-
Website
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/feminism-101-feminists-look-for-stuff.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I can't even explain how much I agree with this statement. And how depressing it is when I realize people around me don't understand AT ALL where I am coming from. Sometimes the people around me make me feel crazy or say I am reading too much into everything, even things that are trivial. But what does it mean when all the so-called "trivial" things around you (movies, internet, magazines, television, news, internet, etc) seem intent on belittling you because you are a woman? It can't be meaningless if it's everywhere.
I love this post. This is my first time reading this blog, and I will definitely be back.
It was a man, Karl Marx, that said (and I paraphrase) no political movement could be truly successful without the mobilization of the female populace. I truly believe this...as women have a strength in unifying with each other that isn't nearly as popular in today's urban model of living.
I tend to agree with the statement on a general basis.
Though what could this agenda be?
What have governments, religion, or any other strong institution tried to do from the very beginning? In short, mind control.
Feminism is a form of mind control.
I see the manipulation of the human species, constantly bickering and dividing and fighting amongst each other as a means to an end...once understanding is said to be in the mind of the individual...man and women alike have a hard time reforming their point of views if they are truly passionate about whatever the issue is, especially if it is one of controversy. In the mean time, governments, religions and etc will do there best to create what they've been meaning to do on the institutional level...slavery of a global proportion.
Now you don't need a smoke and mirrors secret meeting plotting humanities untimely sequestering to believe in such a weary future...one can simply look anywhere around the world and realize, that we create social standards, that we are creatures of habit, and such habits become norms that are generally taboo to question...and thus the birth of feminism....though like any social movement....the ability to be co opted is not only possible, but to not consider such is to guarantee it such a fate.
Do I think that feminists that are very passionate about equality miss something?
Yes. It's that equality has and always will be a pipe dream. Equality is not possible...no 2 people are equal...how can the sexes be?
Equality is not possible...but equal respect among the sexes is and that will only start when both sexes realize that we have different strengths and weaknesses and want to work together to eliminate the manipulation of humanity...for which both male and female are targeted from.
Here's a documentary on the ills that many young men most go through...you all probably acknowledge that women are targeted by advertisements and social norms at a very young age....but the same is true (in a different manner) for young men.
Here's a snippet on youtube (full doc on google video)...it's called Tough Guise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3exzMPT4nGI
The individual, male or female, must rise to the occasion to become more then who they are. More then what's expected of them for their own good and for the good at large. In a patriarchal model as we are in so far, it is far easier to see (because it is more rampant) misogyny as such a strong form of inequality....but inequality is natural...we most only seek equal respect, and to do more is to not accept reality for what it is.
Male and Female will never be equal...we need each other, and we balance each other out.
I hope for the day where women and man alike become more philosophical so we can remedy society's ills with words that preach peace not confrontation. An intellectual/spiritual renaissance.
Here's a George Carlin video that makes this point with a good dose of humor to help the medicine go down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD5L2CxRMG4
Check it out, a text book case. 28 minutes ago, "luluboi" responds to this video: 'This is horrible. I hope all feminists die in a horrible pain. You're just looking for things to bitch about.'
Nice to comment on a five month old thread! I'm sure there's a consolation prize for you somewhere around here...
Do I care what Markus thinks?
No.
Help the medicine go down? Oh fuck you sideways.
so really, no, i don't think i'm missing anything at all, markus, but thanks for the concern.
amy: markus appeared, as far as i can tell, to be propping up his discomfort with equality between the sexes with evo-psych cultural handwaving and some slack-ass everything-i-know-about-marxism-i-learned-from-teh-matrix nonsense, but i suppose to someone who thinks that a frowny emoticon is useful communication, that could indeed appear to be "a thought out post". PROTIP: if you have the word "womyn" in ironic scare quotes in your post, you're part of the problem, "amy". sorry if that hurts your feelings and/or scrotum, to hear that.
and can i say how sick i am of people whinging that their posts are too "'well thought out" and that the fact that they didn't obviously confuse "your" with "you're" or wish for me to die in a fire lol means i now have to take EACH OF THEM, individually, by their goddamn hands and lead them through a semester's worth of cultural analysis, with lots of smiles and pats on the head and cookies, because to do ANYTHING LESS makes me an emasculating nazi lezbo bitchface who is destroying the penises of my allies and ruining women?
But, the thing is? It's NOT a "thought-out post". It's a post of insecure, knee-jerk, unoriginal blather, its nuggets of bullshit interspersed with stream-of-consciousness dullardry in hopes that by lulling us to sleep we'll ingest the bullshit without noticing.
It doesn't work when you know how to read. It only works with people like you, who see a big word or a long paragraph and assume that the person typing it must have some clue or they wouldn't dare type so much.
But, see, men all wrapped up in their own privilege DO dare. They dare all the time. That's due to the completely unearned DEFAULT respect they're accustomed to receiving just for being male.
We shamed him for being an idiot spouting off bullshit, not for being male. It's time he learned what "thought out" really means.
Thank you and good night.
