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.
@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…
Sally Strange (497):
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) –
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.
Lolwut?
A Shiver in My Spine: Chevauchee.
And from the comments there:
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/henryv/henryv.3.3.html
Some “protection”.
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.
jba55 @ #489
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)?
“protection” => “sacrifice”. Sorry.
Verbiose Stoic:
You see your error here – don’t you? Or did the weapons-grade irony smack the brains out of your head?
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:
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?
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.
Gnumann+ (508) –
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
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.
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?
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…
Krasnaya Koshka (512),
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):
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.
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.
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.
(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)
curious to know whether you think chivalry a good thing or bad?
@Verbose Stoic, 490
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.)
So, the Civil Rights Movement did, even in your reckoning accomplish things.
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.
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?
Maureen:
QFT and emphasised.
Verbiouse Stoic:
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?
atheist:
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.
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.
Verbose Sophist:
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.
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.
Sometimes biologists use the word “design” as short hand. CHECKMATE evilutionists!
… Wrong thread? Feels like the right thread for some reason.
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.
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.
Nepenthe:
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.
Verbiose Stoic:
Who? What? People put together religions to provide a stable society?
Wait, people who don’t benefit from religion leave?
Well, that’s it for the atheist community then. Stand down, folks.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, and maddog1129, you could always knock the fence down. Problem solved.
Haven’t read beyond #439 Verbose Stoic. Apologies to the Horde if I’m repeating arguments already published while I was writing this:
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.
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.
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.
Verbose’s initial comment:
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)
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 ?
@ tigtog
Post 533 was an excellent explanation of patriarchy, it needs to be in a wiki.
Excellent suggestion, Maureen. ;) That’s the kind of thinking we need!
@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.
Everyone think of responding to XA-26483 should first go to the linked thread and read their contributions.
My last (#539) was to Maureen Brian @ #532. I didn’t see the intervening posts when I was composing my reply. Sorry!
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:
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?
You really are a special type: you post that in a post explicitly seeking criticism!
(heh)
XA-26483:
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.
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.
XA-26483:
Let’s not. You fucked up. Repeatedly. Now you’re here to do it all over again. Repeatedly. STOP NOW.
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.
@ Nepenthe
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?
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*
Not a good analogy. Nor was it an apology, which is what you need to be offering.
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.
[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)
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.
@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.
I thought you claimed to be a long-time reader. So how come you do not know of the Thunderdome ?
Matt:
Gotta love those “long time readers”. They are outed so easily.
Bah.
/derail
I so cleverly wrote:
I just re-read that and realized how it could be read to mean something entirely different. This is my embarrassed face.
constructive criticism
This would be a better place to discuss your issues with Pharyngula.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/15/thunderdome-12/
Hmm, an “avowed Nietzchean” who can’t even spell “Nietzschean” correctly.
Do you understand why you were wrong?
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.
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?
Why are we imagining this? Because it’s somehow like what happened to you in that other thread? Why are we talking about that?
So?
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
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
Hallefuckinglujah.
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:
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:
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):
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):
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.
Didn’t I concede that long ago? Heck, I’ll even concede that feminism accomplished some things if it will make you happy [grin].
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.
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):
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):
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):
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.
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):
No, they put together the religious principles at least in part to preserve the stability of the organization, a microcosm of a society.
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 …
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 …
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.
so… it was a giant pyramid scheme, literally involving pyramids at some points.
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?
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.
right.
huh?
VS:
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.
Seconded.
Less verbosely: “but what about teh menz?”
Goddamn, this shit gets old. I say that as a dude, VS. It gets fucking old.
Everyone, XA-26483 went to Thunderdome as requested – please respond there.
CR:
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.
Caine (568):
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):
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 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)?
Er, no. It’s a realist perspective. (I’m using “realist” in the everyday sense of “taking appropriate note of reality”.)
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.
Caine (572):
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.
Let’s see…chivalry.
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:
Read your own drivel, with my emphasis:
What time is it? Is it the case that it isn’t “worked” or “was good” or “sucked” right now?
What do you make of the fact that it’s a strawman? Do strawmen age well, like wine or cheese?
@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.)
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?
Again, as opposed to what?
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?
How?
