Back when feminism was becoming a mass movement back in the early 70’s, back when it was still Women’s Liberation, a lot of its success as a cultural movement was because feminists coined good, powerful slogans and terms that really spoke to people. People accepted and adopted them because they aligned with people’s own experiences.
One that was very effective was the term “male chauvinist pig”. (And by the way, the use of “pig” is one big reason I have no time for feminists decrying term like “cougar”. Supposedly it’s disrespectful to liken women to animals but fine when you do it to men.) A male chauvinist pig was three things mainly: 1) he was someone who thought that men were somehow superior to women and so 2) he thought that women existed to serve men and that 3. Women were therefor at his sexual disposal, in any way he chose to claim it.
A term that came into use about the same time was “sexist pig.”
These terms were effective shaming devices, mostly because that kind of behavior was already considered basically unacceptable and always had been – “cad” – with an extra dollop of hip disapproval. It really did in fact play a big role in changing the culture for Mad Men to what we see today. And that difference is undeniable, in case anyone wants to argue the point.
Men as well as women can be the victims of sexism – in fact denying that is itself sexist – but there is a lot more resistance to calling that out, perhaps because that behavior is not already considered basically unacceptable. That can change, but it will take work. It will take people using these terms when they see sexism aimed at men.
I am not using the term “female chauvinist pig” in the sense that Ariel Levy does. In the end her use of the term is a little superficial. She criticizes women for mimicking male chauvinist sexism without criticizing women’s female chauvinist sexism. Female chauvinism comes out of the same patriarchal worldview as does male chauvinism – chivalry, toxic femininity, toxic framings of macho masculinity and gender essentialism.
So with that in mind, you are a sexist pig if:
Objectification of Men:
1. Ownership of men
1.a You are a sexist pig if you think it’s your place to decide who is and isn’t a “Real Man”.
1.b You are a sexist pig if you assume you know more about relationships or think your style of emotional expression is more genuine and valid, and that he should adopt it or else he is a Neanderthal, stoic thumbhead.
1.c. You are a sexist pig if you think or say something that shows you think you can mind-read men. That is a claim of ownership. So if you assert that looking at pornography makes men rape, you are a sexist pig. If you say that fathers complain about Parental Alienation only because they are abusers and fear losing control, you are a sexist pig.
1.d. You are a sexist pig if you think you understand a man’s life better than he does. If when a man explains how he has been hurt by something, you find some way to explain it away or minimize it, you are a sexist pig.
1.e. You are a sexist pig if you objectify men by borgifying them into Class Man and make sweeping statements meant to apply to or describe all of them. So if you insist that all men everywhere have privilege that no women anywhere have, you are sexist pig. If you insist that minority men can be oppressed only because of their ethnic minority status and never simply because they are men, you are doing the work of the KKK and denying their manhood, and you are a sexist pig as well as a racist.
2. Female Supremacy
2.a You are a sexist pig if you think that men are really all just little immature boys and women are the only grown-ups. If you think “The best man for the job is always a woman.” you are a sexist pig. If you think men’s hobbies and interests and sexual choices are childish, or if you find some way to demonize these pursuits you are a sexist pig.
2.b You are a sexist pig if you find yourself wishing he were just more like your female friends.
2.c You are a sexist pig if you think, or worse yet say, “Women civilize men”, “men are nothing without women”, ”‘women are more moral then men”, etc. etc.
2.d You are a sexist pig if you thnk men are inherently violent and men are not, and that men start all wars and women are always the victms in war. You are a sexist pig if you think woen are more peaceful than men, or that when men make war, it is because they choose to.
2.e You are a sexist pig if you think women are the moral judges of society
2.e.1 You are a sexist pig if you think that women’s norms of behavior are morally superior to men’s standards. (Gynonormativity)
3. Male Disposability
3.a You are a sexist pig if you think that the measure of a good man is how happy he makes a woman.
3.b You are a sexist pig if you think it is a man’s job to give a woman an orgasm but that the woman doesn’t need to do anything for the man’s orgasm because “he gets off pretty well already.”
3.b.1 You are a sexist pig if you think that a woman’s sexual gratification is empowering and or to be celebrated while thinking that a man’s sexual gratification is objectifying of women, creepy, “wanker”ish, or of any less value than a woman’s.
3.c You are a sexist pig if you insist that everyone see vaginas as beautiful but think that penises are “icky”, “gross” or funny.
3.d You are a sexist pig if you think that Male Genital Mutilation is acceptable for any reason.
3.e. You are a sexist pig if you think a man is responsible to provide for a woman, including the children she has by another man.
3.f You are a sexist pig if you think that something is worse if it happens to a woman than if it happens to a man. So:
3.f.1 You are a sexist pig if you erase or diminish something men suffer but equating it with some lesser harm that women suffer. If you respond with rape statistics for women when murder statistics for men are mentioned, you are a sexist pig. If you respond with stories of how women can’t find soul mates when a man says he can’t even get a civil response when he approaches a woman, you are a sexist pig.
3.f.2 You are a sexist pig if you think that women suffer worse in war than men do. Even if you acknowledge that “Well, men do get killed disproportionately in war, but then women get left behind as widows and women get raped in war, and that’s worse”, then you are a sexist pig.
3.f.3 You are a sexist pig if you think that Female Genital Mutilation is somehow worse than Male Genital Mutilation.
3.f.4 You are a sexist pig if you think it’s worse when a woman gets raped that when a man gets raped.
3.f.5 You are a sexist pig if you think that sexual abuse of girls is more harmful to girls than sexual abuse of boys is to boys. If you excuse a woman having sex with a minor male on the grounds that as a male he has privilege and is in the position of power, you both a sexist pig and a rape apologist.
3.f.6 You are a sexist pig if you think that false rape accusations are less of a problem than rape. If you think that women never lie about rape or that that normal presumption of innocence should be set aside in cases of rape or that any aspect of due process, including facing one’s accuser, then you are a sexist pig.
3.g You are a sexist pig if you slut-shame men. If you think a man showing sexual interest in a woman, in and of itself, is creepy, pathetic or oppressive, then you are a female chauvinist and a sexist pig. If you think that a man should have to prove himself worthy of a woman’s company, you are a sexist pig.
3.h You are a sexist pig if you virgin-shame men. If you think men who can’t get laid or are socially inept are “losers”, you are a sexist pig. If you think that female masturbation is empowering but male masturbation is a sign that a man can’t get a woman for sex and that makes him a “loser”, you are a sexist pig.
3.i You are a sexist pig if you gay-shame men (as well as a homophobic scumcrust). If you approach a man or force yourself on him and he rejects you, and you ask him if he’s gay, you are a sexist pig.
4. Agenda-driven Denialism
4.1 You are a sexist pig if you think that men commit an overwhelming majority of Intimate Partner Violence, or that they initiate most IPV.
4.b You are a sexist pig if you deny that women use false accusations of IPV to obtain biased awards of child custody, and that statute law enables this and courts tolerate it.
4.c You are a sexist pig if you think a woman should have the right to have her man removed from the home merely on her accusation of IPV without further evidence or process.
4.d You are a sexist pig if you think women don’t rape men, or that they rape men at a very much smaller incidence than men rape women.
4.e You are a sexist pig if you deny the reality of the female sentencing discount or attempt to misrepresent it. If you attempt to justify it with “Well, men commit more crimes” you are a denialist sexist pig.
4.f You are a sexist pig if you dismiss a man’s complaints of harm or injustice with “You’re just angry and bitter.”
4.g You are a sexist pig if you use gendered anti-male shaming language. So:
4.g.1 You are a sexist pig if you dismiss a man’s complaints of harm or injustice with “You just hate women.” If you use “misogynist as an all-purpose slur to dismiss arguments, or if you deny that misandry is “even a word” then you are a sexist pig.
4.g.2 You are a sexist pig if you dismiss a man’s complaints of harm or injustice with “Stop whining, you crybaby.”
4.g.3 You are a sexist pig if you dismiss a man’s complaints of harm or injustice with “Man up” or “Suck it up” or “Deal with it like a man.”
4.g.4 You are a sexist pig if you dismiss a man’s complaints of harm or injustice with “You’re so immature; you need to grow up.”
4.g.5 You are a sexist pig if you dismiss a man’s complaints of harm or injustice with “You frighten me (you brute)”
4.g.6 You are a sexist pig if you dismiss a man’s complaints of harm or injustice with “You sound like one of those right-wing MRA types.”
4.g.7 You are a sexist pig if you dismiss a man’s complaints of harm or injustice with self-recusals such as “I’m not like that!” or “It’s sexist to say women do that!”
4.g.8 You are a sexist pig if you dismiss a man’s complaints of harm or injustice with “You’re creepy/unstable/deluded”.
4.h You are a sexist pig if you if you deny that men face systemic and institutional sexism.
4.i You are a sexist pig if you deny that women can be sexist.
4.j You are a sexist pig if the expression “female chauvinist pig” or the use of “sexist pig” to describe a woman affronts you.
4.k You are a sexist pig if you use the term “male privilege” without using the term “female privilege” or deny that it is valid.
4.l You are a sexist pig if you think women should generally get custody of children in a divorce. Additionally you are a hypocrite if you claim to care for children and then turn around and deny that children need both their parents raising them equally.
4.m You are a sexist pig if you say men cause wars and then deny how women benefit from wars.
4.n You are a sexist pig if you deny that society privileges women with unobstructed access to men’s bodies through both custom and law, in ways that it does not privilege men. You are a sexist pig if you use the term “rape culture” to describe men’s sexual approaches to women or society’s attitudes to women’s bodies.
5. Double Standards
5.a You are a sexist pig if you think women are entitled to their own female-only organizations but that men’s organizations must be open to women.
5.b You are a sexist pig if you think that a woman having sex with a drunken man, too drunk to give consent, is not rape.
5.c You are a sexist pig if you think a woman should be able to avoid parenthood by abortion or by leaving her newborn in an amnesty drop box but that a man should have no equal legal right to avoid parenthood renouncing the child.
5.d You are a sexist pig if you think that a woman has the right to obligate a man to 18 years of supporting a child purely on her own decision without regard for his wishes.
5.e You are a sexist pig if you simultaneously say “Well, he should have kept it zipped…” and also insist on a woman’s right to end a pregnancy or to unilaterally decide on adoption.
5.f You are a sexist pig if you think man advocating for men’s rights deserves to be physically attacked.
5.g You are a sexist pig if you think that women are pure vessels of light that would never lie, or cheat, or oppress anyone, and cannot do any of that anyway, and that men are brutish, violent thugs that have to be controlled by surveillance and held instantly suspect whenever an accusation arises.
So this is a start on the list of ways to be a sexist pig. Please feel free to nominate others and please feel free to offer supporting citations; the list is living document.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
by 
Well, I guess that includes me on count 2.e.1 as I’m a utilitiarian and I tend to find morality in happiness, and I tend to think that women have greater utility than men.
Also, forgive me, but instead of being cisessentialist about infant genitalia, wouldn’t we be better to refer to it as infant vaginal/penile mutilation?
2.b as well… what can I say? A bit of hatred of manhood, not men, but manhood, is necessary as there are so many more women who need liberating from it. Probably at least 1 in 20.
Some thoughts:
3.f.3 depends on the type of genital mutilation. male genital mutilation is more common than female genital mutilation, but the most severe types of female genital mutilation are more common than any analogous types of male genital mutilation.
3.f.3, 4.a, 4.d, 4.e, 4.h, and 4.k are largely empirical questions. having bad data is different from having bad principles.
4.i and 5.a would be reasonable if sexism only or nearly only oppressed/marginalized womyn. Because of systemic sexism, I think womyn-only spaces are often appropriate. Because of systemic racism, I think people-of-color-only spaces are often appropriate. Because systemic sexism also marginalizes most men, I think men-only spaces are also appropriate in analogous situations. Because systemic sexism hardly ever marginalizes cis people relative to trans people, I don’t think cis-only spaces are often appropriate, although having parallel groups might make sense for discussions of body-image issues.
2.b can get really complicated if you are romantically involved with someone who is transitioning or detransitioning.
Marja, consider that not alll gental mutillation is committed by “friends” and family. Circumscision is not the only male genital cutting on the menu.
I’ve been told that pigs are sweet, kind animals and can make awesome pets….
lets not make the same mistakes those second wavers made…..
let’s call bigoted misandrist’s bigoted misandrists….
I get a bit annoyed everytime I hear some manosphere dirtbag call Amanda Marcotte a bitch, it’s disrespectful to female dogs everywhere….
Valerie:
Does that really require hatred? Isn’t it possible to decide or realize that something is just not for you without hating it?
