How is this supposed to be a response to my noting (not very controversially, either) that we can’t infer any long-term trends in intimate partner violence just from data for the past 12 months? Did you perhaps get me confused with a different poster with whom you’re discussing gender gaps in education level?
Because, of course, the study you cited has jackshit to do with either intimate partner violence or inferring long-term trends from short-term data.
There is a birth defect that is surprisingly common, affecting a key pair of chromosomes. In the normal condition the two look the same, but in this disorder one is shrunken beyond recognition. The result is shortened life span, higher mortality at all ages, an inability to reproduce, premature hair loss, and brain defects variously resulting in attention deficit, hyperactivity, conduct disorder, hypersexuality, and an enormous excess of both outward and self-directed aggression. The main mechanism is androgen poisoning. I call it the X-chromosome deficiency syndrome, and a stunning 49 percent of the human species is affected.
AFAIK, the author of the deliberately provocative article you quote here, an anthropologist named Melvin Konner, is not posting in this thread. Nobody in this thread has endorsed or advocated Konner’s position.
Nope. Most of your quotes and links are not from people who either “founded” or “led” feminism. Feel free to ignore or sidestep my point if your main goal is to have a feminist bogeyman to oppose, rather than discuss things with actual feminists.
A few quotes from particular feminists (some of them politically very radical feminists) back in the turbulent days of 1970s Women’s Lib do not plausibly establish “the destruction of families” as a “feminist goal” in general.
The vast majority of people who self-identify as feminist nowadays, AFAICT, do not endorse destroying marriage, family or fatherhood.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
According to the Census Bureau, half of adults today live with a spouse, down from over two thirds in 1967.
[/quote]
How much of that effect is due to the fact that more adults nowadays are getting married in their late 20s to 30s rather than their early 20s? How much of it is due to the aging of the US population, which produces a higher percentage of adults who are widowed and hence not living with a spouse?
There is nothing particularly “anti-family” about the fact that nowadays Americans who marry tend to marry somewhat later and live significantly longer than they did in 1967.
What Miller said wasn’t actually an ad hominem attack, though. Saying that an opponent is a bad reasoner because they made badly reasoned arguments is not an ad hominem.
If Miller had called you a bad reasoner on the grounds that, say, “all people named Linus are illogical” or some other trait of yours unrelated to the actual content of your arguments, that would be an ad hominem.
But Miller is saying that you’re “unable to parse a distinction between being against the concept of families altogether” because you in fact did make statements that conflated those two positions. And Miller remarked that “apparently, in his head being against marriage means being in favor of single-parent households” because you did in fact imply that feminists who advocated the former position therefore support the latter.
In other words, Miller is calling you a bad reasoner based on examples of your bad reasoning. You may naturally feel insulted by that, or you may feel that his criticism of your arguments is inaccurate, but you can’t accurately describe it as an ad hominem attack.
Nice selective quoting there. Here’s a fuller version:
Yeah, those terrible feminists, objecting to an executive of a prestigious business publication tweeting “Jesus gets raped by a pack of niggers” under his professional company title. Geez, feminists, lighten up.
LinusK, do you believe it was inappropriate for the prestigious business publication to fire this executive after making this tweet, and if so, do you believe feminists or feminism are to blame?
It is not suppression of free speech when reasonable people fundamentally disagree with what you have to say. Especially since what you have to say is not a conversation but more of a soap box missive against a widely varied group of people whom you consistantly mischaractarize and demonize.
Clearly freedom of speech means freedom from consequences when you say offensive racist, sexist shit while putting yourself forward as a representative of a private organization.
This is utter nonsense. It’s appealing to a reductionist definition of feminism, and then imposing that to avoid any critical analysis. No, feminism is not just those three points.
Do you think The Chronicle of Education would publish a piece arguing (you know, we have that extra chromosome they don’t have) that women are genetically inferior to men?
LinusK, do you believe it was inappropriate for a prestigious business publication to fire an executive after making he tweeted “Jesus gets raped by a pack of niggers” under his professional company title, and if so, do you believe feminists or feminism are to blame?
You’re right: I fucked up. The long-term trend I was referencing was the increasing number of women with college degrees. Poor reading on my part.
12 month data is important because (1) it conveys what’s happening now; and (2) people have notoriously poor memories. Typically, the further in the past, the poorer the memory.
This is something that has been noted by many people. I’m not one of them, because I stopped watching sitcoms years ago. But Homer Simpson is the archetypical example, and I do know who he is: the clueless, useless, idiot father.
Anyway, TV Tropes has a page about it, with plenty of examples.
I think a few people have already asked you about this, but I’ll join in. How is it again that feminists are not liberals?
I would like to state for the record that I am officially offended that you are making statements purporting to speak for me. I should likely have done so a long time ago. My bad. I’ll do it now.
LinusK every time you make a sweeping statement about “feminists” you are, as you have been told repeatedly on multiple threads, speaking about a movement as large and fractured as Christianity. You refuse to accept that, I know. You believe it is a monolith. It is not.
Nonetheless, because you are making these sweeping statements and judgments, over things large and small, I wanted to let you know that you are offending me and diminishing my gender. You do not speak for me. You do not understand me. You refuse to accept my word for what I believe in. You seem to embody everything that feminism was created to fight against: the male that tells the female she does not know her own mind.
I have no idea what you are hoping to accomplish with this thread or any other, but you should be aware of the huge logical fallacy you are creating every time you start one of them. You ignore every feminist and make debate impossible.
What is it exactly that you are hoping to accomplish?