Pharyngula

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 25, 2010 11:17 AM

Oh yay, a sociopath. I hope eventually he goes to prison.

Posted by: vanharris | May 25, 2010 11:20 AM

What a nasty bit of work this guy is!

Maybe he'd like to be homosexually raped? I mean, when it comes to gays, he withholds sex from them (i presume) same as women do from him (i presume). It might teach the creep a good lesson.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 25, 2010 11:22 AM

it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong

Oddly enough men in other countries think rape is wrong. Some of these men are police, prosecuting attorneys, judges, and legislators. Poor Eivind will have to go to somewhere like Somalia to escape feminism.

Posted by: Tim "Santiago" Converse | May 25, 2010 11:24 AM

Sounds to me like he wants to be raped. That's the right he's asking for as far as makes any real sense to me.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 25, 2010 11:25 AM

What. The. Fuck??!!!!

He jumps from "affirmative action is unfair" to defending rape?!

I'm not even going to click on that link. I don't want this vicious loon in my browsing history. The part quoted by Professor Myers is bad enough.

As bad as previous discussions on this have been, this is a whole other level of wrong to anything that's been posted in previous threads on this topic. The Christian guy who was saying "rape isn't as bad as a painful divorce" was clueless and crazy, but at least he wasn't actually advocating rape. Berge bears such a burning personal hatred towards women that he is positively promoting sexual violence against them. That isn't just wrong; it's actually evil, to the point of being completely psychopathic.

This guy isn't just crazy. Quoting him in Comic Sans just doesn't do justice to how scary the above quotes are. His anger seems to have overridden any kind of sense of common decency or moral boundaries.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 25, 2010 11:37 AM

His idea is bad anyway. Who says men have less sex than women? The premise is already ruined. I mean just because women don't want to have sex with him. Which actually I doubt. Most violent sociopaths are good at finding abused people to subjugate.

Really he's just calling for violence. Hate crimes and social destruction. He'll probably do little himself but inspire some people to hurt and even kill other human beings, ruining the lives of the people around them, their husbands, families, and children. Then a few of them will go to prison for a while, and the rest of us can know that the fear we feel is real and there's no place in the world for us.

Posted by: eekeeseevee | May 25, 2010 11:39 AM

Dave Sim had a son?

Posted by: mfd512 | May 25, 2010 11:42 AM

Feynmaniac, Im not sure what your inferring, and im not going to make this a political thread, but apparently I have to say that

advocating rape != libertarian

If anything, traditionalist conservatives despise libertarians on the issue of feminism because of Lib's insistence on equality.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 25, 2010 11:43 AM

Maybe he'd like to be homosexually raped? I mean, when it comes to gays, he withholds sex from them (i presume) same as women do from him (i presume). It might teach the creep a good lesson.

That comment was not okay. If it was intended as a joke, it's not funny.

Berge is vile scum, as I said above. But he does not "deserve" to be raped. No one deserves to be raped. There is no context in which advocating or condoning rape could ever be acceptable. It isn't a way of "teaching someone a lesson"; it's a form of inhuman and degrading abuse, and we should speak outa gainst it in all circumstances.

For the same reason, I hate it when some idiots turn up on comment threads and make jokes about prison rape. That isn't funny either. I don't care what someone's done or what they "deserve"; advocating rape towards them should be beyond the pale of civilised discourse.

Posted by: Magaus | May 25, 2010 11:47 AM

Oh dear, this is not good. Normally, I'm reluctant to hand out psychiatric diagnoses, but in this case... Read other entries in his blog as well, they are horrible.

The worst thing? He lives in the same city as I do. *hides*

Posted by: phoenixwoman | May 25, 2010 11:54 AM

Maybe he'd like to be homosexually raped? I mean, when it comes to gays, he withholds sex from them (i presume) same as women do from him (i presume). It might teach the creep a good lesson.

Van Harris for the win!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 25, 2010 11:55 AM

For the same reason, I hate it when some idiots turn up on comment threads and make jokes about prison rape.

Yeah. Just for clarity for all my comment that I hope he goes to prison only means that if he acts on his own words he deserves to be put in prison for his violent crimes.

Actually I don't really hope he goes to prison anyway because that will mean he probably raped several people, some of them badly enough to bring a case against him where it's likely he'll try to insist he's a target for false claims because of his "outspoken activism" anyway.

But anyway it wasn't meant to imply I hope he gets raped in prison.

Honestly, I don't hope anything right now. I'm in a horrible mood and reading this asshole's psychotic drivel isn't cheering me any.

Posted by: james.douglas.moffatt | May 25, 2010 12:00 PM

Just a note: the Men's rights movement is a bit more varied than creeps like this and those that defend economic inequalities.

I involve myself with the aspects of the Men's Rights movement for example that deal with highlighting and providing services for men with clinical depression, and highlighting and providing services for men who have suffered abuse. The Men's rights movement sprung up around these causes because of the heavy anti-male bias when it comes to the providing of services for these issues.

Men are expected to 'just deal' with abuse and mental illness and to do otherwise is 'unmanly'. Also, many men and women are too preoccupied with fixing economic issues to the point where young boys and men are allowed to slip through the cracks.

No-one worth listening to from the men's rights movement is saying that women don't have problems that need addressing too, but too often providing services to men is seen as patriarchal or unfair towards women, and as a result in many cases men are going without any help or services in areas such as mental health, support and councelling, gov't support for medical research (Eg. amount spent on cervical cancer research as opposed to prostate cancer), legal support and equal treatment under the law when it comes to sentencing.

So yeah. This creep is a creep because he advocates rape, not because he labels himself as a Men's Rights activist. It's unfair and intellectually dishonest to tar the entire movement with his brush.

toysoldier.wordpress.com is a good starting point if you wish to learn more about these and other Men's Rights issues.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | May 25, 2010 12:02 PM

Walton@10:

"Quoting him in Comic Sans just doesn't do justice to how scary the above quotes are."

I think a more appropriate font would be the cut-out letters preferred by serial killers and kidnappers. We could call it "Sans Comic." Or maybe "New Times Ramirez."

Seriously, I hope the authorities have this guy red-flagged.

Posted by: Fortknox | May 25, 2010 12:06 PM

It figures, libertarians are known intellectually bankrupt sociopaths...

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 25, 2010 12:08 PM

Ol'Greg,

But anyway it wasn't meant to imply I hope he gets raped in prison.

I realise that, and I wasn't referring to anything you'd posted, or indeed anyone's comments on this particular thread except the one I quoted. Sorry that I wasn't very clear. (I'm drowning in land law right now and should be studying instead of typing this...) I definitely would never accuse you of harbouring any such sentiments. You're one of the good people around here.

Rather, I was referring to some of the stuff I remember people saying when Kent Hovind was imprisoned, for instance.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 25, 2010 12:12 PM

Cosmic Teapot @#31:

Aaaargggh. I'm very glad I didn't click on the link. That's truly awful.

This guy is not just unhinged. He's unhinged and evil. I can't understand how anyone can possibly think like that. It's not explicable by stupidity or delusion alone; it's frighteningly psychopathic.

I'd rather be locked in a room with a thousand Dennis Markuzes than with this guy.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | May 25, 2010 12:16 PM

Thanks tsg; "ransom note" and "ransom" are also good names for the font.;-)

Posted by: black.iris.dancer | May 25, 2010 12:18 PM

@Alex, #27 —

Women's rights and men's rights should be replaced with human rights.

ow. my head.

I mean, yes, that's very nice, except that gender is actually a mode of oppression. People are hurt because of their gender, because that is how we have decided to organize society. Women bear the vast majority of the pain, but as #26 points out, there are substantial ways in which patriarchy hurts men, too.

(“Men's rights” feels squicky in the same way that “white rights,” or “straight pride” does—it feels like a privileged group trying to co-opt even the experience of oppression from the oppressed. Which isn't to say that there are no worthwhile initiatives connected to the men's rights movement, necessarily. Masculinity certainly hurts men, and it's not really reasonable to expect existing patriarchal institutions (which do, after all, participate in creating the problem) or women's institutions (which are, quite reasonably, focused on women's issues and needs) to step up. If I were a male feminist focused on those issues, I probably would try to find ground with some MRAs—who have, after all, typically been hurt and find themselves unable to deal with that experience because of what it means to be a man in this society.)

Posted by: Darryl | May 25, 2010 12:21 PM

Wow, what a frightening peek into an unhinged mind, and all the more so because he is convinced that he holds the only rational view of the matter. I know there are a number of libertarians here in the Freethought world, and it would be interesting to hear their takedown on this guy's insane interpretation.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawl3TpOVyxxwCT5cVU3M80c_cpxoMBZmiOQ | May 25, 2010 12:24 PM

Wow. What an epic fail!
#31 So basically he not only is a misogynist, he also is a racist, and even more disturbing is the combination of those two where he not only claims that all the black men are rapists, but also that the white men should be ashamed of themselves for not being the top rapists themselves. WTF!?

Posted by: Qwerty | May 25, 2010 12:26 PM

"these are the kinds of evil freaks who murder their children at the prospect that their ex-wife might get custody"

Or they murder their wives. Just watched a "48 Hours, Mystery" title "Thou Shalt Not Kill" in which a husband hired someone to kill his divorce-seeking wife while he was at CHURCH with his kids!

Luckily, the wife's parents obtained custody while the husband eventually was convicted and went to jail.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 25, 2010 12:29 PM

Maybe he'd like to be homosexually raped?

He answered:

gay men can have sex as easily as women can. They are already equal. So the argument does not apply to them. Sex is a female resource in a heterosexual context, which is the only context I am concerned with, and rape is equality.

He's embarrassment to males and not just human males, but males of every species.

Im not sure what your inferring, and im not going to make this a political thread, but apparently I have to say that

advocating rape != libertarian

I don't want to make this a political thread either and will just explain my comment (or lack of a comment). Libertarians frequently take a heartless attitude towards disenfranchised groups and this is an extreme, albeit atypical example. While I am not fond of libertarians I don't doubt that most would disagree with this scumbag on this issue and was not implying so.

Posted by: alex.asolis.net | May 25, 2010 12:33 PM

@black.iris.dancer #38,

What I was saying is that people shouldn't focus on women's rights or men's rights. They should focus on human rights. That means if people are being discriminated against from getting management positions in companies because they happen to be female, that should be called a human rights issue, not a women's right issue. That also means if people who are male are being discriminated against by being forced to sign up for the draft or they won't get federal aid for college, that should be a human rights issue, not a men's rights issue. Referring to "men's rights" or "women's rights" is antithetical to what the goal of both should be: equality.

Posted by: rhamantus | May 25, 2010 12:33 PM

It figures, libertarians are known intellectually bankrupt sociopaths...

As someone mentioned earlier (and as I commented on that psychopath's site), his values do not correspond with libertarianism at ALL, as rape is the ultimate violation of individual liberty and autonomy. This guy only thinks he's a libertarian, and perhaps it's because he's intellectually bankrupt and hasn't really thought about what libertarianism really means. Of course, when you don't see women as fully human, I suppose it's easy to think that libertarianism doesn't apply to them.
FWIW, I'm a self-labeled libertarian, too. I'm also a humanist and a feminist, and I don't think true libertarianism is in conflict with either of these.

Posted by: bjstucker | May 25, 2010 12:34 PM

If this information was relayed to a therapist, wouldn't said therapist be obligated to notify the authorities? Yikes

Posted by: Nineveh | May 25, 2010 12:37 PM

Those "Africans" and "Kurds" in northern Europe are actually Muslim. He focused on the wrong "unifying factor".

/endanti-religiousrant

Posted by: sjefskjekkasen | May 25, 2010 12:43 PM

My EYES! What the hell is this guy going on about??

I cringed when I read this and will probably be shaking my head for the rest of the day.

This pathetic moron does NOT represent me, my country or norwegian males by a long shot. I hope this is obvious, but I just have to say it out.

I couldn't bear to read through much, but this guy have to suffer from some sort of mental impairment. Either that or this really is a Poe. He writes pretty eloquently, so he's probably not unintelligent, but the logic is so warped I'm tempted to believe the latter, only to ease off my shock.

From his latest post:

(...) In fact, I gloat when a woman is actually raped. Since women and the law do not care if we actually rape and only care about obtaining convictions, we might as well get our money's worth.

It sounds almost surreal

Posted by: Dianne | May 25, 2010 12:55 PM

Looked at his page. Must now clear and toss my cookies.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 25, 2010 12:59 PM

Check out his tweets

http://twitter.com/eivindberge

Is this the best this mangina biologist PZ Myers can do? He has no real argument against me, just supports feminism - http://bit.ly/9qLj5q

Posted by: naddyfive | May 25, 2010 1:02 PM

I find it weird whenever extreme misogynists make their weird rape/"sex resource" arguments, for the obvious reasons, but also a couple more.

First, it's just strange that they assume all women can get sex whenever they want it. There are plenty of women who get consistently snubbed by men: because they're a few pounds overweight, or not petite, or too smart, or whatever. I know quite a few of them. Second, even the good looking among us can have a difficult time getting laid sometimes. I know women who are extremely good looking who end up intimidating men so they don't really get hit on all that much (although they get leered at a lot).

The idea that women have it easy in the sex game is just... wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.

Posted by: Michelle R | May 25, 2010 1:05 PM

Obviously someone doesn't know how to make a woman orgasm and he wants to make up a reason to just rape them instead of working for his sex.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | May 25, 2010 1:06 PM

I'm thankful for douchebags like this guy. They reveal just what these causes are actually about. I was partially suckered in by the "anti-feminist" rhetoric, if only because I feel every good cause needs some checks and balances, somebody to say, "you're taking it way too far".

That being said, I support "men's rights" (in the sense of being given fair treatment in custody battles, etc). I also support womens' rights. In the words of the glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster: "Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuschia."

And I'll volunteer to hold this guy down while people take turns kicking him in the crotch.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 25, 2010 1:08 PM

He's a graduate student in Latin. That's the contact email of his department. I've just sent them a short, polite email linking them to his post, and warning that his attitude will likely become behavior, at which point they will need to take steps to protect the student body from him (hopefully by expelling him).

Yay thought police!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Really lame. Go comment on his blog, but this has nothing to do with his studies in Latin.

Posted by: james.douglas.moffatt | May 25, 2010 1:10 PM

For the record, I wasn't trying to co-opt the conversation into being about MRA. I saw that PZ had made a factual error in defining the Men's Rights movement and was trying to correct that. I had not planned to continue the discussion on MR beyond that one correction. The hostility, condescention and "blaming the victim" is not necessary.

If it's not too presumtuous to offer it, my advice to Zeppo and others is to not have this conversation about child custody and other MR issues here. This is a thread about a creep threatening sexual violence against women and we do not need to make it about us. We've said our bit to try and correct PZ's misrepresentation of us, and we should leave it at that now.

Posted by: mokele | May 25, 2010 1:11 PM

BigDumbChimp: Really? Go read his post. Now tell me exactly what you think is going to happen the next time he has a one-on-one tutoring session with a female undergrad.

He's dangerous - he WILL rape, if he hasn't already.

Posted by: Michelle R | May 25, 2010 1:13 PM

@Benjamin Geiger: Right there with you, man. Equality doesn't mean superiority of one gender. It means fairness for all, regardless of what the chromosomes say. We're all the same species, so we are just the same...

...well beyond the part where one has a tool the other doesn't have. That doesn't mean you have the right to take the other gender's hole by force. Seems that wack doesn't get that simple concept of equality and right to one's body...

Posted by: TheLukeDuke | May 25, 2010 1:15 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, I've sat on the fence for far too long and decided to finally register and start leaving comments. Just another soldier reporting for duty.

Posted by: cainula | May 25, 2010 1:17 PM

Weird day

Abbie has some guy defending biblical rape on her blog.

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/05/amused_craig_venter_figured_ou.php

Posted by: Noadi | May 25, 2010 1:18 PM

I'm with mokele: The guy has expressed a desire and willingness to rape. Teaching him a lesson isn't the point, possibly keeping him away from being alone with young women is. His college should absolutely be made away that he's a potential risk to female students.

Posted by: Aurophobia | May 25, 2010 1:23 PM

This is going to give me nightmares.

Posted by: james.douglas.moffatt | May 25, 2010 1:26 PM

I agree with Mokele and Noadi. Expelling him would be going too far at this stage as he has not committed a crime yet, but he has admitted in a public forum that he has a desire to see women raped and that makes him a danger that needs to be monitored. It's no different than reporting someone to the police if they say they are going to murder someone. The act of expressing that desire means they warrant investigation and monitoring. Investigation under suspicion of criminal intent is not a violation of civil liberties.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 25, 2010 1:27 PM

Can I jump to conclusions about the nature of people who enter graduate studies in Latin now?

Posted by: Noadi | May 25, 2010 1:28 PM

Rev. BigDumbChimp: The difference here is he's advocating committing a serious crime not desecrating a cracker. The Catholics that emailed PZs boss had a right to do it as silly as their being offended was. That sort of how free speech works, you say something and people get to react to it so long as they do so with more speech.

Posted by: mokele | May 25, 2010 1:31 PM

BigDumbChimp: Yes, I know this. Everyone who has even the slightest knowledge of the psychology behind rape knows this. This isn't a car accident or a fistfight, something that 'just happens' to normal people - rapists like Eivend Berge stew on their desires for long periods, trying ever-increasing means of gratification, feeding of the silent consent or even encouragement of other sexists.

This isn't about intellectual censorship. This isn't someone who said something I disagree with. This is someone who has openly confessed to being an extreme danger to any and every woman in contact with him. This should be handled in the same way as if he were employed by a day-care center and confessed to pedophilia.

However, since you obviously don't give a crap about actually preventing rape, since from your privileged position it's a "minor disagreement", you can screw off and let those of us who actually care about other people try to prevent this rapist from living out his fantasy.

Posted by: james.douglas.moffatt | May 25, 2010 1:36 PM

@Rev #81: The big difference is that PZ never advocated a criminal act. He offended sensibilites. This guy is basically threatening sexual violence against the entire female gender. There's a huge difference and one that justifies taking... not punitive measures, but preventative measures. As I said earlier, reporting someone's stated criminal intent is not the same as persuing thought crime, nor is it the same as shutting down speech you disagree with.

Free speech guarantees you the right to say what you want. It does not protect you from the consequences of saying what you want.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 25, 2010 1:36 PM

Is this the best this mangina biologist PZ Myers can do? He has no real argument against me, just supports feminism - http://bit.ly/9qLj5q

Ah. Great: another punk-ass student with no social skills who thinks it's everyone else's fault that nobody likes him. They almost invariably end up studying the classics because it fits in with their elitist misfit persona. Why think when you can snootily bark Socratisms at everyone and then wonder why women won't interact with you after you've made it clear how much they disgust you?

For this reason, I viscerally despise cops and wish them the worst. Killing at least one cop is on my bucket list.

Man, this guy reeks of impotence. "I'm smart. I study fucking Latin, of all things. Could there be a better testimony to my sense of privileged elitism than to study a dead language that's only around because of its privileged romanticism? So why won't anyone recognise my obvious superiority?"

Can I jump to conclusions about the nature of people who enter graduate studies in Latin now?

Already done.

Posted by: Poor Wandering One | May 25, 2010 1:36 PM

My, this person is really quite foul.
I would like to thank Dr. Myers for turning over this particular rock and letting the light in. As a commenter said on the poor mans blog any googling of his name will now pull this thread and serve as fair warning to any prospective dates or employers.

I feel real pity for this person.

Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm | May 25, 2010 1:43 PM

I can't believe what I've been reading. (Why did I even go there?--thanks PZ ;p ) This guy is dangerous. Is he a Poe? I doubt it, but am amazed such people would be so vociferous.

This blog entry is from last May. His most recent is from 2 May this year called Rape of Women in Skinny Jeans Not Possible.

Here's an excerpt from one about his hatred of the police:

The police force in Norway and other Occidental countries is basically a special interest group for the feminists. They enforce the feminist definition of rape, age of consent and all the other misandrist feminist laws that make my blood boil with hatred. Now Norwegian cops are even empowered by the feminists to arrest me for being a john (while the whores of course are innocent) and this applies anywhere in the world. For this reason, I viscerally despise cops and wish them the worst. Killing at least one cop is on my bucket list. Whenever the pigs try to interrogate you, keep this in mind:

Posted by: james.douglas.moffatt | May 25, 2010 1:51 PM

@Rev: I also support his right to express his vile opinions. But that does not give him a free pass to speak without consequence. What we are "Punishing" is not the act of thought, but the expression of that thought in a way that threatens and indicates the possibility of criminal activity in the future.

Noone in this thread is advocating charging him with rape based solely on his blog posts (At least I hope not) what we are advocating is a proportional response to his speech with speech of our own. To the proper authorities.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 25, 2010 1:56 PM

However, since you obviously don't give a crap about actually preventing rape, since from your privileged position it's a "minor disagreement", you can screw off and let those of us who actually care about other people try to prevent this rapist from living out his fantasy.

