MISOGYNY – Mall cops harass breast-feeding moms for “exposing themselves”

This shit again. Mall police roust a breast-feeding mother at a mall in Delaware even though there has been a state law since 1997 explicitly protecting her right to feed her kid in public.

It’s no surprise that this latest skirmish in the milk wars is at a mall. I said earlier that all the real energy around treating mothers who breast-feed in public like some kind of flashers is from other women who want to police them. In this case they get the mostly male mall police to do their dirty work – how perfectly traditional that is, by the way – but that doesn’t exonerate the mostly female customer base that the mall management is groveling to. Mall management knows exactly what side their bread is buttered on.

This is misogyny. This is in fact about as misogynist as it gets. This is mistreating a woman for being a woman. Feeding your kid from your own body is about as central to being a woman – hell, to being a female mammal of any species – as anything I can think of. Any policy that gets in the way of that is woman-hatred. Period. Work schedules and all that may get in the way; that’s just life. But conscious policies with no real functional justification are not in the same category. This is plain old misogyny.

(I have overstated the centrality of lactation to being a woman in order to emphsize how much this is a huamn rights issue. Reproduction, all aspects of it, are a human rights issue – breast-feeding, paternity fraud, mlae birth control and abortion – all of it. 

It’s harder to think of any activity, with the exception of childbirth, which has a higher female-to-male ratio. Okay, the occasional closeted trans man, but, you know… see above. It’s punishing women for something that they not only do far more frequently than men, but punishing women for something they are expected to do.

And the fact that it’s women behind it hardly makes it any less misogynist. Women can be every bit as misogynist as men can be misandrist.

Latest posts by Jim Doyle (see all)

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmailby feather
  • Ogun

    The use of the term “hatred” is as overused as it is inaccurate in a lot of these sorts of cases. When older folks tell me to pull my pants up I don’t believe it’s a hatred of youth or western black cultures. My first response shouldn’t be to shout “go back to defending your lawn from the scourge of youth”. I would like to think feminists would have learned enough to not be so reflexive.

    However this topic does warrant a conversation on female produced/and/or perpetuated misogyny. The links provided certainly suggest it.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    There is another factor too… I’d be curious to know the ethnicity/race of the women involved. Around here, it is mostly Latino women who are *very open* about nursing.. I remember when I worked in a local mall and a large group of Latinos walked in my store, and one of the group was a woman nonchalantly nursing a baby as her male friends pointed at merchandise and chatted… it was very accepted and natural in her social group. My co-workers, meanwhile, were having apoplexy: “OMG, look at her!!!!”

    I found it momentarily very weird that these Latino men were much more open-minded about functioning/working boobs, than the supposedly-enlightened white women I worked with.

    You can enlarge boobs and pump them up and stick them on posters and in people’s faces, but God forbid they actually feed a baby.

  • Ogun

    Comparing a 2 dimensional (most likely censored) poster to a woman having a titty sucked by an infant right there, right ****ing there in public is just… alien to me.

    The culture that I grew up in is cool with it, I myself was breast fed in public but then again my family are primitive.

    Which is what most of this is about, it’s seen as a primitive (see inappropriate behaviour), similar to the villager who thinks “there’s too much pigeons in Trafalgar Square, therefore I’ll kill one and take it home for dinner”. Actually more like public unrination.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Ogun, I agree. That is certainly the way my co-workers talked about it.

    Hippies/Deadheads were also “primitive” (as you put it), so I got very accustomed to it myself as a young woman. Here in the South, the standards are even more oppressive than in the Northern USA. White women routinely were not even supposed to breast-feed babies and enlisted black women to do it, rather like mopping floors or washing windows. Privileged southern white women who actually insisted on doing it themselves were trash-talked by their families, as if they were low-class or disgusting.

  • Ogun

    LOL white women employed black women to breast feed their babies for them? What kind of hyena, matriarch shit is that?!

    Sorry. It’s just so, unbelievably classist. Fascinating though. How does one join forces with a group whom are able to exploit you like that?

  • Valkina

    I remember seeing ,when I was a little girl several women breast feeding in the park I just to play in.Some of them would use napkins to cowe them self up. But I recol some women talking that they did it often,and that they got mostly good comments,and some bed.But for most part may older women will get nostalgic.
    But I can’t really speak from experience since I don’t have kids.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    EMPLOYED? Now its my turn to laugh. The black “mammy” profession started during slavery… after slavery ended, it was usually considered simply part of child care for a domestic servant. No extra money, just part of the job. (“Do you do windows?”)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammy_archetype

    If you have never read “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison, I heartily recommend it… it really deconstructs the employee/employer relationship in an especially searing way.

    Poor white women did not have slaves, servants or employees. Until there was a large number of white immigrants in the south, there were (only) two very different classes of whites in the south… “rich people and white trash”. (One class owned the land and the other class worked for them.) … and then immigrants and yankees came and messed that class-dichotomy all up. (As Archie Bunker used to say, you don’t even know WHO you are talking to anymore. LOL)

  • Ginkgo

    “The culture that I grew up in is cool with it, I myself was breast fed in public but then again my family are primitive.”

    Conservative. Traditionalist. Not primitive.

    That would make, oh, I don’t know….. carrying your kid on your hip “primitive.”

    “LOL white women employed black women to breast feed their babies for them? What kind of hyena, matriarch shit is that?!
    Sorry. It’s just so, unbelievably classist.”

    Thread-winner! It was exactly that, chattel slavery reproduced all the structures of the English class system on American soil, with a lot of brutality and violance thrown in to maintain it.

    As for the breat feeding – do you remember a United colours of Benetton ad from about 15 years ago, when Benetton thought it as all cool and hip to have a black women, face effaced, holding a white baby. Clueless, clueless European ad agency who never guessed what raw nerves that kicked into. The reaction truly shocked them.

    “Fascinating though. How does one join forces with a group whom are able to exploit you like that?”

    It’s called accomodation. It’s a survival mechanism. Sick, yeah.

    “Employed” – I see Daisy caught that one. And when she says it originated during slavery, remember that she is referring to the period of outright chattel slavery, which morphed from a privatized institution before the (US) Civil War into a socialized system of slavery under Jim Crow and only really began to end in the 1960s. Some things changed, obviously, but the main structure of social and economic relations remained.

  • http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com Danny

    Daisy:
    I found it momentarily very weird that these Latino men were much more open-minded about functioning/working boobs, than the supposedly-enlightened white women I worked with.
    Not surprising considering that the typical boogeymonster that it against women feeding in public is damn near always a male. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a political cartoon on the issue actually show a woman as the one that freaks out at the thought of a women feeding in public. When the “enemy” is always presented in the same form it can be quite surprising to see it come in another.

  • Clarence

    I have no problems with women breast feeding (or heck, walking topless in public either) in public if they don’t mind if I notice said breasts for the signifiers of fertility they are. You’ll get no sexual shaming from me, but I expect none in return. I’m not gonna be groping them or yelling out rude insults, after all.

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    I think you’re getting a little cisessentialist with this conclusion:

    Feeding your kid from your own body is about as central to being a woman – hell, to being a female mammal of any species – as anything I can think of.

    You’ve just said that childbirth and lactation are what makes a woman… which, yeah… there are some TERFs who will cheer the fuck out of that statement.

    Can I recommend instead:

    It’s harder to think of any activity, with the exception of childbirth, which has a higher female-to-male ratio. Okay, the occasional closeted trans man, but, you know… see above. It’s punishing women for something that they not only do far more frequently than men, but punishing women for something they are expected to do.

  • Ogun

    I’m going to go with “PRIMITIVE” to describe my family.

    If killing twins, eugenics (such as killing the disabled), ritual sacrifice as well as being forced to learn useless skills such as hunting, sword based warfare aren’t primitive I don’t know what is. Being the eldest male, I am tasked with protecting my family, and inheriting land and property I don’t actually want (this has created a giant rift between me and my elder sister). I am also tasked with controlling (via force) my younger or weaker siblings, including a younger brother who is a psychopath. I am demanded to be the man of the House regardless of what I want.

    I say House as in my entire family and extended family. Africans, actually have “Houses”, and these can hold up to 30 + people. Traditionalism is primitive to me, especially when some of these customs are thousands of years old.

  • Equilibrium_Shift

    Dang, Ogun,

    Could you expand on that? I don’t want you to talk about more than you are comfortable with, but it sounds like your life is so, so different (yet likely also similar in certain ways) to mine that it fascinates me.

    I mean specifically that my parents did not pass down any traditions or traditional skills on to me. Or, probably more accurately, the traditions they did pass down were very… ephemereal?

    They basically told me to do what I am comfortable doing, and use my best judgment. There were many skills I was expected to learn, but not because they were traditional, but because they were practical (I suppose the traditional can just be what is practical when what is practical doesn’t change much over time).

    Anyway, you last comment got me very curious.

  • Jupp

    Valerie:

    I think you’re getting a little cisessentialist with this conclusion:

    “Feeding your kid from your own body is about as central to being a woman – hell, to being a female mammal of any species – as anything I can think of.”

    Well you are kind of right, but isn’t the concept of woman based on the role in reproduction? This leads to the questions:
    What is the definition of a woman?
    How does one know if one is a woman?
    In the light of the following quote the answers seem even more interesting.
    Valerie:

    It’s harder to think of any activity, with the exception of childbirth, which has a higher female-to-male ratio.

    Assuming we only look at current western societies, maybe damseling? (I know, I am a misogynist)

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    Well you are kind of right, but isn’t the concept of woman based on the role in reproduction?

    That is like saying the concept of woman is based on the role of fucks men. If we can discard the illegitimate and disprovable heterosexism, why not the cissexism as well?

  • Ogun

    I think it’s because most people don’t want to get lost in a sea of identity relativism. Something that the intersexed and the various identity politicians around the world seem like they are pushing for;

    I’ll regale you with my life story some other time. However let’s just say that I’ve seen the face of true patriarchy and not simply the academic western variety.