Marja:
That’s comparing specific instances of genital mutilation, whereas the list only mentions the types of genitals being mutilated. Certainly, it is possible for a given instance or set of instances of mutilating vaginae to be more severe than a given instance or set of instances of mutilating penises, but the point is that the act of mutilating a vagina is in no way inherently worse than the act of mutilating a penis.
I completely agree with valerie on 2e (and 2b, for that matter).
In fact, one of the reasons I have always hated being a man is that I am fully aware that my moral worth will never be as high as that of a woman, no matter what I do.
You are a sexist pig if you think a man’s moral worth is less than a woman’s.
Patrick,
As Valerie said, women have greater utility than men.
One, Valerie is not an authority on which human beings have greater utility, and two, human beings have inherent value that is not dependent on how useful they are. Someone who is valued only for their usefulness is a slave.
Thank you for speaking up Patrick.
“You are a sexist pig if you think a man’s moral worth is less than a woman’s.”
Indeed. How could anyone see the idea of women’s moral worth being greater than men’s as being anything but sexist? I suppose that tips us off to the bias we are swimming in.
Utility in the sense of the utilitarian ethic does not refer to usefulness, but to how much happiness an action produces (or conversely how much pain it produces).
Rocketfrog said: “In fact, one of the reasons I have always hated being a man is that I am fully aware that my moral worth will never be as high as that of a woman, no matter what I do.”
You seem to have swallowed a huge lie. I urge you to vomit asap. Is the moral worth of Jesus, Buddha, Mahatma Ghandi, and millions of other highly developed men less than women’s? Of course not. I think you have identified with the low end of the spectrum, (the hitlers, stalins, pol pot, and idi amins of the world) while ignoring the other end. This is exactly what the feminists want you to do. Don’t forget about the other end of the spectrum. Your roots are worthy, men are good.
I’m pretty sure that Valerie meant utility in the sense of “happiness,” or “capacity for happiness,” not in the sense of “capacity to promote someone else’s happiness.”
RocketFrog, I have a lot of sympathy with your state of mind and I have tried to be patient with you, because I know your misandry is largely self-directed and the result of abuse you have suffered. But it’s not just about you. You need to remember that every time you say men are of less worth than women, you insult me and every other man reading.
Marja:
That is also what I meant. Due to testosterone poisoning, men are not capable of a happiness like women’s. Therefore, a world with more men is a less happy world than a world with more women. Because utilitarianism is about maximization of global happiness, this means that women are morally superior.
Okay RocketFrog, if that’s the way you want it. I can see now why NSWATM banned you.
Utility does not and cannot mean one’s own happiness. When used in the sense of “the happiness principle”, it means the effect of one’s actions on the overall happiness of others. The word literally means usefulness. Presuming to decide the worth of categories of people based on their utility, however the word is used, is monstrous.
Patrick,
Why?
Because your supposed attempts to overcome your misandry appear to be just an excuse to express it against others. I repeat, every time you say men are of less worth than women, you insult me and every other man reading. And you persist in doing it after you have been told that, so you have no excuses left.
Patrick,
That is not what I meant, I am sorry for being ambiguous. I know why I was banned from NSWATM; I was banned because Noah thinks I am a troll.
Why is it monstrous to apply the utilitarian ethical principle to groups of people? It seems to me that that is what quite a lot of social justice activism is all about.
Also, is it forbidden here to hold opinions that others consider insulting? Because in that case, 1) I should probably leave, as I have many opinions that others might find insulting, 2) I routinely get extremely emotionally upset by things said by others here (I am not sure if what I feel is “being insulted”, though) myself.
RocketFrog, you are a troll.
Um, how about using the same morally superior statement on races? How about blacks have less moral worth than whites? Maybe that makes it easier to see? Anytime you stereotype a birth group you are joining the ranks of bigots.
Rocketfrog, I will bite. Please tell me what “testosterone poisoning” is. It would be great to see some cites on this other than feminist propaganda.
Patrick,
I thought the defining hallmark of a troll is that a troll is someone who posts things deliberately to offend get others worked up. I just say what I think. The fact that you find my thoughts offensive does not mean that I am voicing them to troll you.
I do realize that my thought patterns, as regards gender and sex, are erratic at the best of times (and I must admit that when I read back on my past output, I usually get disgusted by part of it – either the “humanist” and “egalitarian” privilege-denialism, or by the visceral, emotional disgust for manhood – and it seems that which of them disgusts me depends more on how long it is since I last read statements about men’s lower moral worth or testosterone poisoning or Schrödinger’s Rapist or creeps or Nice Guys or similar things) but that does not mean that they are tailored to offend you or anybody else.
Hackberry,
There was some discussion about testosterone poisoning here, mostly in response to a comment of Valerie’s: http://www.genderratic.com/p/2166/misandry-dismissing-womens-rape-of-boys/
I think testosterone poisoning means how the endocrine system of men blunts our “softer” emotions and predisposes us towards a variety of rather nasty and brutish behaviour, at least that is how the term seems to me to be usually used.
Rocketfrog,
I am not a utilitarian, but:
*I* happen to be happier with typically-female hormone levels than with typically-male hormone levels. I was incapable of happiness with typically-male hormone levels.
A trans guy might report the opposite experience, that he happens to be happier with typically-male hormone levels than with typically-female hormone levels. Maybe he was incapable of happiness with typically-female hormone levels.
There’s no way to measure whether his capacity for happiness is any greater or less than mine. So the rest doesn’t follow.
Re: Circumcision. Silly men – bodily autonomy is for women!
Re: Utility. That’s probably the most laughable thing I’ve ever heard. @Valerie, I have a degree in economics. I know that you know that I know that your claim is silly.
You exploit this site’s compassion for suffering men, and then hurl hate speech at those whose compassion you arose. You are taking advantage of people’s good nature, and you know it.
(For “arose”, read “arouse”.)
“I think testosterone poisoning means how the endocrine system of men blunts our “softer” emotions and predisposes us towards a variety of rather nasty and brutish behaviour, at least that is how the term seems to me to be usually used.”
It blunted many of my emotions – but that may be because I’m not wired for it, and because I’d get dissociative/numb feelings with high levels of it.
It didn’t predispose me towards nasty or brutish behavior.
Patrick,
I am a suffering man.
I love it that when feminists talk about male on female rape, it’s not judged by the physical damage caused to her body but by this incredibly complicated framework of consent. Consent plays such a huge role when it’s applied to something that happens to women that it’s usually considered a worse crime than everything from conscription to murder. It’s considered to be the ultimate crime (except for when it happens to men). Yet, if we used the same arguments that feminists seem to have for circumcision, then it should be perfectly fine for men to go around raping all the women they want as long as they just use the tip of the penis and not the full shaft as long as rapists can keep coming up with some new excuse for how it’s somehow for the greater good. And I mean it – that’s exactly the same exact argument that feminists have been making when they promote male genital mutilation. Of course, they’d never agree to a consistent standard.
We know how this works. If it makes it look like women have it worse, let’s run with it. But if it makes it look like men have it equally as bad, let’s back-peddle from it. If the physical harm to women is worse, then it’s all about the physical damage. But if the physical damage to men is worse, then it’s all about psychological damage. It’s the same old tune.
Men, they just have to be useful. Reproductive rights work the same way, too. Pretty much everything works the same way. That’s also why the idea of women having higher utility than men is preposterous. Feminists wouldn’t be talking about the need to circumcise men if they didn’t believe that there was some utility that they could extract from it. They would just as readily talk about the need for greater male reproductive rights if not for the utility they stood to extract from men. Hell, they wouldn’t even bother to talk about the “harm” that paternity testing causes if not for the utility they see in men.
Marja,
I do not remember feeling happy at any time since I was a very young boy. I do not think this is linked to sex hormones, though, the last time I remember having a feeling I can identify as happiness was long before puberty. However, I am probably not a very representative man, I have major depressive disorder and possibly bipolar type 2 (am still awaiting a formal psychiatric evaluation for that one).
I have never felt happy as an adult, but as I said, I am probably not very representative of the general male population (or the way I feel would not be labeled disordered).
Patrick,
First of all, I am sorry that I have offended you.
Second, what exactly is it that you consider hate speech? How is anything of what I have said different from what was said in the first two comments of this thread, which nobody objected to?
Third, would you please stop claiming that you know my intentions? I have honestly not at any time thought that I wanted to “exploit” anything to throw “hate speech” at anybody. I am just saying what I am thinking.
I am sorry for my conduct in this thread. I have calmed down a little.
It occurs to me that perhaps one of the reasons why I have this kind of meltdown is that I am terrified out of my mind to criticize hurtful things said by women, and therefore I end up in this strange state where it feels as though something in my brain is trying to force myself to agree with a statement I actually disagree with, out of fear (both fear of repercussions for criticism and fear of my criticism being part of an oppressive climate). I am not sure how I can describe it any better than that.
But once again, I am sorry.
Valerie,
“Well, I guess that includes me on count 2.e.1 as I’m a utilitiarian and I tend to find morality in happiness, and I tend to think that women have greater utility than men.”
This is a comonplace and it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Reproduction? For one thing there is more to reproduction than childbirth and for everything afterwards men are necessary, whether visible or not. That’s not only the species evolutionary strategy, that is apparent form communiites with a high rate of fatherlessness. But even without that, women can’t give birth unless they get pregnant. So that’s a wash.
Sex? Not so much. As Typhon has pointed out, the experience of most men in heterosexual realtioships is that women are the functional equivalent of masturbation sleeves. They lie there and sweat and dare the man to give them an orgasm, and consider themselves all generous in doing that much. Obviously that is not going to be the casse in lesbian relationships because someone or both have to do the work. Or maybe not, maybe that why “bed death” is a thing.
Work? Men can do any work wome can and when women do work formerly though of as a male reserve they either do it at the pleasure of men allowing inot those areas or with mechanical assistance, again provided by men. They contribute exxactly a smuch as men under those circumstances,a ll else being equal, and on a purely utilitarian basis, that makes it all worth it, tapping into to such a huge source of labor.
Marja,
3.f.3, 4.a, 4.d, 4.e, 4.h, and 4.k are largely empirical questions. having bad data is different from having bad principles.”
Absolutely. Those are about denialism, not simple ignorance. If someno has never heard that stuff and just can’t believe it, that’s fine. That i can accpet and in fact I respect that level of scepticism. the test comes when it comes when it comes time to look at the data. Does a person value thier beliefs over reality?
“4.i and 5.a would be reasonable if sexism only or nearly only oppressed/marginalized womyn. Because of systemic sexism, I think womyn-only spaces are often appropriate.”
Female-only spaces are completely appropriate, and so I worded it the way I did. The point of that bullet was that male-only spaces are equally appropriate. The fact is that it is male-only spaces that have been under attack and subject to colonization by women and girls for the last 50 years, not woman-only spaces.
RF, I have objected, in a very mild way to Valerie’s comments, but your went farther. Really, yours were sexist.
SWAB, I chose pig not because I thin pigs are bad but because I know how offensive many of this particular kind of sexist will find being called pigs. It is intended for effect and has noting to do with some essential goodness or badness of pigs. Same as my earlier post about cows and femininity
Rocketfrog – That link to a thread on this blog about testosterone poisoning is not what I had in mind. If you really believe this myth then you must have some reason to believe it other than this blog. Right? Give me some ideas of why you think this is the truth. From what you have said I get the notion that you don’t like testosterone because it makes men unlike women. To me this is pretty strange but I am interested to hear what you have to say about this.
Much of this is humorous to me since some of today’s research is finally breaking through the lace curtain and is showing us new ways to understand testosterone. I am sure you must have seen the research that showed that testosterone actually increased levels of fairness in a bargaining study. Those who were given testosterone were more likely to be fair in their behaviors. Then there is the greater awareness of male andropause and the mess it puts men into. One of the things they have found is that when testosterone levels DROP the men are more likely to act out and get angry. The feminists have been feeding you a line of crap for many years. I would urge you to study up on this a bit. I think what you will find will surprise you and you will see that not only is the feminist line of testosterone missing the mark, in some ways it is the opposite of the truth. Of course this hasn’t kept them from spouting it for many years. And so it goes.
“I think testosterone poisoning means how the endocrine system of men blunts our “softer” emotions and predisposes us towards a variety of rather nasty and brutish behaviour, at least that is how the term seems to me to be usually used.”
Oh, look here:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201009/psychosis-and-the-femalematernal-brain-new-research-confirms-the-dia
The extreme female brain is also pathological due to _excessive_ empathy that leads to impugning intention where there is none and thus paranoia and aggression justified by that paranoia.
http://www.amazon.com/Pathological-Altruism-Barbara-Oakley/dp/0199738572/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350745580&sr=8-1&keywords=Pathological+altruism
And here we have a book that argues that ‘altruism’ can be extremely nasty because it often serves as a justification for bad behaviour.
Estrogen poisoning is a thing, apparently. Who knew?
