Quantcast

«

»

Dec 21 2012

An experiment: why do you despise feminism?

Michael Shermer is feeling victimized, and is now seeing persecutors under the bed, I think. He posted a complaint about Ophelia writing a post that discussed subliminal biases. It’s a bizarre and paranoid whine — apparently you’re not ever supposed to criticize a skeptic, or you’re carrying out a witch hunt.

The feminist witch hunt continues! Ophelia Benson and PZ Myers have caught me again being a sexist: Trolling through my Scientific American columns Ophelia discovered that in my October column I report on Leonard Mlodinow’s book Subliminal, in which he reports on studies that report on people’s report of how they feel about politicians based on various subliminal cues, one of which is the pitch of the voice, lower judged as more truthful than higher (although looks matter even more). Guess what? My reporting of Leonard’s reporting of the studies’ reporting of subjects’ reports makes ME a sexist! Wiiiiiiitch. Seriously. I couldn’t make this up (note PZ’s comment on my own voice!)

Go ahead and read the Butterflies & Wheels post that hurt Shermer’s feelings; nowhere does she accuse him of being a sexist. She does suggest that he seems oblivious to the fact that a bias favoring the authority of deeper voices is also going to be a bias against women, but it’s more an affirmation of his point that we have these unconscious prejudices.

As for my terrible, awful, evil comment: I pointed out that Shermer isn’t exactly a baritone himself. That wasn’t an accusation or an insult; I don’t have a deep voice, either. My point was that you don’t have to have a voice like a foghorn to be a leader.

It’s a truly delusional state he’s worked himself into, and now he’s seeing witch hunts with himself as the target everywhere he looks (probably abetted by those slime pit denizens who see every cross-eyed look and every criticism as a sign that someone is about to get shivved by the all-powerful FtB mafia, and flood twitter and blog comments with such knee-jerk reactions). It’s a shame.

But that’s not what’s got me curious. Notice what else he does? He uses “feminist” as an insult, a very common phenomenon. It has me mystified.

And if you read that facebook post, the comments are similar: mobs of people having fits over “feminists”, sounding like Republicans fretting over “communists”. Here’s a subset of the shorter complaints:

Also, don’t worry about moronic misandrists.
True feminists (those wanting equality and NOT superiority for women) do not behave like this.

Just look at what happened to Thunderf00t when he dared question the pseudo-feminist dogma.

Welcome to The hysterical totalitarian feminist left….(just ask Lawrence Summers)

The death of Hitchens and this feminist clusterfuck have ruined the Atheist community.

Skepticism (capital “A”) is over for me. The movement has been co-opted by people with an agenda. Sad.

Trying to creep feminism into the skeptic movement is total nonsense. Tea Party was bought out by social conservatives, Occupy Wall Street taken over by hippies, and now the skeptic AND atheist movement is being bought out by radical liberals. It’s a shame.

It is a shame that people like PZ Myers and his ilk are so quick to abandon reason when their feminist religion tells them what nonsense to spew.

This shit is getting really annoying. Please ban all those feminist morons from skeptic conferences. Its a dogmatic belief system not based on evidence, dismissive of evidence provided to them and generally pretty aggressive towards other people for no real reason. How can they call themselves skeptics?

(That one’s a favorite: a dogmatic, dismissive, aggressive comment declaring that you can’t be a true skeptic if you’re dogmatic, dismissive, and aggressive. Own goal!)

I have to laugh at this other non sequitur that popped up:

Pz lost his mind after he went vegetarian. I don’t know what Ophelia is thinking

Well, vegetarianism isn’t associated with insanity as far as I know, and also, little awkward fact, I’m not a vegetarian, although I have reduced my meat consumption.

But anyway, I started to realize something: I don’t understand how these people think at all — they’re completely alien. Regarding feminism with contempt is a bit like regarding science with contempt: it’s incomprehensible to me, and I’m wondering if they really understand what they are throwing away.

So let’s try an experiment. Let’s hear from some of these anti-feminists. I’d like them to comment here and explain themselves, and to do so a little more deeply than just reiterating dogmatic excuses. If you think feminism is a religion, explain why, and be specific. If you think feminism is unsupported by the evidence, explain what evidence opposes the principles of feminism. If you think it’s wrong for the skeptic movement to have a social agenda, explain what you think it should be doing that has no social implications.

Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities, is irrational, let’s see you explain your opposition rationally.

This could go a couple of ways: there could be dead silence as the anti-feminists wilt under pressure to honestly explain themselves, or there could be an eruption of the usual shrieking misogyny, or there might actually be a few who try to explain themselves. If it’s the latter, the rest of you behave yourselves — pretend you’ve got a cockroach under the microscope and try to probe it to figure out what makes it work, and don’t just try to crush it under the heel of your shoe, OK?

I’m a bit curious myself. I’ve had these sorts of conversations with creationists, and it’s always like wandering through an alien world; let’s try to figure out what weird things are going on inside the skulls of anti-feminists.

1,520 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 501
    Endorkened

    @Mnbo (409)

    That reminds me of that time Joseph Kony killed a bunch of people, and we all woke up and realized that black people are cognitively unequipped to govern themselves. Oh, wait…

  2. 502
    Verbose Stoic

    Sally Strange (497):

    Well. VS’s definition of patriarchy exists not only in his head, but also in the imaginations of hundreds of other anti-feminists. In the interest of accuracy, I thought I should clarify that – he’s not pulling it out of the ether. He’s just allowing anti-feminists to define feminism, and using that to explain why he’s anti-feminist.

    Recall that my actual definition of feminism had nothing to do with patriarchy, but was about it being female-focused, and that their view of patriarchal societies reflected that. We can debate the definitions if we want, but as I described things I don’t think it’s appropriate to let feminism define itself in opposition to what it seems the movement and the philosophy are doing and saying.

    Gnumann+ (498) -

    So, if you wanted to analyze German policy 35-45 you would largely source it on the writings and films of Gobbels?

    Sorry, but I don’t quite get the reference, other than that it’s a Nazi reference. That being said, I WOULD use the propaganda of the time to analyze what the attitudes of the German people were and what they thought was the end goal of that policy, because the propaganda would be aimed primarily at how people thought the world should work. I wouldn’t use it to analyze outcomes, but I would use it to analyze attitudes, and the same thing applies to chivalry: as it was presented as the idea that everyone should strive for, it gives a good indication of the normative views of a patriarchal society and what manhood and womanhood was measured by.

  3. 503
    cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)

    Verbose Stoic: chivalry was a major component of patriarchy and yet consisted of men sacrificing their lives for women

    Lolwut?

    A Shiver in My Spine: Chevauchee.

    And from the comments there:

    If I begin the battery once again,
    I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
    Till in her ashes she lie buried.
    The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
    And the flesh’d soldier, rough and hard of heart,
    In liberty of bloody hand shall range
    With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
    Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants
    .

    http://shakespeare.mit.edu/henryv/henryv.3.3.html

    Some “protection”.

  4. 504
    SallyStrange

    Yes, I deny that “these sorts of phrasings” are “common descriptions in feminist works.” Cite one and I will consider the possibility that you are an honest, intelligent interlocutor.

  5. 505
    maddog1129

    jba55 @ #489

    Maddog: I support equal rights for everyone, regardless of gender, race or other accidents of birth. Not sure how that fits in with the cartoon you’re using though.

    Well, the physical stature of each person in the cartoon represents “accidents of birth,” I think. Some people are lucky enough to be tall enough to see over the fence even without any boxes. Most people are not so lucky. 2 of 3 people in the picture are at a disadvantage by “accidents of birth.” Enacting “equality” measures would change that for at least some people, represented by giving out boxes to stand on. Okay so far?

    When you say you support equal rights for everyone, which picture more represents what you mean? 1 box for each person to stand on (equal distribution), regardless of how tall each one is (unequal ability to see)? Or dividing up the boxes (unequally) so everyone can see (equally)?

  6. 506
    cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)

    “protection” => “sacrifice”. Sorry.

  7. 507
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    Verbiose Stoic:

    Sorry, but I don’t quite get the reference, other than that it’s a Nazi reference. That being said, I WOULD use the propaganda of the time to analyze what the attitudes of the German people were and what they thought was the end goal of that policy, because the propaganda would be aimed primarily at how people thought the world should work. I wouldn’t use it to analyze outcomes, but I would use it to analyze attitudes, and the same thing applies to chivalry: as it was presented as the idea that everyone should strive for, it gives a good indication of the normative views of a patriarchal society and what manhood and womanhood was measured by.

    You see your error here – don’t you? Or did the weapons-grade irony smack the brains out of your head?

  8. 508
    Verbose Stoic

    Sally Strange (505):

    Well, I had already said that my getting actual cites was going to be difficult, but here’s something that’s close:

    De Beauvoir’s aim in the first part of the book is to explore why women are oppressed, why they are ‘the second sex’. Are females biologically inferior to males? Do women follow the path of subservience described by psychoanalysis? Is it a consequence of their role as mothers or potential mothers? After examining and rejecting purely biological, psychoanalytic and economic explanations, de Beauvoir turns to ontology. ‘Ontology’ means ‘the study of being’. De Beauvoir’s explanation for why women are oppressed is based on woman’s being, that is, what it means to exist as a woman. Girls growing up are taught by society how to be as women, ie, passive and object-like. A woman is a free being mystified into believing she is confined to particular roles, thus limiting freedom. Using existentialist language, de Beauvoir says that woman has been defined as Other. The cult of ‘the feminine’ or ‘the feminine mystery’ is used to maintain the oppression of women as the idea is passed down from generation to generation.

    Doesn’t say oppression by men, but that was already the stronger position anyway, and the question about being inferior to men somewhat implies it. I fail to see how anyone who understands any feminist theory could conclude that the force that is confining them to that role is anything other than the patriarchy, and so it’s close. Perhaps I overstated it, though, based on synthesizing an idea together. Fair enough. So, now, your turn … how would that impact my actual position, and why I claim to be an anti-feminist?

  9. 509
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    it gives a good indication of the normative views of a patriarchal society

    It doesn’t, and you have only asserted, not shown with evidence, for this to be true. “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. Christopher Hitchens. *POOF*, your chivalry bullshit is dismissed as fuckwittery.

  10. 510
    Verbose Stoic

    Gnumann+ (508) -

    You see your error here – don’t you? Or did the weapons-grade irony smack the brains out of your head?

    Why don’t you just tell me your point so that we can move on? I’m tired of trying to guess at it, frankly, to see if we’re even talking about the same thing.

    Oh, and I missed the link in my last comment:

    http://philosophynow.org/issues/69/The_Second_Sex

  11. 511
    Krasnaya Koshka

    Verbose Stoic @ 503 – You’d use the propaganda of the time to gauge people’s attitudes? My great-grandmother told me people laughed at the propaganda in Germany before WWII because it was ridiculous.

    Btw propaganda means “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view”.

    This is not a census.

  12. 512
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    Why don’t you just tell me your point so that we can move on? I’m tired of trying to guess at it, frankly, to see if we’re even talking about the same thing.

    So, you see no problem at all in basing your antifeminsm on a piece of patriarchal propaganda without considering the historic (and contemporary) realities at all?

  13. 513
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    This is not a census.

    A bad sophist philosopher not tied into reality doesn’t give a shit if the conclusion they reach is the one they want to hear. That is a problem with philosophy. Once it gets away from reality, as has happened with Verbose Stoic,, it might as well be called fantasy…

  14. 514
    Verbose Stoic

    Krasnaya Koshka (512),

    You’d use the propaganda of the time to gauge people’s attitudes? My great-grandmother told me people laughed at the propaganda in Germany before WWII because it was ridiculous.

    I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing, which is always the risk when trying to deal with real-life examples that are tangential to the point. I would use the sort of propaganda that was used to try to convince people to follow a certain political view — ie propaganda aimed at ones own people — as a reflection of at least what the people in charge thought were the important things to those people, and from there as an indication of what was important to people if it succeeded. That some people found it ridiculous does not, in fact, refute the claim that it aimed at at least supposedly shared values, and reflected the values that the Nazis, at least, thought should be considered important by the people. Which is precisely how I’m using chivalry, as an idea of what people thought should be important, even if it wasn’t always or even often practiced.

    Gnumann+ (513):

    So, you see no problem at all in basing your antifeminsm on a piece of patriarchal propaganda without considering the historic (and contemporary) realities at all?

    No, but I don’t think that is the case. Chivalry was the accepted ideal of a major part of a patriarchal society, and reflected many of its core values, as someone else pointed out. Again, could you just actually make a point or argument instead of trying to be cute? Take your time; you can post longer than a sentence, you know.

  15. 515
    throwaway

    About the equality and boxes thing, I think our current state of affairs in the USofA could be described thus: The tallest person uses their stature to coerce (or intimidate) the middle and shorter persons into giving the tall person their boxes. The tall person then hands the middling a shovel so that the middling can dig a hole for the shorter to stand in while building up a mound for their self. Meanwhile the taller person is hopping the fence and setting fire to the boxes left behind.

  16. 516
    Maureen Brian

    Can we agree, Verbose Stoic, that although all societies change the change happens at different paces. Sometimes whole groups of countries will chug quietly on with no social change, no major shifts in technology, total wealth, whatever. At other times change will be rapid with new technologies, new structures, vast numbers of people moving across the globe. The collapse of the Roman Empire in 410 CE and the Industrial Revolution are excellent examples. OK?

    And can we also agree that all societies create stories about how they came to be, how they arrived at wherever they are, why they have this particular run of good or bad fortune? So if they are rigidly hierarchical societies their stories will include explanations of why Group A is In Charge, Group B does not participate in public life and Group C are slaves. The people who benefit most, whoever they may be, will have the greatest interest in perpetuating this worldview and also the power to have it preached from pulpits and written into history texts. But that does not mean it has any prior basis in reality – these things become “the truth” after theology has been safely doctored and history rewritten.

    It is not a vast leap from there to suggest that those who are doing very nicely, thank you, with the existing system may feel that they have most to lose from change whose endpoint cannot be clearly seen from where they are now.

    You yourself brought up the huge achievements of the Civil Rights Movement in the US and then how it stalled. It didn’t really stall, more like people decided to pretend it had not happened. That’s what we have been calling for some decades in feminism a backlash – the scrappy and angry reaction of those who thought that all this feminist nonsense would go away as we tired of walking about barefoot and finding flowers to put in our hair – the sudden and terrifying realisation that OMG these women / black people / homosexuals are serious!

    Such a reaction, wherever it happens, creates more heat than light. It encourages people to make up stories about, I don’t know, all feminists hate men or want to castrate them. I would expect someone who even reads this sort of blog to have the intellectual nous to find out which of the horror stories is true before he goes along with the sort of mob-rule mentality we have seen in the past 18 months.

    A person who read Pharyngula regularly and for comprehension would have noticed that the feminists here have never to my knowledge explained the patriarchy as a conspiracy of all men against all women. We don’t say, “All men are this, that and the other sort of horrible.” We mention frequently the place feminism within the wider search for social justice and say what can be supported by the facts – that in industrialised societies white, straight, well-educated men are at an advantage, to the extent that others who do not fit the stereotype are hurt.

    The changes in society are not driven by the outrageous demands of screaming harpies but in our case the need for a higher proportion of the population to be literate and numerate and for a wider variety of skills and attributes within the workforce.

    I don’t know why I bothered writing that. I very much doubt that it will outdo your capacity to buy into romantic drivel and to treat the whole of life as fiction. But I tried.

  17. 517
    atheist

    let’s try to figure out what weird things are going on inside the skulls of anti-feminists.

    (Buzzing noises, static) THEM WOMEN TALKIN’ MAKE MAH PEEPEE SHRIVEL UP SOMETHIN’ FIERCE (distorted voices of mocking women) HEY QUIET YOU FILLIES YOU MAKE ME SCARED (wilhelm scream) (explosion)

  18. 518
    Ichthyic

    Chivalry

    curious to know whether you think chivalry a good thing or bad?

  19. 519
    Nepenthe

    @Verbose Stoic, 490

    Again, my main push against feminism is that it is focused too much on the perspective of women, and assumes that the male perspective is represented by the patriarchal view.

    If the patriarchial view doesn’t represent the “male perspective”, whatever that is, what does? Why doesn’t the patriarchal view, made up of male-dominated religion, history, politics, academia, etc, represent the male perspective?

    Additionally, how much focus on the perspective of women is acceptable? (Just want to know so that I can properly budget my time.)

    Well, look at the Civil Rights Movement. It did take it a lot of time, but eventually it seemed to have momentum and got all sorts of laws passed … and then in terms of transforming society seems to have stalled.

    So, the Civil Rights Movement did, even in your reckoning accomplish things.

    I can’t help but think that a more combined approach would come up with ways to ensure equal access without making people think that there might be fairness in a charge of “Reverse Racism”.

    Care to share. I mean, we are doing things wrong and all. I’d love to know what we’re supposed to be doing, both feminists and anti-racists.

    because about the only reason I can think of for men to put in a system where their status depends on them taking on very risky and often painful pursuits is as a competition against themselves, but it’s hard to see why this would have benefit to them directly.

    It’s better to be a big winner of a hard game than for everyone to be equal playing a game where no one wins or loses. Why do people run marathons, or play football? Why do the FLDS patriarchs throw the “Lost Boys” out of the community

    Long story short: can you name any movement of any sort that you think is doing it “right”? Could you describe it and how it differs from other liberation movements like feminism?

  20. 520
    Inaji

    Maureen:

    A person who read Pharyngula regularly and for comprehension would have noticed that the feminists here have never to my knowledge explained the patriarchy as a conspiracy of all men against all women. We don’t say, “All men are this, that and the other sort of horrible.” We mention frequently the place feminism within the wider search for social justice and say what can be supported by the facts – that in industrialised societies white, straight, well-educated men are at an advantage, to the extent that others who do not fit the stereotype are hurt.

    QFT and emphasised.

  21. 521
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    Verbiouse Stoic:

    No, but I don’t think that is the case. Chivalry was the accepted ideal of a major part of a patriarchal society, and reflected many of its core values, as someone else pointed out. Again, could you just actually make a point or argument instead of trying to be cute? Take your time; you can post longer than a sentence, you know.

    Given your love for endless word-salad without any real content, I prefer not to give you too much to build on, thank you very much.

    If you agree that chivalry is a core value of patriarchy, why and how the fuck do you use chivalry as an argument towards your stance that there is no patriarchy?

  22. 522
    Inaji

    atheist:

    (Buzzing noises, static) [rest snipped]

    This sort of shit is not remotely helpful nor does it add in any way to the ongoing discussion. If you have nothing of substance to say, go the fuck away. Ta.

  23. 523
    Nepenthe

    People know that Solanas and Dworkin are dead, right? And that modern mainstream feminists make hissing noises when confronted with their names? It’s definitely a “Stalin was a atheist!1!!1″ argument.

  24. 524
    consciousness razor

    Verbose Sophist:

    So, in order to move this along, let me point out that I’ll accept and concede that feminism is not in and of itself attached to an idea of a cabal of men conspiring to keep women down. Fine. So, since that’s conceded, what impact do you think that has on my actual point about patriarchy, which was this:

    This follows from a lot of the presumptions about patriarchy, from the very dramatic idea that patriarchy is just the oppression of women by men to the less dramatic idea that patriarchy was a system set up by men for men.

    Does that statement require there to be some kind of “cabal” in place, and can you deny that these sorts of phrasings are, or at least were, common descriptions of patriarchy in feminist works?

    At minimum, it requires that it was “set up” intentionally, as if that were the purpose of the system. That is certainly not required or central to “feminism,” as you just conceded. Even if some people do it frequently, using teleological language inappropriately has no relevance to whether or not women do still get treated unequally.

    Your claim is either that some kind of “intentional patriachy” no longer occurs (or isn’t a big problem), or that gender inequality (intentional or not) no longer occurs. In the first case, whatever people’s intentions may be does not in any way lessen the effects of their actions and the system as a whole, so the lack of such intentions now would not be a point against reducing inequality (which is the actual goal for actual feminists, not merely addressing others’ intentions). The second alternative is simply false: there is in fact inequality, and no ignorant handwaving or incredulity from you is going to change that.

  25. 525
    Matt Penfold

    I wish Verbose Stoic would be a bit more honest in his name.

    Verbose he certainly is, but the stoicism comes on the part of the readers of him comments. You can certainly be described as stoic if you are willing to persevere with reading his drivel.

  26. 526
    Nepenthe

    Sometimes biologists use the word “design” as short hand. CHECKMATE evilutionists!

    … Wrong thread? Feels like the right thread for some reason.

  27. 527
    Socio-gen, something something...

    VS:
    You have a limited (deficient, even) understanding of patriarchy. Patriarchy is a system which privileges men above women, which is perpetuated by the privileged — as well as by some of the oppressed group, who seek the approval (and some of the benefits) of the privileged group. It is a system set up to benefit (overall) members of the privileged group because they are the ones who designed it. So, chivalry, as others have pointed out, was a system of perpetuating the privilege of the noble class while denying those privileges to the peasant class. (Think of it as cogs in a machine — the cogs didn’t create the machine, by themselves they don’t power the machine, but working together in a specific manner, the machine functions.)

    Now, did anyone tell themselves: “Hey, here’s how we can maintain our power?” Nope. They, like everyone, assumed their way of doing things was the “right” and “natural” (and, often, “God-ordained”) way things should be and wanted to ensure that people followed their way of doing things by providing both instructions on how to be like them and punishment for failing to be like them. And people who weren’t like them were obviously bad and unnatural and ungodly and didn’t deserve the protection of the system.

    Patriarchy, as a “system set up for men by men” by its very nature oppresses women by limiting or eliminating ways for women to benefit from that system. Now, while some (early?) feminist works (citations, please) might have described patriarchy as a “cabal” purposefully intent on oppressing women, that is not a common belief among feminists.

    And chivalric attitudes would be one of the ways in which, as feminists argue, patriarchy hurts men, too.

  28. 528
    throwaway

    About the equality and boxes thing, I think our current state of affairs in the USofA could be described thus: The tallest person uses their stature to coerce (or intimidate) the middle and shorter persons into giving the tall person their boxes. The tall person then hands the middling a shovel so that the middling can dig a hole for the shorter to stand in while building up a mound for their self. Meanwhile the taller person is hopping the fence and setting fire to the boxes left behind.

    And not to torture you more with my bad analogies, once the hole is deep enough and the mound high enough, the middling sits on the fence and points to the shorter stating “Look at that person in that hole clamoring to be let up, and even to my own detriment as well! The fucking gall…”

    Basically, I hope Verbose gets some mighty splinters from that fence.

  29. 529
    Inaji

    Nepenthe:

    People know that Solanas and Dworkin are dead, right? And that modern mainstream feminists make hissing noises when confronted with their names?

    Way back on the first page, Sally Strange and I were contemplating on who would be dragged out of the woodwork first, Solanas or Dworkin. I bet Dworkin first, with a Solanas backup. It’s a terribly reliable indicator that whoever is bringing them up doesn’t have a fucking clue.

  30. 530
    Anthony K

    Verbiose Stoic:

    Compare with religious hierarchies: in general, religion privileges its own believers if it can, at the same time it restricts them and demands sacrifice, including lives.

    I think this example proves my point. What you have is a social structure put together to, hopefully, work to provide a stable society.

    Who? What? People put together religions to provide a stable society?

    As part of that, everyone has their benefits and their detriments under that society. Those that want what the society offers benefit overall, and those that don’t suffer. In terms of religions, those who don’t benefit leave, but in an overall society you can’t really leave, and so you either “suck it up” or rebel and get pushed down.

    Wait, people who don’t benefit from religion leave?

    Well, that’s it for the atheist community then. Stand down, folks.

    Anyway, the structures aren’t generally put together with a mind towards privileging one group, but of getting the benefits and the sacrifices you have to make to get them.

    Structures are put together with a mind towards getting the benefits and the sacrifices you have to make to get them?

    I’m having difficulty understanding what you’re driving at, but you seem to me to be assuming a lot of purpose.

    So you might be able to say that Catholicism, to take your example, is by Catholics for Catholics, but it’s hard to tie that into any sort of notion other than what is explicit in religion and not the case outside of it: that in Catholicism, actions will be judged by its perspective and those of Catholics.

    Hardly. Remember, ‘Catholic’ originally meant ‘universal’. Consider the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage among non-Catholics, and how generally religious notions of ‘right’ and ‘natural’ inform those against it who don’t profess any strong religious affiliation at all. Societies aren’t nearly as compartmentalised as all that.

    That actions in a patriarchy are judged by patriarchal standards is also a given, but that does not translate so well to saying that its the standards of men.

    Standards of men? Oh, goodness no: the patriarchy informs both men and women what the standards of men and women are supposed to be, just like Catholic dogma (interpreted by Catholics, clergy and lay, and non-Catholics) inform both Catholics and non-Catholics of what the Catholic perception of God’s standards are supposed to be.

    You’re still missing the boat: when people talk about the patriarchy, they’re talking about institutionalised behaviours, norms, practices, beliefs, etc. that perpetuate themselves through both women and men, but generally work to disenfranchise and deny autonomy to women more than it does men.

    That men also suffer its effects isn’t disputable (feminists acknowledge this in the phrase “Patriarchy hurts men too”), but it isn’t an argument that it doesn’t exist, any more than the argument that religions fuck over their own adherents (unequally, of course) is an argument that religious privilege doesn’t exist.

  31. 531
    Maureen Brian

    Oh, and maddog1129, you could always knock the fence down. Problem solved.

  32. 532
    tigtog

    Haven’t read beyond #439 Verbose Stoic. Apologies to the Horde if I’m repeating arguments already published while I was writing this:

    [feminism's] less dramatic idea that patriarchy was a system set up by men for men [...] Philosophically, I find the claims about patriarchy and that our society takes an overall male perspective to be unreasonable.

    You’ve missed a crucial fact about patriarchy/kyriarchy in your “by men for men” soundbite there. Patriarchal/kyriarchal systems were set up by powerful men for powerful men. Men no longer at the peak of their physical strength did not want to give up their power to those who were simply physically stronger than them, so they tilted the playing field to preserve their status quo. The concentration of wealth via patrilineal inheritance and the concentration of power via hereditary positions of command were the first major innovations of patriarchal/kyriarchal systems, alongside the creation of parallel religious hierarchies where the cleverest non-powerful men were co-opted by the lure of inside jobs with no heavy lifting so long as they supported the status quo with their twisty words about divine rights and prophecies and descendants of demi-gods. Providing a path for ambitious men to climb the social ladder to powerful positions so long as they play their part in marshalling other men to serve the status quo and punishing/shaming the men who refuse to comply with hierarchical expectations of masculinity was another early innovation serving to concentrate power in the hands of the few (by making talented men more likely to wish to join the elite rather than overthrow them).

    Constraining the social roles acceptable for women is a secondary aspect of patriarchal/kyriarchal systems. The unpaid labour and reproductive capacity of women is a powerful asset, and by putting the control of that asset out of the hands of women themselves, it allows women to be used as part of the system of rewards for men who comply with the hierarchical status quo: when the only way for a young man to obtain a wife and legitimate heirs is to display his support of the hierarchy to older men with marriageable daughters, then most young men will comply with hierarchical expectations. Especially when the priests/shamans shore up their twisty words about the divinely-ordained social ranking of men with twisty words about divinely-ordained gender roles and divinely-ordained injunctions to female obedience and the divinely-ordained incapacity of women to appropriately determine their own lives, so that men must oh-so-regretfully take on the terrible burden of determining women’s lives for them by disposing of them in the ways that best serve their own hierarchical advancement.

    That many men are disadvantaged by patriarchal//kyriarchal systems is not evidence against the concept of patriarchy: it shows the patriarchy/kyriarchy doing exactly what it’s supposed to do – maintaining the status quo. If clear differential disadvantages were not a feature of kyriarchal systems, then non-elite men might accumulate sufficient resources to effectively challenge and disposses the elite men, which oddly enough the elite men really really do not want to happen.

    This is why men heavily invested in kyriarchal systems find feminism terribly threatening. Women who refuse to abide by socially sanctioned limits placed on “acceptable” feminine behaviours, who choose to pursue financial independence rather than accept the constraints of being financially dependent on men, who insist on being allowed to choose their own partners – these women upset some of the most powerful kyriarchal systems that are meant to allow men to control other men.

  33. 533
    consciousness razor

    I’m having difficulty understanding what you’re driving at, but you seem to me to be assuming a lot of purpose.

    VS is a Sophisticated Goddist™ of some sort, so this isn’t very surprising. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

  34. 534
    XA-26483

    I can’t offer any arguments against feminism (probably because I self-identify as one), but I’ll try my best to illustrate my concerns with the approach many here seem to be taking to it. I can’t imagine I’m the only one who feels this way.

    Before I start, I have to ask anyone reading this to please try and give me the benefit of the doubt. This is going to be a somewhat long post, and I (being human) am almost certain to get at least one thing wrong. That doesn’t mean I’m an idiot and should be dismissed. Even in the extremely unlikely case that I’m somehow right about everything I say here, you’re almost inevitably going to disagree with me on a least one point; that doesn’t mean we have to hate each other’s guts. I may even say something that looks disingenuous to you. That doesn’t mean I’m a liar or a troll; going to all this trouble just to piss people off when I could just copy-paste some MRA asshattery would be ridiculous.

    The fact that I felt the need to include that last paragraph should give some insight into what I’m taking issue with. I’ll use the first post I ever made here to illustrate:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/06/a-metaobservation-on-misogyny/comment-page-1/#comment-506821

    This was the first post I ever made on this blog; I had been reading Pharyngula for…. forever on my phone’s RSS feed and thus hadn’t bothered with the comments for quite some time. I took issue with a single aspect of Chris’s argument, seeing it as somewhat hypocritical, and thought that some constructive criticism might be appreciated.

    Needless to say, I was wrong. Right out the gate I was accused of being a misogynist troll, and my post (whose most offensive word was “ridiculous”) was given a warning while replies calling me an idiot, liar, or “fuckwit” went unmoderated. Once that label had been applied, it seemed that no amount of politeness, candor or levity could remove it. All this was in spite of the “three comments” rule, which basically asks that new commenters be treated in the exact opposite manner that I was. After a few rounds, Chris stepped in and said “your attempts to make this thread all about you end now. Final warning.”

    Seeing as making the thread all about me had never even crossed my mind, I wasn’t sure how to take that. The most obvious interpretation was that Chris thought that I was referencing myself too much in my comments, but I honestly didn’t think he would be thoughtless enough to threaten someone for using the words “I” and “me” too much in responses to what were almost entirely attacks on his character, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked him to clarify. He didn’t, he instead ignored me, and then later referenced my question as “a marvel of clueless trolldom”. Chris, if you’re reading this, I hope that wasn’t representative of your behavior.

    There is no justification for the kind of absolute contempt I was treated with. I wouldn’t be surprised if others resorted to trolling as retribution for being handled in such a cynical and flagrantly unfair manner. Instead, I just withdrew myself from the situation, and this is my first post since.

