I don’t go to Manboobz’s blog so I’m clearing this up for the sake of the people who read and comment on this blog. Also there’s no real point in posting this there since all it will do is inspire an endless round of “well what you really meant was [insert misrepresentation]” followed by “no, in fact if you read the actual quote, the immediate subject preceding ‘it’ was male politician, not trans woman. I used the plural ‘they’ to refer to trans women” followed by “well what you really meant was [insert misrepresentation].”
Anyway if I did appear to use “it” to trans woman then I apologize. That was definitely not my intent.
Why would I refer to a trans woman in that manner? She obviously takes her identity from being female. Nor are trans women truly “male-bodied”; they are identified as “male-bodied” by society, just like apexuals are identified as “male-bodied” by society. While neither take their identities from being presumptively “male-bodied”.
I assert this because I see zero evidence that male-bodied CEOs, politicians, generals, etc. share any positive social identity with other male-bodied individuals. Instead they identify with their role as politician, CEO or general.
Is politician a sex? No. So how do you refer to a male-bodied politician? Zie is gender neutral but male-bodied apexuals(politicians, generals, CEOs, all the presumptively “alpha” male bodied) aren’t gender neutral, they are gender-less.
“It” seems more appropriate.
- What will Dior’s decision regarding Johnny Depp mean for male survivors? - August 10, 2022
- Chauvin Released, Teen bullied for supporting trump, False accuser forced to apologize| HBR News 277.5 - October 13, 2020
- What Jordan Peterson checking into Rehab can teach us all - October 26, 2019
by 
TB, beyond the obvious quote mining and shoving words down your throat, what you experienced were the bad traits of a gender ideologue readership being exploited by a sycophantic asshole to attack you.
You see, it’s because it’s actually impossible to assail the gender identity of rich upper class cis-gender white guys. It bounces right of and lands on a trans-sexual. At least, it does according to a rich upper class cis-gender white feminist. You forgot about that…
Also, it hit too close to home for “the one good man” who identifies as a feminist and spends his waking hours distancing himself from and attacking other men. There was bound to be hell to pay for you referring to him as an “it.”
Apexphobia. The fear of male-bodied individuals who do not identify with men, usually held by closet apexuals who are jealous that they don’t get to be a rock star, ceo, & People Magazine’s Sexiest Man Alive.
@ dungone
What’s interesting to me is that he assumed “male bodied” necessarily referred to trans women.
Trans women aren’t male bodied; they are labeled male bodied by society just as, by default, most phenotypically “male” individuals are. When I referred to trans women I used “presumptively male bodied” to try and clarify this position. When I referred to apexuals I used “male bodied”.
Trans women are “presumptively male bodied”; apexuals are “male bodied”.
After all this was the point of contention that I got into with Valerie a looooong while ago.
That Boobz doesn’t understand that trans women aren’t male bodied seems rather telling to me. Perhaps Valerie can have a few words with him. 😉
“Instead they identify with their role as politician, CEO or general” …. who are mostly male, or they wouldn’t qualify for that job in the first place. Less than a mere century ago, for a couple of those job-descriptions, women weren’t even *allowed* to apply. So what else would they be?
Of course they identify as male.
There is so much important stuff to talk about in terms of men’s rights, but making outlandish claims like this detracts from the good points of the MRM. In fact, I see you increasingly becoming like the feminists who claim no woman under patriarchy can EVER be held accountable for doing anything bad due to false consciousness. You seem to be saying the “bad men” (the ones who order the mass murders and mass evictions) aren’t really accountable either, since they do not “identify” as men.
Does this mean no woman is accountable for any immoral acts, as long as she doesn’t “identify” as a woman? Why is this existential claim not *also* true for women, in that case? BTW, Germaine Greer made that exact argument in “The Female Eunuch” (note the title)–saying women had no authentic sex or gender unless ‘the male class’ decided to bestow it. Your argument seems to be a handy inversion of that, only this time applying it to the men in charge of our society. Were you inspired by Greer? Sure sounds like it.