Sigh, I knew it would dissolve to that.

I in no way thing rape is a "minor disagreement" and anyone who knows me here knows this. Please don't turn this into me being a rape apologist because it's not the case. You only have this blog to go on about who I am, but any of my previous comments will easily tell you this.

My point is about people being free to express vile, disgusting hateful ideas.

Period.

Free speech guarantees you the right to say what you want. It does not protect you from the consequences of saying what you want.

Yes I understand that.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 25, 2010 1:57 PM

Yay thought police!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Really lame. Go comment on his blog, but this has nothing to do with his studies in Latin.

You really don't see how his openly endorsing rape makes his being a graduate student, and thus potentially a teaching assistant and eventually a professor, concerning?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 25, 2010 2:01 PM

You really don't see how his openly endorsing rape makes his being a graduate student, and thus potentially a teaching assistant and eventually a professor, concerning?

Nope, I got it now.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 25, 2010 2:04 PM

"I am not going to find love here in any law-abiding manner because feminism has made women so choosy I don't stand a chance. I am just human refuse floating about in the feminist utopia as a loose cannon increasingly embittered by celibacy and radicalized by this oppressive political climate until one day I explode. Celibacy is eroding my soul until what is left of me is nothing but a noxious pit of profound hatred and violence."

How utterly pathetic. One more person who confuses sex with love and thinks everyone else on the planet is getting laid constantly. A lot of women have just as much difficulty on the sexual front as a lot of men do, it's a problem for people across the board.

As for feminist utopias, where? I haven't heard of Amazon communities springing up all over the place, but I'm often out of the loop...

Posted by: Promii | May 25, 2010 2:07 PM

Artemis the Protein @ 97

I'm curious; I've heard several people say they love being women but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they love being men. I would sure rather be regarded as a genderless human. Is this a disparity anyone else has noticed or is it just my experience?

Posted by: Duckbilled Platypus | May 25, 2010 2:09 PM

It just sounds too surreal to me. I sometimes wonder if people with such outrageous remarks like this dude aren't just simply taking the piss with us (like http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com) - or are trying to create a controversy about an issue which they feel needs to be brought on the agenda. Or simply attempt to expose people online who think along those immensely disturbed lines, who will be drawn to his blog as some kind of magnet.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 25, 2010 2:11 PM

Sorry, Rev. Didn't mean to dogpile on you like that...

Nope, no problem there. This is Pharyngula.

I'll admit ignoring the heightened responsibility of the possible outcome of his career path on this. Notification seems appropriate, I was getting on my high horse as I'm apt to do here and there.

Posted by: james.douglas.moffatt | May 25, 2010 2:13 PM

@Promii: I love being a man. I'm not sure I would like to be thought of as a genderless human. To me, being male makes up so much of how I think and view the world that to remove that would stop me being me. And I like being me.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 25, 2010 2:18 PM

"Can I jump to conclusions about the nature of people who enter graduate studies in Latin now?"

I did a long time ago, when I was taking Attic Greek. At my school the undergrads in the program were mostly pretty gay boys. But the teachers- oh my.

Here's my list of unfair assumptions about people based on field of advanced study:

Philosophy/self-important blowhards
Literature/romantics and idealists
Economics/schmucks
Engineering/bright but uptight
Classics/Ayn Rand cult members
Biology/dorks who aren't easily grossed out
Physics/dorks who really love advanced math
Chemistry/dorks who like to make things blow up
Communications/sorority girls who want a promotion
Art/stoners with rich parents
Anthropology/hippies and humanists
Medicine/half schmucks half humanists

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 25, 2010 2:21 PM

Is this the best this mangina biologist PZ Myers can do? He has no real argument against me, just supports feminism - http://bit.ly/9qLj5q

Ah. Great: another punk-ass student with no social skills who thinks it's everyone else's fault that nobody likes him. They almost invariably end up studying the classics because it fits in with their elitist misfit persona. Why think when you can snootily bark Socratisms at everyone and then wonder why women won't interact with you after you've made it clear how much they disgust you?

For this reason, I viscerally despise cops and wish them the worst. Killing at least one cop is on my bucket list.

Man, this guy reeks of impotence. "I'm smart. I study fucking Latin, of all things. Could there be a better testimony to my sense of privileged elitism than to study a dead language that's only around because of its privileged romanticism? So why won't anyone recognise my obvious superiority?"

Can I jump to conclusions about the nature of people who enter graduate studies in Latin now?

Already done.

Posted by: james.douglas.moffatt | May 25, 2010 2:23 PM

I obviously meant, Aussie men. Also, that's not unique to Australians, just a sterotype common to us.

I really shouldn't type at 4 in the morning...

Posted by: james.douglas.moffatt | May 25, 2010 2:24 PM

I'd totally attend P.Z. University.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 25, 2010 2:27 PM

Sorry 'bout the double post. I don't know what happened there.

Gremlins.

Posted by: james.douglas.moffatt | May 25, 2010 2:28 PM

On the wing of our plane.

Posted by: rgovrebo | May 25, 2010 2:40 PM

Please don't take this ...thing as representative for Norway - or indeed western Norway.

Some of us are at least marginally civilised.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 25, 2010 2:44 PM

I would bet money that the "choosy" women he's complaining about are all of a certain degree of physical attractiveness. Purely anecdotal, I'll agree, but it's a common trait I've found in men who complain about not being to meet a woman. In my experience, what they're really complaining about is not being able to meet a "hot" woman.

Though on the other hand, it's true that feminism has made a lot of women more choosy. We no longer have to put up with arrogant asshats who want to dominate us.

Maybe, though I'd bet the stink of 'overwhelming ego trying to cover up feelings of inferiority' repels even the not-so-physically-attractive women.

Anthropology/hippies and humanists

Guilty as charged, though I'm probably more metro than hippie.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 25, 2010 2:45 PM

"It reminds me of those Catholics who complained to P.Z. university after he greatly offended their sensibilities and trashed "Jesus' flesh". From the perspective of the Catholics who complained, what P.Z. did was pretty horrible. "

ah, so it's just a matter of perspective. Some people think desecrating a cracker is wrong, some people think premeditated serial rape is wrong. That makes sense.

...

Really it does.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 25, 2010 2:45 PM

"I'm curious; I've heard several people say they love being women but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they love being men. I would sure rather be regarded as a genderless human. Is this a disparity anyone else has noticed or is it just my experience?"

This is an interesting point to bring up... I think women often end up saying that they love being a woman, with all that comes to mean, at least in part because sexual power is the only kind women are afforded in any great measure over and above men. Sexual allure is a kind of power that women in our culture are afforded, while men in general aren't. Scantily clad women are something to gawk at, while shirtless men are a sitcom punchline.

I do think that this is, in a way, unfair to men. I think it creates a lot of resentment and confusion. Many men want so badly to be seen as sexy- to feel wanted in the way that they want women- that they can't fathom why women would be offended or threatened by sexual advances. I've heard men defend sexual harassers by saying, "jeez, I'd love it if a woman did that to me!" And I think they really mean it. They just can't envision what it's like to be in a position where you're embued with this kind of power: we women are punished if we wield it on purpose (cocktease!), but then punished when we aren't wielding it on purpose, or at all. It's nice to feel alluring; it's not nice to be called a slut for it. The cognitive dissonance surrounding sexuality and "sin" is the root of the problem.

Personally, I find men as sexy as I find women. Being bisexual, I've encountered male sexual power and female sexual power, and in many ways they do seem like different animals. One thing I think will come with the continued liberation of queer people is the increasing recognition of male/masculine sexual allure.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 25, 2010 2:48 PM

Benjamin:

Caine:

I don't confuse sex with love, but I'm irritated that I don't get any of either. And I have difficulty believing that there are many women out there who can't get a date (let alone get laid).

Believe it or not, it happens and more often than you'd think. The majority of women out there aren't ideals of beauty and really aren't getting hit on constantly. Finding love isn't any easier for women than it is for men. We're all in the same boat.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 25, 2010 2:53 PM

Believe it or not, it happens and more often than you'd think. The majority of women out there aren't ideals of beauty and really aren't getting hit on constantly. Finding love isn't any easier for women than it is for men. We're all in the same boat.

Or they get this:

"Stuck up cunt ought to be glad anyone wants to fuck her."

In other words the fact that I'm a beast and I constantly call her names and I have herpes should not stand between her worshiping me as a sex god because she has a fat ass and a big nose.

Posted by: rhamantus | May 25, 2010 2:55 PM

Benjamin Geiger:

I don't confuse sex with love, but I'm irritated that I don't get any of either. And I have difficulty believing that there are many women out there who can't get a date (let alone get laid).

Really? I can think of plenty of women who probably don't get a lot of male attention, let alone dates: overweight women, super tall women, super short women (little people), hairy women, very very shy women, overly assertive or aggressive women, etc. Men are just as choosy as women, if not more so (and I know this from experience).

naddyfive:

Anthropology/hippies and humanists

Bwahaha. Mostly true, as far as cultural anthropologists go; the other three subfields have slightly different characters ;) (As someone who holds a BA in anthropology, I freely admit to being a bit of a hippy idealist, except without the drugs :P And I went into anthropology *because* I am humanist.)

Posted by: black.iris.dancer | May 25, 2010 2:55 PM

I'm curious; I've heard several people say they love being women but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they love being men.

This might have to do with the fact that women have to constantly think about being women, and are constantly reminded of their woman-ness, in a way that men aren't constantly reminded of their maleness. So there's a lot more pressure on us to form an opinion on it, one way or another.

Posted by: Anna | May 25, 2010 2:58 PM

This also just occurred to me: maybe there are men who love being men, but feel they would be viewed as misogynists (or at very least unsympathetic to women) for saying it?

Posted by: Poor Wandering One | May 25, 2010 3:01 PM

naddyfive #118

You left out:
Library Science / polyamorous firebrands

or that may just be my school.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 25, 2010 3:04 PM

I'm with you Asclepias.

Seriously.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 25, 2010 3:08 PM

tsg @ #41

I thought both spellings looked ok... I used to be an excellent speller. Then my epilepsy meds slowly obliterated my spelling ability. They also give me bouts of aphasia. But they work so well I really can't afford not to take em.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 25, 2010 3:08 PM

Lynn Wilhelm:

I've been single a long time and I don't know where people get the idea that women can get sex any time they want.

Well, there's that old chestnut that no man would turn down the offer of sex (not true, at least going by the men I know), so all a woman has to do is offer. Of course, the majority of women would not be interested in doing this at all.

Well, I suppose we could if we didn't have to worry about getting abused, being called a slut or getting STDs. Not to mention keeping our children safe from nuts like Eivend--you can't just bring anyone home!

Yeah, there's all that. Having a sex life can be very difficult. Individuals often have different aims in having sex, too. If one person is only interested in casual sex and the other person is only interested in a relationship, that's not going to go anywhere, so why start? It's all more involved than some people think.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 25, 2010 3:13 PM

Asclepias:

I don't know whether to bew amused or frustrated by this seeming assumption that everyone needs sex or wants sex. Perhaps I'm just abnormal

You aren't abnormal at all.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 25, 2010 3:18 PM

Asclepias @149

Not abnormal. Could mean you're like me, an asexual, which is someone who is not sexually attracted to either sex. Could also mean you are a low-libidoed version of one of the other sexual orientations.

But no, it doesn't make you a "freak", just a potentially proud 1% naturally occurring minority.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 25, 2010 3:21 PM

I know women are known for ignoring decent guys while going to bed with jerks, and that stereotype may be justified to a certain extent, but we generally don't get turned on by men with "Misogynistic Violence: Imminent" oozing from their pores

Right. Sorry boys, but when people talk about girls being attracted to 'bad boys', they don't mean Travis Bickle, you dumb repressed shits.

I don't know whether to bew amused or frustrated by this seeming assumption that everyone needs sex or wants sex. Perhaps I'm just abnormal.

I used to joke with people that if I'd been a castrati, I'd be ruling the Earth with an iron fist. Alas, (the punchline went), my IQ dropped at about the same time my testicles did, and I became the hapless, pruriently oriented doofus you know and love.

Posted by: thedolcelife#276f1 | May 25, 2010 3:23 PM

I read this and now I'm sick to my stomach.

Posted by: mokele | May 25, 2010 3:29 PM

Alex: The point is regardless of what someone says or does on the Internet, it's not the place of random people to complain to where they work or study in hopes that they will get in trouble.

Really? So if a daycare center worker has a blog promoting NAMBLA and openly expressing pedophilic desires towards children of the same age as they're around every day, you wouldn't think to report it to their employer?

Because *that* is what this is about. Not some BS comparison to PZ's cracker - this is someone who has openly advocated a serious crime against people he is in contact with and possibly in a position of power over.

By your logic, if someone posted on their hate-filled blog about how they were planning on shooting up their school, you'd avoid mentioning it to the authorities.

Freedom of speech

That's why it's illegal to threaten to kill someone. That covers rape, too.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 25, 2010 3:30 PM

And at the risk of making the MRAs come back, which I'm very grateful that they went away mercifully quickly, there is a version of feminism for men that covers the various inequalities they suffer as a result from the pressures of their sex.

It's called feminism.

Don't like to be defined and constrained by ill-defined pressures to be more "masculine" and be a bread-winner and the like? Feminism is trying to give you more options.

Want romance more than sex but feel like a bad man for it? Feminism is trying to make you able to be yourself easier.

How about better sex, a deeper connection with your romantic partners, less sexual hangups, the stuff that comes with a greater public acceptance of female sexuality and consent? Yup.

Bullying over perceived lacks of strength or intellectual interests deemed "feminine" or "weak" and way way more, all of it is being worked on by feminism.

Don't like being seen as a potential violator? Introversion making it hard to be the sexual "pursuer" and you wish women would pursue more? Etc... All feminism and most of the time its feminism staffed all by females who are trying to make men's lives suck as they stamp their little feet and fight for every step of lost privilege.

Feminism is the radical idea that women are human and as the good quote goes, "the patriarchy hurts men too" and the only reason that feminism focuses more on women is because the sexist system that keeps both men and women down keeps women down more and thus need more focus, but it definitely doesn't lack for benefits for men.

Really hope this doesn't trigger a second wave of MRAs, but just felt that needed to be added as an addendum to their earlier whining.

Posted by: AshPlant | May 25, 2010 3:36 PM

I'm particularly amused by the bit in his profile where he says he is "an antifeminist (not to be confused with misogynist)". To be fair to to the poor guy, it is very easy to confuse him with a misogynist. One might also have trouble distinguishing him from, say, a violently angry little twerp; a clueless moron who blames the world for his shortcomings; or a stain on the face of humanity. But the distinction's there people! Don't get him confused!

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 25, 2010 3:39 PM

And regarding the OP, that'd be the abyss of the patriarchy as it were. The shit boiling under the surface of some of the bad shit we see on the margins stated naked and unashamed.

Unfortunately, given the rape statistics, his views, albeit in much more subtle nuances are sadly not as uncommon as I'd like even in the first world. Certainly too many men seem to view sex as inherently transactional, something men seek and women relent to or have taken from them and that the means of acquiring said capital are never questioned all that hard from the perspective of a particularly toxic interpretation of masculinity.

I don't need to state here that sex is a dance between two consenting partners nor that openly loathing the humanity of those you seek it from might hurt your chances of acquiring it, much less love or even how much selling his soul to the dark underbelly of the patriarchy has probably done to twist an already misogynistic mind into something inches away from that of a serial killer...

So I'll just state that this is why we should always seek to better ourselves, to sift ourselves for unexamined sexism, cultural artifacts of misogyny and bias and seek to improve and become better people and lovers.

Because the other road can lead to that.

In short, thank you feminism for making people like that more and more outcast with each passing decade and hopefully eventually extinct.

Posted by: Leni | May 25, 2010 3:43 PM

Normally I would have a problem making jokes abut rape, but this ass seems to think it is not as bad as "involuntary celibacy" (his words, not mine).

So I don't think I'd feel to bad if he were disabused of that notion. In fact, I'd wager that it's probably the only thing that could (not necessarily would) make it clear to him how fucked up and wrong he is.

It's not so different than suggesting that those who advocated that water-boarding was not torture should give it a try. If he wants to make light of and actively advocate brutality, then he ought to at least find out what it's actually like.

Posted by: Isaac Sherman | May 25, 2010 3:46 PM

Gah- movable type was giving me log in problems and it took forever to get that posted. Disregard #169 BDC. The comment about Latin still stands for Brownian, though.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 25, 2010 4:03 PM

Men definitely imagine that menstruation is a much bigger deal than it is for most women. There were studies a while back that established that, despite what men claim, they cannot tell when women are menstruating or "PMS"ing. Chance is better at it than men are.

I get cramps sometimes. But that's nothing an Aleve won't take care of.

The worst parts about being a woman have nothing to do with that kind of thing, more with how you're assumed to be dumb, incompetant, lesser, how your ideas are stolen or appropriated by men, you're not listened to, assaulted, raped, etc.

Posted by: Flex | May 25, 2010 4:03 PM

There is still a life path promoted by modern western culture:

1. Graduate high school/college
2. Marry girl/boy
3. Procreate

These are reinforced by the stages where we celebrate transitions from one state to the next.

Graduations from high school or college are a celebration of the transition to adulthood. And we have ceremonies for that transition.

Marriage is a celebration of the transition into a new category of adult, a commitment to a single other person. We have a ceremony for that tradition too.

Parenthood is cause for a final celebration of the transitions of an individual into the category of responsibility for their own progeny. And there are ceremonies related to this.

Now these traditions celebrating our transitions into various stages of life may seem weak compared with the traditions from other cultures, but they are what we have.

And people do buy into them.

I've know a number of people who, when they have a hard time following the path that they feel their society has laid out for them, have gotten very angry, bitter, or depressed.

I've known women who appear to be so certain that the next stage in their life is marriage, and that they would be judged by their relatives by how soon they reached that stage, that they married the first fellow who came along. Often to their detriment.

Now, I expect many people here either didn't feel the need to follow the traditional path (I certainly didn't), or if they did follow it, did so with their eyes open. On the other hand, I've occasionally pointed out to otherwise intelligent people that feeling bad that you couldn't/didn't follow that path doesn't make you a person of less worth. To invoke Joseph Campbell for a moment, the path the hero takes, which is the path the average man is expected to take, is not the same path as the sage/animal guide that advises the hero. The sage took a different path to be prepared to guide the hero.

There is a reaction to this change which is eliminating the transitional stage of marriage and parenthood. The reaction appears to be anger and a desire to force these traditions to continue, their argument is that society will fall apart if we don't. In their eyes, gay marriage is wrong because it completely prevents the next stage in life from happening. In their view, a life cannot be complete or satisfying without going through the life-stages that our culture demands.

This is the true face of the culture wars. This is why they can find individual homosexuals charming, but oppose gay marriage. This is why they can call themselves anti-feminist but pro-women. This is why they can claim they aren't racist but believe Muslims are evil incarnate.

Our western society has only three life-stages delineated by traditions, and two of those traditions and life-stages are becoming less important.

Worse yet, they are now realizing that these life stages are meaningless, people within their own society are having fulfilling lives without going through these life-stages. Their own lives could have been so much different and maybe far more fulfilling had they realized that there was a choice.

In reality, these three life-stages as traditions only go back a few score of years. Which is why they have to re-write history to match their desires. These days western society is continually changing, new traditions are being adopted from other cultures, the meanings of old traditions are being revised. These changes are happening so rapidly that some people are reacting against them.

---

On a lighter note, I'm not happy being male. The set assignment is backwards. I'm happy being me, being male is a subset of being me.

And I'm probably dead-wrong on my above analysis. I'm not a cultural anthropologist, I only play one occasionally on Pharyngula.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | May 25, 2010 4:06 PM

I am not exactly what you would call successful with women. Indeed, I am somewhat useless when it comes to the fair sex. It is not that I am an asexual, as some of the other commentators on the threatd here have identified themselves. Rather I am not very good at forming romantic relationships.

Unlike this ranting, misogynist moron, however, I (to butcher the Bard) accept that the fault lies in myself, not in my stars and still less in women. I am shy, I live in the middle of nowhere, and I do not make much of an effort to socialise with women. The truth is that I have no clue how to talk to women, I usually wind up blathering about nothing in particular (I have actually been reduced to talking about the weather in the past, I kid you not). This is not about a high degree of physical attractiveness. If I am remotely attracted to a womant, this is usually sufficient for blathering to ensue

None of this is the fault of women. They have not done this to me. It is not caused by feminism 'emasculating' me. If I want to change this state of affairs, it is up to me to do so.

Step one would be to learn how to actually talk to women without going to peices. I hear that is a good place to start...

