... well, not really, you should not burn any book. But don't just leave this one around for your kids to accidentally read.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I rarely review fiction, but I've got a nice book I'd like to recommend. My friend Amy suggested it to me on facebook a while back when I was casting around for a novel to read. The novel is People of the Book by Geraldine Brooks.
INTERNET WARNING: THIS BOOK IS LIKE FIVE YEARS OLD I DON'T CARE…
The proprietor of Good Mom, Bad Mom emails to point out a post spinning off Monday's Goldilocks post. A good thing she did, as Technorati has collapsed into utter uselessness, at least for finding people who link to my posts.
Her post quotes an unnamed correspondent, who writes:
My two daughters…
This is a repeat, but it is at least three years old, and I haven't done a fiber arts piece in a while, so I thought I'd get us chatting. The cooler weather certainly makes me want to knit!
The title here is somewhat tongue in cheek, of course, but I do think that we knitters and crocheters,…
These are my suggestions, mostly books, for holiday gifts that have some sort of science relevance. See this guide for gift ideas for kids. (There is a pretty good chance that there is an idea or two in the Kids Guide for the adult in your life, depending on the adult.)
For your Uncle Bob
Get…
By far the two most obnoxious panels are the pair "Boys fix things" "Girls need things fixed" and the pair "Boys invent things" and "Girls use what boys invent." Ugh.
I think I recall not liking it when I was a child (born 1950).
Well, they may be obnoxious to your sensibilities, but they're also a pretty fair characterization. Or would you deny that the vast, overwhelming majority of inventions have been made by men, and that when something breaks it's generally a man who fixes it?
A couple million years of evolution has selected for men who are successful hunters, warriors, builders, inventors, and fixers. You obviously don't like that, but it doesn't change the truth of the matter.
I would not deny that men historically have taken credit for the vast majority of inventions. There is a difference. And if you knew anything at all, you would know women allow men to fix things because if we didn't you would pout and be impossible to tolerate. We talk about it all the time. That comment is so ignorant it's hilarious.
Yeah, right. There's a vast army of women down through history who have been cheated of their rightful credit for inventing zillions of things. But men stole the credit. Uh-huh. If you really believe that, it's your ignorance that's hilarious.
You're cute when you're mad. Don't get all worked up, big guy. You're still important and relevant. Really. I'm sure you're right about everything. Now, can you fix this for me?
Do you deny that for centuries, little girls were taught that they should grow up to stitch, cook, serve, and smile, while boys were taught that they could grow up to make or fix things (or fight and destroy things)?
Or is it that you deny that this affected/created the centuries of male-dominated inventions?
Stop teaching little girls to be quiet, docile little ladies, and that huge gap will start to lessen. Whether or not biology would lead to a gender-based difference in careers without society's nudging people into gender-appropriate roles can't yet be determined, because we still nudge people into those roles in large and small ways.
On a side note, my ex-boyfriend thought himself quite the enlightened modern male - but the first time I inadvertently showed him up on a tool-related task without half trying, he just about blew a gasket. To give him credit, he got over it quite thoroughly, but it was quite a blow to his pride that first time.
"Boys are heroes. Girls are heroines."
Going by the illustrations, boys are imaginary heroes and girls are realistic ones.
Robert, give us a few more years and we'll see how long that keeps up. It is true that historically men have been more responsible for inventions. But it is precisely because women have been repeatedly told junk like this and that they have been actively kept from education. Women weren't even allowed into many colleges until the 1960s. If in 50 years women aren't being as productive and inventive as men you might have a case but as of now you don't at all.
Now I'm confused. I always thought men grilled.
If one uses the illogic of Robert Bruce Thompson then the black population in the southern United States for the first 200 years MUST have been inferior to whites because they were slaves.
It is astonishing how ignorant people like him can be. He can type more than several words, so I assume he has some education.
Women have had equal opportunity and equal access to education for, arguably, the last 100 years or more, and certainly for the last couple of generations. And yet the numbers haven't changed significantly. Men still invent just about everything that's invented, and occupations that involve building or fixing things are overwhelmingly male. Men, on average, are simply better at some things, just as women are, on average, better at other things.
All of the available data supports the idea that men are better at inventing, building, and repairing. If you refuse to believe that there are innate differences in abilities between the sexes, despite the evidence of your own eyes, it's up to you to do more than simply speculate that those differences are societal rather than innate. So far, I've seen no evidence to support that position.
That's not, of course, to say that there aren't men who are mechanically inept and women who are mechanically very ept, but such exceptions are, well, exceptional.
But neither is it to say that it's a good idea to attempt to force square pegs into round holes, or vice versa. Bemoaning the lack of women in science and math, in fact in STEM in general, is fine. Give women every opportunity to enter these fields. But don't try to force the matter. Equal opportunity does not imply equal outcomes. We'll never have equal numbers of women in STEM fields, at least as long as they remain a meritocracy, because women (again, on average) simply aren't as interested in pursuing these subjects, and (again, on average) they simply aren't as good at them.
In the hard sciences in particular, the superstars are always going to be disproportionately male, simply because there are a whole lot more truly brilliant men than women. For every Marie Curie or Lise Meitner, there are a thousand men of equal ability.
That may not be to your liking. In fact, I wish it weren't true. But true it is, and all the wishing in the world isn't going to change that.
I wrote quite an extensive reply, but rather than ranting, suffice it to say I think gender roles are cultural relics of outdated behavioral systems put in place by the gender in political power.
Thanks for sparing me more of the same crap.
Okay, I guess I've had enough fun. It's so easy for us libertarians to taunt you politically-correct liberals that it just isn't sporting.
I'm always so amused (because I have that kind of sense of humor) at how the guys who are "so sorry, because that's just the way it is" never get around to expressing regret over the things that must make them suck at.
"I'm sorry, but men will just never make decent parents."
"I'm sorry, but men will just never be any good at parsing language."
"I'm sorry, but men will just never learn how to resolve conflict."
Nope. Never hear any of it.
Robert, you are wrong at multiple levels. "Women have had equal opportunity and equal access to education for, arguably, the last 100 years or more, and certainly for the last couple of generations." Is simply wrong. Yale University for example didn't let undergraduate women in until 1969. And for a long time women were still discouraged from going into the sciences. Indeed, given that the book in question is from the 1950s the notion that women has equal opportunity in education for a hundred years is simply laughable.
The utter unselfawareness that it takes to brag about being a Libertarian says it all.
Then you must not be listening. It's certainly easy to come up with a list of things that women (on average) are better at than men.
o communication skills
o negotiation
o dexterity
o multitasking
o organizing
Also, some of the areas where men excel are nothing to be proud of. Serial killing, molesting children, televangelism, and many others come to mind.
Yes, I realize that the strict rationality of libertarianism threatens your politically correct irrationality.
"Now I'm confused. I always thought men grilled."
Came here to say that. They can't even keep their stereotypes straight.
o reading for comprehension
Or is that just you?
Speaking of gender and sexual orientation. I wonder if you heard about the travesty of an e-mail that was sent to teachers at Franklin County High School. Apparently the assistant principal told them not to let homosexual children go to the bathroom. How ridiculous.
I have nothing to add, thanks.
This is why I got my kids Free to be You and Me.
On a side note, my ex-boyfriend thought himself quite the enlightened modern male - but the first time I inadvertently showed him up on a tool-related task without half trying, he just about blew a gasket. To give him credit, he got over it quite thoroughly, but it was quite a blow to his pride that first time.
My first serious girlfriend ever was much more competent with tools and the like than I am. I considered that to be a definite plus. But that might be because I'm lazy.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc -- it's true that:
a) Men have been out front on invention, letters, etc. and
b) Women have been discouraged (ranging from early lessons like the above to stoning) from similar activities.
It does not follow that the former was exclusively caused by the latter. I wouldn't bet against that explanation, but we can't rule out others.
D.C. That's a valid point. I overstated the case a bit. However, the fact that women are contributing more now than they were 50 or a 100 years ago certainly strongly supports the hypothesis that a large part of the historical lack of female contribution is due to attitudes like that in the book as well as lack of opportunities.
"Equal opportunity" means more than just "no one will tell you to your face that you're being denied the job because you're a woman." And frankly, we haven't even achieved that.
Who are you kidding?
Okay, I guess I've had enough fun. It's so easy for us libertarians to taunt you politically-correct liberals that it just isn't sporting.
*vrrrrr*
*sound of intense backpedalling*
My mother, being a child of the 40s and the daughter of a public health worker, lined us up for Swine Flu vaccines in 1976.
I suppose the upside of the anti-vax crowd with their "I'll use enemas and homeopathy" arguments is that there will be more vaccine for those of us who want it when they finally roll one out?
Women have had equal opportunity and equal access to education for, arguably, the last 100 years or more, and certainly for the last couple of generations.
Loon Alert!!!
All of the available data supports the idea that men are better at inventing, building, and repairing.
Loon Alert!!!
In the hard sciences in particular, the superstars are always going to be disproportionately male, simply because there are a whole lot more truly brilliant men than women. For every Marie Curie or Lise Meitner, there are a thousand men of equal ability.
Motherloonfuckingtastick Loon Alert!!!
It's so easy for us libertarians to taunt you politically-correct liberals that it just isn't sporting...Yes, I realize that the strict rationality of libertarianism threatens your politically correct irrationality.
Goddammit Robert, you broke my fucking loon alert meter!!!
Thank yew, vurry vurry much.
Of course, to most rational people, it's you folks who are the loons.
Aw, we got "you people"'d. How cute.
Of course, to most rational people, it's you folks who are the loons.
Robert, that's an interesting claim given that a) libertarianism is an extreme minority even in the US and b) many libertarians wouldn't ascribe to your views on gender and c) If you talk to almost anyone in Europe there's no viewpoint even resembling libertarianism.
Some other things men are better at (on average) than women:
o being confident in their ability to succeed
o blaming others if they fail.
They think they are competent, so they try. If they succeed, they feel vindicated and get more confident. If they fail, they think it was due to bad luck, or someone else's fault, and don't lose courage. The downside: they don't reassess or question themselves much, which impair their ability to actually get better.
Sorry, it's just a byproduct of evolution, y'know... Male-male competition and the need to be first, fastest, stronger, etc. Or at least impress the other guy.
Hmm. Blaming nature for society's inequalities is a lot of fun, actually, if it enables me to pat myself on the back for being in the "right" gender.
Some other things men are better at (on average) than women:
Absolutely. Boys tend to have exaggerated estimates of their own abilities, which is probably a major reason for their higher death rates. "I can do that" is great until you've gotten yourself beyond the point of no return and realize too late that you can't actually do it. Girls, on the other hand, tend to underestimate their own abilities, which is very frustrating for anyone attempting to mentor a bright girl.
Of course, to most rational people, it's you folks who are the loons.