Ah, grasshopper -- you are learning.
This constant dismissal of so-called "small stuff" reminds me of my story Oomblaug Day, where the world was taken over by zombies who amputate human limbs for snacks in order to "manage" their food supply. Here's the part I mean:
Linda’s friend, Danny, was giving a pep talk to the therapy group.
“It’s not your fault. You did the right thing when you tried to fight back,” said the counsellor to the legless man. He then patted a woman’s lap. “You sold your breasts because you needed to buy food. It’s OK. You’re OK.”
One old man, a new member who was missing his left arm, cut into the spiel.
“I knew I shouldn’t have come here. My doctor’s a horse’s ass. This is useless. Why don’t we all just quit whining? My cousin lost an arm and a leg during the resistance against the zombies. He didn’t complain. He was proud. Always looked on the bright side. As he used to say: ‘Well, I can still smile and breathe, even if I can’t dance!’”
An old woman, her leg cut off below the knee, nodded in response. “I remember how awful it was back then! They didn’t feed us right – just old, rotten animal carcasses. Then they figured out we were dropping like flies and not having babies. Now liveys have it easy, compared to when I was a young lass. It really isn’t so bad. Sure there’s the odd attack. Random, it is. Not like the old days.”
The full story is available here:
http://www.geocities.com/damunicom/oomblaug.html
Do you think Marcus would be so sanguine about "Equality...not [being] possible..." if he was one of those on the lower end of the equation?
We should treat people equaly, however, but you feminists can't even do that. Look at what you are doing to Palin, you won't support a women just because her idealogy is not the same as yours, she doens't hate men. Feminists are the most hypocrytical bunch I have ever witnessed, it's sad... so very sad..
Pathetic. Who gave this nutjob permission to be on the internet?
FTR, dumbass, there are several posts SPECIFICALLY DEFENDING Palin from misogynist attacks. "We" are not attacking her womanhood, "we" are logically and rationally pointing out how her ideology is anti-woman and that for lots of other very good rational reasons she'd be a very bad choice to have in office.
BTW, this reply was not for your benefit, as logic and rationality are anathema to woman-haters like you.
Please, do me a favor, and think about how women are portrayed in most movies. Then see what happened to Clinton & now Palin, and keep reading Shakesville. I'd just lurk if I were you.
lol, not many people do xD
Feminism that seeks absolute equality is a goose chase, period. Not because I say so, not because men are satan's handiwork, and not even from anything that anyone does on purpose. You see, sexism and male domination in culture are rooted deep. Not just in society, but in our genes. They're called 'sexing genes'; testosterone and estrogen, primarily. Men have significantly more testosterone than women, and vice versa is true with estrogen. Most interestingly, is how male characteristics become more apparent in women with high levels of testosterone--they are more violent, more 'dominating', and less empathetic. They've done studies on women who have commited violent crimes, and have seen a very high correlation in their levels of testosterone and the degree of their crime. So, sorry feminists, but you'll never, ever win. It's shameful and pathetic to be fighting for a cause that only creates arguments and has the potential to create broken homes. Just google some of the biological factors that women and men are created with, and how that causes them to steer one direction or the other, concerning their role in the household. Imagine now that both the man and the woman begin to fight against that biology; it's a big reason, I believe, that the divorce rate is so high.
This is, however, just my opinion, so thoughtful responses are appreciated, and researched-opinions are desired.
Dude, you're not deserving of thoughtful responses. Your shit is not new or interesting to us, we've heard it a million times before, and it's just as wrong and stupid now as it was the first time.
Estrogen and testosterone are hormones, dipshit.
Sorry, I don't want to be YOUR equal, dude. Why should I go backwards?
I can protect myself, and I am a feminist because I believe that this is my world as much as it is a man's.
So you can shove the patronizing crap.
no. just no.
Ahh, that stalker theme song. Grow up, dude.
++
"You see, sexism and male domination in culture are rooted deep. Not just in society, but in our genes."
Translation: What I can't justify, I invent pseudo-science to justify.
*lol* Wow, you suck at lying. I quoted exactly where he did exactly that.
"I think it not only innacurate but offensively moronic to argue that the concepts of male domination and sexism are not rooted deep in our society."
I agree. Good thing I didn't say that, huh.
"were that not the case, feminists would not be rabbiting on about all the nonsense found on this blog."
Translation: Girls don't like "me", perhaps it's obvious why.
"It is not pseudo-science, it's not even science; it's common sense. "
Don't use words you don't understand.
"Secondly, excluding divine influence, whatever is rooted in society can be said to stem from genes, ergo Little_Jon is correct on both counts."
Translation: Watch "me" give even the most astoundingly nonsensical bullshit the veneer of logical! Next on Michael Savage.
"In my opinion"
You seem to really believe others care what you think.
"his was a remarkably well considered post marred only by the subsequent desperate and flawed wafflings of idiots."
So, in other words, you're his sockpuppet.
I am willing to accept that I misinterpreted your post. Please clarify: what part of the sentence led you to suggestng up the idea of pseudo-science?