Why am I different from this 'anti-feminist'? I like to think it is because I am not clinically psychotic and one small step away from homocidal mania.

Posted by: ecurve | May 25, 2010 4:10 PM

sjefskjekkasen@56: Don't worry, I think we all know better than to lump... well, ANYONE, really, in with this creep. Including the rest of humanity. I've met lots of Norwegian guys at hostels and suchlike, and they've always been excessively hot. NICE. I meant nice.

Posted by: gmv | May 25, 2010 4:12 PM

So, why would rape be seen as wrong in an evolutionary context? Aren't we supposed to try and beat others at reproducing ourselves and increasing our share of the gene pool? Why is human "rape" wrong when animal "rape" is not? Aren't we just animals anyway when it comes down to it?

Posted by: Stibbons | May 25, 2010 4:16 PM

Here's someone who'd defend this guy's right to rape. A lawyer. A female lawyer. Perhaps we should introduce them to each other...

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/827660-sexism-claim-lawyer-rape-is-natural-act

Posted by: naddyfive | May 25, 2010 4:17 PM

Gmv, I should leave this to the ecologists, but I will say that "rape" happens far less in other species than humans tend to imagine it does. It a lot of species, males wait until estrus or other periods of "heat" before females are receptive. They don't even try to penetrate females who aren't in heat. Most species have elaborate mating rituals that involve active participation of both males and females.

As far as I know, bedbugs are one of only a few species that rely on traumatic insemination, where the males literally "rape" females by stabbing them in the back and ejaculate into their body cavities when they do not expect it.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 25, 2010 4:20 PM

sorry, meant to say ethologists...

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | May 25, 2010 4:24 PM

I've always figured the male punishment for not having to menstruate is having to drag a blade across our faces every morning. But that would depend on how one feels about shaving.

Posted by: grudgedk | May 25, 2010 4:28 PM

Well I guess that settles it. Men are not genetically superior, or more intelligent. Evidence actually suggests quite the opposite. I am ashamed of my chromosomal privilege.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 25, 2010 4:33 PM

naddyfive:

Gmv, I should leave this to the ecologists, but I will say that "rape" happens far less in other species than humans tend to imagine it does.

I'm reminded of Ballistic penises and corkscrew vaginas - the sexual battles of ducks

Posted by: naddyfive | May 25, 2010 4:38 PM

Cerberus, I know it's probably tough right now (and that I have no idea just how tough)- but I'm so happy for you. You deserve to become who you've always been.

Those of us who are part of the queer community are very proud of all of the trans pioneers who are paving the way. There's still a lot of hate directed at you, but that's because the bigots know that you're living proof that the misogynistic, patriarchal notion that genitals are destiny is utter bullshit. The mystics who believe that magical "woman" and "man" essences are affixed to a fetus' genitals at birth cower in your presence.

Queer power!

Posted by: caseyhov | May 25, 2010 4:47 PM

Ok, there's a few things to consider here...

1. The PUA thing is kind of a non factor here, but just an FYI, the PUA idea is basically a set of skills that help men to be more attractive and successful with women. It's basically a giant self help movement that's shrouded in special terms and some faux secrecy. It in itself is not bad, but bad people often are attracted to it.

2. The point this guy is making is that basically women get stuff because they have a sexual value.

3. The thing this guy is largely missing is thta women don't strictly get stuff because they are women. These benefits they receive are usually from guys who aren't exactly confident in themselves and have this ditant fantasy that it could some how work out into a big giant quid pro quo sexual extravaganza and it doesn't. People need to stop doing regular every day things with sex as their ultimate goal.

4. Not every man in the world makes more than every woman, and I for one am a man who has lived exactly opposite of that income sterotype, so please be gentle whne steretyping men, because being pushed tio the wayside because I have a penis can hurt as well. Just because guys who aren't smart or responsible enough to act like humans exist doesn't mean that anything applies to all of us.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 25, 2010 4:49 PM

#184

Rape != Sex

Rape often leaves the female in no shape to reproduce.

I was insane for years and an acute danger to myself.

It is destructive to society and humans are social animals.

Rape = violence against another human being in which revolved around forcing non consensual sex on that other human being

And no, rape is a part of human society and equating it with animals (which ones specifically) is a fallacy. Also, what would the sex practices of non-related species have to do with humans anyway?

We're not carnivores either, and we don't have gills, and we can't fly. Lots of things that might make sense for another animal don't make sense for humans.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 25, 2010 4:53 PM

So, why would rape be seen as wrong in an evolutionary context?

Evolution doesn't make value judgments.

Aren't we supposed to try and beat others at reproducing ourselves and increasing our share of the gene pool?

There's no 'supposed to' in evolution.

Why is human "rape" wrong when animal "rape" is not? Aren't we just animals anyway when it comes down to it?

Assuming you're asking in good faith, it's for the some of the same reasons that human "murder/cannibalism/torture" is wrong when animal "murder/cannibalism/torture" isn't (or at the very least, we no longer consider them culpable for such acts.)

But, as you're asking from an evolutionary perspective, it helps for you to consider that humans are a social species. We survive and thrive thanks to our ability to cooperate with each other, and that means we've developed complex mental machinery for the purpose of doing so, including a number of attendant mechanisms such as individual recognition, memory, and the ability to make moral judgements largely based on the morals we inherit from our surrounding culture. So, while occasionally violent towards members of out-groups (especially in times of hightened competition for resources), we'd be a very different species if we acted the same way towards members of our in-groups all the time. By 'a very different species' I mean we wouldn't be anything like human.

You don't need a big brain to operate at a fight, flight, or fuck level. You do need a big brain to evaluate whether that other person you're looking at is someone who previously cooperated with you on a hunt or stole your cache of fruit and nuts when you weren't watching.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 25, 2010 5:04 PM

SaraJ @201

San Francisco, CA

Though technically, I'm unlikely to end up in San Fran proper, but probably somewhere in the Alameda/Oakland area.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but it's supposed to have a bit higher than normal trans population than other areas.

Posted by: Leni | May 25, 2010 5:05 PM

Gregory Greenwood @180

Step one would be to learn how to actually talk to women without going to peices. I hear that is a good place to start...

You seem like a nice guy and I wish you luck. Frankly, it's nice to see a guy not be all embittered and angry at women for his lack of success. You're already one step ahead of more than a few other guys :)

Some words of encouragement: remember, the more times you do it the easier it will be. And you don't have to only talk to women for the express purpose of asking them out. You can "practice" just by talking to women you have no intention of asking out. It's ok to talk about the weather too. It's cliche, but we all do it and we all know it's utterly harmless, safe conversation starters. I wouldn't necessarily start with it every time, but it's not the worst thing in the world, either.

The worst things are talking about your time in prison, your bitch ex-wife/girlfriend, or your mother ;) Anyway, be positive and friendly, keep the interactions short (at least until you know them better) and I think it'll get easier for you. Volunteering is also a great way to meet women if you have the time. Seriously, and it will give you some decent conversation mileage too.

(See, I'd much rather give PUA advice for nice guys than rapists!)

Posted by: killerrobot | May 25, 2010 5:09 PM

Oh dear. here we have a common or garden example of the type of man who feels absolutely entitled to sex because he's 'smart' and therefore enraged that women he fixates on (this type always fixates) don't just sort of wander up and ask him to do them on a regular basis. He refuses to consider for one moment that his lack of sexual/dating success is his own damn fault. He never seems to consider that reeking resentment and high-octane creepitude from every pore has anything to do with it. No, it's THOSE BITCHES, withholding sex just to be mean to him. Such is the mindset of the entitled. They shouldn't have to work for it, it's theirs by right of being male/white/smart ... whatever.

What isn't so common, thankfully, is his open statement of intent to do violence. Believe me, this dude is working himself up to doing something to some poor woman or women - probably as much and as many as he can get away with before being stopped. He sounds like every sadsack campus shooter who commited suicide by cop. Nothing is ever his fault. He never gets what he wants. society conspires to fuck him over and so on. Wah wah wah wah. Whiny arsed, immature, hateful little titty babies, every last one of them. I wouldn't object to them self-immolating in the least if they didn't insist on taking as many people with them as possible.

Oh, and as for men's right activists - when I see them actually doing something postive for men instead of sitting around talking hatefully about *women* and equating loss of male privilege with being victimized, I might take them seriously.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 25, 2010 5:11 PM

Mattir:

On the evolutionary place of rape for humans - assuming a particular male is trying to ensure that his offspring grow up to have grand-offspring, it might help not to conceive them in a way that would lead many females to abort them or provide really subpar parental care. Just sayin...

I'll add my Jus'sayin' too. Geez, if I had been impregnated by the man who raped me, I'd have aborted so fast it would make heads spin.

Posted by: hinakuu | May 25, 2010 5:20 PM

@Kraid
Don't hate yourself for being a guy. There's nothing wrong with it. Enjoy your strengths and be cognizant of your weaknesses. Your sex is an important part of who you are, but the most important parts are the choices you make.

Also, you're probably okay jogging at night, but still be careful.

Posted by: Anna | May 25, 2010 5:30 PM

I think society would be a lot better if both men and women felt more able to be happy in who/what they actually are, rather than feeling either obliged to play up to the stereotypes, or somehow ashamed of them.

There are a lot of good qualities to men, it would be a shame to let asshats like Eivind Berge and the crazier feminists get to you and stop you being able to feel proud of them. And I say to all you guys complaining about being disgusting, don't! Women may be smoother/curvier but the male physique has its own attraction.

Similarly, women should feel able to be happy in their own skin, rather than harassed by media messages that they should look more like the heavily photoshopped celebrities, or by fundies who think they should be 'kept in their place'.

Sadly I do not think this day is close. My country is centuries ahead of many, but even here we have the same tired old stereotypes and bad-feeling bickering between 'sides' :(

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 25, 2010 5:43 PM

Gregory Greenwood, from one rambling speaker to another. There's nothing wrong with rambling :P

Just try to give the other person a chance to respond too!

lol

Posted by: Laurent Weppe | May 25, 2010 5:50 PM

I'm afraid he needs to learn that legal corrections to a long and ongoing history of economic oppression of women are fair and just

What if he is more self-aware than you give him credit for? I tend to think that those individuals are more calculating and cold-blooded than many of us suspect:

I postulate that all the Eivend Berge of the world are acutely aware that they are completely out of their league compared to the million of talented women currently blocked by the glass cellings, therefore, maintaining an economic opression is the only way for them to preserve their social status.

Their douchebaggery is nothing more than the attempt to frame the public debate so that their opponents loose time and energy explaining them why they are wrong instead of saying that society would work better if were eternally banished from any any job giving them the tiniest amount of authority over other human beings.

Posted by: The Countess | May 25, 2010 5:56 PM

"Some men have a particularly oblivious sense of privilege — these are the kinds of evil freaks who murder their children at the prospect that their ex-wife might get custody."

PZ there's been an uptick in the evil freaks who murder their children and their ex's since the recession hit. The Baby Wyatt case is an especially terrible one.

http://parentingnewsnetwork.com/?p=281

Here's more on the subject: "When Fathers Kill Their Kids":

http://parentingnewsnetwork.com/?p=1141

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 25, 2010 5:57 PM

Hyperon, take your misogyny and leave. You are a known bigot, and nothing you say is considered anything other than a lie. You shouldn't have posted.

Posted by: Hairhead | May 25, 2010 6:02 PM

I feel like lightening things up here with a brief story for Gregory:

Several years ago I was flipping through channels and I happened upon Oprah Winfrey hyping, "After the commercial break, a man who slept with OVER TWO HUNDRED WOMEN last year!" So I wait through the commercials, Oprah, blathers, the curtain opens to a variety of hoots, cheers, and catcalls, and which was replaced by puzzled murmurs. The two-hundred-woman man was 5'6", greying, balding, and had the body of a pillow. When asked "How on earth . .?" He replied, "I'm a good listener, and I make them laugh."

Words to remember.

Posted by: caseyhov | May 25, 2010 6:06 PM

@#219

Thank you.

Seriously.

I have a penis, but I think rape is very bad. The generalizations in the opposite direction don't help anything.

I'm not a pig and I know some women who are physically stronger than me. I also know men who are physically weaker than me. None of them are anymore or or less a man or woman because of that are they?

I guess that number 197 and a few others on here are really making me angry because to so many, the idea of making things equal just means talking shit about the other side of the debate, even if it doesn't apply to everyone they're sticking labels on. It's really fuckign stupid and I expect a lot more from people who would read this blog.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 25, 2010 6:08 PM

Oh, whoops, known troll.

Sorry everyone for feeding it.

Posted by: Hyperon | May 25, 2010 6:19 PM

Of course, if you're going to lay down as a fundamental precept that women are equal to or better than men in everything other than brute strength, nothing will change your mind. For anyone interested in the actual substance, there's a whole Wiki on sex differences in IQ, containing a bunch of references. In a nutshell, it seems likely that men have higher IQ on average, and with statistical significance too. Now, how to interpret this I'm leaving purely up for grabs. I wouldn't say it implies that men are more "intelligent", as I'm a firm believer in different modes of intelligent. However, other things being equal, I would say that it's good (albeit perhaps ever-so-slightly) to have higher rather than lower IQ.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 25, 2010 6:21 PM

Nerd @231

Men are culturally more violent thanks to one of the more blatant "patriarchy hurts men too" aspects which is that a particularly toxic notion of masculinity posits that one's propensity towards violence proves their masculinity, a proof that needs to be continually upkept lest they lose the social privileges gained by being of the more dominant masculine group.

As such, "violence is more common" for them not because of any natural propensity, but because it is socially encouraged in men and socially discouraged in women, not to mention that privilege tends to often enforce itself with violence.

Remove the cultural patriarchal barriers, allow men to express themselves more in lieu of their actual desires rather than a desperate need to "out-man" the next man and you'd see far less male-caused violence.

It is not a natural violence on the part of men and there really are very few aspects of men and women that are actually dramatically changed as you move from one to the other (biologically).

The problem is as always, with the patriarchy and how it's cultural messages poison the well we all have to drink from.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 25, 2010 6:27 PM

Hyperon, the statistics back the statement that there is essentially no difference in the mean between men and women, but men are more at both extremes. And you are at the lower extreme, since you can't shut the fuck up. Keep digging your own hole. You are very good at it.

Posted by: BdN | May 25, 2010 6:31 PM

http://www.women-inventors.com/

http://inventors.about.com/od/womeninventors/Women_Inventors.htm

http://www.ideafinder.com/features/classact/women.htm

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 25, 2010 6:35 PM

So it's socially acceptable to claim that men are inferior to women in everything apart from physical strength? But it's just not cricket for me to pinpoint a few ways in which men might conceivably have the edge?

Watch out, Hyperon. Those darkies are getting pretty good at cricket too. But don't worry; when it comes to being an empty-scrotummed whiner you've got most everyone licked. Perhaps you and Berge can join forces.

Still getting beat up by ethnics?

Love, "Thug4Life" Brownian.

Posted by: hinakuu | May 25, 2010 6:37 PM

One could argue that the reason "the entire enterprise of science and technology is the sweat and toil of men" was due to the enforced gender roles rather than the intellectual superiority of males.

@ the lovely Promii,
According to my history of chemistry course, women were very involved in early chemistry in India almost exclusively. For some reason (didn't really say in the textbook) chemistry was regarded as mainly a female profession there.

I can't say much about the early history of other sciences, but a lot of the earliest chemistry was done by the rich as a hobby or some reaction was stumbled upon by the fortunate. After that, it was the educated, and while many women were not encouraged to do science, wonderful women like Marie Curie made amazing contributions to their respective fields.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 25, 2010 6:41 PM

I thought I smelled something.

That was the original post, Rev, but like flies to shit Hyperon couldn't pass up an opportunity to cry about the uphill battles white men like him have had to face while single-handedly creating every good thing in the world.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 25, 2010 6:44 PM

That was the original post, Rev, but like flies to shit Hyperon couldn't pass up an opportunity to cry about the uphill battles white men like him have had to face while single-handedly creating every good thing in the world.

Where's my clue-swatter?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 25, 2010 6:50 PM

I'm not much of a scientist

Quoted for truth.

You're not much of a scientist because you fail to consider possible confounding factors when data mining to fit your pet hypothesis, and when such factors are suggested to you, you lash out like a petulant fucking child.

Still getting beaten up by ethnics?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 25, 2010 6:53 PM

Uh, the troll does realize that a) evopsych isn't a real science and is filled with ascientific dipshittery, b) IQ tests are actually a deeply flawed method of determining intelligence and further was mostly designed to prolong racist oppression and has more correlation to economic class of parents than any other factor (and also as a side-note is measured in terms of 5s so any difference sub-5 couldn't be scientifically relevant simply by the units of the parameter), and c) most actual research including something called the life experience of every trans person in history have found very few sustained differences between men and women biologically speaking, especially with regards to emotions or intelligence.

Not to mention d) All intragroup differences are immensely overshadowed by the sheer variation in the intergroup differences, e) that the bullshit about inherent emotional differences between men and women was long debunked as the pop psychology bullshit that it was (Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus was thoroughly debunked, but people keep refusing to let the lies it culturally propulgated die) and f) that pesky culture thing.

I mean he wouldn't be so dense as to continue to resort to long debunked arguments with absolutely no amount of critical reasoning simply because he thinks it excuses the cultural dominance of one group (white men) above all others, right?

Oh wait...of course he would.

They always do.

And yet it remains false all the same. Funny thing about reality is that it doesn't care about your delusions.

Posted by: Hyperon | May 25, 2010 6:56 PM

Oh, and Hyperon, a little Google Scholar search also turned up some selection restriction biases toward increased male numbers. Almost takes your alleged differences down to zero

Posted by: "Roger" | May 25, 2010 6:59 PM

It gets worse: Here's a christian rape apologist. "Censored One" says that he was taken out of context or something, but as you read his comment (comment #2), you'll see it's not really any better.

Note that it's the "immoral atheist" who has his mind blown by this.

As well as all the "immoral atheists" here.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 25, 2010 7:00 PM

You cite a single study

Posted by: Anna | May 25, 2010 7:02 PM

@Hyperon

You're not much of a scientist because you apparently lack the logical skill to make the connection between "women have not contributed as much to science" and "women have historically been confined to roles not at all conducive to making contributions to science".

Instead you seem to have gone for that good old sexist standby of linking "women have not contributed as much to science" with "women are not capable, under any circumstances, of contributing to science".

As far as I am aware, it's thus far unproven whether the differences in logical and mathematical ability between the genders are completely social, completely genetic, or somewhere in between. But the fact that girls score better on such things until about 14 and then *regress* on tests suggests to me that there is at very least *some* social aspect.

And if you want a data series of one point, I can almost guarantee that I would destroy any randomly selected male you cared to pit against me in any test of logic, spatial awareness, mathematical ability, inductive or deductive reasoning, or general IQ. t(- -t)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 25, 2010 7:05 PM

Oh, and bigot, you must also discuss what such minimal differences mean anything in real life, complete with the patriarchal social framework Cerberus mentioned above. And also, for extra credit, discuss why you are an egotistical misogynistic bigot.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 25, 2010 7:08 PM

And if you want a data series of one point, I can almost guarantee that I would destroy any randomly selected male you cared to pit against me in any test of logic, spatial awareness, mathematical ability, inductive or deductive reasoning, or general IQ. t(- -t)

No need for random: What about Hyperon?

How about it, Hypie? Care to put your big, white, male brain up for a challenge?

Or are you just going to hide behind your status as belonging to a group that statistically outperforms others on IQ tests?

Posted by: chaseacross | May 25, 2010 7:10 PM

Reminds me of a fellow who is in the news a few years back:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=8255530&page=1

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 25, 2010 7:13 PM

Yeah, pardon my ignorance

why should we?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 25, 2010 7:24 PM

And frankly the conversation with the troll is one of those unique experiences that never stops feeling weird every time I enter one. I'm not just intimately familiar with the refutations of his ascientific babble, I am the refutation of his ascientific babble.

It's like if someone stated that every single human has a sexual drive and that without sex or lust one would die or function suboptimally. Uh, no, not only blah blah blah, but my goddamned existence as an asexual.

The same with the whole "significant biological differences between men and women".

Uh, no, not only teems of research, etc... debunking the old lies, but a group of people kinda sorta noticed that there was a perfect test population for those theories.

Trans people.

Trans people transition from one sex to the other completely changing their whole hormonal makeup and a number of other factors. They are a great platform for the theory regarding male and female differences.

And there are some, some biological shifts and changes that are consistent among both sets of trans people and regularly recurring. They are, some muscle mass movement, some major fat center realignments, some balance changes, and in terms of mental ability, there seems to be only a handful of changes. The big one, there is a slight change in the ability to suppress the outward sign of emotional changes. Not to feel them, but to express them. Women are less able to prevent themselves from crying when they are sad, men are more able. It's a slight change and it doesn't effect the psychological and physiological effects of the emotion, merely slightly changing the ability to suppress.