Typhon Blue: Trans women are “presumptively male bodied”; apexuals are “male bodied”.
After all this was the point of contention that I got into with Valerie a looooong while ago.
It was rather recent point of contention and has not yet been resolved.
As Valerie asked, why are apexuals not also “presumptively male bodied” according to your argument?
Is the primary issue personal gender-identification or something else? If it IS identification, the word “presumptively” applies to both. If its something else that differentiates them, according to your argument, what exactly is it?
I don’t understand your point at all, but then, I don’t understand the whole post, as stated above.
@ Daisy
Valerie never asked why apexuals aren’t presumptively male bodied. She pointed out that I was implying trans women were male bodied, not presumptively male bodied.
And she was right. I was implying something I didn’t intend to imply.
“Of course they identify as male.”
They are labeled male. If they actually positively identify with their male body is not proven.
If you’ve got an American passport, does that mean you necessarily identify as American?
“Germaine Greer made that exact argument”
Her argument can be wrong while mine is correct. It all depends on an examination of the evidence. Or both can be correct. Considering how I’ve pointed out that women’s identities are something passively given to them rather then something they acquire through effort might echo Greer’s argument. (She’s still a fucking loon though and calling the process the Female Eunuch is misleading at best. I’d call it feminilism… when women’s female bodies eclipse their character in defining them.)
When someone says “you’re not a woman” they mean “you don’t have a female body.”
When someone says “you’re not a man” they rarely mean “you don’t have a male body” they mean “you have failed to run the man race in the manner in which I approve of.”
Therefore being labeled “male-bodied” by society may be necessary for entry in to the “man-race” but only some male-bodied individuals win it. And they aren’t taking their identities from being male-bodied (why enter the man race at all if they did?), they’re taking their identities from where ever they place in the man-race.
Typhon,
Thanks for the clarification…
My understanding is that you are simply stating counter theory to “patriarchy” and the feminist claims that men (automatically) benefit because other men are in power.
It seems like a more complex alternative view than the apex fallacy….
hahaha, if fatuous Manboobz was clever, he could riff on Easily Enthused’s handle and call me Easily Confused….
@ typhonblue
“Therefore being labeled “male-bodied” by society may be necessary for entry in to the “man-race” ”
Or being labeled “male-bodied”(aka sexually valueless) may be necessary to motivate someone to run the man race.
I was the one here most clearly stating that I read you as refering to trans women with the word “it”. Thank you for your clarification. I suspected one would be forthcoming as my reading of those comments by you didn’t really jive with what I’ve read of you in the last several years at FC and here.
Based on my experience commenting on Manboobz when I once tried to call out a commenter who said TS lied about his abuse I will say that you made the right call not to post this clarification there.
@ Tamen
“Based on my experience commenting on Manboobz when I once tried to call out a commenter who said TS lied about his abuse I will say that you made the right call not to post this clarification there.”
I know when to leave well enough alone. I will never comment at or read Manboobz’ site.
TB: “If you’ve got an American passport, does that mean you necessarily identify as American?”
What else would you be? Whoever has an American passport and doesn’t ‘identify’ as American is delusional. (?) Certainly, one is free to say you don’t feel like one or don’t like it, but the fact that you have duly submitted to the authority that gives out the passports, means that on some level you acknowledge what you are.
@ DaisyDeadhead
“Whoever has an American passport and doesn’t ‘identify’ as American is delusional.”
How about terrorists? Foreign spies? Someone with dual citizenship?
People who really hate America and wish to disassociate from it? Tourists who don’t want to deal with America’s international baggage and thus identify themselves as Canadian?
The point is that you can be labeled with something and not identify with it. These are two different things.
For example the untouchable caste in India. They’re labeled untouchables, that doesn’t mean they have an identity. An identity would require actually identifying with others of their group.
Often people labeled as part of an undesirable group identify more with the people oppressing them then each other. In fact that’s one reason why their oppression can be maintained; their identity is more wrapped around being a “good slave” then the kinship they have with other slaves.
