The Catch-22 of Feminism
“I’m not denying that women are treated horribly in the Middle East – of course they are! But there’s never been a culture that treated women poorly, without subjecting the men to equal barbarism. There’s no such thing as ‘Patriarchal’ conspiracy countries that hold women down for the benefit of the men; wherever you find the abuse of women, you’ll find the abuse of men as well.”
I was channelling Karen Straughn when I said this; it was she who pointed out this obvious insight to me at the KSU Men’s Conference.
“Are you kidding? In Iran they stone women to death for being raped!”
“Yes, they do – and during the Iran/Iraq war they sent boys out in human waves to clear minefields! Have you never heard of “the hand that rocks the cradle”? Do you think that the Muslim men who abuse women had mothers who were saints?”
“Whatever, the system was set up by men for their own benefit.”
It’s at this point that I had to leave the conversation; the woman I was speaking with only saw the suffering of her own sex, and if you can’t admit that a fact exists, being informed of it simply won’t convince you.
This wilful blindness is at the core of Feminism, as well as her quieter sister Female Entitlement. I am dismayed by how prevalent it is. It is as if they are watching a 3D movie with only one of the lenses, in this case the rose-tinted one: the blue-lines of male cruelty stand out in sharp relief, while the pink-lines of female cruelty disappear into the background. All of the good men do – whether it be fighting in wars, fixing the car, or merely being her rock when she is emotionally distraught – is relegated to the background. “That’s just what those silly boys do for fun!” Ignore the bloodied knuckles and grime that come along with the masculine role. Meanwhile, female sacrifices are lauded and celebrated – their nurturing, their decorating, their sacrifices aren’t ‘just what women do’, they’re heroic!
Women and Feminists will accurately diagnose all of the male mistakes that feed into a scandal like the University of Virginia gang-rape¹, while denying any female involvement, whether it be the Women’s Studies department encouraging the hook-up culture, or the individual women who enable and abet the crime. They correctly diagnose the comically-exaggerated masculinity of the frat culture where ‘being a real man’ means acting like a barbaric lout. They utterly miss the equally-barbaric behaviour of the girls who drink with the intention of losing control, back-stab one-another for male attention, and refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
They correctly identify UVA as a ‘Rape Culture’; they fail to notice that the women were equally complicit in manufacturing it.
ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ
Freud couldn’t have been more right when he noted the prevalence of ‘Penis Envy’ amongst his female clients. Women who envy the metaphysics of the masculine – the solar, the constructive, the active agent – in contrast to femininity’s lunar, fertile, passivity. It was envy in the sense that it wasn’t aspirational – he was not describing women who wanted to become great scientists, great musicians, or to earn the accolades which are largely won by the male sex – they wanted to take the accolades which they viewed as part of the male endowment.
In other words, they want to earn the same salaries as men, but they’ll allow us to keep the 99% figure for workplace deaths.²
Although individual women will occasionally achieve excellence in a temperamentally masculine field – and men will occasionally do the inverse – social institutions are what occur when the natural inclinations of the sexes go through multiple iterations, thus certain areas and fields become specifically masculine or specifically feminine, despite the innate differentiation between the sexes being relatively minor. Occasionally we wind up with an institution which is a bad fit – for example, the lack of male Elementary School teachers, or the lack of female programmers ten years ago (there is strong evidence that women make exceptionally talented coders). In some of these cases it is worth questioning the culture which led to the imbalance.
Other times, trying to correct this imbalance is folly: forcing the Orange County municipal government to spend tens of thousands of dollars retrofitting fire stations so that a handful of women can be ‘equal’ is an absurd and ineffective use of finite resources.
Elementary schools would benefit from having more men on staff; Computer Science departments would benefit from being welcoming to women who show a natural aptitude for programming; Fire Departments are harmed by mandating sex-inclusivity, partly because of the budgetary waste, but also because of the impact it will have on the masculine culture and male bonding which such a job entails.
Fire Fighting is too important of an institution for ‘Equality’ to trump effectiveness. Ironically, the very women who would have the moral fortitude to make great Fire Fighters would be the last ones to demand the ‘Right’ to be Fire Fighters: those who are self-sacrificing would never demand that an institution handicap itself for their own glory.
Thus we come to the Catch-22 which Feminists find themselves in: the fact that they are selfish enough to argue Feminism in the first place is the very proof that they are too morally immature to be treated as equals.
ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ
The Baby Boomers were largely satisfied to proclaim the equality of women, while living by the standards of “gendered”³ institutions. They got to have their cake and eat it to: pretending to be equal, while embracing the institutional protections that were traditionally offered for both sexes.
Up until the modern time, it was well known that women were far more affected by the sexual act than men; women are more emotional about it, it affects their long-term marriage prospects, and it can even impact their mental stability. Men, for their part, will pathologize their ‘male disposability’. Just as the majority of women cannot help but be negatively impacted by casual sex, men cannot shake the psychological necessity of proving their usefulness to the world. A man needs to justify his existence, to sweat and bleed and achieve, and if social institutions don’t channel this equitably and productively, a whole generation of young boys could wind up feeding themselves into the wood chipper of an exploitative culture.
