I read it first as the kind of laugh I’m used to from feminists in the face of criticism - content in the knowledge that they have the power women have always had, and the power to take half of men’s…the power to tell a story in which they pretend they have none, certain of the social story that tells men to prioritise women’s needs over their own. The kind of smug laugh that fascists give if you call them a fascist. The laugh that says “I know - and there’s nothing you can do about it”.
But looking at what you snipped out and focused on, I sense you’re actually trying to tell a story of your own - that I was somehow using insults and shaming language myself. Granted, I didn’t repeat the arguments and facts and figures that have already been dismissed repeatedly by feminists who didn’t want to hear them (and would rather nobody else heard them). But even then, there was more meat to it than your appalling taunt to LK. So no equivalence there - unless you’re in the habit of redefining ‘equal’…
It’s amazing how often feminists resort to insults when someone questions their ideology - and especially insults targeting the masculinity or manliness of the critic. I was surprised at first, because I literally had never been the target of so many attempts to shame me before - despite the fact I often post about controversial topics.
I generally don’t respond to them anymore, because there’s not much point.
I agree with you that they are an admission of weakness - specifically the inability to engage at an adult level, using logic and evidence.
I also see them as an admission of hypocrisy: for all their loose talk about gender equality, feminists don’t believe in it. They’re quick to engage in gender-based shaming, if it serves their purposes.
I too am always astonished at how feeble and desperate my opponents are when I flourish my razor-sharp arguments in their puny, pathetic faces. As people who agree with me have said, they are all terrible people with no arguments who only want to shame and scold because they know they can’t mount a rebuttal to our profound truths!
I still find the occasional interesting nugget here amidst the bickering.
And I’d be curious to get opinions on a couple of links.
A Facebook post on the Smith College page discussing an article about whether women’s colleges are still necessary. The comments appear to be unanimous that they are. (Not sure if a Facebook link will work for those who aren’t members.)
A Girl’s Perspective On No Shave November; she is a fan, unless it “comes in spotty like a 12-year-old boy”. No mention that it’s to raise funds and awareness for cancer.
I think you’ll find he was responding to my last post, which is quite a different thing to bumping his own thread, and not in any way a ‘non’ conversation. But hey, facts and feminism…not often seen in the same sentence.
Fitness testing is when an animal has to show genetic fitness in order to mate, and therefore reproduce. Sometimes the test applies to both sexes. For example, salmon swim hundreds of miles, and climb thousands of feet of altitude, to get to their spawning streams. It is a kind of fitness test. Those who don’t make it, don’t pass on their genes.
More often, fitness tests applies to males. Which makes sense, since males are superfluous to the perpetuation of the species as a whole, in a way that females are not.
Squirrels may lead a potential suitor on a long chase, before mating: she wants to make sure he’s fast and agile (and persistent) because those are the traits he’ll pass on to her pups. The fastest, most agile squirrels may mate with any number of females. Male squirrels who aren’t fast and agile may not pass on their genes at all.
Peacocks display enormous, elaborate - but otherwise useless - tail feathers to attract peahens. The peacock with the most attractive feathers might mate with all the peahens in the area. A peacock without envious feathers may not pass on his genes at all.
Lions, though bigger and stronger than lionesses, do not generally participate in the hunt for prey. They save their strength, instead, for other lions, who will kill a pride lion, and his cubs, if they get a chance. The lions who are not strong enough to protect their prides - or strong enough to take a pride from another lion - do not pass on their genes.
Fitness testing is not a conscious strategy. Salmon don’t know why they swim for miles, only to spawn and die. Peahens don’t know why they’re attracted to garish displays of feathers. It’s a mindless - or at least unconscious - biological inheritance.
Geneticists estimate that people are descended from twice as many women, as men. In other words, most of our ancestors who were women reproduced. Most of our ancestors who were men, did not. If you assume, for a moment, that women have preferences when it comes to men, you’d expect that the men who fit those preferences would have more descendants than those that did not.
Of course, there’s no way to know what women prefer, when it comes to men, but if you assumed (for example) that they liked tallness, and strength in men, the outcome would be that men are taller and stronger than women, on average. And of course, that is how things are.
And while I said there’s no way to know what women prefer in men, there are clues. You could, for example, peruse the romance section of any bookstore. Or you could examine popular culture, and look at the men who are objects of female desire. Or you could look at studies of attraction in women during different parts of their menstrual cycle: when they’re ovulating, women prefer more masculine men than when they’re not fertile.
Monogamy is not the absolute best sexual strategy for women, because they always enjoy a greater variety of men who are willing to sleep with them, than are willing to commit to them and their children. And in fact, at least some women (consciously or not) follow the optimum strategy: obtaining the child of a man who isn’t willing to commit to them, and finding another who will. [“In graduate school, genetics students typically are taught that 5 to 15 percent of the men on birth certificates are not the biological fathers of their children. In other words, as many as one of every seven men who proudly carry their newborn children out of a hospital could be a cuckold.”](In graduate school, genetics students typically are taught that 5 to 15 percent of the men on birth certificates are not the biological fathers of their children. In other words, as many as one of every seven men who proudly carry their newborn children out of a hospital could be a cuckold.)
And in fact, despite feminist rhetoric about equality, women - including feminists - are not looking for equals when it comes to sex and relationships. In other words, women date up, not down. One way to look at modern feminism is as a massive, social-wide fitness test for men. Men who are foolish enough to buy into feminist rhetoric, fail.
