This afternoon I’m giving a talk on how evolution, and fundamentally, the naturalistic fallacy, is abused all over the place, and then I find this open letter to the various heroines of recent movies, and I just want gak all over it. Not only does this guy call on bad biology to defend his traditionally misogynistic position, but he’s a fundie Christian who believes humans were created by a deity, so he doesn’t even accept the biology he’s misusing.
I know the whole world is ladling on the adoration for your brave contributions to modern womanhood. However, you are behaving, all of you, in ways that do not befit your sex or glorify God. Frankly, and I’m sorry to have to say this, I really am, many of you look ridiculous. Your friends and family and fans may not laugh at you. But the angels do and history will. What you’re doing might be good politics (of a sort), but it’s bad biology, bad theology, and bad storytelling. It lies about who you are as a woman and how God made you. And it makes for lousy movies and TV.
Okay, that’s the nastiest part. Now let me explain.
Let’s talk about biology first, who you are as a woman.
The most obvious things are the hardest to defend. You can write whole textbooks proving something unseen and unexpected like gravity or photosynthesis. But how do you prove the existence of Mt. Everest besides saying “Look, there it is?”
That’s why I feel dumb saying this, but:
Women are the weaker sex. They may be the smarter sex, they are often the wiser sex, they’re probably the more industrious sex, they’re definitely the prettier sex. But they’re also the weaker sex.
You would not believe how long this long-winded bozo goes on and on about this obvious
fact of life, citing movies and the Bible to prove his point. He has no sense of reality at all; the cumulative effect of watching movie after movie wherein fine ladies such as yourselves suddenly crunch the bones of a dozen bad guys at a time is that some silly people get the idea there’s no real difference between men and women’s bodies
is his main point (I think, there’s such a deluge of glurge it’s hard to extract any sense from it), but the curious thing is that he never questions the movies in which Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan or Steven Seagal crunch the bones of a dozen bad guys at a time
. That, after all, is the natural order of things. Heroic men crunch bones in order to rescue damsels.
So Ripley in the Aliens movies is an abomination. Rey in Star Wars is an abomination. Furiosa in Mad Max is an abomination. Those were roles that should have been played by men, because that is the natural order, is more realistic, and sends the proper godly message.
It’s an incoherent argument based on movies, comic books, and the Bible. Yet this guy uses those sources to argue for keeping women in their place. I also have to take it personally — he also tells us what we men are required to do.
As men, we were born with bodies and minds crafted for war. We are the warriors, the peacekeepers, the protectors—the bloodshedders, when the time is right. Every man is a father, whether of his own children, or the people that work for him, or the folks he leads at church. As such, he must be ready to uphold what is virtuous and punish what is evil.
Clearly, he has never seen my body, which is most definitely not crafted for war. I do not consider it my destiny to shed blood or punish evil, and I rather resent some asshole preacher deciding for me, and for every man and woman, what they must do.
In fact, the only ass I’m motivated to kick is that of the author, Nathan Alberson, but since I’m not built for combat I will defer to the first angry woman who’d rather do it for me.
Sam Harris got religion? It’s that bloomin’ oestrogen vibe again. Teh womenz minds just isn’t designed for combativeness!
Oh good, another man who can absolutely, unequivocally define woman. Fuck, I’m tired of this. Some of us were just chatting about this over at my blog, because a trans woman was denied a place on the Navajo Women calendar, because the calendar was for “real women”.
I might not be able to crunch the bones of a dozen bad guys at once, but I sure as hell can crunch the bones of one bad guy, and possibly two. I trained long and hard to be able to do that, so Nathan, go fuck yourself. You might want to beat this little fact into your head, too: you’re talking about comic books. Comic Books – where reality seldom has a home.
Men are taller than women. Therefore it is an abomination against god for Tom Cruise to star in a movie.
Perhaps because what is said is dumb? Exceptionally stoooopid, actually. Replace with “tastes like a D♯ note” and it would make just as much sense.
Thor, Superman, The Hulk and so on can smash buildings or ‘crunch the bones of a dozen bad guys at a time’ not because they are men, but because they are fictional. Movies are fictional, dude!
Holms:
But, but, movies and comic books are giving people the idea that women are strong and capable! That’s wrong, so wrong – women should be depicted at home, pregnant, and cheering on their bone-crunching husbands!
“Not bone broth again, dear!”
You absolutely sure about that? Let’s test this theory.
Sorry, but I don’t think two cats count as children (more like masters). Strike one.
Sorry, but as part of group, there are people that work with me, and people that I work for, but nobody that works for me. Strike two.
Sorry, but as an atheist, I don’t attend church therefore there are, by extension, no folks that I lead there. Strike three.