The men of the Baby Boomer generation were largely unharmed by paying lip-service to Feminism; women weren’t chomping at the bit to destroy social institutions, and divorce was more affordable during the economic boom-times. It’s with the Millenial generation that we see the damage being wrought. Young men who embrace ‘Blue Pill’ ideas of male disposability fail to demand fair treatment of their sex, as the women demand equality without responsibility – and the Baby Boomer men who are in charge of this system turn a blind-eye to any male complaints, since as men we’re supposed to sacrifice for the greater good of the group.
Which is true – but we were never supposed to sacrifice for free.
ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ
Up until recent times, Rights and Responsibilities were understood to go hand in hand. The Right of Citizenship (of voting, of directing society) came with the responsibility of maintaining it; of being willing to sacrifice for the greater good. These days ‘Citizen’ has become a slur amongst law enforcement and the criminal classes, because the responsibility has evaporated. The modern ‘Citizen’ is a peasant, begging for scraps from the table of their Lord.
To truly be a Citizen, one must respect the sacrifices of others; even the King must honour the life of his lowliest foot soldier. If women in general were truly the equals they claimed to be, we would see them honouring the sacrifices of the men in their lives. Mothers would quote Camille Paglia, cautioning their daughters that “If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.” Rather than envying the male Nobel Prize winner they’d be honouring him, they’d either be aspiring to his level, or appreciating the sacrifices and dedication which were required for his great work.
They wouldn’t be challenging their male contemporaries by chanting “Anything you can do I can do better!” – they’d be thankful, reciprocal, and feminine. Chivalry goes both ways.
Were a Feminist to respond to this, she would concoct stories of historical oppression which fall apart under scrutiny, or point towards our current crop of ‘men’ in power who are exploitative of women (they’re also exploitative of other men, but the Feminist won’t notice that part). This is just further evidence of her inability to empathize with the sex that’s been dying and bleeding to protect her own.
In the light of this generalized insensitivity to the suffering of men, I can’t help looking back to traditional teachings: whether it’s Eve eating the apple, or Cinderella’s cruel step-sisters, the female sex has been suffused with envy since our race was young; and when you are envious you cannot empathize.
This is why tradition cautions against allowing women into positions of leadership. Far too many of them want the prestige, without the responsibility.
Not all of them – thank God! – there are some Viragos⁴ out there – but they’re few and far between.
Men have their own sins, of course, but we’re discussing governance, not the immortal soul. Perhaps one day women en masse will earn their seat at the UN – and what a wonderful day that will be! – but today we live in a world where Emma Watson feels the need to lecture the UN about how men can sacrifice even more for her sex, rather than thanking them for all that they’ve already sacrificed. Rather than thanking her future King for his service in Afghanistan, she spouted the same old tired nonsense about how difficult women have it in Western countries.
Until women as a whole grow up and stop embracing these petty feminist complaints, they cannot be trusted with the reins of civilization.
Notes:
1. This is understandably a contentious claim in the Manosphere; given the extremely high prevalence of False Rape Accusations, many of us have a knee-jerk skepticism whenever we hear about an incident that could be drunken regret. Furthermore, it’s quite frustrating that the Rolling Stone article uses pseudonyms for the accusers of this most serious crime. This does seem to be a legitimate case, however (though we should reserve judgment until this is proven in a court of law), and my sources inform me that there is a great deal of cultural toxicity amongst UVA frats.
Many have been questioning the administration’s actions in suspending all frat activities due to these allegations: my own opinion on this is informed by my military experience. If I were the Colonel of a military unit, and something like this occurred, I would be going on the warpath. I wouldn’t just shut down the ‘frat activities’ of the Junior Rank’s mess – I’d also be raking all of the leadership over the coals, and launching investigations into the civilian women who were complicit in all of this (in Canada, the military can charge civilian women when fraternization gets out of control).
The fraternity deserves to be tied down and have the boots put to them – preferably steel toed – but so does every individual working in the administration of UVA’s women’s services. A situation like this doesn’t develop overnight; it requires systemic failures in leadership in multiple sectors for it to get this bad.
I’d be prosecuting everybody responsible for bringing shame to my organization – including, but not restricted to, the fraternities themselves.
EDIT: I jumped the gun on this. She held on to this story for several years, and particularly interesting is the UVA’s official stance, stating that “…many details that were previously not disclosed…” At this point it’s unlikely that the truth can be determined.
2. The “70¢ on the dollar” statistic is a canard which disappears when you measure hours worked, and responsibility (in fact, some studies suggest that women earn more than men for the same work, due to Affirmative Action legislation). The reason women earn less than men as a whole is because they choose easier jobs, shorter hours, and less responsibility; women as an aggregate group have different interests than men, and this is reflected in their career choices and salaries.
3. Humans do not have ‘genders’, they have sexes. Only nouns can be ‘gendered’, applying this term to people and institutions destroys the meaning of the word.
4. The latin root for Virago is similar to Virgin, both mean (approximately) “A woman who has displayed the self-discipline and virtue of a man”.
UVA sounds an awful lot like the media treatment of Gamergate, manufacture a threat to women (just like all the “death threats” to females or shemales in gaming will never result in an indictment, there will never be charges brought regarding this “rape”) to reach the predetermined conclusion that “gamers are dead” and now “frats are dead”, with the institutions of power committing themselves to destroying the class enemy.
Good read. Well done.