    Just 1 generation ago my entire family were hunter gatherers. No bullshit. No electricity, no technology, thatch house, hunter gatherers. Women had to sleep outside during their periods and male status was defined by your ability to DO things for the town. Hunting, fighting, family management and politics!

    Lots and lots of politics…

  • Jupp

    Valerie,
    so could you tell me what the definition of “woman” is, that you are using?
    Further Ginkgo is right insofar as, in this concrete example of people being offended by a woman breastfeeding, the more relevant understanding of woman is the one of the people involved and not some supposedly correct one.

  • Schala

    “Valerie,
    so could you tell me what the definition of “woman” is, that you are using?
    Further Ginkgo is right insofar as, in this concrete example of people being offended by a woman breastfeeding, the more relevant understanding of woman is the one of the people involved and not some supposedly correct one.”

    I’ll answer for myself.

    Identifying as a female human enough that it’s your primary identity, as opposed to identifying as androgyne or agender, for example. People will equate femaleness and womanhood, so regardless of what you say, if you identify as female, people will think it means woman.

    And while some people want to celebrate their differences from the others which supposedly make them unique (news flash: when something concerns 50% of the population, it no longer makes you unique), biological processes are usually an excuse to segregate the sexes (and also make them seem more “needed”, as in, “can’t do without me”, which is ironically a big cause of mommy blocking) rather than one to celebrate the predominance of certain biological processes and its societal value.

    We want to think of ourselves as having unique value to our family, our children, our employers, but we are mostly fungible, especially in a world rewarding blind rank conformist behavior.

    Wanting to make femaleness or maleness “special” and justifying this by saying “biology rules!” is just a way to try to ignore our fungible-ness. Or a way to be mean at outliers and trying to raise your own status by saying “I’m better than that”. See, wimp-shaming and slut-shaming, they’re both examples of that.

  • Ginkgo

    “I think you’re getting a little cisessentialist with this conclusion:
    “Feeding your kid from your own body is about as central to being a woman – hell, to being a female mammal of any species – as anything I can think of.”

    Not a little, Valerie. It is just straight-up cissexist in that formulation, but it was to exagerrate for the purpose of clarity. I mulled that over because the cissexism was obvious, but in the end I decided to go with it because I wanted it to be biological on the crudest scale. I wanted it to transcend species. (Of ocurse we don’t know enough about gender in other species to say much one way or the other. There’s no reason it is going to align wiht us at all. Even sex is not the same for all species.)

    So that’s why I said “central” rather than “essential”. The parallels you point came to mind for me too.

  • Ginkgo

    Valerie,
    “Can I recommend instead:

    “It’s harder to think of any activity, with the exception of childbirth, which has a higher female-to-male ratio. Okay, the occasional closeted trans man, but, you know… see above. It’s punishing women for something that they not only do far more frequently than men, but punishing women for something they are expected to do.”

    That’s much better. I’m taking that.

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    @Gingko:

    Thank you… and to answer your question as to other species, we do seem to generally see more sexually dimorphic neurological organization the more a species approaches the too-sapient-to-eat line.

    There’s the ‘deceiver’ cuttlefish who are classifed as male but seem to have female mating habits, mating with cuttlefish who are classified as female… and all sorts of other stuff. I’m going to stick with the sapient species for the moment. I think a duck’s brain in a jar would not be able to conceive of much other than “Where is some light?” and “Where’s the fucking bread?” as opposed to a human’s, so I’m none too concerned about the potentiality of neurological cross development in lower animals.

  • Jupp

    Schala,
    thank you for the answer:

    I’ll answer for myself.

    Identifying as a female human enough that it’s your primary identity, as opposed to identifying as androgyne or agender, for example.

    Though it leads to two more questions.
    1.What is a female human?
    2.What means identfying (enough)?
    For example I could say that I am female, but not believe that this is true. Would this count as identifying?

    Ginkgo,
    I am sorry for derailing, but I am really curious.
    More to the issue at hand:
    I once attended a class (actually a lecture) at the university, where one of the students was a new mother. She asked the professor if she could bring her baby with her and he agreed of course (well where else would she put it). Sometimes the baby was hungry and she breast-fed it. As far as I know nobody gave her a hard time because of this; maybe following the example of the professor. The breast-feeding in class just seemed like the only practical solution, so anybody feeling uneasy about it just had to get over it.

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    2.What means identfying (enough)?
    For example I could say that I am female, but not believe that this is true. Would this count as identifying?

    Well, frankly, I’ll take a person’s word over the doctor who looked at their junk for five seconds. But to answer this recurring meme (what if men say they are womenfolk just to peep in the showers and stuff won’t someone think of the childrenzblaraghblblbp?!) I’ll say that Uruguay had the perfect answer: Change of legal sex on demand… but only if you hadn’t changed your legal sex in the past five years, otherwise, you will have to wait. Have fun using any public accommodation during that time.

  • http://www.mumsfairy.com/index.php?cPath=31&osCsid=f106f7089edf29bb6cdc8da4890e9c81 increase milk supply

    A person necessarily assist to make seriously posts I might state. This is the very first time I frequented your website page and so far? I amazed with the analysis you made to make this particular publish incredible. Fantastic process!

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Breastfeeding spam! Now you know what I put up with.

    I also get lots of menopause spam. 😉

  • Ogun

    So what is the concensus on breast feeding in public amongst women?

    Men may just be a vocal minority, similar to the hyper-reactionary white people whom take offence on behalf off people of colour.

    Or the straight people whom do so for gay people etc.

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    Gingko, are you going to make that edit now?

  • Schala

    “1.What is a female human?”

    Defined by opposition to a male human or an androgyne/agender/third gender human. Like voting, it usually boils down to “the least bad option”, instead of “the best option”.

    Even if your situation isn’t the ideal one, you’ll only notice if it’s atrociously bad. This is what gender dysphoria is about. It’s not about finding it super awesome that I’m a woman (that would be gender euphoria), it’s about finding it suicide-inducing that I’m a man. Not including gender role stuff. Though gender role stuff might be a reason to transition younger (nothing to lose), or to transition older (fits the male one better). Transition is still inevitable in most cases.

    Puberty-level testosterone (starting at about 16) pretty much made me sick, while not helping much in the development arena (I’m small boned everywhere for example, including shoulders, most of what T gave me is acne, and a juvenile amount+spread of facial hair).

    “2.What means identfying (enough)?
    For example I could say that I am female, but not believe that this is true. Would this count as identifying?”

    It means presenting as one (to me), at least post-transition. Post-transition gives a tons more self-confidence, I was extremely shy early in transition, and that’s not conducive to self-affirmation (you’re likely to be doubted, at best humored).

    If you say you’re female, and use a female name (there are androgyne names, or names used by both, but they tend to be rarer, and to cause additional confusion – most trans people who don’t identify as androgyne want to avoid this), that’s enough for me. Being seen as female by others (appearance-wise) also helps. Feminity is optional, entirely. You could wear men’s army stuff, with a buzz cut, doesn’t matter. Being seen as female is not a matter of wearing women’s clothing. Not in 2013 anyway. It can help if you have problems being seen as female (it will skew the mental expectation of people towards female a bit), but it’s far from necessary.

    I’m often in pants and t-shirts, wearing running shoes 95% of the time I wear footwear. I’ll wear them with skirts, too, if I have to do any walking. I’m bra-less most of the time, as I don’t need the support, and it can be uncomfy. My very long hair has been that way since 6 years pre-transition. I transitioned 6 years ago. My hair’s length is 12 years old. What makes me be seen as female is my androgyne body (started that way), with just the right amount of cues, meaning I don’t look full-figured (that’s far from androgyne), I look teenage-like. I’m 30 and pass for 20.

    Long hair is actually less maintenance than short hair, if all you want is the hair to look good. You need to brush it somewhat every day (at my thickness, I do need to, or tangles show up fast), but you can wash every 2-3 weeks, and cut…never (trims entirely optional, unless you want bangs). No need for any product besides the shampoo and conditioner, and it can be a cheap brand. I spend 10$ a year on this. The brush is 10 years old and was 5$. My hair is my only pride really. But I see no reason to overspend in time or money on it, when I can be lazy and get amazing results anyways.

  • NeMi

    “Not including gender role stuff.”

    Just out of curiosity: what do you make of people who transistion precisely because of ‘gender role stuff’ then?

  • Schala

    “Just out of curiosity: what do you make of people who transistion precisely because of ‘gender role stuff’ then?”

    If you don’t transition out of some endocrine issue, you’re setting yourself up to facing a ton of hostility, discrimination, costs (of hormones and whatever other procedures you might want, name change too) for minor perks. And if the other hormones fuck you up, you’re kinda screwed.

    If it was only for that I’d have rather died. I do think the female role is a lot more permissive on the expression front, and I was almost “all the wrong things” for the male role. But I wouldn’t have seen transition as an actual solution, most likely.

  • NeMi

    “If you don’t transition out of some endocrine issue, you’re setting yourself up to facing a ton of hostility, discrimination, costs (of hormones and whatever other procedures you might want, name change too) for minor perks.”

    For a person to whom their assigned gender roles cause pain much similiar to that of gender dysphoria from hormonal/identity reasons (yes, there are people like that) getting rid of those gender roles is not something I would call a minor perk.

    Other than that, hostility and discrimination can mostly be minimized if you pass as your transistioned gender and don’t go around yelling the world about your medical history. But then again, I live in one of the most progressive countries in the world, at least in this area, so I may be blind to some things.

    But that is not what I was really interested in. What I was curious about what would you actually categorise the gender of these people as, as in man/woman/gender neutral/etc.. They certainly fit to your criteria ‘say you’re gender x and use name of gender x’ and prefer to be identified as their chosen gender, yet their reasons different from the gender dysphoria you described.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Schala: Long hair is actually less maintenance than short hair, if all you want is the hair to look good.

