Live From Glenn Sacks’s Blog
Published by Lisa Kansas October 8th, 2008 in Men's Rights ActivismMy “Feminist Dissident” post is up. Feel free to amble over and check it out.
My “Feminist Dissident” post is up. Feel free to amble over and check it out.
Hello Lisa.
Glenn has banned me from his blog (I don’t pander to his sense of chivalry enough) so I need to reply to you here.
Yes, patrarchy (father as head of household, men as success objects, women as breeders) exist{s|ed}. It is currently being weakened and outlawed.
However, without patrarchy, you don’t have civilization.
When you remove patrarchy, you destroy civilization.
This is not the first time in world history that feminism has existed. If you care to see what happened the last few times it happened, I suggest you read “Sex and Culture” by J D Unwin, published 1934 in the UK.
A civilization who’s women reject their traditional roles dies a slow death.
A civilization who’s men reject their traditional roles dies a quick death.
Read the book, look at the results, then ask yourself if that is what you want.
From Glenns:
Yes. They do, and they always will.
Since I’m not sure about your math background (ask if you need further explanation) I’ll try this at about a medium level. If you understand bell curves and standard deviations, suddenly a lot more things about how life is will make sense.
Why are men at the top? Because the best are much more often men.
Mind you, that doesn’t mean that average men are better than average women, it just means that at the top there are far more men than women.
How can this be? Because for every measured human trait, men have a larger standard deviation than women.
IQ is a well-researched example. Men and women have about the same average IQ scores (105 to 100) but IQ’s of over 170 are 30:1 male. Mind you, the same is true of IQ’s below 30, but we don’t look to those people to run businesses
While I am using IQ as the example, it’s true of height, weight, multitasking (where women have a greater average ability than men), math skills… everything physical and mental.
Well why do men vary so much more than women? Because that is what’s best for the survival of the species.
I do not know of any two-gendered species which does not follow this pattern (although if one exists, I would bet on seahorses). Why do they follow this pattern? Because reproductive capacity is determined by the number of viable wombs available to the species. So biology keeps those possessing wombs much closer to the average while allowing the (disposable) males perform enviroment testing to see what set of genetics is best for the current enviroment. The males that are best suited and survive then mate with the women and group genetics shifts towards the set best suited to the current enviroment.
That means for feminism to get the desired goal of an equal representation of men and women at the top, they need to biologically alter the species to get that result.
It’s another one of those “ask yourself if that’s what you really want” situations.
Does she know math….LOL this is going to be funny. Demon’s Pawn, you chose the wrong girl. I would defend her, but she can take care of herself.
LOL does she know math. That cracks me up.
You demonstrate you willingness and openness to sharing of ideas wonderfully by imagining an insult lies behind every possible statement.
I insinuated nothing about Lisa other than I don’t know her math background and that the concepts I’m speaking of are above high-school algebra.
She is swamped right now trying to answer all the comments at Glenn’s site, but she will get to this. Maybe later tonight?
OMG! “Does she know math?” That’s the best thing I’ve read in days.
This is gonna be *so* good.
Touche. I must of missed that.
You’ll understand the concepts just fine then. Better than most I discuss reality with.
Nice first post Lisa.
I’m not even going to TRY to wade through the crowd over at Glenn’s, or comment here, as I imagine you’ll be flicking between sites like a banshee as it is.
IQ is a well-researched example. Men and women have about the same average IQ scores (105 to 100) but IQ’s of over 170 are 30:1 male.
So I take it the “men’s education crisis,” the relative proportion of men in low-wage, dangerous jobs, the relative proportion of men in prison, etc., aren’t really problems either - it’s just a byproduct of that wider curve - and you tell MRAs to stop complaining about them… right?
No, that is a function of affirmative action for women in post-secondary and secondary education. That education itself is being tailored towards girls rather than boys.
Partially. It’s also a factor of society supporting women better than they do men and also women having more options (stay at home parent, work part time, work full time) of career choice than men (due to social expectations and mate selection).
Minor. It’s more greatly influenced by the disparity in sentencing between men and women. Women are more likely to get probation vs incarceration for the same crime (with the same criminal background) and, if jailed, women receive shorter sentences.
Now, if you want to pick homelessness, yes that is very much a product of the bell curve. However, the fact that homeless women receive much more support than men is a product of social expectations.
Most MRAs don’t complain that more men are homeless, much that more men are in jail, or that men work dangerous jobs. They complain about the inequality in social expectation and social support (and sentencing in the case of jail)
This one should be fun….
From zingerella at Glenn’s:
This, really, is the root of the entire issue.
Let me pose a very important non-rhetorical question for you: Have you ever considered there is a reason behind the existence of those roles? Have you ever wondered why societies where those roles aren’t followed don’t seem to exist (outside of isolated societies which do not contact other societies)? Have you ever wondered why the major religions of the world place father as head of household in spite of the fact there are several minor/dead/forgotten religions which didn’t/don’t require that?
It all comes down to why I was kicked off of Glenn’s blog: I recognize that traditional roles DO exist for a reason… they work better than any of the alternatives. That’s why, in the competition of social evolution, traditional social values won while the rest vanished/were conquered/wiped out/etc. Why do they work better? Look up a few posts to the biology answer. Men and women are not equal, not interchangeable, and not designed for the same roles in existence. That’s why following those roles creates the strongest and fastest advancing society.
Any deviation from a traditional society is a LUXURY. It’s either a luxury that the society can afford or the society cannot, based on it’s needs and the acceptable level of risk to it’s survival. But here’s the catch: all luxuries slow the rate of advancement for that society by deviating from traditional roles. That means other societies which stick (or remain closer) to traditional roles can catch up and the society enjoying luxuries decreases it’s lead, and therefore increases it’s risk of destruction. That might be fine and dandy because the society is so far ahead….
But what happens when the society is not so far ahead? How do you “undo” the luxuries? Can you undo the luxuries? Would it be possible for our society, now steeply in decline due to overindulgence in luxuries, to revert back to more traditional roles?
Fat chance.
Now consider that success breeds complacency and apathy and the desire for luxuries….
And you’ll recognize exactly why where we where we are in the cycle of successful civilizations.
“Men and women are not equal,”
Whoa there, boy. As I stated over at Glenn’s blog, I don’t consider the inherent equality of men and women to be a debatable statement. If this is really what you believe, then this is going to be a mighty short conversation. Like, ending now.
Then you are never going to solve the “problem” because you are starting from a false premise.
Here’s something for you to ponder: are a dollar bill and four quarters “equal”?
No. And in some cases, they are not even interchangeable. You can’t hold down paper with a dollar bill and 4 quarters is pretty much useless as a ruler (a dollar bill is a 6 inch ruler for anyone who cares).
Can men give birth to children?
Can women compete with men in Olympic-level athletics?
How can you consider men and women equal with both of those answers is obviously “no.” ?
Mind you, I do not think that women nor men are inferior to the other OVERALL as both genders are necessary for the survival of the human species and for the advancement of civilization. But when it comes to performing tasks, it’s very obvious that one gender or the other is better suited to various roles.