@Wilson
At first blush, I agree – however I have a number of first-person anecdotes stating that UVA was a powder-keg waiting to blow.
“Until women as a whole grow up and stop embracing these petty feminist complaints, they cannot be trusted with the reins of civilization.”
“they are too morally immature to be treated as equals.”
You’re right that Twitter is a shitty place to discuss this stuff. Good point. So here I am, and I was wondering if you could address my assertion that the above quoted remarks concede the existence of patriarchy and inequality, and thus justify feminism.
Patriarchy is typically used to describe some sort of evil conspiracy meant to hold women down, for the benefit of all the evil, oppressor men in society.
Feminists do not generally define Patriarchy as “Women lack the sense of empathy and responsibility requisite to govern, and are thus not generally permitted to govern.”
Traditionally men were justifiably suspicious of women in general, although women of exceptional character would have exceptions made for them – this is demonstrated by the existence of words used to describe such women. If you noticed, I quoted two women in this article who are both viragos.
There is inequality – but it stems entirely from your average woman’s self-centered, irresponsible, borderline childish nature – demanding free birth control and equal pay, but failing to show up for work at the coal mine or the battle field.
Let’s please not get bogged down in our own little redefinitions of words. Can we please just work with a generally accepted definition of patriarchy like one from a dictionary or wikipedia?
“Patriarchy is a social system in which: males hold primary power; males predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property; and, in the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male domination and entails female subordination.”
As you can see, patriarchy is defined in terms of *what* it is, not *why* it is. If we base our discussion on this generally understood meaning of the word “patriarchy”, it seems to me that you agree it exists.
You’re presenting a false dichotomy.
“Patriarchy is a social system in which: males hold primary power”
All X are Y; not are Y are X.
Also: women have always predominated in “social privilege” in the West – and, comparatively, even in the Arab world women have more social privilege than the average man.
Get your mind out of the Marxist gutter, that tries to split the world into two warring factions – men versus women, blacks versus whites, rich versus poor. You’re definition contained per-conceived notions, and hidden assumptions. I suggest you go read Karen Straughn, and think more deeply on these matters. You could learn a thing or two from her.
To summarise the contradiction in your argument:
“Feminists are wrong because they believe in a non-existent patriarchal conspiracy to keep women out of positions of power. And besides, women are too self-centered and irresponsible to be treated equally and trusted with the reins of civilisation.”
You argue against the existence of patriarchy and in the next breath you say that its existence is a good thing.
I already covered that in my first reply to you.
The feminist definition which I provided above is the same as the definition which you provided, except for the fact that it exposes the hidden assumptions and logical conclusions which yours contains. Taking note of the fact that most heads of state are men is no more profound than pointing out that the top athletes are all men – nobody born on this planet will be moved by such a banality.
However, couch it in a bunch of pseudo-intellectual flim-flammery as you did, and it starts to sound like it’s actually making an argument. The only problem is, that the argument is obviously nonsensical. There wasn’t a meeting of the Old Boys Club where 49% of the species decided to oppress the other 51%; so your definition falls flat. You confuse inequality of outcome with inequality of opportunity, and project conspiratorial intentions onto the complex results of simple behaviours.
For the word Patriarchy to have any significance whatsoever it would have to describe something that could be some other way. When we study history, however, we find that Matriarchies simply do not exist. Every society that ever got above the level of Caveman has been ‘patriarchal’ – ergo, the term is completely and utterly meaningless.
Unless of course if the argument from Feminists is that men are just better at doing all of those things, and women are happier when men do them. Then I expect a regular “Thank you” from feminists for all the patriarching I do… which is precisely what I won’t get. Ergo the lack of women in leadership positions.
You have to be a good follower before you can be a good leader; and thus far, the majority of women have been embarrassing their sex with their inability to follow. Some of you Millenial ‘men’ are giving them a run for their money though…
I see! So there’s no such thing as patriarchy?
No wait! Patriarchy is everywhere?
I’m confused. What’s your stance on the existence or non-existence of patriarchy?
“However, couch it in a bunch of pseudo-intellectual flim-flammery as you did, and it starts to sound like it’s actually making an argument. The only problem is, that the argument is obviously nonsensical.”
Your lack of self awareness is outstanding.
Henry, you must learn to place a definition alongside a word and define it thoroughly; otherwise the word has no meaning, and you’re just barking at another person.
The feminist definition of Patriarchy never occurred. There was never any attempt by men en masse to exploit women en masse. The natural social organization of our species does involve male headship, however; that is not a conspiracy, and it is not something that can be undone or ‘progressed’ away from – at least, not with your average women engaging in a lot of self improvement.
So inequality is explained by a natural, innate male supremacy over women?
By the way, I don’t need you to condescend to me about defining words. You were the one opening the discussion with your own personal definition of patriarchy. If you recall, I posted a fairly verbose and generally accepted definition of the word for us to work with which you rejected. Defining words only becomes such an issue when one side of the argument insists on moving the semantic goalposts as much as you have, and I handled it very well from the start by proposing a good definition.
Henry, I am not a Marxist; unlike you, I do not believe in vulgar concepts like ‘supremacy’. I believe the evidence of my own lying eyes that men and women are different. That men excel in certain qualities while women excel in others. I believe in complements. I believe in humanity. And I believe that being a man or a woman is better than being merely a ‘person’. An automaton. A corporate cog.