I am finding your "translations" increasingly infantile and unhelpful. I enjoy the company and friendship of many females, thank you.
I understand all of the terms I used in my post; in fact I am a full time student of maths, physics and chemistry. I don't believe "pseudo-science" is a particularly difficult concept.
This tactic of branding something as factually incorrect while failing to present any arguments or evidence to that end is not effective. And I believe your sentence should have read: "Watch "me" give even the most astoundingly nonsensical bullshit the veneer of logic!" and not "...logical!" An unfortunate but ironic mistake.
Perhaps using the common phrase "In my opinion" has bamboozled you in some way? I mean to say "in my opinion." Not anything else. I certainly don't assert that you value my opinion.
I am not a sockpuppet. I am the same "me" that commented earlier on this blog. There are many differences in style and tone between my post and that of Little_Jon's. I was being genuine.
Incorrect. poor "me" and his poor reading comprehension. Now, try to think about this for a moment. If it's "not just in society, but in our genes", than that is a "boys will be boys/we can't help it/there's no way to change it" justification. If being douchebag misogynists is in men's genes, as you and your sockpuppet apparently seriously believe (why do you hate men so much, by the way?), then that's the way things are, unchangable-like. THAT IS JUSTIFICATION.
This is 101 level stuff here.
"There is a difference between stating that something is prevalent and arguing that it is morally or in any other way acceptable: you have evidently confused the two."
Incorrect. it's you who is confused. I said nothing about morality or acceptability; neither did I claim he did. Do try to stay on topic. Once again, more simply: if it's in our genes, it's "natural", ergo, justified.
"Little_Jon did not actually endorse anything sexist, he merely stated that he felt the feminist cause is ultimately doomed to failure, and he was merely saying why."
Incorrect. he first gave an obvious weak, pseudo-scientific justification for his male privilege and then went out to show us just how clueless about his privilege he is.
"what part of the sentence led you to suggestng up the idea of pseudo-science?"
Sure, I'll repeat myself a third time: "sexism and male domination in culture are rooted deep. Not just in society, but in our genes"
He goes from stating something that is true (the first sentence) to stating something unproven, unsupported by real science and which conveniently excuses misogyny with a flaccid "boys will be boys" trope (the second sentence).
And, contrary to what your sexist beliefs tell you, there is not just "god" or "nature" to explain this state of affairs - there is a third. Think real hard and see if you can come up with it.
"I am finding your "translations" increasingly infantile and unhelpful."
Translation: "Me" is transparent.
You are once again laboring under the delusion anyone cares what you think.
"I enjoy the company and friendship of many females, thank you."
You know how the entire world can tell you're lying? The use of the word "females". You would have said "women" if you'd actually ever gotten near one.
"I understand all of the terms I used in my post; in fact I am a full time student of maths, physics and chemistry"
*lol* Maths. Well, *I'm* a student of bullshit detection. And you reek of it. See, I've got a lot of experience with douchebage sexist trolls - you're a nickel a frickin' dozen. And, that experience has taught me that when someone trots out unverifiable, unsubstantiated "credentials" in an attempt to sound superior, they're full of it. They're also transparent and rely to much on logical fallacies.
"I don't believe "pseudo-science" is a particularly difficult concept."
yet you don't grasp the concept at all. Interesting.
"This tactic of branding something as factually incorrect while failing to present any arguments or evidence to that end is not effective."
The tactic of coming to a feminist blog, reciting the same tired and long-ago debunked bullshit is also not effective. And yet here you are, trying to pull it.
"And I believe your sentence should have read: "Watch "me" give even the most astoundingly nonsensical bullshit the veneer of logic!" and not "...logical!" An unfortunate but ironic mistake."
It wasn't a mistake. You clearly don't know much about this blog (which was evident in your initial sexism and confusion).
I'll give you a hint - when talking to or about clueless trolls, such as yourself, mispellings, the addition of Random Capitalization, the use of superfluous "z", etc. are a way for the non-troll audience to know when Shakers are being facetious, sarcastic and/or mocking. Mocking you is what I'm doing and I'm letting the audience of people whose opinion matters to me - feminists - of that fact.
"Perhaps using the common phrase "In my opinion" has bamboozled you in some way? I mean to say "in my opinion." Not anything else. I certainly don't assert that you value my opinion."
Goodness, I do enjoy watching the clueless dig themselves in deeper. By commenting you are announcing that you feel your clueless, sexist opinion is of importance and is of interest to us. It's not. By commenting and simultaneously proving yourself to be sexist and clueless, you provided me with the perfect opportunity to show the non-commenting audience exactly how unexamined male privilege damages the brain. (Thanks, btw.)
"I am not a sockpuppet. I am the same "me" that commented earlier on this blog. There are many differences in style and tone between my post and that of Little_Jon's. I was being genuine"
yet you say the same things, use the same flaccid, useless pseudo-scientific excuses for misogyny and you defended him. One does not need to be a literal sockpuppet to be a sockpuppet.