That’s the most idiotic statement that I’ve ever heard you parrot, Rocketfrog. I say parrot, because I know that like most of your other self-hating opinions, you probably picked it up from someone who abused you.
First, there’s no such thing as testosterone poisoning. Second, men are actually probably much happier than women. In fact, black women from poor backgrounds end up being happier than white women from middle class backgrounds. The whole entire premise of feminism is that some of these women are miserable irrespective to the circumstances of their lives. So it’s actually quite amusing to hear this feminist-inspired rationalization that women are capable of a sort of refined, enlightened form of happiness that men just cannot achieve due to what is arguable their primitive, damaged nature.
Lastly, the logic of tying that non-existing cause to that non-existing effect is excruciatingly painful for me to even contemplate because of the cognitive dissonance it must require. I mean I can only imagine what the logical conclusion of that kind of thought process might lead to. We’d have to conclude that the ultimate “utility” for the human race will be achieved by storing humans in liquid-filled vats that pump their brains full of mind altering drugs which leave them in a state of perpetual bliss. That’s what I think of all of this. I can imagine what this Gynotopia would look like, walking through endless halls of women and eunuchs staring blankly through a glass wall with an unflinching perma-smile.
@TB, wow…. that’s actually pretty damning. I’ve never even thought about the idea that psychosis might a counterpart to autism, on the extreme opposite end of the spectrum.
That pretty much sums up Schrodinger’s Rapist and the whole entire concept of trying to convince everyone else to go out of their way for the sake of making women feel comfortable.
Great stuff Typhon! I was familiar with the Baron-Cohen material but not this new addition. Wonderful to see something that tends to both sides and sees both as normative but with the potential for pathology at the extremes. So glaringly different from the one sided mobius strip mentality of the feminist testosterone poisoning idea.
“SWAB, I chose pig not because I thin pigs are bad but because I know how offensive many of this particular kind of sexist will find being called pigs. It is intended for effect and has noting to do with some essential goodness or badness of pigs. Same as my earlier post about cows and femininity”
yeah, uh, one of my biggest complaints is that the MRM is a parody of feminism–it should be it’s own thing…
I understand using “their rhetoric” against them….
however, that’s like saying “I Blame The Matriarchy!!!!”
Imagine David Futrelle or Hugo Schwyzer calling me a misogynist because I refuse to call Amanda Marcotte a bitch–not because I think she’s not a reprehensible hateful bigot who should just shut up but because it it DEGRADING to female dogs…..
yeah, dungone, were you talking about this:
http://madamenoire.com/208225/black-and-proud-study-credits-positive-racial-regard-for-low-suicide-rate-among-black-women/
seems to fly in the face of everything “they” are telling “us” about privilege….
Such as claiming that all PIV sex is rape due to the mechanics of penetration. Or that logic is chauvinistic. Or that skyscrapers and other tall “phallic” objects are an expression of men’s dominance over women.
on testosterone…
http://americanlivewire.com/men-high-levels-testosterone-tend-happier-successful-life/
happily poisoned….
my shoulder is still sore from my last pull up marathon….
I am deeply uneasy with Baron-Cohens’s ideas, because:
1. He tends to pathologize autism and support those searching for so-called cures. I think the autistic spectrum includes both healthy variation and unhealthy extremes. I think our society privileges mind-reading so much, however, that it favors moderately sociopathic people while it penalizes moderately autistic people.
So I imagine a spectrum running from:
Autistic etc. — Aspie etc. — Neurotypical — Sociopathic etc.
2. I have a number of Aspie/Autistic traits but no, I’m pretty damn sure I don’t have an Extreme Male BrainTM.
This might also be interesting:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/200905/hyper-mentalism-insight-whose-time-has-come
perhaps a male feminist is a victim of this….
http://www.bodylogicmd.com/for-men/irritable-men-syndrome
@ dungone
“Such as claiming that all PIV sex is rape due to the mechanics of penetration.”
Why is penetration seen as more dominant then envelopment? Envelopment is fundamental to human’s domination over their environment.
After all you can’t use a tool without ‘gripping’ it. 😉
No, no, you’re completely misreading the skyscrapers:
“The bull and phallus, symbols of generation, are infallible indications of the presence of gynarchic societies.” – Elizabeth Gould Davis.
Davis hits most of the criteria above. *headdesk*
Really good list!
But I think this one goes a bit too far:
“You are a sexist pig if you think you understand a man’s life better than he does. If when a man explains how he has been hurt by something, you find some way to explain it away or minimize it, you are a sexist pig.”
It’s often, perhaps usually, the case that one is being sexist by doing so. But I also believe that people can have blindspots about themselves. Calling someone out for ludicrous statements does not make one sexist. This goes both for men and women.
eg. A woman admits she accounts for 75% of the physical abuse in her relationship and is always the first to hit, yet she feels innocent and victimized (perhaps because she believes you never hit a woman and that women can’t hurt men). It is not sexist to point out that she is part of the problem, perhaps the biggest part.
Same thing if a man goes to prison. Perhaps a man feels like he is only in jail because he is a man. If he did commit a crime (eg. robbery), that is not a totally reasonable position. While gender bias is large in sentencing and prosecuting, it is not sexist to say that he is responsible for committing a crime.
I came up with an alternative “extreme female brain” theory myself a while back, inspired by a couple of co-workers. One male co-worker was perfectly efficient at his job, but his only topic of conversation was Manchester United – he was capable of communicating to achieve a purpose or task, and couldn’t do social “small talk”. A female co-worker treated every word spoken to her, including work instructions, as an opportunity for a chat, and proved nearly impossible to train or instruct. She could only do social “small talk”, and couldn’t communicate to achieve a purpose or task. I know, anecdotal, very small sample size, but I wonder if there’s anything in it.
@Patrick Brown
RocketFrog, you are a troll.
troll n.
…
2. Person who disagrees with my assumptions.
Really, I do get tired of that rhetorical conceit.
@Dungone
I have a degree in economics. I know that you know that I know that your claim is silly.
Your focus on credentialing aside, I am also a trained economist and have debated cabinet ministers, so I presume I am operating at least at the fiftieth percentile of knowlege, when it comes to the economy, and likely a bit higher:
1. Numerous responses to my position that much of the wage gap (and the death gap, overtime gap, etc) is due to structural biases in industrial organization, not the skillset of the labour force, have been rooted in the idea that surely the market has reached its natural equilibrium… i.e. the way things are is reasonably close to an efficient allocation of rescources. If that is the case, then it is reasonable to expect that a man will remain, in a post-sexist world:
More likely to be incarcerated.
More likely to be homeless.
More likely to be murdered.
More likely to be dead by any given age.
These are all social phenomena of far greater disultility in comparison to the mean than:
More likely to be on the board of directors.
More likely to earn a top-percentile income…
are of utility. This is owing to the basic fact of diminishing marginal utility. If there were no cost to economic growth, utility could be maximized by equalizing outcomes. Now there’s some cost to economic growth to doing away with incentives entirely, so we retain income disparity as a motivator, data indicating the carrot of wealth is far more conducive to production than the stick of privation.
Men, therefore, even with higher mean incomes, have lower aggregate utility.
Now, permanent gender dysphoria is definitely a state of extreme disutility in relation to the mean, so CAMAB men can’t simply transition and call it a day, and that’s not what I’m recommending, but yes, as the market has indicated, men, biologically and societally, get the short end of the stick. That is… of course, so long as we’re continuing with the supposition that the current division of labour is a natural one based on respective suitability.
Valerie, what part of “don’t address me again” don’t you understand?
@Dungone
We know how this works. If it makes it look like women have it worse, let’s run with it. But if it makes it look like men have it equally as bad, let’s back-peddle from it. If the physical harm to women is worse, then it’s all about the physical damage. But if the physical damage to men is worse, then it’s all about psychological damage. It’s the same old tune.
No argument here. To that end, unidirectional feminists compare Western infant circumcision not to Western infant clitoroplasty, also abominable, but far less frequently practices, and rather invoke far more brutal procedures that only occur in Central Africa. These two are problems, but they are not relevant to the state of Western gender-power relations. Unifems mention the CAFAB paucity of CEOs but are silent on the CAFAB paucity of homeless… they always compare pounds to bushels. Their arguments would function much more poorly otherwise.
@Gingko
From where your argument starts on reproduction, I would imagine you’re conflating male with Wolffian and female with Mullerian. As I’ve said before, you can have reproductively effective Wolffian women without significant loss of utility due to perpetual dysphoria, especially in a post-industrial society.
@Dungone
I can imagine what this Gynotopia would look like, walking through endless halls of women and eunuchs staring blankly through a glass wall with an unflinching perma-smile.
The transmisogyny in that construction is perhaps a bit more palpable to me than to others, but it seems fairly plain. And the idea that joy can be had with zero suffering is foolish, but it’s the degree to which suffering impares ability to experience further joy that’s instructive. Incarceration, violent crime, homelessness, these all have a habit of breaking people irreparably, removing ability to escape, improve, heal… I tend to think this is why cis-unifems have such a focus on rape and DV. They’re the two things that happen to them at near-parity that can leave damage that can preclude emotional recovery. Their trans kapos seem to wish for a world where everyone is cis and dysphoria is not just kept to a safe and instructive level, but eradicated.
They may seek the perma-smile. I find the sigh-of-relief to carry far greater value.
@Patrick Brown
Valerie, what part of “don’t address me again” don’t you understand?
The part where you, like Jen McCreight, like plenty of feminists, think you control what other people can say in response to what you’ve written, said, or otherwise done in a publicly accessible forum. I will continue to make editorial response as I see fit, and you can feel free to ignore me.
It would appear that my fellow feminists aren’t the only ones who need to learn that one’s rights do not end where another’s capacity for offense, feelings, or other sensibilities begin.
Your anti-credentialing aside, I said it to remind you that I know that you know better than to have said that women have greater utility than men.
But again, with diminishing marginal utility in mind, poverty and death are far more ‘bad’ than wealth and status are ‘good.’ Women have more stable socioeconomic outcomes, live longer, commit suicide with greatly reduced incidence, a significant sign of overall happiness, are more intrinsically valued as romantic partners (unemployed men being far less likely than unemployed women to be considered datable)…
The argument that oh, once the unifems go away, and the white feathers disappear, all will be well, assumes that gender is entirely constructed, which when you consider the degree to which men are lauded on this site as generally more functional, reasonable, etc, one would assume will either:
a) Evaporate utterly as social construction is broken down, removing the one pre-industrial ace in the hole men have.
or
b) Remain as inherent and produce the same dangerous and undesirable outcomes.
That or somehow all men will become like Taylor from Home Improvement or Jed Bartlet from The West Wing… and while that’d be a pretty cool world, I remain doubtful of that outcome, just as the third-wave has failed to produce a generation teeming with co-equals of Ainsley Hayes.
@ Valerie
“which men are lauded on this site as generally more functional, reasonable, etc, one would assume will either”
Let me fix this for you.
To the degree that certain aspects of male socialization create an individual who is more functional, reasonable, etc. and certain aspects of female socialization do not create an individual who is more functional, reasonable, etc.
Yeah, I dispute that analysis. I don’t buy the wadfem argument that women have been made weak by socialization. I believe they’ve been made more rational actors in the marketplace.
To wit: Anyone who trades 7 years of life for the equivalent of 4 years’ more pay is a sucker.
“Well, I guess that includes me on count 2.e.1 as I’m a utilitiarian and I tend to find morality in happiness, and I tend to think that women have greater utility than men.”
This was a response to 2e: That it is sexist to say women’s norms of behavior are superior to men’s standards.
I don’t see where utility comes up in the gender roles, or allowed occupations (jobs and not) of the sexes.
I see its superior to have more choice in terms of clothing, more allowance for emotionality, more help when the help is needed (being comforted, defended, etc and more).
I see its superior to be held to a certain standard where we actually have expectations of you (women are held to such an hypoagentic standard that expectations are very low – possibly leading to condescension because of it, too). It’s superior to not be seen as some frail, fragile weakling who’s going to break at the most minor effort (hence having everything done for you and incredible overprotectiveness about you, and promotion of victim behavior – ie chivalry has bad sides, and it comes from this).
But if you compare the two, I see the first as the easy way to live (not being held to standards and being indulged in everything…is easy mode). While the second is a way to live one can be proud of…but without the first one (where you are deemed worthy of existing) you can break rather easily…and no safety net.
@Schala
But if you compare the two, I see the first as the easy way to live (not being held to standards and being indulged in everything…is easy mode). While the second is a way to live one can be proud of…but without the first one (where you are deemed worthy of existing) you can break rather easily…and no safety net.