I also believe that pernicious and destructive ideologies such as Feminism are utter folly, and to be denounced at every opportunity.
Earlier on it certainly did sound like you were describing male supremacy over “your average woman’s self-centered, irresponsible, borderline childish nature – demanding free birth control and equal pay, but failing to show up for work at the coal mine or the battle field”. It sounded like you felt women need to “grow up and stop embracing these petty feminist complaints” before they can be trusted with “the reins of civilization”.
To my untrained ear this all sounded a lot like belief in male supremacy over women. Perhaps we need to redefine some more words until I “understand”?
Henry just wants to confirm his “own” theories (which are provided by others to him..) by using his pre scripted arguments against any kind of reality that is presented by either common sense (thinking without any ideological bias) or facts of history or just the reflection of our true state of modern society (they hate that). These people have created a tactic like a cult to counter any logical explanation why the western society is like it is which is based on money only (and heritage of the very few very rich ones). And money knows know gender or color of skin. If there is any threat outthere then it is the western oligarchy…(this is not capitalim anymore and you should be aware of that).
But yet they talk about the evil patriarchy which is just a strawman created to draw the attention away from the real problems we have. Try to argue with someone like tom cruise about his cult or these freaks and you will see how similar they are. No different, just another cult!
i forgot something. Have you ever argued with a religious person about his views… he will always say that is doesnt matter that you cannot see god. What matters is his believe. See, these people “believe” in their theories and thats it. They found something precious and meaningfull to their empty godless lives and cant let it go. They are addicted to their new age cult that lures people into a fight for a better society and yet they bully, hate preach, blacklist, preasure and destroy peoples live and give a damn about the wars, economical suicides, the laws of big brother etc. Yet they call for more big brother… they are the little foot soldiers of a society no sane western person should want. If someone cries for more regulation etc. then its a sign of an agent. Always!
And because they are agents they fear no consequences from the government or the established media as long they play the tone of the music some people gave them.
@Fahrmann
Notice how Henry never once started off by conceding that – even if he disagrees with the overall thrust – that I brought up some interesting points he’d never heard before, and that he’ll be revisiting his blind acceptance of all Feminist claims.
@Aurini
Yes and he is just one of the many. They “think” or feel that they are all very special but all blow into the same horn with the same arguments and pre bias against anything that doesnt confirms their view of the western world. They need confirmation, they seek it and when they dont get it they get angry (then they jump into their victim state of mentality and slander you with made up stuff they just project into your sentences with things that has no connection to you as a person). When they engage with you in long conversations they just try to lure you into some little thing you might say “wrong” or where a weak point in an argument might give them their moral highground they love so much back again. I would say they have a superiority complex completely made up and thats why they are so addicted to confirmation and attention…
And this little tiny piece of a weakness in your arguments will destroy any credibility you have -then they try to assinate your identity and celebrate their victory. They are held hostage in a cult mentality not even knowing it and they need either help or i dont know man ;)
not wanting to be petty here, but there’s no evidence of women being exceptional at coding/software dev., and if we look at “the real world” we can safely conclude the opposite. there are massive resources and effort spent on “getting women into coding” bu the numbers of actually capable women in the industry hasn’t risen despite all of it. instead now it’s full with AA parasites.
You’re a sexist and a misogynist by any reasonable definition of the words. In your own words you believe that women are “too morally immature to be treated as equals.” You called the average woman “self-centered, irresponsible, borderline childish.” You called for women to “grow up.” You believe that male leadership of society and business is due to innate differences between men and women that make men better suited to the role.
This is sexism and misogyny, whether you like those definitions or not. You can play word games if you like, and you can criticise my “blind acceptance of feminist claims” too. I don’t mind. The fact is that society as a whole agrees that sexism means prejudice or discrimination based on gender, and misogyny means hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, and these are exactly the sentiments you’ve expressed.
Now, obviously you’re gonna have to concede the “sexism” point here because there’s just no wriggling out of it for you. You’ve described your gender-related beliefs in detail here and they revolve around prejudice. And you’re stuck with the “misogyny” label too, both from your general “women are worse than men at all the things that would give them equal footing in society” tone and your specific “cannot be trusted with the reins of civilization” remark as well.
Ah, Henry – I’m glad you stopped sneaking about in the shadows, asking furtive questions, and testing me to see if I’d run. Now you’ve shoved your snout firmly into the daylight, and we can spot you for the belly-crawler that you are.
For those who missed it: Henry came into here already firmly convinced that I’m a ‘sexist’ and a ‘misogynist’ (the first word being as meaningless as the word racist, and the second which points towards a very specific mental disorder, one which was not displayed here), but rather than present a case in a manly fashion – “Sir, I disagree with you, and have been bested by many a woman in a game of rugby or chess!” – he decided to test my mettle by seeing how I’d respond to questions *alluding* something about my character, without outright saying it. “Sir, that sounded a little bit sexist – is that what you meant to say?”
Had I caved in to him and said – “Why no, my good chap! Perish the thought! Women are so delicate and dainty, however could I have claimed that they were weaker than men?” – he would have followed up with a lecture about my intellectual inferiority, and demanded that I cease and desist my investigations into Anita Sarkeesian’s suspicious background.