    This “with us or against us” attitude is stifling growth and productivity, and is almost certainly responsible for a good chunk of the ire FtB draws. There seems to be a common view here that any argument advanced in favor of feminism is automatically above criticism, reason be damned. The merits of an idea have no bearing on the merits of an argument for that idea. If you drive away everyone who’s willing to think critically about your cause, you’ll be left with nothing but sycophants and the intellectual integrity of your movement will crumble.

    There needs to be two major changes in the thinking here. First, you need to keep in mind that sexism, like religion, is endemic to our society, and grilled into us from birth from almost every possible angle. Most people are going to be anti-feminist simply because of the environment they live in; they are misguided, not “cockroaches”. Most of us would never have been able to escape the shackles of faith without some outside help, and the same goes for sexism. Imagine if you were a religious person, and every atheist you talked to simply dismissed you as asinine or morally repugnant, without ever explaining to you why you were wrong; you would probably just decide that atheists were assholes and double down on your beliefs. I know many here are quick to dismiss the importance of tone, but this is about more than that; it’s about substance and fairness. There is nothing more infuriating to a well-meaning person than to be disregarded as unworthy, especially when they are implied to be dishonest. People are complex and capable of change; determining their worth by holding them all to a litmus test which they are culturally inclined to fail is just as exclusionary as the bigotries we combat every day.

    Second, the taboo on criticizing any aspect of feminism has to go. We are all human, we all make mistakes and feminism is a human endeavor, subject to all the fallacies and biases of any other worthy cause. As skeptics, we have to remember to hold nothing sacred, to strive against the very idea of the sacred. If you’re having a gut reaction against this suggestion, you may want to reexamine your dedication to critical thought. That same kind of unquestioning faith and self-righteous furor is what causes christianity to continuously fragment into ever smaller sects. If we are unwilling to find the flaws in our own thinking, you can bet our ideological opponents will.

    Like I said at the beginning, I’m only human, and don’t purport to have a monopoly on the truth, so any substantive criticisms of my post are welcome. In fact, if anyone has any advice on improving my ability to communicate here, I’ll be happy to hear them (at the very least I know my formatting is horrible). Also, if you happen to agree with anything I’ve said, please let me know; only receiving negative feedback is really depressing. PZ, if you see this, I’d greatly appreciate your input.

    On the other hand, I’ll be ignoring the (seemingly inevitable) cheeky quips and base insults; make them if it makes you feel better, I really don’t care. I’m sure some will just see this as a long whine about how I was mistreated, and in part it is, but that doesn’t preclude it from making valid points. I’m also going to disregard responses which contain attacks on my character; trying to defend my motivations to someone who’s already made up their mind about me is a transparent waste of time, especially on the internet. Who someone is behind the keyboard is ultimately unknowable, give me the benefit of the doubt, let the arguments stand on their own merits, and I will do the same. If you scan someone’s comments looking for reasons to be distrustful, you’ll be sure to find them.

  35. 535
    John Morales

    Verbose’s initial comment:

    [1] In short, I see feminism as a movement aimed at representing women, and women’s issues and achieving rights for women, while usually presenting itself as a movement aimed at equality in general. [2] Philosophically, it argues from the perspective of women while considering the perspective of men to be, at least, already covered and so not really required in the analysis. [3] This follows from a lot of the presumptions about patriarchy, from the very dramatic idea that patriarchy is just the oppression of women by men to the less dramatic idea that patriarchy was a system set up by men for men. [4] Ultimately, feminism both as a movement and as a philosophy settles into the purported female perspective while claiming to be all about equality as a whole.

    1. There is no dichotomy there; what is problematic about that?

    2. Seeking socio-cultural gender equality is not a matter of perspective, it’s an aspiration, so in what sense is that an argument from the perspective of women and not of men?

    3. There is no such presumption, but rather acknowledgement of social and cultural realities and their historical context and basis.

    4. One reason for your logorrhoea is your penchant for redundancy; here you merely reiterate 1 and 2.

    (How you imagine PZ employs a “female perspective” in his feminism is beyond me, though purported it certainly is — but it is you who purports it)

  36. 536
    Matt Penfold

    Needless to say, I was wrong. Right out the gate I was accused of being a misogynist troll, and my post (whose most offensive word was “ridiculous”) was given a warning while replies calling me an idiot, liar, or “fuckwit” went unmoderated. Once that label had been applied, it seemed that no amount of politeness, candor or levity could remove it. All this was in spite of the “three comments” rule, which basically asks that new commenters be treated in the exact opposite manner that I was. After a few rounds, Chris stepped in and said “your attempts to make this thread all about you end now. Final warning.”

    You seem to have forgotten to apologise for your behaviour, and once again you seem to be wanting to make this all about you.

    If you want people to treat you better, try admitting you fucked up the first time rather than posting something that amounts to nothing more than a long whine about how mean everyone is to you.

    Now do you want to take the chance to apologise, and start again ?

  37. 537
    XA-26483

    @ tigtog

    Post 533 was an excellent explanation of patriarchy, it needs to be in a wiki.

  38. 538
    maddog1129

    Excellent suggestion, Maureen. ;) That’s the kind of thinking we need!

  39. 539
    Nepenthe

    @XA-26483

    “The Pharygula community is broken and here’s why” is not relevant to the question “Why are you anti-feminist?”

    In other words, this thread? Not about you.

  40. 540
    chigau (違う)

    Everyone think of responding to XA-26483 should first go to the linked thread and read their contributions.

  41. 541
    maddog1129

    My last (#539) was to Maureen Brian @ #532. I didn’t see the intervening posts when I was composing my reply. Sorry!

  42. 542
    John Morales

    XA-26483: Such a long comment to whine about how you feel you’ve been mistreated and to express your concern about the approach here.

    Leaving aside your sorrow about your treatment here, this is the nub of your concern:

    If you drive away everyone who’s willing to think critically about your cause, you’ll be left with nothing but sycophants and the intellectual integrity of your movement will crumble.

    Did you somehow imagine this (and only this) place is where feminism is advocated and discussed, and that it’s the seat of the movement?

    Second, the taboo on criticizing any aspect of feminism has to go.

    You really are a special type: you post that in a post explicitly seeking criticism!

    (heh)

  43. 543
    Inaji

    XA-26483:

    Needless to say, I was wrong.

    Yes, you were wrong and you were told that, repeatedly. Apparently, your insight stops short of your nose. It would seem you paid no attention whatsoever to the shit you were saying. That sort of thing matters here, which you would know as a ‘long time reader’ of Pharyngula.

    Now, here you are again, attempting to make a whole thread all about you. In case it escaped your notice, this thread is not called “Open Whinefest about the Pharyngula Meanies™”. Either discuss feminism or leave.

    If you continue your attempt to derail this thread, I will send an alert to PZ.

  44. 544
    XA-26483

    You seem to have forgotten to apologise for your behaviour, and once again you seem to be wanting to make this all about you.

    If you want people to treat you better, try admitting you fucked up the first time rather than posting something that amounts to nothing more than a long whine about how mean everyone is to you.

    Now do you want to take the chance to apologise, and start again ?

    Imagine you walk into a bar, and as you go to sit down, a song comes on that you don’t like. You say something to the effect of “not this song again”, at which time half of the other patrons tackle you and proceed to pummel you brutally. You see a cop sitting across the room, and call out to him for help. He gets up, walks over, says “that was my favorite song, jerk”, and whacks you with his nightstick. Before they toss you on the sidewalk, they inform you that you’ll have to apologize for insulting their musical tastes before you’ll be allowed back.

    Also, I specifically addressed the “whine” objection near the bottom of my post.

  45. 545
    Inaji

    XA-26483:

    Imagine you walk into a bar

    Let’s not. You fucked up. Repeatedly. Now you’re here to do it all over again. Repeatedly. STOP NOW.

  46. 546
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    XA-numbers:
    This thread is not about you. If you really want to reharsh you past encounters, I would suggest you go to the thunderdome.

  47. 547
    XA-26483

    @ Nepenthe

    “The Pharygula community is broken and here’s why” is not relevant to the question “Why are you anti-feminist?”

    In other words, this thread? Not about you.

    That’s….. actually a decent point, though I do think it’s an issue which needs to be discussed (the community, not me, I do not want to be the subject of discussion).

    Is there a more appropriate thread for this?

  48. 548
    Nepenthe

    XA-26483

    And that analogy would be totally apt if that bar were a well-known Billy Joel Fan Club meeting place, you’d previously observed patrons being tossed out after making derogatory remarks about the artistry of “Piano Man”, and then chimed in with “‘We Didn’t Light the Fire’ is a profoundly ahistorical feel-good bit of pap!”

    Bah. *takes a bite of grass*

  49. 549
    Matt Penfold

    Imagine you walk into a bar, and as you go to sit down, a song comes on that you don’t like. You say something to the effect of “not this song again”, at which time half of the other patrons tackle you and proceed to pummel you brutally. You see a cop sitting across the room, and call out to him for help. He gets up, walks over, says “that was my favorite song, jerk”, and whacks you with his nightstick. Before they toss you on the sidewalk, they inform you that you’ll have to apologize for insulting their musical tastes before you’ll be allowed back.

    Not a good analogy. Nor was it an apology, which is what you need to be offering.

    Also, I specifically addressed the “whine” objection near the bottom of my post.

    Nope, I see no apology from you at the end or anywhere else. I see an attempt to make this thread all about you, once again. I do have suggestion in that regard. Stop being such a self-centred arrogant arsehole. And learn to write more concisely. And stop spouting bullshit.

    Let me summarise.

    1. Stop being an arrogant fucker.
    2. Stop being a long-winded fucker.
    3. Stop being a dishonest fucker.

  50. 550
    John Morales

    [meta]

    XA-26483, you’re supposed to be criticising feminism or else criticising its criticism, that being the subject of the post. This is a topical thread, not an open one.

    If all you want to do is complain about your treatment, go to the open thread specifically set up for it: The Thunderdome.

    (bah)

  51. 551
    Inaji

    tigtog, excellent post. For those who came late and missed it, I recommend reading Cyranothe2nd’s post here. His insights are well worth reading and he has a book recommendation on how manhood has been socially constructed.

  52. 552
    silomowbray, sans frottage pour la douche

    @XA #545

    Your bar story is NOT FUCKING ANALOGOUS.

    What happened is you walked into a room where people are having a very serious discussion about Human Fucking Rights. You interrupt and demand attention, then say, “Hey, let’s talk about me and what I want.” Everybody tells you to piss up a rope.

    What happens now is up to you. I recommend staying quiet and listening to what is actually being said and learning, or leaving.

  53. 553
    Matt Penfold

    Is there a more appropriate thread for this?

    I thought you claimed to be a long-time reader. So how come you do not know of the Thunderdome ?

  54. 554
    Inaji

    Matt:

    I thought you claimed to be a long-time reader.

    Gotta love those “long time readers”. They are outed so easily.

    Bah.

    /derail

  55. 555
    silomowbray, sans frottage pour la douche

    I so cleverly wrote:

    [...] a very serious discussion about Human Fucking Rights.

    I just re-read that and realized how it could be read to mean something entirely different. This is my embarrassed face.

  56. 556
    chigau (違う)

    constructive criticism
    This would be a better place to discuss your issues with Pharyngula.
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/15/thunderdome-12/

  57. 557
    Nick Gotts

    I despise feminism because I am an avowed Nietzchean. – Skeptic dude

    Hmm, an “avowed Nietzchean” who can’t even spell “Nietzschean” correctly.

  58. 558
    consciousness razor

    Needless to say, I was wrong.

    Do you understand why you were wrong?

    Right out the gate I was accused of being a misogynist troll, and my post (whose most offensive word was “ridiculous”) was given a warning while replies calling me an idiot, liar, or “fuckwit” went unmoderated.

    The words don’t matter. You went out of your way to defend misogynist assholes, because you thought it was “hypocritical” and “unfair” to connect them to someone who committed violence. That’s offensive, no matter which words you use.

    So, no, it’s not clear to me that you understand why you were wrong.

    Second, the taboo on criticizing any aspect of feminism has to go.

    As John Morales pointed out, there is no such taboo. Thus it does not need to go anywhere. It can stay where it is, in the fantasyland you dreamed up while deciding you needed to whine about something else.

    I notice you haven’t given any criticism of feminism so far anyway. What criticism would you offer, if you actually paid attention to what the thread is and decided to remain on topic?

    Imagine you walk into a bar, and as you go to sit down, a song comes on that you don’t like. You say something to the effect of “not this song again”, at which time half of the other patrons tackle you and proceed to pummel you brutally. You see a cop sitting across the room, and call out to him for help. He gets up, walks over, says “that was my favorite song, jerk”, and whacks you with his nightstick. Before they toss you on the sidewalk, they inform you that you’ll have to apologize for insulting their musical tastes before you’ll be allowed back.

    Why are we imagining this? Because it’s somehow like what happened to you in that other thread? Why are we talking about that?

    Also, I specifically addressed the “whine” objection near the bottom of my post.

    So?

  59. 559
    XA-26483

    Gotta love those “long time readers”. They are outed so easily.

    Bah.

    Yes, my reluctance to have this discussion in the Thunderdome is proof that I’m a liar.

    Fine, re-posting to Thunderdome:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/15/thunderdome-12/comment-page-2/#comment-519091

  60. 560
    chigau (違う)

    I’m having some weird caching / refreshing issue.
    My #557 was meant for XA-26483 but since the suggestion has been made several times
    never mind

  61. 561
    Inaji

    Fine, re-posting to Thunderdome:

    Hallefuckinglujah.

  62. 562
    Verbose Stoic

    Maureen Brian (517):

    I’ll thank you for writing the post, but I’m not sure I get how it relates to what I’m saying, and adding your sentence at the end makes me less inclined to want to spend effort to figure it out. Let me at least address what you and Caine both seem to think important:

    A person who read Pharyngula regularly and for comprehension would have noticed that the feminists here have never to my knowledge explained the patriarchy as a conspiracy of all men against all women. We don’t say, “All men are this, that and the other sort of horrible.” We mention frequently the place feminism within the wider search for social justice and say what can be supported by the facts – that in industrialised societies white, straight, well-educated men are at an advantage, to the extent that others who do not fit the stereotype are hurt.

    This presumes that I’m a regular reader, or was referring to the feminists here. Neither’s probably the case. The statement I made about my being an anti-feminist who doesn’t seem to hate men? I was called that probably at least 15 years ago, if not longer, long before the topic was big here (if this even existed then). So I’m not basing it on you, and if assuming that I am is responsible for some of the reaction, then perhaps that might change. As for the last statement, I agree with it … to an extent. I said so even in the first comment. In some cases, they are, but in some cases they aren’t, and I also think that there is too much group thinking in that individuals who are white males are assumed to fit a certain category that gives them privilege even if it doesn’t.

    I think this is why I’m wondering what your comment has to do with what I said. Especially this last part:

    I don’t know why I bothered writing that. I very much doubt that it will outdo your capacity to buy into romantic drivel and to treat the whole of life as fiction. But I tried.

    This seems to imply that I thought in some way that the patriarchal system worked or was good. I think it sucked. But I think it really sucked for everyone, and was, in some ways, good for everyone. The problem with it is not that it sucked for one group or even more for one group — I already argued that in a capitalist society patriarchy was worse for women than for men — but that it was an overly restricted system that outlived its usefulness, and we need to move on to something better … but something that acknowledges as more than an aside the detriments patriarchy had for men. That’s the whole point on that, basically, and I don’t see the feminist analyses, even the ones in this thread, as really capturing that. And I will repeat here that I don’t claim to despise feminism either.

    Ichthyic (519):

    curious to know whether you think chivalry a good thing or bad?

    I’m guessing this was aimed at me, and my answer is two-fold. First, it’s hard to evaluate it outside of the overall social structure that it’s supporting. Second, there are some cases and some conditions where it would be good, and conditions and cases where it would be bad. However, because it is so restrictive I think we can do better than it to get the goods it might be able to bring in those rare cases where it is useful.

    Nepenthe (520):

    If the patriarchial view doesn’t represent the “male perspective”, whatever that is, what does? Why doesn’t the patriarchal view, made up of male-dominated religion, history, politics, academia, etc, represent the male perspective?

    Because the patriarchy wasn’t based on what men really wanted, but on what it thought men ought to want to preserve its system. The patriarchal attitudes reflect men no more than they reflected women. They define masculinity in a certain way that resonated with some men but were impositions on others, just as they defined femininity in that way that react the same way for women. Ultimately, the whole point of patriarchy was to define sharply defined roles and responsibilities, even if the people themselves didn’t like it. Thus, the ideal perspective of how life is for men doesn’t reflect their actual perspectives and experiences, and so you cannot assume that if you understand what patriarchy says about male perspective that that is really the perspective and experience of most men.

    So, the Civil Rights Movement did, even in your reckoning accomplish things.

    Didn’t I concede that long ago? Heck, I’ll even concede that feminism accomplished some things if it will make you happy [grin].

    Care to share. I mean, we are doing things wrong and all. I’d love to know what we’re supposed to be doing, both feminists and anti-racists.

    In my opinion (and yes, Nerd, this is opinion), you can’t create an equal society from a bunch of splintered groups mired in a group perspective. What you need is a movement dedicated to including all perspectives, including those of the purported dominant group(s) on an equal playing field, and given equal time. Perhaps secular humanism can achieve this, but I’m not as convinced of that because I think their philosophical underpinnings are mostly unexamined. But I’d like a move away from splinter groups and into an overall perspective. However, I could be wrong, but so far it doesn’t look like the splintered approach is working that well.

    It’s better to be a big winner of a hard game than for everyone to be equal playing a game where no one wins or loses. Why do people run marathons, or play football? Why do the FLDS patriarchs throw the “Lost Boys” out of the community.

    Of course, if only a small portion of the people win and the rest die, that usually puts a damper on that sort of competitive spirit. I do not deny that competitive drive, but would note that under patriarchy, women competed amongst themselves as well … but didn’t have to do it by explicitly risking their lives (again, except maybe if you count childbirth).

    Gnumann+ (522):

    If you agree that chivalry is a core value of patriarchy, why and how the fuck do you use chivalry as an argument towards your stance that there is no patriarchy?

    Since I never argued that there was no patriarchy, it would be a bit impossible for me to use chivalry as an argument towards a stance that I don’t have. My argument is that the analysis of patriarchy as even primarily being beneficial to men and detrimental to women seems out of whack given the severe detriments handed to men under it.

    consciousness razor (525):

    . Even if some people do it frequently, using teleological language inappropriately has no relevance to whether or not women do still get treated unequally.

    I do think that women still get treated unequally, and thus the rest of your comment is not relevant. My point mostly is that men also get treated unequally, and so the focus on whether women get treated unequally seems to downplay and ignore that, and treat it as a secondary concern in feminism, and that’s what I oppose.

    Socio-gen (528):

    Patriarchy is a system which privileges men above women, which is perpetuated by the privileged — as well as by some of the oppressed group, who seek the approval (and some of the benefits) of the privileged group. It is a system set up to benefit (overall) members of the privileged group because they are the ones who designed it.

    It’s this analysis based on purported “privilege” that I’m disagreeing with, based on concerns that even unconsciously there are severe detriments that the supposedly privileged group could have designed out.

    Patriarchy, as a “system set up for men by men” by its very nature oppresses women by limiting or eliminating ways for women to benefit from that system. Now, while some (early?) feminist works (citations, please) might have described patriarchy as a “cabal” purposefully intent on oppressing women, that is not a common belief among feminists.

    And chivalric attitudes would be one of the ways in which, as feminists argue, patriarchy hurts men, too.

    I also never called it a cabal — that was I think Sally Strange’s translation of my comments, not a direct quote — and my point does not rely on it being conscious, as I have said a number of times. Additionally, I conceded the “patriarchy hurts men, too” point but pointed out that it treats the harm to men as a secondary point, which only furthers my claim that feminism works too much directly from the female perspective.

    Anthony K. (531):

    Who? What? People put together religions to provide a stable society?

    No, they put together the religious principles at least in part to preserve the stability of the organization, a microcosm of a society.

    Wait, people who don’t benefit from religion leave?

    Well, that’s it for the atheist community then. Stand down, folks.

    Which means that the people who stay in the religion either do benefit more than they lose, or they believe that they will benefit more if they stick with it. You’re kinda drifting here; let’s see if we can get back on track …

    Structures are put together with a mind towards getting the benefits and the sacrifices you have to make to get them?

    I’m having difficulty understanding what you’re driving at, but you seem to me to be assuming a lot of purpose.

    I’m pretty sure that that “with a mind towards” part was taking on from your comment, thus it would be the same amount of purpose. That’s how I mean it, anyway …

    You’re still missing the boat: when people talk about the patriarchy, they’re talking about institutionalised behaviours, norms, practices, beliefs, etc. that perpetuate themselves through both women and men, but generally work to disenfranchise and deny autonomy to women more than it does men.

    That men also suffer its effects isn’t disputable (feminists acknowledge this in the phrase “Patriarchy hurts men too”), but it isn’t an argument that it doesn’t exist, any more than the argument that religions fuck over their own adherents (unequally, of course) is an argument that religious privilege doesn’t exist.

    Why do so many people say that I’m saying that patriarchy doesn’t exist? I agree with pretty much your first paragraph, and said so. Repeatedly. I think, though, that as at least Western nations put the legal safeguards in place to move from what we have now to a post-patriarchal society means redefining the roles and society, and that requires the perspective of both men and women, and a clear understanding of the benefits and detriments of each part of patriarchy.

    tigtog (533):

    You have an interesting theory there, but I don’t really buy it. I think you’re collapsing a whole bunch of things together and aren’t being careful enough to look for things that are co-opted to serve other purposes.

    John Morales (536):

    1) If you focus too much on one perspective you end up coming up with ideas that make sense from yours and are equal from yours but don’t match the reality of other people. It can only work if you never have to actually care about the perspective of others.

    2) Again, they analyze the structures from how they appear from how women are placed in those structures with the assumption that the dominant literature has already analyzed how men are placed in those structures, which is false.

    3) I disagree with that part.

    4) Of course, since the numbering is yours and not mine all I was doing was summarizing what I had said, which is hardly redundant.

    And arguing that a man can’t argue from a female perspective is the kind of odd sexism that makes people dislike feminism.

    Anyway, I’ll only be around for a little longer, and then I’ll be off for the night, and considering how quickly these comments move it’s unlikely I’ll reply again after tonight. I just wanted to express my own view, right or wrong, and appreciate the debate I’ve received.

  63. 563
    Ichthyic

    Providing a path for ambitious men to climb the social ladder to powerful positions so long as they play their part in marshalling other men to serve the status quo and punishing/shaming the men who refuse to comply with hierarchical expectations of masculinity was another early innovation serving to concentrate power in the hands of the few (by making talented men more likely to wish to join the elite rather than overthrow them).

    so… it was a giant pyramid scheme, literally involving pyramids at some points.

  64. 564
    Nick Gotts

    First, you need to keep in mind that sexism, like religion, is endemic to our society, and grilled into us from birth from almost every possible angle. – XA-26483

    Gosh, no-one here has ever though of that! Thanks for your profound insight, Xa-26483!!!

    Oh, wait. That point is a commonplace at Pharyngula, and has been made at least twice in this very thread (#168, #324). What was that you were saying about being a long-time reader again?

  65. 565
    DLC

    XA, your concern has been noted, but if you’re been lurking here that long you should know that the comments at Pharyngula is more akin to a bar brawl than a tea party, even though there seems to be no end of Mad Hatters around.

    I’ve read through the comments and have yet to see any of the things PZ asked for. Come on, MRAs. time to step up.

  66. 566
    Ichthyic

    First, it’s hard to evaluate it outside of the overall social structure that it’s supporting.

    right.

    Second, there are some cases and some conditions where it would be good, and conditions and cases where it would be bad. However, because it is so restrictive I think we can do better than it to get the goods it might be able to bring in those rare cases where it is useful.

    huh?

  67. 567
    Inaji

    VS:

    This seems to imply that I thought in some way that the patriarchal system worked or was good. I think it sucked.

    No. For someone who writes so much and expects everyone to comprehend your writing, your own comprehension skills are severely lacking.

    Here’s the short form for you: you seem to think patriarchy/kyriarchy is a thing of the past. It isn’t.

  68. 568
    David Marjanović

    Post 533 was an excellent explanation of patriarchy, it needs to be in a wiki.

    Seconded.

  69. 569
    consciousness razor

    The problem with it is not that it sucked for one group or even more for one group — I already argued that in a capitalist society patriarchy was worse for women than for men — but that it was an overly restricted system that outlived its usefulness, and we need to move on to something better … but something that acknowledges as more than an aside the detriments patriarchy had for men. That’s the whole point on that, basically, and I don’t see the feminist analyses, even the ones in this thread, as really capturing that.

    Less verbosely: “but what about teh menz?”

    Goddamn, this shit gets old. I say that as a dude, VS. It gets fucking old.

  70. 570
    Inaji

    Everyone, XA-26483 went to Thunderdome as requested – please respond there.

  71. 571
    Inaji

    CR:

    Less verbosely: “but what about teh menz?”

    I haven’t been counting, but PHMT has been brought up more than once, as has the fact that feminism does indeed also fight for men’s rights. At this point, however, I’m feeling like bashing my head into a wall because that would be more productive than attempting to get through the wall VS has constructed.

  72. 572
    Verbose Stoic

    Caine (568):

    Here’s the short form for you: you seem to think patriarchy/kyriarchy is a thing of the past. It isn’t.

    But I don’t think that. I repeatedly have said that we need to move on to make it such. So I don’t see where you get that from.

    consciousness razor (570):

    Less verbosely: “but what about teh menz?”

    Goddamn, this shit gets old. I say that as a dude, VS. It gets fucking old.

    Aside from the fact that that’s normally a derisive term, it’s probably an accurate description of my position, and why I’m an anti-feminist. Which is what P.Z. Myers asked for. That you don’t feel the same way about that as me doesn’t, in fact, mean anything about my position. So, even if it is old … it is my old, and that’s all I’m talking about here.

  73. 573
    Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human.

    Second, there are some cases and some conditions where it would be good

    What case and/or condition would be good for a philosophy that elevated women to a goal, a prize to be won, a sexual conquest? A philosophy which relegated to women to being a life-support system for their vagina and womb? A philosophy which allowed a night or member of the nobility to rape the peasants with impunity but could only conquer a woman’s vagina through romance, deceit, lies, and false identities (read some of the romantic poetry of the chivalric culture)?

  74. 574
    Nick Gotts

    Additionally, I conceded the “patriarchy hurts men, too” point but pointed out that it treats the harm to men as a secondary point, which only furthers my claim that feminism works too much directly from the female perspective. – Verbose Stoic

    Er, no. It’s a realist perspective. (I’m using “realist” in the everyday sense of “taking appropriate note of reality”.)

    note that under patriarchy, women competed amongst themselves as well … but didn’t have to do it by explicitly risking their lives (again, except maybe if you count childbirth).

    Why would you not? Given that many, if not most women had until recently no choice about whether they risked their lives in childbirth, but were most certainly judged against each other with respect to the number and sex of the children they produced.

  75. 575
    Verbose Stoic

    Caine (572):

    I haven’t been counting, but PHMT has been brought up more than once, as has the fact that feminism does indeed also fight for men’s rights. At this point, however, I’m feeling like bashing my head into a wall because that would be more productive than attempting to get through the wall VS has constructed.

    I’ve addressed both, including in the original comment. If you can demonstrate that in general feminism works for men’s rights and brings up PHMT as more than simply as an aside or as a way to help get women rights, then I might rethink my position. My experience is not that.

  76. 576
    Inaji

    But I don’t think that. I repeatedly have said that we need to move on to make it such. So I don’t see where you get that from.

    Let’s see…chivalry.

  77. 577
    Nick Gotts

    But I don’t think that. I repeatedly have said that we need to move on to make it such. So I don’t see where you get that from. – Verbose Stoic

    Could it possibly be anything to do with the way you slip into talking about patriarchy as if it was in the past? At #563:

    This seems to imply that I thought in some way that the patriarchal system worked or was good. I think it sucked. But I think it really sucked for everyone, and was, in some ways, good for everyone.

  78. 578
    consciousness razor

    But I don’t think that. I repeatedly have said that we need to move on to make it such. So I don’t see where you get that from.

    Read your own drivel, with my emphasis:

    This seems to imply that I thought in some way that the patriarchal system worked or was good. I think it sucked.

    What time is it? Is it the case that it isn’t “worked” or “was good” or “sucked” right now?

    Aside from the fact that that’s normally a derisive term, it’s probably an accurate description of my position, and why I’m an anti-feminist. Which is what P.Z. Myers asked for. That you don’t feel the same way about that as me doesn’t, in fact, mean anything about my position. So, even if it is old … it is my old, and that’s all I’m talking about here.

    What do you make of the fact that it’s a strawman? Do strawmen age well, like wine or cheese?

  79. 579
    Nepenthe

    @Verbose Stoic

    (NB, I’m only responding to things you’ve addressed to me to keep this reasonably short; don’t take that as an indication that I agree with or have no questions about the rest of your post.)

    Because the patriarchy wasn’t based on what men really wanted, but on what it thought men ought to want to preserve its system. [emphasis mine]

    Are you implying that patriarchy is an independent being with it’s own ideas? If not, what on earth does this mean? How do you know what men really wanted?

    I could be wrong, but so far it doesn’t look like the splintered approach is working that well.

    Again, as opposed to what?

    Of course, if only a small portion of the people win and the rest die, that usually puts a damper on that sort of competitive spirit.

    You assert this based on what evidence? (I’ll even go for examples.) There certainly are plenty of “games” in which only a small portion of people win and the rest die. Do you know what happened to the losers of ōllamaliztli? Are you familiar with the FLDS practice I gave as an example? What on earth do you think war is?

    under patriarchy, women competed amongst themselves as well

    How?

    And again, bringing it around, what, to Verbose Stoic, does a proper equality movement look like? Please be as specific as you can.

  80. 580
    Inaji

    My experience is not that.

    So? Three things, right off the bat – workplace rights, parental leave and daycare. Feminism has worked hard for them and continues to work hard for them – this includes all workers and parents.

  81. 581
    David Marjanović

    People, XA-26483 has explicitly said that they used to not read the comments, because they were reading only the RSS feed of Pharyngula on a phone. It’s not hypocritical of them to behave like an obvious n00b.

    XA-26483, here’s an example of you needing to learn, young padawan:

    Imagine you walk into a bar, and as you go to sit down, a song comes on that you don’t like. You say something to the effect of “not this song again”, at which time half of the other patrons tackle you and proceed to pummel you brutally. You see a cop sitting across the room, and call out to him for help. He gets up, walks over, says “that was my favorite song, jerk”, and whacks you with his nightstick. Before they toss you on the sidewalk, they inform you that you’ll have to apologize for insulting their musical tastes before you’ll be allowed back.

    1) Insults aren’t comparable to violence.
    2) There’s a strong tradition here of distinguishing what people say from how they say it, and to ignore the latter. Complaints of “you’ve insulted me” are highly likely to be met with “duh, you deserved it, what’s your point?”.

