The Misandry Bubble

Post Reply New Topic

The singularity is not a right wing or left wing concept, it has people on both sides of the political spectrum participating in it, it is beyond politics. I have heard Ray speak, he has said as much. He is pretty apolitical, and honestly above politics. While he is a capitalist, he seemed to sum up his thoughts on politics though "they are people who fight along the fringes". He said these things will happen regardless of politics and that in the US people are arguing over the fringes of similar concepts (paraphrase, basically there is not as big as differences as people think). To him politics is not going to matter the way it once did, that is true, but his thoughts are on transcendence through technology. He may have had been more political in the past, that may be true. The one thing that is very clear to me, if anything he was not in the least bit sexist.

From what it sounds like this guy has gone completely off the deep end recently which happens to people. He may be trying to justify his out there philosophy with statistic As somebody stated much of this interpreting statistical , historical and demographic information without really quite understanding the substance behind it. What he is writing is very amateurish from anybody who has a college level knowledge of history or social science, and almost completely false.

Also being familiar with no-fault divorces and the policy justifications behind it, it saved many women from very abusive marriages by allowing them to leave them quickly. But I have been a bit more exposed to the legal aid and policy world than whoever wrote this article, and also much more familiar with policy formation. From what it sounds like whoever this is went off the deep end which happens.
There is some deep seeded hatred here. The entire tone of what he has written is the language of conflict.

I am a disgrace for the female gender for calling out an article that repeatedly attacks the entire female gender repeatedly in less than veiled ways. Wow...just wow. Calling me stupid...another thing. It is called deflection look it up. The truth is what this person is saying has little grounds in reality, he barely grasps policy, even if he is citing statistics he is being highly selective about what he cites and the context of those statistics. Calling him a misogynist is pretty spot on, he has a clear deep seeded hatred of women.

The alpha/beta male thing is often a false dichotomy that is often something that is done by people who lack social maturity. Adult relationships are more complex than that.

While many divorces are initiated by women, it is women who are far more often in dangerous abusive relationships (women are the ones abused significantly more often than men, its funny how he left this statistic out, again selectivity). These however are a minority. Most divorces however are mutual agreements early in the marriage where there is no children, the couple was just not meant to live together. Often it is people who married to early. In these cases both partners walk away without much of a conflict.

To him the biological argument of men and women roles seems positively misogynistic. In fact it is based in misogyny. Throughout this is "women will cheat and need to be put in their place" is the message. The reality, its men who cheat far more often. This is not even veiled, anybody who advocates this thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant, and not in the workforce with a man lording over them and that is the right way kind of lacks credibility, but he makes this point subtly several times.

The quick no-fault divorce has probably helped protect more women from extremely abusive relationships where there life was at stake. Anybody who is a legal aid attorney can tell you this. One should not have to prove misconduct to get divorced. Part of the reason for a no fault divorce is so that women can easily exit abusive situations. In addition it has shown to avoid abusive situations from ever happening as partners can end a relationship earlier. The truth is society is probably better for no-fault divorce system. You have an entire generation that is far more cautious about marriage, where they scrutinize their partners more (on both ends), where people want to make sure its the right one.

One point I do agree with him on though, that is the fact that many men are still shackled with their traditional responsibilities and perceptions. At least he gets this part right, now if only he can move away for his love of this traditionalism himself. In some ways historic shackles remain for both. The thing is his article comes off very poor logically instead of actually analyzing the problems of sexual expectations of both men and women. In fact in some ways he is arguing "The old way was better", but it wasn't better for women it was much worse and his perception that this was a good thing is false. Women were nothing more than chattel in the old way. He is angry at birth control and technology and its freeing effects for women. Instead of being shackled to this traditional society and sexuality, the shackles are gone. The truth is women CAN be more selective about partners...its not alpha/beta. Its now one who will fit more. Those women who get better educations and marry later, and pursue careers, are getting divorced less because they find more suitable mates. Their kids are often better off as well. It is those still stuck in the old system who are marrying early, having kids early who are often ending up with less than suitable mates, and divorcing much earlier as well.

The problem of what he is saying is that he is being selective and saying "its all womens fault". Even with regards to the information he chooses it is highly selective. The reality is it is much more complicated then that. For example boys are not doing as well in education because not as many men are choosing teaching as a profession. Yes there is gender bias which is contributing, and THAT is a problem. Even women in the field are recognizing there needs to be more male teachers. But guys want to go into jobs that pay well. The truth is if half the men who are in engineering went into teaching, and half the women in teaching went into engineering, both men and women, teachers and engineers would be better off. But restructuring society the way it used to be is not the solution either.

