Please Join Me for the Pitting of LinusK

[Jack_of_Words]

@iiandyiiii

You’re incorrect about the feminism that I believe in and practice, and the feminism of most feminists I know. My feminism is about advocating that women and men be treated equally by government and society.

As is my egalitarianism. Yet you insist that your version of ‘just being fair to everybody’ is so much better than mine that I must be silenced, and where that fails, shamed or sidelined or so on. You and your chums, as we’ve discussed, are merely the proud, patriotic germans of the metaphor, in no way responsible for the gestapo or whatever else may be in done the name of your ideology. An ideology than in no way improves on egalitarianism, in fact allows for profoundly unegalitarian advocates, and is founded and forwarded on principles that are odds with your naive interpretation.

In what way, by the way, do you advocate that men be treated equally by government and society? Do you have a link to any such advocacy here, that I may have missed.

@Jimmy_Chitwood

Oho! Score one for the Jack! Unless…

Do you know how you had that feeling that you were so confident that you knew that wasn’t a word, and that I couldn’t have been using a word you weren’t familiar with, that you went right ahead and posted the above even though you could have just looked it up, just in case, and nobody would have ever known? Do you know that level of just utter certainty you felt about it?

That’s what they call a “case in point.”

No, I know (and recall) not recognising that word. ‘You learn something new every day’ never stopped being true for me - how about you? It looked like a misspelling, and since you’re clearly more creative than accurate, I assumed it was a misspelling. If I looked up every ‘typo’ I encounter on the web I’d never get anything done, and since (as we can see) you’re more interested in making things up than finding the facts, I took my error to be your error. There was no certainty, just the probability…

@iiandyiiii

If by “egalitarian” you mean “people who believe other people should be treated equally by government and by society regardless of race, religion, gender, etc.”, then most prominent feminists that I’m aware of (e.g. Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Emma Watson, most Democrats in office in the US, Beyonce and many other entertainment celebs, etc.) are egalitarian feminists.

Obama peddled the pay gap myth. I’m unaware of his wife’s opinions on anything - perhaps a link to, I don’t know, evidence? Hilary I have my doubts about too, but I can’t help feeling that if America was as stuffed full of powerful egalitarian women as you insist, they would have done as much for african-americans as they’ve achieved for upper-class over-priviliged white women. But again, I’m open to evidence that this second person (putative total: 2) represents the silent majority. Emma Watson’s #HeForShe tells us all we need to know about your understanding of ‘egalitarianism’, don’t you think? And then ‘blah, blah, some other people (putative total: 2 to 3 dozen?), so yah boo sucks, all those rape-hoaxing, dissent-silencing, myth-peddling hatemongers are just a fringe of extremists!’

Yeah, right. Now show me an extremist egalitarian.

@Miller

Jack of Words: Extremist.

I hope your modding is better than your logic. Not only is your conclusion unwarranted, it’s actually (as opposed to Jimmy’s fantasy) ‘a case in point’.

[iiandyiiii]

@Jack_of_Words

As is my egalitarianism. Yet you insist that your version of ‘just being fair to everybody’ is so much better than mine that I must be silenced, and where that fails, shamed or sidelined or so on.

No I don’t. Why are you making stuff up about me?

You and your chums, as we’ve discussed, are merely the proud, patriotic germans of the metaphor, in no way responsible for the gestapo or whatever else may be in done the name of your ideology. An ideology than in no way improves on egalitarianism, in fact allows for profoundly unegalitarian advocates, and is founded and forwarded on principles that are odds with your naive interpretation.

This has nothing to do with my ideology. I’ll refrain from making things up whole cloth about your ideology.

In what way, by the way, do you advocate that men be treated equally by government and society? Do you have a link to any such advocacy here, that I may have missed.

