Full of themselves, arrogant bullies and there is nothing else there.

  115. 123454321 says

    “A man’s home was his castle and he was sole ruler in his castle and he had an unpaid skivvy, a slave, who was denied options & was forced to keep his home clean, cook his food, wash his clothes, and produce him male heirs to inherit his name and his wealth and his daughters, who’s opinions were not thought relevant, when old enough, were forced to be, the slave, their mother had been, but to a new slave owner chosen by their father.”

    Nah, you’re right. Those skivvies would have been far better off mining for coal or riding off to battle. If only we could reverse time.

    “The marriage vow .. Obey the man or else .. Not a relationship considered between two equals but a master and slave relationship and she was his slave”

    and who’s the one who has to get down on one knee and beg for marriage again?

    “and whilst she slaved for him in his home….”

    …he slaved for her by risking life and limb as he was put to war in between doing all the shitty jobs that men are expected to do in the big, wide world.

    “he enjoyed being able to focus all his attention on himself and his potential”

    …while she enjoyed the kids and the safety of the home.

    “He could be anything”….

    ….as long as it was in keeping with doing the dangerous tasks associated with evolution and protecting the welfare of his female counterparts.

    “his world was his oyster”…

    as long as he was willing to accept peril and risk and dirt and grime and being away from his family.

    “her world was a cage”…

    of protection designed to keep her safe.

    “and her potential was never allowed to flourish”…

    …if there were any risk that she would be exposed to the dangers of the developing world.

    “How self centered and self obsessed and arrogant were those people.”….

    especially the female gender who took it for granted that the male was put before her in order to provide and protect.

    “Can you imagine arranging for your daughter to be raped, by someone you had chosen yourself.?”

    Ohhh, there goes the rape card, you sneaky little thing, you! Dads raping their daughters, what a cool explanation to supporting the female superiority journey.

    “How strange, the rulers claim they were oppressed,”…

    …when in actual fact the real rulers were the females hidden away in their protective little shells that had been built by men. The word “oppressed” should be replaced by the word “protected”.

    “they had complete control of a culture they engineered”…

    …yes, the women engineered this by virtue of the fact that they CHOSE not to be part of the competitive, dangerous, evolving, big, wide world. It was dangerous and cold out there and they chose the easier and safer options. Don’t blame the fucking men for engineering the fact that they ended up with the shitty end of the stick because that would be dumb!

    ” they ran everything, owned everything, enforced everything and yet claim they were and are oppressed.”…

    …yes, that’s right, men (on the whole) went right out there, put their necks on the line, built the world and just as things are supposedly getting safer they provide a conduit to equality (because that’s the right thing to do) and then feminist come along and say women were fucking oppressed and have zero recognition for anything that men have done or continue to do! Oppressed or protected, oppressed or protected, oppressed or protected. Make up your own mind, that’s fine.

    “No laws existed for rape in marriage, because men didn’t regard raping their wives and daughters a crime, because wives and daughters were not regarded as people but a piece of property a man owned and they being his property, he could do as he pleased and he did.”

    You’re getting low on rape cards.

    “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector..”

    Oh, right, ok, so you see all men as cruel and oppressive dictaters who masquerade as protectors. Oh, I get it now, you hate all men, despite what men have brought to the table over thousands of years.

    “The only thing men ever protected was men’s own self interests .. They enslaved females who they needed to skivvy for them .. This then freed them from their own domestic chores which they claimed were beneath them, because their potential they thought important and without exception thought women’s was not.”

    You’re full of shit, you really are. You have no recognition for male contribution and you’re a bigotted, self-self-indulgant radical, militant feminist of the highest order. You refuse to recognise that men have protected women in favour of the notion that they have oppressed them instead. All this while ignoring the types of jobs men have had to endure and instead focussing on doing the fucking washing and ironing. FFS, you are incredible, and sadly representative of many of today’s indoctrinated sheep-humans that have bought into the same one-sided, biased, female friendly crap.

    I really can’t be bothered to respond to the rest of your post because it’s full of the same repetitive nonsense.

  116. 123454321 says

    “Forced marriages, where weddings were no more than a financial transaction between two rapists, where the father forced his daughter to marry the rapist of his choosing”

    WTF.