Member of "persecuted" minority that actually buys into complete and utter bullshit, for which there exists no supporting evidence - check
You people, versus said "persecuted" minority - check
Pretending that science supports misogynistic bullshit Beliefs - check
Pretending to wish that supposed "evidence" supporting misogynistic bullshit Beliefs didn't - check
Pretending to be rational - check
Absolute five hundred percent, motherfucking loontastic!!!
Congratulations Robert!!! You're the biggest fucking loon I have run across all month...And that's saying a lot. Of all the loony Faithful Believers I have come across lately, you take the fucking cake.
The Libertarian Party is a minority party, but small-l libertarians are the second-largest group politically. Considering a person's position on economic freedom and social freedom, you end up with four possible combinations:
populist - about 50% of the population, believes that government should tightly control economic and social freedoms.
libertarian - about 25% of the population, believes that the government should stay out of our pocketbooks and out of our bedrooms.
conservative - about 15% of the population, believes that the government should keep its hands off the economy but should strictly control social freedoms.
liberal - about 10% of the population wants tight government control of economic issues, but hands-off on social issues.
I don't presume to speak for all libertarians, obviously, but I've been a libertarian since long before the Libertarian Party was formed in 1971, and I know a lot of libertarians and Libertarians. I assure you that my views on most things are fully in accord with mainstream libertarianism.
@Robert:
What are the axioms of libertarianism, as you see it?
@Irene:
Hm, are you suggesting there is a gender bias to the Dunning-Kruger Effect? Interesting..and a testable hypothesis! Now if only I knew a psychology researcher to suggest that too..
Has very inflated view of place on political spectrum - check
Presumes that irrational, misogynistic fringe stupidity is mainstream to his fringe political affiliation - check
Tell us Robert, what are your feelings on The Bell Curve? Or IQ as a coherent measure of an individual's intelligence?
Based on your previous comments, I assume you're speaking of this as a purely hypothetical case?
Additionally, "Rational" and "Irrational" do not mean "Us" and "Them." Just a friendly reminder.
Joshua Zelinsky:
When you have a strong case, it's better to understate it than to overstate it.
FWIW, I come to this having spent too many decades watching people discount compelling facts because denialists ripped up overstated presentations of them.
DuWayne, you might want to roll the calendar. It's May now.
When I was in college in the late eighties, I remember hearing stories from my professors about how a single woman either by choice or divorce couldn't get car insurance or a loan without a male cosigner in the seventies. I have three daughters and they barely played with dolls, love legos, erector sets, and any new cool technology. I think time will tell if Robert has a leg to stand on.
Great book. I've read it. In my experience, those who are critical of it have not read it. Have you?
As to IQ, yes it's by far the best way we have to quantify general intelligence, and it's quite a good one. IQ correlates very highly with success, whether it be in a particular field or in general life. The only real exception is in repetitive, boring tasks, such as assembly-line labor, where those with high intelligence actually perform worse than those with low intelligence.
Well, you would be wrong, which is not surprising.
http://www.ttgnet.com/
"Barbara does almost everything around the house, leaving me free to work and read."
And your point would be what?
Today, I did three loads of laundry, drilled and mounted some cabinet doors in the kitchen, replaced the valve in a malfunctioning toilet, loaded and ran the dishwasher, dried the handwashable dishes Barbara was washing, and various other household chores. And then I got a couple of hours of my own work done.
Barbara cooks more than I do, because she's a better cook, but I certainly cook more than a few meals. I don't do yardwork, but I made that clear before we got married. Barbara does the yardwork because she finds it relaxing. I think she'd tell you that I'm at least as much help around the house as the average husband is.
I like the Utah Libray Stamp - I'm guess this is currently filed under New Releases in Salt Lake City.
BUT...if the author ever does update the thing, I suggest a couple of new panels:
Boys like Robert are Idiots. Girls like J-Dog's daughter are smarter tnhan him and can also kick his ugly buttocks.
I was right. Robert Bruce Thompson is a typical loser Libertarian, wrong about everything, just like his hero Ron Paul.
Libertarians would be more dangerous than terrorists but fortunately, most people realize how wacko and wrong their ideas are.
Just look at his last post: "me, me, me, me, me, I am better than the whole world". It is so pathetic.
Have you?
There are indeed, several hours of my life I will never get back, which were wasted on that garbage.
Great book.
Motherfucking infinite Loon Alert!!!
As to IQ, yes it's by far the best way we have to quantify general intelligence, and it's quite a good one.
Ignorant motherfucking infinite Loon Alert!!!
Ah, the bad old days.
As far as estimating one's own abilities goes, I will remind people that small businesses started by women have twice the chance of succeeding as those started by men.
Oh, and out of curiosity Robert - how do you feel about evolutionary psychology?
I daresay that Robert Bruce Thompson probably believes that if the 16th century anatomist Matteo Realdo Colombo hadn't announced to the world in De Re Anatomica his discovery of the clitoris, then women would never have found out about it.
Robby:
First off, you're an attention whore and a huge threadshitter, so congratulations on trolling all of us. You're still a pinhead.
Second, it's extremely hard for me to take seriously a) long-entrenched social barriers to female achievement or b) The Bell Curve, a book based entirely on data abuse and far-right politics that avoided the scientific community like the plague on its way to the public.
Third, libertarianism is only rational in the sense that it uses certain faculties normally thought of as reason. Cherry-picking data and ignoring confounding factors is not rational. Ignoring obvious evidence that humans are social by nature and not solitary (as Rand did) is not rational. Most importantly, asserting that you're the rational one here in spite of the fact that no one -- including people who do rational for a living -- takes you the least bit seriously is not rational.
@Robert:
Could you please answer my question above? Also,
Well, if you measure success by money, not really.
Uh oh. I'm not a (real) man. Must. kill. myself. urrrghghhhgglllllll........
Caltech didn't admit women as undergraduates until 1970. My classmates weren't overwhelmingly male because we guys were so much damned smarter. Women just weren't allowed to compete with us. Equal opportunity is a very recent notion and it's a developing concept rather than a full reality.
And Robert Bruce Thompson demonstrates quite effectively that men are not always smarter, especially when they think they are.
In case Physioprof doesn't see this...
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You all just don't understand. Robert Bruce Thompson is writing to this blog through a rip in the space time continuum from the mid 22nd century. It only seems like he is being a disingenuous fuckwit.
Robert wrote:
Please, Robert, you're giving the rest of us men a bad name with your misogynistic drivel.
It is precisely that type of patriarchal, misogynistic thinking that has kept women from trusting men for generations, and rightly so. As soon as we can get past the stupid notion that women are inherently inferior to men, and push the people who believe it to the fringes of society, we can start getting on with the 21st century.
Wow, it only took 3 posts to bring out the sexist troll. I'm glad to see that other, non-sexist men are not tolerating it though. I just hope that RBT never has a daughter.
Name calling. Yawn.
Since this is science blogs, I think it goes like this:
There are differences between the genders, but the differences are, for most things, small, and the curve is usually wide. That means that although you may find a difference in one attribute between men and women, when considering the mean, you will still find many of one gender who measure higher or lower than the mean of the opposite gender for whatever attribute you are considering.
For example, supposing that men are better at math overall, you'll still find many women who do math better than the average man, and many men who do math worse than the average woman. That is why we turn to cultural factors to try to explain why men and women are employed in society in ways so far out of proportion to their actual differences.
Robert Bruce Thompson: all of these theoretically empowered folks here don't seem to like yer ideas about wiminz, but when you write that men are better at " blaming others if they fail." you even get my hawhawhawhawhaw...
Don't you see?The whole reason wiminz ain't gettin da credit dey done earned is cuz dem men folks 'won't let them'
There is no older blame game than that....
But when you say that men are better at being pedophiles, I challenge you to prove that, once you take into account that women are better at: being sneakier( or just different) in their approach to it; and that the left, as full of empowered wiminz as it is, isn't also full of bonobo-like r/evolutionary behaviors that are perverse in ways yet to be described as what they are "child abuse/sexual predation/exploitation"
ahhh...where would the faux-left be without all of its single mothers raising up young boys to be cannon fodder for the matrilocality, while the academics argue about equality?
Certainly, but it's not the mean we're discussing here. We're talking about folks out at the right end of the bell curve. Anyone who understands anything about normal distributions will appreciate that relatively small differences in sigma mount up the further out to the right you go. That's why, for example, Ashkenazi Jews (mean IQ ~ 115) and ethnic Chinese (mean IQ ~ 106) are so overrepresented in physics and math faculties.
If you want to look at this dispassionately, look at mean IQ and SD for various groups: men versus women, Ashkenazi versus Chinese versus white versus black. Men, for example, have a mean IQ very slightly (~ 0.5 point) higher than women, which isn't significant. What is significant is that men have a much larger standard deviation. So, at both extremes of the curve, men are overrepresented. When you get four or five sigmas out to the right, men are grossly overrepresented. And the observed data corresponds exactly to the predictions you'd make looking at the numbers, across the spectrum.
Of course, all of this applies only to large groups, and says nothing about particular individuals. And individuals are all I care about. Whether a particular group happens to be more or less able than another is immaterial.
Robert: "men are overrepresented."
Do you think that might be because the test itself was designed for men? It was designed to decide of males could be sent off to do the bidding of the matrilocally centered hidden matriarchy that defines its primary power by how many men it can send into battle to be killed for 'the sake of G-d MOTHER, and country"...?
Most ironically, the IQ test was designed to keep the mentally retarded ones, the insane,and the criminally insane here with mom on the homefront...
Robert, you're a fucking loon. You keep proving it with every comment you make - the hole gets deeper and deeper.
IQ is not a remotely decent measure of actual intelligence, because there are too many factors it simply cannot account for. It is no longer used in the mainstream social sciences because of the inherent flaws. No one with a basic understanding of cognitive psych takes it seriously anymore.
All you have left is the fringe eugenics movement and MENSA types who like to take themselves way too seriously, who give a rats ass about IQ.
Whether a particular group happens to be more or less able than another is immaterial.
I'm amazed that your cognitive dissonance is so powerful that you don't get whiplash just from typing something so contradictory.
Five thousand years of written history preceded by ten million years of evolution pretty much nails down gender roles. Try as one might to rewrite social constructs, ultimately human biology will win the day in complete disregard to efforts in presentation of an alternate reality. Around, over, under or through, nature will run its course.
There's some truth to each argument, and far too much quarreling to each.
Bill, that's fascinating. Would you care to explain the effect that writing has on our genetics and at what point we stopped evolving?
Bill is absolutely correct. Millions (not specifically 10 ... that depends) of years of evolution leave us today with a situation in which cultural factors can influence a great deal, but cannot really undo much of the genetically determined (hormonally mediated, mainly) differences between human male and female brains.
I don't happen to think that "innovation" is a good example of this, but there clearly are differences historically in the role of males vs. females in this area.
When I have time I may be able to discuss some examples of this.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but I am better at math than most men, and yet I don't have a penis. You can believe in biological determinism all you want, but that doesn't change the reality that my female brain has managed to be naturally good at math and science. I guess evo-psych and/or God messed up with my brain.