My wife once asked me “are we equal?” I said no. She asked me how I could think that. “Given an infinite number of hypothetical problems/situations we would be roughly equal in our ability to solve the sum total of those… but we aren’t facing an infinite number of hypothetical situations, now are we? I’m sure that one of us or the other is better at life as it exists right now, but what’s the point in figuring out which of us?”
I will only do this once, I promise….
As promised, my response prior to reading any other responses:
Ah, Patriarchy Theory vs….er….Patriarchy Theory.
See, MRA’s not only don’t believe The Patriarchy ™ exists (or -ed), we also tend to believe that said theory is used to justify countless injustices committed against men.
Ergo, damn RIGHT we demand proof of it’s validity.Or have you never heard a woman say to a man “Women have had to deal with that for thousands of years! It’s about time the tables got turned and men got it for a change!”? Let’s be honest here….never heard it?
So, if Patriarchy Theory ™ is indeed correct, and we do indeed need to protect and assist “historically oppressed groups”, as is written into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To wit:
In other words….discrimination is illegal, unless directed at white men. And discrimination is rampant in Canada.
Women’s business groups. Women’s gyms. Women’s social clubs.
So yeah, damn right I want to see the proof. I also want a say on it’s validity.
Wouldn’t you?
As for the legitimacy of our claims that feminism is causing all sorts of problems for men…let me ask you…
If MRA’s were given the level of control over gender issues that feminists currently have, with the same attention from the politicians…. If women were treated like men are in the justice system. If women were being thrown in debtors prison by the tens of thousands. If men were given all sorts of bursaries and employment help, and laws they could destroy your career with by a single statement.
If all these things were done because these men said they were oppressed, and showed you “proof” that depended on belief in unsupported/unexamined theories…and then commenced lobbying for these laws, and getting them passed.
And if after all that, when you started to get upset, they called you “man-hater”.
Wouldn’t YOU want a right to dispute this theory?
Incidentally, great post. I predict over a thousand comments, inside three days (the post will be gone off pg 1 by then.
By the way, if you check once a day you’ll be reading and responding to a lot of posts at once…I’d just keep it to general concepts/questions raised.
Hi Lisa,
I got in real late for the thread at Glenn’s but given your background in science and engineering, I am hopeful you’ll find my take over there interesting enough to comment on.
Dictionary definitions are useful, but not sufficient. The dictionary definition you posed matches the anthropology definition of patriarchy, but that is very far from the “women’s studies” descriptions of patriarchy and its behaviors that feminists use in reference to what they believe is a coercive element in Western Society.
I definitely want to thank you for your time and effort in taking Glenn up on his offer.
Demonspawn:
“Like and equal are not the same thing.” I wish I’d written that, but, alas, it was the late, great Madeline L’Engle.
Feminism and Masculine expression are both important aspects of human existence; the problem is insisting that one’s sex is the sole determining factor in manifestation.
Equality is not sameness.
You do realize that the only distinction within a species that makes more difference than “male or female” is “alive or dead”, right?
When men are born equipped with wombs then perhaps gender won’t play such a great role in the determining factor of one’s role in life. Until then, wombs and a pair of X chromosomes determines a great deal about one’s relative value to a given task.
Right or wrong, fair or not is immaterial. What matters is what IS.
Then what is equality?
Equal value? A dollar bill and 4 quarters have equal purchasing value (mindful of a snack machine not equipped to take dollar bills… oops, there’s a difference already), but for some reason people seem to prefer one over the other. Perhaps because there is more than one dimension to something’s value? Perhaps when you incorporate the different axises of value you can find that things you thought to be equal are no longer due to the circumstances which must be taken into consideration?
From Glenn’s:
Has nothing to do with lesser.
Has to do with a woman taking the traditionally masculine role to be celebrated but a man taking the traditionally feminine role being derided… by both men AND women.
Women have freedom. Men are told “stick to your role!”
Ever wonder why?
The answer is in the first post above.
Lisa I’ll ask you here because that thread at Glenn’s is pretty deep (but not disruptive or full of personal attacks from bits I’ve read).
Has anyone tried to hold the fact that you initially declined Glenn’s invite over your heard yet?
Math is hard. Let’s go shopping!
I am going to have to print your article, but what I have read thus far is very interesting. I am kind of at my wits end with the MRA’s at Glenn’s right now and have been in quite a stirring the pot mode as of late. I will prbably be deserting the commenting very soon (probably within a few days) as I easily get bored with their same old arguments and twisted innuendos. Course I take it all in stride lol because I do “stir it up.”
Danny: Nope.
Violet: Just like Teen Talk Barbie!
Oooh! I’ve been invoked!
Have you ever considered there is a reason behind the existence of those roles?
Do you mean “Have I ever considered that there might be a reason behind the development of those roles?”
Yes. I have considered this hypothesis.
Next question.
Have you ever wondered why societies where those roles aren’t followed don’t seem to exist (outside of isolated societies which do not contact other societies)?
Which roles? The patriarchally defined roles of imperial Rome? Or the roles assigned to men and women in modern-day Iran? Or those assigned to men and women in New Testament Jewish societies? Or those roles in nineteenth-century North American frontiers? Or pre WW-II Japan?
All of these societies divided labour, power, and opportunity by gender, but the ways in which these roles were played out differed drastically.
If you’re drawing on the single commonality among these societies—women’s role as primary caregivers of children—nope, I haven’t wondered why all societies followed that paradigm. I see no reason for people to organize their societies as though we didn’t have access to technology to which we have access, anymore than I see any reason for people having access to electricity to continue to light their homes with gaslights.
As to the reason that patriarchal religions tend to persist, while theoretically matriarchal or women-centered religions have faded into obscurity and legend, many scholars of history and religion have considered this question. The answer seems to have to do with the development of patriarchal societies: as women’s societal roles were limited over time and custom, with the development of complex, warlike societies in which women were relegated to the status of war spoils. Official religions, like official history, tend to mirror and articulate the concerns of the group of people in power. It stands to reason that patriarchal societies would favour patriarchal religions.
What this has to do with how we organize our societies in an age of access to reproductive technology and scientific knowledge, I don’t know.
*sigh*
No.. Just.. No.
The superficial understanding of evolutionary biology, it burns.
Lisa,
I admire your fortitude. I’m not sure I see any real point, personally, in engaging the average lost soul that is the typical MRA, but I wish you strength and ultimate patience!
“I see no reason for people to organize their societies as though we didn’t have access to technology to which we have access, anymore than I see any reason for people having access to electricity to continue to light their homes with gaslights.”
Good one.
Faith, I was talked into it.
Then you should have no problem pointing out where I am incorrect rather than just whining, no?
Yep. We’re going to have the usual fundamental disconnect that I usually face when having these discussions. I should have figured that out from Lisa’s first post when she spoke of unalienable rights.
Really, this whole conversation starts so much deeper than men vs women. The issue is that there are deeper concepts in play where we don’t agree which adjust our view of male roles vs female roles. I’ve covered this various times in various places, and I happen to know a location where I’ve already done so… so allow me to repost with slight modifications:
Part of the problem is getting to the root of the fundimental disconnect.