This was absolutely a bump without response. It’s not intended as a slam for me to say:
What did some feminine person do to you that engendered such an obsessive campaign against women? It’s an honest question. I believe you have posted before that you are married, and have (perhaps grown?) children. What caused this crusade against the XX half of the human race? What nasty imp is spurring you toward the goal of discrediting women?
Again, this is not intended to be insulting; this is honest curiosity and a bit of real concern.
Why would an objection to feminism (which some of your less militant cohort continue to describe as a movement for both women and men) reveal some ‘masculine insecurity’? [Pro tip, by the way: try finding out who someone is, before selecting a stock insult from your limited repertoire. I’m not a TV or even a screaming queen, but on the masculinity scale I’m content to concede that I’m somewhere near the bottom] [Pro tip to me: seriously, chap, they’re not listening, they don’t care - if you disagree with their prophets, you are which ever form of heathen they label you, at least in their own invented ‘reality’, which is the only form of reality that counts to them].
The “arguments” I want from you (which I can see I won’t get, but which anyone can now see you don’t have) are those which address the arguments and questions and concerns and facts and figures that have been presented by anti-feminists and afeminists and interested observers. Arguments that have some intellectual rigour (Oh! The oppression!), in place of insults and handwaving and diversion and personal comments…and the strawpersons, such as you just presented.
Someone tried to slip one of these old canards in earlier, I let it go because most feminists have long since given up trying to get that one to fly. The current orthodoxy is that feminism is for women and men (do try to keep up, there’s a good ideologue). Even if it weren’t pushing that lie, feminism is not the only way to be pro-women or pro-equality. I don’t hate women. I do despise feminism, and feminists, just as I despise any totalitarian ideology, any hate movement which draws divisive lines along unchosen human characteristics, and any quasi-religion which draws its rank and file from those with an eye to their own gain.
I touched on this little anecdote briefly earlier, but let me share it again:
BBC Radio 4 (the national intellectual talk station of the UK, enjoyed around the world) runs a daily morning show called ‘Women’s Hour’ - sometimes very informative and highly entertaining. One morning recently they hosted a debate between the founder of Fathers For Justice and a self-elected representative of all women everywhere. FFJ opened the debate by asking for an end to the gender war, if only for the sake of the children.
“No!”, came the reply, at once. Not ‘no, there is no gender war, silly’. But rather “No!. If women are to have more, it must be taken from men”. Because women can’t create wealth, apparently. Because dignity and respect are finite resources that women can’t earn, but only steal, apparently.
iiandyiiii keeps insisting that only feminists can describe feminism. Well there you have it, andy - it’s a war, a war against men, and those who insist its opponents are warring against women are sadly only projecting. I’m looking for peace, and the ‘endless’ unsatisfiable war against men will not bring peace. As previously noted (and disputed, in the sense of ‘I dont want to believe you!’), I was a feminist. Young men love women and love a righteous war, so a war for women is mightily appealing. They’re never invited to the women-only spaces where the real strategies are discussed (of course feminism long since abolished men-only spaces), and they hardly dare reflect on, question or criticise the actions that are taken in their name.
Feminists and MRA’s. It’s like watching two competing religions.
Oh, who am I kidding. It is watching two competing religions. Neither side willing to concede that the other may have a point somewhere buried in the rhetoric. Both with their unassailable dogma, both labouring under the delusion that only they have the truth, that only they are the moral and righteous ones.
Both throwing insults, accusations of being a ‘sinner’ at the heathen unbelievers. (well, ok that one is mostly the feminists)
Calm down folks. The real world, not the one that lives in your fantasies of privilege and power and gender wars, is not really at all as bad as you imagine.
I don’t know that I’m an MRA - more an HRA. I only really hear ‘MRA’ as a slur from feminists (who want us to believe that feminism is for MR, but they don’t need any help with the A…which is busy with WRA for the time being…)
I am an anti-feminist. If I lived in a more Catholic country, I’d probably be more vocally anti-Catholic.
My ‘dogma’, such as it is, is built on real world evidence. Evidence such as women having all the rights men have (in the UK and US, certainly, which is all the experience most posters have) - the current inequality is in men not having the rights that women have, in so many areas…but somehow MRA is still an insult, feminism is not only ‘still necessary’ but ‘always necessary’, and honestinjun, the feminists are helping men too…
iiandyiiii, you’re needed again. This misguided lady person needs you, an actual mainstream feminist[/sarcasm], to mansplain feminism to her. It’s not a war between men and women, right?
Oh, man, I was thinking of backing off a bit but you make it so hard. Has anybody in this thread stank more of sanctimony than you? Has anyone scolded more? Are you SURE you’re not an SJW at heart?
There’s that victim complex again. You’d like to stop making unpleasant remarks in place of substantive input, but you can’t…and it’s all my fault…
I think you meant ‘stunk’, by the way, though it’s difficult to parse your sentence. As to who’s been most sanctimonious, or scolded more, the trick is to ‘research’ (you might need to look that up), gather ‘empirical’ ‘evidence’ (you must know what a dictionary is, it’s that big book with the misleading definition of feminism in it) and present your findings. Or you could ask a man to do it for you…
At heart, I’m an egalitarian humanist (oh, and you only just put the dictionary down). It means I’m genuinely concerned about real equality for all, regardless of (for example) gender. Unlike feminists.
Because that’s not my question. You are for equality without regard for gender, and i am curious. Do you feel that there are any areas in modern western society where women at a disadvantage purely based on sex?