There have been many such examples – men should not be raped in prison (and prison rape should not be made light of); men should not be expected to fight/be tough/be aggressive/not be “sissies”/support a household on their own; men should not be criticized for being homosexual or otherwise not fulfilling traditional masculine roles; men should not be criticized for staying home to take care of kids; men should not be virgin-shamed; abused men should not be belittled; sexual abuse of adolescent boys by women should not be made light of; and many more examples. There have been lots of discussions of these things in various threads on feminism.

Obama peddled the pay gap myth.

It’s not a myth – it definitely exists. Parts of it might be explained by non-sexist factors, but not all of it, and not all of the “explained” portions (like differing choices in career paths) necessarily have nothing to do with sexism. If few women choose to be engineers, it’s very possible that sexism in the engineer community plays a role in this. Just like if fewer black people go into medicine, it’s very possible that there exists some form of racial discrimination in the path to becoming a doctor.

I’m unaware of his wife’s opinions on anything - perhaps a link to, I don’t know, evidence?

Here’s a couple. She’s shown a very strong commitment to various feminist ideals (educating women and girls, reproductive freedom, etc.).

Hilary I have my doubts about too, but I can’t help feeling that if America was as stuffed full of powerful egalitarian women as you insist, they would have done as much for african-americans as they’ve achieved for upper-class over-priviliged white women.

This presumes that challenges and discrimination facing “upper-class over-privileged white woman” and black people are equal. I don’t believe they are.

But again, I’m open to evidence that this second person (putative total: 2) represents the silent majority. Emma Watson’s #HeForShe tells us all we need to know about your understanding of ‘egalitarianism’, don’t you think?

What does Emma Watson’s #HeForShe have to do with me?

And then ‘blah, blah, some other people (putative total: 2 to 3 dozen?), so yah boo sucks, all those rape-hoaxing, dissent-silencing, myth-peddling hatemongers are just a fringe of extremists!’

Yeah, right. Now show me an extremist egalitarian.

No idea what you’re talking about here.

If you believe in equal treatment, then you’re my ally, no matter what you call yourself. If a bunch of people believe in treating people equally by law and by society and want to call themselves “egalitarians”, that’s totally fine with me. If that’s all it takes, then I’m one too, as well as being a feminist. I’m unaware of such a movement, though, and unaware of major progress made by any such movement (unlike the great progress made by civil rights activists of other stripes, including feminists), but I’m very open to new movements of all kinds.

[Miller]

@Jack_of_Words

I hope your modding is better than your logic. Not only is your conclusion unwarranted, it’s actually (as opposed to Jimmy’s fantasy) ‘a case in point’.

Not only is my modding better than my logic, my logic’s better than your reading comprehension. Look, just because your spoken word piece got some pity applause at open mike night down at the local coffee shop doesn’t actually mean you’re good with words, and it certainly doesn’t mean you’re capable of holding your own in a debate. As has been shown, at length and in great detail, in both this thread, and the one that generated it. The more you sneer at the arguments presented to you, the more obvious it becomes that you fundamentally don’t understand the ideas that are being put to you. Hell, it’s pretty clear that you’re not really grasping your own arguments, given the way you’re unable to make it from one end of a paragraph to the other without contradicting yourself two or three times. Smarm isn’t really an acceptable substitute for clear thinking, and hyperventilating about being “silenced” doesn’t mean you’ve just won an argument. It just demonstrates that you’re out of your depth on this board.

And it’s not like the debates you’ve been embarrassing yourself in were all that deep to begin with.

[wonky]

@Jack_of_Words

If I looked up every ‘typo’ I encounter on the web I’d never get anything done, and since (as we can see) you’re more interested in making things up than finding the facts, I took my error to be your error. There was no certainty, just the probability…

There is no spoon.

Oh, wait. I forgot to make it poetic.

There is no spoon…

[Emiliana]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

Geez… I, uh, I work a lot of hours, you know?

Where is LinusK when we need him? Even feminist men don’t actually want custody.