Imagine that we’re discussing how to train dogs and you think a dog has 4 legs and a tail while I think dogs are those furry things that jump from limb to limb in trees. We’ll argue back and forth and never get anywhere because we don’t think of “dog” as the same thing… we’re not even arguing the same topic, really.
That happens a lot in discussions like these without people ever realizing it. How meaningless must it be for me to talk about men’s and women’s roles if I’m discussing that with someone who holds that men and women are exactly equal and therefore interchangable? We’ll get nowhere. So we need to find out where the disconnect is and build up from there.
How deep do I have to dig to realize where the problem is? The answer is pretty goddamn deep. That’s why this doesn’t even start with men or women, or even society. It starts with something called Power. No, actually, it starts deeper than that. It starts with Rights.
What are rights? What rights do people have?
Something so fundimental, but I find I get a lot of disagreement here. There are some who think rights are inailable. Others that think rights come from God. Others that think rights come from being human.
They’re all wrong. Rights come from the end of a gun. Force creates rights. Force can end your being human, kill you for beliving in the wrong god, and doesn’t care what “inailable” means. Force is king. So where do rights come from? They come from a person exerting enough force or the threat thereof to protect his rights, or others projecting force on that person’s behalf.
I’m sure plenty are going to disagree, so allow me to repost my “North Korea” example:
“For instance, I think the people of North Korea have rights that their government is denying them. You beleive they don’t have those rights unless government grants them to them.”
And your belief means jack shit until you come up with enough force to convince the government of North Korea to bend to your will. Until then, they can “have those rights” only if they are willing to die for them.
Thank you for the succinct example to explain my side of the argument. They may have claim to whatever “rights” you think they have, but that doesn’t mean anything at all without force to back up those claims.
—-
Seems pretty simple, doesn’t it?
I’m sure that I’m going to get some sort of a reply “well what does this have to do with society and gender roles?” Because if we can’t even agree what rights we have, we’re going to spin our wheels talking about different things.
Let’s talk about power. Since we now know that rights come from force, then we need force to protect rights. All power comes from one place: the capacity to comit violence.
Well what creates that capacity? The biggest one is numbers. People. If you have 10 people with guns, I can still beat you with sticks if I’ve got 10,000. Where do people come from? Women having babies.
Of course, that’s not the only place power comes from. There’s also the wallet, the book, and the bible. But all three of those still equate to violence. The book is the knowledge to create more effective violence, the bible is to convert more numbers to your side beyond what is inside of your borders (and to convince a larger number within your border to fight), and then money works to buy better tools of war and to influence others to fight for you.
That’s power. That’s what protects your rights.
I want to go back to “bible” for a bit and recognize that the underlying reason is the ability to convince others to fight on your behalf.
Think about men and women for a moment and ponder that one…. Remember that numbers are king.
How many men is a beautiful women worth? Helen of Troy provides a decient example.
If you don’t like Helen, then we can discuss the “white feather brigade” from the UK which convinced men to fight for England.
Actually I guess the next step would be to continue the discussion of sources of power.
“Women are too valuable to use in combat” –some Navy Admiral.
He’s right tho. Remember that power most definatly comes from numbers. What happens in war if you wipe out a good percentage of the men from your population in a victory? Well, those men are dead, but the survivors can breed with the women and the population will rebound within a generation or two at the most.
But what if the soldiers you sent to war were primarlly women? Ignoring all other factors let’s just assume for ease that the same number of women would die in the victory. But what about the population over the next few generations? Decimated. Reproductive capacity counts on wombs, not on penii.
That’s why men go to war and women don’t. It’s in the best interests of the society over the long term. It keeps the power of that society stronger over the long term, and that power is what is protecting men’s and women’s rights.
Look at Palistine. That battle is being won not thru weapons or even conflict (although there is a lot of it) but by the power in women’s wombs. Yassar even admitted wombs were his most powerful weapon.
————
Now, you want to talk about reproductive control? Horrible thing, really.
Look at fertility rates around the world and recognize that feminized societies are loosing the birth-battle. We’re not even replacing ourselves. From nothing other than reproductive trends I can pretty safely predict that Europe will be Islamic and the Americas will be Hispanic in the next 2-300 years.
But you (and Glenn) would rather focus on Men vs Women and keep us fighting amongst ourselves rather than society vs society which requires certain gender roles to be able to effectively compete with each other.
Hopefully now you can have an understanding of where gender roles come from and why they are rather important to follow… if you want your society/culture to exist in the long term, that is.
From Glenn’s:
Yes, we can.
But the REAL question is: should we?
Which boils down to: can we afford that luxury?
Answer: Only if we don’t care about becoming an Islamic country in the next 500 years… but that’s going to happen anyways, so we might as well just destroy ourselves sooner.
The unfortunate nature of Pandora’s Box is that it cannot be unopened.
Do women want to return to traditional roles? Oh hell no.
Do men want to return to only earning sex after becoming “marriage material”? Oh hell no.
That’s why Luxuries cannot be undone. That’s why you have to be much more careful than our flippant society has been.
However, it’s honestly inevitable. It’s just the nature of how societies advance and decline. The only thing that’s ever held it in check is an immortal benevolent dictator.
And that’s why Islam’s rule is going to last a LONG time… Until they eventually turn away from their god as we did from ours.
The funny thing about it all? God doesn’t exist. He/she doesn’t have to.. we just need enough people who think that he does. Trust me, with my moniker do you think I’m a religious person?
It downright pissed me off when I figured out the true purpose of religion.
Now hopefully I’ve completed my answer of why “man as head of household” religions are more prevalent: They are more successful in the long term in creating lasting successful POWERFUL cultures.
Well what creates that capacity? The biggest one is numbers. People. If you have 10 people with guns, I can still beat you with sticks if I’ve got 10,000. Where do people come from? Women having babies.
But that’s true only if you look at a closed system, such as the entire earth as a whole. Your assumption is not true as between different societies.
America gets millions of people not just from women having babies but also from immigration. Millions have come here from other lands due to promises of material wealth and the promise of freedom and equality. We have so many people clamoring to join us that we have to build fences to keep people out. America was founded on the very principles that led to feminism and those principles have been the source of American strength and prosperity — while totalitarian societies like North Korea starve.
Demonspawn also says:
Hopefully now you can have an understanding of where gender roles come from and why they are rather important to follow… if you want your society/culture to exist in the long term, that is.
But I am not interested in the long term existence of a society or culture that requires me to embrace the role of second class citizen. To me, the whole value of the society I live in is its egalitarianism and freedom.
Hrm.. not sure if my last post vanished intentionally or unintentionally, so let me try this again.
Legal immigration birth rates are not producing enough new people to sustain population. The only reason we are currently not shrinking is due to illegal immigration and anchor babies.
Women as second class citizens? Really?
Please tell me how many women have been forced by our government to fight in wars and potentially die by an administration that they had no opportunity to vote into office?