This is one of the first big hurdles any oppressed group has to overcome. The aversion that people in undesirable groups have in identifying with each other, in taking a positive identity from what they share with others in the undesirable groups.
After all, they’ve been taught it’s undesirable.
Domestication works similarly; get animals to identify more with humans then other animals.
DaisyDeadhead said…
Of course they identify as male.
You are not qualified to make this assertion.
Whether or not CEO’s identify as men is a matter of definition of the word “identify.” If you go by Patriarchal dogma, you’d have to conclude that they don’t because CEO’s exploit other men and don’t actually work for the common good of the male gender as feminism supposes. I’m fine with the way feminists use the word “identity,” but I’d like to see it being used consistently. It really shortchanges the male gender when feminists define every other group in positive terms but when it comes to men, they define us identifying with one another in terms of ripping each other’s heads off and shitting down one another’s throats.
“I’m fine with the way feminists use the word “identity,” but I’d like to see it being used consistently. ”
Ha! You can shit in one hand and and want in the other and see which one fills up first. Being consistently inconsistent is one thing you can count on when debating with most feminists. It’s how they remain “myserious and feminine” for one thing and of course “a lady can always change her mind” and if there is one thing all those bra-burners who despsie the very word “lady” it is that they will insist on being treated like ladies.
It’s also a power trip; they can just say that you don’t really “get it.”
Daisy,
And Mary Daly makes a similar argument somewhere in Gyn/Ecology. By redesignating apexual females as males – I cannot recall the exact phrase she uses – she patches the single-axis single-direction model she prefers.
Regardless, sex and gender, like everything else, affect the most powerful differently from how they affect the least powerful.
Which also brings to bear the sense of entitlement on display when feminists appropriate the perks of men’s gender roles while avoiding all of the dues that men pay for those perks.
I think it affects all men, however, to be judged by what CEO’s do. Most men don’t have the level of sociopathy, narcissism, and lack of regard for the welfare of others to make the type of money-making decisions that give corporate CEO’s such a bad name. If you really think about it, the number of men who belong to a union far outnumbers the number of men who are CEO’s. Hell, I’m pretty sure there are more men who are members of some bird watching club than there are male CEO’s. I’m actually pretty sure there are more men who watch My Little Pony than there are male CEO’s.
Just for kicks:
http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html says in 2008 in the US there were 5,930,132 “employer firms” (firms with payroll). I’m not sure what level of firm is required for one to consider the person at the top a CEO or equivalent, but:
2,312,368 had at least 5 employees
18,469 had at least 500 employees
1,956 had at least 5,000 employees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html says 14.7 million union members in 2011.
Birdwatching: Hard to say. Wikipedia says the American Birding Association had 15,000 members in 2009.
My Little Pony: Wikipedia gives a viewership of 4 million per month at the end of the first season. r/mylittlepony on Reddit has about 50,000 subscribers.
No concrete idea on the gender distribution of these.
“You seem to be saying the “bad men” (the ones who order the mass murders and mass evictions) aren’t really accountable either, since they do not “identify” as men.”
I see another misunderstanding sprouting. Of course apexual men identify *as* men, they don’t identify *with* other men. Identity does not necesarily imply solidarity with anyone else in that identity category.
One of the biggest feminist “misunderstandings” is the fallacy in assuming that the majority of politicians being male implies that men have more political power.
1) The political power of a group in a democracy is determined by how many of its interests are represented by politicians (i.e. how many ideas are discussed and implemented that exclusively benefit that group)
2) For a politician to do this, they do not need to be member of that group themselves. Indeed, the assumption that men cannot represent women’s interests is SEEEXIST. Likewise, blue-eyed people doubtfully take a note of how many blue-eyed politicians there are.
3) Leaving aside the comparison between men and women and how each group is exclusively represented (because we all know the answer to that), the only other determining factor in political representation is the proportion of the group in the electorate. Women are the majority there.
Therefore women have more political representation and the ability to implement change as a group.
