Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Robert Stacy McCain, who is The Other McCain, rips off the veil and tears it to shreds (hat tip to Dyspepsia Generation):
Feminism as it exists today began as the Women’s Liberation Movement in 1968. Sometimes called “Second Wave” feminism (to distinguish it from the “First Wave,” circa 1850-1920), this movement arose from the radical New Left…To put it quite bluntly, at a time when the Cold War was raging, when the tyranny of Soviet imperialism threatened to conquer the world, and when U.S. troops were being killed by Communists in Vietnam, feminists were on the other side.
The Women’s Liberation Movement emerged from the extreme fringe of anti-American, pro-Communist radicalism. From its inception, this movement was hostile to men, marriage, motherhood, religion, capitalism and patriotism. Some people try to claim that there is a “mainstream” feminism that was “hijacked” by radical kooks, but in fact the kooks built the feminist plane, and any perception that feminism is “mainstream” is an illusion created by the movement’s dishonest publicity/media apparatus.
Related: They have to ruin everything?
Thing I Know #52. Angry people who demand things, don’t stop being angry when their demands are met.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Some people try to claim that there is a “mainstream” feminism that was “hijacked” by radical kooks,…”
- CaptDMO | 03/22/2015 @ 15:28I keep hearing the same thing about Islam, and ISIS (by any other name) from “certain circles”.
Dang, my kingdom for an “edit” function.
(Mindful that it’s NOT our host’s problem that I get brain farts)
I’m going to need clarification between “Radical” , and “Fundimentalist” for so-called feminism, AND Islam.
- CaptDMO | 03/22/2015 @ 15:32Feminism is the sorority for ugly/fat/socially mal-adjusted females who stand little chance of getting a good man. They are a sorry lot, harping over imagined slights and wrongs. Like little children throwing a tantrum, they are best dealt with by ignoring them. That really p*sses them off. Also ask for a sandwich, right now.
- Open other end | 03/24/2015 @ 03:49Open other end: Feminism is the sorority for ugly/fat/socially mal-adjusted females who stand little chance of getting a good man.
http://s3.favim.com/orig/141008/2014-beyonce-beyonce-knowles-feminist-Favim.com-2134843.gif
http://s3.favim.com/orig/141008/2014-beyonce-beyonce-knowles-feminist-Favim.com-2134843.gif
- Zachriel | 03/24/2015 @ 07:54Open other end: Feminism is the sorority for ugly/fat/socially mal-adjusted females who stand little chance of getting a good man.
http://s3.favim.com/orig/141008/2014-beyonce-beyonce-knowles-feminist-Favim.com-2134843.gif
- Zachriel | 03/24/2015 @ 11:42A famous person co-opted the term “feminism” in order to build her fanbase among a group that would normally scorn her for her good looks, money, and lavish lifestyle? The deuce you say!
- nightfly | 03/25/2015 @ 06:54Argumentum ad gif. The #20 Best Conservative Blog of 2015 deserves non-retarded trolls.
- Severian | 03/25/2015 @ 13:56nightfly: A famous person co-opted the term “feminism”
Severian: Argumentum ad gif.
It’s an example of a self-avowed feminist who contradicts the misogynistic “ugly/fat/socially mal-adjusted females who stand little chance of getting a good man”.
- Zachriel | 03/25/2015 @ 15:13It’s just a person that believes in equality for men and women.
She’s just wrong there. Ask the many men and women who can’t consider themselves to be feminists, for the precise reason that they consider men and women to deserve equal treatment and equal privileges, whereas the movement insists on special accommodations and protections for women.
It’s an example of a self-avowed feminist who contradicts the misogynistic “ugly/fat/socially mal-adjusted females who stand little chance of getting a good man”.
It’s an example of a pulchritudinous self-avowed feminist who felt the need to contradict it. Thus lending support to its legitimacy.
Sorry to say, but once again y’all have demonstrated little other than the mindset that clings bitterly to modern liberalism, across years and decades, by way of resistance to new and unwanted information.