And that's pretty much it. No changes in mental acuity, ability, reasoning, logic, emotionality, talkativeness, etc...

Nada.

So not only, teems of research carefully debunking every one of these common sexist tropes about what "everyone knows" about the differences in men and women, but, yeah.

This is one of those moments where it's like, yeah, you're so wrong, my existence disproves your bullshit.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 25, 2010 7:32 PM

man, and here people were just saying we don't have enough trolls around for a game of "Survivor: Pharyngula"

how quickly they forget people like our friend Hyperon here!

Bitter, much?

project much?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 25, 2010 7:39 PM

I don't know what kind of deep-seated insecurities you're cursed with, but unlike you I feel utterly no need to immerse myself in that level of bile.

Except for that which you spew on minorities and women.

You're a racist, sexist, bag of shit coward; I simply call you out on it. That in your narcissism you think that you're the aggrieved party is of no consequence to me.

We know; the tantrums you throw whenever someone posts data that conflicts with yours or a rebuttal show how married you are to your hypothesis.

Really? That's what you think? You posit an argument, and the problem is with everyone else who provides reasons to disagree?

Yeah, you keep telling yourself what a fucking great scientist you are, you dumb troll.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 25, 2010 7:42 PM

Hyperon has made a claim (a 2-5-point average difference in IQ scores between men and women) for which there is some empirical support, like it or not. Citations in the 'kipedia article linked above. It's not for-sure-for-sure--there are other studies showing no difference--but it's also not a troll-claim that deserves ridicule on the face of it.

I would argue that 2-5 points is a small enough difference to be essentially meaningless in practical terms ("statistical significance" is a completely separate and here mostly irrelevant concept...any difference, no matter how tiny, can be "statistically significant" with a large enough sample size). Standard deviation for IQ is 15.

Posted by: trewesterre | May 25, 2010 7:46 PM

Hyperon @237 said:

Sorry, 3 to 5 points favouring males isn't "essentially no difference". In fact, it is highly statistically significant.

Do you know what standard deviation means? If so, are you aware that the standard deviation for IQ is 15 points. A difference of 3-5 points is not significant.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 25, 2010 7:52 PM

Anyway, I don't need to continue arguing.

idiot in denial convinces himself of epic win.

story at 11.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 25, 2010 7:57 PM

Oh Billy-Bob Meth-head on a Cloud, just when we were done with Hyperon, another MRA "anti-feminist" nutjob slides in to take his place.

It's like a George Romero movie.

Posted by: Anna | May 25, 2010 8:01 PM

"I'm sorry to break the news to the emotionally invested feminists out there; but white-male privileged has little to do with it. It's mostly about life decisions that men make that women don't. In other words, it's best explained by the lifestyle women choose to live, involving families, that men don't choose - on average.
So here is an example where the kook is correct. Feminists look only at the end result and try to "take" what they mistakenly perceive as equal pay. They want to run three-quarters of the same race, but receive recognition (or in this case pay) as if they ran they whole thing."

While obviously yes, someone who works less time on the same job should receive less pay than someone who works more time, I don't think this dismisses the notion of "white male privilege".

Society currently works in such a way that, if a couple wish to start a family, it is in 99.999% of cases the woman who takes all the time off work to do so. Obviously pregnancy cannot be shared with men, but childcare could. Most men choose not to take a 'career break' to do so, so women bear the whole brunt of the damage to pay and career. Some of this is obviously choice, some is necessity since the husband will not share equally, some is ingrained societal expectations (and it hurts men too, I imagine many men would like to spend more time off work looking after their children, but do not feel able to). As is, women are, *relative to men*, more disadvantaged by having a family in terms of pay and career progression, painting it as 'choices women make that men don't' is a bit disingenuous.

And the same hours in the same job should *certainly* give the same pay. If I found I was being paid less than my male colleagues, my employers would learn the truth of 'hell hath no fury' very swiftly indeed.

Posted by: Hyperon | May 25, 2010 8:03 PM

A difference of 3-5 points is not significant.

Now, the question of whether 3-5 points actually matters much in practical terms is a completely separate question. I think it almost certainly does. Suppose you were told that liberals have 4 IQ points higher than conservatives on average. Does it not work to your advantage in any way? Would you not be even slightly proud of that statistic?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 25, 2010 8:04 PM

Walton @279

What you said.

And you're absolutely right, feminist would be what I'd describe it as.

And yeah, the toxic masculinity is really a killer, especially in the "patriarchy hurts men too" sense. The way it creates a very nasty idea of what being a man entails and then strictly policing any who deviate and getting men incredibly anxious of the consequences if they don't try and constantly prove themselves by that destructive and self-destructive narrative is just horrible.

It's no fun to survive as a woman and it's no fun for a man to go through. The day I see it sink into the tub of acid along with the rest of the Patriarchy is a day I hope to live to see.

But anyways, great comment.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 25, 2010 8:04 PM

[IQ] is measured in terms of 5s so any difference sub-5 couldn't be scientifically relevant simply by the units of the parameter

While I'm SIWOTIing, this is wrong too. First, IQs are not measured or reported in increments of 5 afaik. The one time mine was measured, the third digit was an 8.

But even so. Here are two lists of numbers divisible by 5:
5, 5, 5, 5, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10
5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 10, 10

The averages are 8.2 and 5.9, respectively, a difference of 2.3 (less than 5). The difference is statistically significant (t=2.33, P = 0.031).

I'm also going to agree with Hyperon that the individual experiences of trans people are irrelevant to the question of a difference in average intelligence between sexes.

Posted by: "Roger" | May 25, 2010 8:08 PM

: Ichthyic at #261:

Roger,

You probably didn't know, but we covered that in depth not long ago:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/creepiest_christian_comment_ye.php

Whoops. Sorry.

Posted by: Goheels | May 25, 2010 8:09 PM

And the same hours in the same job should *certainly* give the same pay. If I found I was being paid less than my male colleagues, my employers would learn the truth of 'hell hath no fury' very swiftly indeed.

I think I probably agree with you there, but just to play the devil's advocate: Because of the societal norms, etc. that you outlined it is (probably, though I'm not 100% sure) costlier to employ a female at a given wage than a male (finding new employees costs money, etc.). In that respect its kind of like younger people having more expensive car insurance or women having cheaper life insurance.

Again, I don't think its really fair or right to pay women less, but if the facts are as I've said then the companies hiring are in a bit of a quandary (an equally talented woman is on average more expensive to pay a given wage).

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 25, 2010 8:12 PM

Sven @288

I'm also going to agree with Hyperon that the individual experiences of trans people are irrelevant to the question of a difference in average intelligence between sexes.

I love you man, so I'll refrain from clawing out your eyes and devouring your soul over this, but frankly, no...they really wouldn't be and I'd sure as hell prefer if the people on the sane side of the fence didn't try and argue otherwise.

Unless the argument is based on a Y-chromosome encoded gene that is immune to all hormonal levels and biological evolution than the continued data of trans people from all manner of age groups of transition is indeed a strong refutation of near all arguments about the "biological" separation between the mental abilities of men and women.

And let's be frank here, we'd be talking about hormonal levels for this argument.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 25, 2010 8:24 PM

Ok, think I've just hit the point where the stupid is actually starting to hurt.

Gonna have to bow out and get to work winding down for bed.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the MRA infestation, but still...

This is why we can't have nice things.

Posted by: rhamantus | May 25, 2010 8:30 PM

Hyperon:

As established by Jared Diamond, Sub-Saharan Africans simply did not have the means to meaningfully contribute to science and technology. Given their circumstances, it was a sheer impossibility.

Sorry, but while I'm sure Jared Diamond is a brilliant biologist, an anthropologist he is not, and many anthropologists working in the field have had some valid criticisms of his work. See, for example, Questioning Collapse, which is reviewed here: www.savageminds.org/2010/03/16/questioning-collapse/.
(While Collapse is concerned with different topics than Guns, Germs, and Steel, some of the themes are similar.)

Others have addressed your second point about women, so I'll just add my suggestion that you read about the history of women's education, which will tell you something about the barriers women have had placed against their getting higher education. (I personally recommend College Girls by Lynn Peril, but I'm sure there are more "scholarly" history works -- if *you* can understand them, that is.)

Posted by: Hyperon | May 25, 2010 8:32 PM

No, it wouldn't work to my advantage because I'm aware that differences within a standard deviation do not mean very much.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 25, 2010 8:37 PM

Let's assume it is. Would that mean the 2% advantage is absolutely worthless?

strawman.

If you did a lot of running, that 2% edge could be useful indeed.

please, do the math yourself, and see just how right the comments about how irrelevant that is to the average person are.

in fact, that difference would only be relevant to a specific subset of athletes, competing for prizes in running.

so, no, you haven't either grasped the original point, nor invalidated it.

it IS amazing how long you can blather on, blissfully ignorant, though.

Posted by: trewesterre | May 25, 2010 8:39 PM

Hyperon @300 said:

Doesn't matter if it's "within a standard deviation". Suppose you could enhance your running speed by 2%. Maybe, for all we know, that difference is within a standard deviation. Let's assume it is. Would that mean the 2% advantage is absolutely worthless? Of course not. If you did a lot of running, that 2% edge could be useful indeed.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 25, 2010 8:41 PM

Many of the greatest inventors were uneducated.

that would be a statistically inaccurate.

very few would be the accurate statement.

moreover, it implies you value ignorance as a trait conducive to inventiveness.

frankly, that's absurd, and you're bugfuck nuts for even implying it.

you might as well say education is worthless.

oh wait, you just did.

Posted by: Kraid | May 25, 2010 8:48 PM

Cerberus #227:

Both of you are wrong, wrong, wrong. [...] Such attitudes towards men, that they are naturally brutish, blah blah blah, are actually equally false and based in equally scurrilous factors based entirely in cultural biases bred by the patriarchy.[...]So, please allow me to immediately snuff that whole line of backwards thinking right the fuck now cause both of that shit has nothing to do with how the world actually is.

Personally I suspect that the differences between the sexes are largely exaggerated and are often the products of nurture rather than nature. And of course the worst specimens of any group don't somehow confer guilt on the whole. However, it's one thing to intellectually shoo away the stereotypes I mentioned, and it's quite another to emotionally shrug off the pervasive cultural reinforcement of those stereotypes, which starts at a very young age and gets hammered in pretty much daily.

That's what I mean by getting left with this nasty impression. A person can believe in his or her own worth, but being reminded of their supposed awfulness on a regular basis will take its toll. I think this kind of internalized loathing is at least part of the reason why one rarely hears men proclaiming that they love being men.

Hope that clears up what I was trying to say. Rationally speaking I'm absolutely not in the "men are crap" camp, but I've heard enough along those lines over the years that the word "male" automatically conjures a negative image.

Hinakuu #214:

Don't hate yourself for being a guy.

Posted by: Promii | May 25, 2010 8:50 PM

Also, separately, why is it that women are supposed to not like having sex? What nonsense is that? From reading some of the comments here, clearly I'm a statistical outlier as a woman who can sign her name and count to ten, but do dudes really think ladies don't enjoy getting laid?

Media is partially to blame.,

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 25, 2010 8:52 PM

Many of the greatest inventors were uneducated.

Even if that was true, this is another example of you completely ignoring the "place" of women in the not so distant past (and still today to some extent) and who has traditionally held the power and the therefor the opportunities.

You are ignoring this specifically because you have to to support your point.

Posted by: BdN | May 25, 2010 8:58 PM

What I had in mind is that over the fullness of time, slight advantages accumulate. I think any serious player of Dungeons and Dragons knows this very well. Is a Longsword + 1 really all that much better than a run-of-the-mill Longsword? If you're fighting wave after wave of Kobalds, then yes, sure.

You know, I have a higher IQ than a lot of people around me. Interestingly, most of them have more diplomas than me, succeeded better and faster, now have better jobs and so on because even though I have this "advantage" over them, I suffer from anxiety, have difficulty controlling my emotions and working under stress, lack self-confidence, I procrastinate, don't have a good work ethic, not disciplined correctly, etc.

So you see, advantages do accumulate. As much as disadvantages.

Posted by: Hyperon | May 25, 2010 9:01 PM

ah! so that's what you read for educational material: dungeons and dragons manuals.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 25, 2010 9:05 PM

you are that is

Posted by: trewesterre | May 25, 2010 9:14 PM

I just realized that in some instances in post 319 I used "average runner" to refer to all those within one standard deviation and in other instances I used it to refer to the runner who runs at exactly the mean speed. This is probably confusing, sorry about that.

Posted by: Hyperon | May 25, 2010 9:28 PM

Trewesterre, you're considering only one trial. Given enough races, that 2% advantage will start to be felt. I'm afraid that no matter how you argue, there is no law of nature or of statistics dictating that differences to "within a standard deviation" are of no practical consequence.

One last point here. If you scroll up to my original post, you'll see that I wasn't only concerned with average IQ. Personally, I think the preponderance of men at the upper end of the Gaussian is a much more important fact. That is perhaps why most of the great inventors and scientists tend to be men.

Let me stress that all of the above is tentative. Maybe, in fact, men have absolutely no positive qualities unique to their sex. Maybe women, in addition to being less violent than men, less sex-driven, and more compassionate, are just as smart as men in every way, just as creative, just determined, just as competitive, and just as enthusiastic about physical science and maths. Most people responding to me in this thread seem to assume all the foregoing as an Article of the Creed. If they're right (and they might be, even though they're wrong to be so dogmatic), I would not feel any worse about myself, and neither should anyone else.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 25, 2010 9:33 PM

That is perhaps why most of the great inventors and scientists tend to be men.

You still can't bring yourself to address how women have been traditionally treated throughout history and the opportunities they have had in comparison to men because it destroys all of your assertions.

Posted by: trewesterre | May 25, 2010 9:42 PM

"Trewesterre, you're considering only one trial. Given enough races, that 2% advantage will start to be felt."

If by that you mean that you will have a lot of 49th place finishes, then yes. That 2% advantage will be felt in consistently being slightly better than half the runners.

"One last point here. If you scroll up to my original post, you'll see that I wasn't only concerned with average IQ. Personally, I think the preponderance of men at the upper end of the Gaussian is a much more important fact."

But while you consider this important, you ignore the fact that more men also occupy the lower end of the Gaussian.

"That is perhaps why most of the great inventors and scientists tend to be men."

Or it could have something to do with women being historically dissuaded from pursing careers (at all) let alone scientific ones. Even now women are slightly discouraged to go into sciences (outside of biology at the undergraduate level for some reason), it's not always overt and it often starts fairly early on in life. Yet now women are breaking into the "hard sciences" and maths. Not at quite the same numbers, but I suspect the difference is largely societal, rather than biological.

"Maybe, in fact, men have absolutely no positive qualities unique to their sex."

Who says that women have positive qualities unique to our gender? We don't.

Posted by: DesertHedgehog | May 25, 2010 9:45 PM

I can understand our Norwegian friend's bitterness. Involuntary celibacy will eat out your soul. Been there, done that, drunkenly cut up plastic patio furniture with Japanese sword. But...one adapts. And ever since "Dexter" came on cable, you can work creepy and scary as selling points. I probably meet every criterion for being the psycho male on a Lifetime Movie of the Week, but post-"Dexter", selling yourself as exactly the sort of person the DSM-IV says is likely to have severed heads in the freezer does work...at least with a certain niche of arts co-eds (crit theory, comp lit, painting).["Well," the girl said, "I'm a train-wreck and you're a predator. We're pretty much the perfect couple."] Mr. Berge just isn't selling himself. And has no one to blame for that but himself.

Posted by: boboniboni | May 25, 2010 9:54 PM

Hyperon

Yeah, probably way over my head. Now, I've had enough of this. Time to get back to "The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. II" by Steven Weinberg.

Sorry, I just had to login. I rarely do that. What a retard.

Posted by: itsn8o | May 25, 2010 9:59 PM

@Anna

Thank you for your replies.
I'd like to run with a couple of your comments; if I may, and see if we can reach some understanding (as I don't think I explained myself very well on some points).

I SAID: "How about the assumption that the children belong with the mother in divorce cases when it has been demonstrated that more often children do better; emotionally, academically and socially when the father wins custody?"

This, on the other hand, I completely agree is wrong. Divorce courts (and suspicion of men around children) are indeed weighted against men at the moment. Equality should be just that. We shouldn't have to fight separately for each individual group's equality, we should be able to just work on equality as a general thing all in one go.

I did not think that I implied that fighting separately is what is needed. If I did, I certainly didn't mean to.
Whilst it's true inequalities exist for men (and women to) I feel that any movement that fights for equality has to consist of and consider equally both men and women. Personally I'd like to see a "merger" between Men's rights movements and feminists to create a new movement that fights for equality period. Not just equality as it pertains to men or women. Start with the central value that all people deserve equal opportunity and are of equal value; that the only role an individual should have is the role they choose themselves - and go from there.

As an aside - one social evil that I feel men need to over-through is the constant need to appear strong. It is costly to men and partly explains our staggeringly high suicide and depression rates. Because of the social image of the strong man, many would rather suffer alone than jeopardise this image.

Society currently works in such a way that, if a couple wish to start a family, it is in 99.999% of cases the woman who takes all the time off work to do so. Obviously pregnancy cannot be shared with men, but childcare could. Most men choose not to take a 'career break' to do so, so women bear the whole brunt of the damage to pay and career. Some of this is obviously choice, some is necessity since the husband will not share equally, some is ingrained societal expectations (and it hurts men too, I imagine many men would like to spend more time off work looking after their children, but do not feel able to)

Where I live, men can't choose to take a 'career break'. Not working = no pay. It's only women who get the paid parenting leave. This is the very definition of institutionalised sexism that I loath. Not only is the state reinforcing that women are the child-careers and that men are the bread-winners; but it also ensures that men don't get involved as much in their child's life. This is why I reacted strongly to PZ's Fox News-esque reductionist and dismissive appraisal of the situation.

Aside from that qualifier, I otherwise agree with the theme of your comment. Except I would adjust your emphasis.

Most men choose not to take a 'career break' to do so, so women bear the whole brunt of the damage to pay and career. Some of this is obviously choice.

Most women, I would say, want to be mothers. They want to spend time with the kids. I don't accept the premise that more than a minute minority do this out of societal pressure and due to men who won't take leave. In my experience, it's often the women who wants kids more than the guy and are the initiators of 'family life'.

The way I see it in regards to the pay-gap and family life; men make choices, women make choices... they have costs. If you don't like the cost, make different choices.

Posted by: trewesterre | May 25, 2010 10:05 PM

itsn8o in 332 said

Where I live, men can't choose to take a 'career break'. Not working = no pay. It's only women who get the paid parenting leave. This is the very definition of institutionalised sexism that I loath. Not only is the state reinforcing that women are the child-careers and that men are the bread-winners; but it also ensures that men don't get involved as much in their child's life.

I hope that you realize that feminists tend to support not only better maternity leave, but the inclusion of paternity leave as well (something like 14 months to share between the couple for instance). This way whomever chooses to go back to work sooner can and both parents have the opportunity to help with the child.
It is in everyone's best interest that fathers get to participate in child-rearing.

Posted by: itsn8o | May 25, 2010 10:18 PM

@trewesterre

I hope that you realize that feminists tend to support not only better maternity leave, but the inclusion of paternity leave as well (something like 14 months to share between the couple for instance). This way whomever chooses to go back to work sooner can and both parents have the opportunity to help with the child.

Yes, I realise this. MRA's advocate parenting leave also.

I do not understand what you're trying to say?
Am I right to assume that this is intended as rebuttal to my remark that feminism is not an inclusive vehicle for equality?

It is in everyone's best interest that fathers get to participate in child-rearing.

Posted by: elzoog | May 25, 2010 10:30 PM

I don't think all, or even the prominent "men's rights" advocates are for rape. Tom Leykis for example, tells men that "no" means "no".

Posted by: trewesterre | May 25, 2010 10:31 PM

@itsn8o

Am I right to assume that this is intended as rebuttal to my remark that feminism is not an inclusive vehicle for equality?

Essentially, yes. Your movement is somewhat redundant because it's essentially just feminism with a different name (although apparently still keeping the idea that women inherently want children more than men and possibly other sexist ideas I'm not sure).

As much as you might claim that well, you don't want to call yourself a feminist because there are some crazy feminists who believe that all sex is rape, well, you're sharing an umbrella with men who believe it's their right to rape women (e.g. the blog post which was linked earlier).