I’m still eagerly waiting for anyone to challenge this reasoning convincingly. Until that happens, I’ll remain firm in my belief that women, as a group, hold political power far greater than men do. In fact, men’s political representation as a group is probably closer to that of animals than it is to women.
“I’m still eagerly waiting for anyone to challenge this reasoning convincingly.”
Do politicians represent poor people?
Oh and if any manboobzer read my last comment, take that as a challenge. But you’ll have to make your case on unmoderated ground if you want a response from me.
Interestingly, on that blog it seems every post receives several hundred comments by the same dozen or so people. You come back a year later and it’s still the same dozen cretins making hundreds of comments day after day. And the content of the blog posts is pretty much the same statement over and over again: “look there’s a misogynist idiot haha”.
If you ever needed an example of a circlejerk…
Do politicians represent poor people?
What’s your definition of “poor”? Certainly politicians represent the lower classes.
What’s your definition of “poor”? Certainly politicians represent the lower classes.
Sorry about the double post. I mistyped the blockquote tag and thought it hadn’t been sent yet so tried to correct it. Please delete one of them (and then this one to avoid clutter)
“Do politicians represent poor people?”
I don’t think “poor people” is the part that needs the scutiny. I think “represent” is the part that is sketchy.
I sse a lot of politiicans manipulating poor people and their fears and anger and calling it representation. When blue-collar Southerners consider labor unions teh Evil, it’s because they see them as Catholic. And their “representatives” get a lot of support from who knows where to vote that way when labor laws come up.
Pretty much everyone is being manipulated. By politicians, advertisers, media, each other.
“What’s your definition of “poor”? Certainly politicians represent the lower classes.”
Wait? You take it as obvious or certain? I take the fact that they don’t as obvious and certain.
How many municipalities criminalize the homeless? How many criminalize groups who try to feed the homeless? (Such as Food not Bombs?) How many tear down poor neighborhoods to build sports stadia for private profit at public expense? How many are reintroducing debtors’ prisons? How many are escalating police sweeps through poor neighborhoods while cutting public defenders’ services to the bone?
@ Daisy
Somehow I missed this one:
“You seem to be saying the “bad men” (the ones who order the mass murders and mass evictions) aren’t really accountable either, since they do not “identify” as men.”
They are responsible as _people_. But other presumptively male-bodied individuals don’t share in their responsibility. For one because they don’t share an identity, for another because even if they did, men aren’t a monolith.
@ Ginko
“Of course apexual men identify *as* men, they don’t identify *with* other men.”
They don’t identify with other presumptively male-bodied individuals (this includes trans women as they are “presumptively male-bodied”).
I don’t use the word “men” because the word is incoherent. It’s a fiction. There are no men, there are only male-bodied individuals(this does not include trans women as they are not “male-bodied” and are not running the “man race”) in the process of running the “man race”. The moment they stop or lose (and the rules are made on the spot by the spectators) they are not men.
“Of course apexual men identify *as* men, they don’t identify *with* other men.”
Oooohhhh… that makes a lot more sense. Yeah, duh. They identify with the other members of the power elite.
Ginko, I just had to quote you on my blog…
https://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/amazing-quote-by-ginko/
SWAB, have I told you lately that you rock?
😉
@ Marja
Certain – like I said.
This is all effectively one statement:
“There are many instances where powerful people unjustly abuse poor people.”
Unfortunately it doesn’t refute my position (I’ll just accept that you’re correct about the “many” part). Being represented does not mean you’re immune from unjust treatment. Indeed the gender policies on women are a good example for how they are often unfair on those women who don’t fit the norm (eg not being allowed to fight in combat).
To take the “poor people” example in the context of my argument about political representation, the less than half a dozen democracies I’ve lived in have all frequently had political agendas regarding things like a minimum wage. The intent is to raise the living standard of people in the lowest paying jobs.