- mkfreeberg | 03/25/2015 @ 16:31mkfreeberg: She’s just wrong there.
Beyoncé was using the term in its conventional sense, not the far corner of the right wing blogosphere sense.
Merriam-Webster
- Zachriel | 03/25/2015 @ 17:08feminism, the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
It’s an example of a self-avowed feminist who contradicts the misogynistic “ugly/fat/socially mal-adjusted females who stand little chance of getting a good man
Then just say that, you silly twat.
- Severian | 03/25/2015 @ 17:26Oops, sorry didn’t mean to start a shotstorm.
- Open other end | 03/26/2015 @ 05:24Once again, some definitions work and some don’t.
- mkfreeberg | 03/27/2015 @ 05:41If feminism were practiced how the dictionary defines it, Beyoncé wouldn’t have to say word one. Her life is already a testament to how far hard work and practice can take anyone in life, man or woman. Standing on stage with a lighted sign adds nothing; so why did she feel the need to do so? Was it “the far corner of the right-wing” of anything? Hardly. If anything they rolled their eyes a little bit, but still watched the show.
When you examine what people actually do, it’s all the usual lefty loons who use the word “feminism” to advocate for the punishment of men in every sphere of public and private life, who promote and advocate the inherent superiority of women, who call any and every male expression or thought an expression of “rape culture” or oppression. They find slights in everything which they then use to levy serious legal, social, and financial consequences. They cry about their “empowerment” then simultaneously cry foul when facing even mild questioning. Why, it’s almost like they don’t believe in a level playing field at all, and are trying to tilt it as far as possible in their own favor in order to rout their enemy.
This is not the behavior of a person who wants a fair and equal treatment. I would in fact say that this is all straight from Sun-Tzu – choosing the battlefield and time of attack that is most beneficial to oneself and hampers the enemy the most – except that I don’t give them that much credit. The thing it most resembles is the behavior of a child playing some sort of game with an adult, who revels when succeeding but is upset when the adult does anything right. And the adult, who is more interested in teaching the game and bonding with the child, laughs and gives way. All proper in childhood, because both understand this, and sooner or later the adult decides that the game’s over and there’s other things to do, and the child (if dutiful and well-mannered) obeys. In real life, when the adult is never permitted to play full-on in order to win – nor permitted to walk away?
So, given the conflict – indeed the diametric opposition – between the dictionary definition (and do you guys have any other books at all? Were you banned from the library?) and the actual, concrete and empirical observation of the actual behavior *called* by that word… there are two possibilities: either the dictionary is wrong, or else the feminists are.
Since it is your own citation, I’ll grant that the dictionary is correct. Therefore I conclude the feminists are entirely wrong about this. I further contend that they know this and are actively deceiving you by calling what they do by its opposite, the better to shout down their opponents in the public square with a false charge of “THOSE MEN DON’T WANT EQUALITY!” They’ve done it with just about every other self-description in the lexicon: “liberals” who hate liberty, “democrats” who rule by fiat, “populists” who hate populations, “educators” who don’t teach, “public speakers” who call for speech bans, “free thinkers” who parrot talking points, “nonconformists” who all look exactly alike, and “grassroots activists” permanently affixed within the system like mosquitos in amber.
There are a dozen more examples just like it. And in Beyoncé’s particular case, hell – she gets “brave truth-teller” points for saying something that nobody objects to: normal people because no duh we’re all equal and complementary, and lying lefty loons because they think she’s just playing the game, saying the accepted phrase that turns off critical thought so they can go ahead and do whatever the heck they want. What she actually wants, of course, is to be dazzlingly rich and famous, and she’s got that, and if the price she pays is to mouth culturally-pleasing pieties so her fans admire her “empowerment” all the more, well so be it.
- nightfly | 03/27/2015 @ 11:01Being wildly successful and socially maladjusted in one way and/or another are far from mutually exclusive.
- Rich Fader | 03/28/2015 @ 14:51mkfreeberg: Once again, some definitions work and some don’t.