Here's a thought: if strict gender roles are so inherent and biologically determined, then why do we even a book telling people to conform to them? If gender roles aren't learned behavior, then why even try to teach them to children?
Sorry to rain on your parade, but I am better at math than most men, and yet I don't have a penis. You can believe in biological determinism all you want, but that doesn't change the reality that my female brain has managed to be naturally good at math and science. I guess evo-psych and/or God messed up with my brain.
Here's a thought: if strict gender roles are so inherent and biologically determined, then why do we even a book telling people to conform to them? If gender roles aren't learned behavior, then why even try to teach them to children?
Catgirl: Actually, in math ability, all the available evidence shows that the documented differences we see between men and women in math is a product of how the school system works and related factors. Math ability does not seem to be one of those areas where there is a hard wired difference. Unfortunately, even a lot of math teachers seem to not have embraced this reality.
The biggest difference that has to do with the cognitive abilities we associate most directly with academics is probably verbal ability. The testosterone damaged brains of many males place them at a significant disadvantage in this area. That seems to be a difference that can be overcome but only with a great deal of work. I suspect it is mostly hard wired due to hormonal conditioning which in turn arises from genetically determined sex differences.
Robert Thompson is as Einstein to most of the lefty lunatics and morons on this blog. Everything he's posted so far is more than backed up by logic and those terribly Unpleasant Facts that you idjits are apparently unable to face, as the very late George Orwell recommended. There are far more male scientists, poets, novelists, and yes, chefs, than comparable women. The last decent woman poet was Emily Dickinson. The decent woman novelist was George Eliot. And the last decent woman chef was Julia Child.
Put THAT in yer little grass hookahs and smoke it!
Five thousand years of written history preceded by ten million years of evolution pretty much nails down gender roles.
Five thousand years of written history, preceded by a few million years of evolution pretty much nail down the natural order of governance as well. Only we've managed to move significantly away from the totalitarian model that defines the natural order of governance that has existed since we made it to mammalian form. Not perfect by any stretch, but considerably different than the natural order.
Try as one might to rewrite social constructs, ultimately human biology will win the day in complete disregard to efforts in presentation of an alternate reality.
Virtually all of what makes humans human, is the product not of evolutionary instincts, but of our success as a species in fighting those instincts instead of bowing to their pressures. Human society and culture, our social constructs, are just that - social constructs that exist in spite of biological, evolutionary pressures, not because of them. And gender roles are very much social constructs that fly hard in the face of our recent protohuman ancestry.
Around, over, under or through, nature will run its course.
You do realize of course, that if we extended your logic, then gender roles would look more like men as lazy bastards who pretty much laze around most of the time, beat on each other in a dominance game and occasionally go into battle to keep the men of other tribes off their own tribe's land. Meanwhile women would hunt, gather, birth and raise offspring and generally manage every aspect of tribal life outside of the narrow existence of the males.
You realize of course, that biological gender roles were predicated on the notion that females are actually smarter than men...
Greg -
I don't happen to think that "innovation" is a good example of this, but there clearly are differences historically in the role of males vs. females in this area.
Which I don't think it really all that much of a question. There's really no question that there are biological differences between men and women on pretty much every level. The problem comes in when people attempt to extrapolate what those exact differences are in regards to defining social gender roles. There are simply way too many non-biological factors involved to make an accurate determination.
Old Farmer Davy -
There are far more male scientists, poets, novelists, and yes, chefs, than comparable women.
And this is important why? There are far more factors involved in why this is, than mere biology can begin to account for. Indeed, there are a lot of definable, quantifiable social factors involved in this while it is pretty much impossible to define the biological contribution to this, if any exists - much less to quantify it.
The rest of your post is meaningless rantings that show both a great deal of ignorance about the women who fill those roles today and your subjective opinion of those fields. There are actually an abundance of excellent female poets, novelists, chefs, songwriters, visual artists, scientists, architects, engineers, business leaders, political leaders and virtually everything else. Hell, some of my best competitors and occasional helpers were women, when I was still running a handywork and remodeling business.
Yes, there are most certainly differences between men and women - something I am intensely grateful for, as are the majority of people. Our interpersonal relationships would be pretty bland and unpleasant were it not the case. But to claim that men are somehow superior to women, as far as brain function goes, is patently absurd. And to assume that social gender constructs are anything but social gender constructs betrays remarkable, possibly pathological ignorance.
Well, we might be able to verify that if he could supply, at the least, the axioms I asked for above.
"There are actually an abundance of excellent female poets, novelists, chefs, songwriters, visual artists, scientists, architects, engineers, business leaders, political leaders..."
OK, I'll stipulate to Martha Stewart as an excellent business leader and chef, and Maggie Thatcher as a political leader, but that's about it. I will also opine that we haven't had any excellent male poets, either, since Pound, Eliot, Yeats and Frost. Oh wait: Joseph Brodsky, Octavio Paz and Seamus Heaney.
And I love the way some folks can rant and rave and swear at and insult other folks, but when the tables are turned it becomes "meaningless rantings" and "pathological ignorance."
Or fascism or something.
As a general rule, I find mocking fucking ignorant morons, far more satisfying than giving them the credibility that pretending they have a valid point would give them.
Especially misogynistic fucking morons. And morons who buy into the more disgusting realms of big E Eugenics. Or biological racism, though that hasn't reared it's ugly head on this thread...
Oh, way to jinx it DuWayne.
Not like racism is a far cry from sexism to begin with. While genetics plays some fundamental role, we are way too close to one another genetically to be able to rightly cast aspersions about any one race or gender or hair color or eye color or sexual orientation. Even if it was somehow found that all lefties were slightly better drawers or all freckled kids better at sports, there are so many other factors at play that to blame it on any one group of unrelated genes is ludicrous. For every example of an extreme that you can find, I can find a counter-example.
What saddens me is that people like Robert Bruce Thompson, with all their eloquence and intelligence, can honestly believe that there's a measurable difference between different races or between the genders *as a group*, without testing every single member of the group, and without accounting for the social constructs that might imply a lack of training (or discouragement of pursuit) in a particular field. There are too many variables involved to be able to say with any kind of authority that, for instance, Ashkenazi Jews as a whole have a mean IQ of 115, and that it thus logically follows that they're overrepresented in physics. Especially not without some kind of citation of a peer-reviewed study.
I'm female, born in 1950, and I can assure you that that was partially true.
That is, we could get such, but at higher rates.
You simply illustrate that you have no understanding of normal distributions or of psychometrics as applied to the mean intelligence of groups. One needn't test every member of a large group to arrive at valid conclusions about tested characteristics of that group.
It's no more racist to observe that Ashkenazi Jews are grossly overrepresented in the set comprising world-class physicists than it is to observe that Kenyans are grossly overrepresented in the set comprising world-class Marathon runners, or that males are grossly underrepresented among the set that comprises world-class coloratura sopranos. It's simply fact.
But, as I said earlier, groups don't ultimately matter except in the sense that one cannot reasonably expect equal outcomes from different groups in different endeavors. In a group of 1,000,000 Ashkenazi Jews, you might find 1,000 superb scientists and 1 superb Marathon runner. In a group of 1,000,000 Kenyans, you might find 1,000 superb Marathon runners and 1 superb scientist.
The fundamental issue here is that you lefties (Greg uses that word to describe himself; I apologize if I should have used a different term) are very concerned with what you perceive as the rights of groups, and much less concerned with the rights of individuals. As a libertarian, I don't believe that groups have rights. Only individuals have rights. The problem with your insistence on soi dissant group rights is that it inevitably results in a diminution of individual rights.
Some of the people here really need to step back and take a look at themselves. Greg spends a lot of time and effort ridiculing religion, a stance with which I wholeheartedly agree. But, for some of you at least, your politically-correct worldview is nothing more than a religion. If anyone challenges any of your cherished notions, you respond with ad hominem attacks.
That's why I seldom post here or on Pharygula. There are some exceptions, certainly, but most of the people who post here are fanbois who have probably never had an original thought in their lives.
@Robert:
While you critique another's understanding of statistics, you might also want to check your own. Particularly, the connection between correlation and causation.
Oh, I'm perfectly aware that correlation does not imply causation, but many of the posts in this thread show a complete lack of familiarity with statistics and normal distributions, not to say with basic math.
My favorite was "Sorry to rain on your parade, but I am better at math than most men, and yet I don't have a penis." Which, of course, establishes merely that she was at least a C+/B- math student through, say, 8th grade algebra. Not much rain there.
The fundamental issue here is that you lefties (Greg uses that word to describe himself; I apologize if I should have used a different term) are very concerned with what you perceive as the rights of groups, and much less concerned with the rights of individuals.
I am not at all a lefty. I am a very staunch moderate, who believes absolutely in individual rights. And when your problematic group rights, conflict with individual rights, I am dead on the side of individual rights. Where we would probably run into conflict politically, is economic policy, but not nearly as much as you might think - I am a very firm believer in cutting the budget and cutting taxes considerably on the federal level. I would also expect to see an increase in state taxes, but not enough to make up the difference from federal cuts.
I am all about localized concentration of governmental authority, which puts people in firmer control over what that authority is. The further you get from the individual, the less interaction/interference one should see from government.
I am, as I said, very firmly on the side of civil liberties. I believe that we should have the right to make our own choices, whether it be to use drugs, gamble, fuck for money or pay for the fucking, have a physician provide assistance with suicide, engage in behaviors that do not harm others around us. I do not believe that corporations and other business entities have the rights of individuals, nor should they. Nor do I believe that any group should have special rights that are not afforded everyone else.
So actually, Robert, I am firmly in the same camp as you, when it comes to rights - though it's possible that we would interpret what that means a little differently.
Some of the people here really need to step back and take a look at themselves.
I spend an inordinate amount of time in self-reflection, focused on personal growth. I am one of the most introspective people I know, mainly because my bipolar disorder makes me a bit obsessive about second guessing my perception of reality and my place in it.
But, for some of you at least, your politically-correct worldview is nothing more than a religion. If anyone challenges any of your cherished notions, you respond with ad hominem attacks.
Robert, it has nothing to do with political correctness or dogmatic beliefs. My perception of reality and the positions I take, are based on exhaustive reading and discussion of the issues. How the human mind works and why, is what I study and something that I have studied for years. Social gender constructs are something that I have spent an inordinate amount of time on, because there are very serious problems that are entirely based on such constructs.
And the reason you are subjected to ridicule and ad hominem attacks, is because you come in here all blustery, thinking you have all the answers and we're all a bunch of morons, when the reality is that you are operating from an outdated, unsubstantiated and disproved perception of reality.
There are some exceptions, certainly, but most of the people who post here are fanbois who have probably never had an original thought in their lives.
