Yes, clearly sex-selective abortion and female infanticide are cultural phenomena, not biological ones.
The study on favoring girl children in times of scarcity is interesting. I’ve never seen that claim before, and I’ve read many studies dealing with children and the allocation of family resources. At least in cultures in which girls leave to join their husbands’ households after marriage, boys are favored in terms of food, health care, and education, since girls aren’t viewed as a permanent part of the family, and won’t be responsible for the care of their parents in old age. This goes some way in explaining child brides as well.
It’s worth noting that Emma completed her senior thesis by carrying the mattress around - the stated purpose of which was to get Paul kicked out of school.
Hey, Linus, any response to post 1004? Can you at least give an explanation why, after the way you edited that quote, anyone should trust anything you have to say on this subject?
I believe it is an unfounded presumption to blame Linus for the editing. I find it far more likely that he had never read more of that article than the excerpt before now, nor has he ever opened a copy of The Atlantic.
That would be my guess as well. I suspect his non-responsiveness and inability to understand the key points of studies he claims to have read is due to his reading of quite partial and selective quotes on whatever men’s rights board he’s cutting and pasting from.
You’re more generous than I am, but even if he’s just mindlessly parroting things he found on other websites without investigating them at all, he’s still an untrustworthy source of information.
Presumption of Innocence: The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. In many nations, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.
I agree the articles were more nuanced than Linus’s summary perhaps implied, but I read the Salon and Atlantic articles as representing these positions as exceptions–using phrases like “heresy” and noting the wider opposition to “men’s rights” in many feminist philosophies, citing the belief that these female supporters are the dupes of oppressive males.
So, if Linus’s point was that the largest “consensus” in feminist circles opposes such men’s rights, his cites are to at least some extent–perhaps largely–supportive of such a notion. If his point was that there is not a single feminist anywhere, anytime, who supports these men’s rights, then I guess you got him.
BTW, I’m not taking a position either way, just explaining my read of the articles, for what they’re worth (and for what my reading comprehension is worth)…
What does this have to do with my post? Yes, he has the right to presumption of innocence if he faces trial. I wasn’t talking about a trial, I was talking about whether it’s right or wrong for her to have made an accusation.
But the line “many of whom consider themselves feminists” right away shows that at a minimum, well, many of them consider themselves feminists. When someone’s argument is “feminists don’t do X” and you can show feminists doing X, how much of the original argument stands?
I agree, for the most part. As I said, the articles were more nuanced than he implied. My point was just that the articles did represent these feminists as exceptions. The “many of whom consider themselves feminists” is a large subset of the smaller subset, IOW.
So, if Linus’s point was an unequivocal “feminists never do this,” then his cites are a fail and his edits misleading. But I think it’s likelier that he meant that “most feminists don’t do X” and he framed it in a manner that perhaps overstated his point. It’s generally a foolish position (and a simplistic inference) that no exception, anywhere, anytime, exists, one typically very easy to rebut.
I’ll also add, I have not followed the entire thread, so maybe my “out of the entire thread’s context” read of Linus’s possible intention is too simple. But the articles did paint these women as exceptions, ISTM.
He doesn’t say that feminist who advocate for “equal distribution to parenting responsibilities” are rare, he says they’re absent. He doesn’t qualify his claim that feminists oppose this either – it’s not “many” or “most” feminists, it’s just feminists.
If his point had been that DeCrow’s views were controversial among feminists then there would have been no need to use deceptive editing. The Atlantic article made it clear that this was the case. But instead of acknowledging DeCrow as at least some sort of exception, he posted a quote selectively edited to remove all reference to her even though the article was about her.
**LinusK **has also claimed again and again that feminists don’t even talk about men’s problems, and specifically said way back on page 5 that he’d admit he was wrong if we could show him “feminist outrage over the difference in outcomes in custody cases”. DeCrow was a prominent feminist leader who didn’t just complain about this issue on the Internet, she spent decades actually working to do something about it. Of course, he also said he’d admit he was wrong if we could show him “feminists who’re trying to stop prison rape”, and **jsgoddess **has been trying in vain for some time now to get him to acknowledge that he has been shown this.
Lamia, fair enough. As I said, I haven’t read the whole thread. But I do think the “notably absent” sentence could be read as awkwardly worded and not intended to mean, “no feminist anywhere.” But Linus can clarify if he’d like. Just offering my read of it…
If you had read the entire thread*, you’d know that he’s basically just been saying “FEMINISTS BAD!!!” for hundreds and hundreds of posts. The closest he’s come to acknowledging that there could be such a thing as a feminist who isn’t bad is suggesting that iiandyiiii and jsgoddess, both of whom identify as feminists, aren’t true feminists.
And again, if he didn’t mean “no feminist anywhere” there would have been no need to use deceptive editing.
*ETA: I’m not suggesting you should have – I kind of regret not spending my time doing something more productive, like poking myself in the eye with a stick.