Considering the fact that one can always challenge onesself, measure onesself against one’s peers, I find artistic arenas, including fine, martial, athletic, and liberal, to carry the same challenge, the same sense of accomplishment, and greater status, with a smaller price for failure, and thus the satisfaction of having survived manhood for life rings rather hollow. A decade of that, without the toolbox that most get for dealing with it, was more than enough.
You can lack motivation in the first, and you won’t do much.
In the second, if you lack motivation, you kinda die. What the right wants with services cut for the poor, the disabled, the old, the ill, because it’s “their money”, and they should just pull themselves by their bootstraps.
Some are motivated by the 2nd though. Not me, but some. People who absolutely don’t want to die are kinda motivated by it. People who are jaded about life and death like me are not.
To give an example where I am motivated. I perform sexually. I’m not just a fish lying there. I suck good. Do good hand jobs, foot jobs, tongue jobs.
I don’t have much consequences for not performing though. I could just be a lying fish there, and consider I do him a favor because I hold the sex resource…and people would consider it normal. No blaming my poor performance, zero expectations.
I am motivated for videogaming too. To do my very best. To get the very best stuff eventually. Not too motivated by direct competition (like pvp), but by looking at my works and thinking I’m all that, yes.
If I was a poor player I would be derided (by idiots) or ignored (by not-idiots) as someone not worth their time. There is a consequence to being a bad player.
Schala:
Not to mention that if you’re being indulged in everything, you need someone to do the indulging. Just like wealth required the existence of poor people, and power requires the existence of powerless people. Declaring that women have greater “utility” because it’s easier to be a woman, when it’s only easier to be a woman because of all the stuff men are required to do to make it easier, is, to coin a phrase, “Marie-Antoinetting”. Not that I think that’s your position, Schala – but it does seem to be Valerie’s.
On another subject, I would have thought that, having made it through the 20th century, we would have learned the dangers of declaring categories of people to be inferior. The left, which when I was young believed in the ideal of equality and opposed this kind of prejudicial categorisation, seems to have gone all the way round the political spectrum and is only distinguishable from the far right in terms of which categories of people they target their hate at.
Actually, time is money and money is time. Women don’t make a trade-off between time and money. They buy more time by controlling the means of production. IOW there is no compromise. Feminist complaints about the wage gap is like having a CEO complain about all the coal miners who actually create value while the poor old CEO just has to sit in his “comfortable concentration camp” of a corner office. The only way in which men can actually maintain control over their earnings is to completely opt out of the sexual marketplace, but that in itself is also a bad deal for men.
That is where your confusion over utility comes from. You’re omitting the fact that the socially inflated price of sexual relationships for men is the very means by which utility, in terms of consumer surplus, is transferred from men to women. Not to mention that there is a considerable amount of deadweight loss within that arrangement. Here: http://econhelp.org/2010/03/price-controls-floors/
This is all very depressing.
Oh well, I suppose there are worse things than spending the rest of my life as a machine for translating East Asian genre fiction.
I know how a price floor works Dungone. I spent a couple of hours this week holding forth on the ridiculousness of a bar price floor on liquor in my province when a tax would have actually raised some revenue in the process.
If you want me to respond to your points in the future, please don’t assume I was drunk during Introductory Micro.
happily poisoned….
my shoulder is still sore from my last pull up marathon….(Stoner)
Yeh, but what were you pulling. 😉
haha, nice “double entendre” there….
I guess testosterone would increase ability for pull-ups via larger back muscles and also increase libido to do what your implying….
And speaking of drunk, estrogen, and its ability to inhibit muscular hypertrophy’s wonderful for dropping alcohol tolerance. ^_^
Moi, imply, never. 🙂
Just to lighten the mood a little. It seems some on here are getting a little testy.
Definition of rejection: You go to masturbate and your hand falls asleep.
@Val
Which Province? Ontario here.
Alberta, just another relic of the right-wing nanny Stelmach regime.
Valerie imy goal is to be acessible to everyone. And i dont even remember what they taught in intro to micro. Certainly not price floors in the sexual marketplace. I only started thinking about that after I took industrial organization and learned more about cartels.
Imspeaking of taxes, that’s exactly where it all starts. Society isn’t content on letting men and women enjoy the full economic surplus generated by sexual relationships, so it imposes a tax on female sexuality that men have to pay. You can think of masculinity as a voucher system where men exchange military service and hard labor in exchange for coupons they can use to trade in for sex.
It’s the old “open hand” (feminism) vs “closed fist” (patriarchy) argument.
Feminism decries “closed fist” thinking for the negative connotations, the potential for brutality, the adherence towards rigidity, etc; while, simultaneously, lauding the benefits of “open hand” (flexibility, relaxation, acceptance) thinking.
Unfortunately, they forget (or overlook, or possibly ignore) the fact that there’s a *lot* of strength in the closed fist (and that the strength is not only used for negative purposes.) The closed fist fan be used to protect, to focus, to forewarn. The open hand is like bamboo: it accepts almost anything, but it leads towards separation, to incrementalism, to diminution.
Or, to put it simply: a closed fist is “evil” because it can be used to punch, whereas an open hand is “good” because it can be used to shake and make peace. However, a closed fist can be used to warm and protect, and our open hand advocates have been slapping the shit out of everyone who doesn’t toe their line for the past forty years.
Let us accept for the moment that the premise that the market has reached a stable equilibrium, and gendered differences are the result of differences between genders. It is clear that the above premise is false, and therefore your conclusions are false, whether or not they flow logically. I can show that with a simplistic demonstration. Let us look at income. Now, if we look at the mean income of the country, it is higher than the median. Why? Because the top wage earners do, in fact, more than outweigh the unemployed. If the unemployed outweighed the top wage earners, then the mean would be lower than the median.
What you are describing is male disposability in a nutshell. We throw away the men at the bottom, because of the value of the men at the top. Its (unfortunately) worked to drive safety, comfort, living standards, etc. etc. ever higher as society moves forward. If it didn’t work, if the men at the top didn’t outweigh the men at the bottom, our society would have collapsed long, long ago. That is the truly unfortunate thing about male disposability, it does what it is designed to do, and it does it well: employ a survival of the fittest, social darwinian style system to ensure that the men at the top are battle tested enough to handle as much as they can.
It works the same way in the sciences, which are a microcosm of male disposability, applied to both men and women. In a large university, there are more weed out classes in the sciences (and perhaps engineering, not enough data to say) than the rest of the degree programs combined. And it gets worse when you start graduate school. 50 hours a week is the minimum, and more is expected. At that rate, you can earn more by flipping burgers. You might think it gets better when you get your PhD, but the reality is that as a postdoc, you might make enough that you beat a McD’s manager on an hourly basis. And you might even think it gets better when you become a professor. But its more of the same. IF you can find an associate professorship on a tenure track at a respectable university, you might start to make the same amount of money that an engineer would make maybe 3-4 years after their B.E., while still working the 50+ hours/week (likely more like 60-70 at this point).
All of this is to ensure that you can fight like a dog with other professors over scraps of grant money, in order to develop technologies that further improve the human condition. 50% of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII has been due to scientific advancements. And that is because we throw away a high percentage of scientists so that we know that we can toss a bone to those left and they will reward the entire country or world with the results. Yes, I am a little bitter that my chosen profession is leached off of by know nothings and self idolizers who would still be riding their cart into town to sell their vegetables in the market if it weren’t for scientists, thanks for asking.
@Equilibrium shift:
Lah-Lah-Lah-Lah- just submitted my thesis -Lah-Lah-Lah can’t hear you – Lah-Lah-Lah-Lah-Lah…
Thanks for an interesting post Equilibrium_Shift . You said:
“50% of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII has been due to scientific advancements.”
I am very curious about this statement. Not skeptical in the least for a variety of reasons but am curious how they came to that number. I would not be surprised to see a larger number than that. My father was a NASA scientist who at the end of his career worked for them in Technology Transfer. I learned a bundle from him about how science feeds our economy and how they tried to speed up that movement.
@Hackberry
Ditto. Just in terms of advances in health, I’d assume that scientific advancements improved our economic prospects by 50% (due to fewer injuries, quicker recovery from injuries, etc.) It’s been theorized that the main barrier to scientific progress in Asia was the creation of porcelain (porcelain, while useful, isn’t transparent. Europeans fine-tuned glassmaking, which led to the creation of telescopes and spectacles, which extended the reading ages of scholars and ship captains by a decade, which added to the amount of information that could be imparted to future generations…)
This is going to sound really convenient, but I think I heard it on NPR and have no idea when (5+ mo.’s ago for sure) or what program. I would assume Nova, but it might have even been Marketplace.
Mamu, I believe it was Egyptians, when they were basically South Greece, that invented clear glass. The invention spread via the Roman empire, and the rest is history. Other lucky breaks include the benefit of living close to the Middle Eastern Caliphates, who were responsible for the transmission of 0 into western culture, but far enough west that Europeans were mostly untouched by the Mongols and Timurids. Or that Europe is warmed by the gulf stream to an extent that Edinburgh, with its generally mild climate, is just a little bit south of Juneau, AK, with its colder-than-a-witches-tit climate.
RocketFrog, is there a citation for this? It seems like polemics, rather than data.
(I’m not an economist; I don’t even play a utilitarian on TV.)
Valerie, I’m a bit confused here. Isn’t this circular? Women accrue more goodies, therefore women are worth more? This seem more like a local maxima.
I will meta-punt, by saying that (given a 1st world society) a sexist utility function provides more disutility then an egalitarian one. (But this is only a hunch, not a proof.)
The latest issue of scientific american also mentions the 50% figure.
For those interested–here is Andrew Sullivan’s article “The He Hormone” from a few years ago, about his own experience with taking T. From this he concludes, well, all kinds of things:
http://www.bluffton.edu/~mastg/The%20He%20Hormone.htm
Excerpt: The behavioral traits associated with testosterone are largely the cliché-ridden ones you might expect. The Big T correlates with energy, self-confidence, competitiveness, tenacity, strength and sexual drive. When you talk to men in testosterone therapy, several themes recur. “People talk about extremes,” one man in his late 30’s told me. “But that’s not what testosterone does for me. It makes me think more clearly. It makes me think more positively. It’s my Saint Johnswort.” A man in his 20’s said: “Usually, I cycle up the hill to my apartment in 12th gear. In the days after my shot, I ride it easily in 16th.” A 40-year-old executive who took testosterone for bodybuilding purposes told me: “I walk into a business meeting now and I just exude self-confidence. I know there are lots of other reasons for this, but my company has just exploded since my treatment. I’m on a roll. I feel capable of almost anything.”
A short follow-up: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/09/the-subtlety-of-testosterone.html
Dungone: @Valerie, I have a degree in economics.
Of course you do. A better question might be: is there anything you do not have a degree in? A language you have never spoken? A war you haven’t engaged in? Something you have no expertise in? (giggle) This comment stands: http://www.genderratic.com/p/2098/general-useful-new-word-narcissiverse/#comment-15638
And I think this is what RocketFrog was talking about, re: testosterone poisoning. We differ in that I don’t think it applies to every male and in fact, is probably more like 1 in 50… probably the same effects of too much estrogen in women (too much sobbing, hypersensitivity and hysteria).
In both cases/genders, employing Potter Stewart’s famous phrase: I know it when I see it.
😉
PS: I compared female circumcision to male circumcision on my radio show, and blew everybody’s mind! Sometimes I forget I am here in Bible country… its a dirty job, but… (etc)
At least one man thanked me. The rest, just stare in amazement.
Dungone: Hell, they wouldn’t even bother to talk about the “harm” that paternity testing causes if not for the utility they see in men.
Harm in paternity testing? How so? To whom? Do not understand this comment. (?) Say what? I have never heard any feminist say paternity testing is “harmful”–do you have a link to someone saying this?
Evil Green Ranger: (I’m not an economist; I don’t even play a utilitarian on TV.)
For the win. 🙂
Me, above:
probably the same effects of too much estrogen in women (too much sobbing, hypersensitivity and hysteria).
Eeeeep, correction: “probably the same percentage as…” — I meant probably 1 in 50 women also show signs of too much estrogen, and usually have severe PMS symptoms to show for it as well.
“Harm in paternity testing? How so? To whom? Do not understand this comment. (?) Say what? I have never heard any feminist say paternity testing is “harmful”–do you have a link to someone saying this?”
It’s been said that it could prevent the mother having child support from the not-biological father, and how dare people want to prevent paternity fraud. Something about making all women look like sluts (because it would be a universal all-births-tested deal) too.
I don’t think this argument is logical at all though.
Dungone: Society isn’t content on letting men and women enjoy the full economic surplus generated by sexual relationships, so it imposes a tax on female sexuality that men have to pay.
Like alcohol, tobacco and luxury taxes, nobody HAS to pay it. It’s a choice, like any other activity. As PT Barnum famously said, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Nobody forces you to do either one. It’s not a mandatory sales tax, after all.