    But smelling acceptable matters too. You have long, thick hair and wash it only once every two weeks? Dear God. Mine would smell like a skunk. I have very long, thick hair and have to wash it no less than every two days. Three days is stretching it.

    I don’t know anyone with long hair (of any gender) who goes (gasp) a whole week, much less two or (seriously?) three. And this includes all the hippie-Deadheads of my acquaintance, past and present.

    Must be some Canadian thing.

    trims entirely optional, unless you want bangs

    Trimming split ends has to be done at least six weeks or so if you want it to look good and grow well. Otherwise, split ends will eventually split the whole hair shaft in two.

    If I did not trim my hair for 12 years???? It would easily extend to Atlanta and back.

    No need for any product besides the shampoo and conditioner, and it can be a cheap brand.

    Cheap brands have a lot of chemicals and eventually dry out the scalp. Speaking of which, you might also want to do an oil treatment with avocado or walnut oil. Maybe once every three months is usually good enough, but my mother only did it twice a year and that sufficed. (If you color your hair, make it once a month).

  • Schala

    “But smelling acceptable matters too. You have long, thick hair and wash it only once every two weeks? Dear God. Mine would smell like a skunk. I have very long, thick hair and have to wash it no less than every two days. Three days is stretching it. ”

    Unless I was working in a smokestack or a harsh smelly environment, I would not consider washing it more often than once every 10 days in the most heated days of summer (when its 40 degrees Celsius) and every 14 days the rest of the time. For the first week it smells of shampoo. For the second week it smells bland, nothing. It could start smelling after three weeks. Though it would smell less on 3 weeks if I also wet my hair during this period.

    Note that if you use any hair product like a spray net, you’re declaring this 2 weeks without smell null and void. Products will smell (and look bad unless washed out). The natural scalp should smell way less than the natural skin. And sweat is water soluble. Meaning it washes itself out.

    “Trimming split ends has to be done at least six weeks or so if you want it to look good and grow well. Otherwise, split ends will eventually split the whole hair shaft in two. ”

    That’s a myth.

    I NEVER trim my hair. It’s 3 feet long and very thick (makes a big ponytail if I do tie it). I get my bangs trimmed by my mother, whenever she can do it (and is there anyways). I haven’t set foot in a salon or barber shop (or any other similar business) in over 4 years. Bye bye outrageous prices and huge wastes of time sitting on a chair doing nothing.

    “Cheap brands have a lot of chemicals and eventually dry out the scalp. Speaking of which, you might also want to do an oil treatment with avocado or walnut oil. Maybe once every three months is usually good enough, but my mother only did it twice a year and that sufficed. (If you color your hair, make it once a month).”

    I use Herbal Essences. By cheap brands I don’t mean store brands. I mean something that isn’t Tresemmé or professional brands (which you will pay 5x too much for).

    I don’t color my hair, and it’s in AAA+ state. Even though yes, it actually has split ends. And no, they haven’t split the entire shaft of hair yet. Split ends are a natural occurrence even if its generally undesirable. Might as well complain that you have dead skin under your feet.

    My hair is long, shiny, healthy, thick, and when brushed, looks better than all hair except 5-minutes-after-the-wash shampoo commercials. Except mine looks that way for 2 weeks after shampoo. Meaning I spend very little time, and very little money, for great result.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Schala: My hair is long, shiny, healthy, thick, and when brushed, looks better than all hair except 5-minutes-after-the-wash shampoo commercials. Except mine looks that way for 2 weeks after shampoo.

    Could be, I’d have to see a photo. 😉 Got any? I linked mine.

    Brunettes can go longer without shampoos than redheads or blondes. But as I said, I have never met even the nastiest biker or hippie who went 3 whole weeks without a shampoo, and believe me, I know whereof I speak. (Homeless shelters won’t even let you go that long without a shampoo, due to fears of lice.)

    As I said, must be some Canadian thing. YMMV. Sounds totally gross to me.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    40 degrees Celsius? It’s routinely 104 F in Canada during summer? I had no idea it got that hot up there.

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    For a person to whom their assigned gender roles cause pain much similiar to that of gender dysphoria from hormonal/identity reasons (yes, there are people like that) getting rid of those gender roles is not something I would call a minor perk.

    I think I would call these trans people who are projecting their neurological dysphoria onto discomfort with what they perceive is a rigid sex role… because goddess knows when you feel like this you gotta hate something.

    Basically, I don’t care how you rationalize it, your brain is going to not be a happy camper if your neurological sex and presentation don’t actually line up.

  • Schala

    http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a213/Sara_Zeal/Sara012.jpg

    It’s not too recent, but I guess it shows my hair good. It was 3 years ago maybe. When I was still very thin (I shot from 110-115 to 168 lbs, and went down to 145 lbs, and plan to go further down to 125 lbs this summer. The culprit: big food portions).

    And it can get as hot as 104 F for a few weeks in July and August, depends on the years. If you do any strained exercise (like cycling at a decent pace) you’ll burn fast. In winter it can get as cold as -20 to -30 F, depending on years too. -10 to -20 F with chilly winds is quite common. -40 F is rather rare.

    Here we exclusively use Celsius scale (since its the metric one), but I know Farenheit mostly because people with swimming pools prefer counting it that way. I read thermometers, got the conversation rate, and now know all usual-temperatures (from -40 to 104 F, which is -40 to 40 C).

    I think I should wash at 2 weeks instead of 3, because its easier to brush too, but lice isn’t caused by hygiene issues. In fact, lice loves clean hair.

  • Copyleft

    “Feeding your kid from your own body is about as central to being a woman – hell, to being a female mammal of any species – as anything I can think of. Any policy that gets in the way of that is woman-hatred. Period.”

    Nope. Mammals also pee and poop, but you can still get ticketed for doing it in public. For that matter, you can get cited for simple public nudity too. This is a societal debate on manners and decorum, not misogyny.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Great pic, Schala, you look more or less as I imagined. Our hair looks about the same length, and see, I knew you had to be a brunette. I can’t get away with that stuff.

  • SensitiveThug

    I’m really curious about Daisy and Schala’s conversation above. Reading it, I felt tense and uncomfortable. I think I was surprised at how open/helpful/blunt Daisy was: I would have to know a woman pretty well before I felt able to mention that her personal hygiene was “gross”!

    Having said that, I find it interesting that I probably would tell a man such things without worrying half as much about it. So, I’m curious… Perhaps my gut reaction was benevolently sexist; maybe women normally talk so openly about each other’s appearances; and maybe we all are more cautious when talking to the opposite sex. I avoid putting question marks in the above because I sometimes ask too personal questions in the wrong setting. So, this is just my rambling and if anyone would like to respond, I’d be very interested.

    Also, there’s a big debate going on today in Britain about the way some prominent feminist journalists here have been talking about trans people. The most offensive article is probably this one. And it really is insulting, so you’ve all been warned!

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Valerie and Schala, did you hear about Julie Burchill? Damn, another one bites the dust. I knew she was pretty nasty (I’ve read her co-written book, THE BOY LOOKED AT JOHNNY, over and over since 1979) and I knew she was besotted with Maggie Thatcher (always a bad sign), but I did not expect her to go there whole hog like that. (sigh)

    Not linking. I’m sure you can find it, it was over the weekend.

  • Ginkgo

    “Nope. Mammals also pee and poop, but you can still get ticketed for doing it in public.”
    False quivalnece, don’t you think?

    “For that matter, you can get cited for simple public nudity too.”

    Huamns are a special case when it ocmes ot nudity, since alone among manmals we are bipedal and since bipedalism results in a permanent sexual display, and since human sexuality is basically a daily rather than seasonal affair. The nudity taboo is driven by solid practical considerations. That is not the case for discrete public breast-feeding.

    “This is a societal debate on manners and decorum, not misogyny.”

    Copyleft, I hope you are not trying to contend that cultural expectations around manners cannot be misandrist or misogynist. The expectation that decent woman always covers her face on the street is simply a societal convention, a matter of manners. A lot of those women even prefer that custom.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Women rank each other all the time, and you have to defend yourself. That is half the conversation that happens in women’s toilets, with total strangers too.

    “I would never wear those shoes!”
    “They’re comfortable!”
    “Oh, okay then!”
    *smiles all round, chat about the children*
    (Women depart toilet)

    Talking about hair and such is what you are SUPPOSED to do. I have always found it extremely sad that men do not chat in the toilet… goodness, that would be impossible for me. One of my first deep sympathies with feminist trans women is when they said (on an old email list I was on) that their deeper voices made them too nervous to chat in the bathroom. :( ohhhh that is sad!
    My voice is now deeper than anybody’s, so it was a good conversation we had, just WHAT about various voices makes them sound female or male–it isn’t just the timbre. I frequently get sirred on the phone at first, then they quickly apologize… what do I say (or how do I say it?) that makes them suddenly aware that I am female? I find all of that quite fascinating. (/off topic)

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Sensitive thug, great minds think alike… you are also mentioning Burchill, I see. (my response to you is above, sorry I forgot to reference your first comment!)

    Burchill was always so good at defending people against bullies (unless they are Palestinian, of course) , I am sorry to see that trans women do not rate her sympathies… I wonder (per some of Valerie’s comments) if trans men do though? (I’ll bet they do, and she follows up with something like that to try to get off the hook.)

    Do they edit over there, or what?

  • http://marjaerwin.livejournal.com Marja Erwin

    Some of these second-wavers are at the level of “I’m not transphobic, some of my best friends are trannies [mentions trans womyn],” but when you get to some of the third-wavers it gets to “I’m not transphobic, some of my best friends are trannies [mentions trans men and/or drag queens] and they respect me as an ally.”

    Moore does the first in her solidarity piece.

    Burchill… uh…

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    @Sensitive Thug

    Women. They are talking about trans women. Trans men are completely off the misogynistic radfem radar.

    @Daisy

    Yes, I heard. Between this and the #TransDocFail hashtag, in the words of LibDem counselor Sarah Brown, “This is the week that the UK trans community scented blood.”