You need Feminism 101. You're way behind the advanced class. You get an F for today
make something seem reasonable: to serve as an acceptable reason or excuse for something.
Encarta World English Dictionary
Sexism and male domination are not reasonable, nor is human nature an acceptable reason or excuse for sexism or male domination. There is no “justification” of these two phenomena in Little_Jon’s post. However this is an imperfect world. His point is that sexism and male domination are, like war, unfortunate truths. They are explained but not justified by human nature. In the same way war is explained but not justified in a similar way. No-one is going to change this. Certainly not feminists. That is the point.
You claimed he said that sexism and male domination are acceptable. You did talk of acceptability (implicitly) because you said that he “justified” (gave an acceptable reason, as according to the above definition) sexism and male domination.
I hope I don’t have to get entangled in a similar petty debate over the difference between natural and justified. (“ “natural”, ergo justified”).
“Incorrect. he first gave an obvious weak, pseudo-scientific justification for his male privilege and then went out to show us just how clueless about his privilege he is.”
As previous, no justification was given, just reason. No endorsement.
If something has been so prevalent in our society, since the dawn of mankind to the present day, without interruption or obvious external cause, the only logical conclusion available is that it is human nature. Whether present in the form of genes, hormones or any other scientific human component, the mere observation that this is the case is enough to provide a scientific basis of observation. For example; humans are naturally social animals. There doesn’t need to be any form of scientific cause and effect explanation involving genes or brain structures or anything else - though there is - to support this idea. There needs only to be years of impartial observation which supports the fact. In the same way, the specific mechanism of the science behind sexism and male domination does not matter; only the observation that this is natural is needed. (Though a technical justification would be easy, I suspect, for someone in the know.)
Stop with the flipping translations. I say what I say. I mean what I say. You’re being an idiot on that front, I’m sorry.
For the second time I will state that I am sure no-one cares what I think. Surely now you will believe I am not labouring under any assumptions.
“The use of the word "females". You would have said "women" if you'd actually ever gotten near one.”
If you are trying to cast aspersions on my sexual experiences, I find this immature and would be unnecessarily personal. However I am only 16 so I am quite happy to admit that I have never got near a woman in the way that you suggest.
There’s nothing really I can say to prove to you what I study at school. Believe me or don’t, it’s irrelevant anyway.
“"I don't believe "pseudo-science" is a particularly difficult concept."
yet you don't grasp the concept at all. Interesting.”
There has been no evidence in any of my posts of any lack of understanding of the term.
I am not reciting anything I have heard before. I am new to this feminist blog game so you’ll just have to humour me and debunk away. (or perhaps, as is your wont, simply say that it has been debunked in the past. I assume you’re willing to do this by the fact that you are responding.
I was not initially confused. Sexist perhaps. But neither of these things show any evidence of a lack of knowledge of this blog. Though incidentally, you are quite correct, I know next to nothing about this blog. So I’m sorry I missed your mockery.
HOW MANY TIMES? I don’t care if you care or not. This is an exercise, for me, entirely motivated by my own feelings. A bit of self-discovery if you will. I do not seek approval. You don’t care. I comprehend.
I did not say any of the same things as Little_Jon, nor did I in fact, aside from defending his argument, use any scientific argument previously on this blog. Nor indeed did I excuse misogyny. I don’t care for your analogies. I am not he, that is all I’m saying.
Thank you for your time, I will return soon. For the moment I am turning in.
P.S. I think our original disagreement could be easily solved by asking Little_Jon whether he did or did not justify sexism and male domination.
Except that there isn't an uninterrupted flow of male dominance,. nor does that dominance take the same form across all cultures. It's not a simple universal that can be pointed to to prove that this is always the way that men and women act.
I'm not talking about any mythic women-run time either. The very fact that you can see variances in the different levels of equality for women across the world right now, should put paid to that human nature BS.
For someone ostensibly studying the sciences, your understanding of observation seems a bit flawed.
Read this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=bFIHuJFGDgcC
The patriarchal model of society started about 3500 years ago. Humanity is about 200,000 years old.
Encarta World English Dictionary"
Wonderful! You can read a dictionary. Now, let's see if you can apply the definition to what was said. Making sexism and male dominance seem reasonable, or excusable is exactly what "its in our genes" does. if its in the genes, then there's no getting around it. Which conveniently excuses men of their misogynistic behavior. Hey, why get mad about rape? It's just men's nature! Nothing to be done about it! Why do anything about sexism, men are just naturally dominant! Oh Well, enjoy the pink ghetto girlz!
For someone not trying so hard to sound like a knowledgeable adult, this would be easily understood. You need to stop trying so desperately to sound intelligent and think a little bit. This is not complicated.
"Sexism and male domination are not reasonable, nor is human nature an acceptable reason or excuse for sexism or male domination. There is no “justification” of these two phenomena in Little_Jon’s post."
Agreed on the first sentence, the second is just wrong. Once again.
"His point is that sexism and male domination are, like war, unfortunate truths."
So you can read minds?