  117. 123454321 says

    The feminist superiority/empowerment movement is dying thanks to people like you, sirtooting. Perhaps you being around is not such a bad thing after all. Keep digging the grave, you’re doing a sterling job.

  118. sirtooting . says

    “Having said all that i doubt you’ll get it, particularly as you found it particularly difficult to grasp the fact that being a man aboard the Titanic left you with a multifold lesser chance of survival than being a woman”

    Females had it drummed into them from the day they were born to the day they died, they should always defer to men and always obey them or else.. So being indoctrinated, when the captain on the Titanic, declared .. women and children first ..Women did exactly as they were ordered as usual and complied just as they had been brainwashed into doing from the day they were born .. just to stay alive in a male run totalitarian state .. that must have been one of those times,. where the patriarchy and the males patriarchal privilege actually backfired on men ..

    The Titanic was an exception, not the rule, there was no maritime law, stating women and children first, because prior to that, it was every man for himself and women and children rarely ever survived those incidents compared to the men.
    The Titanic was an exception not the rule, don’t ever claim it is, the poorer passengers on that ship, were locked in on the lower decks, women and men and children and the all male crew, told them to calm down, there was no emergency and refused to unlock the doors to let them out ..
    The priority was to assist the rich to survive, not women, not children, but the rich ..

  119. carnation says

    @ 123454321

    OMG… Someone, apparently seriously, cited an AVfM contributing MRA as a souce.

    According to that buffoon, women in Afghanistan have nothing to complain about.

  120. 123454321 says

    sirtooting, a while ago, i think it was you (although I could be mistaken) who had the audacity to point towards a video of men behaving badly on a bus – a very isolated example. Yet you refuse to recognise the much wider and more threatening situation with regard to the assaults on men. Take a look at this video and show me something of a similar ilk with the sexes reversed.

  121. sirtooting . says

    “Nah, you’re right. Those skivvies would have been far better off mining for coal or riding off to battle. If only we could reverse time”
    Here is where you show your utter and complete fucking ignorance, because there is a history of women miners all across the world and that covers the last 5,000 years.
    It is well documented but you have never ever heard of it, have you? and.if ignorance is bliss, you must be living in pig heaven right now.
    You buy into the thing that flatters your ego, the image you want to believe in and the only image you want to portray .. Men are heroes, self sacrificing .. Martyrs .. not bullies and thugs as they actually were, who enslaved women and allowed them no space or time for their potential to flourish, men paid women the least to make sure they would always be at the financial mercy of a male domineering culture.

    What happened to the female was, the male decided to value his toil more valuable than the females
    No matter what work she did, hers was always regarded less valuable than the males and he paid her what he thought.
    He determined what her labour was worth compared to his own, and he determined his was more valuable. He alone decided, he flattered himself and of course if you always pay another less than yourself, then financially you will always have the advantage .. and when for a female that is how you are always regarded and treated & there is no escaping that culture, a culture of male conceit, arrogance & male contempt of the female, then the female has no where else to go and is forced to accept less for herself because she isn’t born one of the privileged gender .. the male, who eternally valued himself and his labour more valuable than the females.

  122. 123454321 says

    “So being indoctrinated, when the captain on the Titanic, declared .. women and children first ..Women did exactly as they were ordered”

    How so very fucking convenient.

    “The priority was to assist the rich to survive, not women, not children, but the rich ..”

    BULLSHIT. If everyone had been on one floor they’d still have prioritised the female sex. And you know it!

  123. 123454321 says

    “Here is where you show your utter and complete fucking ignorance, because there is a history of women miners all across the world and that covers the last 5,000 years.”

    Show me numbers compared to men.

  124. 123454321 says

    Ally – Please delete these video links posts as i have no idea why the one I’m trying to link to is coming up as fireman fucking Sam!

  125. sirtooting . says

    12345 .. Once I caught a fish alive ..

    “So being indoctrinated, when the captain on the Titanic, declared .. women and children first ..Women did exactly as they were ordered”

    How so very fucking convenient. .. No ACTUALLY.. HOW FUCKING INCONVENIENT IT IS FOR YOU .. Obey the male or else ..
    Karen Straughan and the “male disposability” theory she promotes to make privileged working and middle class heteronormative (and probably white) men on the internet with persecution complexes feel like they are oppressed. And for profit, no less.