But since I responded frankly (and far more politely than he deserved) the rat face came out; snarking and spitting, before darting back into his hidey-hole.
Remember folks, the #1 Rule for dealing with Leftists: Walk Into the Fire! Do not apologize, and do not retreat; walk forward and they scamper.
And just to pre-empt your obvious retort – I *did* respond to you, Henry, at the start of the editorializing. You used one meaningless word (everybody is “sexist” – they segregate washrooms, after all – the word is arbitrary and meaningless, unless if you’re focused on social graces, and around here, we’re more interested in speaking the truth), and you used another word improperly (a misogynist is a man who fears women because his mother abused him, and acts controlling with his lovers; I had a wonderful mother, and am very gentle and equitable with the woman I love). Ergo, all that spitting and hissing does naught but expose the vile bowel infection that you mistake for a system of beliefs.
Adieu.
All that fancy prose does nothing except misdirect the reader’s eye. You still wrote all those hateful misogynist things I quoted, and pointing out that “men and women still shit in different rooms” is nothing more than a red herring. Your last minute attempt to redefine misogyny is bullshit. Anybody reading this can go look up a definition of misogyny and see through your shit. You can’t win arguments by redefining words, at least not in a world where dictionaries exist.
Care to define misogyny and sexism for us, Henry? You introduced those terms to the argument, after all – if I have done these things, and there is a coherent definition behind them, then provide it.
I have yet to read a single meaningful definition aside from the one I mentioned.
No, go and look at how dictionaries define those terms. Or are dictionaries in on the feminist conspiracy too?
Dictionaries only define how words are commonly used; I’m interested in what *you* mean by them.
Thus far I’ve found that every definition offered for these words (aside from the specific and narrow one which I described for “misogynist”) are either so broad as to be meaningless, or contradictory. Most of the other people on here agree with me on that, and it has been adequately dealt with elsewhere; ergo, the proof is on the claimant. You said I was “sexist and misogynist” – okay; what does that mean?
This is a tiresome approach to argumentation. I’ve actually already done just that.
“sexism means prejudice or discrimination based on gender, and misogyny means hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women”
These were fresh from a dictionary when I pasted them here a few hours ago. I am not “the claimaint” and these are not “my” definitions. I mean the same by these words as any other person, which is why the dictionary defines them as such, which you concede.
Your favourite tactic seems to be to pretend that I haven’t defined a word thoroughly enough to base any conclusions on. You did it with “patriarchy” and now you’re trying the same trick again with “misogyny”. In both cases, I’d pre-empted you with copy/pasted definitions of these terms. You can’t argue semantics with somebody when they’ve been as thorough as I have about nailing down definitions. Your attempts to reject dictionary definitions of words as “meaningless” are just so much rhetorical hand-waving.
Allow me to demonstrate why you shouldn’t have relied upon the dictionary. In brief:
“Sexism means prejudice *OR* discrimination based on gender” (ignoring that humans don’t have ‘genders’ they have ‘sexes’). The Or Statement allows me to disprove either one of those statements and be victorious, though I can easily use both. My argument is thus: everybody is sexist by that definition, ergo ‘sexist’ is insufficient a term to lambast a person.
“Sexism means prejudice” I prejudge a woman walking alone a night to be a more likely victim of rape than a man. Most, if not all people, would agree with this statement.
“Discrimination based on gender” Rather than being indiscriminate with my sexual partners, I am very discriminate; and their ‘gender’ (sex) is one of the things I discriminate on. The vast majority of people agree on this.
Ergo, the vast bulk of humanity is sexist. They also like cupcakes. This is not an insult or a derogatory slur.
Okay, on to the next term: Misogyny.
“Misogyny means hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women” – heh, again that Or Statement: in that case, all humans are misogynists, aside from the extremely gullible. Because I regularly dislike and mistrust people of both sexes, men and women.
Or was there an ‘all’ implied in that very rough and approximate definition you provided? As in “mistrust of all women”? In that case, certainly not; seeing as I quoted two women in the above article, I obviously do not find all women suspect. In that case, I am not misogynist, and you’d be hard pressed to find anybody who was.
I am also amused that you find Socrates’ method to be ‘tiresome’ – I would guess that you prefer the form of philosophy and argumentation where you merely state your opinion, and have others fawn over you?
And yes, you are the claimant – you claimed that I was ‘sexist and misogynist’. I asked what you meant; you said “Whatever any arbitrary dictionary means!” I have proved that those definitions are incoherent white noise. In that case, your statements are nothing but incoherent white noise. You have been upbraided; you may now go and sit in your room and think about what you’ve done.
And one final correction: I never called dictionary definitions ‘meaningless’, I said that they were too approximate and that I wanted to know what *you* meant by them. You must learn to be more specific with your language, young Henry; otherwise we are nothing but barking dogs.
Citing two women doesn’t prove you’re not a misogynist. You’ve openly admitted your opinions about women in general several times in the body of the article itself and then in the comments below. At best, citing two women proves that you’re willing to overlook your prejudices on a case by case basis. That doesn’t mean you’re not prejudiced against women in general.