We understand you prefer to redefine the word to suit your preconceptions, but Beyoncé explicitly stated her definition, which happens to be its conventional sense, and the one most people mean by being a feminist.
Are you arguing she’s not a True Feminist?
- Zachriel | 03/29/2015 @ 06:39Are you arguing she’s not a True Feminist?
I’m arguing the definition simply doesn’t work. Others have already explained how this is. Not sure I can explain it further to someone who doesn’t understand the concept of definitions, out of the dictionary, failing to work in the real world. Such an audience would have to understand something about the real world first.
- mkfreeberg | 03/29/2015 @ 08:05mkfreeberg: I’m arguing the definition simply doesn’t work.
Someone claimed that feminists are “ugly/fat/socially mal-adjusted females who stand little chance of getting a good man”. Here’s a counterexample:
http://s3.favim.com/orig/141008/2014-beyonce-beyonce-knowles-feminist-Favim.com-2134843.gif
You argue that Beyoncé is not a True Feminist.
- Zachriel | 03/29/2015 @ 10:21You argue that Beyoncé is not a True Feminist.
Y’all had previously asked the question, the answer came back as something else. Along with an observation that the real answer, from all we’ve been able to tell about y’all, is outside of sphere of y’all’s comprehension.
Now, y’all come back with exactly the same thing, stated as a certainty. Thus the connection has been made: Lack of comprehension of some subject matter, and lack of determination to learn so that the conceptual understanding can be eventually attained, leads to incorrect decisions. This helps to explain the how & why of the Zachriel Universe being different from everybody else’s universe.
- mkfreeberg | 03/29/2015 @ 13:57mkfreeberg: Y’all had previously asked the question …
It was a rhetorical question. You were engaging the No True Scotsman fallacy.
mkfreeberg: This helps to explain the how & why of the Zachriel Universe being different from everybody else’s universe.
We cited a specific person, a self-identified feminist, who explicitly stated her definition. Your reference to “everybody else” must not include most everybody outside your far corner of the right wing blogosphere.
- Zachriel | 03/30/2015 @ 06:38Then, y’all have once again demonstrated how people with incomplete understanding, make large mistakes and with great confidence, by applying process-of-elimination before they understand the subject matter.
I’d offer some kind of thanks for the demo, but it seems we’ve been down this road before, a few times.
- mkfreeberg | 03/30/2015 @ 06:42mkfreeberg: Then, y’all have once again demonstrated how people with incomplete understanding, make large mistakes and with great confidence, by applying process-of-elimination before they understand the subject matter.
Well, then, the first thing we learned is that when you say “everybody’s” universe, it doesn’t include everybody.
You used a special definition of limited currency to make broad overgeneralizations about a diverse group of people. When called on it, you invoke the No True Feminist fallacy.
- Zachriel | 03/30/2015 @ 07:07The definition Morgan used is not of limited currency. It is, in fact, how the vast majority of modern “feminists” behave. And they do so while still pointing to the dictionary definition, pretending that what they do is the same as the dictionary definition because it wears the same name.
Well, as I said above, and perhaps too long-windedly… either the dictionary is wrong or the feminists are. So if we grant the dictionary term, as cited above, then the modern feminists just aren’t. They’re, get this, LYING.
So, as to the accusation of “No True Scotsman” – it’s completely irrelevant here, isn’t it? Beyoncé uses the word “FEMINIST” during a stage show, and when asked, she quotes the textbook/dictionary. Does the rest of her career hew to the textbook or the behavior of all the be-pantsuited termagants who wish to punish the world for finding them wanting in some fashion?
She’s either “no true dictionary feminist” or “no true modern third-wave harpy.” The thing she can’t be is BOTH. A and ~A can never both be true at once. That’s the fallacy in play here.
- nightfly | 03/30/2015 @ 09:07nightfly: either the dictionary is wrong or the feminists are.
People don’t always fit neatly into boxes. Beyoncé was the first that came to mind, probably because she put it up in lights. She didn’t fit the box of an “ugly/fat/socially mal-adjusted female who stands little chance of getting a good man”. Let’s try some other examples.