    As to the voice thing, testosterone can thicken the larynx, but this is easily overcome with proper strengthening of some of the vocal muscles… i.e. the ones you gargle with. The problem is that voice training seems to almost be a relic of the bad old days of transition medicine… so much superstition and so much unnecessary complexity and secret knowledge and refusal on the part of those who did it the hard way to make what they think is their earned cisnormativity easier for anyone else to earn…

    *sighs* If I could change any one thing about the trans community, it would be that never again would a trans person ever wish they were cis, and never again see the cis female form as the model for femaleness, and inverse for the cis male form. We are swimming in learned self-hate so often.

  • Schala

    “Women rank each other all the time, and you have to defend yourself. That is half the conversation that happens in women’s toilets, with total strangers too”

    Then I must be weird: I don’t make conversations in bathrooms, and I don’t rank myself against other women, especially vocally and in front of them (at worst I do so in my mind).

    I will converse with total strangers, as long as they happen to be people I’ll talk to anyways (cashiers), or when I’m bored (waiting room). But I’ll avoid talking in the bathroom about all but practicalities. I’m a very pragmatic person (read: usually lazy, unless particularly motivated), and very much not social.

  • Copyleft

    “The expectation that decent woman always covers her face on the street is simply a societal convention, a matter of manners. A lot of those women even prefer that custom.”

    Yup, and I don’t consider that misogynist either… any more than the convention that women can wear skirts but men can’t is proof of misandry. Gender-based customs are not proof of gender hatred or injustice.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Wow! Check out the link to the Burchill screed posted by Sensitive Thug… the Burchill piece is gone, and this is in its place:

    Statement from John Mulholland, editor of The Observer:

    We have decided to withdraw from publication the Julie Burchill comment piece ‘Transsexuals should cut it out’. The piece was an attempt to explore contentious issues within what had become a highly-charged debate. The Observer is a paper which prides itself on ventilating difficult debates and airing challenging views. On this occasion we got it wrong and in light of the hurt and offence caused I apologise and have made the decision to withdraw the piece. The Observer Readers’ Editor will report on these issues at greater length.

    The comments posted beneath the article have also been removed in line with our deletion process and as a result these comments will no longer appear in individual users’ profiles.

    Progress of a sort? Meh.

    As I asked, above… didn’t anybody EDIT that first and say, you know, whoa or something similar? How did this even get published? I can’t think of any American publication of that high-distribution level that would publish such a thing (that is to say, of course the National Review or a similar conservative outfit would gladly publish it, but nothing like the NY or LA Times or even the freaking Cleveland Plain Dealer).

    Wonder what has been going on with Burchill since the publication… I’m sure we will be hearing some feverish version, so stay tuned.

    And I also wonder if this will start up the very entertaining Burchill vs Camille Paglia follies again? I hated when they made nice and that all died down, it was something else.

    • Ginkgo

      Saw that in the Guardian. Ally Fogg’s blog was linked to by a British feminist who just ripped Burchill’s piece to shreds. It was joy to read.

      What an embarrassment. there is a little cabal of radfems at the Guardian that have been making the place into their personal playroom for years – Bidisha Whatsername, Bindel, and CathElliott. No misandry was ever enough for them, until this time their misandry (and that’s bigoted two ways in this case!) has caught up with them.

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    @Copyleft

    Yup, and I don’t consider that misogynist either… any more than the convention that women can wear skirts but men can’t is proof of misandry. Gender-based customs are not proof of gender hatred or injustice.

    White feathers. End of argument.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    copyleft: Gender-based customs are not proof of gender hatred or injustice.

    It depends on how they are enforced. If they ARE enforced, they can be repressive, since enforcement IS repressive by its very nature.

    Not “hatred” per se, but it IS an injustice that women cannot take off their shirts outside, when it is 110 degrees in the shade, especially here in the humid south. Here in SC, it is against the law, as in most places throughout the south.

    The fact that even in places where it is legal (most places in Oregon, Bay Area, etc), many women continue to abstain due to the fact that they will be jeered at, might fall under “hatred”… nobody yells at men for their sagging/fat/wrinkly old boobs.

    A choice is a choice, but if someone is harassed into it (Natalia writes very well of how she, a Christian, donned a veil while living in Jordan, just to get some PEACE) — it ceases to be a choice, or as Natalia so accurately writes:

    [Choice] can have a bit of a gray, fuzzy area around it.

    Do you actively “choose” something when you are being bullied? Do you “choose” it when you are afraid, or even just annoyed?

    Of course, this same dynamic is true for men who would like to wear skirts and do not, for fear of getting their asses kicked.

    Its not the custom itself, its how said custom is enforced (or not).

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    @Daisy … nobody yells at men for their sagging/fat/wrinkly old boobs.

    Not actually a man, but when I was 12 and walking shirtless someone did yell loudly about the fat on my chest, asking if they were a C-cup, if I recall. I do not think they were able to implicitly gender me in the span of five seconds, so I will assume they thought me uncomplicatedly male.

    @Gingko Do you have a link to the piece?

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Valerie, found it… but I bet you will find the error in two seconds… it was not trans PEOPLE Burchill attacked, it was trans WOMEN:

    http://hetpat.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/on-anger-privilege-and-power/

    I probably would not have been so attuned to this distinction without Valerie’s input here, so thank you for this blog and allowing us all to derail to our heart’s content. :)

  • Paul

    “nobody yells at men for their sagging/fat/wrinkly old boobs.”

    Not neccesarily true Daisy. I’m not fat or wrinkly, but I *am* extremely pale. (thanks to my ginger mother and all that entails) and I have often gone to the beach and been told to “put a shirt on” or had people squint and cover their eyes (as if my body was a mirror reflecting a laser beam directly into their retinas. har har.) So it’s not really that much of an imagination stretch to assume that men that lack the “proper beach physique” don’t face similar. The difference is that instead of feeling shame when we recieve these kinds of taunts, men learn to turn it outward. Whenever someone was acting like I blinded them, I learned to yell “BOW BEFORE MY PASTY GLORY! AVERT YOUR GAZE!” and things like that. I imagine fatter guys do similar.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Paul, but bottom line, you will not go to jail for being shirtless, and I will.

  • Paul

    True, but that’s not what you said.

    I thought we were talking about “societal” consequences (people yelling shitty comments) not legal ones.

    Persoanlly, I’m in favor of shirtless laws, they’re breasts. BFD.

  • Ogun

    Men, well I’d say young men predominantly have no problem in DESTORYING you if you haven’t got at least a palatable physique. If your nipples are too big; you’ll be the butt of jokes. If you have manboobs; you’ll be the butt of jokes. Saggy or not toned in general; You’ll be the butt of jokes. One feature that I learned quite early is that part of young male bonding is testing how you give and receive insults. Take things too seriously and you’ve more or less lost any right to retaliate.

    However ‘urban’ British culture has all sorts of nuances. For instance almost all of us learn some level of ‘game’.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Paul, I meant: I can take insults, no biggie, but would rather NOT do jail time, ya know? 😉

    Also, the charge would be “indecent exposure” and would make me look like a pervert instead of a freedom fighter. (Not exactly something you want following you around)

  • Copyleft

    And what’s all this separate-bathrooms nonsense stuff, anyway? What is this, 1950s South Africa? Cleary, the absence of unisex bathrooms is proof of both misogyny AND misandry.

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    @DaisyDeadhead Valerie, found it… but I bet you will find the error in two seconds… it was not trans PEOPLE Burchill attacked, it was trans WOMEN:

    People refer to acts of rampant transmisogyny as acts against trans people for one major reason: They can’t bring themselves to call us women.

  • Ginkgo
  • debaser71

    Here in NY anywhere a man can be topless a woman is allowed to be. It’s the law. Also in NY anywhere children are allowed to be, mothers can breastfeed. It’s the law.

  • Ginkgo

    “And what’s all this separate-bathrooms nonsense stuff, anyway? What is this, 1950s South Africa? Cleary, the absence of unisex bathrooms is proof of both misogyny AND misandry.”

    I know, right? Why can’t they just go shit out in the fields like their grandmothers?

  • http://considertheteacosy.wordpress.com Aoife O’Riordan

    *coffcoff* Irish feminist. We get a bit picky about not being called British around here 😉 But glad you liked!

  • Schala

    I am seriously for unisex bathrooms everywhere and have no problem with it. I do think objections to it are based on conservatism (men are beasts, women are pure) mostly. Since this is the biggest objections to trans women in women’s bathrooms (with cricket chirping for the opposite, or at best, sympathy for the trans men who might face physical assault in the men’s room, “because cis men are beasts”*).

    *I mean sure, assault, can happen everywhere. But it’s not “OMG you’re gonna get beaten just because it’s men”. I’ve been beaten by girls when I was young. Evil and for-the-lulz violence isn’t the prerogative of men.

  • debaser71

    Having worked in maintenance a bit I understand why men (at least some) don’t want unisex bathrooms. Woman’s rest rooms are far more disgusting…in all respects.

  • Evil Green Ranger

    Ah restrooms.

    At work, we have five single-stall restrooms. Three are “unisex”, and there is one “Men’s room” and one “Women’s room”. The Women’s room can only be opened with a key.

    Only one woman works here.

    This is the most bizarre circumstance ever. I have no idea why it is this way. Even worse, we recently expanded the office. Before there were only two bathrooms; One “Men’s” and one “unisex.” Rather than fix the bizarre circumstance, it was made more bizarre, on purpose. (They had to hand new tags for the three new restrooms. Why not buy one new tag for the “Men’s room” and make them all unisex? And why the lock? All the bathrooms lock from the inside anyway.)

  • debaser71

    Trust me, it’s better behind locked doors!

  • http://paddybrown.co.uk Patrick Brown
  • Ginkgo

    A Aoife, curamid fáilte romhat!

    Sorry about the misidentification, no insult intended.

    There have been other takedowns of that turd of an op/ed, but yours worked especially well, I thought.