Schala: It’s been said that it could prevent the mother having child support from the not-biological father, and how dare people want to prevent paternity fraud. Something about making all women look like sluts (because it would be a universal all-births-tested deal) too.
Citation or link please? Sounds like another mythical bad feminist story to me.
“Like alcohol, tobacco and luxury taxes, nobody HAS to pay it. It’s a choice, like any other activity. As PT Barnum famously said, you pays your money and you takes your choice. ”
But the game is rigged.
I don’t need to pay a lot to get filling foods. Pizza and all non-meats, or cheap meats (hot dogs). I need to pay a lot to get filet mignon. But I won’t think my needs are unfulfilled if I only get a low quality steak. My stomach will be filled, and if I like meat, my tastebuds will be happy.
But if you’re after relationships, like 99.9% of people, and people assign less value to yourself unless you “display more” that’s not part of who you are, but a sign of what you can do… the game is rigged against you. It artificially lowers your worth so you have to spend more to get the equivalent worth in a partner.
“Citation or link please? Sounds like another mythical bad feminist story to me.”
I think it was on this blog or on FC. I don’t visit Feministe or Feministing, since, while not banned, posting is ridiculous (sensible rational arguments about helping more people are seen as calls to ignore every good thing about a movement, or to perpetrate sexism with impunity). I try not to visit even more right-wing sites. And Alas is more political than gender nowadays.
Schala: But the game is rigged.
If you consider sexuality or relationships a “game”–that’s part of the problem.
Schala: I don’t need to pay a lot to get filling foods. Pizza and all non-meats, or cheap meats (hot dogs). I need to pay a lot to get filet mignon. But I won’t think my needs are unfulfilled if I only get a low quality steak. My stomach will be filled, and if I like meat, my tastebuds will be happy.
Haven’t had meat in 15 years, and I have had memorable, wonderful meals since. Meat is totally unnecessary. One can have fabulous taste-bud experiences without it.
Schala: But if you’re after relationships, like 99.9% of people, and people assign less value to yourself unless you “display more” that’s not part of who you are, but a sign of what you can do… the game is rigged against you. It artificially lowers your worth so you have to spend more to get the equivalent worth in a partner.
What does this have to do with Dungone equating sex with taxation (presumably) of males by females? My point is: nobody has to eat meat, and nobody has to have sex with high-status women who require a lot of money/maintenance/time. That is a choice. If you make it, like the choice to drink expensive liquor or smoke cigarettes, then deal with the taxes and the risks.
But these “taxes” are not inherent in life or love, as Dungone said it is.
Cheap meat is almost as cheap as rice, its NOT pricy.
You can get a pack of 12 “chicken” hot dog sausages, tasting almost the same as the Hygrade ones…for 1$, not even on sale.
1$ for 12 sausages, eating them as is is more than a meal. If you can’t afford 1$ meals, you can’t afford any food.
I repeat, meat is NOT a luxury good. High grade meat is. Prized meat is. Duck meat is. But meat at all is not.
Relationships, at all, even just “for the sake of not being alone”, ‘cost’ more for men than for women, on average, all else being equal (same economic background, same being favored genetically, both hetero, etc). You don’t have to pay to get male sexuality. It’s free. It’s even seen as undesirable, as too-plentiful. Like salt water.
Nobody’s gonna convince me salt water is rare. Nobody’s gonna convince you men-who-want-to-get-laid-with-lesser-standards-than-women (of same attractiveness) are not more plentiful – even if individuals vary, society assumes ALL men are easy, and women play more hard to get, are more selective, have more power in choosing.
That’s why male rape victims of female perpetrators are assumed to be inexistant – by their very existence, men are assumed to be in a state of perpetual consent. Dressed or behaved in any way won’t change it a single bit. He asked for it, and “got lucky” regardless of what he did, looked like, or said. The fact of his existence is enough.
DDH,
“PS: I compared female circumcision to male circumcision on my radio show, and blew everybody’s mind! Sometimes I forget I am here in Bible country… its a dirty job, but… (etc)
At least one man thanked me. The rest, just stare in amazement.”
Well this man thanks you too.
I am finally getting around to doing the reading is hould have done in high school, and I found this little nugget right in the opening sentences of Thoams Paine’s “Common Sense” where he lays out the reasons for getting out from under a monarchy:
“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason…..”
Get that? In his day the very idea of a republic was considered extreme and unrealistic. The solution he offers is just to keep telling people the truth until they come around.
There is a word for those. It is called PMDD. PMDD is an actual medical condition, unlike PMS, which started as a medical condition, but got appropriated by women* who were busy damseling a disorder into a shared experience. Despite the fact that the hormonal swings of men and women between Friday and Monday dwarf the hormonal swings in women prior to and during menstruation. Or despite the fact that there exists a correlation between reported PMS symptoms “sex negativity” of the culture in which the women reporting the symptoms live. Or despite the fact that the same women will report higher levels of happiness and lower levels of discomfort during their period than they will two weeks later when asked about their previous period.
In other words, some women suffer from PMDD. Its very real. But PMS is a largely social construct, and I will argue that until the facts reverse themselves and point the other way. Similar to women claiming that carrying breasts around all day give them back problems. Not bad posture. Couldn’t be that. (N.B. I have always been curious how much breasts weigh, and whether or not it is more than how much more chest muscle the average man carries around. Googling on my phone, since I am at work, will update when answer is found.)
*A subset, to be sure. The white, well-to-do subset. Of course, once they started to appropriate it, it became fair game for everyone else.
Schala: Cheap meat is almost as cheap as rice, its NOT pricy.
You are ignoring the high price of farm subsidies which are incorporated into our taxes. (in the USA) Also, the staggering costs in municipal resources (water, electricity, natural gas, etc), waste and public health in cleaning up the mess left behind by factory farming.
But I am not talking about that as much as the fact that it simply is not necessary for a tasteful or nutritious diet.
Schala: I repeat, meat is NOT a luxury good. High grade meat is. Prized meat is. Duck meat is. But meat at all is not.
It’s all unbelievably gross and disgusting to me. Mammals more so than ducks; I wouldn’t eat dead people either.
Schala: Relationships, at all, even just “for the sake of not being alone”, ‘cost’ more for men than for women, on average, all else being equal (same economic background, same being favored genetically, both hetero, etc).
Why? Because, Dungone said, of the “tax on sex”–I take it you agree with this?
One way to avoid the tax is to get a lower cut of meat (haha) or to opt out of meat entirely. It is doable, if one feels strongly enough.
Schala: You don’t have to pay to get male sexuality. It’s free.
It’s even seen as undesirable, as too-plentiful. Like salt water.
Why? Are men unable to control their sexuality, like water pouring over a waterfall?
See, when feminists have suggested that men’s sexuality is “plentiful” (interesting euphemism), or anything in that general neighborhood, *we* get called misandrist, but I doubt anyone will call *you* that.
Depends on who is making the argument, I guess.
Suggesting male sexuality is some uncontrollable geyser spurting every-which-way, is kind of anti-male, though, doncha think? As if to say men are hyper-sexual beings? As on the flip side, women are therefore the moral guardians of virtue?
Schala: Nobody’s gonna convince me salt water is rare. Nobody’s gonna convince you men-who-want-to-get-laid-with-lesser-standards-than-women (of same attractiveness) are not more plentiful – even if individuals vary, society assumes ALL men are easy, and women play more hard to get, are more selective, have more power in choosing.
But you are saying all men are easy–aren’t you? Isn’t that what “male sexuality is plentiful” means? If you aren’t saying that, what ARE you saying?
Are men “who want to get laid” incapable of restraint? Are women more able to restrain themselves than men? Aren’t these highly-essentialist arguments?
As I said, feminists are regularly flayed alive on MRA sites for saying these things… I guess it depends on who says it.
Clearly, some people get a pass.
Schala: That’s why male rape victims of female perpetrators are assumed to be inexistant – by their very existence, men are assumed to be in a state of perpetual consent.
I realize this… and saying “men are taxed by women for sex” is part of that concept–isn’t it? Women, the moral class that doles out the sex to starved, uncontrollable men.
Isn’t that the concept that you are Dungone are endorsing? Sounds like it.
Either you agree with this idea of men’s sexuality or you do not. I don’t think men are “taxed” by their enormously-huge sexual needs. Women have just as many needs as men do. This is a damaging anti-male stereotype you and Dungone are trafficking in and its the source of a lot of gender-based misery on both sides of the divide.
Success! According to some bra maker, 34DD boobs weigh 3-3.5 pounds (I assume each?). I find it unlikely that carrying 6-7 pounds will give you back trouble. And what percentage of women in this country possess 34DD boobs? Further down the rabbit-boob-hole we go!
I also realized that it makes no sense to compare boob weight to chest muscle weight, since muscles support themselves by definition.
Equilibrium, I was also thinking of PCOS, which I think can go with PMDD? (or vice versa) I agree about PMS in its current form as a social construct. My main symptom was feeling like I was going to *pop*–which went away when I cut my salt intake… but even one good salty meal a few days before, would make me swell up like a balloon. (Pregnancy ditto, even worse.)
Nonetheless, my husband could predict my periods (when I used to have em, that is) even better than I could… he said I got unaccountably teary over dumb things* two days before. He was right every time! When the period was “off” by a few days or a week, he still predicted it perfectly… with almost amazing precision. As I said, he could predict it far better than I could, which I think means there *are* objective mood symptoms, just not necessarily “good” or “bad” ones. (if that makes sense)
*Dumb things definition: lost dogs being found for their disabled child-owners on “Animal Planet”… mama kitties who rescue their babies from burning buildings. Stuff like this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv5DnGAHO0g
and so on…
Equilibrium, I dunno if its boob size or the problem with straps.
Until about 30-40 yrs ago (yes, I take credit for that too), bras were universally nasty and there were few choices between the extremes of the puritan Sears catalog on one hand and Frederick’s of Hollywood on the other… The “genie” bras (various names for them) are nice.. it has taken eons to invent decent bras. They used to have these little teeny straps, and a little teensy strap holding up 7 lbs, well, try it on one of your wrists all day. I think the issue was straps digging into the shoulders. In her 70s, my mother had actual GROOVES in hers. Seriously. This problem could be easily solved with, you know, WIDER STRAPS, duh, but then they are often visible, and that is frowned upon. Also, what is fetishized these days (especially by the young MTV set) is delicate, lacy, small bras, and they have the smallest straps. Those will be hardest for the girls with big boobs, to feel comfortable in.
Now, getting into the whole question of why women are often forced (like in the workplace) to wear bras when we don’t want to? Now there is some sexism writ large, as is the whole issue of why women can’t go without shirts (and men can) without getting arrested.
@DaisyDeadhead
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/
That’s one article. If you mention the words “paternity testing” on any feminist website, you’re guaranteed to find women who are vociferously anti-test.
“One way to avoid the tax is to get a lower cut of meat (haha) or to opt out of meat entirely. It is doable, if one feels strongly enough. ”
Save for people for whom celibacy is a choice made without coercion. “Opting out” of ever having relationships is like opting out of ever tasting sugary stuff. Lest you’re allergic, you’re gonna try, or want to a lot. You can way more easily opt out of having sex; get a cuddly and french-kissing partner, than opt out of everything at once.
“Why? Are men unable to control their sexuality, like water pouring over a waterfall?
See, when feminists have suggested that men’s sexuality is “plentiful” (interesting euphemism), or anything in that general neighborhood, *we* get called misandrist, but I doubt anyone will call *you* that.”
Yeah, they won’t call me that. You know why? Because I don’t agree with this attitude. I’m saying society’s attitude is that. Not that it’s right and proper that way. I don’t know where you’ve seen me condoning this attitude that male sexuality is bad, tainted and too plentiful (and so they should pay to get the rarer more-high-quality female sexuality).
The whole “why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free” deal is assuming men marry to get sex. Don’t tell me it isn’t a societal conservative attitude towards servicing women with wealth in exchange of sex. Prostitution is just more honest.
“Either you agree with this idea of men’s sexuality or you do not. I don’t think men are “taxed” by their enormously-huge sexual needs. Women have just as many needs as men do. This is a damaging anti-male stereotype you and Dungone are trafficking in and its the source of a lot of gender-based misery on both sides of the divide.”
*headdesk*
Men don’t have more needs than women when it comes to relationships or sex, disproportionately enough that it causes anything such. Not biologically anyways.
But men are socialized to be seen as easy, sexed-beast who can’t hold it, get it up easy, get their fun easy, would bang any girl if she’s pretty enough. Because the women are socialized to be seen as not easy. Having a precious resource, and they “don’t really want sex anyways”. So women have power…because men have been trained to “want to get it” and women to “not want to give it away”.
If you’ve been trained to be thirsty, and your neighbors have been trained to sell you lemonade. Guess who has the power?