    The history of man is the history of self obsessed bullying thugs and misogynists will turn somersaults, attempting to refute it, deny it, opting to promote the male as nothing but a hero .. A martyr .. They want to be worshipped and adored, not criticised and their motives questioned.
    They desire to flatter themselves, the ego is all .. unfortunately for them, this mythical image they possess of themselves and perpetually promote is questioned and examined and is being thrown to the floor, after being found to be nothing more than the ranting of a pile of loathsome self obsessed, self absorbed, self important arrogant little males, who think themselves & their labour, more valuable than the females, who conveniently ignore, that females die in war, women do hard laborious work, and are just as valuable as males any day of the week.
    In their little made up world they don’t recognise women, they give women absolutely no credit or recognition at all ..
    The law of coverture sought to erase the female from their male domineering history.
    Marriage was a protection racket .. OBEY us or else, otherwise, we will throw you out to all the other wolves who are waiting to tear a piece of you anytime you fail to comply to our rules..

  126. sirtooting . says

    Why couldn’t women have the right to vote. ?

    Karen Straughan, said women didn’t deserve the vote because they didn’t go to war.
    And this is why her reasoning is a monument to her own stupidity.

    Circular reasoning, ,..
    Women weren’t allowed to be involved in the military for exactly the same reason they weren’t allowed the vote.

    And yet women and children and men do go to war .. And men don’t want women armed, they have been wholly against it for centuries .. And how strange is that?. When at exactly the same time, men have never been against shooting or bombing women who remained unarmed and all due to mens insistence.

    Females in war, to the victors are regarded as trophies of war .. because the victors are male .. males fighting in their wars .. and their reward for this self created war, the dramas of their own making is to further enslave females .. there is no geneva convention when it comes to recognising the rights of the defeated females .. that is a male privilege only ..

  127. Mr Supertypo says

    There is no doubt that mysandri exist. Misandry and misogyny are interlinked together, following Ozymandrias law (witch I agree 100%) if you are misogynist then you are also misandrist and vice versa. If you hate one gender (for whatever reason) then you also hate your own. If you hate women then you also hate men who doesn’t fit into your narrow view of masculinity, and the same for women, who doesn’t fit in your narrow view of femininity. In synthesis if you hate men you also hate women, and if you hate women you also hate men. Plain simple, if you fit into that category, then you are a hater, my suggestion is go to therapy and get help :-)

  128. sirtooting . says

    They say there is this thing called Misrandy which they claim is the same as the thing called misogyny, but in reverse, but misogyny has a reason and if as they claim misrandy is the same as misogyny, then misrandy surely has to exist for exactly the same reason and if it does not then you cannot claim it is the same thing as misogyny.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UqvXhNYH3mkJ:www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/the-invisibility-of-misogyny/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

  129. J. J. Ramsey says

    sirtooting:

    there is no geneva convention when it comes to recognising the rights of the defeated females

    Near as I can tell, that’s not true. There is such a convention. It’s called, well, the Geneva Convention, or to be more precise, the Geneva Conventions.

    If you are actually claiming that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to “females,” then you had better cite your sources.

  130. Mr Supertypo says

    a form of misandry we can say is the habit to force men into traditional roles, man up or be a man, are expressions made of pure misandry.

  131. Kahlo says

    “a form of misandry we can say is the habit to force men into traditional roles, man up or be a man, are expressions made of pure misandry.”

    I totally agree. Men should stop doing masculinity-policing each other. Though its been awhile, I remember how extreme it was, especially in locker rooms and the such like. And, being the skinny, nerdy kid who was insufficiently masculine (apparently), didn’t help.

  132. Schala says

    I totally agree. Men should stop doing masculinity-policing each other. Though its been awhile, I remember how extreme it was, especially in locker rooms and the such like. And, being the skinny, nerdy kid who was insufficiently masculine (apparently), didn’t help.

    To have a true large scale effect on society, women would also have to choose mates based on other criteria than masculinity, wealth, financial success or willingness to take risks. Thus parents would have to educate their children in this. Since men are the chosen, not the choosers, in most cases, changing them alone would only serve to make them seem unsuitable as mates, at least to most women. Few people (men or women) are fine with being outliers, outcasts, or pariah, unless it’s “already a fact”.

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=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>