  • Ginkgo

    Patrcik, that is a diffenret blog, and a very interesting one. You have been holding out on us.

    “In brief, Burchill’s co-cliquist Suzanne Moore …”

    Clique? I think the word you want is “claque”.

  • http://paddybrown.co.uk Patrick Brown

    No, I meant “clique”, as in a small, exclusive group of friends – this whole affair reeks of that kind of in-group nepotism.

  • Ginkgo

    Well i turned out to be wrong on “calque” but it still works. i had thought it weas French slang for whorehouse. Instead it means and organized group of shill, a cheering section.

    But they are certainly a clique. Very middle school.

    By the way, your post “Men do, women judge” is getting some attention on the MensRights sub-reddit.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Roosh’s “9 ugliest feminists” is getting LOTS of press today. It was forwarded to me twice, then posted by three of my Facebook friends, accompanied by “see what these men’s rights guys are really like?” fulminating. (sigh) I really, really wish he’d posted this some other day… I went and said something positive about the MRM on my radio show today (about sentencing discrepancies/Jodi Arias trial), and he made me look pretty deluded and clueless. (that’s why his post was suddenly forwarded to me, en masse) Thanks Roosh! Great timing!

    Next time, I will make sure no MRAs have declared war on women for their unattractive appearance, before commenting positively about the MRM and thereby making a damn fool of myself.

    All 9 are women (of course!), all featuring unflattering photos, lots of ageism, calling them old, fat, ugly, etc etc. PZ Myers humorously complained that he was not included and asked why no men are allowed on the list. (Apparently there is antisemitism in the comments too… glad I didn’t read them.)

    Stay classy, Men’s Rights Movement. Keep up the good work! You make more feminists every day. (One of the people who forwarded it to me is a Baptist Republican.)

  • Ealge35

    testing

  • Ealge35

    Okay, it works.

    Sorry to derail but it turns out the issue of Men’s Rights isn’t just laughed at by the extremist gynocentric element of feminism.

    http://vine.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=2285326

    Observe the ignorance at full decibel level in that thread. It literally took all the willpower in the world to stop shaking in rage at the computer screen while reading it.

  • Paul

    I don’t read Roosh regularly (or at all, actually. I think I’ve only ever read 1 post of his, years ago) but I think he’s a PUA, not an MRA. (And no, they’re not the same thing despite feminist attempts to conflate them) In fact I seem to remember something about Roosh being fairly contemptuous of MRAs in general. But I could be wrong, as I said I pretty much ignore Roosh.

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    @Aoife O’Riordan C’mon, Julie. If you’re going to stereotype a massively diverse group of people you should at the very least pick a side.

    Oh, but didn’t you know? We’re all pathetic middle-aged, stealthy know-nothings, who are transitioning to simultaneously infiltrate the lesbian movement and be considered attractive by cis gay men.

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    @Daisy

    As to Roosh, or whatever his name is: I will agree that he is representative of the misogyny and lookism in the MRM, if unifems will agree that Burchill, Moore, and Bindel are representative of the misogyny and lookism in the feminist movement.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Valerie, well, I had both Roosh and Burchill forwarded to me in triplicate, so right now, I am being held accountable for both. (I think that probably isn’t happening to you in quite the same way.)

    Certainly, I think both of them need to STFU.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Speaking of radio…

    Not to be outdone by no brits, Rush Limbaugh is getting in on the transphobic act. (triggers, etc) This one is about trans men:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/15/1179120/-Yes-Rush-Limbaugh-Likes-To-Say-Add-A-Dick-To-Me#

  • dungone

    “As to Roosh, or whatever his name is: I will agree that he is representative of the misogyny and lookism in the MRM, if unifems will agree that Burchill, Moore, and Bindel are representative of the misogyny and lookism in the feminist movement.”

    That’s not much of a concession. It’s like saying you’d agree that black is white if they agree that 1+1=2

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Correction: That was Chris Clarke, not PZ Myers who complained about not being included on the ugly feminist list. I am getting my nature-oriented freethoughtbloggers confused.
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/15/what-about-the-menz/

  • Shoutybloke

    Roosh hasn’t made any real contibutions to the PUA community, as far as I can see. He seems to be far more significant in the gendershpere for complaining about feminism.

  • http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com stonerwithaboner
  • http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com stonerwithaboner

    if you want another butthead manosphere guy to mock, there’s Matt Forney…

  • dungone

    “contibutions to the PUA community”

    I think he’s made enough money off of suckers to count as a contributor. Even though it’s a contradiction in terms.

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    @Daisy Valerie, well, I had both Roosh and Burchill forwarded to me in triplicate, so right now, I am being held accountable for both. (I think that probably isn’t happening to you in quite the same way.)

    Well, the only people who would be coming at me with Roosh would be the people who howled with delight at Burchill’s words, so yeah, I’m rightly a bit immunized from somehow simultaneously diametrically opposed to in thought and deed.

  • debaser71

    LOL FTB. Freefromthought Blogs. The very epitome of radical feminists pretending to be skeptics. That crowd is precisely the reason why I am anti-feminist. It’s that same crowd who tells people to shove flaming porcupine up their ass, rusty knives up their ass SIDEWAYS! The same crowd who calls men “neckbeards” say things like, “you are just an angry man who can’t get laid” or “has a small penis”. They lie about people calling them stalkers and harassers while they are the one’s going to people’s employers trying to get them fired. They ban people from conferences and go on shunning campaigns (witch hunts) against people who dare disagree with their radical feminists notions. This crowd talks of social justice by going into ethnic neighborhoods to talk atheism, then blather on about other people being privileged white folk. (All I have to do is go next door if I want to talk to “ethnic people”).

    Fuck the FTB crowd. They are toxic to both skepticism and feminism.

  • debaser71

    Stay classy feminists! Keep up the good work! You are making more anti-feminists everyday!

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Valerie: I’m rightly a bit immunized from somehow simultaneously diametrically opposed to in thought and deed.

    (?) Valerie, as you said, both pieces are similar: making fun of women’s appearances. I don’t see them as diametrically opposed at all. We are supposed to have made all kinds of “progress” and yet women’s appearance is still apparently the measure of our worth.

    As I said, I made some people upset for saying good things about the MRM on the air. I’m in the soup now! Its a rather peculiar position to be in, true. Many of them believe Roosh to be a real MRA or at least a very popular one. Isn’t he? (Burchill was forwarded for the usual horrified reasons.)

    I made a sort of prediction on the air, and then said I would revisit the issue… if Jodi Arias is found not guilty, I will deliver a proper rant on the subject of sentencing discrepancies. As it is, I just said there was one. I said if she is found not guilty, it means something is definitely WRONG, that if you are pretty and prim you are officially allowed to get away with murder. One of my friends is VERY put out with me and says I should have “said it differently”… why? (sigh)

    There is just no pleasing some people.

    More links…Here’s some reading about a woman who looked for a sperm donor and found one… it left a really unpleasant taste in my mouth. Since she uses a pseudonym, we can’t check the details. But I am wondering if “Jill” is for real, rather convenient and timely, doncha think? http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/divorcing_while_pregnant/
    Yeeeecccchhhh. (Careful you don’t get blinded by all the BRAND NAMES she drops.)

    Debaser, some years ago, the crowd at FTB said I was a white trash southerner, only fit for scrubbing toilets and fucking my own brother. Nobody said a word in objection, including PZ. There were only a few women there then, and they seemed to enjoy it too. “Radical feminist” huh? I guess we have different definitions of that. Or maybe it depends on who you are.

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    @Daisy

    Sorry, I dropped a couple of key words while editing…

    I’m rightly a bit immunized from two diametrically opposed people, whom I am somehow simultaneously diametrically opposed to in thought and deed.

    And yeah, I’ve taken some flack for even presuming anything other than unidirectional oppression is possible. My recent response has been to challenge my detractors to name another ostensibly unidirectionally privileged group that lags in so many socioeconomic indicators. They then either derail and go back to asserting that because men are in most positions of authority that they control everything and ergo it’s all teh menz fault… or just stop talking…

    I wonder if I consider this progress. I at least have a unifem-stopper now.

  • http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com stonerwithaboner

    “Many of them believe Roosh to be a real MRA or at least a very popular one. Isn’t he?”

    Roosh is not an MRA, neither is Heartiste-they sell the snakeoil called “game.”

    To him I am a subhuman Omega ™–he is a real man because he gets puuusssy…. Well, if I went to a bar and threw myself at 679423 drunk skanks I could get puuusssy too…

    It the same as Mandy Marcotte saying I am a subhuman Nice Guy ™ POS, of course she has the puuusssy so she makes the rules…. Frankly, I’d rather turn gay or spend the rest of my life celibate then go anywhere near Marcotte.

    notice how it’s ugly feminists and asshole manosphere guys who go out of their way to shame low status men.

    look how all these femanazi’s are against prostitution. They don’t care about the women who freely choose it. They want to frustrate men who, given options wouldn’t give them the time of day….

    (I’m against coerced prostitution/sex slavery, incase someone wants to take what I’m saying out of context. I absolutely think it’s not the government’s business or nasty Marcotte’s what two consenting adults do.)

    Daisy, if you really believe in the empowerment of women and not shaming men, then wouldn’t it follow that legalized prostitution is the best way to deal with that. Ironic how PUA’s and man hating feminist’s are against it….

  • Copyleft

    Debaser sums up my take on FTB as well: they do nothing to advance skepticism and reason, and very little to advance equality, favoring radical feminism in its place.

  • debaser71

    I think many of those people mentioned in that Rosh blog are ugly! The worst kind of ugly…ugly on the inside. No amount of make up, make over, or photoshopping can change that.

  • Evil Green Ranger

    Daisy:

    I have a simple test for if someone is an MRA: Do they talk about Men’s Rights? Roosh bitches about feminism. But he never talks about Men’s Rights, or about changing the social or political landscape.

    PUA: “The dating world sucks; Here’s how to turn that to your advantage and get laid.”