Prejudice does not mean “I prejudge a woman walking alone a night to be a more likely victim of rape than a man.” Do we need to play your little semantic game with the word “prejudice” now too? Let’s roll with dictionary.com’s definition of “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” This is what you’re exhibiting when you refer to “your average woman’s self-centered, irresponsible, borderline childish nature”. You literally made a list of negative characteristics and attributed them to the average woman. This is prejudice. You hold an unfavourable opinion of a group of people, most of whom you don’t know, on the basis of their gender.
The Socratic method is not about clouding the argument by being intellectually dishonest about commonly understood meanings of words, and it’s not about condescending to the person you’re talking to by addressing them as “young Henry”.
If I know one true sexist then it is the fictional Jack the ripper played by Klaus Kinski. Clearly portrayed as a man whose abusive mother had left irreparable damages to his mind. This was a true sexist in it´s essence like Aurini explained very similar to you Henry. Even a child would understand that and here we see the indoctrination you have gone through! You are just a child.
You have to come back to the original meanings of words (use them responsible) otherwise you shouldnt be allowed to write in public space. Because you only spread “propaganda” which is exactly what you do. You create propaganda to confirm your own bias even before your opponent had a chance to respond. You are useless in any sense for a serious conversation. If you dont have anything to say -say nothing!
A pseudo intellectual person is one who uses his ideology (that is your bias that has erased your common sense) only as his fountain of knowledge and in practice his arguments. Like a radical zealot of any religion out there. Do you pray to the Radfems too or do you just worship them by repeating their arguments which you should know are not your thoughts… you only work as a puppet ;)
Two little questions for you Henry and i´m dead serious! What do you think about incest and interactive sex education for children ?
And dont argue around that because I know little Henry, i know ;)
And now we see young Henry viciously gnashing upon his own tail, not in the sense of Orouborous who represents the eternal death and renewal, but in the manner of a nervous dog, chewing on its feet.
Henry, you are defining words by using their opposite, and taking the proof that destroys your argument and calling it an example of what you’re saying. You are using logic to destroy logic, and when you start doing that you are beyond rational thought’s graces.
Why do you hate God so?
(Note, this is not directed at Aurini, but rather at his debating partner, “Henry”).
A definition of Patriarchy can quite accurately be described as “Fatherhood.”
Fatherhood means enthusiastically including males in the reproductive process, rather than the breeding of the many women by the few alphas. In Patriarchy, children know who their FATHERS are! The only way this can be done (at least historically) is to suppress female hypergamy… so yes, females were sexually oppressed – and for good damn reason!
When men are not attached to their children, they are not invested in civilization, and since they are the ones with the aptitude to build civilizations, including them in the reproductive process is essential.
Note how feminism has attacked this concept since the beginning – all the way back to the Declaration of Sentiments in Seneca Falls back in 1848, where they declared that fathers should not have rights to their own children.
The fight against patriarchy has thus included many things, such as “all children are legitimate,” and the dropping of the male’s last name upon marriage.
In my hometown there is an old joke that circulates every Father’s Day about the nearby Indian Reservation – “What’s the definition of confusion? Father’s Day on the Reserve!”
It may be crude, but it’s true – the men are rejected from society, designated to be drunks and abusers, while the mothers have seven kids from seven fathers. Ah! Matriarchy! Where the hunter-gatherers have not yet invented the wheel and have only begun to domesticate the dog.
The Patriarchy domesiticated the goat somewhere around 9,000-10,000 years ago, around the founding of Jericho, the world’s oldest city. The hunter gatherers for the most part, left to their own devices… have not yet even done that! They did, however, domesticate the dog to drag their wares about on poles, because they had not yet invented the frickin’ wheel!
THEY WERE NOT ADVANCED!
In all of nature, the male SERVES the female – without much reward. Most of them (think of sperm) are discarded as useless. Only in human civilization have we resisted the overwhelming power of female sexuality and tried to equalize it with PATRIARCHY.
To put it quite simple, if you are against Patriarchy, you are plain and simply against the concept of FATHERHOOD.
In such a cause, why the hell do they think it is alright to run after fathers to pay for their bastard spawn? (Bastards are truly a Patriarchal Creation).
At any rate, read some Engels. The family is basis of Patriarchy and Capitalism because it separates us into family units that make us seek out our own interests, rather than that of the collective… thus, for communism to succeed, patriarchy (ie. the male spirit wanting to be involved with his children) must be destroyed. If not, the male will always try to advantage himself and his children over others… so it can’t be maintained in a egalitarian society.
It’s not difficult to defend Patriarchy.
Call it fucking fatherhood – full stop, and see how many men who are fathers will support the destruction of it if we actually start calling it what it damn well is!
Why do you think feminists don’t want women (and children) taking on the man’s name?
Why do you think even Susan B. Anthony is quoted (by Phyllis Chesler) as saying that she would die before allowing fathers to have custody of their children?
The natural course of male-female relations is for males to only be sperm donors. Almost all of nature illustrates this. The ONLY species that tries to change it is HUMANS.
The civilized course of male-female relations is to include males in the reproductive process so they are motivated to protect, provide, and create a civlization.
Patriarchy = Fatherhood.
Learn the definition.
Then go tell your father about it.
Hopefully, he pulls down your briches and spanks you thoroughy for wanting to end itl
And, btw Henry, who gives a shit if one is a misogynist or not? I give a shit about who is right, so I can use the information to further my own life – screw your collective.