Oh, dear. Maybe that’s why I haven’t been able to crush anybody’s bones…
So I wonder if we had a slew of dramas with female protagonists being smart and wise and solving their problems with diplomacy or mad hacking skills or science, would our friend here be cheering on appropriate depictions of womanhood? After all, he seems to think we’re the smarter, wiser sex. Let’s be real, I’d be all about having more science fiction where the solutions weren’t about violence, but about being brilliant and clever.
Somehow I think he’d think that men deferring to women and/or the solution that doesn’t involve shooting people was unrealistic too. Or that movies without a big climatic battle were boring. Or both.
I’d get a kick out of watching Rosi Sexton’s face (and his) while he mansplained all that “weaker sex” shit to her.
@#9:
So I wonder if we had a slew of dramas with female protagonists being smart and wise and solving their problems with diplomacy or mad hacking skills or science, would our friend here be cheering on appropriate depictions of womanhood?
Ooh I bet he’s not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton – who, by his lights, is a heck of an appropriate woman. She had the whole US DoD as her superpower …
Nah, she was under the thumb of one of them, you know, that uppity occupier of White House. Clearly, the .
Yet again idiots do not look at history
The Night Witches
Ludmilla Pavlichenko
Lozen
Nakano Takeko
Grace O’Malley (Gráinne Mhaol)
Joan of Arc
Tomoe Gozen
Candace of Meroe
and many, many others would disagree. Some are listed here on this Women’s History month page.
What gets me is that he’s clearly writing this to Rey and Galadriel and other fictional women, and he’s explicitly assuming that they’re familiar with the Bible, and even Christian. I can’t imagine how bemused they would be by that idea.
Intaglio@#13
Whenever someone posts a list of amazing women I feel like I gotta put in a plug for Hanna Reitsch. Look her up! She piloted a V-1 (not a typo, yes, she piloted a buzz-bomb)
Mary Tudor was the first ruling queen of England in 1553. This prompted John Knox to write “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women,” that for the weak to govern the strong was “repugnant to Nature” and “the subversion of good order.”
To defend her, Mary Tudor’s supporters had to pretend she was sort of like a man:
Same old, same old misogynistic crap rains down on women from 1651 to yesterday:
U.S. history:
– 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment is ratified
– 1923, the Equal Rights Amendment is introduced but never ratified
– 2000, a Republican from New Hampshire calls Elizabeth Dole’s campaign unnatural: “The Bible teaches us that a woman should not have authority over a man.”
– 2016, Trump demeans women right and left, then denies it.
– 2016, Kasich says so many stupid things about women being in the kitchen, etc. that Rachel Maddow presents and entire segment documenting the Kasich/Republican brand of awkwardness.
Quoted text is from an article by Jill Lepore in The New Yorker.
Alberson is not allowed to use the internet again until he can demonstrate via explicit biblical reference that his mind and body were crafted for it.
Mr. Alberson has apparently never read the Bible, or at least not the Book of Judges. If he had he might be aware of Deborah and Jael. Interestingly, the so-called “Song of Deborah” in Judges 5 is perhaps one of the older parts of the Bible. Anyway, fighting women have been part of the human narrative for a long time. Goddesses were typically bellicose and ferocious. Don’t be messing with Kali.
@Lynna 16:
Mary was the first ruling queen to be crowned, but the Empress Matilda had come close four centuries earlier. Close enough that the king at the time felt the need to be crowned twice, just to make sure.
Unfortunately Matilda is mostly forgotten today. She does have one unusual claim to fame: the only woman who has had a British tank named after her.
It amazes me sometimes how little Christians seem to know their own Bible.
Judith – badass woman who cuts a dude’s head off.
Jael – badass woman who drive a tent peg through a dude’s head, killing him instantly.
The former, incidentally is beautifully painted by Artemisia Gentilleschi, clearly influenced by Caravaggio. I’ve heard (though I don’t know if it’s true) that Holofernes has the face of her rapist.
Not to have a go at you, but this is the second time I’ve seen this typo today, and my pedantry lobe is itching. A climatic battle would be one between Weather Wizards or something, which I think I’ve only seen once in mumble years of TV and cinema watching.
Apropos of nothing much, a possible painting by Caravaggio himself of Judith being “badass” has been found: “The large, remarkably well-preserved canvas of the beheading of the general Holofernes by Judith, from the apocryphal Book of Judith, was painted between 1600 and 1610, specialists estimate. And many experts believe it could be a work by the Milan-born master, Caravaggio.”
Lynna, OM #16:
For anyone interested, I heartily recommend Antonia Fraser’s book, The Weaker Vessel: Woman’s lot in seventeeth century England.
“I will defer to the first angry woman who’d rather do it for me.”
Perhaps you entrust the tast to this member of the “weaker” gender.
http://www.horacero.com.mx/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ALEJANDRA-JIMENEZ-2.jpg
I’m pretty sure she would beat the shit out of almost all members of the “warrior” gender.