    MRA: “The dating world sucks; But that’s just one of many things that sucks. There’s also institutional misandry in the courts, education, employment, medicine… we should start a PR cmapaign.”

    MTGOW?: “The dating world sucks; fuck it.”

  • DaisyDeadhead

    EGR: I have a simple test for if someone is an MRA: Do they talk about Men’s Rights? Roosh bitches about feminism. But he never talks about Men’s Rights, or about changing the social or political landscape.

    Well, there is also the little matter of MRAs happily linking to stuff like “9 ugly feminists”–and that doesn’t help, now does it?

    They need to close him out, in that case, or get tarred with the same brush. Same as radfem hub has been, by the rest of us. (You don’t see me or Feministe linking to radfem hub.)

    copyleft: Debaser sums up my take on FTB as well: they do nothing to advance skepticism and reason, and very little to advance equality, favoring radical feminism in its place.

    In 2006 or thereabouts, hardly any women there at all. As I said, non-PC comments and calling people white trash was perfectly acceptable, even de rigueur. When did the changeover occur? Obama administration? Or was elevatorgate the whole reason?

  • debaser71

    In 2006 Pharyngula was still on Science Blogs (Sb). As far as I know it was during elevatorgate (summer 2011) that the transition from Sb to FTB was starting or had only recently started. There was talk earlier about this happening in the future, just I don’t think the transition was in 2006 yet. IIRC in 2006 Pharyngula was pretty much an atheist blog with heavy leanings towards liberalism. In 2006 I was an avid reader of PZ but anytime I looked at the comments I was irked at what I saw…but it wasn’t until elevatorgate where the shit really hit the fan over there. Also, at least for me, I had a real falling out with liberal blogs (including PZ’s just not in as a dramatic sense) during the 2008 democratic primaries. Like I had said before, since I was for Hillary (my senator who, ya know, has shown to be able to withstand attacks from the meanest nasties of the right wing hate machine for over a decade), I was a racist hillbilly good ol’ boy from West Virginia. Obamaphilia was rampant and it was ugly.

    Sorry if I am making little sense. My mind doesn’t think about the past in terms of dates. Only in terms of the sequence of events. For me, before the democratic primaries for the 2008 elections I was happy to read liberal and atheist blogs. I felt fairly secure in that my fellow liberals and atheists were on the money on most issues. Boy was I wrong.

  • Ginkgo

    “Well, there is also the little matter of MRAs happily linking to stuff like “9 ugly feminists”–and that doesn’t help, now does it? ”

    Wait for it…That’s not my MRM!

    Or “Not all MRAs are like that!”

    There is this matter – over a year ago Paul Elam denounced these people and said they wee not MRAs specifically because they, the PUA clooge, were stil obsessing over women. He called it “pussyism”, andbelieve me, that was not aimed at women.

  • Evil Green Ranger

    Daisy:

    That’s a large part of the reason I don’t spend much time in MRA-spaces. There’s an awful lot of snark and demonise-the-enemy, and I don’t find that helpful.

    Of course, lots of feminist spaces are just as bad. I blame the internet — most communities have devolved into link-to-a-thing-that-will-make-you-mad.

    MRA Spaces also suffer from a hate-the-feminists brigade, when most of the problems men suffer predate feminism, or are propped up by non-feminists as well. (People: If disposability is the problem, feminists are not the culprit.)

    I know I’m preaching to the choir here.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Debaser: I was a racist hillbilly good ol’ boy from West Virginia. Obamaphilia was rampant and it was ugly.

    I got the same! I was also accused of being a RonPaulbot just for writing fairly about him and attempting to analyze his appeal to poor southerners. And I *did* vote for Obama (the first time, Jill Stein this past election.)

    I thought if you were an atheist, you were immune, so this is surprising to hear.

    I will admit, the tenor of the comments dept is politically opposite from what I remember… I remember lots of Ayn Randoid characters over there, might makes right, Darwin run riot, fuck the A-rabs and drop more bombs, he who has the gold makes the rules, etc etc etc. They informed me that people are religious because they are just plain stupid, that’s all… and that’s all you need to know about belief in gods and the reasons for it. (I really pissed em off when I asked if that included, you know, Obama.)

    I have since made a personal rule *never* to argue with Ayn Randians again, so those days are over.

    Gingko: He called it “pussyism”, andbelieve me, that was not aimed at women.

    LOL. The term in early feminism (for women) was “male identified”… that might be something you could use: “female identified”–but people might take that meaning as something else these days, more about one’s gender identity.

    The term inevitably turned deadly, of course, as we all ended up using it against each other eventually: http://www.answers.com/topic/male-identified-woman.
    At first, it just meant making men the center/raison d’être of everything you do. This would be applicable to Roosh and company in reverse. (At the time, the term was often used to describe the “Cosmo girls” for instance–so the reverse, again, would make sense.)

    Who is Roosh making money off of? Does he have some kind of racket going on? I know he has written “books”–but who hasn’t? (LOL) Do people really buy them?

  • debaser71

    Pharnygula hates libertarians and poke fun of Ayn Rand libertarian types all the time. Funny how non-atheists say atheists are Randians and then atheists say libertarians are nothing but Randians. Also, I hadn’t noticed “bomb ’em” style people there. In fact atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens received a lot of shit from PZ and his crowd for their views on Iraq and talking openly about the “dangers of extremism”. This went on before 2006….during IIRC the 2004 elections.

    With that said there are atheism libertarians just that over at FTB and Sb before that, they were a group that crowd make fun of. Penn Jillette is another example of someone they loved to hate. Now Micheal Shermer (another self described libertarian atheist) is on their witch of the week list.

  • debaser71

    And sorry for the typos and bad writing….lots going on here.

  • DaisyDeadhead

    Debaser, interesting.

    EGR and others: speaking of disposability, read that link up there from Salon. I blame all of you for me reading it as a piece on getting a sperm donor… I never used to talk like that. 😉
    But if a man wrote it about finding some (any) woman to marry to just have his baby, I’d be disgusted.

    Thus, its only fair I find that disgusting too.

    Before, I would have said it was her class and brand-name idiocy that disgusted me; I would have resisted the men-as-sperm-donor angle.

    Your fault!

  • Schala

    ” (People: If disposability is the problem, feminists are not the culprit.)”

    Feminists are the culprit in wanting only certain victims recognized, for rape, for DV, and going for female-only funding, while claiming to be about equality and for ALL victims.

    It’s said that it’s patriarchy that denies that men can be victims. Well, it denied that women being victims of DV was a bad thing before, and that didn’t stop them from advocating for battered shelters.

  • dungone

    “He called it “pussyism”, andbelieve me, that was not aimed at women.”

    For those who inevitably won’t understand how Paul Elam used it, it was to denote the religious fervency of men who base their entire identity around getting access to women’s genitals.

  • Ginkgo

    Daisy,
    “Gingko: He called it “pussyism”, andbelieve me, that was not aimed at women.
    LOL. The term in early feminism (for women) was “male identified”… that might be something you could use: “female identified”–but people might take that meaning as something else these days, more about one’s gender identity.”

    Paul elam gets pretty irritated with simple misogyny of that kind, calling all women “pussies”. No, he was referring to men that center their lives around getting laid. “Ladies’ men” we used to call them.

  • JE

    @Daisy: Read the link. Everyone in it sounded like people you’re lucky not to meet. I like the Cosmo girl comparison, I’ve always seen PUA as basically the male equivalent of Cosmo.

  • Evil Green Ranger

    Daisy:

    Welcome to the movement. 😉 Once you’ve seen it, you can’t unsee it.

    Schala:

    You’re right, of course. The underlying point is that even if feminism is defeated (whatever _that_ means,) men will still be disposable.

  • dungone

    It’s said that it’s patriarchy that denies that men can be victims. Well, it denied that women being victims of DV was a bad thing before, and that didn’t stop them from advocating for battered shelters.

    To spell out the actual logic at work in what happened, what we had were people who invented Patriarchal theory telling us that women were being denied recognition as victims while at the same exact time opening up shelters for women only and denying that men could be victims. The part that you can just cut out altogether via Occam’s Razor is Patriarchal theory. Then it all makes sense.

  • Nick

    Then “rape” is also a very basic human function just the same and it too is being unfairly restricted. In fact, the very word “rape” and its definition are man-made. They are products of a man-made civilization. It’s namely feminist women who are asked to work with the FBI and the government to define what rape means and every now and again feminsits alter its meaning, always adding restrictions to the definition, never taking restrictions away. Eventually “rape” will encompass ALL sex and ALL sex will be considered taboo, but only if men are involved.

    Let us not forget that all laws are man-made and therefore unnatural. They are created to restrict people from performing certain acts, either natural or unnatural. For instance, some acts at one time were deemed as being “unnatural” by collective society. Homosexuality comes to mind. For a very long time homosexuality was deemed as being “unnatural” or as a deliberate deviant act that was a direct sin against God and government. Today it’s widely accepted as being a perfectly natural act and is now allowed.

    Before the man-made word “rape” and its man-made definition came to be it was allowed and accepted as a natural male response for procreation purposes. Women were powerless to stop it and they had no way to unnaturally “opt out” of motherhood once they became pregnant with a males seed. The act of what is now known as “rape” was accepted for a long time. It’s unclear if the women of the time were accepting of it or tried to fight it everytime. I suspect many women leanerd to accept it and saw it as being as natural as taking a leak for men. I don’t think it was until more restrictive societies were founded that it became taboo for males to resort to this act. Societies competed with each other to see who could be the most restrictive. In fact, the word “civilized” only means a person or place that lives under a restrictive set of man-made laws that are used to govern the person or place in question. Therefore, “uncivilized” means freedom. Freedom from restrictive laws anyways.