Emma Watson: I am from Britain and think it is right that as a woman I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decision-making of my country. I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men. But sadly I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights.
The Dalai Lama: I call myself a feminist. Isn’t that what you call someone who fights for women’s rights?
Amy Poehler
- Zachriel | 03/30/2015 @ 14:36http://24.media.tumblr.com/7cc64057d438325496376716c1b5357b/tumblr_mtsozaiS7h1sorcdso1_500.gif
You used a special definition of limited currency to make broad overgeneralizations about a diverse group of people. When called on it, you invoke the No True Feminist fallacy.
Yeah, it’s a big problem, not just with me.
But back to the No True Feminist thing. I’m counting twice, now, nightfly has explained to y’all what the problem is with that. His wording is clear and his logic is sound. Y’all haven’t succeeded in offering a quality rebuttal; “People don’t always fit into boxes,” far from addressing the problem, amounts to nothing more than a plea for not-defining-things, once the definition has become unkind to liberalism.
And that’s really the problem here. It’s a structural problem. Were the question “Is a feminist nothing more than a person that believes in equality for men and women?” to be answered finally and unambiguously, liberalism would take a huge hit somewhere. Were it resolved in the affirmative, all the “ride-along” parts of the hate-filled agenda would be left in the dust. Were it resolved in the negative, then we’d all have to acknowledge the obvious, that there is a great deal in the content that is not consistent with the packaging. Like many other leftist movements, it retains its veneer of credibility only by leaving itself undefined, and resisting any attempts to define it.
Asking a militant feminist whether the dictionary definition is the right one, is like asking Nixon if he was a crook. Or Barack Obama if He is a Christian.
- mkfreeberg | 03/31/2015 @ 12:19mkfreeberg: Y’all haven’t succeeded in offering a quality rebuttal; “People don’t always fit into boxes,” far from addressing the problem, amounts to nothing more than a plea for not-defining-things, once the definition has become unkind to liberalism.
Huh? We provided a dictionary definition, then showed how it is commonly used in the culture.
- Zachriel | 03/31/2015 @ 14:40We provided a dictionary definition, then showed how it is commonly used in the culture.
And, as I said, some definitions work and some definitions don’t. That one doesn’t work.
- mkfreeberg | 03/31/2015 @ 16:49mkfreeberg: And, as I said, some definitions work and some definitions don’t.
It seems to work. The dictionary, compiled by professional lexicographers provided a definition determined by general usage. We provided examples of how the term is used within society. It doesn’t comport with your own use, but that seems to be because you reside in a bubble of sorts, which has its own language, apparently designed to provide some sort of group identity.
- Zachriel | 04/01/2015 @ 05:54You have shown nothing of the sort. In fact you have neatly rebutted yourself: you offer that “people don’t fit in boxes” and then ignore the many, many boxes that contradict the narrow dictionary definition. And you think Morgan is indulging in No True Feminist?
Plenty of people out there hew to a different practice than the dictionary describes. They use the word that Beyoncé and Emma Watson use; but the use it to meanthings like Smash Patriarchy and “all heterosexual intercourse is rape.” That is not how Beyoncé or Watson behave; they use the dictionary definition and seem to live that way. Your standard Gender Studies graduate signs up for the Pantsuit Patrol and acts quite differently.
Raises the question of why, doesn’t it?
- nightfly | 04/01/2015 @ 07:19nightfly: In fact you have neatly rebutted yourself: you offer that “people don’t fit in boxes” and then ignore the many, many boxes that contradict the narrow dictionary definition.
We’re more than willing to grant that people don’t always fit into neat definitions, and that a political movement is going to include people with diverse viewpoints.
nightfly: but the use it to meanthings like Smash Patriarchy
Well, let’s consider Smash Patriarchy then. They state they are “For those who believe in and uphold the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” Furthermore, they apparently believe there is a patriarchy, meaning rule of the fathers. If so, then obviously smashing the patriarchy could result in greater social equality for women. So even your own example doesn’t support your point.