That’s why I asked about the definition of “poor” because you might say that doesn’t fit and point towards homeless people. The problem with that argument is that homeless people constitute a tiny minority of the electorate. Therefore politicians in a democracy are not even supposed to represent them in any significant way (one of my issues with democracies).
The homelessness example is interesting for another reason too. Because homelessness I believe is addressed far more than the pure democracy model would suggest. The reason being that people in the electorate (mostly lower and middle classes) care about homelessness. Their compassion is why politicians ever talk about those issues.In that sense, homelessness is one of the issues of the lower/middle classes by virtue of them being concerned by it (and this is where democracy redeems itself a little).
“I don’t use the word “men” because the word is incoherent. It’s a fiction. There are no men, there are only male-bodied individuals(this does not include trans women as they are not “male-bodied” and are not running the “man race”) in the process of running the “man race”. The moment they stop or lose (and the rules are made on the spot by the spectators) they are not men.”
Well that’s true of every noun, so it doesn’t matter. As soon as a knife stops cutting, it’s not really a knife, it’s just a piece of metal or ceramic. if a women gets fat enough, she stops being regarded as a woman. (Of course to get that fat she prety much has to stop being ambulatory.)
Note on pronouns – we’re really just fucked on this point in English. The original binary contrast was animate/inanimate = he/[h]it. it’s a very plain pair. This was mirrored in the noun gender system. In time a further split evolved, in the animaite gender, and the feminine gendered calved off.
The confusion comes from Latin grammarians who did not have the advantage of historical linguistcs. they saw a masculine/feminine/neuter opposition in their language and that has become standard in Europe, due to the prestige of Latin. Even then their analysis was faulty; the plural functions like a gender also.
So what we really have in English is feminine/animate/neuter = she/he/it. But you still can’t get using “he” for entities not obviously male past most native-speakers.
@ Gingko
“Well that’s true of every noun, so it doesn’t matter.”
Doesn’t it though? Isn’t the relative fragility of “man” versus “woman” a really big part of the whole issue?
When a woman can cease being a woman in the same ways that a man can cease being a man, we’ll be in a much better position overall.
@Typhon
I was wondering is you could explain to me exactly what you meant by this comment? I think it might be over my pay grade, lol!!
“Do you know how many men would be women if it was a painless transition? Anecdotally I would put it at 50-90%.
@ titfortat
A while back on a men’s rights forum there was a poll asking “would you become a woman if the transition was painless.”
The number of men who said yes was disheartening. I don’t know if it’s because they are innately female identifying or if it’s because they don’t want to deal with the crap men are expected to suck up in society.
Thanks Typhon
I was reading a little on the kerfuffle over at Boobies and I was having a hard time with that quote. It didnt seem quite your style, at least the way he skewed it. Thanks for the clarification. By the way, are youre Canadian, right? If so what end of the country, Im in Ottawa.
@titfortat
Was that another “evil” thing he dug up that I said?
Yep. The more I read stuff on line I realize how easy it is to defame people if you really want to. The truth is we all say things that can easily be misconstrued. I hope I never become famous because Im sure the web is littered with tons of quotables from moi! Lmao. 🙂
@titfortat
“The truth is we all say things that can easily be misconstrued”
Misconstrued as what though? I didn’t realize that comment was so controversial.
“When a woman can cease being a woman in the same ways that a man can cease being a man, we’ll be in a much better position overall.”
It used to be that way, but it was no paradise. Real equality is an unequivocal good, but it needs to be an equlaity of good, not misery.
I think we need ot distinguish between :
“man” and male” because they are quite different in society – there is a huge social difference between men and boys, in a way that I don’t think there is between “girl” and “woman”. But the “ain’t I a woman” narrative shows that being female is absolutely not enough to make you a woman, although there the difference is more about the color of your skin than the content of your character.
@ Typhon
That’s a very good point. I’ve NEVER felt comfortable being called a man. In fact I hate it. I used to even suspect I was TS because of it. Only many years later when I realized that I have no problem with the word male that the issue has nothing to do with my gender/sex but with the actual meaning of the word “man” (actual meaning: how it’s used).