    And if “rape” is unnatural then why do we see it happen in EVERY animal species on this planet? For instance, male cats “rape” female cats and male dogs “rape” female dogs. Not only that, but each of them come equiped with special penises that prevent the female from getting away. Cats have barbs on their penises that prevent the female from escaping, thus ensuring his seed will impregnate the female. If she tries to escape she can be ripped to the point of bleeding to death. Dogs have knots and the purpose of the knot is also to prevent the female from getting away, thus ensuring his seed will impregnate the female. If a female dog tries to break from of the knot she will most likely rupture herself and bleed to death. Isn’t this proof that nature intended for females to be taken against their will? If all females consented then there would be no need for barbs or knots and God or nature would not have needed to give males these special penises to begin with wouldn’t you agree? What is the purpose of the barb or knot if you disagree with me? You think they are used to keep the male cuddling with the female for her pleasure! LOL!

    So lets talk about human males. Human males don’t have barbs or knots but they do have a considerable size and strength advantage over human females for the most part. This size and strength advantage could be considered the “barb” or “knot” for human males to ensure their seed will impregnate an unwilling female that attempts to flee. Why else would God or nature make males bigger and stronger than females? Why would God or nature make males much more aggressive than females as well? And if rape is unnatural, why is there so much of it? Could it be that “rape” is in fact a natural male response and all we’re doing is with “rape” laws is restricting them from doing what’s in their very nature to do as to provide women a safer and more in controlled way of living? I think so.

    Now, I’m not saying this to upset any women on here even though I know they won’t be able to contain themselves on this topic because they absolutely refuse to accept rape or acknowlege nature when it doesn’t benefit themselves. But I think we as a society do ourselves a disservice by hiding behind the comfort of our man-made civilization and man-made laws when we deny the truth of nature. We want to believe our man-made lifestyle is natural and anything really natural only makes us appear too much like the rest of the animals on this planet that are below us. We hide behind our fake way of living because we’re too scared of our very nature. I personally don’t believe we are here on Earth to do anything more than screw and reproduce. Sure, we have the ability to do more than that but our main purpose in life is to reproduce. Feminists, as well as the government, have been selling the idea that we are here to work careers. They are actively marginalizing any form of sex and camping it all under man-made definition of the man-made word “rape”. We’re not gaining freedom, we’re losing it. This happens when special interest’s concerns trump the majority’s status quo. Things change but the change is usually just more unnatural laws that restrict us from our true nature more and more. Thanks for the read.

  • Copyleft

    “I thought if you were an atheist, you were immune, so this is surprising to hear.”

    That’s one of the most disillusioning moments of embracing atheism… the realization that just because someone’s an atheist doesn’t mean they’re going to be rational or skeptical on every (or even ANY) other issue.

    Atheists are people who have seen through ONE lie; there’s no guarantee that they’ve seen through any others.

  • EquilibriumShift

    Happy to be the first to address your comment, Nick.

    I suspect I might be nicer than most about this.

    Your entire line of reasoning is crap. You fell (and fell hard) for the naturalistic fallacy. Yes, “rape” is natural, but that doesn’t make it right.

    “Rape” in animals is much different from rape in humans. A female of a species having a high threshold for allowing a sexual partner access is good for the species (inversely proportional to how much energy a male spends raising the young). Therefore, a female will often keep that threshold high by resisting a male’s advances with the biological understanding that should the male be successful, he was good enough in the first place, and the female “consented”.

    Rape in humans is much different. First of all, human females menstruate every month, rather than every 6(ish) months like dogs and cats. Humans also fuck for fun. (Those two things are related). Humans use sex as part of intimate social bonding. Dogs and cats don’t. Dolphins are the only animal I know of that fuck for fun and also use rape specifically to impregnate. But do we need to be basing our laws and society on the sexual patterns of dolphins?

    Also, your comments about losing freedom, etc. etc. are somewhat concerning. It looks like you are saying that men are losing the “freedom” to impregnate any woman with a uterus that we want to. We never had that freedom, and I don’t think any men today want that “freedom”. (Incidentally, that position is very strongly anti-male, partly because it assumes men want to rape all the time, and partly because it assumes that men aren’t victims/women aren’t perpetrators). If you mean, instead, that hetero-piv-sex is slowly being re-classified as rape, then there are people who share your concerns. I personally am not concerned with the re-definition as much as I am concerned with the promotion of the assumption (which has existed for a long time) that the man is the rapist, and the woman is the victim in all cases of piv-as-rape sex.

    Let me just say that if you really are arguing that men should be able to walk down the street and just grab any old woman they see for a quick rape, then your ideas are not acceptable to me. I don’t get to tell you to leave, but you won’t find support for that kind of thing here.

  • Clarence

    Nick:
    I’ll agree that some of the laws regarding pornography and sex are partly promulgated by certain types of traditionalists and feminists out of a sort of sexual trade unionism. That can also explain some of the near hysterical overly broad definitions of things such as labeling pictures of 15 and older teens “child” porn, and etc.

    All that being said, your entire argument -assuming you are making it in good faith- falls apart with the simple fact that murder is also “natural” and murder is illegal. Rapes – at least the commonly accepted definition type of rape which includes violence or threats of violence-traumatize people, not to mention they violate the right to bodily integrity of the person they are committed against. As for your animal assertions it appears that rape is not “normalized” among dogs -http://animalrescuecorps.org/learn/companion-animal-abuse/
    , and while rape does occurs female dogs seem very capable of defending themselves.

    As far as it goes I’m a heterosexual man and I’ve never had the desire to rape a woman; even when I’ve been alone in isolated spots with a few attractive ones so clearly your implication that all males are just “rape machines” waiting to happen is merely something you pulled out of your ass. If you wish to act on your impulses buddy I hope you quickly learn what the inside of a prison cell looks like.

  • Schala

    “Sure, we have the ability to do more than that but our main purpose in life is to reproduce.”

    We have no purpose really. We just are.

    Life itself will find a way to perpetuate itself, individuals can do whatever.

    Some people find meaning to their existence by reproducing, because they haven’t found any doing anything else maybe, but that doesn’t mean we are like cells doing mitosis before dying. We can freely think and resolve complex problems. We can also create complex problems, even for ourselves. To think we can being reduced to mere chattel is beneficial/ideal is overly reductionist.

    Oh and, Nick, much of your post is extremely offensive.

  • Ginkgo

    Welcome, Nick.

    Thank you all, everyone else. You leave me nothing to add.

  • http://marjaerwin.livejournal.com Marja Erwin

    Clarence,

    I think an emphasis on consent, and defining sexual assault in terms of coercion instead of in terms of physical violence – though rape is itself physical violence – is an improvement.

    It has the potential, if it is widely-enough accepted and widely-enough understood, to benefit all survivors and not just survivors. It challenges the idea that if you don’t fight, you haven’t been legitimately raped. It challenges the idea that if you’re a strong healthy man you can only be raped by a stronger healthier man. It challenges the victim-blaming that sex workers face if they are raped. It distinguishes consensual bdsm from abuse. (It probably says something that this idea helps people who those pushing this idea might have ignored, scored, or despised.)

  • Clarence

    Marja:
    That’s nice (and nothing I don’t already know and *mostly* agree with) but I was explaining to a potential troll why the crime traditionally defined as rape is wrong, and there is no way that you are going to convince me that “he didn’t withdraw fast enough after I changed my mind” (the Baby case in Maryland is the one I’m most familiar with) is the same as being physically attacked, restrained, and violated despite not an iota of consent. I’m actually not even ok with calling such things rape, as I think it cheapens the word, and would rather classify such violations under a lower level category of sexual assault.

    And by the way, the legal standard IS the consent standard and has been, at least in the USA, since the 1970’s and earlier (in a few states). Indeed, the earlier statutes included ‘physical resistance’ almost solely for the purpose of proving or disproving consent.

  • dungone

    It challenges the idea that if you don’t fight, you haven’t been legitimately raped.

    As typhonblue pithily pointed out, it also challenges the notion that women can just lay there like planks and call it sex. If they want to set a high standard for enthusiastic consent, they’re actually going to have to start giving it before they can claim that they, uh… gave it. You can’t make this type of demand so long as men out there experience women as sexual gatekeepers who use it as a manipulative reward system in exchange for having the guy pour gifts, favors, and money all over her.

  • dungone

    @Nick, your narrow-minded view of the world prevents you from seeing how it actually works. I can even explain it to you in your own terms. Raped women suffer from psychological trauma. Women who suffer from psychological trauma produce less babies. Groups of humans who rape all of their women produce less babies than groups of humans who do not. It is therefore against their best interests to allow for women to be raped. And therefore, the “man-made” laws that make rape illegal are actually a perfectly natural outcome of human evolution.

  • Copyleft

    Nick: Of course rape is natural. But that has nothing to do with whether it’s acceptable. Since when has ‘natural’ been a good thing? Typhoid, rattlesnake venom, and tsunamis are all natural, and I wouldn’t recommend any of them as a good thing for humanity. (Although the snakes are good at keeping down vermin.)

    The question isn’t whether rape has ‘natural’ origins; it’s whether we choose to welcome such instincts into the civilization we’ve built. And I’m okay with keeping that one out.

    “We want to believe our man-made lifestyle is natural”

    I certainly don’t! There’s nothing inherently good about ‘natural,’ or bad about ‘man-made.’

    “I personally don’t believe we are here on Earth to do anything more than screw and reproduce. Sure, we have the ability to do more than that but our main purpose in life is to reproduce.”

    Again, speak for yourself. Purpose is not inherent to humanity (or anything else); purpose is what we choose to invent and assign to things, including our own lives.

  • Ginkgo

    “There’s nothing inherently good about ‘natural,’ or bad about ‘man-made.’

    It’s an arbitrary dichotomy anyway. Man is inseparable from nature and it’s human nature to create nurture. This is why the whole arguemtn always becomes circular.

    “And therefore, the “man-made” laws that make rape illegal are actually a perfectly natural outcome of human evolution.”

    Thank you dungone. The same holds for bi-parental child rearing. It’s the norm across the vast majority of cultures and in most actual children’s lives because it works best for this particular species.