The fact is while he does have some good points, he does derides people (feminists) who often have a much more nuanced world view. He however discredits himself by holding up concepts that limit the freedom of women significantly if that is a good thing, this is sexist. He completely stereotypes female behavior for one thing. He is also holding up the concept of a dowry. Basically the things that keep women trapped in slavery like marriages instead of co-equal partnerships. Or ignoring the fact until recently in the western world women were not equals or treated as human beings. He is completely glossing over and dismissing important cultural and historical context. This is where he gets it most wrong is that marriage benefited both men and women equally, this however is completely false. Women were nothing more than chattel until recently with very few rights under the law. To call it equal is completely and utterly false, and this part of the reason his argument is on very weak grounds. To say this was a co-equal state is false, it was fundamentally unequal. He is basically arguing by putting this forth women should not even be equal, and the prior state was beneficial to women, this is classic misogyny.

When it gets down to it he is promoting a patriarchal system that was harmful towards women. Secondly he makes MORAL judgments on women's sexual behavior. Ummm yeah...problems abound. This is not somebody who is looking into the future and modernity, it is somebody who idolizes the past and a very oppressive past for women. Thus me calling him a misogynist and a sexist.

I can go on but I will throw this out there. The lowest divorce rate in the country happens to be in the state where women marry later, are more educated, have kids later, are less religious, more likely to use birth control and often have more professional jobs. Their kids also do better, as the state has the best education system. The state... Massachusetts. The states where women are less educated, get married earlier (early twenties), have kids earlier, are often far religious, are more culturally traditional, have the highest divorce rates in the country, less likely to use birth control and are generally poorer and their kids do worse...the bible belt, particularly the deep south.

The point being this statistic completely implodes his entire argument. He was highly selective about his statistics. He ignored this one however. It is far easier to get divorced in Massachusetts than the south. Yet they have a lower divorce rate. Why is it when women are better educated with professional backgrounds and marry later that they are less likely to divorce. The more educated are also more likely to get married, in addition to sustaining it longer. He is ignoring some vital statistics that completely disintegrate his entire argument, yes while those in rural areas do have more kids, their marriages are more prone to failure and they are more likely to be single mothers in poverty. For example the recent time marriage survey. In fact it seems the key to sustaining a healthy and equal marriage, is making sure both partners are mature enough and suited for each other and marry later in life. Yup...feminism is so terrible, it is why those who are more likely to have sustainable relationships are educated women who can hold their own by the time they do get married. The reason, social and emotional maturity, which this guy clearly lacks.

The thing is, he could have made a good nuanced argument about how the societal changes did not benefit everybody and there are significant issues for both men and women which are creating a class divide in this country. The time marriage study does that quite well. Instead he makes false historical statements and cherry picks his facts to support his idea instead of making a good well delineated argument. If he would have argued that feminism may be factoring into societal class bifurcation that disadvantages the uneducated men and women who were traditionally blue collar laborers, while benefiting those men and women who have educations. I may have agreed with him, since the statistics support that, but feminism is not the only factor playing into that as it is also general class economics and globalization as well. Thats the thing by presenting a propagandist argument he fails to make a sustainable one. By making moral judgments on advances for women, he fails to make a logical point. By idolizing and raising up an unequal past, he only supports he is a misogynist. There is misandry in society, but there is also misogyny, but he ended up supporting the existence of the ladder with this screed not the former. The truth he wants a return to the old ways, the unequal ways, and the reality is we are still figuring out this more equal reality and the more modern balance. It has not benefited everybody, both men and women have been hurt by modernity, not just feminism, but by the entirety of the societal shift. Others have greatly benefited.

Instead of a serious analysis of the shifts in society, he wrote propagandist screed that justifies (to himself) the oppression of women is a good thing and was a good thing in the past. That is misogyny and bigotry. It being a long manifesto does not make it any better. You saying I prove his point does not make it so, its a deflection.

And you call me dumb. His point is men should be in charge (moreso), that women having sex is immoral, and that the past where women had no freedom was a positive thing for civilization.