And again, bringing it around, what, to Verbose Stoic, does a proper equality movement look like? Please be as specific as you can.
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.
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:
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?”.
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:
Verbose:
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.
@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.
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.
Hooray, zero and lowercase O are now completely identical.
*steam*
Verbiose Stoic:
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.
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.
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:
Now I really am off to bed!
Nepenthe:
I have yet to tire of this explanation. Who knew we females are, in reality, Sebacean?*
*Farscape reference.
@Verbose Stoic
Do you identify yourself as “anti-gay rights movement” and/or “anti-civil rights movement”? Why or why not?
Caine! Why are you giving away all our secrets? Next you’ll be telling them about the venom glands and the hidden teeth!
Nepenthe:
Ooops.
Never! :crosses tentacles:
@ Verbose
StoicOh, I dunno — maybe it’s the fact that you explicitly referred to it in the past tense, repeatedly:
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…..
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.
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. :)
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:
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?
Again, how does XA know about what “a common view here” is, without reading the comments?
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.)
David:
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.
VS:
“‘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:
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.
Heh. Of course it’s 1 pm over here of course, and I should of course have gone to bed long ago…
Ogvorbis:
You’d damn well think so, especially as the baby making seems to have been some sort of competitive sport. Or something.
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.
And Borkquote!
It totally is! And Mrs. Vassilyev won!
And history has honored her by forgetting her name! Women, so lucky!
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.
It’s a guy thing…
They definitely are. Note to XA: that’s bad science, and we don’t like bad science.
Sorry, I missed that one.
…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.
VS:
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?
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:
Which implies that it, or something like it, is still there. So, I think you’re reading far too much into my comment.
Caine:
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:
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):
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(:
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.
Well, we might have to agree to disagree that anything else would work better, but I outlined what I thought would work better.
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.
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:
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:
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.
Nepenthe:
AUUUUGH! *Runs away screaming*
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.”
Verbose stoic:
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!)
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”.
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.
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.
Nepenthe:
Yeah, and while we’re at it, change feminism to WRA, because that will automagically fix everything.
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.
Well, you’ve proven you have nothing but strawmen, so why should what you think (or rather persuppose) be of interest to us?
Gosh, I thought the atmosphere at Pharyngula was driving people away. Didn’t seem to affect allegro.
Comments like hers @597 are deeply appreciated.
Anthony K:
There isn’t a sigh large enough. Just. Fucking. Isn’t.
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.
Then what is this whole mess of verbosity supposed to mean?
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?
@ Verbose
StoicOh, 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?
arrenfrank:
Give the rest of us headaches?
Good rant.
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.
QFT
@ 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.
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.
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.
SC:
I can’t. Anymore than I could explain the value of femininity as a concept.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
Silomowbray:
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.
Yes, something to do with there not being a White Entertainment Television channel and no White History Month.
A few reactions:
Consciousness razor said,
A scythe? A scythe is too big to be efficient! You need a proper curved slaughtering knife.
Owlglass said,
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,
* And then there’s this insensate block! Johnny Hillwalker said,
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.
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.
Yes, I well recall being raised to be a Lady*. This is a distinct concept within the concept of femininity.
*Finishing school, even.
@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.
@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!
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.
[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?
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?
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.
Weird. So education, including learning math, is a feminunist plot.
ajb47:
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.
#601 Socio-gen, something something…
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.
Caine:
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.)
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. :)
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.
Tony:
‘Course not. I’m as dainty as could be. Can’t you tell?
Yes, that’s probably the case.
That seems likely to me as well.
Privilege, rights: it’s just an equation, after all.
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.
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:
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.
The concept has no place here.
Caine @646
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.
…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.
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?
[OT]
SC:
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?
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.
Damn Sophia, that was a tour de force.
*applauds*
Sophia:
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.
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.
hypatiasdaughter:
Agreed. I was just too woozy from my head-desking to go there with Verbose.
—
Sophia:
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.
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.
I wish more people took time to consider their responses as you do.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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’.
uh, that last bit was meant to be sarcasm.
John,
…
Oh, fuck it. Never mind. Keep doing your silly brackets.
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.