When those numbers become anywhere near comparable, then we can start talking about which gender is “second class”. Until then, I think you need to recognize that there are different prices to pay for each gender for the goal of keeping society going in an upwards direction.
Egalitarianism? Again, nobody has yet to demonstrate that men and women are equal. The simple fact is that they are not. They have different values depending on what is needed.
Freedom? If you want that, it’s simple. Go anywhere where there is anarchy. You’ll have total freedom there.
Interestingly enough, the two things you desire are incompatible. Enforcing egalitarianism requires restricting freedom. Otherwise, the genetically advantaged specimens will gain power/influence/wealth/whatever disproportionate to their “equality”.
Demonspawn, force might make it easier to impose a certain moral system, but it does not make one more right than another, any more than the law of gravity makes flying immoral because it is difficult to fly in the presence of gravity. If we believed that, we never would have built flying machines.
You’re right that it would take too long to figure out the sum comparable value of different people. That is why it is most fair to assume that people are, whatever their particular strengths and weaknesses, equal in a fundamental sense.
As for the long-term survival of humanity, having fucktons of babies is exactly the wrong answer.
Legal immigration birth rates are not producing enough new people to sustain population. The only reason we are currently not shrinking is due to illegal immigration and anchor babies.
OK, but the point is that millions of people want to join our society if we would only allow them. Women having babies is not the only way to grow or replace a particular population.
Women as second class citizens? Really?
You bring up the draft of young men to somehow counter the notion that women have historically been second class citizens. This is an irrelevant red herring. You have argued that women ought to return to traditional gender roles for the good of the collective (i.e. “if you want your society/culture to exist in the long term”). Traditional gender roles have historically encompassed economic dependence and a lack of opportunity to participate in positions of power and influence in society. What I am telling you is that I DON’T want my society/culture to exist in the long term if it means having to submit to such a thing. The whole VALUE of my society and culture to me are that I have the opportunity to avoid the trap of dependence on a man, and that I have the opportunity to have a say in my society and community on an equal basis with my male peers.
Interestingly enough, the two things you desire are incompatible. Enforcing egalitarianism requires restricting freedom.
“Incompatible” is a strong word. I think egalitarianism and freedom are values that are in tension with one another, but also in certain respects mutually reinforcing. Yes, sometimes a dominant group’s freedom to exclude or dominate a subject group must be curtailed, but that curtailment supports the freedom of the subject group to participate in the institutions of our society. For example, as a woman or a black person fifty years ago, I would have been effectively barred from certain professions and types of work. Now we have laws prohibiting discrimination. These laws, of course, curtail the freedom of employers and places of business to discriminate, but the result is a net gain for freedom because women and minorities are now able to fully participate in our economy. Where you draw the line and how you resolve the tension between the values of freedom and egalitarianism varies from situation to situation, of course, and can and should be debated on a case by case basis.
Oops the last paragraph of my last comment was not meant to be in italics.
What is “right”?
Did you not read the post where I explained what right and rights are?
It doesn’t matter what you think is right. It doesn’t matter what I think is right. It matters what the people with the most available force on tap thinks is right and is willing to project force over.
Like “unalienable rights” those are words which sound pretty and good but have absolutely no meaning. What does “equal in a fundamental sense” mean? It means nothing other than you want them to be equal. As soon as you place a required task in front of those “fundamentally equal” people you will see, quickly, just how unequal they are.
Having more babies than those who wish to destroy you, on the other hand, drastically improves your chances of survival.
Besides, human population is set to drastically decline over the next 150 years or so (unless you’re Islamic or Hispanic).
If you want to continue this debate, Hari, you have to start using words which actually mean something.
I should also clarify that I don’t mean to imply that feminism is unique to America or that Americans invented it. However, the same values articulated our founding documents contributed to the development of American feminism. I am using the U.S. as an example only because it is the country with which I am most familiar. Much of what I am talking about though could apply to many other countries.
On the issue of force, I am not sure what demonspawn is arguing. I don’t have a beef with the idea that rights are ultimately protected by force, be it a strong police force or a strong military defense. So what? (I think he is either saying therefore women need to have more babies in order to build up the military or “might makes right” or you women are screwed because you’ll never have as much physical force. But I don’t want to put words in his mouth.)
One thing I think demonspawn is overlooking is that IDEAS are also important. Demonspawn refers to religion as a means of terrorizing people into submission (i.e. another means of force). But I think that IDEAS of right and wrong, even without the aid of supernatural threats imposed by religion, have incredible PERSUASIVE value. That is one reason women in America won suffrage, because suffragists quoted Enlightenment values held by the leaders right back at them. To have any intellectual consistency, the nation had to accept women’s suffrage. Male political leaders were not FORCED to vote in women’s suffrage but they were PERSUADED that it was the correct thing to do in light of the foundational principles of the country. A similar process occurred in Britain and other countries.
Might clearly does NOT make right to any thinking person. Why not? Because each and every one of us is vulnerable. Perhaps Demonspawn through brute strength could impose his will on others around him if he chose. But what if a large group of men overwhelmed him or he became disabled or elderly? Then suddenly a more civil society not founded on brute force as a primary virtue will become much more attractive to him. He would appreciate the notion of universal equal rights even for those unable to defend those rights by force. There is no one who does not need the protection of a communal pact for the protection of all including the weak.
Sure, there are totalitarian dictators and oppressive societies that don’t appreciate the simple and obvious truth that the concept of “equal rights for all” protects us all. But those guys ultimately die by the sword.
I agree with demonspawn that it is important to have the ability to protect oneself with force against those who haven’t clued in to our values. But I think demonspawn fundamentally underestimates the value and power of ideas that pose an alternative to the sort of pseudo-Nietzschean force-justifies-all argument he is making.
“What is “right”?
Did you not read the post where I explained what right and rights are?
It doesn’t matter what you think is right. It doesn’t matter what I think is right. It matters what the people with the most available force on tap thinks is right and is willing to project force over.”
If by “matter” you mean “can reliably enforce,” then yes. But this is a kind of natural law argument, a variant of the naturalistic fallacy. It’s like saying human eyes tend to be brown, therefore brown eyes are objectively better.
“Besides, human population is set to drastically decline over the next 150 years or so (unless you’re Islamic or Hispanic).”
Oh, population will decline alright. Let’s just hope it’s somewhat voluntary.
“If you want to continue this debate, Hari, you have to start using words which actually mean something.”
survival of humanity=not having a massive INVOLUNTARY population decline due to starvation, etc. I thought that was obvious.
It’s more like saying that societies which follow these rules have a better chance of surviving, and survival is better than the alternative. If you want to argue survival is not better than the alternative, please feel free
Most of the world outside of Africa is in a state of sub-replacement fertility (other then Hispanics and Islamics). Africa is above, but they’re killing themselves off at such a rate that the death rate is not helping their population expansion.
The wonderful(?) thing about humans is that we will kill each other to maintain exclusive/semi-exclusive access to limited resources. History shows this, current events demonstrates this. Humanity won’t have any problem with overpopulation… the question is do you want to be on the side that lives or the side that is wiped out?