That’s what Blanchard based his theory on, as Marja said before: men have a sex drive, men can have fetishes (and women have no sex drive or fetishes), therefore trans women are not women, they’re extreme fetishists who are so fetishists they got convinced by their sexual urges to look like women, but they’re not, because then they would have no sex drive.
Since trans men might hurt his theory, he doesn’t even touch them. He claims they’re all deluded lesbians, and leaves it at that. No test, no control group, nothing.
Gingko: Well this man thanks you too.
You so sweeeet! (kiss)
Really though, both of my (male) radio co-hosts were speechless and just stared at me… had to keep up the patter all by myself until the commercial break! (LOL) I guess I should have warned them, but honestly, I didn’t realize male circumcision was *that* controversial or surprising. (Maybe just coming from a woman?)
Live and learn.
A better customer/seller analogy might be that men have been trained to live-it-large, spend a crap ton, to ‘prove their manlyness’.
Women have been trained to live very frugally. Nope, you don’t need that dress, or those shoes. Buy in a year, it will be fine. Heck, the more frugal you live, the more pure and virginal you are. And the more you spend, the more easy, and thus morally doubtful you are.
So says society, not me. And no, I don’t agree or condone it. But THIS is what results in an unbalanced market where the average woman can wait passively and get hit on by dozens of men, and average men never in their life get hit on, and feel they have to prove their worth to even approach a woman.
The men are sold a bill of goods, being told their worth is zero, even negative. They have to “generate worth” to even be worth looking at. Women are inherently having worth, by virtue of being female (fertile or not, since people don’t ask before, just so they can treat you differently), got nothing to prove. Just wait until a “lesser one” tries his sales pitch on you, and do you deem him worthy of your company?
Schala: I don’t know where you’ve seen me condoning this attitude that male sexuality is bad, tainted and too plentiful (and so they should pay to get the rarer more-high-quality female sexuality).
*headdesk*
I got it from you, of course. You just said it was too plentiful in your last comment. You wrote, and I quote: You don’t have to pay to get male sexuality. It’s free. It’s even seen as undesirable, as too-plentiful. Like salt water. Nobody’s gonna convince me salt water is rare.
YOU. said. it. I quoted YOU.
So do you agree with Dungone about the sexual tax or not? You are the one defending his comment. If you don’t agree with it, why are you defending it?
Schala” You can way more easily opt out of having sex; get a cuddly and french-kissing partner, than opt out of everything at once.
Dungone is talking about “the sex tax”–he isn’t discussing relationships, cuddling or kissing. The SEX tax, is the comment you intervened to defend. And you drag in all this other stuff that may or may not be connected to sex.
Schala: The whole “why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free” deal is assuming men marry to get sex. Don’t tell me it isn’t a societal conservative attitude towards servicing women with wealth in exchange of sex. Prostitution is just more honest.
So, is that what this mysterious “sex tax” that Dungone is referring to, is about? Marriage?
Ah, I see. This of course assumes that men get nothing else of value (e.g. clean clothes, hot meals, decent mothers for their children, warmth and solace, etc) out of marriage.
Schala: Men don’t have more needs than women when it comes to relationships or sex, disproportionately enough that it causes anything such. Not biologically anyways.
But men are socialized to be seen as easy, sexed-beast who can’t hold it, get it up easy, get their fun easy, would bang any girl if she’s pretty enough. Because the women are socialized to be seen as not easy. Having a precious resource, and they “don’t really want sex anyways”. So women have power…because men have been trained to “want to get it” and women to “not want to give it away”.
Women’s socialization is not accepted as an argument for bad behavior in Men’s Rights circles, so I am not eager to accept it as an excuse for men’s bad behavior. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and all like that. You know? Example: Women are socialized to be scared, even terrified. We were all treated to endless lectures from parents, teachers, nuns, TV commercials, nosy neighbors and LAW AND ORDER: SVU from the time we were itty bitty… yet I read on this site at least once every time I am here, that women should GET OVER IT and to hell with “Schrodinger’s Rapist”, because women oughtta KNOW BETTER, goddammit.
Well, if women should GET OVER our fear that we have been indoctrinated into since we were 2 yrs old, then men should GET OVER their training to “want it” all the time. Simple, right? Just. Stop.
😉
See?
Ain’t that simple, is it?
And how about we extend the same charity to women’s negative socialization as we do to men’s on this blog?
And before you say: because feminists don’t think its bad, that’s why! As a reply, I say, there are *plenty* of PUAs who thinks men’s supposedly “stronger” sex drive is a fabulous gift from God and have no desire AT ALL to change. The system is currently benefiting them as it is.
They just want more money to pay the sex tax, or they are trying to get their overall taxes lowered.
” I wouldn’t eat dead people either.”
Broaden your cultural horizons a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imu
“Until about 30-40 yrs ago (yes, I take credit for that too), bras were universally nasty and there were few choices between the extremes of the puritan Sears catalog on one hand and Frederick’s of Hollywood on the other…”
That was about the time Playtex came out with the the “Living bra”. I was a kid but apparently it was a huge success.
Phyllis Diller once joked that she bought a living bra but it died of starvation. And that was nothing; her sister-in-law had to staple hers on.
Schala: Women are inherently having worth, by virtue of being female (fertile or not, since people don’t ask before, just so they can treat you differently), got nothing to prove.
I find this comment interesting coming from a trans woman, since I think this comment is cissexist.
On this blog, Valerie Keefe –as well as Monica Roberts, Dyssonance and other trans woman activists– have repeatedly said that “woman” IS a status that must be proven, and like “man”–one can indeed be regarded as “not woman” (or not woman enough) and woman-status will NOT be “granted” as a result. Butch lesbians often relate this same experience, that they are not considered “women” either. Clearly, there is a status of “woman”–and there is some kind of test that must be passed. (In our culture, the test is usually that the woman must be deemed desirable by men, which is why lesbians are so often ignored; they are not presenting their sexuality to men, for their notice or approval.)
I think the appearance/age/weight of a woman certainly counts. Just by virtue of her femaleness, she does not automatically have a bevy of suitors breaking down her door.
The old country song “You ain’t woman enough to take my man”–also implies that the singer will do all those womanly things “better” than her rival, and thus be “woman enough” wherein her rival is not.
Schala: Just wait until a “lesser one” tries his sales pitch on you, and do you deem him worthy of your company?
I do the sales pitches, or rather, I did. (NOTE: we are getting ready to celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary) As I have said here before, I did not like men to approach me at all, and I approached all three of my husbands first. I prefer to be in that position. 🙂
And yes, I was rejected a few times… it’s not the worst thing that can happen, although it can be pretty unpleasant, especially if you really liked the person and had your eye on them for a long time.
Phyllis Diller once joked that she bought a living bra but it died of starvation. And that was nothing; her sister-in-law had to staple hers on.
😀
” Women have been trained to live very frugally.
Are you sure? Women do account for 80% of consumer spending. Perhaps they have been trained to live frugally compared to $350 pairs of shoes, but in general, I’m not sure this is true.”
It was an analogy to the dating marketplace, whereas women “live frugally” by acting as if they can hold out without ‘the product’ and have to be convinced way more than someone busting the door of a store saying “I NEED a coat!”.
“Women’s socialization is not accepted as an argument for bad behavior in Men’s Rights circles, so I am not eager to accept it as an excuse for men’s bad behavior. ”
Its not bad behavior. It creates a circumstance, whereas male sexuality is seen as bad, evil, and too-plentiful, while female sexuality is seen as good, pure and rarer.
Wether you agree or not, your only choice to not accept the bullshit is finding a non-mainstream partner (one who outright rejects this premise, even if it might benefit them to accept it), or to “go your own way”. No way to be popular and reject this notion.
Schala: Its not bad behavior.
Yes, it is. Men acting like they are perpetually hot for it, from all women, all the time, and really aren’t? Is bad behavior. It’s inherently dishonest. Playing PUA games is bad behavior. If you don’t think so, that is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
As one who DID take the opposite role and approached men openly, imagine my shock when I would take men up on their ‘big talkin ways’ (yes, I have been listening to classic country music today), and discovered much of it WAS simply talk and they were not nearly as hypersexual as they liked to pretend. Its far more common than most women know (although I realize most men know this).
It is at least as bad as the fear described in “Schrodinger’s Rapist”–which certain people here categorize as beyond the pale.
Schala: Wether you agree or not, your only choice to not accept the bullshit is finding a non-mainstream partner (one who outright rejects this premise, even if it might benefit them to accept it), or to “go your own way”. No way to be popular and reject this notion.
Or you can provide total, up-front honesty to men, no holds barred, and demand the same in return. As I said, I was married three times. I was fairly “popular” when I wanted to be.
But speaking of honesty: as I also said on Marja’s blog, I greatly underestimated my own appearance-privilege when I was younger… I think one of the bad things about women’s inculcated appearance-neurosis is an inability to correctly gauge how we look. Now that I look middle-aged, I am able to look at young photos of myself and think, damn, I looked GOOD!!!! (LOL–I recently framed two particularly nice photos of me and Mr Daisy.)
I wish I had been able to appreciate and enjoy that at the time, instead of periodically starving, fussing over clothes, etc. (sigh)
Women don’t tax men for sex. Society taxes men for sex – that’s what I actually said. Women don’t get to keep this tax, women don’t even benefit from it most of the time, they just see men as inherently less valuable as a result.
“Women don’t tax men for sex. Society taxes men for sex – that’s what I actually said. Women don’t get to keep this tax, women don’t even benefit from it most of the time, they just see men as inherently less valuable as a result.”
Who collects this tax? Apexual males.
Dungone: Women don’t tax men for sex. Society taxes men for sex – that’s what I actually said. Women don’t get to keep this tax, women don’t even benefit from it most of the time, they just see men as inherently less valuable as a result.
Who gets this tax, exactly? Like, you mean, Playboy, Hustler? Porn-makers and other major sex-profiteers?
If not, could you elaborate?
Gingko: Who collects this tax? Apexual males.
Apexual males are rich from the sex taxes? Wouldn’t that be a good thing, then?
(((confused)))
“Apexual males are rich from the sex taxes? Wouldn’t that be a good thing, then? ”
Only if you are an apexual male. Almost none of us are. They are literally the 1%. And don’t worry; you are not confused; you are pretty clear on this point generally.
This is how it works, and it’s a lot like the body-image scam society works on women that you allude to above. The system of expectations is set up so that men have to woo women with an array of shiny objects – blood diamonds for engagement rings are only a really blatant exemple. McMansions to hold their love is more to the point; that fed the financial industry enough that it ruined everything when the collapse finally came. But the people actually benefiting cried all the way to the bank.
Now think of how a similar tax is levied on women – the body image tax. It drives an entire beauty and fashion industry. And really who is pushing it all? Actual men that actual women interact with on a daily basis? Or glossy magazines and a steady diet of celebrity culture on TV?
Thanks @SWAB. That’s one of the things I’ve seen, definitely. I haven’t seen it presented in a way that didn’t have some sort of an agenda behind it, though. Here’s another one: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/03/01/black-women-heavier-happier-white-women-weight-body-image/ So yeah, for the sake of argument, ignore all of the crap ideology that people are trying to piggyback onto black women’s happiness and just take away from it the basic observation that black women seem to be happier than white women.
I saw articles about the military looking to black women to help prevent suicide a while ago – I linked to it on Ginkgo’s last post about military suicide but I think it was long after everyone stopped looking at that thread.
Here’s the problem with it. It’s what I call a Cargo Cult mentality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
Military men have just as much of a brotherhood as black women. For crying out loud, these are guys who eat, sleep, and shit in front of each other, 24-7. They jump on grenades for their friends. They don’t have any privacy at all, in fact, which is why they end up shooting their brains out inside of port-a-johns. I don’t even know what these researchers hope to find about black women’s “sisterhood” which they think they’ll be able to emulate in order to make the military even more tight-knit.
They’ve already got the answer staring them in the face, it’s just that they don’t like what that answer is. Black women not only have a culture that teaches them to be self-reliant individuals who pull their own weight and take charge over their own lives more than any other group of women, but they’re also free of the social obligations which men are burdened with. And what good is that going to do for preventing male suicides in the military? This goes right back to the whole entire issue – military suicide is a male issue that will never be solved by trying to force men to be more like women.
Too bad Phyllis Diller was a freakin’ sex bomb. I’m still not sure what to think about her comedy. Was it a parody of femininity, or the ultimate case of damseling? Was it incisive social commentary or a guilt sedative for those of great privilege?
Schala:
Now I see it. Sorry, I thought you were being literal there.
I meant to respond to this. Its another example of the white knight syndrome written in culture/law. And I think most people are probably pretty apathetic about it, the only reason seeing a woman walking around with no bra/shirt on would be weird is because its weird. But those few white knights sure do ruin the fantasies of many a teenager.