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.
ajb47:
The Lounge is an open thread. Feel free to post anything you want to. Here is your graceful way to move a post there :)
And I’ll add that it’s a mite lonely there at the moment ajb47 so any contribution would be welcome.
SC:
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.
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?
Alethea:
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.
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.
Tony @675
Like this?
jose, privilege is a polysemous term, and you are conflating senses — in these discussions, its sense is that of social privilege.
jose,
Are you familiar with the concept of intersectionality?
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”.
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.
Welcome, Allegro!
Thank you for your comment. Hope to read your comments often, now you’ve de-lurked.
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.
@plasticwrap
Thanks for sharing.
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.
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.
It’s lovely you have the option to think so and act accordingly.
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.
So, another Stefanelli, eh?
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.
How very convenient for you. The internet awaits your outrage, Cupcake.
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?
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
plasticwrap:
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?
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?
Wow. I think this needs a citation. I think this needs several citations. Because that’s what the original post is asking for.
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.
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.
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!”
Now, now, be fair, Nepenthe. Plasticwrap doesn’t have any problems with normal women.
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
@ plasticwrap
(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:
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.
arrenfrank:
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.
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.
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.!
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.
Ugh. I wish we could edit posts. I wrote that in a hurry, and didn’t really proofread it before I sent. Sorry.
Arrenfrank:
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…
[OT]
Gnumann, nope. A State having an established Church does not a theocracy make.
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.
Galactic Fork, I think that post was just fine.
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?
But the position is ceremonial and carries no real power.
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.
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?”
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.
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.
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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Well, I think that YOU are full of shit. We both have opinions. Now we’re even, eh?
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.
Wow, that’s an amazing question. To bad you didn’t ask yourself that BEFORE sharing your baseless, evidence-free opinions with us.
…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.
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.
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!
That’s some creationist-level reasoning right there. Nice job.
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.
So, some street harassment happens, but not as much as online feminists claim, therefore… what? Feminism not necessary? Women are liars? What?
You obviously didn’t read Schrodinger’s Rapist, the actual essay.
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 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.
Unlikely, I don’t fuck stupid men.
Feature, not a bug.
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 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.
False, sexism is your problem too, you want to justify inaction in the face of injustice.
Here’s your cookie.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Tony:
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.
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.
Sorry, you are supposed to supply links that back up you OPINION. Where the fuck are they?
Your unsupported OPINION is *POOF* dismissed as noise. Whiny noise.
ohno
how can we go on?
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!
@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?
*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.
@ 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.
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.
Do you ask other people to chew it for you as well?
He is like a baby bird that needs his food predigested.
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.
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?
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.
Nick:
Obviously, you’re No True Man™, Nick.
Link would not play for me so here is an other one.
Love Lush.
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
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.
Louis:
It’s messy. And if there’s Swedes present and there’s a bun in the middle of the room – walk away. At once.
carlie, that was evil. Brilliant, but eeeeeeviiiiiiiiil.
Gnumann/Janine: the Lush video took me back, too. :-)
Gnumann+,
Sounds like boarding school all over again.
Louis
*goes over the the ten-day-old grog, draws off a fuming small tankard, and gently sets is on the bar…*
Louis: I’ve never parttaken in the experience, but my prejudice says “yes indeed”.
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?
Indeed this is a widespread attitude – too bad it’s one that betrays a complete lack of thinking.
Indeed.
Long list of papers you’ll find interesting, with links.
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.
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.
David:
Thank you for that link to Jadehawks post!
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.
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.
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.
If they are true misogynists then sure. Some of them have been labeled as such just for asking questions.
furcifer:
Funny, I’ve never had to go looking for biases and sexism. It’s all around, every day.
furcifer:
Please, don’t play No True Misogynist here. It won’t fly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What level of attention to feminism is appropriate?
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?
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…
furcifer:
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?
Huh. I don’t identify myself as a feminist but I often notice biases and sexism in every aspect of daily life.
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)
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.
AP:
You didn’t derail at all and thank you for your post. Believe me, posts like that really help.
You know it doesn’t just belong to you, right? Feature, not a bug.
Citation needed.
Carlie:
Well, if only us women would get back in our place, everything would be hunky dory.
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.
Hey man.
I’m like, just asking questions, man.