[Southern_Yankee]

@Miller

Not only is my modding better than my logic, my logic’s better than your reading comprehension. Look, just because your spoken word piece got some pity applause at open mike night down at the local coffee shop doesn’t actually mean you’re good with words, and it certainly doesn’t mean you’re capable of holding your own in a debate. As has been shown, at length and in great detail, in both this thread, and the one that generated it. The more you sneer at the arguments presented to you, the more obvious it becomes that you fundamentally don’t understand the ideas that are being put to you. Hell, it’s pretty clear that you’re not really grasping your own arguments, given the way you’re unable to make it from one end of a paragraph to the other without contradicting yourself two or three times. Smarm isn’t really an acceptable substitute for clear thinking, and hyperventilating about being “silenced” doesn’t mean you’ve just won an argument. It just demonstrates that you’re out of your depth on this board.

And it’s not like the debates you’ve been embarrassing yourself in were all that deep to begin with.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how it’s done. Bravo.

[andros]

I’ll have your babies, Miller. Time and place, baby, I’m there.

[Emiliana]

@andros

I’ll have your babies, Miller. Time and place, baby, I’m there.

Get in line.

And this board really sucks at silencing people. Unless, much like Sarah Palin’s view of the first amendment, disagreeing with and laughing at are equated with silencing.

[andros]

:sigh:

If you have a uterus, you’re one tiny step ahead of me. A tiny but important step.

[wonky]

@andros

:sigh:

If you have a uterus, you’re one tiny step ahead of me. A tiny but important step.

Misandrist!

[raventhief]

Now I am curious. If a particular issue does disproportionately affect women, how does an egalitarian view it? I’m thinking in particular of reproductive rights. What’s the egalitarian stance on abortion, for instance?

[naita]

@raventhief

Now I am curious. If a particular issue does disproportionately affect women, how does an egalitarian view it? I’m thinking in particular of reproductive rights. What’s the egalitarian stance on abortion, for instance?

Anyone has the right to have an abortion, or a baby, or not, regardless of their ability to get pregnant, no matter what their gender. And death to the Romans.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@Jack_of_Words

No, I know (and recall) not recognising that word. ‘You learn something new every day’ never stopped being true for me - how about you? It looked like a misspelling, and since you’re clearly more creative than accurate, I assumed it was a misspelling. If I looked up every ‘typo’ I encounter on the web I’d never get anything done, and since (as we can see) you’re more interested in making things up than finding the facts, I took my error to be your error. There was no certainty, just the probability…

I just want to make sure you realize that you’re doing exactly that thing, where you were wrong about the facts but somehow are still tickled fucking pink (and it should be tickled blue, why are the blues sad but pink is happy, fuck that estrogenocidal nightmare rhetoric) about how right you are. I mean, in a shitload more words than necessary, but still, the same thing. Being wrong about it has actually strengthened your initial impression and you think it’s not super stupid to say that! It concerns me; I’m concerned. I’m here for you, bro. We gotta stick together with these bitches at our throats for custody, you know what I’m saying?

it’s actually (as opposed to Jimmy’s fantasy) ‘a case in point’.

Now you leave Princess Elsa out of this.

[andros]

@jsgoddess

Misandrist!

Can’t be. Some of my best friends are men.

(Also, I used to play bass for Estrogenocidal Nightmare Rhetoric. The 90s were a strange time.)

[Emiliana]

My newest course offering in the Departwomb of Womyn’s Studies: The Case for Estrogenocide.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@andros

:sigh:

If you have a uterus, you’re one tiny step ahead of me. A tiny but important step.

*I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies. * - LOB

[andros]

Good idea, Judith.

[Emiliana]

Second course: Uterohegemony and the Subaltern Male.

Six more courses and I’ve got myself a new interdisciplinary minor.

[Rune]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

*I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies. * - LOB

As a privileged heterosexual white cis male and card carrying member of the oppressive patriarchy I feel the need to weight in here. That compromise is only acceptable to our fraction if she also agrees to be barefoot and otherwise busy making sandwiches. With rights comes responsibilities.

[August_West]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

Obvious, or olive?

Applause to you, sir.

(or is it applesauce?)