I’m a pacifist, sorry. No bone crushing by this dude. Probably physically equipped to crush one or two, but mentally not at all.
What about all the fish surgery? O.o
well this is interesting. Last night I watched a movie and enjoyed it but I found myself beginning to argue with it. The interesting part was, I have done that for as long as I remember but this is the first time I realized at the time that I was arguing with a fiction, the things I had the disagreement with in the movie were “devices” the writers put in it to tell the story they wanted to tell no more. I was beginning to argue with the fiction as if it was real.
so I read this morning a post that is a great illustration of my own thinking .
Some times a bad example is as good as a good example.
uncle frogy
Lynna, OM@16,
You know, I’d always though Knox aimed his diatribe at Mary, Queen of Scots, but I find that you’re right, Mary Tudor was at least one of his targets, Mary of Guise, regent of Scotland for her daughter, Mary Queen of Scots being the other. I blame W.C Sellar and Y.B. Yeatman, who say of Mary Queen of Hearts (sic) in their memorable history 1066 and All That:
Here’s the ironic thing, I personally know quite a few female soldiers and Marines who could kick the living snot out of the asshole. He’d then complain about being oppressed, never realizing that his ass was handed to him by a true, real, honest to Betsy Ross’ house warrior.
What a putz!
Cathy F @ #3
“it is an abomination against god for Tom Cruise to star in a movie”
Good point, though I suspect that would be true even if he were 6’9″.
Since I am neither particularly physically equipped (more faintly soft and flabby rather than being an abs-carved-from-granite type of bloke) , nor intellectually or emotionally inclined, to resolve my problems by the crushing of anyone’s bones, I take it that Alberson expects me to hand in my man card or something, since I clearly should have been born a member of the ‘weaker sex’ according to his world view?
While as noted above not a violent man, I would take great pleasure in witnessing first hand an encounter between Alberson and the kind of physically powerful woman who really doesn’t conform to his misogynistic stereotype, perhaps occurring in a ring of some kind. That would definitely be good for a laugh.
I would even be prepared to help by holding up the little boards that announce the start of each round, not that anyone would ever recover from being exposed to yours truly wearing hot-pants. That would count as a degree of cruel and unusual punishment not even the likes of Alberson deserve…
Ronda Rousey beat the shit out of a couple dudes at the same time. She mentioned it in some late night interview.
Also,
Bone-crunching? pffft, those dudes don’t even get close. One does not simply mess with Tony’s elephant.
Greg, I’m reminded of Billie Jean King vs some blow hard, whose name should be forgotten by history. :)
As for the ring, you bring the hot-pants, I’ll wear a tutu with combat boots, which should utterly put that dweeb off of his feed unto starvation. ;)
oops, LINK.
I’m (not really) surprised that he resorted to admonishing women for not being as weak as their sex is defined.
He could very easily have gone admonishing people (comic book fans, movie audiences, etc) for thinking these fictional women were depicting actual people. That we should remember that they are mythical creations of artists, forced to appease the feminist agenda. I guess he didn’t want to go the “conspiracy” route and settled on telling the female heroes, directly, that they are violating their womanhood.
ugh
not even worth trying to convince him he’s wrong and should try to change his opinion.
ugh
I must be living my life wrong, because all the problems I’ve solved in my life have been done without violence or war despite the fact I’m a man. I’m not sure I could or even crunch the bones of a single bad guy, even if I really wanted to. Do these people truly want a world where every dispute has to be solved by one party dying a bloody death?
ck, I honestly do wonder if that is their heartfelt preference, despite so many of such advocates being incapable of fighting their way out of a wet paper bag.
Personally, I’m an advocate of dying of a ripe old age and champion inflicting that form of demise upon all others. :)
“You all think you’re so cool, but my imaginary friend thinks you’re ridiculous!” Sick burn, man, sick burn.
We are discussing a movie franchise which has superstrong space apes fighting alongside psychic faux-Taoist monks, yes? Just checking.
So, are you a biologist? Or a woman? I’m not really clear on your area of expertise for this particular talk.
Well, considering that most of us are not actually within eyeshot of Mt. Everest, pictures would be a good start. After that, there are a variety of ways to test whether it’s a mirage or a hallucination or something. Mountains, much like women, are not metaphysical entities.
I will bet good money that more than 50% think they should because they are wrong, Further they would, in any real or imagined situation, where they find themselves in a “life or death” confrontation where breaking bones is the answer would immediately resort to a fire arm none of which require great masculine strength to operate. In fact children can easily be taught how to operate effectively.