The irony of that statement is staggering. You who seem particularly incapable of original thought, accusing us of the same. I can't speak for most anyone else here, but I can assure you that I come about my convictions because I have spent years studying and arguing and learning. I did not start here, nor am I going to end here.
You seem to think that we simply haven't engaged people who make the same sorts of assertions you do. I can assure you that I have, countless times. There was a time when I bought into your sort of bullshit - it does seem rather logical. Then I became a teenager and high school debater, learned about logical fallacies and realized that what you believe is a massive fucking logical fallacy.
I grew out of it. Didn't make me perfectly rational, but it got me moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, I had several formative years of religious nonsense to work through, which definitely took it's time - but we all have our crosses.
At the end of the day, I'm open minded and keen on learning the truth of things, while you're still an ignorant, narrowminded asshole. You're still the one engaging in magical thinking to justify your outmoded view of gender and intellect. You're still the one stuck in an irrational logical fallacy.
You're still the one worthy of nothing but derision. Not because you're wrong, but because you're both wrong and arrogantly derisive of those who are not.
@Robert:
Given that you are aware of that, what is your evidence for biological causation of a practical difference between men & women in the traits of inventiveness and mechanical aptitude? You've made vague remarks that such evidence exists, but not enough to easily find such.
Also, you've cited IQ tests and results multiple times. As I cited above, IQ is not well correlated with success. Further, IQ is susceptible to a practice effect much larger than your claimed difference (~0.5 points). As IQ tests are intended to measure certain general traits and abilities, such a practice effect should be obtainable without needing to practice specifically for an IQ test. For example, practice at mechanical engineering should be able to increase scores on several of the visually mediated elements of IQ tests.
Stephanie Z: Would you care to explain the effect that writing has on our genetics and at what point we stopped evolving?
No.
Not saying there is no interest to delve into the possibility of potential modification of genetics based on human ability to record events for posterity. There may be a connection - it may be tenuous, but such was not my inference nor am I inclined to pursue such aspects given the topic at hand.
Additionally, I do not agree that human evolution has stopped and any discussion regarding possible extinction and emergence of evolutionary precursors in their potential multiplicity (or whatever) is likewise met with disinterest.
Are either of these questions germane to the general discussion? And if so, how?
(I get the feeling I may be sorry I asked that.)
Haven't changed significantly? You're kidding, right? I'll agree that the numbers haven't become completely equal, but I don't see any indication that the trend toward women entering technical professions is slowing down. Let's consider a few things:
* 100 years ago, the number of women in most "manly" professions was basically zero.
* Those careers didn't suddenly all open up to women immediately. They've been largely closed off until (as you pointed out) roughly the last couple of generations.
* The average person works for (let's say) 40 years. How long, then, does it take to replace the entire workforce, even if you assume that a perfect 50/50 mix is suddenly being used to replace workers?
* Would you expect a perfect one-generation transition to a perfect 50/50 balance, or would it be a curve as cultures and objectives shift? I would expect the latter, and my experience as an engineer married to another engineer supports it.
In short, why on earth would it be at all surprising to see the numbers we're seeing?
DuWayne: you are not a real man, and if you are, you are not smart at all, and should find a job driving a truck or something that fits your biological design: if you are attempting to sound smart, give it up, or kill yourself immediately. You have a short dick, and you will never amount to anything because you are rude, offensive, violent, and oppressive by nature. I hate you, and all men like you.
Sounds to me like Miss Ginny is more like Miss Andry.
That's ok Miss Ginny, because men like me don't really care that you hate us. We don't mind that you feel that way, because we understand that this is what you're capable of. We don't take it personally and rather than getting angry, we just feel sorry for you.
I hope you have a very nice evening and really look forward to more of your level of discourse.
Although...You have a short dick...have you been spying on me while I'm nekked?
DuWayne: This was just a test to see how many people were willing to issue the edict that you have been a "victim of misandry" ( which, BTW is not even a word according to MS spell checker)Dan J came really really close!
You see, somewhere up there in your earlier discourse, you were so quick to lay the M word down over a cartoon, but even in your own defense, you did not call misandry what it is.
Misogyny exists, both in cyberspace, and spellchecker because so many middle class, entitled white women made it into a topic of discourse and abused the meaning of the word to the point where it is really just a word, with little basis in reality, whereas men, who do the majority of the dying for others 'rights' to use words, are seldom equally honored or credited with a right to not be victimized by misandrist words and behaviors.
I suspect it is this level of ignorance that men have that allows the matrilocal/matriarchy to continue to program us to be violent, and unaware of our own needs for safety--both in the discourse, and also in society at large, but especially unaware of our rights to not be abused by the repetition of relatively baseless claims of misogyny.
But, no, I have no idea how big your dick is--really! But you seem to concede the point...
Of course, real, it's just possible that you're getting caught up in your assumptions. That was a pretty obvious play for reactions, and some of us don't like being baited.
Speaking of assumptions, you might want to read more of what DuWayne's written on his blog before you decide he's only concerned with how enforcing stereotyped gender roles affect women. You're a ways off on that one.
By the way, you're not keen on people acting as though Greg has no interest in gender parity just because he doesn't state it explicitly every time he opens his mouth. Ever considered giving others the same consideration?
Miss Ginny -
You can rest assured that I most certainly do not use the term misogynist lightly. If you would like more than your assumptions to go on you can click on my name which will take you to my blog posts tagged gender.
I didn't accuse you of misandry, mostly because you sounded like a twelve year old who has little experience dealing with people he doesn't like. The wording of your comment, implied that you probably wouldn't know what that word meant.
More importantly, you didn't specify all men, just me and men who share some similarities with me - this isn't misandry - you weren't making gender generalizations, you were attacking me and men like me. I am just as disinclined to use misandry out of hand, as I am misogynist. I believe that using such words when they are not absolutely called for, lessens the meaning and the impact that they have.
If you wander over and click on my second post down in gender, you will see exactly how I feel about such things.
I would argue however, that my use of misogynist was most certainly called for in this thread. The Belief that there are differences between men and women that somehow make women less intelligent, less creative, less inovative etc. is an inherently misogynistic Belief that is an article of Faith, rather than reason.
When people make entirely gender based generalizations that show the entirety of the gender being disparaged in a negative light - that is misogyny or misandry. And when they make the idiotic and repeatedly debunked claims that Robert was making, it is also appropriate to call them for the motherfucking loon they are. Of course, when people rant at me the way you did, I often consider them a loon - but the whole assuming you were twelve held me back. Now that you have shown yourself to actually be something of a loon, I won't.
Robert is a loon steeped in misogynistic nonsense. You're just a fucking loon.
Steph Z.: Of course I have read DuWaynes views on these matters--HOW COULD ONE not READ THE VIEWS OF A GUY WHO UNABASHEDLY ADMITS THAT HE "SKIRTS" THE ISSUE OF GENDER ROLES?
I haven't decided that "he's only concerned with how enforcing stereotyped gender roles affect women-" that would be an assumption on your part--but I did undress the issue of unaddressed misandry, and noted that even DuWayne, and everyone else for that matter is hesitant to call it that, much less make it topical.
For instance, not one single reader has protested the stereotype of boys as football players, or pilots. Football, of course, fits the female-benefiting stereotype of males as "rough and tumble," enforcing negative and violence perpetuating images of males, while masking issues of womens aggression.
And where did you get the idea that I am " not keen on people acting as though Greg has no interest in gender parity just because he doesn't state it explicitly every time he opens his mouth..."
I never even mentioned Greg--I was talking about the general trend of ignoring misandry, and focusing on missoddGinny...hey: are you trying to pit me against someone here? Are you subtly creating a paradigm of opposing power, with me on one side and someone else on another? Hmmm...Steph, that hints at matriarchal tendencies toward socially constructed and engineered misandry...
"some of us don't like being baited" REALLY? WHO? Who is the "Us" that you speak for? And then, of course, I would be the "them" in the paradigm? And really, Steph, it is like calling a "hacker" a "spammer" instead, and so on...
"Gender parity" is too often a pseudonym for discussions that encourage misandry, and continue to overlook the violence perpetrated on males because MS spellchecker does not even have the word in its list...
"Us" would be the people you were collectively testing, of course. I have yet to see evidence that you are a "them." I suspect you would find that less fun.
As for any substantial discussion of the book, you may have noticed that Robert showed up to volunteer as punching bag and keep anyone from talking about anything else. This would be why trolls are annoying. Disruption without the purpose.
And who said I was subtle?
Ok, I take back the loon - you're just a fucking moron if you can read my views on gender and somehow get the impression that I'm afraid to call misandry when I see it. I am not the least bit hesitant to call bullshit as I see it - what you did was insult me and men like me - you did not even imply that your commentary was aimed at all or even most men.
I call fucking misogyny when I see it and I call bullshit when it's used out of hand. I also call misandry when I see it and on the odd occasion it might be used out of hand, I call bullshit on that. Had I noticed DanJ's comment, I would have called bullshit on that one - but he must have commented after I saw your initial comment but before mine went up.
DuWayne: it was a rhetorical insult--and I duly apologize if you took it personally, as I was careful to insert some othering, dis-embodied rhetoric about 'men like you' and biological destiny, etc--and besides, sciblogs is largely a bait and switch when it comes to personal insults that are taken suddenly as 'collective' insults--notice how it doesn't work the other way? Well, sure, Steph is working at building consensus right now, but only in the direction of the well trod upon meme of massageristicism.
Dan J was actually close to right--not bullshit at all, and it appears to me that he was calling my 'bullshit', "bulshit".
DuWayne, the very idea of "what you did was insult me and men like me" as you put it, ::is in fact, MEN EVERYWHERE:: on some level, but my point is that even you did not address it from a standpoint of misandry directed at you, and all men, which it clearly was.
These attacks against men lead to attitudes that violence is ok if it is directed at men, and especially ok if it is "directed" in the literal sense, by women crying wolf over misogyny: directing other males( who should know better) to acts of hate, and attitudes of social disrespect for men at large.
These attacks --quite frequent at sciblogs as well--routinely go unchecked, and remain as testament that it is not important to this microcosm of society to repair the damages of it, and it is routinely affirmed here that acts of disrespect for men, violence directed at men, etc is tolerable.
And Steph, yeah, this is exactly what I am talking about: "Robert showed up as punching bag..."
Punching bag...since when is it ok to talk about men, or anyone in such a way, even if they are wrong or misguided?
Oh, yeah: men can take it, right? We're all football players and stuff, right? And heroes, especially if we accept the terms of the matriarchal agreement: women might "like you" if you accept their violence, or accept that they are willing to direct violence against you until you do violence for them. Do I have that right?
the real fucking whiner -
DuWayne: it was a rhetorical insult--and I duly apologize if you took it personally...
I took it to be meant personally - I did not take it personally in the least.
DuWayne, the very idea of "what you did was insult me and men like me" as you put it, ::is in fact, MEN EVERYWHERE:: on some level, but my point is that even you did not address it from a standpoint of misandry directed at you, and all men, which it clearly was.