"They are explained but not justified by human nature"
Right, except in the minds of evo-psych disciples. Which is precisely what he's advocating.
"In the same way war is explained but not justified in a similar way. No-one is going to change this. Certainly not feminists. That is the point."
Yes we will because it's WRONG. Sexism and male dominance are NOT (repeat for emphasis: NOTNOTNOTNOTNOT) in a man's genes. Men grow up in a patriarchical culture that teaches them these things from birth and rewards compliance to it. It's not in their genes, its manufactured.
I don't understand why you want men to be so lacking in agency. Why do you assume men to be incapable of being non-sexist? That's very sad.
"You claimed he said that sexism and male domination are acceptable. You did talk of acceptability (implicitly) because you said that he “justified” (gave an acceptable reason, as according to the above definition) sexism and male domination."
*headesk* Round and round we go with the troll that doesn't understand what he's talking about yet keeps right on talking.
It's funny though that I can "implicitly" suggest that he finds this acceptable, but he didn't "implicitly" suggest that sexism is in men's genes and therefore justified. This is like talking to a child.
"I hope I don’t have to get entangled in a similar petty debate over the difference between natural and justified. (“ “natural”, ergo justified”)."
Why stop embarrassing yourself now?
"As previous, no justification was given, just reason. No endorsement."
Incorrect. Once again.
"If something has been so prevalent in our society, since the dawn of mankind to the present day, without interruption or obvious external cause, the only logical conclusion available is that it is human nature."
Wrong, blind privilege boy. Wrong. Obviously you haven't thought this through. And you might want to research that "without interruption" assumption.
"Whether present in the form of genes, hormones or any other scientific human component, the mere observation that this is the case is enough to provide a scientific basis of observation."
*LOL* observation perhaps, which is not equal to saying "it's true!" The mere observation doesn't mean it's true. My goodness, this is below 101 level stuff.
(snip useless babbling)
"Stop with the flipping translations. I say what I say. I mean what I say. You’re being an idiot on that front, I’m sorry."
Translation: *stomp feet* why wont you bitchez take me seriously!
"If you are trying to cast aspersions on my sexual experiences, I find this immature and would be unnecessarily personal. However I am only 16 so I am quite happy to admit that I have never got near a woman in the way that you suggest."
Ah, so you are just an arrogant, clueless, sheltered kid who, by virtue of the fact he's got a weeny thinks he's the expert on sexism, science, etc ad naseum. That's for proving my point about male privilege. I couldn't have scripted that better.
And for the record, like your opinions, no one gives a crap about your sex life.
"Believe me or don’t, it’s irrelevant anyway."
It is irrelevant. Your only point in posting it in the first place was to try to come off as superior. Which is a classic (and classically transparent logical fallacy)
"There has been no evidence in any of my posts of any lack of understanding of the term."
*headdesk* Except for the fact that you are still arguing with me over the most basic, easily understood points of my post. You clearly don't understand the topic at hand but, since you had a semester or two of biology, you think you're an expert.
"I am not reciting anything I have heard before"
Yes, you are. You clearly have not examined privilege yet and certainly don't know a damn thing about feminism, so it's easily understood why you think you're statements are original. They're not. Tour the archives, you'll see the same things from countless trolls.
"I am new to this feminist blog game so you’ll just have to humour me and debunk away. (or perhaps, as is your wont, simply say that it has been debunked in the past. I assume you’re willing to do this by the fact that you are responding."
I "have" to do nothing for you. To be clear, my only point in engaging you (and most other trolls for that matter) is to entertain and (hopefully) instruct the non-commenting feminist audience.
See, a feminist less experienced with bullshit from trolls might have seen what you said and, not seeing any differing view or argument, would be lead to believe its true or at least logical-sounding. My goal is to show them that your brand of non-thinking, knee-jerk "boys will be boys" crapola is just misogyny by way of misandry. It's unexamined privilege. I couldn't care less what you get out of it, you're the not target audience.
And, it's not mommy's job to do your research for you. Big boys do their own work!
"Sexist perhaps."
You called all the women here idiots and have twice labeled the feminist cause as mere complaining and futile. Sexist you are. Misogynistic, as well most likely.
"But neither of these things show any evidence of a lack of knowledge of this blog."
Yes, they do.
"So I’m sorry I missed your mockery."
Since you were the intended audience, you're "getting it" is entirely irrelevant.
"P.S. I think our original disagreement could be easily solved by asking Little_Jon whether he did or did not justify sexism and male domination."
His intention does not matter. Either he meant it to be justification - as a lot of trolls do - or, it's likely he's not thought about the consequences of his bullshit argument at all, as you clearly haven't.
Consider it: If being sexist is in a man's genes, as you and he have claimed, then how are non-sexist men explained? Or, are you saying that ALL men are sexists, and there's naught to be done about it? Don't you realize you're removing from men their autonomy? Do you grasp that, in using the "its in our genes" baloney, you're saying that bigotry is biological? That's the very same excuse racists use to justify their bigotry as well. Is this the company you want to keep?