Oh Davis, you’ve made a friend. Remember to be gentle.
I had never thought of the abuse of men in Islamic society. Sure, we hear about the abuse of the women all the time- clitoridectomies, the stoning of rape victims to uphold the family’s honor, etc.- but you never hear stories about boys treated like mine sweepers and smart bombs.
There was a report of a sexual assault at my university the night of homecoming. Many of my female friends (and several of my male friends) got up in arms about it. I instead said, “Wait. We don’t have all the facts.” Come Monday, it was revealed that the girl who filed the complaint had fabricated the event and was, indeed, psychologically disturbed. There was a bitter laugh from the male student body, and the matter disappeared. But it was astonishing how quickly the hysteria machine began to coalesce.
I’m new to this site, but dear me, Aurini has been most patient with this Henry chap.
“… You’re a sexist and a misogynist by any reasonable definition of the words. In your own words you believe that women are “too morally immature to be treated as equals.” You called the average woman “self-centered, irresponsible, borderline childish.” You called for women to “grow up.” You believe that male leadership of society and business is due to innate differences between men and women that make men better suited to the role …”
Henry, your misuse of words like ‘sexist’ and ‘misogynist’ aside, you are incorrect simply because you perceive the above statements as attacks, where they are merely observations. The phrase, “dogs like humping people’s legs” does not imply that the speaker considers dogs to be shameful creatures wishing to engage in public bestiality. It is an observation that may be taken as fact. But I doubt you are able or willing to understand the difference.
@Henry
“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”
That is what the feminism that you support thinks of you. These women do not need or want you to defend them, so don’t.
I got to this:
“Occasionally we wind up with an institution which is a bad fit – for example, the lack of male Elementary School teachers, or the lack of female programmers ten years ago (there is strong evidence that women make exceptionally talented coders). In some of these cases it is worth questioning the culture which led to the imbalance.”
…and started skimming. Shocker ending:
“Until women as a whole grow up and stop embracing these petty feminist complaints, they cannot be trusted with the reins of civilization.”
There is a difference between embracing principles and embracing outcomes calculated empirically by nature. There is a need to nudge from where we are to where we would like to be, but does virtue animate power that way?
I think the conclusion should also be the opening and the middle. Say it loud, say it proud.
If you get a chance can you please update the link on your https://staresattheworld.com/2013/10/an-epidemic-of-low-testosterone page? Andro-plus.com long ago moved over to the new domain andro-plus.co
@Adam,
To build off your point, it seems that Henry’s definition of sexism does not make a distinction between those based upon false generalizations, versus those that are based upon true generalizations. Now, if upon reflection Henry decided that his tacit definition of sexism does in fact include this distinction, then great! Let’s debate the facts and reasoning behind Aurini’s statements. However, it does not seem that Henry would make such a distinction (feel free to tell me otherwise!) and thus his plan seems to be to:
1) Catch Aurini admitting to being a sexist (by Henry’s definition);
2)Declare victory;
3)Go home.
To progressives who do not think critically, it ceases to matter whether the statement is true or false. The statement itself becomes an act of opression, and his denouncement becomes an act of liberation for the opressed (thus why statements feminists make about men are not sexists: men are the oppressing class and therefore cannot be oppressed). This is not the thinking of a sick mind, but merely a mind which refuses to acknowledge that other people of other political persuasions have a genuine desire to do good. The downfall of such progressives is that they hand over the most powerful weapon of all to their (supposedly ‘biggoted’) enemies: the power of telling the truth.
@Rei,
Indeed. I have a male friend (feminist) who once said that while he found the Men’s Rights Movement compelling at first, he saw too much hatred on the MRM subreddit and decided that that the MRM as a whole was really about supporting sexism and misogyny. Now, I am not an MRA, but I was nonetheless shocked by such reasoning. Judging the MRM negatively based upon the statements of pseudo-anonymous, self-identified members on some random internet forum; yet codoning feminism, which includes among its leaders people who would say things like “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” (a direct attack on mens’ sense of disposability) is one of the worst examples of double standards I have seen.
Aurini, I read the title “My Brother is Dead” and I want to offer my condolences, whatever they are worth, which is probably nothing since there are no words that can help with the loss of a loved one.
I vaguely recall you arguing that Christianity and Hinduism were similar and I thought to post this, and it might be even more relevant to you at this time in your life;
.We Are All Hindus Now
By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK
Published Aug 15, 2009
America is not a Christian nation. We are, it is true, a nation founded by Christians, and according to a 2008 survey, 76 percent of us continue to identify as Christian (still, that’s the lowest percentage in American history). Of course, we are not a Hindu—or Muslim, or Jewish, or Wiccan—nation, either. A million-plus Hindus live in the United States, a fraction of the billion who live on Earth. But recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity.
The Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu scripture, says this: ‘Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names.’ A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur’n is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal. The most traditional, conservative Christians have not been taught to think like this. They learn in Sunday school that their religion is true, and others are false. Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.’