Not that clear to me. It sounded more like a fucking child trying to insult me and men like me. Not all men, not most men - just men who share particular traits with me. And you even gave us a list, which - while it doesn't actually describe me all that well, most certainly doesn't include all men.
I didn't address it from the standpoint of misandry, because it didn't appear to be misandry to me.
These attacks against men lead to attitudes that violence is ok if it is directed at men, and especially ok if it is "directed" in the literal sense, by women crying wolf over misogyny: directing other males( who should know better) to acts of hate, and attitudes of social disrespect for men at large.
And there are so called feminist blogs that have actually banned me for bringing up that very point. Not to mention those who have accused me of misogyny for making that very point - irony that I would find terribly amusing, if it weren't so depressing.
These attacks --quite frequent at sciblogs as well--routinely go unchecked, and remain as testament that it is not important to this microcosm of society to repair the damages of it, and it is routinely affirmed here that acts of disrespect for men, violence directed at men, etc is tolerable.
And when I notice them, I sure as fuck call motherfucking bullshit on them.
I am currently still going through the very worse experience of my life, which is exactly the sort of abuse you're talking about. I have serious fucking issues with fucking bullshit abuse of men, much of which stems from the overuse of terms like misogyny and the assumption that women deserve special rights. I am all about fighting the bullshit you're talking about, fuck you very much!
Punching bag...since when is it ok to talk about men, or anyone in such a way, even if they are wrong or misguided?
Not that I can truly speak for Stephanie, but I think I know her well enough...It has nothing to do with Robert's gender and everything to do with Robert's bullshit and his desire to spew it here. He chose to come around all bluster and outdated bullshit, thinking he would just hand it to us ignorant "lefties." And he kept it up, when he repeatedly got his ass handed to him. He was very much a rhetorical punching bag. I daresay that Stephanie wouldn't hesitate to say the same fucking thing if said punching bag happened to have a vagina, instead of a penis - I certainly wouldn't.
Oh, yeah: men can take it, right? We're all football players and stuff, right? And heroes, especially if we accept the terms of the matriarchal agreement: women might "like you" if you accept their violence, or accept that they are willing to direct violence against you until you do violence for them. Do I have that right?
My, oh my - what a whiny fucker you are. And so very motherfucking wrong.
Personally, I'm rather mean to people who piss me off or happen to hold repugnant views. And I don't apologize for it, nor do I hold back because said person happens to have a uterus. I am a very equal opportunity, crotchety and sometimes downright mean motherfucker.
real, DuWayne's pretty close to what I was saying. Robert showed up to be objectionable in order to validate his libertarian persecution complex. Nothing to do with his gender and everything to do with his team being out of power (or at least less in power). "Punching bag" was his intent. If you look at what I actually said in this thread, I declined. I also suggested his attempting to speak for all guys was off-base, although that may have actually been too subtle.
I'm not so much interested in building consensus as I am in seeing that people who have good things to do and good points to make don't expend their time and their energy in nonproductive ways. I don't value consensus very highly, although I do recognize its utility. I prefer to be challenged and kept honest and given things to think about that wouldn't have occurred to me on my own. Do you know how annoying it is to have to point out your own bullshit? Blegh.
Well, I'm glad to see everyone is still getting along! I was off doing things like chopping firewood and stuff. Sort of. And now it is time for a home made chocolate martini and a few minutes preparing my special post for Fishing Opener. Which is in three hours.
I thought the “Miss Ginny” name was sort of obvious.
I don't really see anything in the book that I would label as "misogynist" or "misandrist". I do think that the roles displayed in the book reinforce stereotypes that misogynists think are appropriate. I really don't know what stereotypical roles a misandrist would find appropriate, and that may be because I've not been made aware of much misandry.
I have met only one woman in person who I would label a misandrist. It seemed very obvious to me that she did indeed loathe men of any shape or variety. I have as much scorn and derision for her as I do any man who thinks that women should be subservient to men, are less valuable and productive than men, are less intelligent than men, etc.
I don't believe that any two people are ever truly equal. I think the best that we can hope for is to make sure that any two people, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, physical limitations, etc., are given the same opportunities make the best of their lives and (I hope) to make contributions that benefit our society.
DuWeiner: Oh boy...let me get my unpacking baggage shears...
"the real fucking whiner" See? how easily we denigrate to insult rather than stick to the topic of base discrepancies between the rhetoric of misandry-v-massaginisticism...
1) I am a whiner now? Oh yeah, in your matriarchal paradigm, real men just take it, right? If they don't, or if they atempt rhetoric instead of violence to combat violence directed at men, they are "whiners." Gotcha.
2) "sounded more like a fucking child trying to insult me and men like me" yes, of course it did: it was an almost verbatim phrase drawn from years of reading what are commonly construed to be anti-female remarks. And I agree, it DOES read as childish insult, doesn't it? So how come your blog contains only one entry for misogyny, and none for misandry? Perhaps you have been trained to accept childish anti-female rhetoric, but tyop accept anti-male rhetoric, even if it IS childish?
3) "there are so called feminist blogs that have actually banned me for bringing up that very point."
I bet I have you beat ( as in race, not in batter)in that category;-) Which is exactly why I singled you out and "victimized" you with childish--but misandrist-- insult. I thought you could "take it," but also, believe it or not, because I respect many of your views, and have admired your awkward courage in exprsssing yourself to those exact same fascio-fauxminists.
4) "He was very much a rhetorical punching bag." Du, one of the problems men have is that--as you apparently are "going through" right now--when they are the most in pain, or the most victimized, maligned, misinterpreted, or violated in a host of other ways that is "OK" to do to men, we seldom can actually see--much less feel--our own pain. Social training, and social engineering has caused this for us, and the repetition of misandrist rhetoric is the balm applied balm for male pain.
In other words, in your sentence "He" is the operative word.Punching bag is the socially acceptable view of men at large--it is OK to talk of men as items to be punched; your acceptance of that language causes me a question over your much discussed and disclosed awareness of your own pain-- and Stephanie is well aware of her application of that term to this discussion.
Steph: not fair: using DuWaynes words instead of your own, when you are gifted as you are with language.And I challenge you to examine your own use of the phrase "punching bag" to describe a man, albeit a trolly, outdaterd, hard-headed view of a man; but male nonetheless, and also to examine the use of that word to describe women who are idiots--like Isis, or Zuska, PC Meyers, or any feminfister.
Dan J: "I don't believe that any two people are ever truly equal. I think the best that we can hope for is to make sure that any two people, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, physical limitations, etc., are given the same opportunities make the best of their lives and (I hope) to make contributions that benefit our society."
Really? Where were you when I was fighting for mens rights to visitation with their children; or equal justice in the courts;fighting for daycare for mens children; fighting anti-male stereotypes that are perpetuated generation after generation through laws that define deviance and criminality as "male"? I could have used you then...equal opportunity my ass: until we stop saying that it is "OK" to abuse boys and initiate them into violence at the bidding of matriarchy, men have no chance at equality, because the trained violence gets in the way, as women who train ( or allow to be trained) their boys to be football players and soccer forwards whine about opportunities lost in science rather than opportunities lost slinging garbage into the back of a truck( another "male dominated" profession)...
real, of course I examined that. I also looked at the fact that I tend to use it for libertarians who walk into discussions and stir things up to prove to themselves that progressives are angry and mean. I double-checked it there, since the libertarians one meets online tend to be male where any gender is determinable.
I decided that, while their might be a correlation with gender in libertarians, there isn't a gender correlation in fundies who do the same thing among atheists. I call them punching bags too. My conclusion was that I can more effectively spend my time and energy on something other than worrying about my use of the phrase.
See? how easily we denigrate to insult rather than stick to the topic of base discrepancies between the rhetoric of misandry-v-massaginisticism...
You try to "address" this topic by coming in with childish fucking bullshit and expect people to take you fucking serious? Give me a fucking break. I insult you because you are a whiny, lying shit.
It has nothing to do with the validity of what you have to say and everything to do with the way you decided to present it and the assumptions you make about people you don't fucking know.
1) I am a whiner now? Oh yeah, in your matriarchal paradigm, real men just take it, right?
No you fucking moron. In my gender neutral paradigm, fucking lying assholes should take what comes of their being a lying asshole. It has nothing - absofuckinglutely nothing to do with fucking gender. What part of "I treat fucking assholes this way, regardless of anatomy," don't you understand?
yes, of course it did: it was an almost verbatim phrase drawn from years of reading what are commonly construed to be anti-female remarks. And I agree, it DOES read as childish insult, doesn't it?
No, it was something that sounded very much like a personal insult, the only connection to gender being the fact that I'm a man. It didn't sound the least bit like misandry, nor would I consider similar insults thrown at a particular women misogyny. It was not a major generalization - the only generalization was a vague reference to men like me.
So how come your blog contains only one entry for misogyny, and none for misandry? Perhaps you have been trained to accept childish anti-female rhetoric, but tyop accept anti-male rhetoric, even if it IS childish?
I don't write a whole lot about misogyny or misandry, because those are only peripherally related to my interest in gender. And you'll note that the post I wrote about fucking misogyny, was specifically nailing people for accusing others of misogyny, when what was being criticized was not in fact misogyny.
I am far more interested in addressing gender role conflict, specifically the need for more comprehensive men's studies programs. My perspective lends me to think that much of the underlying problems that many women face in professional life today, are largely problems that must be addressed in the context of men's studies. I also think that issues such as my own custody battle, are merely different facets of the same problems that women are facing in relation to outdated social gender constructs and gender role issues.
The fact is, that the vast majority of issues that are often called misogyny and misandry, are actually gender roles conflict problems. And while gender role conflicts often lend themselves to misogyny and misandry, I have far more interest in delving into the underlying problems than in addressing specific incidents of misogyny and misandry. To me the problems with social gender constructs are far more important - working through them, will, over time, root out the specific incidents.
Du, one of the problems men have is that--as you apparently are "going through" right now--when they are the most in pain, or the most victimized, maligned, misinterpreted, or violated in a host of other ways that is "OK" to do to men, we seldom can actually see--much less feel--our own pain. Social training, and social engineering has caused this for us, and the repetition of misandrist rhetoric is the balm applied balm for male pain.
I think the problem you seem to be having, is the assumption that my insults have anydamnedthing to do with gender. There is nothing of the sort going on here and you are patently ignoring both Stephanie and I, when we explain that it has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with how various people deal with trolls. And whether it was your intent to be a troll or not, I have taken it that way. I have an inherent distaste for dishonesty and for people playing fucking games to make a point. I am very straightforward and have little respect for those who aren't.
When people troll like Robert was or you were, I am not going to play nice about it. And I am that way with anyone, man or women.
More importantly, Robert was not coming here and opening up about how he has been victimized by misandry. He was coming here to claim that women are inherently inferior to men in certain ways. He was touting inherently misogynistic viewpoints that have been debunked over the years and pretending that science backs him up.