Posted by: rsm_hokkaido#e7c56 | May 25, 2010 10:38 PM

@31

Just a quick addendum to the quote given. The facts presented are correct. Most rapes reported in the media, and that fall under the specific sub-section of 'assault rapes' in Norway are committed by immigrants/refugees, and non-western immigrants/refugees are the bulk of that. However, there is a woeful under-reporting in the media of any other form of rape. Also, I should point out that even for those communities the offenders represent a minuscule part of that group. And as with much of criminal activity, a small percentage of offenders represent the bulk of the criminal activity.

A good example from my high-school days of the reporting problem mentioned above:

Case 1: Girl raped by fraudulent taxi driver. Gets 1st and 2nd page headlines in the news, stirring up worries about unlicensed taxi drivers and eastern European men. (this is a couple years after the initial conflicts in the former Yugoslavia)

Case 2: Girl gang raped at party, alcohol involved, 3 boys raping an under-aged girl (15). Barely 1 column inch, page 6, in the local news. (about as much information as I just provided in this section of the comment)

That is the standard for Norwegian news reporting of rape and crime in general. And this doesn't even get into the large amount of unreported rape. Rape in a public place is almost always reported, in private... not so much. There are people I meet shopping I still want to dip in acid for what they did to my friends, but I've been asked to keep my mouth shut. Fuck, that just brings up bad memories.

Anyways, the fact that the guy is fucking evil and clueless, doesn't make his facts wrong unfortunately, nor does it fix bad media reporting. He's biased in a way that many people too clueless to read page 6 of the newspaper, or talk to their female friends are. It's sad, and he's gone stupid because of his lack of critical thinking and data collection skills. Not much more to say about that really. I advocate the rabid dog solution, but really, not my call.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 25, 2010 10:59 PM

*sigh*

repost of the blockquote fail:

It's mostly about life decisions that men make that women don't. In other words, it's best explained by the lifestyle women choose to live, involving families, that men don't choose - on average.

In divorce cases, men make much more of an effort to involve the mother than women do to involve the father.

Many of the greatest inventors were uneducated.

Most women, I would say, want to be mothers. They want to spend time with the kids. I don't accept the premise that more than a minute minority do this out of societal pressure and due to men who won't take leave. In my experience, it's often the women who wants kids more than the guy and are the initiators of 'family life'.

The way I see it in regards to the pay-gap and family life; men make choices, women make choices... they have costs.

Firstly, men also are victims of peer pressure - and yes I also acknowledge that it effects women to. So what is your point?

so yeah. MRA's are redundant, and have a nasty tendency to turn into toxic defenses of privilege. if you want to make men's lives better, become a feminist.

Posted by: rsm_hokkaido#e7c56 | May 25, 2010 11:00 PM

@166 Cerebus, @339 Great posts, both of you.

However, my personal experiences with self-proclaimed feminists do not match what you are describing, and I suspect that this is the case for a lot of people. Especially in Norway, if I were to relate this back to the original post, where the only real active 'feminist' groups seemed to have gone off the completely off the deep end.

I note that I like every single point that Cerebus raises, and I agree with Cat that there are misconceptions. However, in neither case to the points raised match my personal experiences with feminists. There may be some vague tangents, but it is not close, nor do the points match closely with a lot of the 'feminist' literature I suffered through in my Sociology classes.

Thus, unfortunately, my personal experience says that the vast majority of self described feminists are barking up the crazy tree. My suspicion however is that this has as much to do with the 10-20% of the most extreme loudmouths being the most active, outspoken and vocal group... wait, that sounds awfully familiar, and I'm sure we could make a good case for the crazies creating a solid middle ground for moderate voices to occupy and create real progress. Thank you Stephanie Zvan for that argument. Thus I suppose my problem with the feminist movement is my personal experiences with the crazy, and I suspect, not the movement as a whole, because if Cerebus is right, I'm certainly a feminist. The disconnect between my experience and the goals I support are really disconcerting.

Posted by: itsn8o | May 25, 2010 11:24 PM

@ Jadehawk, OM

I've addressed many of your points in #347.

I might add that your comments reeked of vitriol and arrogance. Which is almost enough to dismiss it on the spot. Not to mention the victimology that some feminists espouse, where they can't imagine a universe where women aren't constantly victims, unable to change their circumstances whilst men enjoy nothing but privileged and an easy ride.
You're telling men we have it so easy, yet you're the guys to take care of our interests? - Get real.

As I said before, when a feminist claims that her movement holds the monopoly on equality it only goes to prove my point that (1) it doesn't and (2) MRAs and Feminists need to wind-down operations and consolidate in a new movement that actually cares about equality.

If you're interested, I'd like to address some of your comments directly later on today and have a dialogue about specific matters of inequality, their sources and how to eventually overcome them. Would you be interested in that?

Specifically I'd like to address your assertion that the costs of men's choices are lower than that of the choices women make. As I suspect you're applying your personal value system to other women and men, therefore distorting the disparity in these 'costs'.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 25, 2010 11:34 PM

You're telling men we have it so easy, yet you're the guys to take care of our interests? - Get real.

Posted by: trewesterre | May 25, 2010 11:46 PM

Firstly, I resent the somewhat arrogant notion that feminism holds the monopoly on concerns of equality for both men and women. Whilst asserting MRA’s are equalities somewhat sexist cousin. This arrogance only serves to polarise men and women who are genuinely concerned about equality. So please revise your tact if you genuinely serve equality.

I just said that MRA is redundant because feminism is by definition (from the dictionary)

fem·i·nism n. 1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. 2. The movement organized around this belief.

There is no need for another group which has the exact same goals. However, your opinion that women inherently want children more than men is definitely sexist. I can also think of a number of examples where the opposite is true (including my own parents: my dad wanted four children, my mom wanted zero, guess who got their way?).

However, even if feminism is ‘equality’ as you assert – why do you value sentiment more than equality? Many men cannot identify with feminism, because its very name is gender-exclusive and it puts women in the spotlight. If indeed, you do care for equality, why is this not being addressed?

The name "feminism" arose because historically (and still currently) women are the ones getting the short end of the stick in terms of social, economic and political opportunities. This does include the opportunity to have both a family and a career, by the way.
While men are also affected negatively by gender roles, women are affected in a more obvious (and in many cases more urgent) ways. For instance, in Canada, 56% of the people living in poverty are women, 42% of single women between 18 and 64 lived in poverty and women earned an average of 62% what men earned in 2001.

I also don't think I've encountered a reasonable man who actually objects to being called a feminist (especially once it's defined properly).

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn3yeqDAoctgwo6-DD2CLf7YxBquJvaSfc | May 25, 2010 11:54 PM

I did my part! :

When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force.

Weird, if this had ever happened I should have heard about it. After all, 89% of all police are male and 65% of all press are male; any abuse like that would have been quickly caught and published far and wide!

What women have that men don't is of course sex.

You do realize that you need both sexes to have sex, right, which kind of implies that both are having sex in equal proportions? Wait, nevermind; I suppose women could be having mass lesbian orgies, just so they could have more sex than men. My mistake!

Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are, and soon men are no better than equal.

Wait, I thought you wanted equality between men and women? I'm confused...

So it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong.

I'll stop thinking of rape as wrong when you can give me a good reason to abuse and violate someone smaller than me. Deal?

I have previously argued this point e.g. here as Arpagus, and no one has been able to justify why affirmative action is right when it benefits women and hurts men but is wrong when it helps men and hurts women.

I hope not! The point of affirmative action is to reach equality, not punish men. Or do you think businesses that are fined for refusing to pay equally for equal work are male-gendered?

HJ Hornbeck

Posted by: trewesterre | May 26, 2010 12:05 AM

"Hey, what do you guys think of Bill Maher's comments on feminism?"

I think he has some strange views about women. Unless I (and all my friends) are strange women.

Posted by: Eric Pepke | May 26, 2010 12:07 AM

So, basically, P.Z. Myers has found some asswipe in Norway, and he must therefore be the vanguard of an Evil Conspiracy of Libertatian Men's Rightist that represents a plot to destroy the universe! BOOGA BOOGA BOOKA! Someone arm the nuclear warheads!

Or at least the rape fantasies and hyulk-hyulk-hyulking about exposed testicles. So basically, you have one guy, whom you wouldn't have even known about if someone hadn't found out about and promulgated (and which I wouldn't have found about if a friend of mine hadn't posted on Facebook), and the result seems to be at least an order of magnitude more voracious and drooling than the target, and certainly more numerous. Whoopee!

Of course, a naive minority are, rather pointlessly, trying to defend Men's Rights and men themselves. But this has nothing to do with feminism or Men's Rights, or anything, really, other than a feeding frenzy about someone who would have been invented if he hadn't existed and, for all I know, was.

What is needed here is not discussion but rather Haldol. Lots of it. Now.

Posted by: DLC | May 26, 2010 12:07 AM

As I've said before. In this country, you have the right to be offensive, but you do not have the right to act on offensive views or to encourage violence.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 26, 2010 12:15 AM

Eric Pepke:

Of course, a naive minority are, rather pointlessly, trying to defend Men's Rights and men themselves.

You're doing a fine job of being a dismissive asshole. Attitudes like the one in the OP aren't all that rare and it's a problem wherever it happens to come up. Human rights are important and a lot of us aren't dismissing men's rights at all, simply focusing on women's rights in this discussion. Just because a discussion centers on women's rights, it doesn't automatically become anti-men.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2010 12:21 AM

So why are feminists so militant and deliberate in sabotaging the campaign for equality by asserting that you must be a feminist, and only a feminist, to be concerned about equality?

and you can have all sorts of groups with different names, but if they're working for equality, they're still feminist movements.

OTOH, Men's Rights specifically is like White Rights and Straight Pride. It reeks of defense of privilege and spurious claims of reverse discrimination. And your claims that women aren't discriminated against in the workforce is right in that area, too.

Posted by: llewelly | May 26, 2010 12:26 AM

itsn8o | May 26, 2010 12:16 AM:

So why are feminists so militant and deliberate in sabotaging the campaign for equality by asserting that you must be a feminist, and only a feminist, to be concerned about equality?

Posted by: itsn8o | May 26, 2010 12:56 AM

Further, my point was that men have the luxury of choosing to have both a career and a family

I'm working 50 hours a week now, if I get promoted I'm probably looking at 55+. Socially, this is great, I'm fulfilling my gender role being a great worker. But how the hell could I have both? I would not be able to spend much time with my kids?

So this notion that men get both is BS.

The glass ceiling still exists and it takes a lot more work to break through it than you would imagine.

Single women make more than single men in most industries.
See: Why Men Earn More Warren Farell.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2010 1:00 AM

thanks for so beautifully disqualifying yourself from this conversation with your sexism. kinda figured you were just a concern troll and defender of privilege and status quo rather than an actual advocate for equality.

next you're going to tell me that affirmative action discriminates against whites who worked hard to get into college and don't deserve to have spots taken away from them to support some lazy black dude.

Guess what; men work more hours during child-birth and thereafter, men are also socially conditioned to do this. So why is it that when women are socially conditioned, they get compensated, but when men are socially conditioned – they do not?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2010 1:08 AM

I'm working 50 hours a week now, if I get promoted I'm probably looking at 55+. boo fucking hoo; so are all career women. so are most of the men and women down here below the poverty line (where there's more women, btw).

Socially, this is great, I'm fulfilling my gender role being a great worker. But how the hell could I have both? I would not be able to spend much time with my kids?

but you could still have them, and not be ostacised for not spending more time with them; many women OTOH have to literally chose between having a career or spawning; and when they manage to have both, maybe because they found there rare supportive partner, or because they can afford a nanny, they get socially punished for it for being bad mothers.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2010 1:11 AM

Errm...what I meant to say is, please can I use this?

also, blockquote fail:

I'm working 50 hours a week now, if I get promoted I'm probably looking at 55+.

and I should add that I'm anti-consumerist, and therefore feel like no one should be socially forced to work that much; but that's a separate issue.

Posted by: itsn8o | May 26, 2010 1:19 AM

@Jadehawk, OM

Got some evidence to support this spurious claim of yours?
and you can have all sorts of groups with different names, but if they're working for equality, they're still feminist movements.
OTOH, Men's Rights specifically is like White Rights and Straight Pride. It reeks of defense of privilege and spurious claims of reverse discrimination. And your claims that women aren't discriminated against in the workforce is right in that area, too.

Maybe if you left your isolated women's studies class and took a gander at the real world you would have a better idea what is going on.

Look at this arrogance that you, a feminist, assert like it's a fact:
"you can have all sorts of groups with different names, but if they're working for equality, they're still feminist movements"
They're still feminists? lol.
So feminists are the only game in town? You might want to revise your opinion on MRAs wanting to maintain privileged, because it's clear who wants the power and priviledge; and who wants to suppress the other side.

Secondly, I never claimed women weren't discriminated in the workforce. But in SOME cases, they're to blame. For example, women pushed through paid Maternity leave (no such leave for guys) well, they got it. Now, small businesses are too scared to hire women in their 30s. Patriarchy isn't to blame for this, feminism is. You got paid maternity leave for women, now small businesses are too scared (and financially unable) to hire them.

Men's Rights specifically is like White Rights and Straight Pride.

All your posts are written with fervor that even Ted Haggard, talking about gays, couldn't better.

Posted by: MrFire | May 26, 2010 1:22 AM

Hyperon @various:

The commonly accepted view nowadays is that women are, just as I think you mean, equal or superior to men in every trait other than brute physical strength.

May I ask you for a citation?

Was there anything from stopping a female housewife, somewhere, sometime, from coming up with a memorable invention or scientific theory?

Apparently not, since many examples exist. What is your response to the articles provided by BdN @238 and Ichthyic @241?

Would every husband at every point in history have physically withheld his wife from putting forward an idea?

Strawman. Lack of education (less even than their male peers, that is) and promulgation of gender stereotypes wreak incalculable damage before even the most savage husband has had the chance to lift a finger. The absolute number of female scientific achievements has to be weighed against the opportunties made available to them to be meaningful. What are your weighting factors, and why do think they overcome the history-wide repression of female intellectual development and enterprise? This is a point being made to you repeatedly by commenters.

Perhaps; but intuitively, I wouldn't find it likely.

Dismissed as argument from incredulity then.

I'm not much of a scientist because I didn't realize that studies on sex differences in IQ are all vitiated by the well-known principle that women act dumb while out "husband-hunting" (as they are while participating in probably anonymous IQ tests).

Humor: you're doing it wrong.

"Principia" is a rape manual also, right?

Classy strawman. Especially coming from you.

Anyway, I don't need to continue arguing. My main initial point has just been borne out: the commonly received opinion, at least in liberal circles like this, is that women are equal or superior to men in everything except physical strength.

But nobody has said that here. You're arguing with yourself, or rather with a straw-liberal.

Suppose you were told that liberals have 4 IQ points higher than conservatives on average. Does it not work to your advantage in any way? Would you not be even slightly proud of that statistic?

This doesn't address the issue of whether those 4 points are objectively significant or not. Plus, your projection is showing.

I assume you're not since you're studying law or some such other softy subject

Yeah, probably way over my head. Now, I've had enough of this. Time to get back to "The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. II" by Steven Weinberg.

Humor fail. Snark fail, even. Just petty and embarrassingly onanistic.

Why are there almost no memorable inventions or scientific theories produced by women?

I see you've modified your canard from the one I quoted above. The answer to it is also above.

Why did you ignore all the counterexamples between posts 229 and 313?

*And does anybody have the truthmachine bat-signal?*

Posted by: itsn8o | May 26, 2010 1:29 AM

I'm working 50 hours a week now, if I get promoted I'm probably looking at 55+.

boo fucking hoo;

A lot of men are over-worked whilst mothers stay home raising the kids, men get much less time with the children (feminists assert that it's not true, although simple math proves otherwise) and what do feminists concerned with "equality" have to say?

Well, look above. They don't care.

Yeh.. feminism = equality, tell me another one.

Posted by: scidog | May 26, 2010 1:32 AM

too many comments to read but i don't think he is for real.just trying to piss off as many people as possible for some sort of internet thrill.his defenders are what the rest of us guys call dorks,their dork is the only thing they have going for them.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 26, 2010 1:34 AM

I'm working 50 hours a week now, if I get promoted I'm probably looking at 55+.

How about you man up and grow a fucking spine?

If you're working that much because you like it, then stop whining.

If you don't like it, then you should have made better life choices.

"Read Warren Farrell; read Warren Farrell!"

You whiny shits find one author who supports your contention that you're really the victim and you stick your tongues so far up his ass you need an ENT and a proctologist just for a routine checkup.

A lot of men are over-worked whilst mothers stay home raising the kids, men get much less time with the children (feminists assert that it's not true, although simple math proves otherwise) and what do feminists concerned with "equality" have to say?

Well, look above. They don't care.

Nice fucking quote-mine, you dishonest fuck.

My father was a lot like you. Trust me: your kids are relishing every hour you spend at the office.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | May 26, 2010 1:35 AM

For example, women pushed through paid Maternity leave (no such leave for guys) well, they got it. Now, small businesses are too scared to hire women in their 30s.

Myopic.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/WeSFjXwPxMRNGPqRXvV6SBfcj5o-#84de4 | May 26, 2010 1:57 AM

This guys is a ticking time bomb, and I don't mean for rape. The level of frustration and hatred and the fact that he is so vocal about them ring all sorts of alarm bells. I'm not sure anything can be done, but for his sake among other things somebody should intervene. It's not a good outcome for him if he ends up in jail or with a bullet through his brain after a shootout. He needs help before he does something stupid.

As for the rest, honestly, if I could I would change gender, not because I'm unhappy being a woman but out of pure curiosity. I would be a different person, I suppose, but I know a fair number of people who have crossed genders one way or the other and they are the same people as far as I can tell. They would probably argue that they were always the gender they ended up being physically, though.

Also - I have been doing a small thought experiment while reading this comments. I don't know if the level of libido in men and women is actually physically different, but just imagine that men were propositioned, ever so subtly, every time they meet a woman. Get out of the house, every woman on the street looks at you critically, smiles encouragingly. Waitresses hit on you, ALL of them. Coworkers strike up conversations about how nice it would be to have a boyfriend - all the single ones, all the time. The motherly coworker that is so funny and brings cakes for everybody and whose company you enjoy so much, and you know she is so lonely and she doesn't deserve it really because the right man... only not you. Every time you meet a new female, EVERY time, they let you know that, y'know, if you wanted...

I don't mean nastily. Women that you find nice and friendly but are not particularly interested in constantly advertise their availability.

My guess is - after a while, you'd have to find a way to broadcast a wide "no thanks" signal, simply because having to explain to your coworker, your mate's mate, or your boss that gee, they are nice people and you like them but not THAT way is tiring and embarrassing and you don't like rejecting people all the time.

What I mean is - being surrounded by people who would shag you if you said yes please is not as nice as it seems, and doesn't make it any easier to find even just a good shagging partner.

Posted by: BdN | May 26, 2010 2:10 AM

For example, women pushed through paid Maternity leave (no such leave for guys) well, they got it.

Where I live, guys got it too. And they owe it mostly to women pushing for it. Interestingly, assholes are still more scared of hiring women than men.

It wants to rob men of money they earned to give it to women in the name of ‘equal pay’ despite the fact women chose to not work, opting for kids. Therefore not making our lives better.

Emphasis mine. Doesn't really need further comment.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 26, 2010 2:15 AM

What non-physical areas are there in which men plausibly might surpass women? There is plenty of evidence suggesting that men have higher IQs on average, and overwhelming evidence confirming that men preponderate the upper tail of the Gaussian distribution of IQ. There is decent evidence indicating that women tend to be more emotional and less logical. More intuitively, women have a host of stereotypically negative traits of their own, including behaviour that might generally be identified as "shallow".

Men have a number of nasty traits, yes, but women have a few of their own. And let's not forget that to a first approximation, the entire enterprise of science and technology is the sweat and toil of men. One Einstein makes up for a thousand scumbags like Eivend Berges. We phallus-lancer types need not hang our heads in shame too severely.

Ooh, ooh, I know! "What is the Fundamental Attribution Error?"

Posted by: Rorschach | May 26, 2010 2:21 AM

We phallus-lancer types need not hang our heads in shame too severely.

This thread is tempting me to consider a sex change.And if such utter nonsense can be seen here, I dont want to know what the attitudes are in a less evolved place, like say, meatspace.

Posted by: itsn8o | May 26, 2010 2:25 AM

@jadehawk, OM

bullshit. it just means the work of dismantling patriarchy isn't done yet, and won't be until men get paternity leave and the patriarchal notion as man-the-breadwinner finally dies and men will become as likely to take domestic responsibilities as women. this is what feminism is currently working on, and in some countries this is being accomplished slowly.

Feminist logic:
Feminism passes maternity leave, for women.
Small companies don't hire women in their 30s as much as guys because of a greater risk of paid leave.
Therefore patriarchy caused this?

Are you stupid or just unable to see simple correlation?

@Brownian, OM

I'm working 50 hours a week now, if I get promoted I'm probably looking at 55+.