Bigotry is learned, it is not biological. The moment that meme frigging dies, bigots (like sexists, for example) will have to take personal responsibility for their bigotry and grow the fuck up.
Isn't it funny how when they are backed into a corner, their real attitude lashes out?
“Wonderful! You can read a dictionary. Now, let's see if you can apply the definition to what was said. Making sexism and male dominance seem reasonable, or excusable is exactly what "its in our genes" does. if its in the genes, then there's no getting around it. Which conveniently excuses men of their misogynistic behavior. Hey, why get mad about rape? It's just men's nature! Nothing to be done about it! Why do anything about sexism, men are just naturally dominant! Oh Well, enjoy the pink ghetto girlz!”
Again, you fail to see the difference between justification and explanation. There is nothing you can do to change misogyny in today’s world. This is NOT THE SAME AS AN EXCUSE. An excuse would be something that made it seem acceptable, not just inevitable.
We’re not getting anywhere here. Behind the petty insults, it is clear you do not have an argument. You just repeatedly state that he said it was natural, therefore unavoidable, therefore justified. The first two terms are not the same as the third, as explained in the first part of my previous post. Until you can provide evidence or explanation to the contrary, there is nothing else for me to say.
Rape is not in men’s nature. That would be a ludicrous assertion. Human society is built around social interactions and family. Had mother nature engineered the majority of men to rape it would have buggered up our society, which is based on social interaction and family values. Just another small snippet of common sense to compliment your daily diet of feminist horsefeathers.
Indeed, why do anything about sexism? Today’s society is less sexist than ever - women have the vote, have legal equality etc - and the modern world is fucked. Worse than ever before in Western civilization. With no survival advantages, these genes will gradually recede, further down the evolutionary chain. Until then, I’m sorry, you’re boned.
“You need to stop trying so desperately to sound intelligent and think a little bit. This is not complicated.”
I agree, on a relative scale this is not complicated, however it does involve distinguishing between the definition of “justification” and the idea of something being natural. I invite you to consider this difference.
“Agreed on the first sentence, the second is just wrong. Once again”
Comments like this are typical. You have continually failed to demonstrate why you consider the second sentence incorrect, and yet you state that it is wrong. If you feel that in some way you are countering the brute logic of my argument in some way with your pointless repetition and insults, you are mistaken. Come up with a rational and technical response or shut up.
“"They are explained but not justified by human nature"
Right, except in the minds of evo-psych disciples. Which is precisely what he's advocating.”
Blandly repeating your argument doesn’t make it any more likely.
“"In the same way war is explained but not justified in a similar way. No-one is going to change this. Certainly not feminists. That is the point."
Yes we will because it's WRONG.”
Great. You sound like a naïve schoolgirl who wants to eradicate disease forever. And your just about as insightful, with the same level of originality. It is genuinely difficult to read your sentence there without sounding like a complete mong. Try it. It’s funny.
“Sexism and male dominance are NOT (repeat for emphasis: NOTNOTNOTNOTNOT) in a man's genes. Men grow up in a patriarchical culture that teaches them these things from birth and rewards compliance to it. It's not in their genes, its manufactured.”
Yes they are. I invite you to consider Little_Jon’s evidence, or supply some of your own. What a ridiculous scenario we would be in if the most strong, fast, intimidating, spatially aware and - I make allowances here- at least equally intelligent half of the human species were not in charge of pre-civilized groups. A high pitched noise is more likely to wake a woman up than a low pitched one, because evolution has meant they are designed to look after babies. Not so for men. I wonder why this could be the case…Finally, think about WHY men have been raised in a patriarchal society. Seriously; explain it. If it were not mother nature’s intention why have virtually all known cultures separately developed such societies? Because they are effective and natural, that’s why.
“Why do you assume men to be incapable of being non-sexist? That's very sad.”
I don’t. It is genetically expected that we defend ourselves when we are attacked, yet often we don’t. Altruism is not genetically beneficial yet I believe many people do truly unselfish acts. To control any emotional primal response is fighting against our genes. In the same way, there is no reason why men cannot refrain from misogyny. Many do.
“Round and round we go with the troll that doesn't understand what he's talking about yet keeps right on talking.”
Your comment is an example why I am not going waste my time with any more of this blog. There really is no danger of you saying anything memorable or even effective, is there.
“It's funny though that I can "implicitly" suggest that he finds this acceptable, but he didn't "implicitly" suggest that sexism is in men's genes and therefore justified. This is like talking to a child.”
Why the inverted commas? But that is just petty. At least you have effectively admitted that he did not say sexism is justified. (At least not literally.) I’ll leave you to scrabble around trying to explain why he implicitly justifies sexism. And in response to whatever you say, I shall quote you:
“So you can read minds?”
“"I hope I don’t have to get entangled in a similar petty debate over the difference between natural and justified. (“ “natural”, ergo justified”)."
Why stop embarrassing yourself now?”
Address the issue, eh? If you want don’t want to admit there is a difference, why don’t you just come out and say that one ensures the other. That is what you I have quoted you as saying. I would be genuinely interested to know how seriously your feminist colleagues take you when you repeat such a mistake.