Your other example is a misquote of a misquote.
- Zachriel | 04/01/2015 @ 07:45http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp
Z: “We’re more than willing to grant that people don’t always fit into neat definitions, and that a political movement is going to include people with diverse viewpoints.”
And then you immediately go about ignoring or dismissing the alternate views. It seems that you claim a definition of your own behavior while in practice doing quite the reverse. That perhaps explains your similar blind spot regarding feminism, but it isn’t any kind of a rebuttal to our argument.
Your Smash Patriarchy rebuttal has, yup, the same problem. “This is the definition of patriarchy so maybe these smashers really do want equality” is, when put to the test, demonstrably false. The Smashers do not want to be equal in opportunity with men; they want to trample them utterly.
And finally, you quote Snopes. Lovely. But I was not referring to Catherine Ann MacKinnon. There are a not-insignificant segment of the Pantsuit Patrol who make this claim; and when we test their behavior against the two competing definitions – the dictionary vs the reality – what does it most resemble? Yup, the desire to defeat men, to make them insignificant; not equality at all but an open conquest. Nor do they make a secret of this.
So. Now that this is out of the way, I would still like you to answer my question. Why the two definitions? Why is it so important for someone like Beyoncé or Emma Watson to make a statement beyond their own flourishing careers?
- nightfly | 04/01/2015 @ 08:18nightfly: And then you immediately go about ignoring or dismissing the alternate views.
We did look at your examples. The first supported the standard definition, while the 2nd was a misquote of a misquote.
nightfly: The Smashers do not want to be equal in opportunity with men; they want to trample them utterly.
If you think there’s a patriarchy, then smashing the patriarchy could lead to greater equality. We provided their statement of principle. Repeating your position isn’t an argument.
nightfly: Nor do they make a secret of this.
While we have no doubt there are extremists in most any movement, you’ve failed to find any to support your contention.
nightfly: Why is it so important for someone like Beyoncé or Emma Watson to make a statement beyond their own flourishing careers?
Presumably to stand up for the powerless. Watson, for instance, is a UN Goodwill Ambassador, and uses that position to advocate for change around the world.
- Zachriel | 04/01/2015 @ 14:02You are truly terrible at this.
The Smash Patriarchy example does not support the dictionary definition, regardless of what you say. People do not talk of “smashing” things they want to coexist with as equals; they talk of smashing things they wish obliterated. And that doesn’t lead to greater equality – nor is it intended to. Google it for five minutes and you will find so many “extremists” that you could begin to consider that maybe they represent the movement, not its fringes. They have entire departments in universities dedicated to this “extreme” point of view; how fringe could it be? Your “statement of principle” was no such thing. Quite the opposite, in fact. It was an explicit avoidance of anything to do with the subject – just your personal supposition that if this unsupported opinion meant that unlikely conclusion then it *could* – your word – lead to greater equality. That’s weapons-grade malarkey and frankly, if you had even the remotest point, you wouldn’t have to resort to it.
My second example, likewise, was not a misquote of a misquote. It is an actual thing. As I said, Catherine Ann MacKinnon wasn’t the subject of my statement. You assumed she was and just went ahead and tossed a link to something that wasn’t what I was talking about. When corrected, you ignored the correction.
The reason I repeat my position is because your challenges to it are pathetic and cannot stand even the slightest scrutiny.
Your supposition about Ms. Watson at least has the slight merit of being kinda, sorta plausible – if you subscribe to the limited dictionary definition of feminism, and further presume that anything *called* “feminism” MUST perforce be an example of it. If you recognize the second, reality-and-behavior-based definition of feminism, then you suspect something else is going on.