This guy is a misogynist, no matter how long this article is. It may pretend to be intellectual but it is not, its just bigotry in long form. Call me stupid as much as you want this much is true. His anti-feminist screed just proves it. He looks upon success as birth rate alone for a woman and the number of grandchildren, talk about being shackled to traditional obligations.

The truth of the matter, as a person who believes in the singularity worrying about birthrate does not matter much. If we can live longer and have more advanced technologies what is even the point of traditional reproduction and cycles. The truth of the matter is this societal change is in part because of technological changes, and the fewer children is coming from those technological changes as well. These traditional structures are shedding because while it may have been fine for that stage of humanity, it is not so much for the one now, or the coming one. Basically society is evolving as well, optimizing as much intellectual capital as possible and concentrating the most intelligent from both sexes, it is doing this without politics, it is something happening naturally, but feminism is an effect of it not necessarily the cause. When a society gets to a certain point of advancement a form of feminism does emerge and grows. So his traditionalist misogynistic screed, is very out of place for a futurist blog. When in fact that the modernity is what is pushing us into the future. Feminism is a part of that modernization, the concentration of intellect, not something hampering it or making it worse. It is usually a sign of a healthy advanced civilization, anything steps away from it usually suggests societal regression. Going back to traditionalism is taking a step backwards in general, society has no benefit. In fact it may be evolutionary and we have not fully comprehended it yet. Again, a failure of history and sociology on his part. He is also very dismissive of womens careers and accomplishments in society, as part of that potential advancement instead of the destruction of society.

I can go on, but the very confrontational propagandist language dismisses any credibility this person could have had.

Also don't think you can intellectually outclass me on these topics and don't call me stupid.

(Talk about misogynistic screeds, her blog is nothing but them and she admits to it on the blog. Can somebody please ban her and delete and lock this thread before it becomes an all out flame war).

Last edited by starygrrl on 22 Mar 2011, 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It is very bizarre, when a woman becomes a misogynist. Perhaps it is because she is looking for a date and wants to appeal to men, so thinks that impressing them with anti-female writing may hopefully attract them, i dont know why someone female would write a blog called "Female Misogynist" to tell the truth...

Who knows. It is downright bizarre like something out of a Kurt Vonnegut book.

I didn't see any legitimate injustices perhaps with the exception of differences in jail sentences. Men need to be as proactive about raising awareness for prostate cancer as women were, and get themselves checked annually. It has nothing to do with women and that men needlessly die of prostate cancer is not the fault of women. Prostate cancer runs in my family. My grandfather and great uncle both had it. My grandfather chose to have his treated and recovered from it, my great uncle refused treatment and died from it. I have another uncle who refuses to get checked despite urging of family members. How do you justify blaming women for this?




I would not go into the psychic business because I don't think you'd be very good at it. You have made a claim about me which is not only baseless, but in most situations, false.



With respect to the previous discussion in this post about jobs, I don't think it's accurate to view jobs women are more likely to take as easier or less stressful. The ease one has at a job, and the stress that job causes them is entirely subjective and depends on the individual. The post was addressing the issue that men are more likely to die on the job, which is true because they more frequently have the option to choose higher paying, yet jobs potentially more dangerous jobs, than their socio-economic female counterparts.In most instances, the man has a choice, he can be a dock worker or a clerk at Walmart, but as I previously said, not all women have this choice. Being a dock worker requires considerable strength that many women just don't have, but that is certainly nothing that is anyone's fault, nor does it account for the pay discrepancy because most pay discrepancy studies look at the pay of men and women in the same fields, not different fields. To this end, there was a study done a while back which I spoke about in a previous post, where women who had undergone sex change operations to men, and remained at their old jobs, on average, earned more after the sex change and were more likely to be promoted, than before the sex change operation. This doesn't necessarily indicate explicit negative opinions of women by men, or a bias in society of men against women, but rather it is more likely that this is due to the perceptions of society as a whole...men and women both, on men and women.


Provided she wasn't raped. And likewise, the man who impregnated her chose to do so. What's your point?


As long as she was being recorded with her permission with the understanding that the tape would be released to the public, yes. However those, men and women both, who are recorded without their consent, or a tape which was made but released without their consent, are victims of a severe violation of privacy.


If you had properly read my previous post you would have seen that I stated I did not agree with sentence variation on the basis of sex.