In other words, in your sentence "He" is the operative word.
Why? Robert is presumably a man, therefore I would refer to him as a he. Isabel, a fucking moron that I have tangled with in other forum is someone I would definitely consider much the same as Robert. She regularly presents herself as a rhetorical punching bag as well. And if Robert happened to have a uterus, I would have referred to her as a punching bag.
Steph: not fair: using DuWaynes words instead of your own, when you are gifted as you are with language.
Bullshit. Why reinvent the fucking wheel? Especially as she was just clarifying the minor difference between her feelings and how I had responded for her. That fact that she is gifted with language, doesn't mean she needs to waste her time saying the same fucking thing that I did, in her own words.
You really need to do as you ask Stephanie to do - examine yourself and consider that rather than furthering men's rights, you are just making a lot of us who are very strong proponents of men's rights look like fucking morons. You probably don't see it, but you are doing the exact same thing that I was slamming Zuska for in my post about the use of the term misogyny. You are engaging in the same behavior as the women and feminists you don't like, making the same assumptions about the motivations of others.
It is just as ugly and counterproductive when you do it, as it is when asshole feminists and pseudofeminists do it.
"expect people to take you fucking serious?"
Nope, just the issue at hand, which is unadressed misandry.
And Dewey: You got issues, I can validate that for you.
Now, let me follow the angry, tangential pattern of your commentary so that I can first get all of the mean stuff out of the way, ok?
A wise man once said that if you hate something long enough, you become it. You Du would indeed know trollishness if you saw it.Now here are a few things to keep in mund when insulting me--far off topic of course.
One: you are still an idiot. I was patently wrong about you having anything remotely substantive to say.
two: I remember why guys like you who wear skirts are dangerous: you like getting your ass kicked, so that you can lay your screaming your little drag queen head on the canvass and mentally jerk off off, roll around in your own shit for awhile in a psych unit, and then after numerous bogus attention getting pseudocide attempts, you claim you have seen the light somehow, and that light is that your own personal gender war( the one the fauxminists won by getting you to wear a skirt in the first place) is the one that really counts.
But worst of all, in my days of being charged with babysitting you nutcases all night after you drink and drug yourselves silly, I was charged with extricating you from various bars, and had to wear gloves so that your shitty little ass stank and drool or blood doesn't get on my knuckles after I was done with you.
In a way, I hated my job then, but when I meet one of you again, I am refreshed remembering that the DuWaynes make it all worth while--if only because you bring the shit on yourself with your desire to revekl in shit--but one can never be paid enough to give you what it is that you crave the most: a solid ass-whuppin'. And, yes, you can personalize that, as in "said to DuWhiner". Now go take your Prozac little issue skirter...
Now, back to nice talk, ala Duwaynes prose regarding unproductive discourse from whining fauxminists about missilenvyny: "It is just as ugly and counterproductive when you do it, as it is when asshole feminists and pseudofeminists do it."
That's exactly the point, Du.You are right--absolutely, 100% right about that--but your initial failure to address my misandrist and baseless charges still stands as spoken: one more guy who has been battered by the rhetoric--and the actions--of women and other misandrist forces, wounded, and belittled by his own inability to address the issue when it comes up--every time it comes up.
Now run along in your little shit-stained, asshole obsessed skirt-wearing gender crusading costume, and deal with your own trollishness, as in "everything to do with how various people deal with trolls." Oh, and Stephanie, curiously silent, except in the traumatized and desperately-clinging to-a-female-hero-figure-for-support, as in Du's grasping charge of "trollishness" affirmed by the angelic memory of Steph, fluttering like a butterfly under his kilt...
Miss Ginny said:
That was probably the time I was getting ass-raped by a court in the great state of Indiana over custody, child support, and visitation. See, I don't hate women, only my ex-wife. You definitely don't need to try to convince me of inequalities in our “justice” system. Been there, done that.
DuWayne and Real: Funny thing is that I'm sure if you two ever met in real life you'd get along famously.
I am certain of this.
Yes, I do have issues you fucking moron - you claim to have read my blog and I am not the least fucking reticent about talking about my issues. That doesn't change the fact that you're just a nasty, lying fucking troll.
And the topic at hand, is not misandry - you brought it up, or thought you brought it up with your lying fucking bullshit troll games. The topic is a shitty old book that exemplifies the social gender constructs that give rise to misogyny and misandry. The topic was then hijacked by a fucking troll who wanted to make outdated and debunked claims that are founded in pseudoscientific misogynistic fucking bullshit. You're just a johhny come lately troll, who wanted to throw more bullshit out there.
Oy, why am I not surprised your a fucking punk ass cop - or were. Just another lowlife piece of shit on a power trip - gotcha. For the record, your type never extricated me from bars or had to deal with me when I had drunk and drugged myself silly. I was decent enough to do that where fuckwads like you wouldn't fuck with me. But please, feel free to enjoy your masturbatory fantasies about beating on people like me. Assholes with a badge were nigh on the only one's who could do that with impunity - I'm a scrappy little fucker when dealing with people who don't have a fucking badge to hide behind. And for the record, the only times I got roughed up by shitwads like you, was when I was engaged in peaceful protest or/and civil disobedience.
but your initial failure to address my misandrist and baseless charges still stands as spoken:
No, no it doesn't. Apparently you're just too fucking stupid to understand that I don't consider childish personal insults, that sound like they came from a fucking twelve year old misandry. Misandry is manhating, not DuWayne hating - but I don't expect that a trollish piece of shit like you could understand that.
And I most certainly won't run along. Don't like to get pegged for the lying piece of shit troll you are? You're welcome to a game of hide and go fuck yourself.
I believe you Greg, because stranger things have happened. The question is would we get along before or after we beat teh living piss out of each other?
This is still going on? Wow. I was reading DuWayne's posts with my back to a plant, and the plant wilted from the force of his arguments alone -- I figured the trolls would have withered by now as well. Amazing.
All right then, I have a post up about misandry, to run counterpoint to my post about misogyny. Or is it a problem that I also discuss misogyny in this new post?
Du Wayne: I will respond to you in due time, but busy lately--but note Greg's comment above--I actually responded directly to you b/c I comprehend many of your issues--they have been mine as well.
But first, a moment for my DuWayne impersonation ( as my kilt falls back from over my head) "Ouch! Fucking OUCH, man! I think I broke my neck trying to suck my own diIIIck!"
There.THAT is trollish behavior, Du...
As to your charge that I was merely one of those cowards that hide behind a badge to do dirt, think twice--if you have a second gear in your thought tranny ( ahem. It seems you only have one gear: low-to-screeching.
"You're just a johhny come lately troll, who wanted to throw more bullshit out there."
No, Du, I wanted you and all of those voyeurs who have been peeking in on this dialogue to be aware that misandry is live and well out there, but guys like you--most damaged by it and its incestuous mother massagery--are very unaware of it, and ill-equipped to deal with it when it comes to you. Ill equipped, if not outright castrated or cuckolded into prioritizing 'their' rights over your own. Noble, buit useless, in light of what you are "going through" right now.
I will troll over to your blog now and read your post about misandry--but before I go, I must say that the fauxminists et al sure have you trained, because as you say, you just had to mention masseuserism.
Now, where was that "lie" that I spoke up there, Du? It seems you have misinterpreted my awareness raising project as a lie instead of a campaign kickoff...remember Al Sharpton and his Tawana Brawley scandal? Or the Super Bowl 'domestic violence up 40%' statistics? Those were lies DuWayne, because the ppl that conceived them were never accountable for the falsity of them, and worse, to this day, the PC crowd here upholds these lies as truths.
Dan J: congratulations, and keep up the good fight. Have the laws in Indiana changed to reflect the 21st century yet? Or are mothers--often drug using, gambling, pimping AND prostituting, child molesting mothers are still the parent of choice when it comes to custody battles everywhere...
Thiebault: Oh, yeah--he's that fauxminist pandering jerk from Canada--the guy at the party who has 0 sex appeal or even interesting banter, but lots of college whitewoman trained rhetoric about wiminzabuse that gets most of the second hand bonobo chicks to look his way, and maybe--if he's a "good boy" even a date once in awhile ::gosh::
Dude 1. Like, dude. You're soooo Jason...
Dude 2: Hey man, if you call me that again, my girlfriend is gonna kick your ass...!
The lie moron, was when you decided to show up and play your stupid fucking game - you know, the one where you make some childish personal attacks and assume that they are an example of misandry.
And for the record fuckwad, I am well aware that misandry is alive and well. If you had the faintest abilities at reading comprehension, you would know that. But no, you obviously didn't get much past the second grade, when it comes to understanding English - must have gone over your motherfucking head.
And another for the record, since your reading comprehension failed you with pretty much everything that I've written - I am not a drag queen. Nor do I wear kilts - I wear skirts.
Oh, and more reading comprehension problems, I don't believe in special motherfucking rights for anyfuckingbody. I don't believe in anyone having special status by mere virtue of having a fucking uterus moron and if you were capable of actually understanding English, you would know that. I have not justified or implied that I support misandry you stupid fucking asshat. The only thing that I have said about misandry on this thread, is that your lying fucking bullshit game was not an example of it. But of course you are too fucking stupid to understand that.
And you certainly made yourself sound like you needed to hide behind a badge to be a fucking prig.
Du...:sigh:..."you obviously didn't get much past the second grade, when it comes to understanding English"
I apologize again Duwayne--most days my mind is trapped between speaking in several languages and dialects....right now I am trying to figure out what is an "opuo"--something that is apparently a zucchini, but as Baisop Ali notes "Not a zukEEni!"I am guesing a calabash gourd ...my mind swims between Bengali dialect and Hindi language, then comes up on the shore of Chinese Mandarin nouns( nope, not shui gua, shagua), takes a breath, and bumps headlong into Spanish with a Mayan dialect which explains that the Guatemalan garbanzo is actually a snow pea (with a throat clicking almost west African intonation)...
Any "ideas" Du? Houzhe ni shenme duo buzhidao, yinwei ni shi yi wei pigu qiwei?..."
Well anyways, before I get to that word( I need to grow some 'authentic' vegetables in order to wage my personal satyagraha against my temptations to otherwise hand you your calabash)let me deal with your words:"special motherfucking rights for anyfuckingbody"
whew: a mouthful of asshat.Everyone has special rights--like you for instance, have the special right to ramble on and on, long after the point that you allow yourself to be victimized--over and over again--has been made.
Du: no more Comrade Physioprof for you, ok? You are picking up bad habits.
Now about the badge thingy--that is entirely in your mind--funny how you instantly equated violence and authority with police. I was a bouncer, doofus, and by all accounts, a relatively kind one who preferred to negotiate idiots like you out the door, rather than stomp you. But like I said, skirt wearing creeps like you actually enjoy getting the crap stomped out of you, so its a lose lose all the way around--my knuckles got your disgusting drool on them, your ego gets its desires met--a clever adaptation on your part to not only accept such stomping, but to ask for it, even beg for it--but gross and *icky* nonetheless.