“"If something has been so prevalent in our society, since the dawn of mankind to the present day, without interruption or obvious external cause, the only logical conclusion available is that it is human nature."
Wrong, blind privilege boy. Wrong. Obviously you haven't thought this through. And you might want to research that "without interruption" assumption. “
I challenge you to disprove my assumption.
“"Whether present in the form of genes, hormones or any other scientific human component, the mere observation that this is the case is enough to provide a scientific basis of observation."
*LOL* observation perhaps, which is not equal to saying "it's true!" The mere observation doesn't mean it's true.”
What?!? Scientists AND feminists have observed sexism and male dominance. Therefore, unless we’re all living in some sort of dream/reality, they are truth. In the same way, observing sexism and male dominance in human nature for thousands of years - and both sides of the debate have observed it - means it is truth as well. It is a fact of life, ever since we have known it. How can you possibly say that to see something does not mean to confirm it is there?
“That's for proving my point about male privilege. I couldn't have scripted that better.”
No but you could have scripted that post better. I think you meant to say “THANKS for proving my point…”
“And for the record, like your opinions, no one gives a crap about your sex life.”
Kindly don’t bring the matter up again then.
“"Believe me or don’t, it’s irrelevant anyway."
It is irrelevant. Your only point in posting it in the first place was to try to come off as superior. Which is a classic (and classically transparent logical fallacy)”
Actually I was trying to persuade you that I understood the term “pseudo-science” which you for some reason suggested I didn’t. It’s a couple of posts ago, if you’ve forgotten.
“You clearly don't understand the topic at hand but, since you had a semester or two of biology, you think you're an expert.”
I have never studied biology. I do not claim to know much on the subject. I even said of Little_Jon‘s original point: “it's not even science; it's common sense.”
“"I am not reciting anything I have heard before"
Yes, you are. You clearly have not examined privilege yet and certainly don't know a damn thing about feminism…”
Splendid, you disprove yourself so I don’t have to.
“Tour the archives, you'll see the same things from countless trolls.”
You even repeat that you believe I have not had previous experience in such things. This proves my original point that I am not reciting anything I have learned before. Braw.
“I "have" to do nothing for you.”
Okay then honey.
“To be clear, my only point in engaging you (and most other trolls for that matter) is to entertain and (hopefully) instruct the non-commenting feminist audience. “
Why not write your posts to them, then, and don’t address me.
“And, it's not mommy's job to do your research for you. Big boys do their own work!”
So if you’re not willing to debunk any points (which was my original request) why don’t you just restrict yourself to saying that they have been disproved in the past, and don’t put forward anything which contests them. Oh wait a moment…
“You called all the women here idiots and have twice labeled the feminist cause as mere complaining and futile. Sexist you are. Misogynistic, as well most likely.”
I did not call all of the women here idiots. I was merely referring to those particular contributers who responded to Little_Jon’s post. How stupid does one have to be to make a mistake so glaring as that? You said I had low reading comprehension?
Secondly, I have indeed stated that the feminist cause is futile. Doesn’t mean I am sexist, doesn’t put me in disagreement with its ideals, just means I think it’s pointless. You’ve had plenty of practice quoting me, do try and get it right.
“"So I’m sorry I missed your mockery."
Since you were the intended audience, you're "getting it" is entirely irrelevant.”
So why explain it?
“His intention does not matter.”
You initially commented on his intention, which directly insulted his argument and supported yours. But I agree, none of it matters.
“Consider it: If being sexist is in a man's genes, as you and he have claimed, then how are non-sexist men explained? Or, are you saying that ALL men are sexists, and there's naught to be done about it? Don't you realize you're removing from men their autonomy? Do you grasp that, in using the "its in our genes" baloney, you're saying that bigotry is biological? That's the very same excuse racists use to justify their bigotry as well. Is this the company you want to keep?”
Racists, in the common meaning of the word, are the scum of the earth; and I suspect you’ll try and draw parallels, but the thing is, racism isn’t riotously funny.
Yeah, nothing that isn’t biologically explainable ever happens. If it’s in our nature, we have to do it, we have no choice. Don’t be daft. Individuals can choose whatever they do. It merely means that as a human population it is statistically certain that what is natural will occur. And to try and stop it won’t work. And without being researched on the subject, I’d say that bigotry is biologically natural. The very thing I have been trying to drum into your biologically smaller female cranium is that JUST BECAUSE IT IS NATURAL DOES NOT MEAN IT IS JUSTIFIED OR ACCEPTABLE.
Bye now. I’m glad I’ve momentarily injected some life into your flaccid excuse of a cause, you may all now fall silent again. Or if not, at least the sound of you steeping in your own desperation will not ever reach mainstream society.
LOL FOREVER! "injected some life?" trolly mctrollypants avoids all the active threads to make himself look superior and he injected some life? BTW, does anyone have a "Freud check"?
And without being researched on the subject
Which explains so very much.