  82. 582
    Nick Gotts

    Well, I’m off to bed. After nearly 600 comments, we have precisely one (1) anti-feminist who has made a serious effort to explain why they reject feminism, and all his stoical verbosity could be summed up in the little phrase:

    What about teh menz?/b>

  83. 583
    John Morales

    Verbose:

    1) If you focus too much on one perspective you end up coming up with ideas that make sense from yours and are equal from yours but don’t match the reality of other people. It can only work if you never have to actually care about the perspective of others.

    2) Again, they analyze the structures from how they appear from how women are placed in those structures with the assumption that the dominant literature has already analyzed how men are placed in those structures, which is false.

    3) I disagree with that part.

    4) Of course, since the numbering is yours and not mine all I was doing was summarizing what I had said, which is hardly redundant.

    [5] And arguing that a man can’t argue from a female perspective is the kind of odd sexism that makes people dislike feminism.

    1. So your problem is not with feminism per se, but rather with your apprehension of its presented perspective? That is, you think it does not present as it should given its acknowledged goals?

    2. Again: seeking socio-cultural gender equality is not a matter of perspective, it’s an aspiration; and it’s not merely “a seeming” when (for example) promiscuous men are “sowing oats” and promiscuous women are “sluts”.

    3. So you disagree that the patriarchy (kyriarchy is the current and extended concept) is not based upon presumptions, but rather upon an acknowledgement of social and cultural realities and their historical context and basis. Why?

    4. So, you were summarising your summary (if it was not a summary already, whence your opening “In short”?).

    5. But I made no such argument; you claimed that “feminism both as a movement and as a philosophy settles into the purported female perspective” and I alluded to PZ (an acknowledged feminist) not doing so — that being a counter-example to your claim.

  84. 584
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    @535:
    Your criticism about the way you were treated in the past, however right or wrong it was, is off topic. This thread is about specific complaints about feminism. Copy/paste that in the Thunderdome if you want a response.

  85. 585
    Nepenthe

    Given that many, if not most women had until recently no choice about whether they risked their lives in childbirth

    Come on Nick. You know this stuff. The female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down. Childbirth can totally be ignored in a reasoned analysis of gender relations.

  86. 586
    David Marjanović

    Hooray, zero and lowercase O are now completely identical.

    *steam*

  87. 587
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    Verbiose Stoic:

    I’ve addressed both, including in the original comment. If you can demonstrate that in general feminism works for men’s rights and brings up PHMT as more than simply as an aside or as a way to help get women rights, then I might rethink my position. My experience is not that.

    Normally, a request for homework aid would give you nothing but scorn from me. The examples are readily available if you bother to look. Since it’s Yuletide, I’ll be overly generous and give you this little example from my neck of the woods:
    http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/bld/documents/propositions-and-reports/white-papers-/2008-2009/report-no-8-2008-2009-to-the-storting.html?id=556148

    This is a policy document, given under a feminist minister(only a summary is available in English though). It is largely representative for modern feminism, which is actually far more concerned with men’s rights (small letters) than the capital letter Men Rights groups.

  88. 588
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    If you can demonstrate that in general feminism works for men’s rights and brings up PHMT as more than simply as an aside or as a way to help get women rights, then I might rethink my position. My experience is not that.

    It’s not up to us to prove anything to you sophist. You are making the claims. It is up to you provide the evidence to back your claims, or you shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, not mental wanking, where reality, not your wishes, rule.

  89. 589
    Nick Gotts

    People, XA-26483 has explicitly said that they used to not read the comments, because they were reading only the RSS feed of Pharyngula on a phone. It’s not hypocritical of them to behave like an obvious n00b. – David M.

    That’s if you believe hir. But even if you do, where does xe get off then telling everyone here what they “need to keep in mind”? As here:

    First, you need to keep in mind that sexism, like religion, is endemic to our society, and grilled into us from birth from almost every possible angle.

    Now I really am off to bed!

  90. 590
    Inaji

    Nepenthe:

    You know this stuff. The female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.

    I have yet to tire of this explanation. Who knew we females are, in reality, Sebacean?*
     
    *Farscape reference.

  91. 591
    Nepenthe

    @Verbose Stoic

    Do you identify yourself as “anti-gay rights movement” and/or “anti-civil rights movement”? Why or why not?

  92. 592
    Nepenthe

    Caine! Why are you giving away all our secrets? Next you’ll be telling them about the venom glands and the hidden teeth!

  93. 593
    Inaji

    Nepenthe:

    Caine! Why are you giving away all our secrets?

    Ooops.

    Next you’ll be telling them about the venom glands and the hidden teeth!

    Never! :crosses tentacles:

  94. 594
    Arren ›‹ neverbound

    @ Verbose Stoic

    But I don’t think that [patriarchy is a thing of the past].

    Oh, I dunno — maybe it’s the fact that you explicitly referred to it in the past tense, repeatedly:

    This seems to imply that I thought in some way that the patriarchal system worked or was good. I think it sucked. But I think it really sucked for everyone, and was, in some ways, good for everyone.

    I guess when one labors so stoically to erect such towering (if ramshackle) figurative walls of pontification, it’s difficult to keep track of trifling details….. like, oh, what one actually said an hour or so ago…..

  95. 595
    David Marjanović

    where does xe get off then telling everyone here what they “need to keep in mind”?

    Being a noob, they could be so used to being the smartest, best-educated person in the chatroom that they never expected that not to be the case here. While careless, it would be understandable.

    Alternatively, it could be a clumsy way of expressing “keep in mind that I know that…”.

    Or, of course, they could of course be a disingenuous fuckwit. I think it’s too early to tell yet, but we’ll probably find out soon enough.

  96. 596
    allegro

    I really have been a long-time reader of Pharyngula though this is my first post. As a woman, feminist, and scientist (now mostly retired), I just want to say two things:

    1. Y’all rock! Never change your take-no-prisoners tone, dedication to calling bullshit on anti-science, god-bothering nonsense, and the fight for fairness and the inclusion of all in science and society in general. I love you guys and thank PZ for this forum that has made this delightful community thrive.

    2. Verbose Stoic, you’re an idiot. Of your many word-salad posts, little of which made anything resembling sense, the only thing you managed to communicate in my eyes is that you’re an MRA who hates feminism because men haven’t given women the permission to seek equality. Well, fuck that shit.

    That is all. :)

  97. 597
    consciousness razor

    People, XA-26483 has explicitly said that they used to not read the comments, because they were reading only the RSS feed of Pharyngula on a phone. It’s not hypocritical of them to behave like an obvious n00b.

    Okay, but either that isn’t true or some of XA’s claims are sweeping generalizations from one incident in one recent thread involving XA (even if we took XA’s own version as somehow unbiased). For example:

    This “with us or against us” attitude is stifling growth and productivity, and is almost certainly responsible for a good chunk of the ire FtB draws.

    What would XA know about what the prevailing attitude in the comments is, or what it effect it supposedly has, if XA doesn’t read the comments?

    There seems to be a common view here that any argument advanced in favor of feminism is automatically above criticism, reason be damned.

    Again, how does XA know about what “a common view here” is, without reading the comments?

  98. 598
    Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human.

    You know this stuff. The female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.

    Then why do Teh Wimmenz spend so much time whinging about access to safe abortions, access to birth control, and such? I mean, if y’all can just shut that stuff down, why come up with something as offensive as feminism? If you can control the baby making, you control everything, right?

    (THIS IS ATTEMPTED HUMOUR!!!! Though I think I just made a better argument against feminism than the ones who are actually trying. Hmmm.)

  99. 599
    Inaji

    David:

    Or, of course, they could of course be a disingenuous fuckwit. I think it’s too early to tell yet

    No, it is not. Not only do we have a recent thread of XA’s whines to go on, those whines referenced disliked behaviour on the part of the commentariat. Little hard to whine about that when you don’t read comments.

  100. 600
    Socio-gen, something something...

    VS:

    It’s this analysis based on purported “privilege” that I’m disagreeing with, based on concerns that even unconsciously there are severe detriments that the supposedly privileged group could have designed out.

    “‘Purported’ privilege”? You have absolutely no idea what privilege is, do you? Would you agree that, in general, whites have greater (unearned) privilege than do people of color? That whites are given benefit of the doubt which is not extended to people of color? That they are given (unconscious) preferential treatment in nearly every aspect of life?

    Now, let’s name some examples of male privilege:

    Elected officials are mostly men.
    Executives in the Fortune 500 are mostly men.
    High-ranking officers in the military are mostly men.
    The Supreme Court is mostly men.
    Members of STEM fields are mostly men.
    Members of highly-valued (lucrative) fields are mostly men.
    Men are not accused of being “shrill” or “irrational” if they raise their voices.
    Men are not asked “are you on the rag?” if they become angry.
    Men are not asked who will care for their children while they work.
    Men are not routinely discriminated against in hiring because of concerns that they may start a family.
    Men are not expected to leave work in order to pick up/care for sick children.
    Men are not expected to be targets of (or put up with) sexual harassment.
    Men are not given massive amounts of (contradictory) advice on how to prevent rape.
    Men do not have to worry that dressing in a certain manner will see them labeled as sluts.
    Men can choose to remain childless and not have that decision questioned.
    Etc., etc.

    You need to read this: The Male Privilege Checklist [PDF]

    Again, it is a system. A bureaucracy, if you will. It doesn’t matter if some men are disadvantaged within the system, as long as men overall benefit. As tigtog pointed out, it is a system of maintaining the status quo.

  101. 601
    David Marjanović

    Heh. Of course it’s 1 pm over here of course, and I should of course have gone to bed long ago…

  102. 602
    Inaji

    Ogvorbis:

    If you can control the baby making, you control everything, right?

    You’d damn well think so, especially as the baby making seems to have been some sort of competitive sport. Or something.

  103. 603
    Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human.

    You’d damn well think so, especially as the baby making seems to have been some sort of competitive sport. Or something.

    Damn. Saranac Big Moose Ale just came out my nose. Just a little bit. And it hurt.

  104. 604
    Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human.

    And Borkquote!

  105. 605
    Nepenthe

    the baby making seems to have been some sort of competitive sport.

    It totally is! And Mrs. Vassilyev won!

    And history has honored her by forgetting her name! Women, so lucky!

  106. 606
    maddog1129

    Caine in #571 beat me to it: parental leave for both parents, childcare, no fault dissolution of marriage, presumptive joint custody in family law (Calif law), are just a few of the socio-legal changes that have resulted.

  107. 607
    chigau (違う)

    .
    Elected officials are mostly men.
    Executives in the Fortune 500 are mostly men.
    High-ranking officers in the military are mostly men.
    The Supreme Court is mostly men.
    Members of STEM fields are mostly men.
    etc

    It’s a guy thing…

  108. 608
    David Marjanović

    or some of XA’s claims are sweeping generalizations from one incident in one recent thread

    They definitely are. Note to XA: that’s bad science, and we don’t like bad science.

    we have a recent thread of XA’s whines to go on

    Sorry, I missed that one.

    Men are not expected to be targets of (or put up with) sexual harassment.

    …so when they are victims anyway, they have so much shame and ridicule to fear that commonly they don’t come forth at all. This is one of many ways in which patriarchy hurts men, too.

  109. 609
    Socio-gen, something something...

    VS:

    Additionally, I conceded the “patriarchy hurts men, too” point but pointed out that it treats the harm to men as a secondary point, which only furthers my claim that feminism works too much directly from the female perspective.

    So…you’re saying that working from a female perspective (ie: what it means to be female in a gendered society and how that affects women) is the wrong way to look at how patriarchy hurts women in particular, but also hurts everyone?

    Do you understand that society is already set up to look at (and interpret) the world through the male perspective? That women’s perspective of society was — and continues to be — routinely ignored, dismissed, erased, or trivialized?

    I guess the Civil Rights movement should have looked at things from the white perspective, instead of focusing on the perspective of people of color and the harms done to them by the system?

  110. 610
    Verbose Stoic

    This will be my last message.

    For those who used my using the past tense in 563 to argue that I was saying that patriarchy doesn’t exist, in that same paragraph you had this:

    … and we need to move on to something better

    Which implies that it, or something like it, is still there. So, I think you’re reading far too much into my comment.

    Caine:

    Let’s see…chivalry.

    You haven’t read enough anti-feminist works if you think that that indicates an idea that patriarchy no longer exists. That’s a very explicit example of an underlying theme in patriarchy.

    consciousness razor:

    What do you make of the fact that it’s a strawman? Do strawmen age well, like wine or cheese?

    I don’t think it’s a strawman, and in general when it’s invoked it’s about a specific case, not in general as I’m using it here. Again, we may and will continue to disagree on this, but so far little has been said to discuss that, although I’ll move on to:

    Caine (581):

    So? Three things, right off the bat – workplace rights, parental leave and daycare. Feminism has worked hard for them and continues to work hard for them – this includes all workers and parents.

    Parental leave and daycare were pushed to primarily support women and allow them to work outside the home and get pregnant and not lose their jobs, meaning that again the benefit to men is secondary. I’m not sure what workplace rights you’re specifically referring to in your first point, and so can’t comment directly.

    Nepenthe (580(:

    Are you implying that patriarchy is an independent being with it’s own ideas? If not, what on earth does this mean? How do you know what men really wanted?

    No, I’m implying the rather uncontroversial implication that patriarchy is a set of social norms and structures that are generally imposed/conditioned into people through what they are taught as opposed to being a democratic reflection of what people really want. It is what is seen as being the way of things, and I argue that that applies to both men and women. And thus, I know in some sense what men really wanted in the same way we note that it wasn’t what women really wanted, by noting how many people were dissatisfied and chafed at its restrictions. Again, some men and some women liked the roles it outlined, but many found it too limiting … and it was that limitation that causes all the issues.

    Again, as opposed to what?

    Well, we might have to agree to disagree that anything else would work better, but I outlined what I thought would work better.

    You assert this based on what evidence? (I’ll even go for examples.) There certainly are plenty of “games” in which only a small portion of people win and the rest die. Do you know what happened to the losers of ōllamaliztli? Are you familiar with the FLDS practice I gave as an example? What on earth do you think war is?

    Um, considering that all of those were generally already in a patriarchal context, why do you think that they can be used as examples of contexts where people are willing to die for competition independent of the idea that that is how you get status in a culture? War is a particularly bad example because a lot of the recruitment was explicitly based on the idea of defending the weak and the womenfolk.

    How?

    Usually not in terms of violence, but in terms of desirability, usually to men. Someone else already talked about competition for number of children as well.

    586:

    Come on Nick. You know this stuff. The female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down. Childbirth can totally be ignored in a reasoned analysis of gender relations.

    Well, since I was the one who mentioned it — twice — as potential counter-examples, and the only reason I won’t reply to Nick about it is because it is a fair argument, this is a bit unfair and looks like it’s aimed at me.

    592:

    Do you identify yourself as “anti-gay rights movement” and/or “anti-civil rights movement”? Why or why not?

    Generally, no, because they don’t, to my mind, present themselves as aiming at more than just the rights for their group. Feminism has had a history of — as seen in this thread — presenting itself as being about equality in general, and I don’t think it is.

    So, I’m not anti-women’s rights, and if feminism really is that then perhaps I wouldn’t be an anti-feminist either.

    Gnumann+ (588):

    I tried to get the PDF and it said it was damaged. I bookmarked it and will try again later.

    And, that’s it. Thanks all.

  111. 611
    Inaji

    Nepenthe:

    It totally is! And Mrs. Vassilyev won!

    AUUUUGH! *Runs away screaming*

  112. 612
    Inaji

    I don’t think it’s a strawman

    Just because you don’t think so doesn’t make it so. You’ve been building straw structures with every damn overly long post.

    What every fucking thing you said boils down to this: “I’m anti-feminism because feminism does not focus on men as a primary concern and cause.”

  113. 613
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    Verbose stoic:

    I tried to get the PDF and it said it was damaged. I bookmarked it and will try again later.

    It works just fine on my iPad. The only problem seems to be that I lied. It’s not a summary, they translated the whole white paper (they usually don’t, and I assumed. Bad Gnumann!)

  114. 614
    Nepenthe

    Parental leave and daycare were pushed to primarily support women and allow them to work outside the home and get pregnant and not lose their jobs, meaning that again the benefit to men is secondary.

    Yeah Caine, it’s only okay if the action is intended explicitly to benefit men. If it is intended to benefit women, but also benefits men, that’s divisive.

    Maybe we should re-brand Affirmative Action as the “Automatic Black Friend Program” for White people. Gay marriage can be the “Homos have miserable sexless lives” initiative. Abortion rights can be called “No Child Support for You, Dude Who Hates Condoms”.

  115. 615
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    Generally, no, because they don’t, to my mind, present themselves as aiming at more than just the rights for their group. Feminism has had a history of — as seen in this thread — presenting itself as being about equality in general, and I don’t think it is.

    So, I’m not anti-women’s rights, and if feminism really is that then perhaps I wouldn’t be an anti-feminist either.

    This is something the 20-year-old me could have said. Of course, the 20-year-old me was no stranger to arguments from ignorance.

  116. 616
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Verbose Stoic:
    I think one of the mistakes you make is thinking that patriarchy is a concept created whole cloth with a bunch of inviolable rules. I do not think you understand that no one controls patriarchy. No one can just “move on from it”. It is a deeply ingrained aspect of our culture. To fight it, people have to become aware of its effects and work to effect change where they can. Roe v. Wade was a change that lessened the impact of patriarchy (I hasten to add that I do not think that outcome was due to explicitly combatting patriarchy). If the glass ceiling were ever shattered, thst would be a blow to patriarchy. If Hollywood recognized how sexualized it treats women and worked to stop that portrayal, that would be a blow against patriarchy (that said, such a thing would be gradual, as Hollywood is not a monolithic entity). Not all battles against patriarchy need or will be huge battles like those I mentioned. Quieter battles, such as fighting against sexual harassment, fighting against silencing techniques, or working toward informing people that ‘pink is for girls’ is a harmful gender stereotype—each of these will chip away at patriarchy. No one can declare an end to patriarchy (and not be called an uninformed fool). The fight to end it is taking time, as its effects permeate society.

     
    Btw, please read up on privilege. You are either ignorant of it, or you are willfully deluding yourself about the existence of privilege.
    As an example, I live in Florida, a state where you can be fired for near anything. Given that homosexuality is not protected under the states anti discrimination laws, I can be fired for being gay. A heterosexual man doesn’t have that worry because their heterosexuality is a privilege.

  117. 617
    Inaji

    Nepenthe:

    Maybe we should re-brand Affirmative Action as the “Automatic Black Friend Program” for White people. Gay marriage can be the “Homos have miserable sexless lives” initiative. Abortion rights can be called “No Child Support for You, Dude Who Hates Condoms”.

    Yeah, and while we’re at it, change feminism to WRA, because that will automagically fix everything.

  118. 618
    Anthony K

    Come on Nick. You know this stuff. The female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.

    Of course, the male body does not, which is why it’s okay to fire a woman in Iowa because she’s too attractive to resist.

  119. 619
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    I don’t think it’s a strawman,

    Well, you’ve proven you have nothing but strawmen, so why should what you think (or rather persuppose) be of interest to us?

  120. 620
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Gosh, I thought the atmosphere at Pharyngula was driving people away. Didn’t seem to affect allegro.
    Comments like hers @597 are deeply appreciated.

  121. 621
    Inaji

    Anthony K:

    which is why it’s okay to fire a woman in Iowa because she’s too attractive to resist.

    “The question we must answer is … whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction,” Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote for the all-male high court.

    Such firings may not be fair, but they do not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the decision read, siding with a lower court.

    There isn’t a sigh large enough. Just. Fucking. Isn’t.

  122. 622
    Maureen Brian

    I am hearing voices from the past. We should stick to just promoting women’s rights, despite the fact that the majority of us live and work in mixed gender settings, because then either VS personally or The National Interest can tell us how, where and when we may campaign, how much time we may spend on it and what time we have to be back to make the tea.

    Of course, if there’s a war or a global recession we’ll just have to scuttle away, do what we are told and wait for the signal that it’s OK for us to think again. No way!

    This struggle for political and civil rights for women has been going by my timeline since 1792. It is far too late to preach patience.

    _________

    And great praise to tigtog for the explanation of patriarchy.

  123. 623
    consciousness razor

    For those who used my using the past tense in 563 to argue that I was saying that patriarchy doesn’t exist, in that same paragraph you had this:

    … and we need to move on to something better

    Which implies that it, or something like it, is still there. So, I think you’re reading far too much into my comment

    Then what is this whole mess of verbosity supposed to mean?

    The problem with it is not that it sucked for one group or even more for one group — I already argued that in a capitalist society patriarchy was worse for women than for men — but that it was an overly restricted system that outlived its usefulness, and we need to move on to something better … but something that acknowledges as more than an aside the detriments patriarchy had for men.

    If we should move on from some present condition, at the very least that last phrase would talk about acknowledging the detriments it has for men now (and in the past), not what it had (only in the past).

    Why put it all in the past tense, if that’s not what you meant? Are you from the future? Why couldn’t you just say you phrased it poorly, or else that you really do think there’s some relevant difference in the situation now compared to the situation in the past?

  124. 624
    Arren ›‹ neverbound

    @ Verbose Stoic

    Feminism has had a history of — as seen in this thread — presenting itself as being about equality in general, and I don’t think it is.

    Oh, FFS! (I realize that he claims to be done; please excuse my venting.)

    Given extant societal bias against a group (women), activism focused on combating that bias is by definition “about equality in general”. Such activism — despite Mr. Verbose’s unsubstantiated derision upthread — is the only way any change has ever been brought to bear on societal inequities. And change of that sort is the only meaningful pursuit of “equality in general” that there is. Portentous philosophical hair-splitting and self-important lectures on presentation from unwitting bastions of privilege, ensconced in the easy-chair of faux erudition….. what the fuck has that ever done for “equality in general”?

    Does Mr. Verbose scold the activism of people of color for expending insufficient energy on considering the plight of white folks? How about LGBT activists for not properly considering the precious fee-fees of straight folks? It’s absurd that someone can string so many lardful paragraphs together without evincing even the slightest awareness as to the impotence of what passes for their arguments?

  125. 625
    Inaji

    arrenfrank:

    Portentous philosophical hair-splitting and self-important lectures on presentation from unwitting bastions of privilege, ensconced in the easy-chair of faux erudition….. what the fuck has that ever done for “equality in general”?

    Give the rest of us headaches?

    Good rant.

  126. 626
    tigtog

    BTW, Verbose Stoic, how privilege works is causally tied into how the kyriarchy perpetuates the status quo of the haves vs the have-nots. Shall I illustrate?

    Basically, the more you look like you could possibly be one of the haves, the more privilege you will be given by others, particularly when looked at from a distance or when first meeting you (the better they get to know you, the more obvious it becomes whether you really are one of the haves or one of the have-nots). The more you look like you could be one of the have-nots, the less privilege you will be given by others, particularly when looked at from a distance or when first meeting you.

    e.g. driving while white in Eurocentric cultures means that most observers will give one the benefit of several doubts: it will be assumed that you have a legal right to be driving that car, and that you will be using that car to engage in legal activities. Active contradictory behaviours on your part will need to be observed before the possibility that you are up to no good is entertained. This is one of the clearest examples of white privilege, but there are many more subtle examples of how this plays out.

    e.g. working while male in most cultures means that most observers will give one the benefit of several doubts: it will be assumed that you obtained your position by ability and not because of the way that you look, it will be assumed that you are more of an expert on just about everything than any of your female colleagues, it will be assumed that you are a more productive employee than your female co-workers. If you repeat a suggestion made by a woman it is likely that you will be listened to while her contribution is likely to be ignored.Actively contradictory behaviour on your part will need to be observed before the possibility that a woman who works with you may be better qualified will be entertained. This is the most common daily expression of male privilege.

  127. 627
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Give the rest of us headaches?

    Good rant.

    QFT

  128. 628
    Arren ›‹ neverbound

    @ tigtog

    To echo several others, your posts in this thread have been singularly incisive.

    I (and many others, it seems) don’t have the patience to address the (almost certainly) willful ignorance of Mr. Verbose and his ilk with such equanimous aplomb. In the unlikely event that he’s an honest interlocutor — open to changing his views when presented with clear illustrations, delivered with such remarkably un-Pharyngulaic forbearance from invective — there could not be more effective responses than yours.

  129. 629
    SC (Salty Current), OM
    Do you identify yourself as “anti-gay rights movement” and/or “anti-civil rights movement”? Why or why not?

    Generally, no, because they don’t, to my mind, present themselves as aiming at more than just the rights for their group. Feminism has had a history of — as seen in this thread — presenting itself as being about equality in general, and I don’t think it is.

    Seriously? You don’t think these movements have recognized that while homophobia and racism have overwhelmingly harmed gay and black people there have also been enormous costs to straight and white people of maintaining, defending, and living these ideologies? You don’t think they’ve appreciated that demolishing homophobia and racism is beneficial to straight and white people? That’s ignorant.

    …Possibly related to this, in a recent thread that noelplum idiot was asking (Jadehawk, I believe) whether there was any masculinity she wouldn’t consider toxic. I’ve been thinking about it, and can’t come up with any. There are of course qualities associated with “masculinity” in our culture and historical moment that I think are positive, and some that I think are negative. Same with “femininity.” But I don’t see how the concept of masculinity itself – defined necessarily in opposition to femininity – is at all useful or positive. Why wouldn’t the same qualities be equally valued in anyone?

    Can anyone explain the value of masculinity as a concept? I could well be overlooking something.

  130. 630
    consciousness razor

    Can anyone explain the value of masculinity as a concept? I could well be overlooking something.

    Except for a negative value, no, I can’t.

    I remember watching a bit of Leno earlier this week. (Bad idea, I know. It didn’t take long to shut it off.) He said something about a guy being attractive, to set up one of his boring stupid jokes in his opening monologue I think. As an aside, he said this was okay for him to say, because he was “comfortable with [his] maleness.” I guess he thought he was expressing an enlightened liberal attitude, but it’s equivalent to saying gay men don’t have “maleness” or “masculinity.” Same concept.

  131. 631
    Inaji

    SC:

    Can anyone explain the value of masculinity as a concept?

    I can’t. Anymore than I could explain the value of femininity as a concept.

  132. 632
    silomowbray, sans frottage pour la douche

    I suppose masculinity and femininity are valuable as concepts to those people who think it’s important, hell, necessary, to govern behaviours based on gender. Which doesn’t lead anywhere pleasant.

  133. 633
    FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!)

    So, let’s look at the evidence provided so far by those who dislike feminism:

    First we have James Larkin @95 showing us that some feminist groups take actions that can be used to portray feminism in a bad light. Uhm, yes, and? Any feminist action can be used in such a way by detractors. Distortion, denial and outright lying is what they do after all. Hmmm, what group does that remind me of…..?

    Next we have Johnny Hillwalker @112 who comes in with a tu quoque and tries to justify it with evidence @138 that eventually leads him to abandon his claim @171

    Then we have Lachlan @261 trying to justify the notion that Phayngula is hostile to men. He had one example of a male gendered insult that hadn’t been responded to, an oversight that was quickly corrected. Otherwise all he succeeded in doing is show how it was hostile to him because of his rather poorly thought out positions. Why, it’s almost like he was taking the single rare instances that support his point and ignoring all the instances that don’t. Now why does that tactic seem familiar…..?

    And finally (unlikely I know) we have VerboseStoic @511 gives us a link that is so irrelevant to xe’s argument that no one, not even VS, references it again.

    I’ll leave out XA-26483 because xe realised early that xe was simply complaining about xe’s treatment here rather than arguing against feminism.

    And there we have it, all the incredible evidence as to why feminism should be despised.

    Underwhelmed is perhaps too weak a word to describe my reaction. It doesn’t quite capture the essence of boredom and the finely ground lack of surprise that flavours the thin broth of ‘meh’ that has been their arguments thus far.

  134. 634
    Anthony K

    Generally, no, because they don’t, to my mind, present themselves as aiming at more than just the rights for their group. Feminism has had a history of — as seen in this thread — presenting itself as being about equality in general, and I don’t think it is.

    Verbose Stoic, have you any dictionaries about? Maybe ones that can explain what ‘equality’ means?

    Jesus Fucking Shitsandwich Christ.

    If I have 3 on the left hand side of the equation, and 5 on the other, and I—now this is very important, so I want you to find an adult who can teach you what the hard words mean—I want to make both sides equal. Y’know, like what ‘equality in general’ means.

    Let’s write it down. Print this off so you can study at home.

    3 ? 5

    Now, what sign can I put where the question mark is? Not =, because = means “equals”.

    But did you know that I can add something to only the left hand side and it makes both sides, in other words, the whole equation equal?

    Let me show you.

    3 + 2 ? 5

    Now do you see how the whole thing is equal, even though I only worked on the left hand side? Now I can replace the question mark.

    3 + 2 = 5

    Generally, no, because they don’t, to my mind, present themselves as aiming at more than just the rights for their group.

    Just like adding 2 to the left hand side of the equation to make the whole equation equal!

    You see, by fighting for the rights that they don’t have that heterosexuals do, the LGBT community, much like the left hand side of my equation, works for equality in general?

    Feminism has had a history of — as seen in this thread — presenting itself as being about equality in general, and I don’t think it is.

    Now, leaving aside the “and I don’t think it is”, which is just you being stupid and vague again, see how all of these movements are about equality in general?

  135. 635
    Inaji

    Silomowbray:

    Which doesn’t lead anywhere pleasant.

    Right, which means the only ‘value’ they have is a negative one. These concepts must be in place, reinforced and believed in for patriarchy (or matriarchy) and privilege to exist and be a foundation for societal expectations.

    If there was equality, these concepts would quickly lose any so-called value.

  136. 636
    Anthony K

    And there we have it, all the incredible evidence as to why feminism should be despised.

    Yes, something to do with there not being a White Entertainment Television channel and no White History Month.

  137. 637
    Markita Lynda—threadrupt

    A few reactions:

    Consciousness razor said,

    I thought it was supposed to be about her holding a scythe and a pair of balls dripping with blood.

    A scythe? A scythe is too big to be efficient! You need a proper curved slaughtering knife.

    Owlglass said,

    while career opportunities are indeed still inequal (as is payment), women also tend to study more for self-realisation, whereas men more often study where they expect money and power. For example German Studies (I’m German) are full of females who want to become teachers or something the like, whereas (mechanial) engineering is full of men.

    Owlglass, you are aware, aren’t you, that the bias is so deep that women have been massacred for studying engineering, on the excuse that it made them feminists? Or that, thanks to widespread unconscious bias, a female writer/editor went from unable to make ends meet to being able to buy a house by applying for the same contracts with the same qualifications but with a male name? James Chartrand said,

    Taking a man’s name opened up a new world. It helped me earn double and triple the income of my true name, with the same work and service. No hassles. Higher acceptance. And gratifying respect for my talents and round-the-clock work ethic. Business opportunities fell into my lap. People asked for my advice, and they thanked me for it, too.