In practice, the Pantsuit Patrol isn’t in it for equality, but supremacy. They want revenge against men for every time they preferred other company to their own, for slights real and imagined – and this is not supposition, but observable and empirical. Given this, when Beyonce and Ms. Watson talk about feminism, they have to specify the one definition, not the other, even though their behavior ought to make it clear which they are living by. Again, WHY? To protect the powerless? Not likely given the circumstances. It’s more likely that they are protecting THEMSELVES. The Pantsuit Patrol doesn’t just vent their venom directly; they target the things they see men preferring and go after them as well. Hooters, pin-up calendars, football, the pretty girl who gets the attention they don’t…. simplicity itself. Beyonce and Watson don’t need the same sort of griping the Pantsuit Patrol gave to, say, Kaley Cuoco – like they, a talented, hardworking woman, easy on the eyes, but who made the mistake of saying that she was NOT a feminist and had to do the standard public apology recanting of her heresy.
- nightfly | 04/01/2015 @ 14:46Nightfly,
note that autistics fail the false belief task. So it’s not that Zachriel is a particularly stupid, incompetent troll (though he is also that) — he literally can’t understand your perspective.
- Severian | 04/01/2015 @ 19:32Is it really all just a handicap?
We’re supposed to be discussing what feminism is, but read back. Look what we get. A couple of dry ounces of what Beyonce has done, and much of that not counting because it’s just a .gif file pasted over & over again, followed by a half-ton or so of what I did. Not that much about what feminism actually is, which is supposed to be the focus of disagreement.
They seem to understand that open and direct discussion would not be friendly to the position they’ve taken.
- mkfreeberg | 04/02/2015 @ 04:31nightfly: People do not talk of “smashing” things they want to coexist with as equals
Your example wasn’t smash men, but Smash Patriarchy.
nightfly: Your “statement of principle” was no such thing.
It was their statement of principle, not ours.
nightfly: It is an actual thing.
Heh. We provided lexicographical support, along with prominent people within the culture. After a week, you come up with a blog post on the fringes of the blogosphere.
- Zachriel | 04/02/2015 @ 05:17http://www.google.com/#q=link:witchwind.wordpress.com
The best part is that your example is “the exception that proves the rule” in the original sense of the term. The author bemoans that other radical feminists don’t espouse her position on rape! Hilarious! So she’s not only on the fringe of feminism, but she’s on the fringe of *radical feminism*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
nightfly: In practice, the Pantsuit Patrol isn’t in it for equality, but supremacy.
Never heard of the Pansuit Patrol. Must be one of those secret handshakes used in this corner of the blogosphere to build camaraderie.
Severian: he literally can’t understand your perspective.
Sure. Nightfly has stated that people who describe themselves as feminists either hate men, or don’t understand the term, or are lying.
- Zachriel | 04/02/2015 @ 05:18mkfreeberg: We’re supposed to be discussing what feminism is
Sure. We cited the dictionary, and provided a number of prominent examples of the use of the term in the culture.
- Zachriel | 04/02/2015 @ 05:21It’s not “either/or,” it’s “and.”
Some of it is obviously psychological problems — he/they is either a) a group of people who cut-n-paste the exact same thing under the same handle, or b) one dude who habitually refers to himself in the plural, but either way, it’s frickin’ weird. Normal people don’t do that. That’s weird even for the internet (think about that for a sec).
Some of it is just incompetence — they think they’re artfully dodging; everyone else sees laughable fumbling.
And some of it is legit autism — google “asperger’s symptoms” and “false belief task.”
What the proportions are, I neither know nor care. But as y’all seem to regard him/them as some kind of anthropological specimen, I’m just pointing out that “(what he/they seems to think are) legit arguments” can’t easily be separated from “trolling,” which is inextricably bound up with “autism.”
- Severian | 04/02/2015 @ 05:23Severian: It’s not “either/or,” it’s “and.”
We stand corrected. Nightfly thinks those who describe themselves as feminists hate men, don’t understand the term, *and* are lying. There. That was easy.
We supported our position with lexicographical support, provided a number of prominent examples of the use of the term in the culture, and nightfly has provided the exception which proves the rule.
- Zachriel | 04/02/2015 @ 05:30Aaand right on cue, he shows up to illustrate the point!