And that’s why feminism is a self-correcting social problem.
Okay, sure. Much as I loath the fact that (1) my discipline is constantly misconstrued by every numbskull who has ever heard the phrase “survival of the fittest” and (2) it’s not my damn job to educate said numbskulls.
How about any number of species with biparental (or male uniparental) care? This includes many species of birds, some primates, certain fish, and yes sea horses.
No. Fitness and fecundity are not limited to the sheer number of offspring you can pop out. If it was, we would all be r strategists. We’re not.
“Biology” does nothing of the sort. Citation please? And unless it’s been published in a relevant peer reviewed journal I won’t even consider it.
Logically, this also makes no sense. If a male “tests” a new phenotype (assumed to be a result of a new genotype) and it doesn’t work, he (and his genes) are as dead as a female would be. If his new phenotype is awesome, then it gets passed down to all his offspring, male and female. Unless the male is heterogametic and the new phenotype is due to mutation at a loci on the Y chromosome. And I mean, have you seen a Y chromosome? There ain’t much there.
Group selection arguments fail. Natural selection doesn’t act on a population, it acts on individuals.
Faith
Oct 9th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Lisa,
I admire your fortitude. I’m not sure I see any real point, personally, in engaging the average lost soul that is the typical MRA, but I wish you strength and ultimate patience!
Lisa Kansas
Oct 9th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Faith, I was talked into it.
Factory: By a “typical MRA” (at least in part) no less. The utter horror!
(Anyone seen my rig? My gun’s in the back, along with all my drugs n beer, and I can’t seem to get the same satisfaction out of beating my wife and kids without driving real fast while drunk. Must be something about raising that testosterone back up to “dangerous” levels first.)
But hey, let’s not stereotype feminists as man-hating lesbians or anything….
Rabbit: Excellent, someone who understands biology. I have only a rudimentary understanding of it myself, so it’s interesting to hear the “guts” of things.
I haven’t read much of DemonSpawn’s posts (it’s not really a thread I’m following, but you bring up a good point. This whole biology determines behaviour thing.
There seems to be a remarkable amount of inconsistency as regards this topic and gender, which I look forward to understanding better.
The MRA “take” is simplistic for the most part, in my view, but again, this sort of falls under the “less important” heading of “Social Ramifications”. Believe it or not, but there is a significant majority of MRA’s that do not believe there’s any point in “arguing” with anyone. They see a court of law as the primary source of redress, with the legislature a close second.
I disagree.
I think there is a cultural bias running deeply throughout society that favours women. I believe there is an official bias throughout culture that favours women as well. (Hey, isn’t that what feminists say MEN do?) This is why I am interested in hearing just what it is that feminists are on about these days, since there just doesn’t seem to be much left to complain about.
Of course, there IS a lot of work in finding out reasons why men shouldn’t have equal rights to women…so there’s that.
The main thrust of the MRA argument in this area is that biology (and biological impulses) contribute in significant measure to the way males treat both females and other males. These biases are highly correlated to the physical appearance or desireability of the person addressed (I would submit this is true of both sexes myself, but I don’t stir the pot unless it’s for a reason). And when it comes right down to it, in the vast majority of cases where there is limited resources, with equally compelling “male” and “female” requirements for those resources, the “male” requirement goes unfilled with startling regularity.
MRA’s think feminism exploits this biological impulse. MRA’s are searching for a way to remove or mitigate this impulse. I agree with this approach.
Wow. Lisa, your post at Glenn’s blog was excellent, and I am frankly amazed at your ability to respond to so many people so well.
From Glenn’s.
I’ll 99.9% agree with you here, Lisa. (I also consider most of the military combat arms a field where gender matters very much.)
However, that does not imply that there may be many valid reasons why the person best suited for any profession is overwhelmingly one gender or another.
Because I’ve found people hate to follow links (for whatever reason.. I guess I’m the type who actually wants to learn) allow me to post the Q&A from the following site below the link:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm
Q & A
Q: Girls frequently get better math grades than boys, even though boys score higher on tests of mathematical aptitude. How do you explain this? And isn’t classroom performance linked more strongly to future job performance than test scores?
LS: When you say “better grades” I think you mean “better average grades.” In a high school math class, we expect to find a narrow male majority of 52% in the top half of ability (obtained by setting N /NS = 2 in (3)). Thus with almost equal numbers of boys and girls on each side of the ability median, a bit of extra industry on the part of the ladies, or more likely a bit of slacking off by the boys could easily tilt the average grade toward the girls. None of this, however, is relevant to job performance in fields like engineering, math or physical science. There, considerably more than average ability is required. The technological workforce will emerge from the more selective fractions of the class, where boys predominate to an extent that is not compensable by extra diligence. The 95th percentile of mathematical ability, for example, will be about 64% male, the 99th percentile, 71% male.
Q: If, as you claim, 71% of the 99th percentile is male, that still leaves 29% who are female. What have you done to bring senior female faculty up to this level in Mathematics, Engineering and Physical Sciences?
LS: Full professors in Mathematics at Harvard represent ability in the top 0.0001% of the population, not the top 1%. We could therefore reasonably expect to find no more than one or two women at that rank, with two being extremely unlikely. I haven’t done an analysis of Engineering and Physical Sciences, but I suspect prospects for women there are similar but less stark.
Q: OK, so we can’t expect gender equity in Mathematics, Engineering and Physical Sciences at Harvard, but can we at least expect 29% of the workforce in these fields to be women?
LS: Not likely. Men and women exhibit other behavioral differences which are apparent almost from birth. To some extent they mirror sex-differentiated behavior in animals. Boys are more aggressive, girls more nurturing. Female babies react more to facial expressions, males to moving objects. By adolescence these behaviors have morphed into girls’ interest in social relationships, and boys’ interest in machines and devices. Obviously, such divergence of interests influences career choices. Girls lean more toward fields like psychology, while similarly talented men incline toward engineering or physical science. A study(6) by Lubinski and Benbow followed the careers of mathematically precocious youth from age 13 to 23. All were in the top 1% of mathematical ability. At age 23 less than 1% of the girls were pursuing doctorates in mathematics, engineering, or physical science, while almost 8% of the boys were. Equal aptitude not withstanding, girls pursued doctorates in biology at more than twice the rate of boys, and in the humanities at almost three times the rate of boys. For all these reasons, we should regard 29% as an upper bound to the percentage of women in the technological work force. In practice, their numbers will be significantly less.
Q: If all this is so, why are we meeting here today?
A: Good question. We are meeting here today because feminists, in order to support their androgynous fantasies, encourage able young women to enter technological fields even when their interests lie elsewhere.
Q: I see several people have left and one has thrown up. Do you think there will be repercussions campuswide?
A. Nah. We are, after all, first and foremost scholars, researchers and above all colleagues.
Thank you all again.
————
If I could take one line and bold it at 100 font, it would be “Androgynous fantasies” because that is really, as demonstrated above, the root of the problem… men and women ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE no matter how desperately you or I or Glenn Sacks or anyone else wants that to be true.