You pinpointed precisely why the problem is.
Crazy really that we don’t all see the imbalance of how the words woman/man are used.
When you’re young, it’s hard to tell the difference.
As for the “would transition if it was painless”, the problem isn’t really pain, it’s that there is no proper transition. There is just makeshift surgery and hormones with limited effectiveness. A lot of people end up being neither one nor the other in any convincing way. And that’s not even starting on the problem of coming out and keeping your job/friends/family. To them, even with very successful transitions, you are often still an un-man rather than a woman, or some freak or just a nut job.
One solution would surely be that some day in the future, transition can be safer, more effective and even reversible (yes, all that is conceivable). Then I suspect a lot of elephants will suddenly become visible to society. Even most gender activists don’t comprehend the full depth of the issues.
“Crazy really that we don’t all see the imbalance of how the words woman/man are used.”
Diesirae, there’s a whole post hidden in that right there.
“And that’s not even starting on the problem of coming out and keeping your job/friends/family..”
It’s funny; people don’t even have to think about this, all they have to do is remember what it’s like to be expecting a child in the family and how little the gender of that child matters, and how after a few months when it has become hard to even remember a time before him or her and he has become absolutely irreplaceable to all of you, how little the gender matters as far as how much you love him. If people would just remember that they would make life so much simpler.
That’s a really good point with the child’s gender. I suspect many future parents are more biased than they’ll admit to themselves because they know they’re not supposed to want one more than the other.
But that’s nothing compared with the bias that emerges afterwards. It’s like they don’t mind if it’s a boy or girl, but if a boy dares to show a hint of (what’s arbitrarily determined as) femininity, it’s like their biggest fear next to learning he has cancer or something.
@Typhonblue
The number of men who said yes [to a painless instant transition] was disheartening. I don’t know if it’s because they are innately female identifying or if it’s because they don’t want to deal with the crap men are expected to suck up in society.
Forgive this lesbian for finding it heartening, and it’s probably the former, especially when you consider that gender activism tends to catch a lot of people trying to deal with the hurt they feel and are generally not allowed to articulate… there’s probably a disproportionate portion of radfems who are closeted men as well.
@Diesirae
As for the “would transition if it was painless”, the problem isn’t really pain, it’s that there is no proper transition. There is just makeshift surgery and hormones with limited effectiveness. A lot of people end up being neither one nor the other in any convincing way. And that’s not even starting on the problem of coming out and keeping your job/friends/family. To them, even with very successful transitions, you are often still an un-man rather than a woman, or some freak or just a nut job.
That is a common trope due to the erasure of trans people who are routinely read as cis. The vast majority of transitioners are read uniformly as cis with appropriately aggressive regimes of endocrine intervention, speech therapy, and hair removal. Those in the minority with the means often opt for facial reconstruction… for that matter, many opt for reconstruction having been traumatized by the reactions to a treatment regime that was lacking the aforementioned conditions and having internalized misogynistic attitudes about their body’s presentation.
Further, institutional cissexism manifests in the strong stigma attached to those whose genitalia does not conform to cis expectations, to the point where one can decide between basic civil rights such as access to public accommodations, or to refrain from a genital surgery they find unnecessary. The amount of violence, physical, legal, social, attached to the female penis is staggering. Cis femini
One solution would surely be that some day in the future, transition can be safer, more effective and even reversible (yes, all that is conceivable).
While I agree, I should point out two things: Transition is reversible, with the exact same medicine intended for transition. Vaginoplasty isn’t reversible, but as I mentioned above, the treatment of Mullerian plumbing as mandatory for womanhood has harmed the financial, emotional, and sexual health of countless women. There are trans people who do not regret transition but do regret undergoing vaginoplasty/phalloplasty, especially when they have had an opportunity to appreciate what estrogens do to a penis or what androgens do to a vagina.