How about you man up and grow a fucking spine?

If you're working that much because you like it, then stop whining.

You missed my point dipshit.

Feminists cry because women have to choose between career or kids. Only instead of blaming women for the choice they make, they blame "patriarchy" because women couldn't possibly do something that contradicted public opinion.
My point is women are free to chose.

However, when it comes to men, women like to blame men for not choosing kids? Societal pressures on guys.. what are they?

Why do they have double standards?

And for the record, yes, I agree if I don't make the time only I am to blame. I am only advocating that feminists hold themselves to the same standards to which they hold men.

If men are blamed for their work/kid choice, women are equally to blame for theirs.

Posted by: itsn8o | May 26, 2010 2:35 AM

@jadehawk:
"oh yeah. I can totally see how that quote of mine would make you think feminists don't care about pressures on men.

or, maybe you're not actually interested in advancing equality, but rather interested in re-establishing the myth of "separate but equal", similar to the crap the patriarchal fundies are peddling."

_________

You have said that women loose income because patriarchy pressures them into a choice they probably would not have made. Therefore it's only fair to 'equalise' the pay.

Yes?

You have also said that men should simply work less and be involved with the kids, that feminists will help men do this by dismantling patriarchy.

Do you see your hypocrisy?
Women's disadvantage is a cause for dismay, which must be remunerated.
Men's disadvantage.... pffft...

How is paying men and women for the work they actually do anything other than equal?
What you're advocating, artificially increasing the wage, is separate but equal. It's one rule if you're a woman and another if you're a man. I'm only advocating one rule, get paid for the work you actually do. And hey, if women don't like that men get paid more, they can just do some extra hours. If men don't like that women get more time with the kids, they can work less. That's equality.

BTW, this is how you argue Jadehawk:

me: the pay-gap is a product of choices men and women make
you: PATRIARCH! WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN? WOMEN ARE FORCED TO WORK LESS, MEN HAVE IT SO MUCH EASIER? WHY DO YOU QUOTE-MINE AND MISREPRESENT WHAT I SAY, NEVERTHELESS I WILL PROCEED TO ASSERT MY SEPARATE RULES FOR WOMEN AND MEN = EQUALITY. I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG. WANT ME TO STOP BEING ANGRY, ADMIT I'M RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONGGGGGG!!!

Posted by: BdN | May 26, 2010 2:36 AM

Small companies don't hire women in their 30s as much as guys because of a greater risk of paid leave

It's not because of the paid leave but because of the leave itself.

If men are blamed for their work/kid choice, women are equally to blame for theirs.

That was his point : it's the system's fault. Let's change it.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 26, 2010 2:43 AM

Feminism passes maternity leave, for women

Feminism doesnt pass anything, dimwit.Governments pass laws because of social facts, so lots of countries now have paid maternity leave, and less but still a few are working on passing paid paternity leave as well, because its 2010 and equality and equal opportunity between sexes is seen as a good thing.Well, by some non-neanderthals anyway.

Posted by: Usagichan | May 26, 2010 2:45 AM

Tried and failed resisting posting on this one -

#398

I'm only advocating one rule, get paid for the work you actually do.

However you are not acknowledging the domestic work undertaken to support the actual 'worker' - therefore how about paying the home-maker the going rate for child care and domestic work, from the government via an increase in taxes. After all, you are only advocating being paid for the work they actually do aren't you?

Posted by: BdN | May 26, 2010 2:51 AM

However you are not acknowledging the domestic work undertaken to support the actual 'worker' - therefore how about paying the home-maker the going rate for child care and domestic work, from the government via an increase in taxes. After all, you are only advocating being paid for the work they actually do aren't you?

That would be impossible since it's not real work. As he wrote earlier, being at home raising the kids doesn't improve our lives.

Posted by: itsn8o | May 26, 2010 2:57 AM

However you are not acknowledging the domestic work undertaken to support the actual 'worker' - therefore how about paying the home-maker the going rate for child care and domestic work, from the government via an increase in taxes. After all, you are only advocating being paid for the work they actually do aren't you?

And when the guy takes the trash out, pay him the market-rate of garbage collectors.
When the guy makes dinner, pay him the going rate of a chef..
When the kids do the dishes, call the feds for child labour violations...

There is a different between wanting to have kids and raising them and doing it as a career.

Posted by: itsn8o | May 26, 2010 3:11 AM

As long as he is doing these things full-time to maintain his home and support his family, sure. The point is that the work done in a domestic context is not negligible, and is is necessary in order to support the bulk of the working population. If you are going to penalise half of the population for choosing this supporting role, the least you could do is pay them the going rate for doing it!

I support that.

If a parent chooses to be a stay-home parent, it is the working-parent's responsibility to remunerate them for their valuable service.
Both working partner and stay-home partner provide valuable roles: 1) the children get the benefit of a full-time parent and 2) the benefit of a full-time wage.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2010 3:17 AM

What you've called equality, I and many other men do not regard as entirely equal

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2010 3:19 AM

i forgot class privilege.

Posted by: itsn8o | May 26, 2010 3:46 AM

I'm going to run with what you've said - and stop using blockquotes (think of this as an olive branch).

Firstly, chill out. I don't know what you think of me, but I am someone who does care deeply about equality.
I am of a Greek background (from Crete) and I've fought tooth-and-nail against my godparents to let (yes, let.. how barbaric) their daughters go to Uni; instead of be married off as housewives. So I am someone who has witnessed firsthand the severity of patriarchy against women; and even fought against it. So I do not appreciate being labelled a sexist; which partly explains some of my backlash.

Also, I appreciate that as a man am I not as aware of the pressures on women because I don't have to live them. But you must accept that you as are not aware of male pressures for the same reason.

Secondly, I am someone who does not claim infallibility. I'm not infallible and neither are you. I do not see my position as gospel and unchangeable truth.
You can win me over to your way of thinking if it has merit, going for my throat doesn't help your cause however.

Why does it bother you to create a gender-inclusive movement for equality?
------
we already did. it's called feminism.

Men's right activist: We've created a movement all about equality, it's ours.
Greek Orthodox Church: We've created a Greek culture organisation, it's ours, we recognise no secular equivalent.
G.O.P: We are the only party for true Americans..

Do you not see the damage and arrogance your position does?

You would rather play a semantic game than win one extra person to the cause?

and stop accusing me of wanting to increase anyone's pay artificially: I want work-life balance to be equal for both men and women, at which point the crap you're talking about would disappear by itself.

Okay. I will. I still don't agree with wage-equalisation legislation, as it deals with symptoms rather than causes, but I will grant you your last point.
If we do away with gender-roles and sexism, the problem will fix itself over-night.

OTOH, your particular claims don't address worse pay for female-dominated careers (especially in light of the fact that when they weren't female dominated, they weren't paid as badly), don't address worse starter pay, don't address greater poverty among women, don't address the bitch/goalgetter bias in being assertive about pay-increases and asking for promotions, don't address the pay-gap that still exists in many fields between single people; all of those are simply caused by direct sexism, not by people working more or less. And that sexism needs to die and the pay-scales need to even out. you yourself have pointed out that this is already beginning to happen for careerpeople in a select number of fields, but it's not work that's finished yet.

I addressed gender-poverty above in another post.
But I might add, me talking only about the pay-gap in employment in no way means I don't care about the other issues that are important to you - no more than you not talking about EVERY topic means you don't care about other topics that matter to me.

What you've called equality, I and many other men do not regard as entirely equal
well yeah, obviously. that's because male/white/straight/cis privilege is virtually invisible to its recipients, and therefore any help for those not receiving the privilege is seen as an unfair advantage. but that doesn't actually make it an unfair advantage.

I don't doubt privilege exists. I never said it didn't.
But in posts to me, you've never really acknowledged that men are disadvantaged in anyway that isn't trivial.

Don't forget; women to are the recipients of privileges also, which you might equally be unaware of - assessing you by your same standards. Would you agree?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2010 4:09 AM

and in any case, I've had sufficient conversations with feminist men to realize that most of the "privilege" women have is either fake privilege (AKA a golden cage), or simply caused by toxic masculinity's power to restrict men's choices and dictate self-destructive behavior.

Posted by: latsot | May 26, 2010 5:13 AM

Thanks TSG: now my ISP knows that I've been looking at fonts for ransom notes. Fortunately, thanks to posting the link on Facebook, all my friends' ISPs now think that they have too.

Posted by: itsn8o | May 26, 2010 5:23 AM

and in any case, I've had sufficient conversations with feminist men to realize that most of the "privilege" women have is either fake privilege (AKA a golden cage), or simply caused by toxic masculinity's power to restrict men's choices and dictate self-destructive behavior.

You are officially the Billy Graham of gender-equality.

Women's privilege = not really privilege
Male privilege = real privilege.

On behalf of 50% of the population, fuck you.

You're not a feminist, you're a victimologist. All your posts so far, to me at least, are dismissive entirely of difficulties men face. You're the walking proof that your cause is not equality whatsoever. It's an emotional irrational movement, evidenced by your tone and hysteria in the face of opposition.

Your replies are a smoke and mirrors act and your evidence is oestrogen soaked emotion.

don't address the bitch/goalgetter bias in being assertive about pay-increases

Seriously, fuck you.
I hate this kind of dishonesty in arguments.

Firstly, you say women don't get equal pay and you blame it on social pressures. (Disregarding the social pressures that prevent men from being dads)
Then, you ASSERT (sans-evidence) that women are labelled bitches (and men are not) for actively pursuing a career.

What a convenient little circular excuse you've set up, where women can be nothing but victims. Women don't ask for pay rises, SEXISM! women ask for them, SEXISM!

I would wager that you're a full-time University type and haven't spent more than 10 seconds in the white or blue collar world.

All this 'male privilege blindness' and 'patriarchy holding women down' is just excuse after excuse to reconcile your delusion to reality.

Paying women the same as men to do less work is sexism, against men. If you don't like that; stiff shit. That's the reality. The cure for sexism isn't more sexism.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 26, 2010 5:32 AM

dimwit @ 422,

Your replies are a smoke and mirrors act and your evidence is oestrogen soaked emotion.

How very sexistly condescending of you.Color me unsurprised, having read the rest of your drivel so far.But on the plus side, at least you're not shy to show your colors.

Paying women the same as men to do less work is sexism, against men.

I must have missed the examples you provided to back up the premise of this absurd claim.

Posted by: itsn8o | May 26, 2010 5:58 AM

@ANNA

Wow, lots of comments while I was asleep.
I think a lot of people are talking at cross purposes. I'd like to point out the following:
'Pay gap' can mean two things, and the two sides are using different ones:
1. discrepancy in average pay caused by differing total time worked
2. discrepancy in actual salary.
The first is an unavoidable consequence of working less time, the second is totally unacceptable - but it does still happen.

Thank zeus! Welcome back Anna. I think I'm partially responsible for the last ~150 posts.

Back on topic: People who work more over-time, take less sick-leave and are more productive and technically able get more pay. This isn't sexism, but laws to artificially rectify this are.

People (in this case women) who get a lower hourly rate, less opportunities to advance in the workplace, less training, pre-judged by their gender... they are victims in the most part by sexism.

In most cases, in western society, the first example is most likely the cause for the gap. Although I do not contest that there are pressures on women, not on men, to miss work for parenting reasons.

Touching on the second point, ask yourself this; if women are being underpaid for the same work, why hire men? Women will do the same job for less pay. The company will make more margin and therefore more profit? The sheer efficiency built into capitalism makes it unlikely that firms that are sexist would get away with it.

Also, I might add, that the feminist dogma of rampant sexual-discrimination in white-collar and blue-collar jobs is pure BS. Don't get me wrong, some guys are still running an old boys club; and that needs to stop. But it's not the epidemic they make it out to be.

Also, women taking career breaks to have children. The basic point I was going for here is that in order for a couple to have a family, it pretty must must be the woman who sacrifices career to do so. Men can have both with no interruption to their working. Women cannot, in the vast majority of cases. It isn't an issue of women feeling unable to pick career *rather than* children (many already do so, myself included). It's that the current system allows men to have both but not women.
Ideally, parental leave would be able to be completely shared between both parents as they so desire (some countries do have this). So if a woman wants to take a shorter break, or no break, or the husband wants to take the break to have a more active role in the raising of children, they can. The law is only one limiting factor here; even if you *allow* this, societal norms mean many men/women would not even think to have a discussion about this, but just assume that the woman will be the one to sacrifice career progression. This would only change with increased acceptance of more varied gender roles in general society, which will be slow coming.

Yes, it's unfair that women's biology forces them to at least stop working to give birth and recover. It forces them to leave during this phase when men can keep on working. Nonetheless, balding isn't fair either. What am I getting at? I don't consider this a case to introduce laws about closing the "pay-gap".

The solution to this is paid parenting leave. Many men would take it if given the option, maybe not right away; but after the bs pressure to conform is relieved; they'd jump at it.

Also, I agree as it stands that societal norms default to women, stay home; and men, keep on working. The cost to women is career, but the cost to men is family. The mother gets to spend much more time and build a solid relationship with the child; an opportunity of which the man is deprived. There are real costs to both men and women in this situation and some crazies like jadehawk refuse to recognise it.
Women get the slightly shorter-end of the straw here because at least the guy gets some family time. A part-time career is difficult to come by.

I resent the fact that businesses view me as a 'risk', and since the above is the cause, I have a vested interest in seeing progress made despite not wanting children myself. I should not be penalised by other women leaving work to raise families. I am not them. What do I need to do, sign a waiver on sign-up that I'm not going to trot off at 35 to spawn?

God no. Women and men, the individuals, should be the only ones who control their reproductive rights.
The solution to this is to introduce paid paternity leave and work on destroying the image of the 'good husband' as the guy with his sleeves rolled up at 7pm still working.

I also resent the fact you and other's like you are viewed as a risk. But small businesses don't have vast sums of money in a lot of cases to pay for the leave. Which is a pity because often they turn down women when they're clearly the best candidates. Where I'm from, the absence of paternal leave does this. But I accept gender-sterotyping and good old fashioned capitalism must share some blame to.

On feminism vs. MRA, I do think it's arrogant of feminists to tell men they have a monopoly on gender equality. Feminism may also be interested in mens' rights, but the majority of its activists are female and will thus have a different view to men. The creation of a single equality movement would alleviate some of the tension over this IMO.

Not just arrogant, stupid. They're alienating men out there who really care - why? Out of foolish sentiment to a name? Are they too accustomed to group-think? They'd rather fail with the banner of feminism than succeed in another united movement.

Anyway like I said, I am not infallible. I'm aware that I can be wrong. But there are many self-identified feminists out there who don't even want to have the conversation with me, which is bad because clarity comes from discourse. The way it is at the moment is like they just want to hand out a pamphlet and say "accept this or I'll yell at you; idiot!".

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2010 6:09 AM

The sheer efficiency built into capitalism makes it unlikely that firms that are sexist would get away with it.

though, I should note that in Asia in the manufacturing business this is actually the case: instead of hiring men, a lot of sweatshops hired young women instead, because they were significantly cheaper and easier to manipulate and control. these young women then have to fork over their earnings to the (often unemployed) men in their family.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 26, 2010 6:19 AM

I'd point out hiring bias, but he'd just starfart all over himself again.

Strange how "starfart" has become entrenched in the Pharyngula vernacular, but I doubt itsn80 will know what you mean... he's probably not used to having his arguments compared to embarrassing bodily functions. :-D

Posted by: itsn8o | May 26, 2010 6:43 AM

not my fault you're repeating ridiculous libertarian talking points about the efficiency of capitalism (it isn't) and how that makes sexism impossible (it doesn't).

and I quote:

"efficiency built into capitalism makes it unlikely that firms that are sexist"

I'd go on, but you've clearly demonstrated your lack of personal integrity.
Unlikely and impossible are not the same. You know this, but you saw it fit to misquote me. Now, in an act of sheer dishonesty, you will ignore this section and quote something else and regurgitate more dogma about patriarchy being the root-cause of all evil.

and are you now claiming you didn't accuse me of "circular reasoning"

What I will accuse you of is sexism because you dismiss female privilege as 'not real privilege' and constantly ignore, diminish any plight that men may face.

Let's talk a little about feminists ideas about 'equality', what some of those dipshits actually think is a victory for equality.
Want to be an engineer?
Well, if you're a woman; (1) you get paid tuition, (2) you get your own personal 1-on-1 tutor and (3) you get to get in with half the usual TER (yr 12 grade).
If you're a guy, you get none of that! Where is this white-male privilege? Women go to the same schools, sit in the same classes, have the same teachers, mingle in the same social groups, but when it comes to year 12 apparently they get different criteria to get into Uni! Apparently having a vagina helps when it comes competence and qualifications in study.

Equal but different?

Here's how feminist logic works:
"O look, more guys choose engineering than women do - THAT MUST BE SEXISM! Let's lobby to get laws put in place to force women into engineering, even though they have an equal opportunity to get in at school; let's rig it so they can coast through and still get in anyway deny the place to someone else who may have actually worked harder and got the better grade"

"But Lotus, there are more men in high-risk jobs where they can get hurt or killed. Should we lobby for their rights or maybe ask for programmes to get women involved here?"

"pffft.. no"

Thank god the feminists have men's rights at heart.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2010 6:53 AM

I'd go on, but you've clearly demonstrated your lack of personal integrity.

What I will accuse you of is sexism because you dismiss female privilege as 'not real privilege' and constantly ignore, diminish any plight that men may face.

Well, if you're a woman; (1) you get paid tuition, (2) you get your own personal 1-on-1 tutor and (3) you get to get in with half the usual TER (yr 12 grade).
If you're a guy, you get none of that!right; that's because as a guy, you do NOT get it drilled into you at a young age that you aren't supposed to be good at math; you do not have your math teachers and engineering lecturers tell you "it's ok, you're a girl, you don't need to know this" when you ask them for clarification; you do not get (sexually) harassed and belittled by said lecturers or your co-students; you do not have to face hiring and grading discrimination based on your sex; but you do have plenty of other males around you to relate to and use as rolemodels and that will support you voluntarily.

I said way above that you'd turn out to be anti-affirmative action because you are blind to your privilege, and I was right.

"But Lotus, there are more men in high-risk jobs where they can get hurt or killed. Should we lobby for their rights or maybe ask for programmes to get women involved here?"

"pffft.. no"

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2010 7:09 AM

the failure-fall-back net was circular; you had all bases covered as an excuse for failure

there's nothing circular about pervasiveness. however, having to deal with that and failing and giving up, and then being told by assholes like you that this is a sign that women prefer babies to work and therefore trying to remedy the problems is actually EBIL and discriminates against men is a neat little catch-22.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 26, 2010 7:24 AM

Yawn still waiting for itsn80 to actually cite some literature for his inane and manufactured claims. But liberturds do have the problem that reality has a liberal bias, which excludes them and their inane ideas. So the standard methodology they use is to bullshit and give attitude. Boring and stoopid. The lies get caught, and they just look more like losers by using the attitude.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 26, 2010 7:25 AM

Firstly, you've never defined toxic masculinity nor tried to. Since it isn't a common term, that might be a good start.

She did define the term, in great detail, on her blog:

http://jadehawks.wordpress.com

But admittedly you can't necessarily be blamed for not knowing that.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 26, 2010 7:29 AM

Apologies for the partial double posting. I got an error message on the first post, and thought it didn't go through.

Posted by: havardnh | May 26, 2010 7:34 AM

PZ, you misspelled his name, it's Eivind, not Eivend.

But in any case, it disturbs me greatly that he's living in the same city as me.

Posted by: Anna | May 26, 2010 7:42 AM

Thanks for the welcome back, itsn80. It's a shame others are being so rude to you, as far as I can see (though I admittedly may have missed some of your posts), you weren't rude to begin with, so it's an inappropriate tone of response to you. If we can't even have a reasonable discussion here, in a blog dedicated to reason and critical thinking, what hope is there for anyone else.

"Touching on the second point, ask yourself this; if women are being underpaid for the same work, why hire men? Women will do the same job for less pay. The company will make more margin and therefore more profit? The sheer efficiency built into capitalism makes it unlikely that firms that are sexist would get away with it."

Logically, this is true. Unfortunately it's made more complex by the fact that a lot of people do genuinely view women as less capable, and thus that they wouldn't be able to contribute as much (and so are less likely to hire them, or more likely to mentally justify paying them less when they do).

"I don't consider this a case to introduce laws about closing the "pay-gap". The solution to this is paid parenting leave. Many men would take it if given the option, maybe not right away; but after the bs pressure to conform is relieved; they'd jump at it."

I'm in total agreement with this.

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 26, 2010 7:47 AM

Even when pressed, you've just blamed 'toxic masculinity' for men's problems. Which is a sexist way of saying "men are their own oppressors".