P.S. remember that standard deviation thing? Having larger standard deviations is king, as demonstrated from this quote from the above site:
“The mathematics results revealed a mean (male-female) difference of 0.12 standard deviations(2) and a 1.20 (male/female) variance ratio.”
[Explaining the large male:female ratio of mathematicians in the National Academy of Sciences]
Sex differences in both mean and variance contribute to the preponderance of men in the Academy, but they contribute unequally. At this level of ability men predominate mostly because of their greater variability. If we set the mean difference to zero and redo the calculation, men would constitute 91% of the Academy membership, down from 95%, but still a hefty majority. Alternatively, if we set the variance ratio to unity, leaving the means intact, the male representation drops substantially to 64%.
Quin Said: “Wow. Lisa, your post at Glenn’s blog was excellent, and I am frankly amazed at your ability to respond to so many people so well.”
Factory Adds: You should have seen her at Stand Your Ground. And up against some of the most …er…formidable opponents as well (Gonzo comes to mind). Outstanding.
I really will try and not crowd your blog with MRA posts and such, but I really am quite excited to run into her again. She’s got just as sharp of a “pokin’ stick” as anyone. SO I hope you can forgive a bit of enthusiasm for the next little bit.
Quin, I’m totally pooped. I’m glad I told Glenn I’d only do this every few weeks or so. It’s like nearly at 300 posts and it’s been less than 48 hours.
Well damnit I lost another post.
If you don’t think reproductive capacity is a function of available and viable wombs, I strongly suggest you go back to school. You apparently didn’t learn much.
I’ll explain the leading theory as I’ve read it below. As for this, do you deny that males have larger standard deviations than females? Really? Honestly? Then I challenge you to come up with one (1) example of a measurable human trait where men do not have a larger standard deviation. That men vary more is accepted fact… I don’t see how you can argue otherwise. Pick up any study and run the numbers: men will have larger standard deviations. Were that point contentious, every study of human biology would be “shocked” at the findings that males vary more.
The leading theory as I understand it is that the X chromosome contains checksum genes which, well, act as checksums for prototypic expression. It comes down to the fact that women have two X chromosomes while men have only one (yes, I understand that in each cell one X is turned off). But even then, on a cellular level, men only have one checksum and if it does not contain code to control the expression then 100% of the males cells will express the exceptional traits. Women have two chances to have a checksum control expression, and were she to only have one instead of two then only 50% of her cells will express the exceptional traits which will bring the system (human body) total closer to the mean.
You must not be keeping current in your field of expertise then. “The Lucifer Principle” and “The Global Brain” by Howard Bloom are not very new books which make an exceptionally strong case for group selection.
On top of that, any experimentation with bacteria will bring about the idea of group selection. Really, are you a geneticist at all?
Demonspawn’s total refutement of current Feminism: (honestly surprised this hasn’t been raised on Glenn’s site yet)
1) Please enumerate any government-granted rights which men have and women do not have in equal or greater levels.
2) Please enumerate any government-enforced responsibilities which women bear which men do not bear in equal or greater levels.
Those two questions are the only two questions that “really matter”.
If women have equal or greater rights and equal or lesser responsibilities, as enforced by government, then there is no need for feminism (a movement of equality) to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Otherwise, to propose that the government needs to assist women to create a equal playing field is an admission, by feminists, to one of two potential facts:
A) Women are not equal to men, and therefore women need help from the government to be equal to men (to be able to fairly compete).
B) Feminism is not about equality, and is instead about giving women advantage over men (if women were equal to men AND receiving government help, then they would be in the position of an advantage over men)
If A is true, and women are not equal to men, and therefore women are incapable of handling the same responsibilities of men and shall not be considered equal citizens of our nation. They are not capable of the same responsibilities and therefore are not entitled to the same rights.
If B is true, then we have demonstrated that feminism is nothing more than a hate movement seeking to disadvantage men for the benefit of women.
So unless those two questions can be answered, then what is the nature of feminism? Is it a lie (women are not equal) or is it a hate movement (Feminists are attempting to make women “more” equal) ?
Very much so. It starts early as well. When shown a picture of a baby crying, people were asked “what is this baby feeling?”
When told the baby was a boy, people replied “anger”
When told the baby was a girl, people replied “fear”
What is the instinctual response to someone expressing anger?
What is the instinctual response to someone expressing fear?
Now realize the unfortunate truth of the entire argument (for you and I, Factory):
Facts don’t win arguments.
Emotions do.
Which gender has emotional favoritism on their side?
And that, my friends, is why we will continue this downward slide until we are ultimately overtaken.
Margaret-
I must apologize that I just now see your replies to me and I’m running out of time for the night. You’ll get a full reply tomorrow, but for now I’ll give you a few quick replies:
I STRONGLY suggest that you research the real history behind women’s suffrage. It happened first in Brittan after many bombings and other domestic terrorism. In the US, lawmakers were persuaded by a “sex strike” from their wives. Power was still used to obtain the vote for women. It wasn’t even near the “daisies and roses” that you present.
Ideas, ideals, desires… they all mean nothing without the force available to protect them. Shall I point out my North Korea example again?
Or an even simpler example: Feminized women don’t breed. Islamic women do. How long until Shira law is VOTED INTO GOVERNMENT in Europe?
Even under the ideals you profess, numbers makes “right”.
FYI, current projections show it happening in 2-300 years.
Thanks Fac.
Demonspawn,
I never said that there was national suffrage for women in America before any other nation. Please do not correct statements I never made. More importantly, though, I disagree with your belief that women used FORCE to obtain suffrage. Women in Britain did use some violence but it was primarily as a means to bring attention to the cause. (That’s not to say that it would be wrong for a disenfranchised population to use violence, that’s just not what happened in this case.)
As for the supposed sex strike, come on. You’re sounding a little crazy. I’d love a link to where you heard that little tid bit.
Anyway, as I have said, I am not discounting the role of force. Obviously not. The point is that YOU are discounting the role of persuasion, the adoption of ideas because they make sense and are clearly better for everyone in the long run.
You raise the possibility of millions of European Muslim babies growing up to vote Sharia Law into effect in Europe. This is of course assuming that the Muslim babies are going to grow up wanting to be ruled by Sharia law. To the extent this is likely to occur, the problem there is the failure of European nations to successfully integrate their Muslim populations into society. In the U.S., the assimilation process has had a considerable liberalizing effect on the children of immigrant groups as well as the children of conservative religious people. Outbreeding is no guarantee of success if your children don’t agree with your ideas or find other ideas more attractive.
I think YOU personally put a high premium on force because your efforts at persuasion are lacking. You want women to return to traditional gender roles in order to outbreed Muslims, which you posit is should be important to us because they would enforce traditional gender roles! Can you see what’s wrong with that approach?
Lisa,
I told you there were a lot of really good posters over there, hopefully you’ve found the comments reasonable and agree with my assessment
I must say that I wasn’t really expecting you to attempt to respond to each and every post… that really goes above and beyond to a certain degree.
As I said over there, this was a good really introduction, next time I look forward to a more specific topic that can be debated in greater detail.