And secondly: Let’s worry about improving the quality of transition once it’s something that’s actually accessible. I know people who are told they are on a list and then deliberately forgotten. A friend who’s been decaying for 2 and a half years, peak years of estrogen sensitivity, without seeing milligram one of an anti-androgen. When it’s as easy to get estrogen as an abortion in the West, then we can focus on technological gains.
Then I suspect a lot of elephants will suddenly become visible to society. Even most gender activists don’t comprehend the full depth of the issues.
Considering the prevalence of transition has gone from 1 in 30,000 to 1 in 200 in 40 years, I think we’ve made some significant strides, but you are correct in that barriers to entry still tamp down the natural rate of transness, which I imagine, given neurological organization theory, is probably pretty close to cisGL prevalence plus 1/2 of cisbisexuality prevalence, which would amount to about 5.5% now.
I do want to stress that your analysis of transition wasn’t just inaccurate, but potentially harmful. That perception is what causes many trans people to delay transition, harming its efficacy. Two or three or ten years can often mean the difference between near-total relief and a lifetime of frustration.
@Diesirae
But that’s nothing compared with the bias that emerges afterwards. It’s like they don’t mind if it’s a boy or girl, but if a boy dares to show a hint of (what’s arbitrarily determined as) femininity, it’s like their biggest fear next to learning he has cancer or something.
No, no… cancer is worse than transfemininity. My father was certain to make that point explicitly clear shortly after I came out.
@Typhonblue
That Boobz doesn’t understand that trans women aren’t male bodied seems rather telling to me. Perhaps Valerie can have a few words with him. 😉
I possibly should, but one thing you’ll notice on the cis privilege checklist, if you look it up, is that respect for my gender is often dependent on my views on feminism… so I tend to avoid cisfeminist spaces because it doesn’t seem to take very long.
DaisyDeadhead said…
Of course they identify as male.
Gwallan: You are not qualified to make this assertion.
And yet, post after post after post on this blog (and countless MRM blogs) about what all women supposedly feel and think… and you think the males who say these things are totally qualified to make those statements, right?
Sorry I can’t take this comment seriously, until I see you likewise confront men about what they say about how women and/or feminists identify. Okay? You can start with several of the comments made right here in this thread.
If you don’t, well– *yawn* –I guess what women do is *always* worse than what men do, right? That seems to be the lesson on the MRM blogs, anyway. (And increasingly, here too.)
Daisy,
“If you don’t, well– *yawn* –I guess what women do is *always* worse than what men do, right? That seems to be the lesson on the MRM blogs, anyway. (And increasingly, here too.)”
Favor to ask – if you see me doing this, tell me about it. Because it will be bad wording on my part and I want to correct it. What I see going on mostly is male-dominated power structures coddling and enabling female bad behavior. Of course individuals have their own responsibility for their own actions, but that’s not the problem. The problem is lop-sided and dehumanizing – dehumanizing both genders in complimentary ways – enforcement on behavior, through enculturation and expectations, incentive structures and actual enforcement regimes.
That’s what I try to get at.
“If you’ve got an American passport, does that mean you necessarily identify as American? ”
Excellent example. It means only that the US government regards you as a US citizien – “labels” you. In fact it is recognized that a lot of US passport holders in no way identify as or align themselves with the US, that often they are overt enemies.
Manboobz? Why bother.
Others do. He can spread memes like a fly spreads germs.
Agreed, Gingko… Manboobz gets all kind of attention in Blogdonia, not sure why. But lots of feminists and liberals, male and female, love everything he writes and link it like crazy….
Daisy, agaian on the favor – will you tighten me up when it looks like I’m heaping blame on women? I don’t want to propagate that derail in the overall gender conversation. it is a huge rathole or error.
@Daisy: He’s a male feminist, most female feminists I’ve seen seem to get off on that.
Hi– thanks for the definition, I like it a lot. What are the roots of “apexual”? How did you pick that word for your meaning?
Welcome, Peter,
Apexual – she just coined it. It’s from “apex”, the people at the apex of the structure, and it patterns on “sexual”. That’s really all there was to it. I think it really works – fits the language, decent description of the referent.