Carlie:
No, I haven’t but I have a feeling it’s a doozy.
Ophelia has it
That’s it, Rev. Out on your ass! Or, um, something.
Stefanelli:
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>
Carlie:
We must now institute a campaign of harassment (and possibly taking all his beer away) until he has been silenced. Yep.
No!
I will never be silenced! Shushed maybe, but never silenced
If we take away all his beer, can we drink it? If so, I’m game!
Rev. BDC:
Godsdamnit! You are being divisive! You’re ruining the atheist, skeptic, GLBT, and feminist communities!
Taking his beer?!‽
You are a hard, cruel person, Caine.
Nepenthe:
Of course we can. Gotta teach that uppity man a lesson, you know.
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.
Chigau:
Well, I am a feminist.
Don’t question my comma usage either.
Rev. BDC:
:falls over laughing:
commas,
we,don’t,need,no,stinking,commas,
[meta]
Will you people stop chattering?
(I’m listening for a furcifer!)
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).
John Morales
,,,comma,,com,ma
John:
What does the call of a furcifer sound like?
John:
I fear the toy would break too easily. You should shop around for a sturdier model.
Caine:
The call of the wild.
Does he? That would be a deeply stupid thing for a skeptic to claim.
Stacy, it amuses me that what seems a quote mine… isn’t.
(That really was the claim!)
PS ,
Silly chigau!
John Morales, but we’re not supposed to mention that Shermer is not always the most…skeptical of dudes. Because, divisiveness. ;)
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
Closes the door and slowly backs away.
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.
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”.
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…
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!)
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.
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….
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.
@ Nerd of redhead, @ Nepenthe
You are of course free to deal with the issues raised whenever you wish.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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?
Yet it is a correct description, demographically speaking.
How so?
@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.
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.
lutherflint – do you have any data that backs up your view of things, or is it just a thought you had?
CITATION NEEDED. OPINION IS *POOF* DISMISSED. Welcome to science.
@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?
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.
@Nerd of redheads
What a fantastic way to avoid actually having to think.
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.
Is “dark-skinnedness” a social construct? Are there more parsimonious and data driven explanations for racial disparities in imprisonment? Respective answers: no and yes.
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.
Do you seriously doubt even that much? Really?
@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.
@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).
Man, I wish I were that flexible.
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.
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.
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?
@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.
Just to be clear. You sure as hell aren’t giving any whys, although you’re giving compelling evidence that you’re an asshole.
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?
Well, that ought to read “strong suit”. A string suit is pretty useless.
Hmmmm… maybe that was a Freudian slip, then?
Gnumann:
I would be interested to hear how you escaped from libertarianism and MRAdom.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
Without supporting evidence, it is the manly gut, not the humanly brain talking. Where is your EVIDENCE?
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.
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.
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)
@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.
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.
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.
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,
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.)
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_.
PZ, from OP, conveniently right there at the top of the page:
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.
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?
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
@838 Lutherflint,
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.
@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.
Kate:
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.
@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.
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.
Note: a citation is not your opinion on something, nor is it something pulled from your arse.
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*
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.
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.
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.
Janine:
Might as well get the music queue going, Janine, as if you’re waiting on actual evidence, it’s gonna be a long wait.
Okay, okay, I gotta admit, I’m a bit curious.
Luther, what exactly do you think patriarchy means?
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.)
@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.
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?
Assertion, not proven fact. No evidence to support your assertion and plenty saying it is full of shit.
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.
Lutherflint:
Also, I second the query: how do YOU define patriarchy?
Cyranothe2nd, in case you revisit the thread, I’ve ordered Manhood in America. Thanks for the recommendation!
Fixed that for you. Your OPINION and unevidenced assertions are not arguments, and never will be.
Patriarchy. Learn something, will you?
Kyriarchy. Learn something, will you?
@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.
@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?
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.
I, too, wish to know how
Humpty Dumptylutherflint is defining the word ‘patriarchy’.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.
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.
Late again.
Dear Muslima, indeed.
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!
@ 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?
@Nepenthe
Poor wee you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVFBK9GhS5Q
Janine:
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:
I’d take that on, if people would donate their dollar bills…
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.
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.
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.