Fuckity fuck, I wrote a long ass post and it disappeared but I guarantee it was brilliant.
I don’t know how Lisa KS et al deal with this shit every day. Two comments (well, one and a half I guess) and I’m spent.
“I disagree with your belief that women used FORCE to obtain suffrage. Women in Britain did use some violence but it was primarily as a means to bring attention to the cause.” (Margaret)
I’d agree there. Most of the less obviously biased texts I’ve seen on the subject of the women’s suffrage movement would tend to indicate that the suffragettes (the more radical and violent side of the movement) actually hindered the granting of voting rights to all women (I say all because a very few women could already vote, assuming that they were fortunate enough to meet the property and other requirements to be enfranchised).
The suffragists had been gaining a lot of political ground leading up to the turn of the Century, and many of them found the activities of the suffragettes to be embarrassing and counterproductive (and there’s archive evidence to suggest they were right to think that). Several Bills had already been proposed and I support the opinion that tends to think that these would have passed more quickly had good old Emmeline not got impatient.
The outliers of any movement can have their uses in garnering publicity for a cause, but I’m not somebody that subscribes to the “any publicity is good publicity” school of thought. A lot of what the suffragettes got up to just made women look irrational and flighty (to Victorian eyes at least) and justified the entrenched upper-class view that women, like lower-class men, weren’t fit to exercise the vote.
Ultimately, I think that their militancy was understandable but misplaced. The prevailing climate was changing to one of accepting women in politics (several other western countries beat Britain to the punch), the suffragists had won over many of the leading political figures (including Lloyd George and, to a lesser extent, Asquith), and the contribution of women to the home front during WW1 made it difficult to argue that they were less able to contribute to society as men.
Well this post keeps disappearing.
Oh, wait, it likely is due to the links
C/P:
No, I haven’t discounted persuasion at all. However, I recognize what persuasion is: gathering more force (numbers) to your side. Force is the root of all power on a macro scale (power on a micro/relationship scale works a little bit differently).
Can I highlight that again? It’s because they SOUND better for people, not because they would work better in the long run. I’ve already discussed how your ideas will fail in the long run, but because mine don’t SOUND good you don’t want them.
The women’s vote is a prime example of an idea that SOUNDS good (hell, I would have voted for it were I not to know the current outcome) but in reality has been quite horrible.
I’m sure that will require some backing with this crowd, so let’s examine the result of the women’s vote:
Government grew from 3% GNP (maintained since the inception of the US sans wartime) to 36% GNP and growing.
Government intrusion into personal lives has increased dramatically (the nanny state).
Link for your review:
http:// johnrlott.tripod. com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html
Just in case you think this is a US only problem, it’s happened in Switzerland:
http:// http://www.springerlink. com/content/x737rhv91438554j/
France and the UK as well (sorry, no links handy to those reports as I read paper versions).
Now, does that idea “SOUND good” or is it “clearly better in the long run”?
Can I chuckle? It was yet another liberal idea that countries shouldn’t attempt to force integration. That’s why we have two languages officially in most of California and other border states. It sounded good at the time, but we’re already seeing how it’s biting in the ass.
Oh, you think I’m attempting to persuade you? I’ve long since given up on that. There’s no reason to attempt to persuade you…. The end result will be the same either way. I’m just explaining what’s coming and how the consequences of your choices have lead to it.
Besides, I would never convince you because the ideas don’t SOUND good.
Now back to your earlier posts:
The first recorded instance of Feminism? (well, the idea, perhaps not under that name)
Babylonia.
Women had the right to vote, freedom from “marrital rape”, right to own property.. many of the “modern” rights women enjoy. All of this well over 2000 years ago.
What happened? Same thing that’s happening today: a culture who’s women reject their traditional roles dies a slow death. They weakened until they were prime to be conquered. Such is the price of Luxuries.
It’s a red herring only if you value men’s lives less than women’s freedoms. Apparently you do. Both men and women have roles in a successful society. Why not free men from theirs and see how quickly this society collapses with nobody to defend the borders or earn 80% of the taxes.
You’re considering the principle on a singular scale. Think of it on a civilization scale.
The reason you don’t see “might makes right” is because you live in one of the most mighty countries. Now try being Saddam and thinking that you have the right to deny the UN to search your country (and really, you do. Iraq is a sovereign nation)…. might made that right rather quickly.
Really? It does? How?
Do you think rights come from magical faeries that will protect you?
Really, if that was true, why was I busting my hump in Bosnia protecting the rights of people over there? I mean, the concept should of jumped up and stopped the bullets of the oppressors, right?
I apologize if that comes off as snarky or insulting. I’m doing my best to return the favor of not snarking in my direction. Sometimes tho… it’s like the arguments form the other side just come out of fantasy land and I really just don’t know how to get you to understand reality.
I recognize that part of it is a male/female disconnect. Women are protected by men. Therefore, they rarely have to connect, for themselves, that force is what protects them… they always have someone else to do it. Men, on the other hand, are the ones projecting the force and have a much better understanding of the fact “ideas and ideals don’t matter.. what matters is that I have force I can project to protect that which I care about.”
Folks…I can’t stop anyone from feedin’ the troll, but this particular one is advocating that women shouldn’t have the vote. I mean, c’MON now. Do you even want to validate this total ridiculousness by responding to it..?
It’s a free country, though. I won’t prevent you if that IS really what you wanna do. But make sure you’re doing so understanding that giving attention to people like this makes them think their bullshize has some kind of validity in the real world. I am not; as I said, I don’t bother debating people who think that women should have unequal legal status; I don’t consider that proposition a debatable point.
That’s the problem, Lisa. It IS valid.
It is very demonstrateable the problems that universal suffrage causes.
Or are you going to contest that Women’s suffrage didn’t lead to the ever-expanding government we currently have? You’d lose that argument because the facts are very much on my side, and repeatable in multiple countries.
Now, is there some solution that would prevent this other than removing the women’s vote? Perhaps, but considering that men and women are not the same… I don’t see one.
I’ve got one more link for you that I highly suggest you read and understand:
Anything good about men?
If you pull nothing else from that, recognize that the trend of women is to believe in equality while the trend of men is to believe in equity.
Equity leads to an advancing civilization.
Equality leads to a declining one.
And that’s why, without patriarchy, you don’t even get civilization in the first place.
Feminism is a self-correcting problem. Civilizations which subscribe to it eventually implode or are weakened to the point they are conquered.
But we haven’t learned from history, so we are repeating it…
Oh, and as a followup, then do you protest the legal advantages which women have?
I’ll ask it again. So far, no matter where I’ve posted the question, there have been no valid answers:
1) Please enumerate any government-granted rights which men have and women do not have in equal or greater levels.
2) Please enumerate any government-enforced responsibilities which women bear which men do not bear in equal or greater levels.
Those two questions are the only two questions that “really matter”.
If women have equal or greater rights and equal or lesser responsibilities, as enforced by government, then there is no need for feminism (a movement of equality) to petition the government for redress of grievances.