A couple highlights:
— He doesn’t understand that my comment was directed at y’all, not him. We’ve all noticed how common these “misattributions” are. Since they’re often accompanied by straw men, it’s natural to assume that it’s a (pathetic) “debate” tactic. But inability to follow conversations is also characteristic of autism.
— He treats Nightfly’s “Pantsuit Patrol” as a real thing. He kinda sorta senses that it’s a figure of speech — dropping pronouns is a sure tell — but doesn’t really get it, because autistics don’t process them very well. So he goes out on the internet, googles “Pantsuit Patrol,” doesn’t find it… and has to mention that. Even a dumb-but-cognitively-normal troll wouldn’t do that.
— He doesn’t spot an obvious logical contradiction. He claims Nightfly’s position is that feminists don’t understand the term, and are lying. One must first understand something in order to lie about it (a false statement about something one doesn’t understand is ignorance, not deception). A cognitively-normal person would’ve spotted that right away. And note that this is actually a two-part error — he’s only making a nonsensical statement here because he didn’t actually follow the conversation (i.e. my comment was directed at you — Morgan and Nightfly — not him).
— And, of course, there’s also the mischaracterization of Nightfly’s position. They claim to believe this is equivalent to “Nightfly has stated that people who describe themselves as feminists either hate men, or don’t understand the term, or are lying.” Strawmanning is SOP for dumb trolls, but with this particular dumb troll, it’s most likely an Asperger’s thing. Which is simple enough to prove — give him a block of text containing your argument, and ask him to restate it in his own words. If he can, then you know he was deliberately creating a straw man the first time (and is therefore just a stupid troll). If he refuses to answer, you can safely conclude that he knows he’s busted (and is therefore just a stupid troll). If he tries and fails, he’s a sperg. (I’ve actually conducted this experiment myself in the past, and he failed, hilariously. Which is why I’m convinced he’s a sperg who is also a stupid troll, but YMMV).
Have fun!
- Severian | 04/02/2015 @ 06:25You’re right, Sev. The program keeps hanging up at the critical step of “This observation is at odds with that statement.” Instead of returning “value = FALSE” and re-evaluating, they rewrite the variable so the observation = the textbook, thus they can return “value = TRUE”.
This makes further discussion very difficult. The same critical error occurs with what we’re saying: it doesn’t match the Established Value of what was expected, so it’s simply rewritten to equal the Established Value, and the subroutine can run – Refutation File 028.xml – and they call it a day. Because the program “runs” in the sense that it doesn’t crash and has no bugs, they are incapable of getting why and how they are so spectacularly mistaken.
I had another largish response trying to explain it. But why, when they’ll just overwrite it in their brain to sound like what they already hear? I will only note that the example I used didn’t take me a week to find – as I said enough and as clearly as possible – indeed, if there was HTML to make it 48-point flashing multicolor with bells on, I would –
IT IS THE EXAMPLE I WAS THINKING OF WHEN I FIRST MADE THE STATEMENT.
It was rewritten to “Oh, MacKinnon didn’t say that,” *beep* return file Snopes Feminism Misquote 65 *ping* End of Line. When I finally gave the link, it was a new input, rewritten to “Oh, nobody agreed,” *click* return file Exception Proving Rule 11 *boop* End of Line.
We all understand, of course, that there is a textbook definition and a reality-observation behavior quite at odds with it; the actual behavior isn’t very nice and is easily understood as garden-variety mean girl behavior, motivated by that Deadly Enemy of Man, Envy. The “all PIV is rape, OK?” lady isn’t rejected because she’s wrong, but because she’s right – and the Pantsuit Patrol doesn’t want it known, for the same reason they fly the false flag of “we just want equality.” All logical, all understood by knowing basic human nature, all in accord with what anyone should be able to see for themselves all around them. Nope, doesn’t match the file, rewrite the variable.
- nightfly | 04/02/2015 @ 11:41Neither Severian or nightfly responded to our comment, so we’ll just add a new example.