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!
That is so not the world’s saddest song. You can’t even do insults well. That’s… well that makes me sad.
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.
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.
OMG. WE’RE SO MEAN!
I hope you stick the flounce, cupcake.
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.
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.
Would you care to scan your degrees and show us?
(note: that was an in-joke. We really don’t want to see your diploma.)
(unless you really want to show it off)
@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.
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.
Big fucking deal, Cupcake. I’m 55 and my experience in life tells me you’re full of shit.
*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.
@Carlie
I’m not complaining about those things. I’m using them as examples to show your premise is BS of the highest order.
Nepenthe:
Somewhat. His great struggle to show any form of thought is feeling more akin to torture [of us] at this point.
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.
Interestingly, there are many reliable studies that show that rape conviction rates are abysmally low. Here, let me google that for you.
Some flounce.
Pathetic.
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!
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.
Nick, you seem to have overlooked Marvin Thatcher, sole representative of manity in the British government.
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.”
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?
logicalcat:
Thats exactly what he sounds like!
But men should stop complaining too because they are dying from the black plague.
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?
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.
ARIDS, the first taste of the flinty one was also rather rancid.
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.
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.
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…
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.
Ah, ARIDS, I thought you would know that I was being snarky.
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?
Oops, that should have read “the last century”. Get with the times, Ray.
Oh, sorry, Janine, I caught the snark. I just feared it might be too subtle for cupcake.
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.
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.)
Nepenthe@896,
So I did! But even in his case, his colleagues said he had bigger ovaries than anyone else in the government!
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.
Janine:
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
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
*hard stare* That had better have been deliberate. ;-)
I think luthersilicaceousnodule might have been thinking of the Patriarchs of the East.
Wildly wrong, regardless.
@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
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.
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.
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.
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..
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?
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.
Caring for your health is admitting vulnerability, and manly men can’t be vulnerable.
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?
And the majority of perpetrators are other men.
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.
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.
@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.
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….
@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.
welcome to Class Mammalia.
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/
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.
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…
918 Nepenthe
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
@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.
Pfft. Any decent mammal can resorb their offspring before birth.
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.
@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.
@934: Too many ifs, too little reality.
Then why aren’t you, as a person of honesty and itegrity, shutting the fuck up.? Oh, you know you have nothing but bullshit.
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…
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.
@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.
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?
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.
Why should I believe you?
@vaiyt
Why not?
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
@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.
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.
@Tony ∞The Queer Shoop
I know what poof means. That’s what us rape enablers call ‘a joke’.
lutherflint:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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…
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?
SallyStrange:
Hold the phone.
He gave arguments?
A sort of a semblance of an argument. I am awaiting more details to see how thoroughly it will collapse.
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?
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
AJ:
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.
Mark @ 927:
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.
Caine:
Oh the irony if he comes back and accuses you of being homophobic for using POOF!
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
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.
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
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.
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.)
Janine: oh I understand. I do not forgive him insulting Nerd either then claiming he was joking.
So, just caught up.
This @791 by lutherflint:
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)
[addendum]
Notice the degree of exaggeration: the claimed ratio is 19:1 rather than 4:1.
(Nearly a factor of 5!)
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.
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.
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.
doubtthat:
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.
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
@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.
*their*
stupid proofreading.
@930 [content note: domestic violence]
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.
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.
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.
Nepenthe:
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.
@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.
@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.
Only in your ignorant and unevidence OPINION. OPINION of a misogynist.
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.
IJoe:
Yep. As real as Snidely Whiplash tying Nell to the railroad tracks. (Then in rides Verbose Stoic’s chivalrous Dudley Do-Right.) Yeesh.
@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.
lutherflint:
It’s preposterous because it’s a preposterous misrepresentation.
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.
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….
@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.
lutherflint:
Yet another bullshit claim.
(Nobody here made that claim; you’ve concocted it)
lutherflint, is everything you say as dishonest as this?
Find me someone making that claim, or else admit that you’re a liar.
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.
Who, exactly, (besides you) has said this? Provide a fucking citation to who has said this.
@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.
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.
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.
You’re either lying or stupid. Which is it?
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.
@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.
Luther’s a brocialist. Fucking boring.