Dungone: This goes right back to the whole entire issue – military suicide is a male issue that will never be solved by trying to force men to be more like women.
I heard this rumor once, that there actually women in the military too. (shock) I know, you probably didn’t know that, but when I lived at Ft Dix, I saw them with *my own eyes*.
In fact, I read this recent article in “Women’s Health” about women veterans and suicide. Believe it or NOT! http://www.womenshealthmag.com/life/military-families
Probably some evil misandrist lie invented to take away the glory from our male “heroes” like Dungone. I guess those women I saw were all just going to costume parties!
Carry on.
@dungone:
It seems crazy to assume the solution to any problem that exists in the military is ‘more brotherhood’. Did the brass forget what it was like to be in the jungle with their unit?
Equilibrium, you must have missed Gingko’s fine obit: http://www.genderratic.com/p/1907/in-celebration-thankful-for-the-life-of-phyllis-diller/
I linked it, rather than write one of my own, and that is some high praise. 🙂
Society and those who have control over it. Ginkgo already nailed it – the top 1%.
I hate to be crass about it, but when some lady writes an article about where all the good men have gone, we should take her to see the mass graves and amputees of war who she doesn’t quite see as “marriage material” because someone else already took so much of the innate potential that these men had really dreamed of being able to offer to a woman. We should show her the homes of the people who own everything from Tiffany’s and De Beers to the local joint that serves up ladies’ nights. And point out that they, too, could have had a little piece of that if they hadn’t bought into the worthless perks and status symbols that society convinced women that they “deserve” to receive from men.
@Daisy:
The only statistics I have found so far are that military women are 3 times more likely to kill themselves than non military women, while for men, the factor is 2. So that means military men are still more than 5 times as likely to kill themselves as military women.
Last I heard, military women have a whopping 3 times higher suicide rate than regular everyday women. I mean, it’s almost at the epidemic levels of regular everyday men. Look, it’s tragic, but military suicide is a male issue. When military women kill themselves, which they do, it’s happening because of things that are traditionally associated with male gender roles. So while I sympathize with them greatly, they’ll actually also benefit if society actually starts to recognize the reasons why men kill themselves instead of blaming it all on men’s neanderthal natures.
Equilibrium: I meant to respond to this. Its another example of the white knight syndrome written in culture/law. And I think most people are probably pretty apathetic about it, the only reason seeing a woman walking around with no bra/shirt on would be weird is because its weird. But those few white knights sure do ruin the fantasies of many a teenager.
Apparently at the county fair in Eugene, Oregon (dunno what county it is), the women take off their shirts en masse. Also in a few other places; Deadheads (as well as the Rainbow Tribe) always have, and some bikers’ gatherings do.
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2009/07/women-should-have-right-to-be-shirtless.html
I really wish my troll hadn’t deleted all his comments, because they were priceless. I did quote from a good portion of them (so did other commenters), so you can get a fair idea… but his whole reasoning was that women could not be shirtless because men would be walking around with hard-ons all the time, and that would disrupt society. (really)
He got nastier and nastier and finally, I pissed him off and he deleted all his comments. But really, I am not sure exactly *what* flipped him out all of a sudden. I think he does represent what some men (claim to) believe, as I said in my follow-up: http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2009/07/stubborn-old-goats.html
… that they MIGHT see some boobs they don’t like, and that would be just too upsetting to them.
PS: Notice Octogalore disagrees from another (feminist) point of view: The fact that women’s bodies are fetishized more than men’s is not the root inequality but is instead based on an underlying economic “trade” pattern in which women’s sexuality is on trade for men’s power, money, security, protection. In this equation, women’s naked assets have a value placed upon them that revealing them would diminish — right or wrong.
This post gets a new round of linkage every year, in June, when it heats up in the Northern Hemisphere, and then in December, when it heats up in the Southern Hemisphere.
In other words: All over the world, women are TIRED of sweaty boobs!
Daisy, I suggest you visit Seattle in June. The Fremont Solstice parade has a very interesting parade of naked bicyclists. Police used to ignore them, but I don’t know what happened since I moved. But, just generally speaking, its a bunch of floppy older people who are certainly not magazine cover material having a great time, with a huge crowd getting amazed/disgusted/whatevered. More power to them, I say, as long as I don’t get any pubes in my beer.
The whole economic rationale seems plausible as an explanation to me. That tired old cow/milk/free argument is definitely rooted in a sexual economy. And while the cow/milk thing focuses on expressing sexuality with one man (typically 😉 ), the shirtless thing is public, and free to anyone with a working pair of eyes, which is more dangerous to the idea of women as chaste, faithful angles.
“This goes right back to the whole entire issue – military suicide is a male issue that will never be solved by trying to force men to be more like women.”
and
“The only statistics I have found so far are that military women are 3 times more likely to kill themselves than non military women,”
I think this goes to something I said once on rape (M-on-F) in the military – that women were getting hit with the “implied consent” part of the masculine role, that functionally military women are honorary men. This is one more data point to that.
And I think it has to do with the way trainees – male and female – are socialized into the military. The women are getting socilaized into those parts of the male role that suit them for war. Obviously disposability is going to be part of that.
Apparently they resist that part of their socialization to some extent if their suicide rate is lower than men’s. Norah Vincent reported a nervous breakdown after two years – two whole years! – of trying to live as a man.
DDH,
“PS: Notice Octogalore disagrees from another (feminist) point of view: The fact that women’s bodies are fetishized more than men’s is not the root inequality but is instead based on an underlying economic “trade” pattern in which women’s sexuality is on trade for men’s power, money, security, protection. In this equation, women’s naked assets have a value placed upon them that revealing them would diminish — right or wrong.”
Funny, but that sexual marketplace model is always derided and dismissed by male feminists like Noah Brand when MRAs bring it up. I guess it makes him too much of a john or something. good for Octogalore.
What is she doing these days anyway? I seem to remember she had a baby, but that was like at least a year ago.
Daisy:
My university used to have an entirely naked coed run around the main quad in December, right before finals, but the new president banned it because it shocked his dinner guests one time and some assholes from an off-campus newspaper snuck in to take pictures and videos of people.
My experience with public bathing in Japan has convinced me that learning to deal with more public nudity would probably do us all some good as a society (I imagine it would take me a while to stop staring and get used to it, but I’ve never believed that staring hurts anyone as much as is generally asserted). I suppose you could get all the SF nerds on board with “it’s just like Azimov wrote about in the Foundation prequels”.
Also, if visible bra straps are frowned upon, I suggest you try telling that to most of the women I see around campus. I swear, one girl in my class today was wearing a sweater with translucent stripes (I assume it was designed for layering, but you never know) and I see plenty of women with tops pulled down to bare one whole shoulder (which I always think looks a little silly). Actually, didn’t Steven King once use fussing over visible bra straps as an embarrassing faux-pas in the Dark Tower books to indicate that a character was from the 1960s and horribly behind the times? I definitely have heard a lot of complaints about most bra designs being impractical and uncomfortable, though (mostly from my sister).
I’m not qualified to comment on all this debating over the way sex and relationships work (I don’t think I could ever separate the two, but I respect that most people can), but I don’t think just opting out is as easy as you make it out to be. I don’t broadcast an image of hyper-sexuality, in fact, I’ve never mentioned sex or attraction at all, at least in reference to myself, because I grew up in such fear of turning into the stereotypical image of the asshole guy, drinking beer and watching football in an ill-fitting jersey while cat-calling at women on the street. I don’t pursue women for romantic relationships because I cannot imagine myself playing that role or feeling comfortable in it, would not know how even if I did, and haven’t met any women I would actually want to be with, anyway (seriously, I’m attending one of the best schools in the US and no one I meet here reads at all; it’s kind of terrifying). Having seen from the outside the way dating in this society is structured, I have no interest at all in participating in that model (in fact, very few things are capable of killing my interest deader than the idea of ‘the pursuit’). At the same time, I’m currently going months between any sort of physical contact with other human beings (and I’m including hugs and handshakes in that) and I can feel the effects of that slowly eating away at me. It’s not like I’m impossible to be around: I can maintain eye contact, I can speak without stuttering, I can talk and listen on a wide variety of subjects (and speak three languages plus a bit of French), I diet and work out, I spend time, money and attention on my clothes and grooming. I try to find events and situations to mingle with people and get to know them, but no one makes any effort in return. I can’t keep on living like this. I can feel it killing me.
Hiding: Actually, didn’t Steven King once use fussing over visible bra straps as an embarrassing faux-pas in the Dark Tower books to indicate that a character was from the 1960s and horribly behind the times?
Yeah, I should have been specific: cute and/or colorful bra straps can show, and are even EXPECTED to show, but wide ‘practical’ ones (such as sports bras) are considered uncool and dowdy and should NOT show. (sigh)
I would join a geeky online group, if I were you, and find a nice woman who reads books. I see them at the scifi cons, so I know they exist! I think that is the way to go these days. I met my current husband at one, and that was way before the internet. 🙂 I met my first husband thru political activities we were both heavily involved in.
I think having common interests/passions makes for a solid union, in most cases. (said the old married lady)
Is the case of female military suicides like the case of male rape victims? They don’t fit the story that’s being told, so they’re ignored?
This argument reeks of the same kind of thinking that goes “when men are raped, they are being symbolically turned into women. Therefore rape of men is misogyny!”
Maybe it’s just that the military seriously grinds up the people in it, and some part of military suicides are really caused by the military, and are not just men committing suicide for the usual reasons?
(Not that the usual reasons aren’t super serious and need to be addressed; They are and they do. I’m just not sure “military women = men” is the right approach here.)
Dinosaurs:
I imagine that if anyone on this blog would turn into the “stereotypical male”, it would look a little something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJa7VzfWJQg
Speaking of Harry and Paul, this is how I imagine most feminists seeing male/female relations, but sans humor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNmBauXYzgc&feature=related
Don’t be fucking dense.
Does anyone want to save me the trouble of setting EGR straight on Daisy’s general hatred for military veterans?
Dungone: Does anyone want to save me the trouble of setting EGR straight on Daisy’s general hatred for military veterans
You can start off by *proving* such a baseless assertion.
Does anyone want to save me the trouble of setting EGR straight on Dungone’s general hatred for feminists?
(See, I can play too.)
BTW, why do you think I was living on Fort Dix in the first place? I have a few stories of my own, you know.
For the record, I’ve had quite enough of this bullshit from you. I have plenty of witnesses regarding my life and can prove that I exist. Can you? If not, or if you aren’t willing to compromise your anonymity, then … (yawn). I have absolutely zero proof that you are who you claim to be. Further, I am generally quite weary of your endless Toby Keith-red-white-and-blue routine. Its overwrought, knee-jerk jingoism… and boring. I get enough of that shit around here.
I’ve earned the right to have the politics I have. If you exist in the form you present yourself here, then perhaps you have too. That does not make you superior to anyone, however. As I’ve said before, if you are going to brag constantly about military service, you have to be prepared for whatever reactions you get. You think nothing of trashing (just one of many examples) parents and you confidently announced on NSWATM that parenting isn’t important and made it clear you had NO respect for the work involved. You didn’t worry for one second that this opinion might offend parents who have made great sacrifices for their families. Veterans are NOT sacrosanct and immune from criticisms, any more than parents are. If you can criticize people’s chosen vocations, why can’t people criticize yours?
Obviously, you have swallowed the idea that you are somehow more important than civilians, and somehow superior… and THAT is the specific concept I take issue with. It leads to all manner of mayhem.
Refusing to *worship* you in the manner in which you have become accustomed in post 9/11-Toby Keith America, is NOT hate. That is equality.
Please get OVER yourself.
EGR: Maybe it’s just that the military seriously grinds up the people in it, and some part of military suicides are really caused by the military, and are not just men committing suicide for the usual reasons?
Showing concern for people in the military is misconstrued by Dungone as “hate”.
But yes, of course you are right.
“EGR: Maybe it’s just that the military seriously grinds up the people in it, and some part of military suicides are really caused by the military, and are not just men committing suicide for the usual reasons?”
The big thing that ties Chinese women suicide rate to men’s suicides rate everywhere is not being valued as a sex. Chinese women might even suicide more than Chinese men (don’t have the rates).
If you’re treated as unimportant, your wellbeing as secondary to your productivity, or even tertiary, your feelings as non-existent, your violations as impossible to happen, unless it was your fault, and you’re always the aggressor, too, even when you’re not – just because you happen to be in a social grouping of people that happen to be generally taller and heavier than another social grouping (regardless of your individual height and weight, remember, you’re judged as a part of The Borg, not an individual).
This is disposability big time above. Where people treat bad stuff that happens to you as “good character-forging stuff”, something is fucking wrong.