    * And then there’s this insensate block! Johnny Hillwalker said,

    Did I not link to exactly where RW labels people rapists for merely asking her to clarify her rather vague statement? Here is again: http://skepchick.org/2012/12/twitter-users-sad-to-hear-they-may-be-rapists/

    Do try to read for comprehension, Hilljohnny. What you linked to was Rebecca pointing out that sex with someone who is not able to consent is rape. That’s a legal definition, by the way. Then she showed a screen capture of two men saying that if having sex with someone too drunk to consent was rape, they were rapists many times over. She didn’t label anyone a rapist. She pointed out the definition and they labelled themselves. And I don’t see any signs that they are joking.

  138. 638
    michaeld

    Yeah I’ll throw my chips in with everyone else as a concept masculinity (and femininity) mostly exist to limit peoples actions, enforce harmful behaviors and punish people who don’t live up to their often impossible standards. We’d be a lot better off if we minimized or did away with them all together.

  139. 639
    Inaji

    Yes, I well recall being raised to be a Lady*. This is a distinct concept within the concept of femininity.
     
    *Finishing school, even.

  140. 640
    vaiyt

    @Verbose Stoic:
    Coddling isn’t the same as privilege. Children are coddled, but nobody is going to argue that they are a dominant force in society. Instances where women are coddled by society aren’t indicative of their privilege, but rather of a mentality that keeps women away from agency and choice.

    Why men are sent to die in wars? That’s not for the benefit of women; it’s because culture values warrior spirit, associating it with men. As a result, women are denied places in the military – which, as you may notice, has the net result of leaving women with less agency.

    Women are kept away from dangerous, dirty, powerful or highly technical jobs, not because they have power to avoid them, but because the patriarchal mentality keeps them from choosing to do those jobs.

    Patriarchy hurts individual men, OF COURSE IT DOES. It’s not perfectly set up as a conspiracy to benefit everyone that has a penis. What it MEANS is that men qua men are valued over women qua women. Men who don’t fit the masculine narrative are devalued by association with women. The viewpoints of men, the concerns of men, the feelings of men, are constantly given preference in society – and when women try to get some space to talk about themselves, a lot of men whine that they aren’t given their 50%.

    In the end, that’s what you’re doing. Complaining about how a movement that seeks solutions for the specific problems of women isn’t giving YET MORE space for men to help themselves, as if they don’t already have all the damn space already.

    Feminism needs a non-gender-neutral name and approach in order to be honest: a movement that purports to be about equality but doesn’t raise a specific voice in favor of the most disadvantaged invites the dominant groups to colonize the discourse and wallow in apathy. The feminist movement itself is experiencing this, as the price of not addressing the specific problems of women of color meant that white women have disproportionate power within it.

    tl;dr: what about the meeeeeeeeenz is not a valid concern about feminism, deal with it.

  141. 641
    Nepenthe

    @Anthony

    No no no, you’re doing math all wrong.

    If you add 2 to the left side, you have to add 2 to the right side, otherwise it’s Unfair and Divisive.

    That’s how you do equality!

  142. 642
    consciousness razor

    Now do you see how the whole thing is equal, even though I only worked on the left hand side? Now I can replace the question mark.

    3 + 2 = 5

    Would you please explain that again in 5,000 words or more, including all the relevant proofs? I’m afraid VS will be too sophistimicated to get it, if it’s not presented sophistimicatedly.

  143. 643
    John Morales

    [meta]

    Anthony K, interesting approach, since [3 < 5] can be equalised not just by adding 2 to the left hand side [5 = 5], but by adding 1 and subtracting 1 from each side [4 = 4] or by subtracting 2 from the right hand side [3 = 3].

    I suspect that the second example is how equality will in practice be achieved, because some of the privilege* on the right hand side relies on its complementary lack on the left hand side and in that sense it’s zero-sum.

    (And further, I think the less jaundiced anti-feminists hold that the third example is what feminists are about, whilst the more jaundiced hold that feminists seek reversal of the ratio)

    * That’s what’s being quantised here, no?

  144. 644
    ajb47

    This will be my last message.

    For those who used my using the past tense in 563 to argue that I was saying that patriarchy doesn’t exist, in that same paragraph you had this:

    … and we need to move on to something better

    Which implies that it, or something like it, is still there. So, I think you’re reading far too much into my comment.

    I believe the term is “Intent is not magic.” Say what you mean and others won’t have to “read into” your statements.

    Also, how, exactly, do we “move on to something better” when the whole world is set against that?

    I am here to, in fact, express my actual position, as formed over many, many years reading many, many sources. You will not, therefore, be able to get cites on specific works. I do hope, however, to at least be able to present my position rationally, which is mostly what’s being asked about. I concede, in all of this, that my position may well be wrong, but I, of course, simply don’t think it is.

    So you have formed an opinion over years but cannot point to one blog post, one book, one study, one research paper, or even one comment on a post somewhere that shows what you think is true actually reflects reality? You can’t point to one instance of a feminist doing anything you have decided is true of all feminists everywhere?

    I’m new to posting about this, but your words are either really unclear about your views or they are very clear about your views, and right now I think you’ve been very clear about whether women are equal or not.

  145. 645
    Anthony K

    @Anthony

    No no no, you’re doing math all wrong.

    If you add 2 to the left side, you have to add 2 to the right side, otherwise it’s Unfair and Divisive.

    That’s how you do equality!

    Weird. So education, including learning math, is a feminunist plot.

  146. 646
    Inaji

    ajb47:

    Say what you mean and others won’t have to “read into” your statements.

    You’re expecting quite a lot from someone who can’t figure out why the use of past tense would indicate a belief something is past.

  147. 647
    hypatiasdaughter

    #601 Socio-gen, something something…

    Again, it is a system. A bureaucracy, if you will. It doesn’t matter if some men are disadvantaged within the system, as long as men overall benefit. As tigtog pointed out, it is a system of maintaining the status quo.

    But under patriarchy, the men with the lower status quo were given the compensation of having women and children to lord over. The hard working laborer gotten beaten down by an overbearing boss at a tedious and exhausting job – then could go home and relieve his frustrations by raping his wife and beating his children, with the permission of the state.
    He also was free to persecute those lower on the totem pole than himself – effeminate men, gays, immigrants, PoC.
    They couldn’t be lord of the manor, but they could be king of their own castle.
    The vitriol your hear from MRA’s is the anguished wails the of people watching their special privileges slowly die off.

  148. 648
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Caine:

    Yes, I well recall being raised to be a Lady*.

    So no burps or farts from you?
    (True story, I used to think women did none of the latter, and little of the former. Hey, I was a kid.)

  149. 649
    SC (Salty Current), OM

    Anthony K, interesting approach, since [3 < 5] can be equalised not just by adding 2 to the left hand side [5 = 5], but by adding 1 and subtracting 1 from each side [4 = 4] or by subtracting 2 from the right hand side [3 = 3].

    I suspect that the second example is how equality will in practice be achieved,…

    You forgot some: adding 4 to one side and 2 to the other; subtracting 1 from one side and 2 from the other, but then adding 5 to the first side and 3 to the other…

    Leaving aside the quantitative/qualitative distinction, I’m sure you get the point. :)

  150. 650
    vaiyt

    I’m fucking tired of people like VS, because they’re exactly the kind of clueless git who slows down any discussion about racial equality in my country. We have a looooooooooong history of dealing with the problem by burying our heads in the sand and pretending everyone is equal already, and guess what? IT DIDN’T WORK ONE BIT. In a country that’s over 60% not white, we had to lay down a law to FORCE advertising agencies to hire more equally because they were making us look like fucking Scandinavia.

  151. 651
    Inaji

    Tony:

    So no burps or farts from you?

    ‘Course not. I’m as dainty as could be. Can’t you tell?

  152. 652
    Anthony K

    Anthony K, interesting approach, since [3 < 5] can be equalised not just by adding 2 to the left hand side [5 = 5], but by adding 1 and subtracting 1 from each side [4 = 4] or by subtracting 2 from the right hand side [3 = 3].

    I suspect that the second example is how equality will in practice be achieved, because some of the privilege* on the right hand side relies on its complementary lack on the left hand side and in that sense it’s zero-sum.

    Yes, that’s probably the case.

    (And further, I think the less jaundiced anti-feminists hold that the third example is what feminists are about, whilst the more jaundiced hold that feminists seek reversal of the ratio)

    That seems likely to me as well.

    * That’s what’s being quantised here, no?

    Privilege, rights: it’s just an equation, after all.

  153. 653
    consciousness razor

    privilege*

    * That’s what’s being quantised here, no?

    Legal rights, too, of course.

    And generally treating them ethically as equals, no matter how much privilege may have to do with it. For example, one could make a (fallacious) claim about how women are “naturally” (as distinct from men) and that thus they should be treated a certain way. I would say privilege is a factor in someone coming to that kind of position, but I don’t think women should want an equivalent level of privilege to do the same thing. Instead, what should be balanced is the way everyone is treated.

  154. 654
    Rob

    I’ve dipped in and out of this thread over the last day and I think I’ve managed to read every comment. The level of restraint and resistance to derailing has been admirable. I started writing comments a couple of times and deleted them because while they would have made me feel better it wasn’t going to further the conversation.

    It strikes me that after 646 comments the ant-feminist crowd have precisely nothing. The final straw for me is this pearl from VS:

    Additionally, I conceded the “patriarchy hurts men, too” point but pointed out that it treats the harm to men as a secondary point, which only furthers my claim that feminism works too much directly from the female perspective.

    I didn’t know whether to laugh or moan and settled for smiling while my forehead banged on the desk.

    I think Tigtog is ahead on points.

  155. 655
    SC (Salty Current), OM

    and in that sense it’s zero-sum.

    The concept has no place here.

  156. 656
    ajb47

    Caine @646

    You’re expecting quite a lot from someone who can’t figure out why the use of past tense would indicate a belief something is past.

    I admit to sipping Moet & Chandon from about comment 350 until present, so I may have given more credit than is due. But as I said, new from lurking. I first joined the internet when it was customary to not (yes, I meant to split the infinitive) assume malice to start. Despite the 200 comments showing VS to be… off in his interpretations.

    I also felt, perhaps incorrectly, that he was slowly derailing the comments from the original post. I didn’t get from any of his posts (and I use he and his because he does, as others have pointed out, seem to be arguing from the “what about teh menz” position) that he had a real reason to be against the feminist position as posted by Prof Myers except for “patriarchy, phbhbht!’ (That’s a raspberry or a Bronx cheer for the “What the hell did he just type?” crowd)

    I just wanted to explain that maybe VS should not assume that what he wrote is what others read. And I say this as someone who takes 20 minutes to post two sentences, so you know how long these two posts have taken to compose.

  157. 657
    SallyStrange

    This will be my last message.

    …And without ever offering a single citation of what you consider to be “these sorts of phrasings” which you allege are “common” in “feminist works.”

    Words cannot convey the depth of my disappointment, nor my shock.

  158. 658
    Sophia, Michelin-starred General of the First Mediterranean Iron Chef Batallion

    Of course we women don’t fart. We lack arseholes, because arsehole is a gendered insult.

    Burping would mean ingesting food or drink, and we have to keep up a lovely ladylike figure, i.e. no body fat other than a light duvet of padding around the hips and big, perfectly shaped breasts.
    Of course, all men need to be shaped like a chunky martini glass drawn by Rob Liefeld too.

    Concepts of gender ideals are sad and damaging to people of any gender. The tiny proportion of people who fit the moulds aren’t even exempt from the pressures – they have to keep it up or risk tabloid crucifixion. Oh, and never get old, too. Getting old just isn’t FEMININE/MASCULINE.

    It’s sadly ironic that these “ideals” are said to be based on the “natural” order of things, when they tend to defy really natural processes like ageing, normal ranges of body fat distribution, normal ranges of musculature, normal expressions of emotion and pretty much everything that isn’t a tiny, rigid and sexist mould of the “perfect” man or woman.

    The definition of feminism as the pursuit of an outcome of equality is true and useful, though a more practical and descriptive approach might be “exposing and opposing the kyriarchal system that hurts all but the richest, most powerful and most stereotypically beautiful people, which opines that the reason some people do not fit this standard is that they simply aren’t trying hard enough to be normal.”
    Sound familiar? Yeah. It’s fucking everywhere.
    Look at any privilege-based inequality:
    -Racial: Those lazy “coloured” folk just don’t put in the effort and don’t appreciate what they’ve been given. If they just tried harder…
    -Economic: Those poor folk are just leeching off their betters. If they’d get off their arses and just work harder…
    -LBGTI: Those “alternate lifestyles” are an abomination – they just don’t want to follow their moral responsibility to be like us. If they just tried being straight/normally gendered/etc…
    -Mental illness: Those people on medication, seeing shrinks, it’s just a crutch. In fact, it’s just feeding into their victim complex. If they just got the hell over it like the rest of us…
    -Rape victims: Those silly bitches, crying rape all the time. Just get over it and stop leading people on with your evil seductive ways. If you’d just be more feminine/masculine…

    and finally – Sexism: If those silly women would get off their arses and just work harder, they’d have an equal say in politics, jobs, families, everything! The system is set up, so all they have to do is use it like we do.

    There seem to be three lines of rebuttal against any form of social reform. The first is as above, that the onus is on the disadvantaged to simply pull themselves out of the rut and be “normal” like “everyone else”, that they’re lazy and just not trying hard enough. The second, contradictory position is that their “natural” place is below the “normal” people. POC are animalistic, poor people are meant to be that way, LBGT people are an abomination, mentally ill people are beyond help, rape victims were asking for it and women are just better at nurturing and lack the analytical reasoning skills of men. The third is that when they speak up against these two contradictory points, they are too loud, too strident, too shrill, too combative and they should simply shut up, talk nicely and stop bothering all the nice white/rich/straight/cis/neurotypical/unraped(non-”slut”)/men who are only trying to live their nice, quiet, lives and not bothering anybody. They’d want to help if you’d just be nicer. Goodness, how rude!

    Love it. Amazing how it’s all exactly the same, isn’t it?

  159. 659
    John Morales

    [OT]

    SC:

    The concept [zero-sum] has no place here.

    Really? I think it does; specifically (for example), were gender-equality to be achieved, any loss of privilege accruing to a man by virtue of their sex relative to a woman would necessarily be the same as the gain in relative privilege accruing to that woman.

    Where am I wrong, here?

  160. 660
    Sophia, Michelin-starred General of the First Mediterranean Iron Chef Batallion

    John @659

    Because the Patriarchy Hurts Men Too. In achieving equality, Women’s benefits due to the stripping of male privilege would be approximately zero-sum, but men and women also gain by not having to conform to rigid gender roles. A net gain for everyone can hardly be called zero-sum.

  161. 661
    Nepenthe

    Damn Sophia, that was a tour de force.

    *applauds*

  162. 662
    Inaji

    Sophia:

    Getting old just isn’t FEMININE/MASCULINE.

    Even in aging, men tend to be allowed more – they become ‘dignified’ or they are still considered handsome. If they’re successful, they’re considered to be even more powerful, etc. Whereas women are considered to start losing their ‘market value’ around 30 – 35 years of age.

  163. 663
    Sophia, Michelin-starred General of the First Mediterranean Iron Chef Batallion

    Thanks Nepenthe! I feel I’ve learned so much from following these issues over the last few years, it’s nice (and, at the same time SO INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING) to be able to fit them all together and see the glaring similarities in how these issues are addressed.

    Also, I used “crucifixion”. Poor choice of word. Substitute “intense scrutiny and shaming” for realism.

  164. 664
    Socio-gen, something something...

    hypatiasdaughter:
    Agreed. I was just too woozy from my head-desking to go there with Verbose.

    Sophia:

    Love it. Amazing how it’s all exactly the same, isn’t it?

    Goodness, it’s almost as if … there’s a system designed to keep people in their place and reinforce the heirarchy. I bet there’s even a name for it….

    What is it called again…? It’s, like, on the tip of my tongue.

  165. 665
    Sophia, Michelin-starred General of the First Mediterranean Iron Chef Batallion

    Caine @662

    Very true. I suppose I was looking at the “perfect specimens” in those horrible magazines that we all love to hate. Celebrities getting snapped going to the beach and showing OMG CELLULITE, imperfect bodies, facial wrinkles, hair loss… I always saw that the gender bias against ageing/bodily perfection was a lot less prominent in coverage of those people held up as gender role models by the popular media.

    In “normal” folks, definitely. Men age gracefully, women become undesirable.

  166. 666
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    And I say this as someone who takes 20 minutes to post two sentences, so you know how long these two posts have taken to compose.

    I wish more people took time to consider their responses as you do.

  167. 667
    SC (Salty Current), OM

    Really? I think it does; specifically (for example), were gender-equality to be achieved, any loss of privilege accruing to a man by virtue of their sex relative to a woman would necessarily be the same as the gain in relative privilege accruing to that woman.

    Where am I wrong, here?

    You’re being abstract. Where you’re wrong is assuming, in your abstract way, the continuation of the status quo. It would help if you could describe these alleged gains and losses in concrete, specific terms.

    My argument is that society should be structured around meeting our needs (which includes not causing harm to anyone, human or nonhuman). Our current system doesn’t do that. Its limited “goods” and opportunities could be distributed more equitably, which looks like equality and is in its own way, but that’s not the same as working for a system that makes possible the best life for everyone.

    A more equitable status quo is zero-sum. Genuine equality in a better system, one that serves our needs and is conducive to our development, isn’t.

  168. 668
    Nepenthe

    Even in aging, men tend to be allowed more – they become ‘dignified’ or they are still considered handsome.

    This.

    Not that I’m complaining, but they’ve made a Die Hard V. Bruce Willis is 57. Women are supposed to quietly disappear or play matronly roles after 35; men can shoot down a helicopter with a car at 52.

  169. 669
    SC (Salty Current), OM

    Getting old just isn’t FEMININE/MASCULINE.

    It’s strange, given how many cultures respect old people as sources of wisdom and grant them positions of respect. The assumption that youth is universally valued and old age scorned is simply bizarre.

  170. 670
    John Morales

    [OT + meta]

    SC, thanks for the response.

    I don’t care to continue the discussion, because it’s not really on topic, other than to clarify I was referring to relative gains and losses within the paradigm; but as Sophia noted, it’s really a change of paradigm that is what’s sought, rather than a change of relative privileges.

  171. 671
    ajb47

    Tony @666 (heh heh)

    Off-Topic, but:

    In 1992, the default on Usenet was “Lurk, lurk, lurk, and then make sure you don’t quote more than you have to make your point and really really really make sure you say what you mean to say”. AOL was The Adversary. Emoticons were still several years away, so a poster had to make sure their ideas came across correctly without extraneous crap. ( I am still firmly behind the idea that if you need an emoticon to make your point, you need to edit your post.)

    And I have carried that over to blog comments and forum posts. In fact, I feel uncomfortable posting this off-topic here (so I went back and added the Header 2), but I don’t know a graceful way to move to a [Lounge] post.

  172. 672
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Men age gracefully, women become undesirable.

    See, in my experience, it’s just the opposite. I see many more graceful, nice looking older women, and fewer graceful men. I don’t know how many times I’ve told guests at my various bars that very thing.

    You women don’t know nuthin’.

  173. 673
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    uh, that last bit was meant to be sarcasm.

  174. 674
    SC (Salty Current), OM

    [OT + meta]

    John,

    Oh, fuck it. Never mind. Keep doing your silly brackets.

    SC, thanks for the response.

    I don’t care to continue the discussion, because it’s not really on topic, other than to clarify I was referring to relative gains and losses within the paradigm; but as Sophia noted, it’s really a change of paradigm that is what’s sought, rather than a change of relative privileges.

    It’s totally on topic, and of course what I and I believe many feminists here and elsewhere are arguing for is a change of paradigm. Without that, there can’t be equality; there can only be a relatively more equitable status quo, which really isn’t equal at all.

    Cheers.

  175. 675
    Sophia, Michelin-starred General of the First Mediterranean Iron Chef Batallion

    SC @669

    True.
    It is only when speaking purely in terms of gender ideals that ageing becomes a bizarre crime against “nature”. I should have been clearer, I suppose.

  176. 676
  177. 677
    FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!)

    And I’ll add that it’s a mite lonely there at the moment ajb47 so any contribution would be welcome.

  178. 678
    Inaji

    SC:

    It’s strange, given how many cultures respect old people as sources of wisdom and grant them positions of respect. The assumption that youth is universally valued and old age scorned is simply bizarre.

    Unfortunately, that’s not American culture. I am now officially a “senior”. I don’t feel ancient at 55, but you begin to feel that write-off much earlier than 55 years old. At least you do when you’re a woman.

  179. 679
    Alethea Kuiper-Belt

    I think we should not kid ourselves that “zero-sum” isn’t relevant. Men, as a class, do have something to lose. An unfair advantage is, nevertheless, an advantage – and its loss will hurt. I’m pretty sure some of the resistance to feminism springs from this. It used to be a bit of a joke – a wife is an unpaid domestic servant who will cook and sew and iron and care for the kids and do your laundry and flatter you and look pretty and fetch you a drink at the end of a hard day. My god, who wouldn’t want a wife?! We are in plain fact taking away their wives. And quite successfully, too.

    I’m really not sure that the losses and gains will equal out. It’s hard to calculate – by what metric might you decide if is it better to have a slave or a companion? Some men would prefer equality; others mastery. But frankly, I don’t care if it IS a non-zero sum game. It’s the right thing to do anyway. Did anyone even think to argue this bullshit with slavery? We can only free the slaves if it’s a zero-sum game? Oh my gosh, won’t somebody think of the poor slaveowners?

  180. 680
    Inaji

    Alethea:

    Did anyone even think to argue this bullshit with slavery? We can only free the slaves if it’s a zero-sum game? Oh my gosh, won’t somebody think of the poor slaveowners?

    Exactly, which is why I tend to ignore discussions which spin off into whether or not feminism is a zero-sum game, why it should be, why it shouldn’t be, etc.

  181. 681
    jose

    I have a question, do you find privilege talk useful? I don’t know that it is going anywhere tbh.

    When looking at it from a labor rights perspective, we never tell CEOs to check their CEO privilege. Instead the labor struggle is focused on the power different classes have. There’s the poor, and then there’s the middle class, and the rich. The question is what our class can do and what we can’t do. And having the power to do more things (that is, gaining rights) is considered a good thing. But from the privilege perspective, we would be becoming privileged, and that just sounds awful. When I think about it that way I imagine slaves from China telling us to check our privilege because we have a lay-off pay entitlement. And what am I supposed to do then?

    Isn’t the other perspective more useful for feminism too? Women and men are social classes. There’s no question which class holds most of the power: The majority of world leaders, administrators, top-income jobs, lobbyists, bankers, military command, etc. are men. This is maintained by what we call the patriarchal culture, with the father being the head of the family and the main provider. Sure, that role can be hard, too. Being a leader is hard. This is why feminism would like to alleviate your trouble, leaders, by letting the other half of humanity acquire power too, so we can all be leaders and followers and everything in between if we so wish, rejecting the box our class is currently into.

    This perspective answers Verbose Stoic’s objection. His point was that feminism claimed to be about achieving equality for all, but actually it was about advancing women’s interests. But now we see this isn’t a discrepancy. The hardships of men as a class come from their hold on power: women taking the share of power they currently don’t have means both classes will become one et voila, equality of opportunity for all.

    His other objection, that men get killed in wars to protect women and children, is explained easily by realizing it’s lower class men that go die, and they don’t go die for women, they go die for their nation – which is, to a great extent, practically owned by the higher classes. The box these men are in due to their sex sets them up as leaders and providers for their families, and the box they are in due to their income (or lack thereof) offers war as an opportunity to lead and provide. Plainly, poor people who need the money go die while the wealthy get a comfortable, symbolic position that involves no fighting at all, they avoid war and then they become the President. Political and economic power, once again.

  182. 682
    ajb47

    Tony @675

    Like this?

  183. 683
    John Morales

    jose, privilege is a polysemous term, and you are conflating senses — in these discussions, its sense is that of social privilege.

  184. 684
    John Morales

    jose,

    Isn’t the other perspective more useful for feminism too?

    Are you familiar with the concept of intersectionality?

  185. 685
    Nepenthe

    Jose, “check your privilege” is an admonishment usually about social interactions. If CEOs and laborers interacted as often as men and women did, we might say “check your CEO privilege”.

  186. 686
    Funny Diva

    Sophia, Michelin-starred General of the First Mediterranean Iron Chef Batallion
    @ 657

    That was a beautiful, beautiful comment. In a thread chock-a-block with great comments. Wow. Demolishes every argument my co-worker makes that boils down to “they’re just not trying hard enough” to attain the same privilege I have. After the knock-down, drag-out discussion he and I had a week or so ago, having a concise explanation is just…wow.

    If I was in a position to award Michelin stars, you’d be at least FIVE Michelin-starred General of the First Mediterranean Iron Chef Batallion.

  187. 687
    Funny Diva

    Welcome, Allegro!
    Thank you for your comment. Hope to read your comments often, now you’ve de-lurked.

  188. 688
    plasticwrap

    All right, I’ll bite.

    I’ll be honest: I don’t consider educated American women to be a particularly oppressed group of people, and I resent the implication that they are. I’ll be dollars to doughnuts that Richard Dawkins gets worse hate mail than any of the self-satisfied whiners on #mencallmethings, but he hasn’t created a cult of victimization around it; he made a funny Youtube video. Hugo Schwyzer (deserved or not) has gotten death threats and an otherwise endless deluge of bile for the past year, all of it from the e-feminist community. That shit was downright scary in its intensity. But all we’re talking about is Anita Sarkeesian, and commiserating endlessly with her, and painting this picture of the internet as a feculent pool of misogyny or male privilege or whatever, and I think that’s horseshit, is what I think. Sarkeesian WAS subjected to harassment, and it was wrong, and I’m glad she made lemonade out of it. But you know, she was only able to make lemonade because of all the subsequent sympathy she generated and the donations she raised, and I don’t think a man would have gotten that sympathy.

    Actually, you know, I really don’t think sexism is that big of a deal in the Western world. Where’s the evidence? I see a lot of yelling and handwaving from Myers and his social justice brigade, but I’m not convinced. Yes, the very tippity top of the pyramid is still mostly men, but that’s because those guys all got their start in the ’60s, and also, most people aren’t at the tippity top. I think at the younger levels, equality has been pretty much achieved. The only thing to be gained by FtB’s brand of feminism is a bullshit sense of victimization that is totally unjustified. I don’t think younger women experience sexism very much, that’s what I think.

    Also, the street harassment thing? I don’t deny it happens, but I’m skeptical that it’s as rampant as the feminists claim. I mean, I’ve never participated in harassment, because it’s rude. I’m also walking around outside all the time and I very rarely hear it. Actually, the only time I ever heard about this epidemic is on feminist blogs. What I think is that the e-feminist-o-sphere is an endlessly reverberating echo chamber in which there exists some sort of bizarro peer pressure to claim at least some level of victimization.

    I think Schrodinger’s rapist is horseshit. I think I take just as many precautions as most women I know when going outside. That’s all crap.

    You also spend too much goddamn time talking about feminism, and within that, the concentric circle of male privilege. This is supposed to be an atheist community. I don’t hang out on (ostensibly) atheist communities to be beaten over the head for being white or male. Fuck you. I don’t feel comfortable here. If others do, more power to them. I don’t, so I won’t be participating, except now. I don’t take part in the Slymepit-style harassment, and I condemn those that do. But I’m not going to make it my life mission to put a stop to it, because I don’t particularly like you guys. Your problem, not mine.

    Also, kinda concomitant to that, I don’t like the Slymepit and their assorted comrades like ERV, but I do think that a lot of their “misogyny” is just a natural reaction to the cult of hyper-feminist language policing that goes on here. FtB is so trollable it’s hilarious; this is likewise true of Skepchick and the feminist blogosphere in general. Myers made a good move by deleting all the Slymepitters from the Dungeon page; I think that will put a damper on their trolling.

    And that’s my opinion.

  189. 689
    Nepenthe

    @plasticwrap

    Thanks for sharing.

  190. 690
    Inaji

    I don’t think a man would have gotten that sympathy.

    It’s hard to say, because so far, no man has expressed an interest in creating a video game which does not pander to sexism. I’d venture that if a man did try to start such a project and was treated in the same manner as Anita, there would be plenty of sympathy, support and outrage over the harassment. That’s how decent people work.

    I mean, I’ve never participated in harassment, because it’s rude. I’m also walking around outside all the time and I very rarely hear it.

    So…you’ve never participated in something you claim almost never happens. I see. You know, it’s interesting how people are capable of completely tuning out things which don’t directly affect them.

    I think Schrodinger’s rapist is horseshit.

    It’s lovely you have the option to think so and act accordingly.

    I think I take just as many precautions as most women I know when going outside. That’s all crap.

    It’s rather obvious from this ^ statement that you don’t understand Schrodinger’s Rapist at all. I’d say you never even tried to comprehend it, let alone bothered to consider it from a viewpoint other than your own. The majority of rapes don’t take place outside. The majority of rapes are not stranger rapes. Consider this a clue.

    I don’t hang out on (ostensibly) atheist communities to be beaten over the head for being white or male.

    So, another Stefanelli, eh?

    Fuck you. I don’t feel comfortable here.

    Self awareness can be uncomfortable, but most people find it to be good once they’ve started. As that’s not the case for you, you’re certainly welcome to hang out elsewhere. It’s a bit much to ask that every single person at a site to change just to suit you.

    But I’m not going to make it my life mission to put a stop to it, because I don’t particularly like you guys. Your problem, not mine.

    How very convenient for you. The internet awaits your outrage, Cupcake.

  191. 691
    John Morales

    plasticwrap, so, to sum up your comment:
    — begin summation —
    1. “I don’t consider educated American women to be a particularly oppressed group of people”
    2. “I really don’t think sexism is that big of a deal in the Western world.”
    3. Also, the street harassment thing? I don’t deny it happens, but I’m skeptical that it’s as rampant as the feminists claim.
    4. “I think Schrodinger’s rapist is horseshit.”
    5. “You also spend too much goddamn time talking about feminism, and within that, the concentric circle of male privilege. This is supposed to be an atheist community.”
    6. “I don’t like the Slymepit and their assorted comrades like ERV, but I do think that a lot of their “misogyny” is just a natural reaction to the cult of hyper-feminist language policing that goes on here.”
    —  end summation  —

    So.

    1.* You do consider educated American women to be oppressed, just not particularly so. Fair enough: what about other women?

    2.* You acknowledge sexism exists, but you think it’s not hat big of a deal in the Western world. Fair enough: what about the rest of the world?

    3.* You don’t deny street harassment happens, but you’re skeptical that it’s as rampant as the feminists claim. Fair enough: what’s your basis for your skepticism, and just how rampant do you think feminists claim it to be?

    4. Why?

    5. Why do you imagine that an atheist community cannot also be a feminist community?

    6. You’re correct that the slimepit is a reaction to feminism, but I’m curious about this “cult of hyper-feminist language policing” to which you refer. Can you clarify the difference between feminist and hyper-feminist linguistic policing?