You do realize that when you turn the questions around, there are quite a few answers for men, correct?
This is posted on Glenn’s site too - just hoping Lisa reads it here, and that others here wish to comment/debate/agree/disagree.
An open conversation may bring about understanding.
L. Steven Beene II Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Lisa,
I agree with your premise, but not your “it’s not me” attitude. Allow me to explain?
Were you to see women treated with obvious discrimination, I doubt you’d be so “it’s about equality”.
The feminist inspired programs that are open to you are as follows (SHORT list):
- Women only business tax breaks
- Women only colleges not getting sued under Title IX (the ones with 1% male students too)
- Women only shelters, services, legal referals etc - and no outcry from “equality feminists” like yourself (but from many others - in fairness)
- Over 270 funded commisions on the Status of Women - there is **1** for men - it’s unfunded.
- Over 800 Womyn’s Studies programs, less than a handful for men and no Title IX lawsuits by feminists.
- Calling a woman a bitch (or whatever) can get you expelled from college, her using the terms c**t or vagina warrior will not. Further, her calling you a rapist will not be punished either.
- Women can abort a child, give a child up for adoption, safe-haven a child and/or leave it with relatives with little concern she’ll EVER face being called upon to pay child support - men are jailed, have their credit ruined, have professional licenses yanked, and passports recinded for the same thing.
- Dept of Women’s health - there is NO Dept of Men’s Health
- Women only scholarships
- Almost 60% of college students are women, but no AAUW (American Association of University Women) actions - though many of these women have husbands, fathers, and boy children.
- Most child abuse is at the hands of mothers - DV feminist experts don’t call it Domestic Violence - they make excuses for the mothers.
And the list goes on.
Now, who, praytell, advocated for these dumbass one sided conditions? Was it “the Patriarchy” or feminists.
No, there is no Patriarchy lobbying for “special rights” and “privledges” for men - there ARE feminist groups who lobby for the above, and they STILL claim to be victims of oppression.
See the difference?
YOUR ideas of fairness sound good and just. But you self-identify with a group of people who have intentionally and systematically destroyed the family, punish ONLY men while excusing women’s crimes, and made gov’t services to unjustly deny those same services to men by portraying men as evil.
Ya know, the dictionary definition of “Communism” sounds good too. But Communist gov’ts killed 100 million of their own people in the last century. Pro-choice feminists have killed only 45 million unborn people and jailed millions of men (while excusing women) - so you might want to think of the label you wear.
Give it some thought.
Steven
=================================================
I then posted:
L. Steven Beene II Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Factory Says:
“October 8th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Viewing things as “fighting the system” has allowed humanity to do some terrible things. The Patriarchy ™ was invented to justify doing terrible things to men. It is now and has always been merely an acceptable way to phrase the word “men” and have it represent evil and oppression.
That’s it.”
========================================================
DAMN! That was awesome.
Lisa, I DO appreciate you taking your valuable time (mine is valuable too) to listen to us, and to write to us.
I think Factory’s comment is SO true in so many ways. “The Patriarchy” is just another word for “men” or “how men organize” (more hierarchal versus communal) and shows, IMO, the roots of Marxist ideas at the heart of many feminist leaders ideas.
Betty Frieda was a card carrying Marxist. It was she, often acknowledged as a premier feminist (no pun intended) to helped kick off the ’60’s version of feminist ideals.
Find an “enemy” (but don’t call it something specific - i.e. men) of women (men) and make it CLASS STRUGGLE.
Lisa, that’s classic Marxist theory. And if you look at academic feminists, the ones who DEFINE (sorry for all caps) feminist theory and teach about feminism - and feminist leaders in feminist organizations are VERY socialist (the cuter kinder brother of Communism).
It’s wealth re-distribution, “social justice” (we are owed for thousands of years), equality of outcome etc that feminist leaders espouse - not fairness when it DISADVANTAGES women in the name of equality.
Does that sound like the definition from the dictionary you read? Not to me, and I doubt it does to you.
Steven
Any Reponses will be answered if I can - I appreciate your attention to my post. Thanks!
BTW - Demonspawn is NOT your typical MRA. I know. I have met with several MRA LEADERS and NONE espouse this stuff.
Just as there are extreme feminists, there are extreme MRAs.
One difference - extreme MRAs don’t set policy for MRAs while exteme feminists seem to have all the political power in feminist circles.
Steven
If you’re Sgt. Beene, I think I remember you from my SYG days.
It was great but the volume! Suited way more to somebody whose full-time job this is, kwim?
I will answer you over here AS LONG AS nobody else gets the same bright idea…I stopped answering over there cause, you know, I need to do the rest of my life and blogging too.
Back with your response later, unless I see others hoppin’ over here, in which case we’ll have to hold off on that. Cause then it wouldn’t be fair not to answer everybody and dude, I just don’t have the time.
The funny thing is that I haven’t espoused anything.
All I’ve done is point out facts.
Apparently, some people just can’t handle facts.
Let me elaborate on my point(s):
Feminists are selling a Utopia (like many other political movements… hell, like Glenn himself is doing).
Utopias can’t exist. To have a perfect world requires perfect people. If people were perfect, we’d already be in a Utopia. Since we do not, people are not perfect. Since people are not perfect, we cannot have a Utopia.
The goal of any society is to survive. It doesn’t matter how “enlightened” the society is if it is dead, now does it? The trick is to set up a society with incentives such that the “best choice” for the individuals ends up being in the best interests of the society.
Clearly, we are VERY far away from that ideal.
The problem is, to set up society in that way means that we must recognize politically incorrect truths and account for them. People here are throwing fits that I can even mention these things, without even advocating what to do with the information.
And that’s why we’ll end up in the history books rather than writing them.
Margaret Says: “Outbreeding is no guarantee of success if your children don’t agree with your ideas or find other ideas more attractive.”
Factory responds: Actually, all you need to accomplish that is a large enough (relatively silent) population, and an outspoken “leadership” that claims (unopposed) to represent them. As has been proven time and again.
To Lisa: I told you somewhere in here that you might want to keep the replies general, or to specific topics, but did you listen? Nnooooo.
That FemDiss would have easily topped a thousand posts in much less than 5 days. There’s a pretty big viewership there, at least in my mind. I’m no master blogger, but these numbers seem pretty large to me…
From Glenn’s Blog, January 2008, on it’s first birthday:
“Over the past three months we’ve received 1.2 million unique visits. From Thanksgiving until New Year’s Day–normally a slow time for any media because of the numerous holidays–www.GlennSacks.com and its sister site http://www.HisSide.com received 543,270 unique visits.”
“The blog gives you, the reader, a voice. Many of our blog posts get 10,000 views, and some get over 20,000. These include, of course, your comments. Also, because of our traffic and the website’s history, our entries do very well in Google searches.”
My guess, your post has an audience topping 35,000 people.
I want to say nicely done Lisa. Both sides have to many people on the fringe who have taken over the discussions and try to drown out intelligent discussion with their obnoxious posts. Ny problem is that it should not be about men’s rights or womens rights it should be about people’s rights.