And so you know, mr pseudo-intellectual troll, your attitude was initially nothing more than a bumbling lack of education, and you have proven yourself to be a fully fledged, whiny, entitled ass.
Translation: "I prefer to keep my head stuffed up my ass. I love the smell. Besides, willful ignorance is edgy and cool."
Translation: "I'm not making excuses for being a bigoted fuckwit, I'm just shirking all responsibility for being a bigoted fuckwit."
"A ≠ A -- And by the way I'm a student of logics"
I should feel honored I guess. Musta struck a nerve.
Isn't it funny that my real attitude was made clear on my very first post, and you're too stupid to realise?
keep fighting the good fight, precious!
http://books.google.com/books?id=Oge7LFaN5xYC&p...
By saying so, you give reason for our existence. You are feminism, as am I. Only, of course, in a different manner.
To address the point, 'it is unchangeable'. One may state sexism is an entirely natural phenomenon, that it is an innate tenet of the XY. This is not original, if you examine history. Such assertions are as incorrect as the claims made by Nazi Germany in refernce to the inferiority of the Jewish populace, or the justifications for the Atlantic Slave Trade by Europeans in the 16th century. Both 'realities', 'proven' by scientific 'fact', are known to be completely erroneous.
However, I doubt reason will appeal to you. Sexism is neither reasonable nor logical, and it's debate fairs the same.
Hey, Betty, I'm not entertained nor enlightened by your unwarranted, ad hominem attacks. Maybe if you had addressed that guy's points, instead of belittling his sex life (which is itself a classic example of sexism) and his intelligence, we could have had an actual, serious discussion. A troll isn't just anybody who disagrees with the greater community - a troll is someone who deliberately posts inflammatory comments to provoke people. That's not what he was doing. His posts were rational and civil long after you waded into insults and derogatory remarks. *You're* the troll - you deliberately provoked *him*. How exactly do you think that helps the feminist cause?
In other words, I don't want you representing me if you can't be civil and stay ON TOPIC. You're not hot shit just because everyone here agrees with your position. For my sake and the sake of other feminists and intelligent people in general, stop being an asshole, kthx.
You are the same person who called being trans a choice in the "Off-Limits Humor" thread. what the hell makes you think you have a moral high-ground here?
She did address his points. Repeatedly. I addressed a couple of them too. He wasn't interested in a serious discussion. He just wanted to repeat his 'just because I refuse to take personal responsibiltiy for my bigotry doesn't meant I'm making excuses for it' nonsense. And BTW, there's as much sexism toward men as there is classism toward rich people - zilch.
For the 5th paragraph, you do realize the exact same could be said for anything that's offensive, watch,.
"Telling people that they should merely abstain from reading and/or participating in YouTube threads—or other places online and offline plagued by unfettered profanity—is akin to telling people their choices are to tolerate profanity in order to participate in it, or segregate themselves and necessarily limit their opportunities in the public sphere."
Youtube is not a public sphere, like most other websites (including yours).
"In addition to unfairly punishing women, that's also a tacit endorsement of openly expressed misogyny."
How is it punishment when there's no force at work? That's the deal we get with free speech, when you encounter something that's offensive or stupid, you can either deal with it, try to change it or go away. If 80% of youtube's users want to act like morons so be it. Apparently youtube doesn't want to deal with the mess.
"By slow increments, every unmonitored space thusly becomes uninhabitable by any woman not willing to suffer—and indulge—misogynist bullies."
You mean websites with no rules (I assume that's what you mean by unmonitored) might have people who act like dolts? Well good thing it's not hard to come across sites (such as this) that don't tolerate it, nor is it hard to create them.
Oh and on another note, have you ever heard of the internet dickwad theory?
It basically says that if you take the average person give them anonymity and put them online, they'll act like much bigger jerks than they would offline and face to face.
It's what I cling to in hopes most people on youtube aren't really that stupid.
Yes, it is. Rape is a natural behavior (which is not the same as saying it's a good thing!), observed in a number of other species in addition to our own.
Sphere is a term of art. There is the "public sphere," which is the general outer world around us. Politics, government, discussion on internet websites that aren't behind password-required walls, the general world in which the public moves.
The private, or domestic, sphere is the home, where women have historically been told that they dominate and should remain. See works on Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan for more context.
You deliberately misunderstand. The punishment is the public lectures, anger, and frequently vicious, violent insults women are on the receiving end of for daring to complain that they are offended. It is not the fact that offensive material exists, it is my right to complain that the particular item is offensive.
If I say something is offensive, and people jump in and tell me that I should shut up, quit complaining, offensive stuff exists and I just have to deal with it, what those people are saying is that my opinions matter less than theirs. My living experience matters less than theirs. This is the punishment. This is the point. I am being punished for trying to exercise the same rights that they have.
I should have a right to say that something is offensive. You should not have the right to silence me for it. K?
You feminists claim men objectify "womyn" too much, but then you go and measure a man's worth in how many women have slept with him.
Perhaps the problems you complain about are byproducts of such thinking/activism.