Now here is s/th you can possibly relate to:
http://www.evergreenseeds.com/bogohyexlo.html
as a metaphor of what it is that you should stick in your own..awww never mind--learning new words is fun! In this case "opuo" in Bengladeshi is "opo" in Hindi and everywhere else, and means three foot long bottle gourd! Cool huh?
Ooh, he says I have zero sex appeal and thinks I must not have even the merest hint of chauvinism in me. Obvious troll is obvious.
So your a neanderthal thug that didn't have a badge - yeah you!!!
And I love how you also happen to be a scum sucking neanderthal thug, who is also a fucking bigoted piece of shit. Like I said, I'm not a drag queen, not a transgendered person. But good to know you're a piece of fucking garbage that thinks trans people and queens are subhuman. On behalf of my transgendered friends, go fuck yourself with a long sharp knife.
And shitheads like you didn't boot me out of bars. The vast majority of times I have been in bars, it's because my fucking band was playing. Cheesedicks like you aren't supposed to boot the entertainment.
And by the way asshole, I am not into getting my ass kicked, unless I get the opportunity to inflict damage on braindead, thuggish little bigots. I am not so keen on the violence these days, but when I was more often inclined to wear skirts, I was also rather keen on kicking the crap out of bigoted wads like you. What's a little pain, when the bigoted asshole like you is in even more of it and got the shit kicked out of him by a guy in a motherfucking skirt?
Jason: "thinks I must not have even the merest hint of chauvinism in me"
What gives you that idea? I am quite certain that you have surrounded yourself with women who point it out to you every other second--how you can never know the "plight; the lot; the reality; the disadvantage; the discrepancies; the discrimination!!" leveled at/cast upon/ inscribed upon;doled out to...etc, ';all womenz! You sensitive fellah, you ;-)
DuWayne: now go pull that "opo" out of your arse and start making sense! "In the band" never gave idiots special favors--and besides, you could never ever have stepped INTO any of my clubs, if your outward face is anything like this inner one that you poke up the as of the internet...
I hate to tell you this dipshit, but when a band pulls in a crowd, management doesn't care if some of the members happen to be assholes. They care about money, not politeness. And little dicks like you never had problems with me. Contrary to your moronic assumptions, I was never one for getting totally wasted in public. When I got fucked up, it was where I didn't have to deal with bigoted fucking neanderthals like you.
For someone who supposedly knows so much about me, you're batting 0. I mean just a straight zero. Swing and a miss every time. Honestly not even worth debating. I don't know why DuWayne is trying. And I don't know why Greg is tolerating your laughable rantings.
Really, really, really love it!
I know it is sexist lack of eqality between boys and girls, but I am going to show it to my children when they grow up. Just for fun.
Thanks for the post!
Jason Thibeault says: "And I don't know why Greg is tolerating your laughable rantings."
Entertainment value. I'm on my third bowl of popcorn.
Duwhiner: "when a band pulls in a crowd"
Could you say that one more time? Operative word: WHEN...I have heard your music,that one little track hidden away on some obsolete public forum somewhere, and dude, you aren't even one half of an angry Hedwig inch...All the Pretty Horses: now there is a drag queen band that has the right stuff.At least they aren't as confused as you are about the importance of the historical "skirt."
Jason: "For someone who supposedly knows so much about me,"
What makes you think I am trying to understand one thing about you personally? From what I recall of you,you are another fauxminist cybersniper-- a typical fauxminist tool, ranting away with that outdated faux-fem rhetoric from the back panel of Americas top drawer--Canada.
Bill James: Congratulations toy you the one guy who gets it;-) But don't expect Jason to get it--tools have no sense of humor. Or, put more appropriately, tools like him have a "feminist sense of humor"...
No, meme, I get it. You enjoy making people dance by espousing unpopular views and watching the riots ensue. You're a troll. I know. It's kind of obvious, in fact. I'm just amazed that you actually think I'm some kind of feminist. Either that, or you think that's my "button". Either way, like I said, batting zero.
Preach it some more you fucking bigot. You'd be terribly funny in a mockworthy sort of way, if you weren't a sick fuck who's apparently so afraid of transgender people, you feel compelled to say very nasty and damaging things about people you think are trans. Given that, you're nothing but another hateful piece of shit bigot, perpetuating damaging stigmas about people who have never done a fucking thing to you and are no threat to you.
What a manly man you are, your mother must be proud.
RETURN OF THE TEN FOOT TALL( when they stand on each others heads)TROLLS:
In our last scene, we saw Jason and DuWayne teaming up on Napoleon Champagne, the hero of all men who have been abused or maligned in the faux lefternist discourse by the lies and the otherwise false doctrine of middle class white peoples feminism.
Napoleon, gasping for breath after enduring the screeching harangues of the skirted troll( who is much in denial about his skirt use being a vapid and shallow victory for the fauxminists who have abused him), desoperately clung to his vocabulary of mixed Hindi, Chinese, and Mayan, while struggling to throw an intellect bomb of rudimentary Bengali dialect at him.
Failing that, he fled into a plate of steaming hot vindaloo, whereuponn he was sated, and nourished into recovery of his breath, as the Canadian steamer roared towards him.
The Canadian steamer, a freighter with a short memory of its earlier defenses of middle class whitefolks feminism, out of coal but running downhill, toots its own horn in a plea for recognition of its 'self', to which Napoleon replied " At one time, little douchebag, even your cherished feminism was an "unpopular" view; not to mention Socratic ideals,socialism, Nihilism, and Modernity; however, I don't do it exclusively for enjoyment, but rather to get the minions of the simple, the jaded, and the outright deceptive to rethink their oft repeated rhetoric about women being oppressed. This, with a hope that we can begin to understand that women are far more culpable for their own oppression than we commonly believe."
At this point, as the steamer hits the curve at the entrance to the tunnel ( or perhaps the cave) Napoleon furtively dodges the klinkers roiling out of its stack, and is once again stunned to hear:"you feel compelled to say very nasty and damaging things about people you think are trans."
Tune in next week when it is still unlikely that DuWayne will "get it," much less read what is written above in regards to misandry being perpetrated and perpetuated by women, and internalized so deeply in his own inner dialogue that he might never see it; not will he see the correlation between males being systemically abused as perhaps the most undisclosed causative factor in everything the faux left whines about as "anti-woman" or massageristical...
*Ack!!* opo is a spanish word!!
Yes, it definitely happens to both genders. The stereotypes demonstrated in the book (Remember the book, everybody?) linked to in the post help to perpetuate ideas in our culture that are detrimental to both men and women. (Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!†) Neither group has a monopoly on the harm. I'm not one to judge whether women are harmed more often than men, and I don't think that's a valuable exercise in the first place. (Let's not quibble about who killed who.‡) In essence, I still think we should do what we can to de-institutionalize these stereotypes. Men don't deserve higher pay for a position simply because they have a Y chromosome. In the same vein, the mother of the children in a custody dispute is not automatically the most fit parent simply because she has two X chromosomes.† I couldn't resist.‡ ditto
I'm starting to suspect Champagne/meme/whatever, is actually perpetrating a form of misandry himself, by acting like a douchebag in order to paint men in general as douchebags.
I really don't see me debating you so much as inserting pithy comments here and there. I don't know why I merit such huge tracts of execrable ad hominems. Maybe if I have time some day I'll sit down and actually explain why you're totally out to lunch, but for now I'll leave it at this: misandrists and misogynists are both assholes, and I am not a feminist -- I'm a humanist. I don't want anyone to be judged by anything but their actions and their individual demonstrated abilities. Anyone. Not men, not women, nobody. So... why do you insist on this foolishness, for page after page after page? Please, enlighten me as to what you hope to gain out of this, because it doesn't seem to be for teh lulz.
Don't know why you're stunned bigot. You say nasty things about people you believe are trans - very nasty things about the issues that people struggling with their gender identity go through. That's fucking bigotry at it's absolute worse. And saying that to someone who has several trans friends, some of whom have soaked his shirts with tears shed during post-op clinical depression is likely to fucking piss him the fuck off.
You are the lowest sort of fucking scum.
Also still not grasping why you seem to think that I don't disaprove of or understand misandry. The fact that your lying, moronic attempt at illustrative misandry wasn't seen as such by me, doesn't mean I don't know what it is. And the fact that you happen to have a cock, just like me and claim to support men's rights, just like me, doesn't mean I am going to put up with the same fucking bullshit coming from you, that I won't put up with when it comes from people claiming to be fucking feminists.
Oh wait, I forgot you're a bigoted fucking moron who understands very little English.
To DuWayne:
Do you consider yourself - a woman trapped in a mans body?
Not at all, I just have a lot of transgender friends.
Out of curiosity an early return of a google search came back with transgenders at 3% of population. I would think that number high. No?
Yes, that number is way high. I am not sure of the actual numbers, but I recall that it is significantly less than 1%.
DuWayne Stew Recipe:
1)Gather an intense bouquet of self pity, self loathing,self victimizing behaviors, and add confusion about gender caused by domineering women who likely abused him as a child, but that he refuses to address directly.
2) toss in lots of ranting about how you are victimized, and be sure to lace everything you say with profanity and ad hominem attacks.
3) drop in one skirt of the issue
Combine all ingredients in a large bowl with a hole in the bottom of it so that all of the common sense sifts out, and stir. and stir. and stir. and stir.....until ANY ATTEMPT AT CONVERSATION ON TOPICS OTHER THAN dUwAYNES PERPETUAL RAGE have dissipated and there is nothing to talk about any more except dUwAYNES RAGE AT HAVING AN EMPTY BOWL WITH A PERPETUAL HOLE IN IT ( METAPHOR ALERT)
Then, put contents of empty bowl through a constantly self serving filter, make sure you toss out any attempts at making sense! and Voila!. End of conversation about anything except DuWaynes empty bowl--full of denial and more discussions about DuWayne--in a skirt, resenting the inference that he might be sort of tranny( which, for the record, I never said)
Jason T White Wash formula:
one healthy dose of blame the victim, and blame the victim twice if the victim is male. Add a pinch of "you caused your own victimization" ( really, Jason, would you say that to a female rape victim too?) then sidestep with a "perpetrating a form of misandry himself" when one tries to discuss the violence and the harm that comes to men because of stereotypes AND violence perpetuated by women and the men that 'love' them--which to Jason would be unthinkable if the discussion were about massagerism or misanthropogynecology, because Jason is routinely an ass kisser when it comes to pandering to and appeasing the fauxminists.
Dan J: Right again. However, even more deeply rooted in the stereotype beyond " the mother of the children in a custody dispute is not automatically the most fit parent" is the assumption that violence is 'male' behavior, when in fact all species of mammals exhibit female initiated violence, including ours.