    * You acknowledge there are problems in these areas, but think they don’t merit attention. Why?

  192. 692
    vaiyt

    Short plasticwrap: blah blah, sexism is over, man up, lalala I don’t hear anything wrong, how do I evidence, what about the menz, atheism shouldn’t be about anything else, my man-feelings are hurt, holy shit it’s like every single concern troll we’ve ever had condensed in one tl;dr post I hope you’re proud

  193. 693
    ajb47

    plasticwrap:

    I’ll be honest: I don’t consider educated American women to be a particularly oppressed group of people, and I resent the implication that they are.

    Soooo, opinion. No evidence to back this up? No studies that show that “educated” American women have the same career opportunities as “educated” American men? That women get the same salary as men?

    But all we’re talking about is Anita Sarkeesian, and commiserating endlessly with her, and painting this picture of the internet as a feculent pool of misogyny or male privilege or whatever, and I think that’s horseshit, is what I think. Sarkeesian WAS subjected to harassment, and it was wrong, and I’m glad she made lemonade out of it.

    That’s all we’re talking about, is it? Because what Ms. Sarkeesian experienced was due to a fringe element. Perhaps you would like to link to some evidence?

    Actually, you know, I really don’t think sexism is that big of a deal in the Western world. Where’s the evidence? I see a lot of yelling and handwaving from Myers and his social justice brigade, but I’m not convinced. Yes, the very tippity top of the pyramid is still mostly men, but that’s because those guys all got their start in the ’60s, and also, most people aren’t at the tippity top. I think at the younger levels, equality has been pretty much achieved. The only thing to be gained by FtB’s brand of feminism is a bullshit sense of victimization that is totally unjustified. I don’t think younger women experience sexism very much, that’s what I think.

    Wow. I think this needs a citation. I think this needs several citations. Because that’s what the original post is asking for.

    And that’s my opinion.

    That would be fine, if you maybe had some research or evidence to back that up.

    And the more I read your post, the more I think it’s just un-evidenced crap on a stick. Thanks for playing.

  194. 694
    Nepenthe

    Hey, come on guys. Plasticwrap doesn’t think that younger women experience sexism very much, not at all. What citation could he possibly give that proves that he personally just doesn’t give a shit about lady people beyond the fantastic one he’s already given.

  195. 695
    Inaji

    ajb47, the reason plasticwrap stressed opinion was that it’s a method to prevent questioning.

    “Just my opinion, see? I don’t need evidence to have an opinion. That’s the way I feel. I told you what I see and hear every day. That’s what I base my opinion on. See, all this pestering, asking for crap – you just proved me right!”

  196. 696
    Inaji

    What citation could he possibly give that proves that he personally just doesn’t give a shit about lady people beyond the fantastic one he’s already given.

    Now, now, be fair, Nepenthe. Plasticwrap doesn’t have any problems with normal women.

  197. 697
    ajb47

    Caine:

    In some cases, Harlan Ellison is not the person to quote. In this case, maybe. In response to the “thought” that everyone is entitled to their opinion, he answered, “Bullshit. Everyone is entitled to their *informed* opinion.”

    I read that 15 years ago and haven’t had a reason to use it until now. Not until coming to Pharyngula, and then the rest of FtB.

    Bullshit. You are not entitled to your opinions. You are only entitled to *informed* opinions. And informed opinions require evidence. Find it and get back to us.

    AJ

  198. 698
    Arren ›‹ neverbound

    @ plasticwrap

    dollars to doughnuts that Richard Dawkins gets worse hate mail than any of the self-satisfied whiners on #mencallmethings

    (Rulers out! Measure the worse-ness of the hate mail! We can be utterly sure, of course, that plasticwrap’s “dollars to donuts” is based on a thoroughly skeptical review of all available evidence (i.e., the actual hate mail received by women who speak up* — after all, he’s not one of those hysterical “self-satisfied whiners”…..)

    The fact that you characterize the reaction to Schwyzer (“deserved or not”, no less [!]) as “downright scary” while pooh-poohing the widespread complaints of women en masse gives the game away, champ: you’ve got feculence up to your hairline.

    “Where’s the evidence?” It couldn’t be clearer that you haven’t bothered to make even the most cursory effort to review it. No amount of italicized weaselly disclaimers as to the subjectivity of your post can obscure that. Incidentally, PZ’s request was:

    If you think feminism is unsupported by the evidence, explain what evidence opposes the principles of feminism
    Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities, is irrational, let’s see you explain your opposition rationally.

    So, no: you didn’t “bite” — you used this as an excuse to extrapolate your bias (ornamented by sweeping personal anecdotes that are no more than a confirmation of same) into a bloviating indictment of feminism, a topic concerning which you’re clearly ignorant. Your “bizarro peer pressure” assertion is particularly priceless in its vapidity.

    No one’s “beating you over the head”, despite your obnoxious caterwauling. Fuck you too — your “life mission” is of no interest, and — more to the point — of no relevance to the topic being discussed. In fact, one might even say that it is “your problem”.

    * Would that it were only Anita Sarkeesian! The fact that plasticwrap thinks this is the case says pretty much all there is to say about the extent of his knowledge on the topic.

  199. 699
    Inaji

    arrenfrank:

    Incidentally, PZ’s request was:

    It’s really saying something when only one person attempted to follow those directions: Verbose Stoic. It could hardly be said he made a good showing, but at least he tried.

  200. 700
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Ok this is just beyond fucking stupid. Why do peopls think that it is reasonable to state their opinions-OPINIONS OFFERED WITH NO EVIDENCE-and expect people to.accept them. Not one god damned thing said by Plasticwrap had any empirical support behind it. Yet we are supposed to respect that sexist drivel?
    There were NO citations.
    There was no evidence to support hir assertions.
    There was nothing to convince others that hir whole FUCK YOU FEMINISM comment was worth the toilet paper I just wiped my ass with.

  201. 701
    Arren ›‹ neverbound

    One last thing: it’s hilariously incompetent to make a big deal of Dawkins’ hate mail in this context, given the ‘Dear Muslima” screed. After all, by that missive’s execrable ::ahem:: “logic” Dawkins doesn’t live in a theocracy, therefore any and all complaints he might make about theism or threats from theists are automatically invalid. Q.E.D.!

  202. 702
    Galactic Fork

    Also, the street harassment thing? I don’t deny it happens, but I’m skeptical that it’s as rampant as the feminists claim. I mean, I’ve never participated in harassment, because it’s rude. I’m also walking around outside all the time and I very rarely hear it. Actually, the only time I ever heard about this epidemic is on feminist blogs. What I think is that the e-feminist-o-sphere is an endlessly reverberating echo chamber in which there exists some sort of bizarro peer pressure to claim at least some level of victimization.

    It’s interesting, I’d heard a lot about street harassment from my friends, I always took them at their word even though I hadn’t see it much. I understood that when it’s not directed at me, I would have to be at the right place and the right time, where as for those it’d usually happen to, they’d just have to be out. Even if I was with my friends who mentioned it, I would alter the experience by existing there with them. Giving the perceptions to others that we were together.

    Anyway, not too long ago I was at a bus stop and had discovered the bus had just passed. A woman was also there so we had a whole 25 to 30 minutes to wait for the next one. I had a book to read, so I was at one of the benches reading, and the woman was on the other side of the bus stop.

    That’s when the honking began. Every few minutes or so, she’d be honked at or somebody would call out the window. I counted 8 times while we waited. I’d waited at that stop by myself for extended periods, and there were weren’t any honking, so it wasn’t me.

    Eight times in that half hour, just for existing at a bus stop. I started imagining how a whole day must be just going outside. I’m sure experience varies from woman to woman, but that definitely gave me some perspective.

    Not witnessing much doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Especially when you’re not one of the typical targets.

  203. 703
    Galactic Fork

    Ugh. I wish we could edit posts. I wrote that in a hurry, and didn’t really proofread it before I sent. Sorry.

  204. 704
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    Arrenfrank:

    Dawkins doesn’t live in a theocracy

    Actually, he does (unless he’s moved – I haven’t really followed the movement of RD since the “dear muslima” comment).

    But that doesn’t really break your simile, it only makes it more accurate: He doesn’t live in one of the really bad theocracies…

  205. 705
    John Morales

    [OT]

    Gnumann, nope. A State having an established Church does not a theocracy make.

  206. 706
    Rob

    Just popped back in to check how things were going. Read plasticwrap’s comment. Head bounced off desk. Again. No smiling this time.
    Sophia, Michelin-starred General of the First Mediterranean Iron Chef Batallion @ 657 – brilliant.
    Off to bed, checkin in the morning.

  207. 707
    Anthony K

    Galactic Fork, I think that post was just fine.

  208. 708
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    John Morales: How would you describe a society where the head of state and the head of the main religious institution is the same person?

  209. 709
    Khantron, the alien that only loves

    But the position is ceremonial and carries no real power.

  210. 710
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    Khantron (and others who might want to discuss my foray into the wild kingdom of Off Topic).
    I really don’t want to derail this thread. If you really want to discuss theocracies (and why the UK definitely is one) take it over to the thunderdome. If your interest is more passing I’m more than willing to let it go.

  211. 711
    Sophia, Michelin-starred General of the First Mediterranean Iron Chef Batallion

    It’s really a symptom of our society’s ills that having people acknowledge and discuss my contributions to a discussion is the most pleasantly surprising thing that has happened to me today. Never seems to happen in meatspace!
    I’m really just reiterating what everyone’s been saying around here for a long time, I just like tying concepts together by finding similarities. Seems there are a lot of those. The Bigot’s Playbook isn’t exactly varied, it’s basically a three-hit pseudoargument with bonus thesaurus and a few chapters on “But what about MEEEE?”

  212. 712
    tigtog

    Speaking of which, I share Sophia’s pleasant surprise at having my contributions acknowledged on this thread over the last 24 hours – thanks to all of you who did!

    I may need to rework some of this into the Feminism 101 FAQs.

  213. 713
    carlie

    The fact that you characterize the reaction to Schwyzer (“deserved or not”, no less [!]) as “downright scary” while pooh-poohing the widespread complaints of women en masse gives the game away, champ: you’ve got feculence up to your hairline.

    There’s also the fact that Hugo is a self-admitted attempted murderer, but written comments criticizing his views on feminism that he has received are what is “downright scary”? I see a massive perspective problem there.

  214. 714
    SallyStrange

    All right, I’ll bite.

    Ohboyohboyohboy! He’s going to bite, he’s going to bite! This should be good. Juicy, with lots of interesting new information, research, links, etc. – because that’s what PZ was asking for, you know, rational explanations accompanied by evidence. Here we go!

    I’ll be honest: I don’t consider educated American women to be a particularly oppressed group of people,

    Um… okay. What does this have to do with feminism, which also addresses the oppression of non-education American women and non-American women, both educated and not?

    and I resent the implication that they are.

    From a psychological standpoint, it would be fascinating to consider what on earth would cause someone to RESENT it when someone claims that a group is oppressed and you don’t consider them to be. It’s one thing to disagree when someone says that educated American women are oppressed, it’s another thing to RESENT it. What the fuck is up with that?

    I’ll be dollars to doughnuts that Richard Dawkins gets worse hate mail than any of the self-satisfied whiners on #mencallmethings, but he hasn’t created a cult of victimization around it; he made a funny Youtube video.

    Heeyyyyy, it’s the Oppression Olympics – the games where EVERYONE is a loser!

    I wonder what the heck a cult of victimization is, and whether it would be possible to talk about gendered insults in the presence of plasticwrap without being accused of forming a cult around it. Shut up, or else you’re a stupid cultist! That’s what I’m getting from this. Hey, wait a minute – that’s a thing that anti-feminists do: try to get women to shut the fuck up about the oppression they experience. No wonder this dude resents it when women talk about their oppression.

    Hugo Schwyzer (deserved or not) has gotten death threats and an otherwise endless deluge of bile for the past year, all of it from the e-feminist community.

    He also has a cushy writing gig at Jezebel, one of the premier feminist-oriented sites on the web. Man, those e-feminists sure are keeping him down.

    That shit was downright scary in its intensity.

    Poor poor Hugo Schwyzer, under fire for admitting that he tried to kill his ex-girlfriend. Yes, that shit is scary. Oh, you meant the criticism. I meant the fact that a creepy manipulator like Schwyzer appears to have a large platform WITHIN the online feminist community.

    But all we’re talking about is Anita Sarkeesian, and commiserating endlessly with her, and painting this picture of the internet as a feculent pool of misogyny or male privilege or whatever, and I think that’s horseshit, is what I think.

    Well, I think that YOU are full of shit. We both have opinions. Now we’re even, eh?

    Sarkeesian WAS subjected to harassment, and it was wrong, and I’m glad she made lemonade out of it. But you know, she was only able to make lemonade because of all the subsequent sympathy she generated and the donations she raised, and I don’t think a man would have gotten that sympathy.

    There’s an easy way to test this: why don’t YOU announce a kickstarter project to talk about how women are objectified in video games. Or one of your male friends. Oh wait, guys don’t do that. I wonder why. Nothing to do with sexism, I’m sure.

    Actually, you know, I really don’t think sexism is that big of a deal in the Western world. Where’s the evidence?

    Wow, that’s an amazing question. To bad you didn’t ask yourself that BEFORE sharing your baseless, evidence-free opinions with us.

    I see a lot of yelling and handwaving from Myers and his social justice brigade, but I’m not convinced.

    …Because you haven’t bothered to click on any of the links that accompany all the hand-waving, which lead to peer-reviewed studies demonstrating the extent and the effects of sexism.

    Yes, the very tippity top of the pyramid is still mostly men, but that’s because those guys all got their start in the ’60s, and also, most people aren’t at the tippity top. I think at the younger levels, equality has been pretty much achieved.

    The first really falsifiable claim you’ve made, and it’s already been demonstrated to be wrong. Studies show that women graduating with the same degrees as men, taking the same jobs and working the same hours, still don’t make as much as men. The wage gap can add up to over $100,000 of missing wages over a woman’s lifetime, in the absolute best-case scenario, where she isn’t further penalized for doing the things women are socialized and pressured to do, i.e., have a family and care for them. That’s not even getting into the attacks on birth control, abortion, VAWA, and the fact that rape is still an epidemic among women, yes, even American women.

    The only thing to be gained by FtB’s brand of feminism is a bullshit sense of victimization that is totally unjustified. I don’t think younger women experience sexism very much, that’s what I think.

    As a youngish woman, I’m so happy to realize that all the sexism I’ve experienced was just a hallucination! Thanks for showing me the way, dude!

    Also, the street harassment thing? I don’t deny it happens, but I’m skeptical that it’s as rampant as the feminists claim. I mean, I’ve never participated in harassment, because it’s rude. I’m also walking around outside all the time and I very rarely hear it.

    That’s some creationist-level reasoning right there. Nice job.

    Actually, the only time I ever heard about this epidemic is on feminist blogs.

    I can’t imagine why any of the women you know in real life would hesitate to share their experiences about street harassment with you.

    What I think is that the e-feminist-o-sphere is an endlessly reverberating echo chamber in which there exists some sort of bizarro peer pressure to claim at least some level of victimization.

    So, some street harassment happens, but not as much as online feminists claim, therefore… what? Feminism not necessary? Women are liars? What?

    I think Schrodinger’s rapist is horseshit. I think I take just as many precautions as most women I know when going outside. That’s all crap.

    You obviously didn’t read Schrodinger’s Rapist, the actual essay.

    You also spend too much goddamn time talking about feminism, and within that, the concentric circle of male privilege. This is supposed to be an atheist community.

    It is. Where “atheist” means ANY person who happens to be atheist, INCLUDING women, people of color, people with disabilities, transgender people, gay and lesbian and bisexual atheists, etc., etc. In order for this kind of atheist community to exist, the atheist community that included white male bigot atheists has to disband and evaporate.

    I don’t hang out on (ostensibly) atheist communities to be beaten over the head for being white or male.

    I disagree, I think your stupidity is not caused by your whiteness or maleness. I say this because I know many white males who are perfectly fine and awesome, though I admit that being white or male can be a bit of a handicap in the quest to become awesome. Still, persevere and I’m sure you can eventually stop sucking someday.

    Fuck you.

    Unlikely, I don’t fuck stupid men.

    I don’t feel comfortable here.

    Feature, not a bug.

    If others do, more power to them. I don’t, so I won’t be participating, except now.

    If this is meant to make us see the error of our ways, and change things up so idiots like you feel more welcome, it’s not working.

    I don’t take part in the Slymepit-style harassment, and I condemn those that do. But I’m not going to make it my life mission to put a stop to it, because I don’t particularly like you guys.

    “I see injustice, but I refuse to take any action to stop it because I have a personal beef with those being targeted.”

    Wow man, you really are a valuable addition to any community you’re a part of.

    Your problem, not mine.

    False, sexism is your problem too, you want to justify inaction in the face of injustice.

    Also, kinda concomitant to that, I don’t like the Slymepit and their assorted comrades like ERV,

    Here’s your cookie.

    but I do think that a lot of their “misogyny” is just a natural reaction to the cult of hyper-feminist language policing that goes on here.

    It’s not “misogyny”, it’s misogyny. If your “natural reaction” to feminism, whether hyper or not, is to explode in a storm of cunt-twat-bitch anger, it’s because you’re a misogynist.

    FtB is so trollable it’s hilarious; this is likewise true of Skepchick and the feminist blogosphere in general.

    You mean, it’s easier to get people who self-identify as social justice activists and feminists to display anger over sexism and social injustice? Wow, who would have thunk it. I am endlessly amused by the people who think it’s some sort of accomplishment to get people do display anger at assholery. “Hey, look, I smeared poo on the walls, now everyone is angry–I win!!” Sure, buddy. Keep telling yourself that.

    And that’s my opinion.

    My opinion is that your opinion is dumb. My observation is that you didn’t produce any evidence to explain why you think your opinion is based in fact rather than wishful thinking or fantasy. My conclusion is that excluding people like you, who do not have the ability to apply critical reasoning to their own biases, can only benefit the atheist community.

  215. 715
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    What is it with the d00ds who drop in, say their piece, then announce that they are leaving or that “this will be my last post”? Do they see commenting here to be an exercise in ego stroking with their inferiors, to be broken off when they get bored?

  216. 716
    Inaji

    Tony:

    What is it with the d00ds who drop in, say their piece, then announce that they are leaving or that “this will be my last post”?

    Evasion technique, part the second to the “it’s my opinion!” method. They don’t want to deal with all those pesky questions, requests for evidence or uncomfortable responses.

  217. 717
    plasticwrap

    From a psychological standpoint, it would be fascinating to consider what on earth would cause someone to RESENT it when someone claims that a group is oppressed and you don’t consider them to be.

    Do you have any theories?

    Studies show that women graduating with the same degrees as men, taking the same jobs and working the same hours, still don’t make as much as men.

    Do you have a link? I’ll follow it.

    That’s some creationist-level reasoning right there. Nice job.

    Not when all I ever hear from the e-feminist echo chamber are increasingly silly anecdotes. Also, and in general, I’d note that it’s not on me to prove a null hypothesis.

    “I see injustice, but I refuse to take any action to stop it because I have a personal beef with those being targeted.”

    You’re being trolled.

    My conclusion is that excluding people like you, who do not have the ability to apply critical reasoning to their own biases, can only benefit the atheist community.

    That’s fine. I think there is room for more than one community in the atheist movement… and clearly, that is the direction that things are headed. You can go circlejerk over how oppressed you are. I will go where I don’t feel demonized. Have a nice life.

  218. 718
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Do you have a link? I’ll follow it.

    Sorry, you are supposed to supply links that back up you OPINION. Where the fuck are they?

  219. 719
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Not when all I ever hear from the e-feminist echo chamber are increasingly silly anecdotes. Also, and in general, I’d note that it’s not on me to prove a null hypothesis.

    Your unsupported OPINION is *POOF* dismissed as noise. Whiny noise.

  220. 720
    chigau (違う)

    ohno
    how can we go on?

  221. 721
    Nepenthe

    The cult of victimization, can’t you all see it. It’s right in front of your eyes. All those feminists following a charismatic leader who exploits zir followers sexually and/or financially, isolating themselves from friends and family and society in general, following rigid and arduous lifestyles, developing an in-group language unintelligible to outsiders, and moving to special victim feminist compounds where they can be surrounded by fellow believers. I see it every day!

    Wake up, sheeple!

  222. 722
    Nepenthe

    @Plasticwrap

    Dude, link’s in the sidebar. Look to your right. You’ll find all sorts of fun links that the Pharygula community has provided for your enjoyment.

    Jezus, as if it’s not enough to ask for your food cut into little bits. Do you ask other people to chew it for you as well?

  223. 723
    Inaji

    You’re being trolled.

    *Yawns* Oh look, plasticwrap doesn’t want to look like a total creep, so they’ll backpedal on that one statement. What a surprise.

    You know, plasticwrap, you thoroughly displayed your lack of critical thinking ability the first time around, no need to prove it over and over again.

  224. 724
    Arren ›‹ neverbound

    @ SallyStrange

    That was triumphantly exhaustive. Had I known that the odious embodiment of feculence that is plasticwrap was to be so thoroughly dissected, I’d have forborne from my merely subcutaneous scalpel-work. Oh well.

  225. 725
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    I guess if we go by what plasticwrap has to say, there was no reason why the Lilly Ledbetter Act was passed in the US. There is no pay gap that needs to be rectified.

    Also, how fucking difficult is it to google “difference in pay between men and women”?

    Lazy fuck has to complain, I guess.

  226. 726
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    Do you ask other people to chew it for you as well?

    He is like a baby bird that needs his food predigested.

  227. 727
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    While I would like for him to actually learn something and recognize how wrong he is, I really hope plastcwrap doesn’t come back. That particular brand of anti-feminist, anti-freethinking, anti-skepticism is supremely offensive.

  228. 728
    Nick Gotts

    I don’t hang out on (ostensibly) atheist communities to be beaten over the head for being white or male. – plasticwrap

    What a coincidence! Neither do I. But then, I never am, even in places where I’m known to be both white and male. Now I wonder why it could possibly be that you get beaten over the head – or at least, claim to – and I don’t, even though we’re equally white and equally male. It’s a puzzler, isn’t it?

  229. 729
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    Musical interlude:
    The results so fare reminds me very much of this song

    In other words, we know where they’re coming from and we know the score.

  230. 730
    Inaji

    Nick:

    Now I wonder why it could possibly be that you get beaten over the head – or at least, claim to – and I don’t, even though we’re equally white and equally male.

    Obviously, you’re No True Man™, Nick.

  231. 731
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    Link would not play for me so here is an other one.

    Love Lush.

  232. 732
    carlie

    You can go circlejerk over how oppressed you are. I will go where I don’t feel demonized. Have a nice life.

    You forgot to drop your mic.

    Tell me, how are we supposed to live without you
    Now that we’ve been readin’ you so long
    How are we supposed to live without you
    How are we supposed to carry on
    When the links that we’ve been waitin’ for are gone

  233. 733
    Louis

    I’m not particularly oppressed, but this circlejerk thing sounds like a laugh. Anyone?

    Anyone?

    Hey why are you all running away?

    [Forever Alone]*

    Louis

    * Actual loneliness may exist for comedy purposes only.

    P.S. Since the level of antifeminist thought in this gold plated opportunity of a thread has yet to rise much above “WAH TEH FEMISMS IS MEEN!” (apart from “NIETZSCHE! FUCK YOU!”) then I’m off to do something worthwhile and productive, like have a massive shit.

  234. 734
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    Louis:

    I’m not particularly oppressed, but this circlejerk thing sounds like a laugh. Anyone?

    It’s messy. And if there’s Swedes present and there’s a bun in the middle of the room – walk away. At once.

  235. 735
    cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)

    carlie, that was evil. Brilliant, but eeeeeeviiiiiiiiil.

    Gnumann/Janine: the Lush video took me back, too. :-)

  236. 736
    Louis

    Gnumann+,

    Sounds like boarding school all over again.

    Louis

  237. 737
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    carlie, that was evil. Brilliant, but eeeeeeviiiiiiiiil.

    *goes over the the ten-day-old grog, draws off a fuming small tankard, and gently sets is on the bar…*

  238. 738
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    Louis: I’ve never parttaken in the experience, but my prejudice says “yes indeed”.

  239. 739
    SallyStrange

    So, trolling is when you say things you don’t mean in order to get a reaction. I wonder which parts of plasticwrap’s posts were insincere. The part where he says he condemns the Slymers?

  240. 740
    David Marjanović

    ajb47, the reason plasticwrap stressed opinion was that it’s a method to prevent questioning.

    “Just my opinion, see? I don’t need evidence to have an opinion. That’s the way I feel. I told you what I see and hear every day. That’s what I base my opinion on. See, all this pestering, asking for crap – you just proved me right!”

    Indeed this is a widespread attitude – too bad it’s one that betrays a complete lack of thinking.

    From a psychological standpoint, it would be fascinating to consider what on earth would cause someone to RESENT it when someone claims that a group is oppressed and you don’t consider them to be. It’s one thing to disagree when someone says that educated American women are oppressed, it’s another thing to RESENT it. What the fuck is up with that?

    Indeed.

    Not when all I ever hear from the e-feminist echo chamber are increasingly silly anecdotes. Also, and in general, I’d note that it’s not on me to prove a null hypothesis.

    Long list of papers you’ll find interesting, with links.

    So, trolling is when you say things you don’t mean in order to get a reaction. I wonder which parts of plasticwrap’s posts were insincere.

    No. Trolls don’t need to be liars, they can be bullshitters instead – they don’t need to care about whether what they say is true, they only need to care about whether it infuriates their audience.

  241. 741
    rorschach

    So the few people that actually showed up here to try and argue their case all made utterly pitiful arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity, and when asked to produce any evidence for their opinions, they got defensive and doubled down. Wonder where I have seen that before.

  242. 742
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    David:
    Thank you for that link to Jadehawks post!

  243. 743
    vaiyt

    That’s fine. I think there is room for more than one community in the atheist movement… and clearly, that is the direction that things are headed. You can go circlejerk over how oppressed you are. I will go where I don’t feel demonized.

    Don’t worry, there are plenty of places on the internet where doods like you can circlejerk themselves while looking down at us sheeple.

    Don’t come back.

  244. 744
    furcifer

    So Shermer reports on a study, Ophelia as she is wont to do changes it into a feminist issue and Shermer disagrees that he has inherent bias which according to PZ means he “despises feminism”.

    I would identify myself as a feminist but I’m not looking to find biases and sexism in every aspect of daily life.

    This obsession with feminism is slowly dividing this community and strongly resembling what happened when “The Raving Atheist” began to become obsessed with pro-life causes.

  245. 745
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    This obsession with feminism is slowly dividing this community

    Why is it a bad thing to get rid of dead weight. Which is the misogynist contingent/Slymepit? No evidence, so OPINION is *POOF* dismissed.

  246. 746
    furcifer

    If they are true misogynists then sure. Some of them have been labeled as such just for asking questions.

  247. 747
    Inaji

    furcifer:

    I would identify myself as a feminist but I’m not looking to find biases and sexism in every aspect of daily life.

    Funny, I’ve never had to go looking for biases and sexism. It’s all around, every day.

  248. 748
    Inaji

    furcifer:

    If they are true misogynists then sure.

    Please, don’t play No True Misogynist here. It won’t fly.

    Some of them have been labeled as such just for asking questions.

    Not so. You are aware of JAQing off, right? We’re pretty good at distinguishing an honest questioner from a JAQer.

    For those who do have question, there are incredibly helpful links, right on the front page, right sidebar. We point people to these all the time. Amazing how few bother to click a link and read.

  249. 749
    AtheistPowerlifter

    This is a very interesting and informative thread. Every time I think I understand my own biases, privleges and prejudices I read here and learn more.

    It makes me wonder (as meatheaded as I am) just how much I DON’T know. We have a saying in my field (Athletic Therapy): “The more you know, the more you know that you don’t know”.

    So thanks to those intelligent posters here who so vociferously educate. Some of us are (trying) to listen.

    I’m a heterosexual white male. My profession is approximately 75% female…I have been taught by (mainly) women, and my mentors have been women. This didn’t seem strange to me…in fact I guess I never really considered it until recently. Yet in the jobs that are considered the “pinnacle” of my profession (i.e. professional sports and University positions) – these are dominated by men. This is changing slowly (very slowly).

    It is difficult to be a feminist, particularly in the sports culture (of both men’s and women’s teams I may add), but these kinds of threads give me ammo.

    Anyways, carry on – didn’t mean to derail or anything.

    AP

    PS – I still Like Shermer…maybe he needs to take a more unbiased look at his own biases? Watching him right now in the Oxford Union god debate.

  250. 750
    Nepenthe

    Ophelia as she is wont to do changes it into a feminist issue

    I fail to see how biases against higher pitched voices–like those of most women–is not a feminist issue. You’ll have to explain it to me with small words.

    Shermer disagrees that he has inherent bias which according to PZ means he “despises feminism”.

    Actually, PZ thinks that his use of feminist as a psuedo-slur means that Shermer despises feminism. The bit of the OP that hints subtly at this: “But that’s not what’s got me curious. Notice what else he does? He uses “feminist” as an insult, a very common phenomenon. It has me mystified.”

    And anyone who’s written a book called “Why People Believe Weird Things” should know better than to claim that they are unbiased.

    This obsession with feminism is slowly dividing this community

    What level of attention to feminism is appropriate?

    If they are true misogynists then sure. Some of them have been labeled as such just for asking questions.

    What is a “true misogynist” and how does one differ from a fake misogynist? Could you give an example of a “them” who’s been labeled a misogynist just for asking questions?

  251. 751
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    If they are true misogynists then sure. Some of them have been labeled as such just for asking questions.

    The Slymepit has organized harassment of several atheist/skeptical woman that talk at conventions/meetings. And made rape threats to them as part of the harassment. They don’t ask innocent questions. Innocent questions is all too often a cover for their misogyny and bigotry to appear. You are naive if you think otherwise, or one of them telling your lies…

  252. 752
    John Morales

    furcifer:

    So Shermer reports on a study, Ophelia as she is wont to do changes it into a feminist issue and Shermer disagrees that he has inherent bias which according to PZ means he “despises feminism”.

    First, was Ophelia wrong in what she wrote? If you don’t think she was wrong, what’s your problem; else if you do, what was factually or inferentially wrong with what she wrote?

    Second, where did PZ write that? Can you adduce a quotation?

    I would identify myself as a feminist but I’m not looking to find biases and sexism in every aspect of daily life.

    Huh. I don’t identify myself as a feminist but I often notice biases and sexism in every aspect of daily life.

    This obsession with feminism is slowly dividing this community and strongly resembling what happened when “The Raving Atheist” began to become obsessed with pro-life causes.

    Obsession, eh? I suppose feminist blogs are about as obsessed with feminism as atheist blogs are with atheism and political blogs with politics. ;)

    As for ‘dividing’ this community, that’s one way to look at it; I prefer thinking of it as culling the clueless or indifferent or selfish out from the reality-based members — the division was already there, but the separate subsets had been clumped together. (Wheat and chaff)

    But, seriously, O self-proclaimed would-be feminist, do you think feminism is as irrational as pro-life?