  • LurkerInDE

    Hi all, long time lurker first time commenter,

    Regarding the ethnicity and class of these women:

    Since this is in my neck of the woods (and I gather Clarence’s), I’d like to point out to those not in the know that the state of Delaware has NO SALES TAX. Literally 0%. One of the ways the state encourages tourism is with the slogan “the home of tax-free shopping.” It’s probably the thing I am most fond of about this state. IF something says it costs $9.99, you will pay exactly nine dollars and ninety-nine cents for that item. This probably means the Concord Mall, being in tax-free Delaware and only 40 minutes drive from the fourth most populated city in the U.S. (Philadelphia), draws a very diverse crowd, since a 40 minute drive could save you dozens if not more on big purchases. Because of this, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that this particular mall draws more diversity that most malls in America. (Though I have been there a few times, I’ve never actually paid attention to what kind of crowd the mall was drawing, so I may be wrong.) This is not to say that any individual commenters on this thread are right or wrong, but in context I could easily see such an incentive drawing people from all socioeconomic classes and there being friction as the normally separate groups co-mingle. I’m not entirely sure where I was going with this, but I do think this information is relevant to people who live outside this area.

  • Nick

    Ok, let me start off by apolozing to the sensitive crowd that I don’t think understood me. That’s my fault because I’d been up for 36 hours and I wrote a long long long post on here and may have lost track of what I was trying to get at. In fact, I’m sure I got off my original intent now that I look at it.

    I am in no way suggesting anyone rape anyone. So let’s clear that up before I start.

    Ok, what I was getting at is this – we live under a “civilized” society. The blog was about women breast feeding in public. So what I was trying to get at is this – rape is a natural human instinct (found in both males and females of our species). Our civilized society has deemed it wrong and has criminalized it. So, it’s not hard to expect that this same civilized society would find a woman breast feeding in public taboo as well. I’m not comparing rape and breast feeding the same way. I’m comparing them on the basic natural primitiveness however. Breast feeding is after all a very primitive and natural thing just like rape is in our species.

    While breast feeding hasn’t been criminalized yet, it is getting there because of modern inventions that make breast feeding obsolete in some people’s minds. This is becoming a popular idea in civilized society. Today, there are pumps a woman can use in private so she has bottles of her milk she can use to feed her child when she’s out in public without having to resort to publicly exposing herself to feed her child straight from her breasts. There is also formula as well. Of course the pro-breastfeeding crowd and most scientists believe a mother’s milk is best for her child. But there are many who refute this and are pushing the idea that formula is better – especially if the mother’s health is bad, if she’s a smoker, a drinker, eats too many fatty foods, or gets too little vitamins and minerals in her diet. All of those things can affect the quality of the breast milk and the affect it has on the child. Surely, a mother who’s lacking too much or is damagin her health through smoking/drinking/drugs has poor quality breast milk that might as well be poison for her child. In this case, formula IS better.

    So anyways, I was just expressing how our civilized society is not a natural one or even evolutionary step in the human process as someone else suggested. It’s just a collection of laws and rules established based on popular opinion that force us all to “act” a certain way based on the status quo established by popular opinion. What is natural to us can one day be found taken from us and considered criminal based on popular opinion.

    I don’t think it has as much to do with misogyny as the OP believes. I think it has more to do with humans trying to distance themselves from other animal species who still act and behave in their most natural and primitive ways. We want to be more than them so we put on an act to absolve ourselves from being like most other animal species.

    And that’s all civilization really is. It’s just an act. We challenge ourselves to be more than we really are. It’s a cloak for us to mask ourselves from our accepting our primitive nature. It has nothing to do with evolution of the human species. In fact, it’s actually hurt our evolution in many ways. Intelligence tests are showing that humans are becoming less intelligent in many ways because we are distancing ourselves from our true survival of the fittess nature. We are becoming weaker and unhealthier as well because we eat a lot of man-made processed foods today and not organic whole foods. It’s taking a toll on us and our health and instead of returning to our roots we look for other unnatural solutions to patch up our problems. Like Big Pharma drugs. We all look for a pill to fix us today. These pills have side effects that are damaging our health and our genes. Future generations of humans are being harmed by it – not helped.

    So anyways, that’s all I was getting at. I know it’s not the popular opinion on here but that doesn’t mean it’s not right. It just means I’m open minded about our past while others are more focused on patching our problems with more unnatural methods. My concern for them is this – this Earth is limited in resources. We can continue to run from ourselves but eventually you’re gonna run out of rope. Sometimes the best cure to a problem is to go back – not forward.

  • http://valeriekeefe.tumblr.com Valerie Keefe

    Ok, let me start off by apolozing to the sensitive crowd that I don’t think understood me.

    Rape and breast feeding are the same now…

    I give up.

  • Iron Lightning

    @Nick: Okay, so you’ve established that civilization is not primitive. How is this a bad thing? I know I would rather not live without heat, reliable food, medical care, computers, elcetricity, roads… all the wonderful boons of science around us and I know that you feel the same way. I know this because you’re using a computer right now to type using written language on the world wide web. Man, you computer using Luddites crack me up.

  • Copyleft

    I get your point, Nick, and I’m not offended at all; I just disagree with you.

    “So anyways, I was just expressing how our civilized society is not a natural one”

    Yep, adn that’s a good thing that I wholeheartedly endorse and support. Humans have brains; we can do better than nature (or “God’s will,” as the religious call it), and we have a moral obligation to do so whenever and wherever we can.

    “What is natural to us can one day be found taken from us and considered criminal based on popular opinion.”

    Correct. And I wouldn’t have it any other way. I love civilization.

    “And that’s all civilization really is. It’s just an act. We challenge ourselves to be more than we really are.”

    Every day and in every way. I welcome the challenge!

    “We are becoming weaker and unhealthier as well because we eat a lot of man-made processed foods today and not organic whole foods.”

    If letting nearsighted people survive into adulthood and pass their nearsighted genes along is the price for empathy, freedom, and justice, I pay it gladly.

    “It’s taking a toll on us and our health and instead of returning to our roots we look for other unnatural solutions to patch up our problems. Like Big Pharma drugs. We all look for a pill to fix us today. These pills have side effects that are damaging our health and our genes. Future generations of humans are being harmed by it – not helped.”

    Now here, you seem to veering off into some “natural = better” whole-foods type argument. Me, I like modern medicine. Can you point to any studies showing that ‘these pills’ are damaging our genes, and that no work is underway to correct such flaws if they exist?

    “My concern for them is this – this Earth is limited in resources.”

    Agreed, obviously. Our current lifestyle is in many ways unsustainable, especially if we want to spread it around so the rest of the world can live at the same level of comfort and security.

    “Sometimes the best cure to a problem is to go back – not forward.”

    There I disagree with you. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing–but the solution to that is more knowledge, not ignorance. Humanity cannot forget what it’s learned and go back to living in caves and huts; we can only add to our knowledge and try to develop newer, better solutions.

  • debaser71

    IMO Nick has a point (nice welcoming atmosphere btw). Many people really dislike being reminded of our evolutionary past. Many people want humans to not be the animals we are. Breastfeeding reminds them of this.

    And rape is natural. But this is gonna bring back a topic I don’t want to get into again, about, “pair bonding”.

  • NeMi

    Everything humans do, have ever done, and will ever do, is a part of human nature. This whole civilization/nature division is moot since civilization is a part of nature, as natural as the hunter-gatherers ever were.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUv02VxAcNU MaMu1977

    Rooshv’s post was combined flame bait/page view raiser, and it worked well enough to make the servers crash. Look forward to seeing more inflammatory posts, more internet drama and more adverts on his site.

    To go in an equally satirical (but more aligned to this site’s purpose) post by a pua, try this on for size:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/no-one-is-entitled-to-commitment/

  • Nick

    @ Valerie – I never said they were the same thing. I said they were both natural in the human species but rape has been criminalized by society for being considered an uncivilzed act while breast feeding isn’t even though it too is a natural act that IS uncivilized and IS harming others just in a different way.

    How is breast feeding uncivilized and hurting others? I’ll explain…

    Do we allow minors to see naked women or naked men? No we don’t. Why? Because it’s indecent and a civilized society doesn’t expose its children to adult nudity and sex in order to protect their innocence.

    For the same argument in favor of breast feeding in public being natural we could argue this under the same logic….

    Sexual intercourse is a perfectly natural act that isn’t hurting anyone so shouldn’t we allow that to occur in public as well? Do you really want to take your son or daughter into Wal-mart and see a fully naked woman down on her knees with some big hairy naked man shoving his penis down her throat and ejaculating all over her face when he’s done? I mean, it’s perfectly natural after all and isn’t hurting anyone right? What about walking into Wal-mart and seeing two adult men engaged in homosexual sex with one shoving his dookie stained penis in and out of the other man’s ass? Perfectly natural act that isn’t harming anyone right? I mean, your children might have nightmares from it or ask a lot of questions they really don’t need to know about but hey – it’s perfectly natural and isn’t hurting them right? Right.

  • Jupp

    Nick:

    Do we allow minors to see naked women or naked men? No we don’t. Why? Because it’s indecent and a civilized society doesn’t expose its children to adult nudity and sex in order to protect their innocence.

    This is ridiculous. Go to the beach in France, Netherlands or Germany you are going to see many naked breasts. And in some places you will see naked people. You are saying that these countries are not civilised because people aren’t prudes about nudity.

    Sexual intercourse is a perfectly natural act that isn’t hurting anyone so shouldn’t we allow that to occur in public as well?

    Well in the Vondel Park in the city of Amsterdam sex was permitted (if you were discrete) last time I checked. But your argument falls flat here, the problem is not nudity being undecent, but that children can’t be expected to process and fully understand certain acts, so we don’t show them sex as well as the slaughtering of animals, although both are useful and natural.

  • Pingback: EQUALITY IS MISOGYNY – When will feminists stop blaming men? | GendErratic()