This primacy of contact with children allows them to perpetuate the myths of motherhood, and the other myths of fatherhood--primarily the 'absent father' and the 'violent man' etc, through indoctrinating children into such beliefs at the expense of addressing female violence, etc.
The institutionalized mechanisms of socially permissible misandrist discourse and action are endless, but it is children who are taught this rhetoric which keeps the focus off of womens violence against children, and womens coercion
Beyond custody wars, women are quite capable of committing crimes as men do, but are ALWAYS sentenced more leniently; social definitions of crimes are defined by alleged 'male' attributes.But female crime has been under-documented,and worse, denied outright by the last generation of scholars-for the direct purpose of creating this idea of 'liberation' of women.
In theory, Obama wouldn't have been possible without a generation of single mom raised kids, and so too in practice, which is a god thing; but on the other hand, we have the Iraq war as a testament to the other half of that 'pro-woman' agenda, which is 'socially acceptable/tolerable violence'perpetrated against men of other nations.So our social policy of misandry really is misanthropy at its core, but only the part of misanthropy that means " dead men".
Please provide citations or examples for:
- a victim I blamed for anything (you have a free hand with what I blamed them for)
- how and when I indicated I might blame rape victims for their rape
- an instance where I downplayed the violence and harm done to men when someone perpetrates an anti-male stereotype
- an ass I kissed
In the meantime, while you're looking for such citations, I'd like to again point out that, despite the fact that misogyny exists more prevalently in today's society*, that I'm well aware that there are man-haters out there who perpetuate stereotypes about or slanders against males in general. Not only am I aware of that fact, but I take umbrage at them with equal ferocity. It only happens that I'm commenting on this particular episode of you tilting at windmills, because you're making a lot of assumptions about me and DuWayne with absolutely zero evidence of such. It pains me that someone might actually come away from this conversation thinking that you're right about something you've said about me, assuming the evidence is on your side because how could someone possibly say such things about another human being without some kind of proof?
* (you know, because men are in fact in positions of power higher than, and more frequently than, women, in the same way that white men are in positions of power higher than and more frequently than blacks with the notable exception of the ceiling being shattered -- but will it stay shattered? -- just this year with Obama)
I want you to note, please, that aside from calling you a troll, which you undoubtedly are, I have been more than civil in discussing these issues with you. I respect your right to your opinion. I don't, however, respect you laying one ad hominem after another across my name.
Speaking of names, could you at least pick one pseudonym? Or are you Legion?
Oh, and:
Gee, I didn't realize that the Iraq war was waged just because it has been made socially acceptable to spend your men killing other people's men. Here I thought it was because some assholes took office and saw a way to profit by waging endless war. Again I assert, the gender roles asserted in this book (in the original post -- remember it?) actually lead to men being soldiers. Gender roles like that men are aggressive, adventurous, and rugged, while women are cleanly, subservient, and sexually available. That's why women weren't allowed in the army for so long, and why they aren't rushing into the army now -- not because the institution is misandrist, because the powers that be consider women too soft to be of any use. And look at what happens when a woman does want to serve her country -- how many have committed suicide after being mistreated or sexually abused by her comrades-in-arms; or worse, possibly actually murdered? How many times has that scenario played itself out with men in contemporary armies?
I honestly don't know why I'm trying. You're going to make some weird drawn-out analogy then call me names then call me blind for not seeing that women are some kinds of masterminds and criminals. Then you'll fight with DuWayne some more about transgendered people, and la roue, ça tourne.
(See what I did there? I used a foreign language too. Maybe it's just French, but hey, it's bound to impress someone, since you're trying to score points by speaking in other languages repeatedly yourself.)
Whatever bigot. Apparently you're just going to continue to be a lying piece of shit - I'm done. You're a bigot, you're a liar and you get off on being as offensive as humanly possible. There is no point in continuing to engage you - something I would have been better off figuring out when you waded in here with your juvenile, dishonest troll games. You've gone from mildly irritating me, to actually and truly pissing me off with your bigoted bullshit.
You're a vile excuse for a human being and not worth it.
Jason: First, I will only note that my initial--and continuing--reaction to your claims is as I stated: you do indeed kiss the ass of those who cry wolf over miso...misagg...massage...er..misondronopoly, the hatred of women.
Every time you utter the word--and you utter it every time you can, Jason--you give it far more credence as a social force than it deserves--and in acknowledging it as it is stated by white middle class women, you deny the power actual misogyny has over real women elsewhere.
You see, Jason, it isn't merely that I re-state 'unpopular positions' but that you re-state positions that are flawed, both academically, and empirically. In this case, when you assert "men are in fact in positions of power higher than, and more frequently than, women" what you are realy saying is that you have adopted a white middle class paradigm of power, rather than thought the issue through. You accepted the dogma, and the rhetoric as true.
Undeniably, men fill slots (ahem) of power everywhere--but in so doing they have conceded power elsewhere, chiefly, in the home, raising the next generation of the "powerful". Jason, which is more powerful: a job as a CEO in a factory, or as CEO in a household raisning the minds of 'tomorrow'? That's a no-brainer for me, Jas, or anyone who has ever raised a kid that turned out even 'half-alright' but the paradigm of power that you assert is not only outdated, but just plain wrong.
Barbara Bush raised two boys who became president ( that's a joke, Jas, not a factual error); England has put forward more soldiers who conquered more nations in more wars than any recent dynasty, and that nation has been headed, loosely, for the last two hundred years by a woman, a queen bee with lots of drones; a matriarchy in its own right.
Prince Charles...hehehe; Prince Harry-going bald,both impotent before matriarchy, while the Queen, and her working model of power ( and Victorias before her) rules the 'civilized' earth, with its little bastard child, America--headed currently by its single-mom raised favorite son, Obama (just this year with Obama? you asj...no, Jas, for the last several hundred before him)
That isn't a small feat at all, and quite prima facie that the real power wears a skirt ( Du, that's for you)
And Jas: "I didn't realize that the Iraq war was waged just because it has been made socially acceptable to spend your men killing other people's men"
Well I am glad you are now enlightened as to how matrilocal societies attain wealth for the "motherland." By upholding the paradigm that it is ok to hurt, maim, and kill men. A no-brainer, once you get your brain unclogged from al that rhetoric blaming 'opportunists' and 'international capitalists' for wars of conquest.
And here is a real straw-fly in the ointment "how many have committed suicide after being mistreated or sexually abused by her comrades-in-arms; or worse, possibly actually murdered? How many times has that scenario played itself out with men in contemporary armies?"
You want top take the example of a hypothetical woman that you create in your own fauxminist world and compare that to all of the males that have died in this century fighting for the matriarchy of the jolly ol Queen ( NO DuWayne, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU!)and her consorts? You are as I sated earlier--a fauxminist tool, nothing less.
When you employ the hypothetical abused-woman argument at the expense of the "real men are dying/being dep[rived/beaten'imprisoned every day" argument, you lose me altogether, not only because it denies the reality of men who died, men who are imprisoned, and men who work the shittiest of the shitty jobs everywhere--and them without people like you playing a little tiny lil' pity the po' hypothetical woman scenario over and over again.
Jason, you don't want to talk about the reality of the effect of these stereotypes, you want to do what all fauxmenz do: insert, and re-insert your po' wiminz propaganda scenario into every discussion in the hope that some fembot or dominatrix will save you from your own latently aggressive self, and affirm that you really really are a 'good' guy despite being a guy0--and even mopre manly if you fight for your imagined women rather than yourself.
And Jason, 'French' is to foreign in Canada as Berber is to Tunisia....
Here's a tiny dose of reality for you. I have said "misogynist" or "misogyny" exactly one fewer time in this thread than I have said "misandrist" or "misandry". Twice more, if you include in this post.
Here are the points I have made: men, women, blacks and whites are so genetically identical as to be nearly indistinguishable with respect to their abilities. Then I stated that none of the "studies" Robert exhibited, sans actual citation of course, accounted for societal constructs that might lead to a lack of interest or suppression of participation in a particular field. Next, I said I was surprised this was still going on. Then I expressed more surprise, that you were going after me suddenly, and tried to state my actual position (which you have warped and outright ignored several times thus far).
Here's the hypothetical example I was thinking of. Thank goodness I made it up in my head, and this didn't really happen, much less to up to 36 women! http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/28/8564 Yes, 36 sure does pale in comparison to all those men who died over this ridiculous misadventure, on both sides, but please do give me examples of men that get raped by their fellow soldiers then killed. And you wonder why women don't flock to the army. Not only is there the gender-construct drilled into them from birth saying that women don't become soldiers, but there's also the threat of being raped and killed by your compatriots (not even by your enemies!).
Please provide citations for those examples I requested earlier, and while you're at it, also cite studies refuting my assertion that gender constructs no longer have any sway in society and that the real problems society faces are resultant from a matriarchal conspiracy (score one for the Barbara Bush allusion on that front!).
Jason: "Twice more, if you include in this post." That, Jason, is my entire goal: to create dialogue about misandry and to initiate a concern for issues that men face.
ow, about your 36 hypothetical women, I can only say *meh* happens all the time to men everywhere when fighting wars for the benefit of the matriarchy. I am not crying about 36 women until all of those millions of dead men come back to life, or until guys like you prioritize the millions over the 36.
Dead men don't tell tales, you little bugger, but little buggers like you do, and those tales are sad obfuscations of the reality that faces men everywhere. Yes, men get raped, beaten, foxholed, cornholed, pillowed, tented, and any of a zillion other ways of saying fucked and/or over every single day, but it is always the one or the thirty six hypotheticals that get your attention.
Dude, Camille Paglia was right, women should learn to fight, or shut the hell up when it comes to expecting me to do it for them, but there's always a stripe-minded Jason or two who are more than willing to step in to the battles they CREATE ( think about this creation in terms of a 'womans right to bear children' is in direct parallel steop with the 'right to bear arms' with the only difference being that the guns, at least, are created in quality controlled environments)and do it for them. You are trained, Jason, and that training is hard to undo.
Jason asks: "Please provide citations for those examples I requested earlier"
You know yourself Jason, and you know you are prone to that pandering. I don't have the time in life (besides, its a rather busy rater kaber right now) to flatter you by seeking and cross referencing some useless self effacing comment you made to me that gave me my first clue about you and your tendency to pander to the fembotz.
As entrenched as I am in the societal constructs of Canada, I am prone to being polite to those that are actively affronting me when on someone else's turf. If I said something that sounded like pandering, it was probably actually politeness. If you want examples of me raging uncontrollably, they're on my own blog. As for everything else, well, if you can't cite it, it didn't happen, and you're wrong. QED
Jason:Yeah, you probably were being polite.Thanks for that acknowledgment. I will saunter over to your blog, because you have made a good point about politeness being a roadblock to 'open' dialogues about gender disparity, especially as perpetuated here at scilogs.
Okay, I saw a news item that immediately reminded me of this post: “Let's market PCs like it's 1959”.