Americans are no longer buying it. According to a 2008 Pew Forum survey, 65 percent of us believe that ‘many religions can lead to eternal life’—including 37 percent of white evangelicals, the group most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone. Also, the number of people who seek spiritual truth outside church is growing. Thirty percent of Americans call themselves ‘spiritual, not religious,’ according to a 2009 NEWSWEEK Poll, up from 24 percent in 2005. Stephen Prothero, religion professor at Boston University, has long framed the American propensity for ‘the divine-deli-cafeteria religion’ as ‘very much in the spirit of Hinduism. You’re not picking and choosing from different religions, because they’re all the same,’ he says. ‘It isn’t about orthodoxy. It’s about whatever works. If going to yoga works, great—and if going to Catholic mass works, great. And if going to Catholic mass plus the yoga plus the Buddhist retreat works, that’s great, too.’
– See more at: http://www.adishakti.org/_/we_are_all_hindus_now_by_lisa_miller_newsweek_3.htm#sthash.jhuG0Xwm.dpuf
FYI in Iran they don’t stone women for being raped, in fact there is no punishment on the woman. The rapist, on the other hand, would be executed. Their definition of rape is not like the modern West’s ever changing definition; it’s like the classical understanding of rape. And marital rape doesn’t count as rape it counts as domestic abuse.
FYI you would actually agree with the Iranian system of governance more than the West given that you are a religious Monarchist. I would suggest reading the works of Hamid Algar for an accurate explanation of the Iranian political system from their own point of view.
Aurini and co. your all mentally ill. For your own sake get help! Please don’t bother responding, I shan’t be back.
Hmm… “Henry” reads an awful lot like the blogger over at venturephilosophy. Just putting that out there..
“FYI you would actually agree with the Iranian system of governance more than the West given that you are a religious Monarchist.”
I believe Aurini stated he was an atheist.
“Freud couldn’t have been more right when he noted the prevalence of ‘Penis Envy’ amongst his female clients. Women who envy the metaphysics of the masculine – the solar, the constructive, the active agent – in contrast to femininity’s lunar, fertile, passivity. It was envy in the sense that it wasn’t aspirational – he was not describing women who wanted to become great scientists, great musicians, or to earn the accolades which are largely won by the male sex – they wanted to take the accolades which they viewed as part of the male endowment.”
What is it with western men trying to go all David Deida all the time? DD is an anti-science woo spinner.
Freud was a pseudo-scientific quack as well.
It is the sun that is passive and the moon that is on the move by the way.
I’m actually laughing. this Dave guy acts like he’s a genius and should be listened to because he uses fancy words. oh Dave. if only you had any true sense of the world. my 15 year old niece knows more about all these names you’ve been dropping (Marx, Socrates) than you pretend to. its sad to see someone with such great capacity for knowledge wasting it on lies and conspiracies. oh well. not my problem anyways.
http://parzivalshorse.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/islamic-jihad-learned-at-mothers-knee.html
In summary
“We are superior to women, who should know their roles and stop bitching about it”
“Inequality doesn’t exist”
You are nowhere near as intelligent or balanced as you claim to be.
This article contradicts itself so many times it is beyond humour.
I honestly don’t know who these women are that you come in contact with, who choose easier jobs and lifestyles and therefore relief from an equal paycheck. I work alongside men, and only once has that ever been to my advantage. (Although I did shit poor as a valet driver, because of the stigma even women buy into about women’s driving abilities, I rocked it as a taxi driver because nobody was willing to beat me up over stolen fairs, and I was not only a safer driver suddenly, I was as approachable as a girlscout seeking a badge.) And as far as male bonding being a necessary part of firefighting? What exclusively male thing must happen? Are you assuming something is not understood by the right women? I think if a female can pass all of the required testing, and that’s what she desires to do, and she works hard to be good at it, the males will have to learn to bond with their fellow firefighters, and do whatever is exclusively male in nature, elsewhere. I personally am working with an ambulance service, but I am currently applying at my local fire station. I do not see myself as unfit to do that kind of work, but we will see what the exam results say. The only men I’ve ever had trouble hitting it off with, are the one’s who take I’m not interested in dating anybody as a personal offense, and start to behave rudely and childishly about it. So, it shouldn’t be an issue. And it’s not at all out of disrespect for men than I want to do what I want to do. That notion is silly. That would be like me being offended that someone wanted to be a stay at home dad, arguing that I went through the trouble of birthing the child, like hell I’m going to bring in the bread too. If I can find the means, I’d be more than happy to talk about that. If I can find an excuse not to be at home, personally, I usually take it.
On the topic of men’s rights, I do believe that men’s rights need to be taken just as seriously as women’s.. Many of the bolder feminists I know, who are quite admirable, educated, and independent women, are currently engrossed in men’s rights campaigns at the moment. You can not bring one up with out the other, and as society teaches woman to empower themselves, it must also teach them to let go of some unreasonable expectations and double standards, and encourage men to express themselves more openly too. I know that may sound too flowery right now, but it’s a shift that needs to occur.
Also, bashing Emma Watson just gives her even more reason to be doing exactly what she is.
It’s my philosophy that everybody needs to be their own rock. That’s what I’ve been expected to be, and I’ve worked to achieve that, and I wasn’t excused from anything growing up, because of my gender. I wouldn’t describe busting my butt because I am the first child and I don’t know my own limits yet, as penis envy. That’s a weird ego centric idea. At least from my point of view anyway. Not much of what I do has anything to do with penises. I mean, should it?
and we all laugh und merriment und joy. haha