The issue with respect to this post is not feminism. The website in question is really no different than any other conspiracy/propaganda website....full of fragmented logic and paranoia...generally schizophrenic in thought...in fact you can replace "women" with "jew" or "illuminati" or "liberals" or "republicans" and it would still read about the same. Even some of the more oppressed feeling men here seem to have spotted that.

The ironic bit being that that's one proven sociological phenomenon referenced in much of Feminist Theory-
that an individual of an oppressed class will actively, even eagerly, participate in said oppression if it benefits him or her as an individual.

Of course, you don't have to subscribe to feminism as a philosophy or movement to know what relevant terms mean.

Definition of MISOGYNY
: a hatred of women
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

mi·sog·y·ny
–noun
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Misogyny

Misogyny (pronounced /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny


So,

FEMALE MISOGYNIST-
A female hater of women.

This person has a blog post entitled "Female Teachers Should be Sent to Planet Gor".
I'm actually familiar with this reference- Gor is a fictional, "utopian" planet referenced in a series of novels by John Norman,
wherein the vast majority of women are slaves, which is described as the "natural" male-female relationship. The two of the books I've read featured women being fed to indigenous animals kept as livestock and savage beatings of women who disobeyed their masters.

That's is the mindset of this guy.

Here's the gem of the piece:
"To put it bluntly, female teachers do nothing about the rampant violence in classrooms because it makes them horny. Being godless pinkos, they can imagine no authority higher than the urges between their legs. When three or four boys beat up a little girl or a smaller boy, they consult the moral compass between their legs, notice that their moral compass is wet, and proceed to giggle girlishly while the boys beat their chosen victim to a pulp."

Last edited by Bethie on 23 Mar 2011, 2:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

It is very weird. I guess the internet is a showcase of the most peculiar minds.

I think he's tr-I mean, looking for attention.
Or genuinely disturbed.

No more attention from me.

Wow...just wow. I can't think of a single female teacher who has taught me, that has behaved in this way. Of course the obvious question is how he knows that watching boys bullying a fellow classmate makes the female teachers wet.

That's why I'm personally against male chauvinism and feminism of any significant form. Too much rubbish from both sides.

Women will always act like women no matter what words they like to say, but men should always show respect to women as women and treat them as fellow human beings of the opposite gender.

Of course, if the woman's a b***h, that's a different story.

[/quote]

That's hilarious.

I saw moderate and leftist articles as well, also the articles are obviously not written by one man(referencing someone else's post). I also see a place for submissions for people who are not listed as columnists.

@Zen_Mistress, feel free to write up an article concerning male issues and submit it to them. Also they keep track of where their articles are linked(They often engage in debate with respsonding authors, as well as discussing articles and responses they might agree somewhat with, explaining why she likely showed up for just this thread, whether or not she will remain to push her views is up in the air, this actually happens fairly regularly here so I don't know why one would think it's odd), I had no idea Male Chauv was a columnist for them, maybe she just keeps track of their articles as well.

@Bethie there are plenty of extremists like her that are women, the spearhead calls them socons(if i remember correctly) they tend to also telling men to jump into marriage(regardless of legal imbalances), which is the main reason the spearhead doesn't get along with them. No need to insinuate that she's lying about being a woman, it doesn't really invalidate her views on it's own anyways.

EDIT: @Bethie What does the race of Palin's husband have to do with a damn thing?

I just find it very odd, his/her blog being entitled "Male Chauvinist", and was commenting on the MANY references made by that person to being a woman. That's all. As you said,


It has everything to with it!
That "it" being conservatism, of course.
I mentioned that tongue-in-cheek after the litany of some of her most traditional, conservative personal qualities were alleged to be values characteristic of feminism.

I'm with Bethie, Miss Techbacher is definitely male. His language in the posts is distinctively so.

Agreed. Even females who hate other females would never go on about female teachers being wet between their legs. No female wonders what is happening with their teacher's sex drive, and seeing she is a "Misogynist" she is unlikely to be a lesbian as you cant date someone you hate... So for "her" to be having such thoughts about female teachers being randy, logic indicates it is actually a "he".

How so? She being clearly misogynistic may view promiscuity as one of her justifications, if she is at any level of obsession such thoughts would not be uncommon. Also being a lesbian doesn't really imply that you are dating women it implies that you are attracted to women, other emotions being irrelevant to the classification. Although I can't really say anything about the lesbian comment, there really is no evidence one way or the other besides her misogyny and even then there is no exclusivity between lesbianism and misogyny.