No, each other's.

in fact it's the opposite now, the teachers ignore the boys and bend over backwards for the girls - yet the boys still do better..

Got statistics?

If all you've got is personal experience, mine is different. For most of primary and secondary school, the girls in my classes did better than the boys, and I was surprised to find out that the stereotype goes in the other direction.

In fact, statistics from the USA show the gap is narrowing. Jadehawk has the links (I thought I had bookmarked them too, but apparently I haven't).

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 26, 2010 7:51 AM

And might I add *facepalm*

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 26, 2010 8:01 AM

You do realise that a link to her own blog is not evidence either?

And how exactly does one provide evidence that patriarchy is or is not the cause of event X?

Take enrolment numbers in a particular degree; any commentary is just an interpretation of the results no more than the back-and-forth conjecture that has taken place here.

Posted by: itsn8o | May 26, 2010 8:02 AM

Got statistics? If all you've got is personal experience, mine is different. For most of primary and secondary school, the girls in my classes did better than the boys, and I was surprised to find out that the stereotype goes in the other direction. In fact, statistics from the USA show the gap is narrowing. Jadehawk has the links (I thought I had bookmarked them too, but apparently I haven't).

Not relating to the USA David. So no. I'm not sure what the deal is with the US, I suspect we have some similarities. I suspect we're ahead here in the equality stakes though. Simply because we don't have a bible-belt.

But in Australia there is a disproportionate number of targeted programs for girls than guys; even though guys are falling behind in some areas (a continuing downward trend) there are still cuts or no responses to funding in this area.

Posted by: mfd512 | May 26, 2010 8:10 AM

Im gonna jump in way late, when the knives are flying, for a quick disembowelment.

The best argument for the Market- will- fix- discrimination is the history of the Brooklyn Dodgers.

In 1947 they were the first American baseball team to recruit African-Americans.

They went on to win 6 of the next 10 World Series, while other teams still clung to discriminatory practices.

The Boston Red Sox were the last team to allow African Americans to play. Prior to 2004 they hadnt won a World series since 1918.

I dont mean to suggest I believe the market should always be left to sort things out. Racism was a legal institution in America for a long time, it needed legal force to expel it. The baseball example is apt though, sports teams were integrating long before businesses were legally forced to in the south. They did so, not to be good, though the deeply religious Branch Rickey was a fine man, but because it was to their advantage.

Businesses who exclude talented women do themselves a disservice and put themselves at a disadvantage in the marketplace. You may not believe business wants to right the wrongs of the 'patriarchy', surely you believe they want to make money.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 26, 2010 8:16 AM

Scroll up.

Sigh...

I just want to say first that if I was at all partially responsible for triggering the wave of various anti-feminists (libertarians, MRAs, sexism apologists and deniers), I'm sorry.

Secondly, the whole "sexist discrimination is natural or balanced" arguments are always "interesting" because they're so not new, but everyone thinks they are.

Oh sure, every generation of anti-feminist (and anti-egalitarians in general on every topic, race, sexuality, gender, etc...) argues that genuine reforms towards equality aren't necessary because really women and men are already equal and any discrepancy in anything can be explained by natural separations in ability.

I mean, the whole, women aren't as intelligent as men thing was used a hundred years ago quite literally to argue against giving women the vote. "It would overheat their brains" was one argument. Similarly, the separation in votes was argued to be essential and fair. "Women got to dominate and control the home and children and that was where they naturally fit, it'd be unfair to try and force them into the public outside world, both to themselves and men".

And in lesser and lesser quantities, as equality has marched on on the blood sweat and tears of those who fought for it, these arguments have continued, trying to argue each remaining gap has the same functions.

See this thread. You got old troll (and briefly Sven, to which I'm very disappointed in you) arguing that the separation in men and women's intelligence was now in a subtle, genetic or in utero hormone based tiny change in intelligence on a rubric wholly unreliable and with a deviation too small to really be accurate owing to the units. And that the hard sciences are the ones that cook the lady brains. Why?

"God is in the gaps".

That is the old arguments have been disproven. As equality marched on and women turned out to do just as well in school and even get into university at the same rates, the bars had to keep shifting to find some remaining grey area to defend as that which proves men as better than women and thus justify oppression.

And the libertarian new chew toy has the same basic problem. Every iteration of anti-feminists have tried to argue that equality would be unnecessary, because somehow we are already equal. In Victorian Times, it was the "two spheres" argument, that women were naturally built for the home, raising children, men for the public, ruling the world.

As women bled and fought against the denials of oppression, for each scrap, it turned out they were just as capable in the other sphere and men in theirs and that the artificial separations were just that.

Of course, we're not equal yet, so "God is in the gaps" style once again, we get idiots trying to argue that the remaining oppressions are what are remaining as natural and that any attempt to fix them would result in "going too far" if we haven't "gone too far already". The pay gap? Totally because women naturally desire more babies. Professor gap? Intelligence or drive gap. Etc...

It's an old and deathly familiar story, really. And any student of the arguments used against movements we take for granted today knows just how familiar it was.

Segregationist arguments, denying women the right to vote, rape apologism, "there is no discrimination against gay people, in fact we Christians are the real discriminated against party".

All are rooted in trying to sell as hard as they can the idea that the status quo is perfectly equal (unfair to the dominant group even) and that the rabble-rousers are "dangerous radicals" who are trying to upset the "natural order" with their attempt to prove equality in the remaining spaces.

And well, it's been the case for hundreds, nay thousands of years that everyone who has ever made this argument has been wrong. Cause there are very few biological differences based on melanin or sex, and no factor affecting mental acuity or ability or "sphere". And when you work on the culture, turns out that every time, those previously "deficient" minorities prove themselves to be just as capable.

Every damn time and every damn time, we are supposed to forget that track record and assume that "this time is different, damnitt".

It is exactly like the God Delusion in that. I know every other gap we said contained God was wrong, but trust us this time, he's in the junk DNA quantum. Honest.

Yeah, he's not in there either and the same goes for your repeats of the same old argument.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 26, 2010 8:25 AM

Oh for fuck's sake, it's still going?

What, are Anna, itsn8o, and Hyperon the Energizer Bunnies of sexism defenders?

itsn8o, be straight up with us, are you actually a robot? How long exactly have you been wasting trolling this site nonstop in order to try and deny the existence of current inequality and stop the nasty filthy scourge of feminism? Cause that's an "impressive" level of commitment. If only you used your OCD obsessions for good, or at least for actual truth, imagine what could have been.

Oh well.

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 26, 2010 8:27 AM

Yet another feminist who is emotionally invested in "the cause?"

No, he just has knee-jerk reactions to certain trigger words.

As a woman, she was claiming special female knowledge - known only to females -

What?

One's own privilege is difficult to notice one one's own because one is used to it. That's all she said. She didn't say "impossible", she didn't say "can't be observed objectively"...

And how exactly does one provide evidence that patriarchy is or is not the cause of event X?

By comparing the occurrence and extent of X in different times and places that differ in their degree of patriarchy. You know... the scientific method. :-|

Not relating to the USA[,] David.

I assumed you were talking about the whole world.

I'm not sure what the deal is with the US, I suspect we have some similarities. I suspect we're ahead here in the equality stakes though. Simply because we don't have a bible-belt.

Of course. But in many respects that just means the US lags behind by 30 to 100 years, not that it's really different in kind. It's here in Austria that I first encountered (to my abovementioned surprise) the claim that boys are better at math.

The best argument for the Market- will- fix- discrimination is the history of the Brooklyn Dodgers.

In 1947 they were the first American baseball team to recruit African-Americans.

Why did it take them so long?

Because capitalism isn't immune to unquestioned assumptions that an entire culture takes as basic truths.

You may not believe business wants to right the wrongs of the 'patriarchy', surely you believe they want to make money.

They aren't automatically smart enough to do so. Like every other human endeavor, capitalism isn't immune to stupidity and ignorance.

Posted by: Anna | May 26, 2010 8:31 AM

Sorry, no idea how that double post happened!

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 26, 2010 8:37 AM

Why feminism is the equality term and MRA the term meaning the opposite and often the continuance of the status quo.

Because one actually works for bringing equality, defeating oppressive systems that hold back men and women in various ways and prevent them from the full marketplaces of options for their choice in lives and the happiness potential inherent in that.

The other?

Claims that it is totally for equality. Not a non-egalitarian bone in their body, but it just so happens that this time, no honest really, men and women are totally equal and any remaining discrepancy is totally the result of natural differences and besides men are the only ones suffering and it's all feminism's fault.

This has been the cycle. And sure the other has gone by many names, MRA is merely the most recent face. But the reason that feminism has remained alone is that it ends up being the only ideology recognizing the aspects hurting men and women and actually working to fix them rather than trying to deny away a nice stack of privilege and trying to get the benefits of feminism without losing the edge gained by oppression.

And an interesting note for the troll, did you know that feminism isn't a monolithic mafia-style organization that has vun, und precisely vun method of fighting oppression, or focus, or worldview?

Your "feminists are scary thought police who demand orthodoxy" would be a lot scarier, I imagine, if so many of us weren't actual feminists and not quite starkly aware that feminists are much like atheists, willing to squabble and bicker amongst ourselves over a whole wealth of issues and what's more important and what's a good solution and what's a bad solution and so forth. Hell, just look at the "Second Wave vs. Third Wave" battles or some of the battles womanism, third-world feminism, ecofeminism, academic feminism, and the like have gotten into with each other. Feminists are about as orthodox as atheists.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 26, 2010 8:46 AM

Also since some men (i.e. those invested in the superficial gains the patriarchy grants them) seem to take the existence of the patriarchy so personally, let us yet again note that the patriarchy is a cultural system of oppression.

It is not a specific man, it is not specific men, and it most certainly is not all men. It is a system propagated, by men and women, to both's detriment, sold on the basis that of the two, it'll hurt women more so as to give men the Trojan horse "gift" of being "better" than women.

In short, it's a little like religion. A parasitic system that makes actual human's lives worse, but is assumed to be necessary to the running of current society and which demands sacrifices of both its followers and those who follow different gods (or none at all) in the form of oppression, all with the promise that it'll make the "true believers" "better" than the "heretics".

And part of the sell is getting people when they are young and being pervasive in the society so people grow up just assuming that "that's the way the world works" rather than wondering "well, why?" Or "is that even true, and more importantly should it be true?"

It is always interesting though that anti-feminist trolls always seem to assume the patriarchy is personal, proof that feminists really are baby-eating man-haters.

My personal theory is that they take it so personally, because they are so invested in prolonging it, same way a desperate religious person will take an atheist's pronouncement of their atheism personally as an "attack on them personally".

Posted by: Flex | May 26, 2010 8:54 AM

itsn80 opined at #426,

The sheer efficiency built into capitalism makes it unlikely that firms that are sexist would get away with it.

Guffaw! I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh when this completely discredited trope pops up.

Capitalism is not efficient. It is conducive to innovation (good) and promotes greed (bad), but it is in no way more efficient than other economic systems. Read some organizational behavior studies. Study human motivation factors.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2010 8:58 AM

ok. it's 8 in the fucking morning, and I have to sleep and work sometime, so I'm doing a link-dump and going to sleep
about discrimination in schools:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wqr61000466117t6/

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/63/6/947/

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a746754065&db=all

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/74/2/435/

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 26, 2010 9:10 AM

They're alienating men out there who really care - why? Out of foolish sentiment to a name? Are they too accustomed to group-think? They'd rather fail with the banner of feminism than succeed in another united movement. - itsn80

Alternative hypothesis: the "feminist" name is kept because it is useful: partly because it keeps sexist whingers like you away.

Posted by: Svlad Cjelli | May 26, 2010 9:44 AM

This kind of boy makes me excited, as I could splash in his blood without feeling guilty. Mhmm! ^^

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 26, 2010 10:06 AM

@476

Just realized where I recognized your username from. Hah!

Posted by: Hyperon | May 26, 2010 11:08 AM

Just like I said, they subscribed to the a priori dogma that women are better than men in everything except raw strength. Nobody has even tried to deny this.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 26, 2010 11:16 AM

Just realized where I recognized your username from. Hah!

Off the top of my head: it [Svlad Cjelli] was Dirk Gently's real name, from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. Amirite? (I could be wrong, as I can't be bothered to google it.)

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 26, 2010 11:26 AM

Jefrir, the phenomenon is called Stereotype Threat.

Posted by: MrFire | May 26, 2010 11:40 AM

The best argument for the Market- will- fix- discrimination is the history of the Brooklyn Dodgers.

This argument, as you have presented it, is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You have have to address and eliminate alternative explanations, while also demonstrating that the correlation between hiring African-American players and their subsequent success is more than circumstantial.

Once you've done that, I would respectfully ask you to explain why you seem to think this single example can be used to form a general rule about markets and discrimination.

They did so, not to be good, though the deeply religious Branch Rickey was a fine man, but because it was to their advantage.

And here you even identify that you have presented a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? Your rationalisations are all over the place.

The best case scenario for your argument is that market motivations and ending discrimination are occasional bedfellows. You have not shown, and indeed seem to think it is not important to show, that they are fundamentally integrated - or at least aligned such that market forces inherently cannot turn on desegregation in the future.

Im gonna jump in way late, when the knives are flying, for a quick disembowelment.

Accurate only if you are referring to Seppuku.

Posted by: Shala | May 26, 2010 11:56 AM

Hyperon:

Gonna cry?

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 26, 2010 12:17 PM

I am a scientist by character (INTP), habit, training, and profession. I get SIWOTI syndrome really bad, especially when I am actively putting off some chore as I was last night.** It bothers me when I see somebody saying stuff that I don't think is known to be true. The more detailed the claim the more it bothers me.*** It even bothers me--maybe even more!--when I agree with the broader argument somebody is making but disagree in the details of their claims of fact (and, less often, interpretation). This has gotten me into various arguments with SC (more than one, and she is graciously holding back even now), Knockgoats, and others (see the Ventner-reaction thread for a recent example).

I'll apologize here and now to anybody who finds this character trait annoying

It's only annoying when you're wrong, Sven! :-p

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 26, 2010 12:43 PM

Just like you know that brown people with funny names are likely to be terrorists.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 26, 2010 12:58 PM

Typical bigot always says "but I'm not a bigot". Gee, Hypershit is sure true to form. We don't believe you based your past posts. For some reason your word isn't worth much here, especially when making such claims. And we aren't interested in discussing what you want to discuss. So why continue? What part of fuck off bigot don't you understand? Another drama queen exit in the offing I presume. Maybe this time you will be intelligent and stay away.

Posted by: broboxley OT | May 26, 2010 1:10 PM

#459 "psychologist today" as a cite? whats the matter "readers digest" didnt have one?

There is in the US a problem with women and pay. Middle management tends to have a lot of well paid women and upper management likes to keep them there. The women know and resent this so they prefer other women as peers. Side effect is that there is a lower glass ceiling that men cannot get past as they are not upper management materiel but the "girls" will make damn sure he doesnt get promoted into their tier. Have seen this factor a lot in Government positions.

Now this will never effect me because Im a tech and dont compete in that tier. Most tech and good tech managers are completely oblivious to sex gender orientation etc because that gets in the way of producing good product but management types? Lookout.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 26, 2010 1:16 PM

I instead, believe that what we are doing when we are "instinctively" opposed to rape, is displaying the glorious "fingerprint" of the creator God on our souls.

Well, you're wrong.

(If morality is encoded in our genes by YHWH, then there would be no need to send his only begotten son to trivially suffer as blood payment to himself for the debt he claims we all own him as a result of Adam and Eve using the free will he gave them.

Also, there's no evidence for 'souls'.)

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 26, 2010 1:28 PM

I agree, with almost all of you, that rape is disgustingly wrong. I therefore, disagree with the likes of evolutionary biologist Randy Thornhill, who suggests that rape is "an adaptive reproductive strategy" that has its origins in the "Darwinist imperative" to reproduce and pass on one's genes. - perspectives

Complete non sequitur: whether Thornhill's claim of fact is correct or not has no bearing on the moral judgement that rape is wrong; nor vice versa - although it can be (mis)used by misogynists such as Berge. The so-called "Darwinist imperative" is itself simply a claim of fact: that behaviour that increases inclusive fitness will be selected for; it is not an "imperative" in the sense that it tells people what they ought to do.

I instead, believe that what we are doing when we are "instinctively" opposed to rape, is displaying the glorious "fingerprint" of the creator God on our souls.

Why should anyone give a damn what rubbish you believe, when you adduce no evidence or arguments to support that belief?

As the Apostle Paul states, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galations 3:28)

It's Galatians. Pretending that Christianity espouses sexual equality is utterly dishonest:

1 Corinthians:
11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Ephesians:
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lor.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Timothy 2:
2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Peter 3:
3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Posted by: Ewan R | May 26, 2010 1:43 PM

Knockgoats - you're being particularly dishonest here I think - you can't just take the majority of what the bible says and use that as some sort of indicator of what it means....

Oh wait, no, you can.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 26, 2010 1:58 PM

Nineveh @ #13:

Well, in that case, I have penis envy.

Someone give me a pair of scissors and his address.

Aperçus désagréables @ #15:

By his own logic, women have the right to perform a phallectomy on him. By force, if necessary. This can't end well.

I am quite pleased that I was not the first, or even the second, to think of this (I may have been the first male who made that logical connection immediately on reading the post, but I doubt it). I would recommend notifying the local females of his "arguments" and providing them with appropriate cutlery. :P

Also, the Random Quote is rather fitting:

Woman's world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men.

[Adolph Hitler, quoted in Lucy Komisar, The New Feminism]

Posted by: BdN | May 26, 2010 2:15 PM

Further, he's completely arrogant about his statistical knowledge, despite constantly playing fast and loose with statistical interpretations

Clearly exemplified by the fact he only cites the Wikipedia page and then dares to say

And concerning my supposed ignorance: get real. It was evident from the outset that most people responding to me were not at all familiar with work on sex differences in IQ

without ever explaining what they are and what they say specifically, ignoring all counter studies and notwithstanding that many over here have probably read lots of them (I've personally read most of the Hyde-Geary exchanges and I'm sure other people here are far more knowledgeable than me).

Posted by: Hyperon | May 26, 2010 2:40 PM

This was your original claim, and you still haven't shown that any real, authoritative source has actually said this.

Could you expand on this, with citations? I strongly suspect, but cannot yet prove, that your supposed advocacy for matriarchy is grounded in yet another misogynistic fallacy.

In any case, citations abound. So much so that, like before, it would be misleading for me to single out some isolated examples.

Posted by: Hyperon | May 26, 2010 3:16 PM

Further, he's completely arrogant about his statistical knowledge, despite constantly playing fast and loose with statistical interpretations, and he'll employ a double-standard in those interpretations.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 26, 2010 3:29 PM

Sven @489

Well, first of all. Yes, the comment was mostly to Hyperon, my tut tut to you was indeed a side-note tut tutting you about it because it pissed me off last night (I be a human).

And at the risk of arguing by authority, I know a little something about science myself seeing as how I just got my Master's in Biology.

Second of all, fair enough, it isn't a complete disproval, but it is a pretty strong disproval of most of the factors. So we got here trans people of all age groups, zero change in mental acuity and only these other more full-scale physiological shifts. So any theory of inherent female or inherent male biological traits, as you note, in in utero hormones or genetic traits (either Y-linked or double-X affected). Said traits would have to take place on only young developing brains to increase capacity and be immune to any hormonal effects whatsoever.

So already a very small sliver of potential space for the theory. Maybe not a clean up-or-down disproval, but certainly a good punch to the head of the latest "God is in the gaps" arguments presented by the various "women are shit" trolls. This is especially unlikely given that intelligence and acuity are more traits we build over time by the ability to form "better" neuronal connections over a lifespan, it'd be very unlikely that a significant difference would both be consistently natural and not at all related to hormonal balance.

Stranger things have happened and we can keep a path open in the back just in case, but I think we'd have a better bet on being visited by space aliens.

That said, the whole argument was shit to begin with. IQ is a well-known-to-be-intensely-flawed mechanism of measuring "intelligence". It's strongest intergroup correlation is with parent's economic level, has been written for decades as a means by which to support and argue for white supremacy and there's a reason that cognitive biologists and sociologists don't like to use it very much. In short, IQ is shit and anyone who thinks it's "da bomb" tends to be the type of racist and/or sexist douchebag you're better off ignoring.

To be fair though, it's still not as big of a red flag as "The Bell Curve" though.

And regarding your numbers argument.

Data is bound by its most inaccurate number's standard deviation. This is because it's very easy in any form of number analysis to get meaninglessly significant numbers simply by playing fast and loose with the error bars by combining much more varied numbers with much finer numbers. It's basically what define the significant figures of any calculation and the minimum digits of your standard deviations.

You can't have your standard deviation be less than the minimum variance between the accurate digits available in the measurement calculating the standard deviation. In those cases it must be rounded to that accurate standard of measurement in accordance with the variance.