At one time some great warriors had an advantage being built like NFL player not so much today, today all that seems needed is a selective sense of empathy.
uncle frogy
carry on.
in fact… amp it up.
let’s for the sake of this ignorant question, assume that Mt. Everest was entirely invisible, unsmellable, unhearable.
how could we tell there is a mountain there?
well, for one, we can see air current changes around it; cloud formations near the peak, etc.
for another, it has an impact on the flora and fauna around it, which would not at all be the same if there was no mountain there.
for another… it’s heavy. it depresses the earth around it, measurably.
…and you can spin a hundred and one things off of the general principles the above are drawn on.
in fact, we have a LOT of evidence to support the idea there is a mountain there… totally aside from being able to see it.
evidence that, for example, does not at all exist for YOUR FUCKING IMAGINARY FRIEND.
Wait, what? O.o
I’m pretty sure that even if you buy into two sex/opposite sex model, the sex designed to shed blood wouldn’t be the male one.
Thinkin’ on it, isn’t it rather hubristic (dare I say blasphemous?) to suggest that one tiny little human being is capable of glorifying or, erm, disglorifying an entity who supposedly can create an entire freakin’ universe by the power of mind alone?
Late to the party but the thought that came to me when I read
was, hmmm, I believe that’s what they mean by “man’splaining”…
Oh, Lord.. you are so big..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fINh4SsOyBw
Ichthyic #45:
Hah! Two years ago, this very day, I took a look at the Lord’s Prayer…
Lead me not into temptation, for I already know the way quite well.
Or, “don’t do anything I wouldn’t do. Oh, shit, there isn’t much I wouldn’t do. Oh well.”. ;)
1. Plate tectonics (validated by evidence and prediction)
2. The rock cycle (validated by evidence and prediction)
Man, that was easy. Okay, my turn:
Buthow do you prove the existence of your god besides saying “Look, there it is?
I would like to introduce this guy to my ex wife. She’s 75 lbs lighter than me, but thanks to her blackbelt, she could tie me in a knot and throw me through a wall without breaking a sweat, if ever motivated so.
Speaking of Monstrous Regiments, I highly recommend that Discworld book.
Martial skill is not innate to men. I know; I’ve worked with plenty of people new to martial arts, and mostly guys at that, and really: none of us are particularly good without training. With training, men don’t magically outpace women, and that’s because fighting is not a magical y-chromosome thing.
Being bigger on average helps a little, sure. Poor socialization to act tough probably “helps” us guys initiate violence more easily, too, sure. But gender is definitely not a good sole predictor of pound-for-pound bone-crunching aptitude.
It’s funny how this guy thinks that women are somehow specifically misled by media or culture into thinking women are invincible; this is not a problem women regularly experience. Gender-wise, this is the kettle calling the white ceramic bowl black.
The women in martial arts classes I’ve assisted are not thinking of beating up every guy in the room, or subduing terrorists, or fighting off gangs of bad-guys single-handedly.
On the other hand, many guys ARE pretty sure that they are undercover natural badasses who could do all those things, because of even more movies where random-schmo guys single-handedly beat up dozens of bad guys.
Hell, I’m a man with training and know most fighting is far more brutal and dangerous than most action movies, I’ve been beaten by people bigger and smaller than me, and I still think I tend to overestimate how “badass” I am, despite usually being pretty bad about self-esteem in other areas. Movies have brainwashed me, too.
wzrd1 @ 33;
Alberson would be felled without so much as a single one of his bones being crunched. That is what happens when you are fool enough to focus on mere violence and neglect the… crueler forms of torment. Even years later he would need regular therapy after the nightmares of bulbous, pale and hairy flesh barely contained by ludicrously small pants assail him once again, even after he gouged his own eyes out to try to excise the horrific images. What that would do to him would not heal as a crunched bone might, but would rather fester and worsen with every passing day…
*Best manic super-villain laughter*
;-)
@Usernames #48 – After having waited for even the tiniest bit of evidence, I’d be happy if a believer would say “Look, there He is” and point at something substantial.
@52: I want the video on youtube or it didn’t happen.
As far as bone crunching goes, if you want me to crunch someone’s bones, I’ll need their insurance card, a Jamshidi needle, and a completed informed consent form. I don’t just crunch bones for free, you know.
Quite interesting, dianne.
I learned some time after, that my cousin earned a bronze star for valor, for hiding under bodies.
His father was swore to secrecy, when he learned of that fact and only divulged it after his son died in a household accident.
But, interestingly enough, we had visited the family some years back, where cousin Richie was wandering about with a crutch.
He related how he approached his girlfriend unannounced and she dislocated his knee.
Apparently, she was a fourth dan black belt in karate.
Whoopsie!
dianne @ 54;
Careful what you wish for @dianne – do we really want to expose innocent web surfers to such traumatic horror?
Gregory! You ever gonna stop by Affinity?