    (Because if not, then your comparison is specious)

  253. 753
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    I don’t have the energy to muster more than a FUCK YOU to furcifer’s brand of “feminism”. Why don’t these idiots read the whole thread first?
    Hell, in hir case, xe needs to read Ophelia’s original column, and watch the video where Shermer first makes his now infamous ‘it’s a guy thing’ statement.

  254. 754
    Inaji

    AP:

    Anyways, carry on – didn’t mean to derail or anything.

    You didn’t derail at all and thank you for your post. Believe me, posts like that really help.

  255. 755
    carlie

    This obsession with feminism is slowly dividing this community

    You know it doesn’t just belong to you, right? Feature, not a bug.

    Some of them have been labeled as such just for asking questions.

    Citation needed.

  256. 756
    Inaji

    Carlie:

    You know it doesn’t just belong to you, right?

    Well, if only us women would get back in our place, everything would be hunky dory.

  257. 757
    carlie

    Caine – you’d think they’d be happy to get rid of us. Don’t let the door hit us on the way out and all. Instead, they sit and whine and yell about how bad we’re making it for them (have you seen Al Stefanelli’s latest??)

    I think it’s because we have better parties than they do, or something.

  258. 758
    Rev. BigDumbChimp

    Hey man.

    I’m like, just asking questions, man.

  259. 759
    Inaji

    Carlie:

    (have you seen Al Stefanelli’s latest??)

    No, I haven’t but I have a feeling it’s a doozy.

  260. 760
    carlie

    Ophelia has it

  261. 761
    carlie

    That’s it, Rev. Out on your ass! Or, um, something.

  262. 762
    Inaji

    Stefanelli:

    including real feminists

    Oh FFS. I’m past tired of this No True Feminist crap. Just once, I want one of these gold-plated idiots to define, in concise, clear terms exactly what constitutes a “real” feminist.

    <spits>

  263. 763
    Inaji

    Carlie:

    That’s it, Rev. Out on your ass! Or, um, something.

    We must now institute a campaign of harassment (and possibly taking all his beer away) until he has been silenced. Yep.

  264. 764
    Rev. BigDumbChimp

    No!
    I will never be silenced! Shushed maybe, but never silenced

  265. 765
    Nepenthe

    If we take away all his beer, can we drink it? If so, I’m game!

  266. 766
    Inaji

    Rev. BDC:

    No!
    I will never be silenced!

    Godsdamnit! You are being divisive! You’re ruining the atheist, skeptic, GLBT, and feminist communities!

  267. 767
    chigau (違う)

    Taking his beer?!‽
    You are a hard, cruel person, Caine.

  268. 768
    Inaji

    Nepenthe:

    If we take away all his beer, can we drink it? If so, I’m game!

    Of course we can. Gotta teach that uppity man a lesson, you know.

  269. 769
    Rev. BigDumbChimp

    Stop ganging up on me. I’m just here to ask questions and challenge the status pharyngula.

    Leave my beer out of this.

    You, big meanies.

  270. 770
    Inaji

    Chigau:

    You are a hard, cruel person, Caine.

    Well, I am a feminist.

  271. 771
    Rev. BigDumbChimp

    Don’t question my comma usage either.

  272. 772
    Inaji

    Rev. BDC:

    Don’t question my comma usage either.

    :falls over laughing:

  273. 773
    chigau (違う)

    commas,
    we,don’t,need,no,stinking,commas,

  274. 774
    John Morales

    [meta]

    Will you people stop chattering?

    (I’m listening for a furcifer!)

  275. 775
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    You know, you meanies could have Al back if you would become real feminists and stop making him feel guilty for being a white male. /snark, snark!
    (To anyone who may screencap this, please include the note of sarcasm).

  276. 776
    chigau (違う)

    John Morales
    ,,,comma,,com,ma

  277. 777
    Inaji

    John:

    (I’m listening for a furcifer!)

    What does the call of a furcifer sound like?

  278. 778
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    John:
    I fear the toy would break too easily. You should shop around for a sturdier model.

  279. 779
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Caine:
    The call of the wild.

  280. 780
    Stacy

    Shermer disagrees that he has inherent bias

    Does he? That would be a deeply stupid thing for a skeptic to claim.

  281. 781
    John Morales

    Stacy, it amuses me that what seems a quote mine… isn’t.

    (That really was the claim!)

  282. 782
    John Morales

    PS ,

    ,,,comma,,com,ma

    Silly chigau!

  283. 783
    Stacy

    Stacy, it amuses me that what seems a quote mine… isn’t.

    (That really was the claim!)

    John Morales, but we’re not supposed to mention that Shermer is not always the most…skeptical of dudes. Because, divisiveness. ;)

  284. 784
    rorschach

    I think it’s because we have better parties than they do, or something.

    I can see how a party with Hoggle, Blackford and bluharmony may get a tad awkward.

  285. 785
    chigau (違う)

    I can see how a party with Hoggle, Blackford and bluharmony may get a tad awkward.

    bugger
    I’m about to go to bed.
    nightmaressssss

  286. 786
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    Closes the door and slowly backs away.

  287. 787
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    So, the veribose one hasn’t been back to comment on the white paper I provided him. What a shocker! Here I thought he wanted to learn and all.

    Since none of the MRAs have delivered the goods, I thought I might share. As I have said several times before, I used to be one. It was back in my intellectual dark age. Libertarian-leaning and MRA. And those two was, at least for me, intimately linked. You see, a libertarian philosophy is not sustainable if you recognise that the game is fixed and the decks are stacked. So it becomes a necessity to deny the existence of patriarchy. Historically that’s of course impossible, but usually (and for me) it was the same lines as the verbiose one has spouted here – patriarchy is over – women gets hold doors and free drinks etcetc.

  288. 788
    kate_waters: Not Your Father's Oldsmobile.

    After reading every single comment in this thread I’ve noticed an underlying theme in the posts by those who say they “don’t like”/”despise”/”don’t understand the need for” feminism:

    The lived experiences of women as related by women are not believed to be true and unless these experiences are directly observed/experienced by these people they can’t possibly exist or happen in the way women say they do. The problem, though, is that they never bother to look around them. If they did they’d see how often sexism and bigotry happen, but end up being blinded to it because they’ve been soaking in the patriarchal bullshit that “feminists are hysterical harpies who want men to die out so they can rule the planet”. (Yes, that’s hyperbole, but only barely so)

    …but how do you convince someone that something they directly observe every single day isn’t just a figment of their imagination? How can you force someone to believe something that’s true if they really believe that “the truth is a lie”.

    I’m asking because I really have no starting place to help some of the men I know open their eyes. I often hear many of the same arguments against feminism among them that I’ve seen here in this thread, and no matter how often I try to point these otherwise reasonable men to sources of information they either refuse to even consider reading the articles I point to or will flat-out refuse to believe that these papers and studies are anything but flawed and “biased against men because feminists just hate men and anything manly” (Despite the fact that they are well aware that I don’t hate men at all, and often think very highly of many of the men in my life who are not bigoted, unaware jerks).

    Asking them to give me some/any proof for their assertion that feminists “hate” men only results in the vague whining I’ve seen here in this thread, as if they feel that their own discomfort on being called out on their prejudices is proof enough of this hate.

    In short: How does one effectively counter the “What about the meeeennnnnnnz” whines in meatspace? Is it even possible? It seems to be an almost Sisyphean task here in the electronic realm, where you can include links and citations with the click of a button and can take time to thoughtfully write out responses, but in the real world it seems almost impossible when coupled with the idea that a woman getting passionate or even (Heaven for fend!) angry about injustice is perceived as just “that chick on her rag getting all bent out of shape about not getting doors held open for her or enough free drinks at her ladies night”.

  289. 789
    Gnumann+,with no bloody irony at all (just an anti-essentialist feminist with a shotgun)

    Kate:
    It’s not easy, and I’m not sure there’s an universal key.

    For me, my conversion was in part growing up, in part handling appeals of child support payment decisions (the shit I have seen…).

    Some might be swayed by the good feminism have done for men. Most will acknowledge it if you lead them by hand (how many easy points there is depends rather on where you live. In my neck of he woods, mainstream feminism is arguably too concerned with securing men’s rights). The white paper I tried to get the verbiose one to read is a good summary (if you call 150 pages of bureaucrat babble a summary you mileage may vary). linky

    Some may be swayed by hard facts, as the gender pay-gap, or time spent on home-making.

    Some are too lost in denial, often co-mingled with other delusions like libertarian ideologies. You might have to work a different angle…

  290. 790
    kate_waters: Not Your Father's Oldsmobile.

    Gnumann+:

    Thank you for that response. While it galls me to even try to “water down” feminism in order to appeal to the “what about the men” set, I do see your point and appreciate that it comes from your own personal journey away from “MRA Land”.

    I’d also like to thank you for re-posting that link, I didn’t click it the first time you posted it, but I’ve got it bookmarked now. (Though you’re right that 153 pages is not exactly a summary!)

  291. 791
    lutherflint

    If you want to know why people might have a legitimate reason to be anti-feminist, you could do worse the watch this video which shows the reaction to a man being assaulted by a woman in public,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

    and ask yourself how such responses have come to be considered amusing as opposed to shameful.

    One could also do worse than read ‘The Myth of Male Power’ by Warren Farrell.

    Some of the arguments:

    1. The gap in life expectancy between men and women favours women and is increasing in favour of women and yet (at the time the book was published) 19 out of every 20 single sex health campaigns were directed towards women’s health.

    2. Almost everyone who is in prison is male – the figures are always over 95% – and yet nobody sees this as representing any kind of bias in society. Is the only genuine difference between men and women men’s capacity to do wrong?

    3. As the above video states, while men do more damage, more women hit men than men hit women. Moreover, men make up the overwhelming majority of total victims of violence. And yet, advertising campaign after campaign only deals with male violence towards women.

    4. Men are discriminated against in custody cases following a divorce. The figures cited in the book were that, in contested cases, men had a 1 in 8 chance of joint custody, and a 1 in 14 chance of sole custody. Must we strive for equality here, or is this another area where natural differences exist and make this inequality right? If so, are there any counterbalancing examples where natural differences favour men?

    The general issue, then, might be put thus: feminists have picked all and only those areas where women appear to have a bad deal and, through talk of a patriarchy, have completely denied the possibility that there might be other areas (such as the right to life, liberty, parenthood, and freedom from domestic abuse) where men might actually be worse off or badly off as well. On the contrary, the assumption is that women always and everywhere get the raw deal, and in the process of trying to rectify this perceived injustice, men have been unfairly demonised to such an extent that as the gap closes in areas where women are treated badly by society, the gap is opening wider in those areas where men are. And so the grievance against feminism might be that it starts with a very skewed view of the world and proceeds to make the bias in society worse while portraying men in such a wholly negative manner that it will take decades to undo the damage done and to break down the negative stereotypes that have been constructed.

  292. 792
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Gee, somebody actually tries to provide a references, but a video and book (vanity press people)? Not making your case compared to citing the academic literature, and everything mentioned above is explained away when look at by those facts. I’m still waiting for real evidence….

    Like you can shut the fuck up and actually listen….

  293. 793
    Nepenthe

    One could also do worse than read ‘The Myth of Male Power’ by Warren Farrell.

    Ah yes, the man who believes that father-daughter incest would be a great thing in the absence of sexual shame, because men who engage in it seem to enjoy it so much (their daughters don’t, but that’s because they’re prudes, amirite?). I’ll get right on that.

  294. 794
    lutherflint

    @ Nerd of redhead, @ Nepenthe

    You are of course free to deal with the issues raised whenever you wish.

  295. 795
    carlie

    Almost everyone who is in prison is male – the figures are always over 95% – and yet nobody sees this as representing any kind of bias in society. Is the only genuine difference between men and women men’s capacity to do wrong?

    Well, evo-psych, with all those papers MRAs like to cite talking about how women are evolved for gathering and nurturing, also says that men are the ones wired for aggression and dominance. Goose, gander, etc.

  296. 796
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Almost everyone who is in prison is male – the figures are always over 95% – and yet nobody sees this as representing any kind of bias in society.

    Irrelevant to females being discriminated against in say salary, promotions, harassment, etc. Which is why your attempts at arguments fail. They don’t really show what you think they show.

  297. 797
    lutherflint

    @Carlie

    Yeah, but if that’s true, then perhaps dominance and aggression, or some other trait, leads to higher salaries (or some other benefit) as well as more jail time. Should we attempt to equalize one, both or neither.

  298. 798
    lutherflint

    @Nerd of redhead

    But not irrelevant to men being discriminated against in terms of being jailed, or dying younger, or being routinely denied custody because they’re men. Or do/should these things not count for some reason?

    What, btw, do you think my arguments are intended to show? You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick.

  299. 799
    a_ray_in_dilbert_space

    Luthur Flint,
    I do not think that you will find that feminists deny there are biases against men. However, if you look at the agents responsible for causing/enforcing those biases, they belong overwhelmingly to the dominant white patriarchy. Becoming conscious of that patriarchy and of our role (as Cis, white, economically priveleged males) in its support and continuation will ultimately benefit both men and women. And while at least some of the biases you cite have some validity, arguably, the best way to attack the patriarchy is to oppose them where their bias is most evident–that is wrt bias toward gender, race, etc.

    Your figures merely demonstrate that it is to the benefit of most straight, white men to overturn the patriarchy, as well as to women and minorities. FWIW, I think this may even be something that many feminists miss when they couch their appeals in the language of justice and decency. Most people are neither decent or just. Most will act in accord with their perceived interests. It may be more effective to demonstrate just how small a minority really benefit from the ongoing patriarchy and how most–regardless of race or gender–would benefitfrom overturning it.

  300. 800
    lutherflint

    @a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    I don’t think calling our governing institutions a straight white patriarchy is helpful. Indeed, I think it does more harm than good. That is, I don’t think almost any of the main problems facing society are helpfully categorized/analysed using mainly male/female, white/black and straight/gay distinctions. Thus I think feminism, by talking in terms of such dichotomies, makes solving (seeing) the real problems more difficult.

  301. 801
    carlie

    Yeah, but if that’s true, then perhaps dominance and aggression, or some other trait, leads to higher salaries (or some other benefit) as well as more jail time. Should we attempt to equalize one, both or neither.

    You missed the part where I think evo-psych is pretty much shit.

    Also, see #799.

    As for medical bias: until very, very recently, all clinical studies were done on men, even for diseases that mainly affect women, because women’s bodies were considered to be abberant, and things like menstrual cycles “threw off” the results. No consideration for the fact that the people taking those medicines would be dealing with those cycles as a matter of course. Or, you could look at how many insurance policies cover Viagara v. birth control. And so on.

    As for jail: it would be interesting to tease apart reasons. Do you think that there are equal numbers of men and women committing crimes, and women are just not convicted? Do you think that the types of crimes that land you in jail are weighed towards the types of crimes men commit v. women? Or do you think that perhaps we teach men inappropriate ways of asserting and defending their manhood that lead them to act out in dangerous ways?

  302. 802
    carlie

    I don’t think calling our governing institutions a straight white patriarchy is helpful.

    Yet it is a correct description, demographically speaking.

    Indeed, I think it does more harm than good.

    How so?

  303. 803
    lutherflint

    @Carlie
    I explained why I thought it did more harm than good. I think it causes us to focus largely on irrelevancies in the way that pointing out, eg, that Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin were all well under six feet tall, would be to focus on irrelevancies. My view is that the governing systems are fundamentally inhuman (they focus on, eg, capital not people) and these systems both mould people into having, and benefit people with, particular attributes (be those people white, black, male, female, gay or straight). I therefore think that within feminism there is a strong element of confusing cause and effect allied with a number of flawed, or irrelevant, if not outright false, dichotomies, and that this has resulted in the problems being described in a fundamentally wrong way. It would therefore seem to me to be largely a matter of luck if anything approaching a sensible solution to any of our genuine problems could be derived from such a skewed analysis.

  304. 804
    Nepenthe

    Yeah, but if that’s true, then perhaps dominance and aggression, or some other trait, leads to higher salaries (or some other benefit) as well as more jail time. Should we attempt to equalize one, both or neither.

    Are you suggesting that we institute an affirmative action program for aspiring female criminals?

    If men commit more crime than women, more men are going to be in jail than women. Why are more men violent than women? The phrases “toxic masculinity” and “culture of violence” leap to mind. As per usual, deconstructing patriarchy, while an exercise aimed toward women’s liberation, helps men as well. Unfortunately, instead of picking up their patriarchy smashing hammers, “men’s rights” advocates are generally content to piss and moan about the mean feminists not doing their work for them.

  305. 805
    carlie

    lutherflint – do you have any data that backs up your view of things, or is it just a thought you had?

  306. 806
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    I therefore think that within feminism there is a strong element of confusing cause and effect allied with a number of flawed, or irrelevant, if not outright false, dichotomies, and that this has resulted in the problems being described in a fundamentally wrong way.

    CITATION NEEDED. OPINION IS *POOF* DISMISSED. Welcome to science.

  307. 807
    lutherflint

    @Nepenthe
    No, I’m not suggesting an affirmative action programme to help aspiring female criminals. Thus the point I actually made can be addressed any time you feel up to it.

    Btw, does the phrase “toxic dark-skinnedness” also come to your mind when you examine the prison demographic? If not, why not? And if so, what do you do with those thoughts?

  308. 808
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    It would therefore seem to me to be largely a matter of luck if anything approaching a sensible solution to any of our genuine problems could be derived from such a skewed analysis.

    Simple solution. You shut the fuck up and actually listen to women. You seem to dismiss what they, and the literature, really says. You can’t open your mind until your mouth stays closed.

  309. 809
    lutherflint

    @Nerd of redheads

    What a fantastic way to avoid actually having to think.

  310. 810
    Nepenthe

    Luther, anytime you want to back up your claims with some evidence, I’ll be happy to explain why you’re full of shit. Since you’re pulling statistics out of your ass, I’ll pass.

    Btw, does the phrase “toxic dark-skinnedness” also come to your mind when you examine the prison demographic?

    Is “dark-skinnedness” a social construct? Are there more parsimonious and data driven explanations for racial disparities in imprisonment? Respective answers: no and yes.

  311. 811
    ChasCPeterson

    Well, evo-psych, with all those papers MRAs like to cite talking about how women are evolved for gathering and nurturing,

    Would you mind directing me to an example of such studies being cited by a Men’s Rights Advocate? Because I don’t read their shit and the only people I ever see citing such studies are trying to call bullshit from a feminist perspective.

    also says that men are the ones wired for aggression and dominance.

    Do you seriously doubt even that much? Really?

  312. 812
    lutherflint

    @Nerd of redheads

    Why don’t you shut the fuck up? And I have listened to a lot of women and have heard many interesting and sensible things. Unfortunately though, for the reasons I outlined above, almost none of it came while feminists were speaking about feminism.

  313. 813
    lutherflint

    @Nepenthe

    Better to pull stats out of one’s ass (as I do) than to have one’s head planted firmly up inside it (as you have).

  314. 814
    Nepenthe

    Man, I wish I were that flexible.

  315. 815
    carlie

    Do you seriously doubt even that much? Really?

    Chas – not as much, no, but I also think a huge factor is how society encourages men to be more aggressive – witness the “consider your man card reissued” ad for the assault rifle recently in the news.

  316. 816
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    And I have listened to a lot of women and have heard many interesting and sensible things. Unfortunately though, for the reasons I outlined above, almost none of it came while feminists were speaking about feminism.

    There is a difference between lip service, which you did, and real listening. So, shut the fuck up and listen. It would be a change of pace from you telling women what to think and why.

  317. 817
    kate_waters: Not Your Father's Oldsmobile.

    lutherflint:

    So what I hear you saying is this:

    “I just pull ideas out of my ass, and don’t need to back them up because I can *feel* the truthiness of them in my manly, manly gut. Also, you should totally listen to a guy who advocates for father/daughter incest being amazing and which would be even better if we taught little girls that having their daddies sexually abuse them is a good thing (unlike those feminists who hate child abuse for some weird reason).”

    (Hint: If your number one go to is a someone who makes this type of statement publicly and actually believes such a disgusting idea is a *good* one, you might want to rethink your position, or even better, abandon it altogether until you can find someone who has less problematic reasons for thinking feminism is a bad idea.)

    Then you proceed to tell someone asking your for evidence to shut up because you are completely unable to back up your assertions with actual proof, despite that being the central theme of this thread.

    In short: You are a pretty sad advocate for your position. Can’t you do better? Don’t you have a reliable source, any reliable source will do, to support what you’re trying to say?

  318. 818
    lutherflint

    @Nerd of redhead
    I’m not telling any woman what to think and why. I’m saying what I think and why. And the reason I’m doing this is because peezee asked for people’s opinions.

  319. 819
    Nepenthe

    I’m saying what I think and why sharing my colonic concoctions with others.

    Just to be clear. You sure as hell aren’t giving any whys, although you’re giving compelling evidence that you’re an asshole.

  320. 820
    kate_waters: Not Your Father's Oldsmobile.

    lutherflint @ 818:

    You were asked to provide evidence for your position. You were not asked for your opinion. Reading for comprehension is not your string suit, is it?

  321. 821
    kate_waters: Not Your Father's Oldsmobile.

    Well, that ought to read “strong suit”. A string suit is pretty useless.

    Hmmmm… maybe that was a Freudian slip, then?

  322. 822
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Gnumann:
    I would be interested to hear how you escaped from libertarianism and MRAdom.

  323. 823
    logicalcat

    Lutherflint, does the phrase “misogyny/patriarchy hurts men too” mean anything to you? Because you seem to provide pretty good reasons why people should be feminist instead of oppose to it.

  324. 824
    lutherflint

    @kate_waters

    No, I’m not pulling ideas out of my ass. And no, I don’t feel the truthiness of them in my manly gut – I assess the sense of them in humanly brain. And no, Farrell is not my number one go to, although he does capture nicely some of what I think – the examples cited above cover that – even if he does say other things I disagree with (God forbid we should believe Hitler when he says it’s Tuesday). And no (again) I didn’t tell them to shut up because they asked for evidence, I told them to shut the fuck up because they repeatedly told me to shut the fuck up.

    As for reliable sources – lol. If you want to dispute any of the facts I cite then dispute them, but the opinions I put forward don’t just rely on them and many (all) of the stats are easy enough to check out. The rest is my opinion based on nearly 50 years on this earth and some careful thought, and formal study in relevant disciplines. Apologies if that’s not good enough for you but it’s pretty much all anyone has when it comes to topics like this.

  325. 825
    lutherflint

    @logicalcat

    Yes, I’m familiar with the phrase. I’m rejecting the premise. I don’t think patriarchy is a helpful term. See above for why.

  326. 826
    a_ray_in_dilbert_space

    Luthur,
    The problem with any dominating hierarchy is just that–it is a hierarchy. So while one group may consider itself oppressed, it still retains priveleges denied to other members of the society. The only answer is to uproot priveleges–and the best way to do that is to start being aware of our own. That is difficult–as difficult as it is for a fish to perceive the water in which it swims. It requires the help of friends who are not in the same priveleged class and empathy on our part to try to see the world through their eyes. However, if you start to succeed, you become aware of privelege in the society in general.

    In our society, the most priveleged are straight, white males, and the more affluent, and the older one’s money, the more priveleged one is. Since we are includedwithin the priveleged class–even if we are not among the most priveleged–the place to start is with our own experience. That is the experience we know best, and by holding it up and comparing it to the less priveleged–by trying to see life through their eyes–that is how we learn and grow. Think of it as an exercise in enlightenment rather than a fight for rights.

  327. 827
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    And no, I don’t feel the truthiness of them in my manly gut – I assess the sense of them in humanly brain.

    Without supporting evidence, it is the manly gut, not the humanly brain talking. Where is your EVIDENCE?

    don’t think patriarchy is a helpful term.

    Since you can’t think with your brain, your conclusion is full of manly shit. Welcome to science, where you need third party evidence to avoid it being OPINION. Which is what PZ was asking for, the EVIDENCE to make your OPINION something other than manly guts talking.

  328. 828
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Did lutherflint hit every MRA talking point?

     
    Speaking of which, is there a quick resource that collects and refutes MRA “arguments”*? I’ve read several, but I was thinking of a one stop link.

    *lutherflint, the scare quotes are because you and so many anti feminists mistake your opinions for well sourced, evidence based arguments.

  329. 829
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Lutherflint:
    Even if all of what you assert were true, you haven’t argued against pursuing full social, economic, and political equality for women. It would simply be that men were unfairly treated (of course so often, it is MEN mistreating men, so your issues with feminism ring hollow even IF your baseless assertions were true)

  330. 830
    lutherflint

    @Nerd of redhead

    EVIDENCE for what? That women exist? You doubt it? That men exist? You doubt that? What kind of evidence would you like me to produce (other than Margaret Thatcher) to show that the societal situation we have is quite different from, eg, the one in that existed until recently in South Africa. The situations are massively different. Thus I don’t think it a very sensible approach to pretend that a similarish male/female power imbalance exists, and I think that any answers that issue from any analysis based on that kind of wayward thinking are unlikely, other than by sheer luck, to arrive at anything even remotely sensible.

  331. 831
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    And no, Farrell is not my number one go to, although he does capture nicely some of what I think – the examples cited above cover that – even if he does say other things I disagree with (God forbid we should believe Hitler when he says it’s Tuesday).

    Good news, Luther! None of us needs to depend on Hitler to verify any bit of knowledge, even one as trivial and easy to detect as what day of the week it is.

    Please do not use this bit of exaggeration again. Your argument has been piss poor with out this.

  332. 832
    Inaji

    I’m saying what I think and why. And the reason I’m doing this is because peezee asked for people’s opinions.

    The one thing PZ did not ask for was opinions. It would be nice if one person arguing against feminism was capable of comprehending PZ’s post.

  333. 833
    Nepenthe

    Luther

    You might want to be consistent as to whether you’re trolling or arguing.

    813: “Better to pull stats out of one’s ass (as I do) than to have one’s head planted firmly up inside it (as you have)”

    824: “No, I’m not pulling ideas out of my ass.”

    Additionally,

    If you want to dispute any of the facts I cite then dispute them

    Fine. I dispute these purported facts and demand satisfaction! *throws a fuzzy pink glove at Luther’s feet* (Hey, couldn’t come up with a proper gauntlet on such short notice.)

  334. 834
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    a_ray:
    I would guess lutherflint would deny privilege exists if he refuses to believe in patriarchy. curiously, he cites no evidence for his beliefs. They just _exist_.

  335. 835
    Inaji

    PZ, from OP, conveniently right there at the top of the page:

    So let’s try an experiment. Let’s hear from some of these anti-feminists. I’d like them to comment here and explain themselves, and to do so a little more deeply than just reiterating dogmatic excuses. If you think feminism is a religion, explain why, and be specific. If you think feminism is unsupported by the evidence, explain what evidence opposes the principles of feminism. If you think it’s wrong for the skeptic movement to have a social agenda, explain what you think it should be doing that has no social implications.

    Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities, is irrational, let’s see you explain your opposition rationally.

  336. 836
    logicalcat

    Yes Luther, Ive read your reasons for thinking the term patriarchy is not helpful. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like what you are saying is that it is not help full because it is divisive. If so, then I will ask so what? Maybe we don’t want people who would dismiss a well known societal problem because he doesn’t like the word being used or are to stupid/intellectually lazy to find out what the word means. This kind of stupid argument reminds me of the “race realist” out there who say that pointing out racism isn’t help.

    Also Nerd and the rest are telling you to shut the fuck up unless you provide evidence, which not only have you not but you actually refuse to. PZ didn’t ask for just your opinion. He asked for your views backed up with evidence. Since you failed to provide any, I too will join in with the others in asking you to kindly shut the fuck up until you do.

  337. 837
    kate_waters: Not Your Father's Oldsmobile.

    lutherflint:

    You made the assertions, it is your duty to now provide evidence to back up those assertions. You’re being very lazy and expecting me to do your work for you, and that doesn’t cut it. Stop being lazy and provide the evidence to back up your ideas.

    Again: You were not ever asked for your opinion. You were asked to provide evidence for your position. If you can’t do it just admit you can’t. Why all the song and dance and pitiful cries to get someone else to do your heavy lifting. I thought you were using your brain? Well, use it! C’mon, show your work!

    Farrell is easily dismissed because his ideas about feminism are beyond problematic. You make it sound as though “It’s Tuesday” and “Fuck your daughter” are just bland statements. One certainly is and if it were in fact Tuesday it wouldn’t matter who was saying it because that could easily be proved true by using a calendar. Having sex with your daughter being a harmless bit of fun for daddy-daughter day is not only untrue, it play heavily into his ideas that girls and women are the property of their husbands/fathers/society at large which, if you could see past your own nose, is an incredibly toxic idea which is at the heart of his gripes against feminism.

    Once more I will have to say that reading for comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

  338. 838
    lutherflint

    @Tony The Queer Shoop

    Yes, I note all the academic references in your posts. I see mountainous evidence stacked up behind your incisive points. The problem being that what I have cited shows your simplistic world view is, well, simplistic. You have found some things where women get a raw deal – well here are some others where that’s not the case. So let’s stop pretending women are treated like Jews in 1940s Germany and let’s get on with looking at the real problems and looking for real answers.

  339. 839
    Nepenthe

    the societal situation we have is quite different from, eg, the one in that existed until recently in South Africa. The situations are massively different.

    Patriarchy doesn’t exist because women aren’t restricted to Femtustans and are citizens.

    Wow. I can feel myself getting dumber as this idea percolates through my brain.

  340. 840
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    What kind of evidence would you like me to produce

    Simple, that men and women are actually equal in society. No pay differential, no promotion differential, no difficulty in being heard and taken seriously, no majority of sexual harassment being in one direction, from men to women. DUH. REAL EVIDENCE.

  341. 841
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    The problem being that what I have cited shows your simplistic world view is, well, simplistic.

    No, it shows your world view is simplistic and ignores reality. It is a smoke screen to make you believe you aren’t a bit sexist when you are. Evidence belies your claims.

  342. 842
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    This shoop sheepily follows Nepenthe’s comment.
    The gauntlet is thrown. We dispute everything you’ve said. Now where is your evidence based support for the views you hold?

  343. 843
    logicalcat

    @838 Lutherflint,

    You have found some things where women get a raw deal – well here are some others where that’s not the case.

    And those other cases are ALSO a result of patriarchy, but since you deny this then how about you provide evidence for why patriarchy is not the cause of many inequalities both women and men face? Did you even bother to read the entire thread because this shit has been answered a bunch of times here already.

  344. 844
    lutherflint

    @kate_waters

    He did ask for opinions. Go read it again. Evidence hardly comes into it. Nonetheless I have produced evidence. You just don’t want to see it. And what my evidence shows is that the founding premise for feminism is false. We don’t live in a patriarchy nor anything like it. Not unless you change the meaning of that word into something so nebulous that it’s hard to see how anything good can be built on such sloppy foundations.