This is how many error bars in scientific graphs often end up so very large and with limited room to have a provably significant effect, because the sheer weight of variance from the least accurate point of measurement is wholly unreliable even when the test is replicated a couple hundred times.

If IQ is really hard to define down to the single digits and its reliable variance doesn't go down that low, then it's going to be really hard to prove its significance even with the sample size equivalent of a thousand monkeys on typewriters.

And yeah, echoing you very strongly that the sheer difference between all arguments of intergroup variance versus intragroup variance shows that the once proud hordes of team "the blacks and the wimmin folk are too dumb to even be allowed to read" have been reduced by the continued dissolution of the gaps to grasping for straws in the last tiny margins.

But yeah, getting back to my initial response, I knocked you because you argued that the life experience interviews were inherently worthless to the argument and irrelevant. You have a point that they aren't a complete silver bullet to the argument. There are a few, heavily unlikely by the nature of knowledge acquistion and mental landscape as we so far know it, but still potential, means that the trans experiment doesn't fully cover.

However, it's still a strong fucking blow. Anything relating to adult, pre-pubescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent hormone level and distribution, completely disproven. And that's not just the hormonal theories, but also a chunk of the genetic components (the very small sliver that are sex-linked genetically, which I'll note is actually a very small number. Most of the massive separation comes from hormone distribution). As any of those affected by the aforementioned hormonal distributions and sources would also be affected.

There's still a gap, true, but that gap is so tiny as to very nearly deal a death blow to this recycled garbage of a hypothesis (yeah, this totally is the real deal, not like every other justification for oppression that came before it about how reading, working, going to university, or voting would literally melt underdeveloped lady brains).

And hearing you call it irrelevant pissed me off last night and hence the tut tut response.

Posted by: mfd512 | May 26, 2010 3:32 PM

Regarding women and the bomb, one man has ever dropped the bomb vs no women. We've had two, maybe three, with the power to do so.

M. Thatcher, G. Meir, B. Bhutto.

I'll leave it to MrFire to statisticalese this to death.

Posted by: BdN | May 26, 2010 3:43 PM

Sure, I have been "loose", but what's the alternative? Typing in Latex code, using unnecessarily notation like "X \sim N(\mu, \sigma^2)"?[...]Formal statistical notation would just be pompous in this context, and exact figures are irrelevant since my main point is very broad.

Once again you miss the point by a mile. He was talking about statistical interpretation which is quite different. Most debates in science revolve around interpretation and the use of data. Not about freaking notation.

And speaking of being pompous : who said he was going to read what ? Oh! Yeah, right, the non-pompous Hyperon...

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | May 26, 2010 4:33 PM

Cerberus: First, I agree that IQ doesn't measure anything of interest. However, I don't understand much of your argument. I'm not calling you out; I know very little about endocrinology or neurology. I would benefit from clarification in regards to:

So any theory of inherent female or inherent male biological traits, as you note, in in utero hormones or genetic traits (either Y-linked or double-X affected). Said traits would have to take place on only young developing brains to increase capacity and be immune to any hormonal effects whatsoever.

This seems to be foundational to your argument that studies of those who have undergone hormone therapy to alter sexual characteristics provide a control for studies of distributions of traits in men and women [this is the argument that you are making, right?]. However, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you think its possible that endogenous expression of a hormone at one stage of development might have different effects, (qualitatively or quantitatively) on neuronal patterning than if expressed at another stage of development?

Data is bound by its most inaccurate number's standard deviation. This is because it's very easy in any form of number analysis to get meaninglessly significant numbers simply by playing fast and loose with the error bars by combining much more varied numbers with much finer numbers. It's basically what define the significant figures of any calculation and the minimum digits of your standard deviations.

You can't have your standard deviation be less than the minimum variance between the accurate digits available in the measurement calculating the standard deviation. In those cases it must be rounded to that accurate standard of measurement in accordance with the variance.

This I don't understand at all. A number can't have a standard deviation. Standard deviation is a quality of the distribution of numbers. Are studies of IQ difference non-standard statistically speaking? I have pretty good library access, and if you have a particular study in mind, I wouldn't mind a reference.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 26, 2010 4:41 PM

By my count, Itsno hit sexist bingo dozens of comments ago.

Calling Jadehawk "emotional" because she disagreed with him was a nice touch.

He's also failed to acknowledge or account for the fact that the domestic labor of women is not paid at all. If domestic labor is calculated in the pay gap, women make something like a third of what men do for their work, and spend more than twice as much time working in their lifetime. (It may even be three or four times, can't remember...)

But don't let reality get in the way of your whitemale persecution fantasies, Itsno.

Posted by: Endor | May 26, 2010 4:58 PM

#520 - spot on. The reason the poor persecuted working men can work the hours they do is that there is someone else doing *everything else* to make their lives run. Someone else who is not paid for all this extra work, and who will be told that it's not really work (because men don't do it). But when that work isn't done, whoohoo will SHE hear about it.

He used about 30 misogynistic dog whistles in his posts. I suspect every. single. woman. who refutes his bullshit bigotry is "emotional". You know, cuz they lack penises. Notice how he worked himself up into a testerical fit, which is manly! But it's Jadehawk who's emotional, in that bad girly way.

I got a big kick of his total dipshittery, personally.

Re: the MRA debate upthread. There is a world of difference between someone who supports and works for improving the lives of men and an MRA. MRAs are the misogynistic, racist, homophobic rape-apologists who troll feminist blogs with rape threats and evo psych. Check out Pandagon for a sampling. Or check out their own forums - if you can stomach the rape, torture and murder fantasies.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 26, 2010 5:15 PM

In other words, you believe that women are equal to or superior to men in every way.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 26, 2010 5:21 PM

Poor poor Hyperon. Your #525 just described the behavior a lot of women receive from their men. Think about that, then shut the fuck up.

Posted by: beth.lehman | May 26, 2010 5:27 PM

My dad, who worked between 40 and 50 hours in onerous labour, lost his job. My mother, around this point, started working (40 hours tops, and in an easy and frankly overpaid job requiring nothing more than "communication skills"), while my dad took over the housekeeping. The result that she would nag him perpetually for not being employed, threatening divorce at various points. She would behave in the most savage way (because she could), and the following morning wave it off with a not-pology, attributing it to "menopause". (That one word gives women carte blanche to do whatever the like, right?)

Well, at least Hyperon's position makes a bit more sense now - obviously he has mommy issues.

Posted by: BdN | May 26, 2010 5:41 PM

(That one word gives women carte blanche to do whatever the like, right?)

Of course. My mother does it : she uses it as an excuse to begin wearing shorts early in spring...

the totally elementary logical point that the belief that men are not superior in any aspect is EQUIVALENT to the belief that women are equal to or superior to men in every aspect

Hmmm, so saying that women are not superior in any aspect would be EQUIVALENT to saying men are equal to or superior to women in every aspect. So, if all of this is EQUIVALENT, this means that "men are equal to or superior to women" is EQUIVALENT to "women are equal to or superior to men".

What are we left with ?

(just as women are superior to men in certain areas)

And, of course, it's just a coincidence that men happen to be superior intellectually and women at peace-keeping...

Posted by: BdN | May 26, 2010 5:49 PM

Women, for one thing, are less likely to nuke one another

followed by

She would behave in the most savage way (because she could),

Great! We're getting somewhere! Imagine how they could've invented such wonderful things if they could ? Wait... they are doing just this...

Posted by: BdN | May 26, 2010 5:56 PM

If anecdotes are off the table, then they should be off the table for everyone.

The thing is : they have always been.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | May 26, 2010 6:08 PM

Cerberus #521: Thanks for the explanation. However, I don't think your take on significance is quite correct. With a means separation test (like a T-test or something simple like that) one is trying to determine the probability that two sets of measurements were drawn from the same distribution...if we assume a normal distribution, it is defined by central tendency (mean)and variance (average squared difference from the mean). The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.

The estimate of the mean is not the true mean, BUT simply an estimate of it based on a sample, because the sample is only a subset of the population. This naturally results in inaccuracy. Faulty measurement also results in inaccuracy. Statistics were invented to take this inaccuracy into account--here primarily in the form of the variance parameter. Therefore, two populations that have means no different than the standard deviation may in fact be statistically different (meaning that the probability of drawing the samples from the same distribution >0.95) if they are sufficiently large.

If you take two samples with values A:(10,11,12,13,14) and B:(11,12,13,14,15), the means only differ by 1 (A=12, B=13). A T-test assuming equal variance gives a non-significant result (p=0.35). If we take each sample and replicate it ten times (eg A: (10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,11,11,...,14)) We end up with the same exact mean and variance for both samples. However, the probability of obtaining these data from the same distribution are very low (p=0.0007), a highly significant result.

Like I said earlier, I don't think IQ represents anything more meaningful than an assessment of performance on an IQ test. And even if I am wrong, what would a small difference in means between men and women mean, even if it were significant? The problem is (IMHO) the meaninglessness of IQ as a measurement of intelligence, and not significance testing.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 26, 2010 6:31 PM

And you're trying to shoehorn my words.

Posted by: perspectives | May 26, 2010 7:20 PM

Knockgoats #500.

I would suggest that gender roles do not infer value judgments, while rape intends to diminish value. Jesus went out of his way to attribute value to women in a culture that found his actions offensive (eg John 4)

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2010 7:31 PM

Jesus went out of his way to attribute value to women in a culture that found his actions offensive (eg John 4)

strange that all the xian sects that arose after this man reportedly lived and died didn't bother taking that to heart, and instead enshrined the same misogynistic attitudes that came before.

so, what is the reality here, eh?

frankly, it hardly mattered if some imaginary persona had something to say on equality of the sexes, if those pretending to follow him totally ignored it.

all we have to go on is how the Abrahamic religions' dogma said (and say) about equality, and basically, they bloody well suck.

sorry, but bringing Jesus into it doesn't change that.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2010 7:34 PM

btw, Jesus might not have been terribly sexist, especially for his "day"*, be he sure the fuck was a racist bastard:

There is a passage in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) where Jesus is reported as having insulted a woman. He referred to her as a dog, a sub-human. However, his treatment of the woman was apparently based on racist feelings, not on sexist beliefs.

In Matthew 15:22-28 she was described as a Canaanite; Mark 7:25-30 identified her as Greek/Syrophenician. She had pleaded with Jesus to cure her daughter who was possessed by a demon. He first ignored her, but then explained that he was sent only to bring the Gospel to the Jews, not to the Gentiles such as she. Jesus cruelly replied to the desperate mother that it was not right for him "to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs." i.e. it is not appropriate to take the Gospel, which was intended only for the Jews, and offer it to Gentiles as well -- here described as sub-humans, as dogs.

and this from a very favorable viewing:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm

*given that nobody knows if he was ever anything more than a construct

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | May 26, 2010 7:37 PM

Cerberus: All measurements are inaccurate to some degree. The kind of inaccuracy that you are talking about would increase the estimated variance of a population without necessarily altering the mean one way or another. This would make rejection of the null less probable. If you could tell me what study this is in reference too I would like to see it. Did it find a significant difference between IQ measurements?

I promise I won't bother you about this again, lest I bore everyone to death.

Posted by: Hyperon | May 26, 2010 7:38 PM

The point was that you're not working with raw numbers that have no variance, but measurements that have a built-in variance of accuracy.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 26, 2010 7:41 PM

With a large enough sample size, we need not take it into account.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2010 7:48 PM

It's a side point to a side point of a side point based in the sexist insane babblings of a troll with mommy issues.

and with that, exit our hero, stage right...

:)

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | May 26, 2010 8:41 PM

Cerberus: Right. It doesn't really matter. IQ is a bullshit predictor of anything important, and its measurement has all manner of cultural bias built into it. Thanks for humoring me.

Posted by: MrFire | May 26, 2010 10:41 PM

you can't get into your head the totally elementary logical point that the belief that men are not superior in any aspect is EQUIVALENT to the belief that women are equal to or superior to men in every aspect.

Again: Nobody has made the claim that I've highlighted in bold, and that is the strawman you keep erecting.

If you keep making this mistake, I'll keep calling you out on it.

You and others are indicting me for reasoning that men might be superior in certain areas (just as women are superior to men in certain areas).

...cue non-sequitur...

In other words, you believe that women are equal to or superior to men in every way.

No.

My understanding is that other commenters are questioning your reasoning skills. Whether men are superior in some aspects is not so much the issue; it is whether you have convincingly made that case based on the evidence you have provided. It would appear that you have not done so, and some have concluded that you have an agenda, which is to prove your confirmation bias, and that this same bias blinds you to how inadequate your data are.

I've noticed that when you start getting patronising right about the time that you start getting desperate. The flowery phrase "totally elementary logical point" sounds like so much compensation for a point that, in the context you have provided, is anything but.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | May 27, 2010 12:10 AM

Sorry, that last paragraph was aimed at the troll, not Sven. It didn't seem that clear to me when I reread it.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 27, 2010 12:47 AM

Nice link, SC, but I'm afraid Christians aren't allowed to know anything about other cultures (barring practical details for missionary reasons.)

It might spoil their narcissism.

Posted by: beth.lehman | May 27, 2010 3:37 AM

James #561

Feminist. Feminists support and work for improving the lives of everyone, men and women.

Posted by: Hyperon | May 27, 2010 4:40 AM

Arguing with dishonest fuckers is too tiring for me these days, so I'll just say READ THE FUCKING LINKS! Women are less likely to be hired than a comparably qualified man; they are less likely to get promotions and raises and are more likely to be viewed as a problem if they ask for these things.

Posted by: Nepenthe | May 27, 2010 5:01 AM

Hypie, baby, don't you know the first rule of holes is stop digging?

The only ladder out of the one you dug by calling rape a temporary inconvenience is to apologize, profusely*. Full stop. You don't continue to explain your mind-numbingly offensive position as a way to justify what you did. No one gave a flying fuck the first time and your reiteration is just bringing a backhoe in.

*Ritual self-mortification, up to and including seppuku, is suggested but optional.

Posted by: Aquaria | May 27, 2010 5:24 AM

No, he can't help being a piece of shit.

Sheesh, and then these jerks wonder why feminism is still necessary?

Posted by: Franklin Percival | May 27, 2010 7:05 AM

Hmmm,PZ, I'm not sure that this chap feels privileged, exactly; I think I sense more of a feeling of entitlement.

What horrifies me is the question of where we (generically) have gone wrong in the upbringing of our sons that so many of them appear lacking in empathy and compassion - it smacks of living life as a long embittered sulk. Can anyone here see any evolutionary advantage to H s sapiens in such behaviour?

.

Posted by: james.douglas.moffatt | May 27, 2010 9:16 AM

@beth

Feminist. Feminists support and work for improving the lives of everyone, men and women.

I don't mean to offend, but for my purposes the label feminist is an unhelpful one. Not through any hostility towards feminism, or women, but because the activism I am involved in specifically relates to uniquely male issues. Specifically in the areas of mental health issues such as depression and Aspergers which have very different forms of manifestation between the genders. Also male homosexuality and bisexuality and the unique problems that gay/bi men face in society as opposed to the queer community in general.

Because of the specifically male focus, defining myself and the groups I help run as 'feminist' would at the very least confuse the issue of what I'm trying to do, and at the worst, make the very people I'm trying to reach out to think that they are not welcome.

I've traditionally used the term Men's Rights because of the uniquely male focus, and what it has to do with civil rights and government support.

But if the term Male Rights or Men's Rights has been coopted by an anti-feminist agenda then I obviously need a new term that clearly sets out what I'm doing without the negative associations.

Any suggestions?

Posted by: MrFire | May 27, 2010 11:19 AM

I've convincingly presented some possible mental traits in which men might, with some plausibility, have the edge over women (on average).

If you are satisfied that you have met the challenges of other commenters, then I have little else to add. I am not well-enough trained to tackle the statistical interpretations of your links, although plenty of others are, and they appear to continue to have an issue with you.

Since this entire sub-argument stems from your invalid, or at least unsubstantiated, conviction that there is a:

dogma that women are equal to or better than men in absolutely everything other than brute physical strength,

then the very best you can hope for is being correct about an argument that nobody was raising in the first place.

That's all I was trying to do.

But it wasn't.

Your very first comment @219 involved this strawman:

The commonly accepted view nowadays is that women are, just as I think you mean, equal or superior to men in every trait other than brute physical strength.

This was in response to Kraid @197, who was offering his personal viewpoint on the matter. Your assertion that this is a commonly accepted view does not follow, and is apparently founded on nothing other than your confirmation bias.

Posted by: BdN | May 27, 2010 2:32 PM

and men, on average, tend to have appropriate personalities and enthusiasms with greater frequency than women.(This would agree to some extent with my personal experience.

Confirmation bias much ?

Of course it would agree with your personnal experience...

So let me sum it up : women are shallow, can be savage, are less logical, less intelligent, more emotional (read cannot control their emotions) but less enthusiastic (isn't it some kind of emotion ?) and don't have proper personalities but they still manage to not be inferior to men ?

Posted by: MrFire | May 27, 2010 2:58 PM

Rape is one of the most traumatic things that can befall a person. It is hardly surprising that it leaves psychological scars that last a lifetime.

Gregory, it gets better.

Hyperon once asserted that if he were to be raped, he would be able to get over it relatively easily.

I cannot remember the exact wording or the thread, but he definitely said it, and it was at least this oblivious and callous, if not worse.

Posted by: Endor | May 27, 2010 3:32 PM

"I cannot remember the exact wording or the thread, but he definitely said it, and it was at least this oblivious and callous, if not worse."

I'm fairly certain that's nearly verbatim.

++

"Hmm... if that's the definition nowadays, is there some other name in use out there that I can give myself and those like me that won't associate me with those dicks?"

Since you stated you didn't want to use the word feminist, perhaps humanist? (haha) Which, of course, still doesn't really describe the activism you participate in.

Like Nepenthe I'm at a loss. Firstly because I feel uncomfortable defining someone else's activism and secondly because the most accurate terms have already been taken over by psycho misogynists.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 27, 2010 6:29 PM

So you just assumed that Jadehawk was "exaggerating" or "making it up" because you believe that people here are intellectually dishonest?

I'm actually one of the lucky ones who hasn't ever been raped.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | May 27, 2010 8:52 PM

Jadehawk, OM @ 582

Sorry Jadehawk, my mistake.

Nepenthe @ 583;

It was not my intent to propogate any stereotypiical attitude toward rape victims, but it appears that I managed to insert my foot into my mouth anyway. What I meant to say was that, while everyone reacts to trauma differently, few people just shrug off being raped as if it is no big deal, as Hyperon implies he would as a function of his strength of character, thus denegrating rape victims who do not maintain a 'business as usual' attitude as weak or, even worse, as 'drama queens' playing up the assault in search of attention.

Also, just for the record, as far as I am concerned if it is not fully and freely consensual, then it is rape. Post facto justifications can never alter this fact, and neither can the way the victim handles the trauma.

I apologise if I gave offence to anyone. As a person who, thankfully, has no personal or familial experience with rape, I am perhaps not as aware of the issues involved as I should be.

I am very sorry to hear of your experience with rape, Nepenthe. If it is not an indelicate question, may I enquire as to your state of wellbeing now?

Posted by: Nepenthe | May 27, 2010 9:15 PM

The asterisk was supposed to point to the following: I'm loathe to use the word regarding Hyperon, but can't think of a better one.

As to my wellbeing, well... one day at a time, no?

Posted by: SC OM | May 27, 2010 9:42 PM

I don't mean to offend, but for my purposes the label feminist is an unhelpful one. Not through any hostility towards feminism, or women, but because the activism I am involved in specifically relates to uniquely male issues. Specifically in the areas of mental health issues such as depression and Aspergers which have very different forms of manifestation between the genders. Also male homosexuality and bisexuality and the unique problems that gay/bi men face in society as opposed to the queer community in general.

I still don't understand the question exactly. You're a health advocate/activist who works primarily with men or a men's health activist. You're also a gay/bisexual rights activist. (I'm not exactly sure why you seem so set on focusing in your thinking and activism on differences or perceived uniqueness rather than commonalities or at least the causes of the differing manifestations, which may lie in part in a patriarchal system, but whatever.) I think labeling yourself in such a heavily gendered way serves no good purpose.

Posted by: james.douglas.moffatt | May 28, 2010 3:49 AM

I'm not exactly sure why you seem so set on focusing in your thinking and activism on differences or perceived uniqueness rather than commonalities or at least the causes of the differing manifestations, which may lie in part in a patriarchal system, but whatever.

Because I feel that there are enough services in my community that deal with common areas of struggle, and that different problems in this case can benefit from targeted approaches rather than broad base. In a world of limited resources sometimes you need to be exclusive in what you target.

Posted by: SC OM | May 28, 2010 4:14 AM