No need to prove it, as I said it knowing fully well that it wasn’t true. You know, just like this:
@DaisyDeadhead
On this blog, Valerie Keefe –as well as Monica Roberts, Dyssonance and other trans woman activists– have repeatedly said that “woman” IS a status that must be proven, and like “man”–one can indeed be regarded as “not woman” (or not woman enough) and woman-status will NOT be “granted” as a result. Butch lesbians often relate this same experience, that they are not considered “women” either. Clearly, there is a status of “woman”–and there is some kind of test that must be passed. (In our culture, the test is usually that the woman must be deemed desirable by men, which is why lesbians are so often ignored; they are not presenting their sexuality to men, for their notice or approval.)
I think the appearance/age/weight of a woman certainly counts. Just by virtue of her femaleness, she does not automatically have a bevy of suitors breaking down her door.
Daisy, as radfems are fond of pointing out, I’m tall and fat, and I’m attracted to women… you are mistaking intersections of status for conditionality of status. I have not said woman is something that needs to be established, and if I have given you that impression, I must not be a very good writer, or you must be conflating white cis femaleness with femaleness.
Hey Ginkgo, I think this would be more interesting if this was somehow a wiki or group editable post and then provided a list of websites or well known feminists, and asked the readers here to annotate the posts with quotes from websites, blogs, feminists being sexist pigs.
On the other hand, I find your equating of male circumcision as just as bad as female genital mutilation to be ignorant, inaccurate, outrageous, and sadly a sign this website is probably not worth following.
You can oppose both male circumcision and female genital mutilation. But your claim that they are equally bad is just ignorant at best.
I find your equating of male circumcision as just as bad as female genital mutilation to be ignorant, inaccurate, outrageous, and sadly a sign this website is probably not worth following.(Jay)
You may be right, inaccurate seems appropriate, though I do find the same idea with many feminists when it comes to sexual assault. It seems many times the grabbing of breasts or vagina’s(sexual assault) far outweighs the shit kicking(physical assaults) many males get. I suggest you stick around, it seems to me that many of the writers on here have a good sense of how bad we all have it at times. 🙂
Welcome, Jay.
“On the other hand, I find your equating of male circumcision as just as bad as female genital mutilation to be ignorant, inaccurate, outrageous, and sadly a sign this website is probably not worth following.
You can oppose both male circumcision and female genital mutilation. But your claim that they are equally bad is just ignorant at best.”
I am going to overlook your rude and uncouth way of expressing yourself so that I can respond.
“But your claim that they are equally bad is just ignorant at best.”
Actually this is ignorant.
There are two issues in any form of GM. One is lack of consent. That is exaclty the same regardless of the shape of what is being cut. So your argument fails right there. It’s a simple matter of human equality.
The other issue is the extent of physical harm, the deprivation inflicted. A common falsehood baout the most common fomr of extreme FGM , clitoridectomy, is that it removes all sexual repsonse. thisnis false. In clitoridectomy only a small part of the clitoris is removed, the external part. The clitoris is a largely internal organ. Ths hapens not to be the case in MGM, when most often the entire foreskin is removed.
Another common falsehod is to equate homologous structrures as if they were exactly analogous and equivalent. The foreskin and the clitoral hood are homologous, but they are not analogous and removal of either is not equivalent. The foreskin has many more nerve endings than the clitoral hood. The foreskin is actually equivalent to the clitoris when it comes to importance to sexual response. and rememebr, in MGM the entire foreskin is removed whereas in FGM the entire clitoris is not removed.
But the usual reason for pushback against my position is simple – female genitals are much mre highly valued in our culture than male genitals. The most basic market research at a strip club will prove that too you. so you get white knights and other misogynists defending the Sacred Clit from any comparison to some nasty flap of male skin. It’s simple sexism.
“Hey Ginkgo, I think this would be more interesting if this was somehow a wiki or group editable post…”
Hey maybe you noticed this was a blog and not Wikipedia.
“… and then provided a list of websites or well known feminists, and asked the readers here to annotate the posts with quotes from websites, blogs, feminists being sexist pigs.”
Blog posts listing sexist statments frorm feminists are out there in abundance. There are blogs that list gendercidal, man-hating quotations from feminists, there are blogs that monitor feminists’ hypocrisy on gender equality, they are all over the place. But all you have to do its go onto the mainstream sites like Feministe and Shakesville and Pandagon to find all the sexist, man-hating drivel you could want. So there is really no need to provide links. It’s like linking to Stornfront to prove that white supremacists are racist – unnecessary.
Valerie: I have not said woman is something that needs to be established, and if I have given you that impression, I must not be a very good writer, or you must be conflating white cis femaleness with femaleness.
No… I am trying to say something I do not have the proper words for. I hate when that happens. 🙂
I asked you a question in the recent thread with your name on it, that gets more to the heart of it, I think, what I am getting at… Possibly you are right that I am mistaking intersections of status for conditionality of status and I need this explained/illustrated in stark relief.
For example… would you say it angers a trans person to be misgendered more than it does a cis person? (I’ve been called “a man” too, for instance.) And why? Do you think the insult is the same or are two different things being said? Background: I think one reason cis feminists can be so recalcitrant about the misgendering issue (besides basic transphobia, that is).. is that many of us have experienced this too and find it ‘standard’ as the price of being non-gender-conforming in whatever ways. But the way we experience the insult and the way trans people experience the insult, IS different… but I am not sure how and why. I don’t have the words for this, as I said.
I need to get to the heart of this and figure it out.
“But the way we experience the insult and the way trans people experience the insult, IS different… but I am not sure how and why. ”
If you’re early in transition, it’s simply a result of insecurity.
The typical 5 years old has that insecurity, and will cling like dear god to their sex stereotypes (princesses!!! pink!!! glitter!!!…or for boys NOT being that, there is nothing seen as necessarily boyish, except NOT being girlish, or being the least girlish – having no manners, being stupid, being dirty, caring the least about beauty).
When I was 5 I didn’t care though. I didn’t think I could be considered female by going with girly stereotypes, and I didn’t want to be considered male. So I just didn’t care you know. If it didn’t get me beaten, I didn’t mind it. I didn’t try to walk “like a man”, or even notice anything about it until I kept reading about it.
But when I transitioned, being seen as female was paramount. Not being seen as female was being denied my entire personhood.
Now, 6 years and a half later, I can look way more bland, don’t use any make-up. Heck, wear some of my boyfriend’s more warm clothing (because I kinda got none) to cycle, without a problem. And some people can misgender me, again and again, and I’ll just laugh inside at their ineptitude (I’ve had someone switch from male to female to male to female…and juggle like that for 10 minutes – I have small breasts and had a closed winter coat, my voice is androgynous, and no make-up – I can also get out my more assertive no-nonsense attitude when talking (ie practical before everything else) which could look more masculine to some).
It doesn’t hurt me as much because I’m no longer trying to establish I’m female. To me it’s a fact, a given. Deny it and I’ll just deny your existence to, and go somewhere else. I don’t feel I have to supplicate, especially in non-dating contexts, where I’m not seen as a very weird person who’s so far off the norm I have zero options.
To establish that fact I needed emotional and psychological support and reinforcement that yes, I’m accepted for who I am in every way, including being female, and the ones who don’t are the delusional ones, not me. Believe me, going against what everyone else believes about you sounds easy on paper, but it needs incredible self-assurance to do in real life. So I’ve become a dozen times more assertive now.
“For example… would you say it angers a trans person to be misgendered more than it does a cis person? (I’ve been called “a man” too, for instance.) And why?”
Cis women, not cis persons. Misgendering a man is the basic misandrist insult. It’s the threat hidden in the Real Man narrative. It’s the reason being called a pussy or a queer is so devastaing to a boy.
I can’t figure out for sure why this is not so for girls and women, but I wonder if it is a new (and good ) development. Think of all the policing you have reported, you specifically, daisy. Think back about being policed on wearing pants in butt cold weather. Did your also get shit for climbing trees? I remember that story about being denied a drum – BTW for some reason that hit me particularly hard.
Girls don’t get much of that and there isn’t so much anxiety around femininity maybe, as there was before. That is not yet the case for boys.
Gingko: Cis women, not cis persons. Misgendering a man is the basic misandrist insult. It’s the threat hidden in the Real Man narrative. It’s the reason being called a pussy or a queer is so devastaing to a boy.
I dunno about that Gingko, I have been told that it bothers trans men too.
My surrogate son, South Carolina Boy (blogger), is often misgendered due to his (high) voice, and he doesn’t like it either. He hasn’t started T, and I think that is what it is going to take to change his voice enough to keep this from happening. (It doesn’t usually happen until he speaks.)
Post-menopause, I get “sirred” all the time on the phone, now… which I have always found amusing.
“I dunno about that Gingko, I have been told that it bothers trans men too. ”
Yes you do know! A trans man is a man man. Of course that’s going t bother him and for the same reason.
“Post-menopause, I get “sirred” all the time on the phone, now… which I have always found amusing.”
Fucking language. In Korean the marker for that elvel fo respect is non-gendered. (The way it’s applied is very gendered though, i suppose.)
Gingko: Of course that’s going t bother him and for the same reason.
But I don’t think it IS the same reason… the reason is that he wants his voice to change and he is afraid of being outed.
He lives in an even more conservative area than I do, and worry about him all the time. 🙁
A lot of talk here is predicated on linking ‘utility’ to ‘happiness’, but it feels like a false sense of happiness, the kind advanced by pseudo-individualists to mean ‘whatever makes you feel good’. The original meaning as advanced by Thomas Jefferson was in the order of ‘food, shelter, safety’ as in the essentials. The pursuit of happiness was essentially ‘setting all people above want’ not ‘which people are more useful to making me FEEEEEEEEEL GOOOOOOOOOOOD!’. We can afford to do this because we have been so successful at setting so many of us above want. If we were more sensible we might consider retiring the word until it attained a coherent meaning again.
“To give an example where I am motivated. I perform sexually. I’m not just a fish lying there. I suck good. Do good hand jobs, foot jobs, tongue jobs.”
I don’t know about anyone else on this site, but I for one _fucking love_ you. Your comments always make me feel a little bit more happy every day.
Welcome, robert!
“The original meaning as advanced by Thomas Jefferson was in the order of ‘food, shelter, safety’ as in the essentials.”
Thomas Jefferson’s opinion is as good as anyone else’s, but he is hardly some kind of original authority on so old a subject. he cama long pretty late in the day after all.
My opinion is that happiness is basically a kind of haze over deeper things – good strong relationships and the satisfaction those bring come first to me, and they make me feel happy, and to me “happy” describes a feeling more than a reality anyway. That’s just the way I have always generally heard the word used.
As for utility, that’s part of duty, and duty is for me foundational to good strong relationships. I recognize that this is not true for everyone; we live in a market society so naturally my take on this is not normative, but it’s not idiosyncratic either really.
Anyway, thanks for joining us here.
MEN NEED TO GET TOGETHER AND TEAR THE FEMINIST BASTARDS A NEW ONE
Hello! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was wondering if you
knew where I could find a captcha plugin for my comment form?
I’m using the same blog platform as yours and I’m having trouble finding one?
Thanks a lot!
There is no one more, bitter, self entitled and narcissistic than the western woman. This being said why is it that all feminists are unattractive and have fathers that hate them?
Um, they’re not and they don’t.
That was easy. As for your first line: For god’s sake at least explain your reasoning if your going to say stuff like that*. Just blurting out such crap just makes you look like a misogynist.
* Even then, I suspect your reasoning will be flawed.
Welcome, Ray!
if you are not a false-flagging radfem troll, please explain yourself.
Thanks, Adiabat.
I just wanted to say I am female, feminist, and that I approve of this list. Whether people admit/realize it or not, it goes both ways.
Welcome, Casey!
Now that you mention it, it reads like a to-do list of 70s feminism and the 70s attitude towards sex.
Hope you stick around. You have a lot to contribute just by being female and feminist.
Since you liked this list, you look up our articles that emotion hyperagency and hypoagency. I think they line up with your kind of feminism.
No problem Ginkgo. As you know, I’m not one to rush to defend feminists but I don’t see the point of just making ridiculous claims about them. And there enough women I care about that I’m not going to put up with bullshit generalisations, at least without some kind of reasoned argument behind it.
“As you know, I’m not one to rush to defend feminists but I don’t see the point of just making ridiculous claims about them.”
I’ll go farther than that. I am just done with hysterics, all out of patience – and that is on both side. Frothing, Tea Party (right on into White Supremacists filth) toxicons who imagine they are MRAs and fulminate on the “leftward” slide of the MRM, frothing SJ Puritan retrograde-ass radfems who think they are so progressive that they can do no wrong – I am done with all of them, and I will do what I can to expose, ridicule and denounce them.