  345. 845
    Inaji

    Kate:

    Having sex with your daughter being a harmless bit of fun for daddy-daughter day is not only untrue, it play heavily into his ideas that girls and women are the property of their husbands/fathers/society at large which, if you could see past your own nose, is an incredibly toxic idea which is at the heart of his gripes against feminism.

    QFT. As someone who grew up with a family member who decided to to start raping me at three years old and had enough fun doing it to continue it for six years, I can vouch that it’s not a matter of “fun”, at least not for the child being raped.

  346. 846
    lutherflint

    @logicalcat

    Because we don’t live in a patriarchy. Thus it’s not the patriarchy that causes these things. It’s the socio-political system we actually live in that does that.

  347. 847
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    lutherflint:
    You must be new to making an argument. The burden of proof is on the one makimg an assertion. You deny patriarchy. You are arguing against feminism. It is up to you to provide the evidence to support your positions. I am not making any arguments.

  348. 848
    Inaji

    Note: a citation is not your opinion on something, nor is it something pulled from your arse.

  349. 849
    Nepenthe

    Tony

    You’re welcome to come along to the duel! You can even have the other glove if you don’t have a proper gauntlet to throw. *offers fuzzy pink thing*

  350. 850
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Hey ladies, did you see how luther went one better than Dawkins? Luther’s dear muslima says that since you don’t have it as bad as the Jews in Nazi Germany, you really don’t have it that bad.
    I don’t even…wow.
    Oppression Olympics has hit an all time low.

  351. 851
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    The Flinty One, perhaps you could do more then just assert that a patriarchy does not exist by pointing out what good ideas that Warren Farrell has. This would be a lot more helpful than making a crack about Hitler and Tuesday.

    I am also interested in your idea that women hit men more then men hit women.

  352. 852
    lutherflint

    Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞

    I know your not making any arguments Tony. That’s painfully obvious.

    Anyway, here’s an argument: we don’t live in a patriarchy because what patriarchy means isn’t what we live in. Thus any argument founded on the premise ‘we live in a patriarchy’ will be unsound. That’s not a good start.

  353. 853
    Inaji

    Janine:

    I am also interested in your idea that women hit men more then men hit women.

    Might as well get the music queue going, Janine, as if you’re waiting on actual evidence, it’s gonna be a long wait.

  354. 854
    Nepenthe

    Okay, okay, I gotta admit, I’m a bit curious.

    Luther, what exactly do you think patriarchy means?

  355. 855
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    Anyway, here’s an argument: we don’t live in a patriarchy because what patriarchy means isn’t what we live in. Thus any argument founded on the premise ‘we live in a patriarchy’ will be unsound. That’s not a good start.

    Besides, it is women who hit men. And have the edge in court custody cases.(We will just ignore that fact that this shows off the idea that women are naturally more suited to child raising.)

  356. 856
    lutherflint

    @Janine
    The meaning of the word “patriarchy” (and it has a meaning) means something different from the socio-political structures we have in place. Thus we don’t live in a patriarchy.

  357. 857
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    luther:
    Again, you know little of arguing. If I were to make the statement that homosexuals are discriminated against in American society, I would need to back that up with evidence.
    You have come here stating mens rights talking points, dismissing feminist concerns, and asserted there is no patriarchy. You have done nothing but assert (well you did cite one person, and that has been effectively demolished by others).
    Again, where is your proof?
    Opinions do not form in a vacuum. What were your influences?
    What blogs have you read?
    What books, articles, magazines-hell advice columns-have you read that would provide suport for your views?

  358. 858
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Because we don’t live in a patriarchy.

    Assertion, not proven fact. No evidence to support your assertion and plenty saying it is full of shit.

  359. 859
    omnicrom

    I’m quite impressed in how quickly Lutherflint’s facade of politeness collapsed. After his initial post which he might have though was triumphant and bulletproof quickly came under fire and was refuted he’s become angrier and angrier.

    Here’s what we want Lutherflint: Evidence. This blog is quite keen on evidence so if you say something that contradicts the Null Hypothesis you’re going to need to prove it. If you say women abuse men more than men abuse women you’re going to need to cite a source. If you say that there is no Patriarchy you’re going to need to demonstrate you understand what that word means and then refute it. If you say that Farrell is not you’re “Number One Go-to” you should post that “Number One Go-to” because the sheer hideousness of what Farrell believes undermines his authority. If you argue that it’s a problem Men are more commonly criminals than women and that men do worse in custody battles then women you’re going to need to demonstrate that Feminism is the root of the problem or at least perpetuates it.

  360. 860
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Lutherflint:
    Also, I second the query: how do YOU define patriarchy?

  361. 861
    Inaji

    Cyranothe2nd, in case you revisit the thread, I’ve ordered Manhood in America. Thanks for the recommendation!

  362. 862
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    I know your [I'm] not making any arguments Tony. That’s painfully obvious.

    Fixed that for you. Your OPINION and unevidenced assertions are not arguments, and never will be.

  363. 863
    Inaji

    Patriarchy. Learn something, will you?

    Kyriarchy. Learn something, will you?

  364. 864
    lutherflint

    @Tony The Queer Shoop
    Women don’t have it that bad. The women who are complaining here are amongst the top few percent of the most financially independent, politically free, socially independent, well educated, and legally protected people in the history of the world. In such a situation, the claims of outrageous oppression ring hollow – it is not an accurate appraisal of the situation or the problems.

  365. 865
    lutherflint

    @Caine, Fleur du mal
    Yeah, I read the one on patriarchy. Exactly as I said, we don’t live in one. We live in what’s called a Liberal Democracy. See the difference?

  366. 866
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    At 864, we finally have it. Lutherflint knows more about the condictions that women live through than women themselves.

    Also, lower class, working class and poor women are not complaining at all. It must be because they know how good they have it.

  367. 867
    chigau (違う)

    I, too, wish to know how Humpty Dumpty lutherflint is defining the word ‘patriarchy’.

  368. 868
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    We live in what’s called a Liberal Democracy.

    In a liberal democracy, only the privileged educated upper class women dare to complain about how they are treated. All of the other women know better.

    So, Caine, just how is live at the top of the economic heap?

    Let’s hear it from all of the other rich women at this blog.

  369. 869
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Women don’t have it that bad.

    Why would anyone take your unevidenced word for anything other than self-serving lies and bullshit. Citations to the real literature, refute your presuppositions every day of the week. And we both know that.

  370. 870
    chigau (違う)

    Late again.
    Dear Muslima, indeed.

  371. 871
    Nepenthe

    Having money never stopped my family, peers, students, teachers, and professors from assuming that I couldn’t do math or science and ignoring me when I could. It didn’t magically keep me from being raped. It didn’t keep unchecked beauty standards from exacerbating my eating disorder. It’s done a lot of things for me, but it didn’t erase the patriarchy or it’s effects on my life.

    But a chastity belt made out of dollar bills would be an interesting art project!

  372. 872
    lutherflint

    @ Nerd of Redhead

    A citation for the fact that people in liberal democracies are amongst the top few percent of people who have ever lived re the things I cited? Lol – which one(s) are you disputing. Where are your sources to the contrary?

  373. 873
    lutherflint

    @Nepenthe
    Poor wee you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVFBK9GhS5Q

  374. 874
    Inaji

    Janine:

    So, Caine, just how is live at the top of the economic heap?

    I can say, here in my compound in rural ND, it’s just peachy. Um, we’re all not just happily rich, we’re all white and straight now, right?

    Nepenthe:

    But a chastity belt made out of dollar bills would be an interesting art project!

    I’d take that on, if people would donate their dollar bills…

  375. 875
    kate_waters: Not Your Father's Oldsmobile.

    Lutherflint:

    Back that shit up, son. You’re floundering here and you’re making yourself look foolish.

    Give evidence for your claims.

    Cite the sources for the information in your claims.

    Do something other than just type out a single sentence refutation of well established fact and expect that is sufficient to support your assertions.

    It is very sad that you are unable to point to a single reliable study. Are you unable to use google? I’m sure if your position were one which is not only true, but as well known as you seem to think it is, you should have no problem flooding the page with studies and facts and hard numbers culled from reliable sources.

    Now go find the evidence and link to it here. Show your work.

  376. 876
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    lutherflint:
    Where is your evidence for 864?
    You have polled all the women here I take it?

    I find it galling that you are deciding for women ‘how bad they have it’. That is arrogant, dismissive, insulting and sexist.
    Do you tell gay people they don’t have it as bad as Matthew Shepard?
    Unless they’re assassinated, do blacks not have it as bad as Dr Martin Luther King Jr?
    You don’t get to decide how bad women have it.

     
    You know what?
    Fuck you.
    As I think about it, you’re saying that the women who have been sexually assaulted-women in this very thread-did not have it as bad as the Jews in Nazi Germany.
    You scum sucking, fuckwitted piece of slime.
    You need to get out.
    Now.

  377. 877
    lutherflint

    Here Peezee, I’ve changed my mind. I no longer think feminism is shit because it’s main premise is wildly out of kilter with reality. I now think it’s shit because most of those who advocate it are complete fucking arseholes. You asked for evidence – check out the above.

    By bye peeps, hope your tears of self pity at how the world done you wrong don’t disturb you as you snooze away on the down of plenty.

  378. 878
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    After lutherflint’s bullshit on 873, I think it is safe to call out just how fucking inhumane the flinty one is.

    Fuck you, lutherflint!

  379. 879
    Nepenthe

    That is so not the world’s saddest song. You can’t even do insults well. That’s… well that makes me sad.

  380. 880
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    A citation for the fact that people in liberal democracies are amongst the top few percent of people who have ever lived re the things I cited?

    No, a citation to the fact that you aren’t playing stupid. Real evidence that men and women have equal opportunity and results. You know, equality. Which you pretend exists, but doesn’t. Shouldn’t be hard for someone to back up their fuckwittery if true. Hard if they know they are bullshitting, and must resort to evasion, ignoring calls for evidence, misrepresenting the refutation, etc. You know, the game you are playing so you don’t have to admit you are wrong. And you are wrong. You haven’t shown otherwise. Welcome to science.

  381. 881
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    Damn, fuckface will not educate us on how it is women who are hitting men and what parts of Warren Farrell’s ideas are worthwhile.

    But I doubt he was here to be an honest broker.

  382. 882
    kate_waters: Not Your Father's Oldsmobile.

    OMG. WE’RE SO MEAN!

    I hope you stick the flounce, cupcake.

  383. 883
    Nepenthe

    This is the saddest song in the world, as far as I know. Makes me cry every single time. [Content note: suicide]

    “Goodbye”, Patty Griffin

    *sigh* There! Now I can think about other things again.

  384. 884
    carlie

    So, Luther, you shouldn’t complain at all about men being denied custody more often or being jailed more often, because at least men in the US aren’t being thrown into concentration camps. Right?

    Caine, you beat me to the idea – I was going to idly wonder if luther was actually angling to use kyriarchy instead. Hahahahaha.

    The rest is my opinion based on nearly 50 years on this earth and some careful thought, and formal study in relevant disciplines.

    Would you care to scan your degrees and show us?

  385. 885
    carlie

    (note: that was an in-joke. We really don’t want to see your diploma.)

    (unless you really want to show it off)

  386. 886
    lutherflint

    @Tony The Queer Shoop
    I do get to make a judgement about how bad women have it every bit as much as they get to make a judgement about how great things are for men.
    @Janine
    I did – they are listed above. Re women hitting men – find the stats yourself – you’ve had an education, and a computer, and if you need a man’s permission to go look, I give you that permission now.
    @kate_waters
    A reliable study that we live in liberal democracy? Or a reliable study that shows Jews were treated worse under Hitler than women are today? Or a reliable study that shows that rape is illegal and is considered a serious criminal offence? I’m sorry, I don’t have any.
    @Nerd of Redhead
    There is equal pay legislation. If women don’t get as much as men then maybe they’re may be reasons for that other than the evil patriarchy they, as the majority of voters, voted in.
    @Luther Flint
    Well done big man. Bunch of arseholes dispatched.
    @peezee
    Great place you have here, you must be very proud of your followers.

  387. 887
    Nepenthe

    Eh, Bill’s College of Higher Learning and Bait Shop was probably low on receipt printer ink the day Luther “graduated”. Scan’s might not work so well.

  388. 888
    Inaji

    The rest is my opinion based on nearly 50 years on this earth

    Big fucking deal, Cupcake. I’m 55 and my experience in life tells me you’re full of shit.

  389. 889
    Nepenthe

    *plucks grocers apostrophe out of last post*

    Is anyone else getting the feeling that Luther thinks that patriarchy is a form of government, like theocracy or oligarchy?

    And dude, don’t give yourself compliments, it’s pathetic. If you want to wank, do it in private.

  390. 890
    lutherflint

    @Carlie
    I’m not complaining about those things. I’m using them as examples to show your premise is BS of the highest order.

  391. 891
    Inaji

    Nepenthe:

    Is anyone else getting the feeling that Luther thinks that patriarchy is a form of government, like theocracy or oligarchy?

    Somewhat. His great struggle to show any form of thought is feeling more akin to torture [of us] at this point.

  392. 892
    carlie

    Or a reliable study that shows Jews were treated worse under Hitler than women are today?

    So nobody can try to make life any better at all, because any level above that of being a Jew in Hitler’s Germany is GOOD ENOUGH, DAMMIT.

    Or a reliable study that shows that rape is illegal and is considered a serious criminal offence? I’m sorry, I don’t have any.

    Interestingly, there are many reliable studies that show that rape conviction rates are abysmally low. Here, let me google that for you.

  393. 893
    chigau (違う)

    Some flounce.
    Pathetic.

  394. 894
    Anri

    My view is that the governing systems are fundamentally inhuman (they focus on, eg, capital not people) and these systems both mould people into having, and benefit people with, particular attributes (be those people white, black, male, female, gay or straight). I therefore think that within feminism there is a strong element of confusing cause and effect allied with a number of flawed, or irrelevant, if not outright false, dichotomies, and that this has resulted in the problems being described in a fundamentally wrong way. It would therefore seem to me to be largely a matter of luck if anything approaching a sensible solution to any of our genuine problems could be derived from such a skewed analysis.

    In other words, if women would just shut up and do what you tell them to do, they could be forever free of men telling them to shut up and do as they are told.

    Gotcha.

    To sum up:
    I Just Don’t Know What Went Wrong!

  395. 895
    Nick Gotts

    Lutherflint’s right, you know – in fact, he understates his claims. By my count, Britain has had 56 Prime ministers*, and every one a woman, from Roberta Walpole to Davina Cameron!

    *Note that this list includes a number of these powerful women more than once, as they had two or more separate terms in office.

  396. 896
    Nepenthe

    Nick, you seem to have overlooked Marvin Thatcher, sole representative of manity in the British government.

  397. 897
    logicalcat

    Lutherflint sounds like he would be one of those assholes who in the 1950′s would say “hey you blacks need to shut up, its not as bad now as it was back then when you guys were slaves. You guys have it better than you ever had. Racism is over.”

  398. 898
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Lutherflint:
    Stick the fucking flounce you rape enabling shit head.
    I feel sorry for any women in your life. You so casually dismiss any of their concerns because they aren’t suffering from genocide. Curiously men get to complain about treatment that doesn’t reach genocidal levels. Double standard much shitface?

  399. 899
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    logicalcat:
    Thats exactly what he sounds like!
    But men should stop complaining too because they are dying from the black plague.

  400. 900
    omnicrom

    Hey Lutherflint, why do you keep appealing to PZ about the meanies in his comment thread? Do you want HIM to tear up your shitty, unevidenced, hateful assertions in big letters on the main page so even people who haven’t been following this comment thread can laugh at you?

  401. 901
    a_ray_in_dilbert_space

    Uh, Luthur, over here in the capitalist paradise we call the good ol’ US of A, a woman just lost an employment discrimination where her boss fired her because she was too attractive and thus posed a threat to his marriage.

    http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/dental-assistant-fired-being-irresistible-devastated-151724600–abc-news-topstories.html

    Is that characteristic of “liberal democracy”?

    My but this is a disappointing chew toy. Leaves a bad aftertaste.

  402. 902
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    ARIDS, the first taste of the flinty one was also rather rancid.

  403. 903
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    About that lawsuit, now we can see lust how liberating a hajib is. If a man, made to be unable to control his sexual urges, can see how attractive a woman is; she is free to be treated like a respected human. Altough one who must cover up.

  404. 904
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    I’m not complaining about those things. I’m using them as examples to show your premise is BS of the highest order.

    No, your proving your assertions are BS of the highest order. Why do creobots and MRA fuckwits always misunderstand what the evidence really says, and pretend they are right….Must be a character flaw.

  405. 905
    a_ray_in_dilbert_space

    Janine, well except it doesn’t seem to have worked very well in the Middle East–even when women cover up they are harrassed, and sometimes even when accompanied by male relatives, who ignore the insult to their own honor.

    Tendering a wager–a tankard of stale grog says the cupcake comes back with a comment saying that the plaintiff wasn’t that hot after all…

  406. 906
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    There is equal pay legislation.

    Sorry, that doesn’t work if women still make only a percentage of what men make with similar training and experince. You lose again. Typical of illogical and irrational types who can’t understand results are what matters.

  407. 907
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    Ah, ARIDS, I thought you would know that I was being snarky.

  408. 908
    a_ray_in_dilbert_space

    Luthur, Equal pay legislation doesn’t guarantee equal pay any more than the 13th and 14th amendments guaranteed blacks equal treatment in the US. Even in the latter half of this century, FHA and other federal programs continued to refuse loans to blacks on the grounds that they would reduce property values. The result was a difference in family wealth of about $500,000 over 50 years, as well as a lack of collateral for college loans.

    Or do you contend that our society is color as well as gender blind?

  409. 909
    a_ray_in_dilbert_space

    Oops, that should have read “the last century”. Get with the times, Ray.

  410. 910
    a_ray_in_dilbert_space

    Oh, sorry, Janine, I caught the snark. I just feared it might be too subtle for cupcake.

  411. 911
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    Nerd, dontcha know that passing a law in a liberal democracy automatically ends what ever inequity that there was.

    Now shut the fuck up! The flinty one is wise. He is not to be questioned. Besides, his evidence are to be found in his opening word.

  412. 912
    kate_waters: Not Your Father's Oldsmobile.

    Damn, does lutherflint really think I want evidence for not having it as bad as someone in a concentration camp? How stupid could someone be?

    Well, if luther ever wanders back maybe they can provide evidence refuting the well established pay gap, then he can refute the existence of rape culture, then he can provide evidence that men and women serve in government equally, then he can pinpoint the fiscal quarter in which women and men held a reasonably equal number of positions as CEOs, CFOs, COOs… and on and on and on.

    I’m hoping, though, that the cupcake won’t be back. I have to leave for work very soon and I’d hate to miss watching the regulars demolish more of his BS. (My phone gets pretty wonky when the threads reach around 300 comments.)

  413. 913
    Nick Gotts

    Nepenthe@896,

    So I did! But even in his case, his colleagues said he had bigger ovaries than anyone else in the government!

  414. 914
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Now shut the fuck up! The flinty one is wise. He is not to be questioned. Besides, his evidence are to be found in his opening word.

    Yes Ma’am ;)

    Only two things left to do tonight before bed. Refill the Redhead’s eggnog as needed and nuke the tamales/chili for dinner.

  415. 915
    ajb47

    Janine:

    Nerd, dontcha know that passing a law in a liberal democracy automatically ends what ever inequity that there was.

    As an aside, Daniel Okrent’s Last Call shows the (IMO) hilarious result of believing that a law against alcohol would result in people not drinking. And I mean hilarious in the sense of “We don’t need to actually enforce this law because you know, it’s a law now.”

    AJ

  416. 916
    ajb47

    I read lutherflint’s original post and on some fundamental level knew it was off. And I mean in addition to his using incest’s best friend as a citation. He (just assuming due to the positions advocated) had a video and a book that he cited. I didn’t want to fully dismiss Farrell’s book based on his advocacy of incest because that seems to be a logical fallacy — OK, he’s wrong there, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t correct in another assertion (skeevy as I find the incest advocacy).

    I guess my own interjections would be (1) Has any feminist anywhere denied his 4 statements?

    But the one that really sticks out at me — how is the number of men in prison an argument against feminism? I’m thinking maybe men shouldn’t break the law so much.

    I admit I’m new to posting my thoughts on these things, so maybe I just misunderstand why more men in prison is a reason to be against feminism.

    Also, a_ray_in_dilbert_space has given at least one great response. All of luciferflint’s points are arguments against the current state of affairs. If you take his assertions (still needing evidence) as possibly true, why would you be against something that wants to push over the current state of affairs?

    Also, again, I’m not sure luciferflint is using the definition of patriarchy that everyone (not an MRA) else is using.

    AJ

  417. 917
    cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)

    grocers apostrophe

    *hard stare* That had better have been deliberate. ;-)

    I think luthersilicaceousnodule might have been thinking of the Patriarchs of the East.

    Wildly wrong, regardless.

  418. 918
    Nepenthe

    @cm

    I… I noticed as soon as I pressed “submit”. But I decided not to turn this into a thread about my stupid fingers. *hangs head in shame*

    @ajb47

    I guess my own interjections would be (1) Has any feminist anywhere denied his 4 statements?

    Any feminist anywhere? Yes. The failures of the studies showing that women are as inclined toward domestic violence have been dissected endlessly, as have the statistics alleging bias in custody cases. Am I going to dig up these sources. No. Because it’s Christmas Eve and I’m supposed to go for a family picture now.

  419. 919
    Sophia, Michelin-starred General of the First Mediterranean Iron Chef Batallion

    I always have a chortle whenever the custody bias argument is thrown out.

    Sure, there’s a bias towards awarding custody to women. Is that the fault of the women, or the fault of the judges (usually men) being socialised to see women as nurturing, caring, stay-at-home child carers? Even with magically unbiased judges, ingrained societal biases mean that vastly more women -are- the child’s primary carer that doesn’t go out to work whilst their male partner or ex-partner does. Even such a mythical judge would not award custody of a child to the working parent in a relationship where one parent was not working.
    TPHMT, etc. Same old.

  420. 920
    a_ray_in_dilbert_space

    Sophia,
    It may be that the way we need to sell feminism to the average man is to point out that patriarchy hurts men as well as women. It doubtless hurts women more, and more men benefit from it, but the only way for all to benefit is to overturn patriarchy, and the only way to do that is for men to understand how they support it and how that hurts them.

  421. 921
    Muz

    I wonder, since ‘patriarchy’ the term is a such a bugbear to people, over and above the social theory and its fuzziness the term refers to, what difference it would really make to change it to the anti-fem crowd. It’s by definition a germ of some kind of neurolinguistic programming that grows to an anti-male mindset.

    I don’t think they quite grasp that feminism could stop calling it ‘patriarchy’ and instead say “the latent gender role social structure and its attendant assumptions we all live under” tomorrow and not have to shift one iota. Since so much fussing is done over the term I wonder what they’d have left to go after..

  422. 922
    vaiyt

    Here Peezee, I’ve changed my mind. I no longer think feminism is shit because it’s main premise is wildly out of kilter with reality. I now think it’s shit because most of those who advocate it are complete fucking arseholes.

    BAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!

    Your dood tears are delicious, please cry moar.

    Now, I don’t think you even warrant a proper response, but for the benefit of lurkers, I’m going to lay some words to your original post. *ahem*

    lutherflint’s post labors under the mistaken impression that, if patriarchy exists, then it must benefit all penis-havers every time. That’s far from true. The patriarchal mentality values men qua men over women qua women, but it also defines “men” and “women” in a narrow way, punishing everyone who falls outside the roles.

    It all comes back to patriarchy. Let’s see?

    and ask yourself how such responses have come to be considered amusing as opposed to shameful.

    Women are seen as weak and unthreatening. Being beaten up by a woman isn’t supposed to hurt a manly man, so people shame men who do.

    1. The gap in life expectancy between men and women favours women and is increasing in favour of women and yet (at the time the book was published) 19 out of every 20 single sex health campaigns were directed towards women’s health.

    Caring for your health is admitting vulnerability, and manly men can’t be vulnerable.

    2. Almost everyone who is in prison is male – the figures are always over 95% – and yet nobody sees this as representing any kind of bias in society. Is the only genuine difference between men and women men’s capacity to do wrong?

    The questions you have to ask yourself are:
    - is there some bias in the kind of crimes we consider worthy of jail time that falls more often on crimes men commit more?
    - is there some difference in the way we expect genders to act that make men more likely to commit crimes?

    3. As the above video states, while men do more damage, more women hit men than men hit women. Moreover, men make up the overwhelming majority of total victims of violence.

    And the majority of perpetrators are other men.

    And yet, advertising campaign after campaign only deals with male violence towards women.

    The key is that male violence against women manifests in ways that are different from male on male violence. Male on male violence is addressed through the usual channels – police, courts and whatnot. Male on female violence, the sexual abuse, rape and domestic violence kind, is under-reported and the “usual channels” often fail to offer protections and/or redress to women.

    One of the exceptions to this rule is male-on-male (and female-on-male, though way less common) sexual violence. For a man, even to admit being a victim of sexual violence is difficult, and to get some assistance without being a target of further abuse is also a problem. That’s a place where eroding the narrow gender roles of patriarchy can help some men. MRAs, were they interested in actually helping men across the board, could work together with feminists on this. They won’t, though, because they’re assholes.

    4. Men are discriminated against in custody cases following a divorce. The figures cited in the book were that, in contested cases, men had a 1 in 8 chance of joint custody, and a 1 in 14 chance of sole custody.

    Women are seen as the nurturing sex which has the “natural” responsibility over children; as a side effect, they benefit in divorce cases.
    Now, if this were indicative of bias in favor of women, why do people heap scorn on single mothers? Think about it.

  423. 923
    Sophia, Michelin-starred General of the First Mediterranean Iron Chef Batallion

    @920 well, yes. Hence the TPHMT (The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too) at the end of my comment.

    If people would simply acknowledge that feminism is what it actually is – i.e. achieving equality through raising awareness of, and by doing so slowly dismantling, the partiarchal social constructs that oppress everyone (women more, but that’s actually beside the point). The main disagreement seems to be the name – feminism. the name itself would appear to be a case of affirmative action unto itself, since women are disproportionately affected by the patriarchal system, attacking that is done most effectively from a perspective that actively empowers female voices.

    The point we need to remember is that we could call feminism the Super Power Force Manly Grunting Penis Game and it’d still be shat on for the content. It’s that good old silencing tactic we all love to hate – attack the label so you don’t have to acknowledge the message. Happens to any movement that promotes an opposition to the status quo.
    It’s not about selling feminism, it’s about shaking things up and raising awareness, which we seem to be achieving quite nicely, thank you. Educate the odd person – get one person to question their values and you’ve made progress. The pushback is what you have to expect from the status quo.

  424. 924
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Now, if this were indicative of bias in favor of women, why do people heap scorn on single mothers? Think about it.

    Now, now, expecting him to think with actual facts and evidence is likely to cause its head to explode….as is the concept it could be wrong….

  425. 925
    lutherflint

    @vaiyt

    Let’s imagine every word you say, bar one, is true. And re that one, let’s just change the “p” at the start of patriarchy and make it an “m” so it says matriarchy. Every argument simply reverses and the contrary is demonstrated. For example, vaiyt thinks that if the matriarchy exists then it must always benefit all vagina havers. That’s far from true. For example, it’s obvious why scorn is heaped on single mothers. It’s because the fools have let the side down by being unable to control a simple minded creature like a man. Moreover, if such an example was to spread, men might break the control and challenge the matriarchy. And so while men are seen as slaves who have to work for their mistresses, the side-benefit is that they earn higher salaries. Women could of course choose to help other women who earn less by joining emancipation of men groups, but they choose not to, because they’re assholes.

    The point being, it’s easy to tell a story. The difficult part is telling which ones, if any, are true.

  426. 926
    ChasCPeterson

    Women are seen as the nurturing sex which has the “natural” responsibility over children; as a side effect, they benefit in divorce cases.

    welcome to Class Mammalia.

  427. 927
    Mark

    I’m not sure if I’d call Evid3nc3 an “anti-feminist” but I understand where he’s coming from in his post about why he isn’t a feminist (I imagine you can not identify as a feminist and still not be “anti-feminist”):

    http://evid3nc3.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/why-i-am-not-a-feminist/

  428. 928
    SallyStrange

    But the one that really sticks out at me — how is the number of men in prison an argument against feminism? I’m thinking maybe men shouldn’t break the law so much.

    I admit I’m new to posting my thoughts on these things, so maybe I just misunderstand why more men in prison is a reason to be against feminism.

    It isn’t. If it were the case that, as between white people and black people in the USA, the two groups were committing crimes at about the same rate, but one group was being arrested, prosecuted, and convicted more often than the other, and given longer sentences too, for the same crimes. But in the case of women and men, men just are far more likely to commit crimes than women are. MRAs and anti-feminists use this to try to make the case that socially ingrained valued about protecting fragile, vulnerable women cause judges and cops to coddle women, as it were, and this is how they explain the disparity. But the facts don’t support this explanation.

    The feminist response to this would be to point out that biological differences between the sexes explain only part of the difference in our propensity to smash each other up. The rest of the differences are most likely explained by, as has been the case with most complex human behaviors to date, heavily influenced by culture. Men are socialized to treat violence as not only valorizing and redemptive, but also an integral part of being masculine, which is an integral part of being a man. Breaking down those expectations for men, changing what the culture defines as masculine, can help men immensely. The term “toxic masculinity” was termed to describe the suite of behaviors that are coded as masculine, which encourage behaviors that damage one’s health. [Ed. note-- Note that this does not mean that all behaviors are coded as masculine, nor that there are no behaviors coded as feminine that are damaging to one's health. Stop it already.] Combating toxic masculinity in high-risk work environments such as oil drilling rigs has lead to a decrease in injuries and better outcomes for the injuries that do occur. Being socialized to regard caution as unmanly caused these otherwise intelligent, competent men to ignore safety warnings, push their own limits, and neglect precautionary measures. Redefining gender roles will benefit all of us. This is just one of the many ways it will benefit men (and indeed, has already).

    Don’t get it twisted though. Women will benefit more. On account of being more oppressed to begin with. Farther to go and all that. So yeah. It’s feminism, not equalism

    /Rant

    I didn’t mean to write a rant but sometimes you just gotta go with the flow. Hope you don’t mind, OP.

  429. 929
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    The difficult part is telling which ones, if any, are true.

    Actually, that is where third party evidence comes in, and you lose big time….What a fuckwitted idjit. Until you understand your unevidenced OPINION is bullshit, you are toast…

  430. 930
    ajb47

    918 Nepenthe

    Any feminist anywhere? Yes. The failures of the studies showing that women are as inclined toward domestic violence have been dissected endlessly, as have the statistics alleging bias in custody cases.

    I must be misunderstanding you. Do feminists say that men are not victims of domestic violence? Do they say that there is no bias in custody? I understand that the degree may be up for debate, but his original post doesn’t seem to argue degrees.

    AJ

  431. 931
    lutherflint

    @Nerd of Redhead
    Yes, these are great arguments you are putting forward. And the evidence you cite, while appearing as merely your opinion to the untrained eye, is, under closer examination, both mountainous and remarkable.

  432. 932
    carlie

    welcome to Class Mammalia.

    Pfft. Any decent mammal can resorb their offspring before birth.

  433. 933
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    And the evidence you cite,

    Versus the evidence you don’t cite? Loser tactics fuckwitted idjit. It’s all about you, and your evidence, or rather lack thereof. No evidence *POOF* all your OPINION is dismissed, as it should be. Welcome to science.

  434. 934
    lutherflint

    @Nerd of Redhead
    There is no possibility of evidence from your standpoint. If a million men are slaughtered by women each day – that’s the patriarchy (PHMT). If a million women are slaughtered by men each day – that’s the patriarchy. If women get custody of children – that’s the patriarchy. If men get custody of children – that’s the patriarchy. The problem being that when bluff becomes double bluff and triple bluff there is no possibility of direct evidence and all there is is tortuous interpretation. Thus higher salaries could be a direct result of the patriarchy, or it could be the matriarchy’s way of conning men into working for women (MHWT), or it could be the patriarchy’s way of making it look like the matriarchy is conning men into working for women in order to maintain the patriarchy. Indeed, the whole feminist movement could be seen as a ruse by the patriarchy to maintain itself by portraying women as fighting men, or women, or both, or none, or whatever you like. With such tortuous narratives, all evidence is dissolved. No statistics could possibly support anything. Thus you would have nothing, even if you had offered something in the first place.

    And what’s all this “poof” stuff, you homophobic defender of the patriarchy you. Merry Christmas.

  435. 935
    vaiyt

    @934: Too many ifs, too little reality.

  436. 936
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    There is no possibility of evidence from your standpoint.

    Then why aren’t you, as a person of honesty and itegrity, shutting the fuck up.? Oh, you know you have nothing but bullshit.

    And what’s all this “poof” stuff, you homophobic defender of the patriarchy you.

    The *POOF* is me dismissing your fuckwittery for what it is, nothing but evidenceless sophistry and bullshit. We scientists understand real evidence when presented, and your evidence fills a null set. Gee, what a fucking loser who doesn’t understand the burden of evidence is always on their claims. For example, the claim I am homophobic. Evidence, apologize, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, where you will lose…

  437. 937
    lutherflint

    There is no possibility of evidence because the patriarchy is not a conclusion based on evidence but the lens through which the evidence is viewed. And there’s nothing wrong with that per se – we all need lenses. The problem is that those particular lenses don’t appear to have a lot of relevance for 21st century western liberal democratic life.

    Evidence of your homophobia? You called me a poof at least twice.

  438. 938
    lutherflint

    @Nerd of Redhead

    Apologies, I just saw this “We scientists understand real evidence when presented”. You’re completely insane. I would never have argued so long if I’d realised.

  439. 939
    Anri

    Indeed, the whole feminist movement could be seen as a ruse by the patriarchy to maintain itself by portraying women as fighting men, or women, or both, or none, or whatever you like. With such tortuous narratives, all evidence is dissolved. No statistics could possibly support anything. Thus you would have nothing, even if you had offered something in the first place.

    Good point!
    If only there was some sort of reliable source, some sturdy believable people we could actually ask what’s going on, at street level, so to speak.

    I mean, we could ask women, but who in their right minds would believe they know what they’re talking about?

  440. 940
    SallyStrange

    Lutherflint, if you have another theory for why there are more men than women in jail, or whatever your chosen set of facts are, please present your theory and the supporting evidence. You object that the patriarchy theory is unfalsifiable, because it successfully explains a lot. I suppose it might look like that. I suppose that, to a creationist, the persistent ability of evolution to explain myriad phenomena might look like unfalsifiability too.

    The proof is in the pudding. You need to be more detailed in your critiques. If you think that the disparity in jail populations is poorly explained, point out what you think the theory misses. If you really want to be convincing, you can offer a better explanation. But simply pointing to things that, at first glance, appear to be contradictory, all being explained by the same theory, is not quite enough.

  441. 941
    vaiyt

    There is no possibility of evidence because the patriarchy is not a conclusion based on evidence but the lens through which the evidence is viewed.

    Why should I believe you?

  442. 942
    lutherflint

    @vaiyt
    Why not?

  443. 943
    ajb47

    SallyStrange

    Thank you for explaining what the guy who originally threw the statistics out into this thread hasn’t deigned to explain, though you probably did not show what he was hoping. The inclusion of the “over %90 males in prison” stat just does not seem an argument against feminism, which is what PZ wanted in the OP.

    AJ

  444. 944
    lutherflint

    @SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius
    I’ll respond to your post tomorrow since it deserves some thought. Feel free to post abusive comments in the meantime if others complain about you giving me an easy time of it.

  445. 945
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    For fucks sake. Nerd didn’t CALL you a poof. He said your assertions go POOF-as in disappear- without evidence. Don’t fucking make claims like that which are blatantly false. Shouldn’t surprise me from a rape enabling scum sucking shit head like you.

  446. 946
    lutherflint

    @Tony ∞The Queer Shoop
    I know what poof means. That’s what us rape enablers call ‘a joke’.

  447. 947
    ajb47

    lutherflint:

    There is no possibility of evidence from your standpoint. If a million men are slaughtered by women each day – that’s the patriarchy (PHMT). If a million women are slaughtered by men each day – that’s the patriarchy.

    What? Straw… Is this even a strawman? I’m fairly certain that there has been no feminist anywhere claiming this.

    Google search on “patriarchy definition”: A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

    Are you really claiming that women hold the power? That women have more representation in the legislature? The judicial system? The executive branch? In corporations?

    Citation really fucking needed.

    AJ

  448. 948
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Vaiyt:
    Luther refuses to believe in patriarchy, despite the wealth of evidence to confirm that the concept does indeed exist. He deludes himself as much as creationists do. He also refuses to provide evidence for his anti-woman beliefs. He also thinks unless women have it as bad as Jews in concentration camps, then they don’t have any real problems (conveniently ignoring the same can be said of men), which means that all the women who have ben raped don’t have it that bad. There aapears to be no reasoning with him, as he doesn’t use reason to support his opinions. I find him odious, disgusting, and reprehensible. I wouldn’t shed a tear if he were banned.

  449. 949
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Well this gay man doesn’t appreciate someone like you besmirching Nerd like that. Xe is god people, which is far more than you are.

  450. 950
    vaiyt

    By the way, I knew my points would sail over your head, lutherflint. As I said, my response wasn’t directed to you, who I already know to be immune to evidence, but to the potential lurker who might then ask the difficult questions and check if someone has already tried to answer them. I don’t expect smart people to take my word for it, but then again I don’t consider you a smart person.

    There’s plenty of evidence supporting that, all else being equal, women still get the short end of the stick when it comes to other people’s judgement. There’s evidence that shows the gap in salaries, the unequal career oportunities, the cultural standards that give excuses to man-on-woman violence, the pressure for women to abandon their ambitions for marriage and childcare, the rejection of women who don’t attach themselves to men, the browbeating of children who don’t conform to gender normality, the massive masculine bias in commercial cultural products, the double standards on sexual behavior that reward men and punish women for the same actions…

    Feminism, in general, fights against the overall culture of gender essentialism that puts men and women in narrow “boxes” and punishes the people who don’t fit in. MRAs, on the other hand, massively embrace the idea. Instead of realizing that “women are expected to take care of the children” and “women win most child custody cases” are directly related concepts, they approve any opinion or pseudoscience piece that endorses the first concept while making up conspiracy theories about man-hating feminist cabals for the second. They’re pathetic.

  451. 951
    SallyStrange

    Well to be honest, Lutherflint, I do think that you are an arrogant, ignorant asshole. But unlike you, I am not so stupid as to think (or joke, as you will no doubt claim now that someone is mentioning it) that this constitutes a reason to dismiss your arguments.

  452. 952
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    ajb47:
    Caine @863 provided a link for a definition of patriarchy, which the fuckhead dismissed. If I had to guess he did so bc he thinks patriarchy refers to the actual system of government in the US rather than the governing social system (which strongly influences the government).

  453. 953
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    You’re completely insane. I would never have argued so long if I’d realised.

    No, you are insane arguing without presenting third party evidence. Which proves you aren’t a liar and bullshitter. Your failure to present such evidence confirmed your status as a fuckwitted idjit, liar, and bullshitter. Welcome to real science, where the burden of evidence is always on the claimant. Your claim, your either evidence or shut the fuck up…

  454. 954
    Alethea Kuiper-Belt
    Women are seen as the nurturing sex which has the “natural” responsibility over children; as a side effect, they benefit in divorce cases.

    welcome to Class Mammalia.

    So, Chas, what class were people in ancient Roman times? Or before, say, a certain legal case in 1813 in the US? Or in general, up until about 1900AD in the English-speaking world?

  455. 955
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    SallyStrange:
    Hold the phone.
    He gave arguments?

  456. 956
    SallyStrange

    A sort of a semblance of an argument. I am awaiting more details to see how thoroughly it will collapse.

  457. 957
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    I know what poof means. That’s what us rape enablers call ‘a joke’.

    What it means is you can’t read for context, which is why you are a misogynic fuckwitted idjit. The context I used for *POOF* is the same expected in a story about magic. But the, that is beyond your meager intellectual skills to understand such things. And you expect to be taken seriously if you can’t understand such a simple and widely used context?

  458. 958
    ajb47

    Tony @952

    Somewhere early on it became clear that lutherflint seemed to have a different definition of “patriarchy” than everyone else here. I figured after another hundred comments, a refresher would be a good idea.

    From what lutherflint has posted so far, it seems that when he hears the word “patriarchy”, fingers go in ears and there comes a loud repetition of “LA!LA!LA!LA!”

    But after all is said and done, despite the possible fallacy, I still can’t get past the pointing to the guy who thinks father-daugher incest is a good idea as an authority on how society works. Maybe that’s just me.

    AJ

  459. 959
    Inaji

    AJ:

    Google search on “patriarchy definition”: A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

    Supra, I provided helpful, easily clickable links to the definitions and explanations of both patriarchy and kyriarchy. I imagine they were handily ignored by luther the ignoramus because they’d *poof* his nonsense, which, of course, he does not want to happen.

  460. 960
    Inaji

    Mark @ 927:

    I’m not sure if I’d call Evid3nc3 an “anti-feminist” but I understand where he’s coming from in his post about why he isn’t a feminist (I imagine you can not identify as a feminist and still not be “anti-feminist”):

    How about if you do something simple, like speak for yourself? If you have problems with feminism, state what they are, why you have said problems, and please, have something to back it all up, something valid.*

    *This excludes: “my opinion, man”, “this is how I feel”, “hey, I don’t see that happening when I go outside”, and any and all things pulled from one’s arse.

  461. 961
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Caine:
    Oh the irony if he comes back and accuses you of being homophobic for using POOF!

  462. 962
    ajb47

    Caine @959

    Yeah, Tony at 952 pointed out that as early as 863 lutherflint was shown what “patriarchy” and “kyriarchy” mean, as commonly accepted. But being over a hundred comments back, I thought maybe if a Man told him what the definition was he would listen. ‘Cause, you know… Women and their little lady brains.

    And I just realized I am pointing to comment 959. Nine Hundred and Fifty Nine comments. About why Feminism is bad. Why equality is bad. Evidence requested. Coming up on a thousand comments and the best anti-feminist arguments come down to “What about us dopes who voted for Romney?” and

    [Trigger warning for Warren Farell's ideas]

    “The guy who thinks it would be good if fathers raped their daughters says…”

    Really? That’s the best they have as cited evidence? I am a lurker who doesn’t think he can argue against this stuff to save his life, and even I can see that anti-feminists have nothing.

    AJ

  463. 963
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    AJ:
    Oh luther is the *nice* kind of woman hater. He responds to comments from women and men. He just doesn’t understand patriarchy. Or misogyny. Or privilege. Or POOF. Or how to construct an argument. Or the burden of proof. Or Oppression Olympics.

  464. 964
    ajb47

    Tony 963

    Yeah, the *nice* kind of guy who will hate my daughter. Fuck those guys. How do they reconcile their views with their female family members?

    It has become clear that lutherflint either does not get the definition of “patriarchy” or has decided to redefine it for his own usage. I’ll guess we’ll see which in the morning.

    AJ

  465. 965
    omnicrom

    Hey Lutherflint, didn’t your post at 877 where you whined about the mean feminists end with you saying that you were leaving forever? What happened to that? That was a good idea, it was way better than any of the manure you’ve been shoveling in the last hundred or so posts.

  466. 966
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    The flinty fuckface is not here for an honest argument. I doubt that he is here in good faith.

    (Sorry, I will not forgive his attempt to slight Nepenthe and than make a joke of it. Toxic scum.)

  467. 967
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Janine: oh I understand. I do not forgive him insulting Nerd either then claiming he was joking.

  468. 968
    John Morales

    So, just caught up.

    This @791 by lutherflint:

    Almost everyone who is in prison is male – the figures are always over 95% – and yet nobody sees this as representing any kind of bias in society.

    immediately seemed exaggerated, so a quick copy-paste-search brought up Correctional Populations in the United States, 2009 from U.S. Department of Justice | Office of Justice Programs | Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    “In 2009, the majority (82%) of the total correctional population was male, and 18% was female.”

    Lazy, pointless and silly exaggeration on both counts when the actual figures and circumstances are so very easily available, and are significant enough to merit the point being made as arguable.

    (Not impressed)

  469. 969
    John Morales

    [addendum]

    Notice the degree of exaggeration: the claimed ratio is 19:1 rather than 4:1.

    (Nearly a factor of 5!)

  470. 970
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    So, at the end of the day, Lutherflint’s whole argument came down to we should believe him (argument from authority), even though he couldn’t provide any evidence to show he was right. Like most MRA fuckwits (and most godbots, creobots, IDiots)I, he confused his presuppositional OPINION based on circular arguments with evidenced OPINION based on reality. What is pitiful is that they think this attempt to base an argument on pretend authority is convincing to real skeptics and scientists. They should know that the first thing we would do is to challenge their pretend authority, and ultimately they would have to back up said arguments with real evidence, and be prepared to do so. If they can’t, they need to shut up.

  471. 971
    Anri

    This subject, almost to the same extent as creationism, seems to bring out a particular kind of poster.

    Remember, back in elementary school, when some kid would claim he was mind-controlling you, and that everything you did was the result of his commands? Even if you up and smacked his face, he’d still insist that he made you do it? (I’m assuming that schtick happened in other preadolescent social groups…)

    I find a parallel between a specific type of poster and that bit. The poster comes in, telling us that he’s got the answer, that he can disprove our cherished beliefs. When this fails, and an actual argument ensues, they claim they can produce all kinds of powerful evidence to end the discussion. When that effort also runs into the Immovable Wall of Reality, they fall back on “Well, I didn’t really mean any of that – I was just trolling you guys – yeah, yeah, that’s it – I’m really a lot smarter than anything I said up to this point. You guys are so easy to troll!”
    In other words, “You might have just beaten me up, but I was making you do it! I win!”

    I wonder how long it will take Lutherflint to start claiming that.

    …I imagine I’m overthinking this.

  472. 972
    doubtthat

    Well, this whole thread was a colossal failure (shocking).

    After arguing with the glibertarians with regard to gun violence, it occurs to me that in all internet arguments of all kinds I spend 90% of my time asking for examples of whatever the fuck these people are talking about. I take that as a decent sign that I’m on the right side of things.

    And this thread is just a glorious tribute to that point: WHO OR WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? It’s just so much untethered babble.

    “I don’t think the male perspective is considered.” Ok, where? How? On what topic? Who is a writer that made this mistake so we can see how the “male perspective” would cure any deficiencies?

    Then, of course, every time Scotty beams them into reality, they end up saying tons and tons of demonstrably wrong shit. I didn’t read all of this thread, but generally we get some nonsense about feminists not caring about male victims of abuse, specifically in prison…when it’s basically only groups traditionally tied to feminist causes that are actually doing any work on the subject.

    It’s just a waste of time. No thinking person, especially those self-identifying as skeptics, should be so woefully incapable of expressing or sharing the foundational factual reality from which their conclusions are drawn.

  473. 973
    Improbable Joe, bearer of the Official SpokesGuitar

    doubtthat:

    “I don’t think the male perspective is considered.” Ok, where? How? On what topic? Who is a writer that made this mistake so we can see how the “male perspective” would cure any deficiencies?

    The other problem with that position is that at best it only explains why someone would choose not to engage in feminist activism, not why they would oppose feminism. If I feel that one aspect of social justice is more important to me than others, I will by necessity focus my energies in that direction. But that’s not any sort of explanation for opposing it. Let’s say I’m a Hispanic man from a disadvantaged economic background who suffers from depression… maybe I focus on race or class or mental illness discrimination, and leave the feminism to others. But for fuck’s sake, I wouldn’t ever say “feminism doesn’t focus on my problems, and therefore I oppose feminism” because that would be stupid.

  474. 974
    logicalcat

    Lutherfint

    Just in case someone hasn’t answered this already, allow me.

    You are arguing that the patriarchy is unfalsifiable because you can simply insert the word matriarchy and still make the same argument towards that without changing much. If you bothered to think for a minute maybe you would have realized that the this wouldn’t work because our culture does not come from a long dark history of matriarchy. No, for thousands of years women were:

    1. Sold, as if like property.
    2. treated like sex slaves and baby makers as opposed to being treated like human beings.
    3. not allowed to vote, fight for their country, or pretty much have any voice at all.
    4. being treated like weak, delicate, and fragile creatures in need of protection from the more powerful chivalrous men (basically being treated as animated furniture).

    Meanwhile men, while having more rights and a voice than women, also are given strict narrow gender roles due to this patriarchy:

    1. That men are suppose to be strong as oppose to weak like women, and can thus never be raped because a real man wouldn’t allow that.
    2. “Men don’t take care of the babies, that’s women work.”
    3. “Hey that guy is looking at you hard, kick his fucking ass man what are you some kind of pussy?”

    The list an go on and on on both sides and while patriarchy favors men it no doubt hurts everyone. And while these gender constraints were placed several hundreds of years ago, they still manifests itself in our time. Perhaps not as bad as in the past sure, but we are not going to shut up about it because we have it easier now when we could make it even better for the next generation.

    So if you are wondering how you can falsify patriarchy, show me a situation where its the opposite. Where the social inequalities women originally faced outlined in the first list didn’t exist at all or they did exist and were applied to men rather than by men for women. Just like with evolution; one of the ways to falsify it would be to show (with evidence) something in the past that contradicts the theory in a very meaningful way. Like finding cats in the Cambrian era.

    So in closing, find your cat Lutherflint. Find your cat :3

  475. 975
    doubtthat

    @973 Improbable Joe

    I think you’ve expressed exactly why this debate remains in the ethereal realm: being specific can only hurt them, they’re arguments are shit and reality contradicts their positions.

    I just don’t know how someone could claim to be a skeptic — then get all sanctimonious about “rationality” — and be completely incapable of offering anything resembling a reason beyond hurt fee-fees. It’s just whining.

  476. 976
    doubtthat

    *their*

    stupid proofreading.

  477. 977
    Nepenthe

    @930 [content note: domestic violence]

    Do feminists say that men are not victims of domestic violence? Do they say that there is no bias in custody? I understand that the degree may be up for debate, but his original post doesn’t seem to argue degrees.

    No, you incredible dumbass. Feminists say that the studies that you allude to that “prove” that women are more inclined to domestic violence than men are flawed. In particular, they count every act of violence as the same–whether I painlessly slap my boyfriend or he breaks my nose and jaw, that counts as “one”–and don’t consider self-defense in the count–if my boyfriend has me against the wall by my throat and I scratch his face to get him to let me go, each counts as “one”. No feminist that I’m aware of claims that men are never victims of domestic violence; that would be especially stupid since we all know such people.

    And quite honestly I’m skeptical that there is a bias in custody cases. You’d have to provide the actual data for analysis. Oh wait, you refuse to.

    At any rate, by your lights, since there’s no de jure bias against men any inbalance in custody is probably the result of some inherent failing in men. (This is what you claimed above in regards to equal pay.) Maybe men are known for engaging in infanticide… wait, I think I’m thinking of lions. Ah well.

    I must be misunderstanding you.

    First insightful thing you’ve said all thread.

    Say, Luther, are you ever going to provide your working definition of patriarchy? I’m just dying of suspense.

  478. 978
    Improbable Joe, bearer of the Official SpokesGuitar

    doubtthat, occasionally someone gives an honest-if-irrational answer like “I don’t like people telling me what to do, feminism has rules therefore fuck feminism”… you know, the libertarian position. :) That’s where a lot of the extremely idiotic-sounding “feminism is a cult/religion, FtB is dogmatic” stuff comes from I think… atheists/skeptics who rejected religion because there are rules and judgment, not because of an intellectual rejection of the concept of gods. For those folks, anything that seeks to lay down some guidelines for their behavior, rather than “I do what I want, you ain’t the boss of me!”, is seen as the same as religion. A lot of them seem to simply be having a giant temper tantrum at the idea that they can and will be judged by their words and actions.

  479. 979
    Inaji

    Nepenthe:

    And quite honestly I’m skeptical that there is a bias in custody cases.

    I think there still is a bias when it comes to custody, although it has been pointed out, repeatedly, that this is due to generations worth of “women + kids = natural”. In recent years, there has been more recognition that men are as equally invested in their children and love them as much, so the bias is leaning more and more toward “in the interest of the child” than automatically to women.

    The one thing that would help most, of course, is if so many parents would stop using their children as a bludgeon to hit their ex-spouse over the head with and back and forth games.

  480. 980
    lutherflint

    @SallyStrange
    I don’t think feminism explains very much at all. It’s just a story laid over a set of facts, and because it has to utilise the logic of the double bluff it can be overlaid – like its opposite – on everything. Some examples from above:

    Women were not allowed to fight for their country could just as easily (more easily) be described as women being considered more important in society and therefore being freed from this horrific obligation. And another factor being that men were forced (against their will) to fight and die for their country (and were often killed – now imprisoned if they refused).

    Now, these are the facts, albeit described in a particular way, but we could overlay any number of stories on top of them. One for sure is from a feminist perspective which would see this as oppression issuing from the patriarchy, but it is far from clear that this is the line of best fit. It is certainly not the most obvious line. Nor is it clear that there is a single overarching set of facts that could explain this. It might be best explained by an interplay of dozens of physical, social, or evolutionary factors that would yield a far more balanced and sensible account.

    The bottom line, I guess, is that the premise of feminism is (now) plainly false. That is, the story that is told (the premise) likens the lot of women to, eg, the lot of blacks in the US many years ago, and this is clearly a preposterous premise since the situation is nothing remotely like that. Moreover, the evidence for that premise has to be filtered through the premise in the first place in order to support it (see above). That is, it cannot just be read off the facts in any straightforward manner, and so the whole thing is almost perfectly circular, almost completely unfalsifiable, and explanatorily weak even if we overlook the first two problems. I therefore see little to recommend it as useful, let alone the best, framework for understanding/improving society.

  481. 981
    lutherflint

    @logicalcat

    There are about 10 cats listed above. And even your list is full of cats – you just interpret them all as dogs because you’re looking at the world through little doggy spectacles.

  482. 982
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    I guess, is that the premise of feminism is (now) plainly false.

    Only in your ignorant and unevidence OPINION. OPINION of a misogynist.

  483. 983
    Improbable Joe, bearer of the Official SpokesGuitar

    lutherflint is clearly a sexist who redefines sexism so that it doesn’t include him. His straw-sexist is a mustache-twirling comic book villain who meets with other comic book villains to plot the downfall of women everywhere. Since he sees so sign of that straw-sexist, feminism is “plainly false.” He’s just like the modern-day Republican racists who claim that racism is over because we hardly ever see KKK members in full white robes and hoods burning crosses and shouting “n*****r” the whole day and half the night, and they define racism to ONLY include that caricature of racism.

  484. 984
    Inaji

    IJoe:

    His straw-sexist is a mustache-twirling comic book villain who meets with other comic book villains to plot the downfall of women everywhere.

    Yep. As real as Snidely Whiplash tying Nell to the railroad tracks. (Then in rides Verbose Stoic’s chivalrous Dudley Do-Right.) Yeesh.

  485. 985
    lutherflint

    @logicalcat
    Here’s one particularly catty cat: throughout history, at any given time, a small number of women (and a small number of men) have always had far more power than all the other men (and women) in that society. Thus to even talk of men and women in that context as real groups about which important points can be made about power, prestige, freedom etc, is ludicrous. Note how different that is from the situation involving, say, blacks in SA until recently, or blacks in the US 100+ years ago. Thus the idea that, for example, a Queen of England was (part of an) oppressed (group) and a male peasant in the field was (part of) an oppressor (group) is stretching things so far beyond breaking point as to be laughable – were it not so obscene. No such groups existed in the way, eg, such groups clearly existed re blacks/whites in the states mentioned above.

  486. 986
    John Morales

    lutherflint:

    The bottom line, I guess, is that the premise of feminism is (now) plainly false. That is, the story that is told (the premise) likens the lot of women to, eg, the lot of blacks in the US many years ago, and this is clearly a preposterous premise since the situation is nothing remotely like that.

    It’s preposterous because it’s a preposterous misrepresentation.

  487. 987
    Nepenthe

    Luther, again, what is the definition of patriarchy that you are arguing against? Are you asserting that feminists believe that the condition of women is exactly equivalent to the condition of Black South Africans* during apartheid?

    Protip: South Africa is not a place to mention when you’re trying to claim that patriarchy does not exist.

  488. 988
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Thus to even talk of men and women in that context as real groups about which important points can be made about power, prestige, freedom etc, is ludicrous.

    Gee, look at the fuckwitted misogynist pretending outliers are the average, and how idiotic and bullshitting it is to pretend that is the case. One can see the bullshit dripping from the verbiage, and lack of third party evidence. Nothing but attitude, typical of the MRA contingent, where we mus believe in their unevidenced bullshit. Not happening….

  489. 989
    lutherflint

    @Improbable Joe
    Nobody is saying there are no inequalities in society. Certainly not me. There are, and we should rectify them as best we can. But the feminist lens through which these inequalities are viewed/hidden/ignored is farcical. A far better lens (although this now applies more accurately world-wide rather than in any particular society) is that the world/society is comprised of a small number of people (men and women) who hold almost all the wealth and power and a huge group of people (men and women) who have almost none. Such differences do not split along gender lines, and to force a gender line fit onto this situation generates absurdities and obscenities in equal measure. Thus, eg, you have many extraordinarily wealthy and powerful women here (in world terms) claiming that some 17 year old boy who is forced to work 20 hours a day for virtually nothing to make her clothes is oppressing her – absurd and obscene.

  490. 990
    John Morales

    lutherflint:

    Thus, eg, you have many extraordinarily wealthy and powerful women here (in world terms) claiming that some 17 year old boy who is forced to work 20 hours a day for virtually nothing to make her clothes is oppressing her – absurd and obscene.

    Yet another bullshit claim.

    (Nobody here made that claim; you’ve concocted it)

  491. 991
    Improbable Joe, bearer of the Official SpokesGuitar

    lutherflint, is everything you say as dishonest as this?

    Thus, eg, you have many extraordinarily wealthy and powerful women here (in world terms) claiming that some 17 year old boy who is forced to work 20 hours a day for virtually nothing to make her clothes is oppressing her – absurd and obscene.

    Find me someone making that claim, or else admit that you’re a liar.

  492. 992
    omnicrom

    Lutherflint you’re playing creationist games, does that give you pause?

    It’s an incredibly common and rightly derided creationist tactic to look at something like Evolution and try and frame it as “a story laid over a set of facts” like you did to feminism in post 980. Are you a creationist? If not why do you use the same disingenuous rhetoric they use to dismiss reality? Your arguments are certainly batting on the same level as creationist arguments.

    After you failed to impress with your initial salvo you’ve resorted to contentless mean words, unfounded assertions, and strawman style attacks on things you call “Feminism” and belief in “The patriarchy”. You’re welcome to play rhetorical games like you did in your last few posts, but if you do then you would do well to stop complaining about all those mean people on Pharyngula who rip you to shreds for not having anything to back up your arguments.

  493. 993
    Inaji

    Thus, eg, you have many extraordinarily wealthy and powerful women here (in world terms) claiming that some 17 year old boy who is forced to work 20 hours a day for virtually nothing to make her clothes is oppressing her – absurd and obscene.

    Who, exactly, (besides you) has said this? Provide a fucking citation to who has said this.

  494. 994
    lutherflint

    @Improbable Joe/John Morales
    Well, if your description of the power is split along gender lines (as is the case with feminism) then the 17 year old boy is part of the oppressor group and those women who benefit from his toil are part of the group who are oppressed by the group of which he is a fully fledged member. Such absurdities show why it is absurd to talk of power primarily in terms of gender. Far better to just look and see who has the power, and if you do you will see that it is men and women who do and whole lot more men and women who don’t. Thus there is no real patriarchy as regards either earth, or any of those societies where feminism is prevalent.

  495. 995
    lutherflint

    Caine, Fleur du mal
    When you say men (as a group) oppress women (as a group) that’s what you’re saying. And it’s obscene – thus I call you on it.

  496. 996
    SallyStrange

    Short post because I’m cooking:

    Yeah, um, women’s situation isn’t analogous that of black-skinned folk in the USA a couple of centuries ago? No, it isn’t now, but it certainly was a couple of centuries ago. Women’s legal status was closer to that of slaves than it was to full legal adults. Look up the term “couverture.” Women literally had no legal rights that were not mediated through their fathers or husbands. Black men got the vote before white or black women did. So, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Are people saying that American women today are in a situation similar to that of African Americans before the end of slavery and Jim Crow? If they are, they’re wrong. But it is correct to note that women have experience their own form of slavery and Jim Crow which has only ended within the last 50 years or so. The right to not be raped by your own spouse was a right granted to women in the USA only in the early 1990s. Not a typo: the early NINETEEN nineties.

    So basically you sound like you’re full of shit. More on that later.

  497. 997
    SallyStrange

    When you say men (as a group) oppress women (as a group) that’s what you’re saying.

    You’re either lying or stupid. Which is it?

  498. 998
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    But the feminist lens through which these inequalities are viewed/hidden/ignored is farcical.

    Sorry, that is the misogynist/pretend post-feminist lens fuckwits like you try to bullshit us with. Without producing a shred of evidence (try here if you dare) to convince real skeptics, scientists, and science lovers. Evidence, separates the truth tellers from the liars/bullshitters without honesty and integrity. And you fall into the latter category, and won’t shut the fuck up even though we have your number.

  499. 999
    lutherflint

    @omnicrom
    Creationism has nothing to do with it. There is a claim – power is in the hands of a group (men) and another group (women) are excluded from having it. It is patent nonsense.

  500. 1000
    SallyStrange

    Luther’s a brocialist. Fucking boring.

Comments have been disabled.