Elisabeth Moss: “Feminism is just about believing in equal rights. If anyone believes in equal rights for anyone, I think you’re a feminist.”
- Zachriel | 04/02/2015 @ 12:05http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/kooks-built-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-27311
Nightfly,
as you say. And this is why I wrote to Morgan that this is a “both/and” situation, not an “either/or.” If one is a dimwitted troll, then autism is useful as an emotional defense — he sees that others are having great sport at his expense, but his condition prevents him from figuring out exactly why. “Being crappy at trolling” becomes, Obama-like, “winning!”
[You can test the autism part, if you’d like, by asking him to explain exactly how he knows none of your comment was a response to him. The trolling part is self-evident, but if it’s not, well… I’ve seen you comment on John C. Wright’s blog before. Did you see Zachriel’s cameo over there? After spending hours at Vox Popoli trying to convince everyone Vox is a racist, he showed up at Wright’s pretending to have never heard of this “Vox Day” character. About five people called him on it, but he went on pretending… it was hilarious].
- Severian | 04/02/2015 @ 13:43Here’s a couple more examples:
“A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.” ― Gloria Steinem
Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
- Zachriel | 04/02/2015 @ 14:19Me: *several paragraphs about Z’s comments, including metaphor about rewriting replies to fit preconceptions*
Z: “Neither Severian or nightfly responded to our comment…”
Me: *sigh*
Does any of you have an Aunt Petunia that we can talk with? I’ll try anything. but in this case, again – AGAIN -Elizabeth Moss, well-known actress, easy on the eyes, making a success of herself on her own terms. She says “textbook definition.” Great. All the other people who don’t use that definition, who don’t behave that way? All imaginary? And consider, again, well-known and easy-on-the-eyes actress Kaley Cuoco getting a lot of grief for not paying the lip service? So, is Moss a believer in the textbook, or is she a believer in not having to deal with bitter nutjobs, because she has better things to do with her time?
Sev – Sweet stuttering Moses, I missed that! Wow. That right there must have been worth twice the price of admission.
Right now, I’m having a Riker Moment. Poor guy didn’t get the fairest shake so there aren’t many such moments, but there’s a fine episode where Riker passes out while trying to return from an away mission, only to wake up on an Enterprise where he is Captain, where Picard is an ambassador, where everyone is still in their old jobs after a dozen years that he can’t remember, because he is told he contracted an illness on that away mission that wiped away everything when it was recently triggered.
He accepts it at first, but his honest attempt to live this fake life fails. He has more and more questions, and all the answers are nothing more than reasons why there are no answers. “You got a scar, Worf. What battle? What system?” He doesn’t know. “How long will it take to reach System X at Warp 3? Warp 5? Warp 9?” Data doesn’t know. “Why isn’t my diagnostic done, Geordi? Twenty hours? It would never take you more than four – you are incapable of this level of incompetence.” And when the ambassador wants to know what the commotion is, Riker flatly tells him, “SHUT UP! You can’t explain. Don’t even bother trying.” And of course, he was kidnapped during the beam-up and it was all a simulation.
So when I press for answers about this topic, and find the Z still insisting that the Textbook Definition Simulation is the actual reality, unable to explain any of the discrepancies, unable even to notice that discrepancies exist? SHUT UP. Don’t even bother trying to justify this bullshit anymore. It’s pointless when everybody except yourselves realize that you are hopelessly wrong.
- nightfly | 04/02/2015 @ 14:44Nightfly,
I think that’s why Morgan keeps him around — to see how deep the rabbit hole goes (either that, or a truly admirable dedication to free speech; feel free to correct me, gracious host). As for myself, I concluded long ago that while I have no problem getting the occasional lulz making fun of the mentally challenged, it’s not very Christian of me to enjoy it too much. So I’m trying to quit.
It’s actually kinda interesting, though, to think about how this whole conversation could’ve gone if he wasn’t a trolly sperg. Open Other End said something about feminism being a sorority for fat, ugly man-haters. Despite his well-known inability to string more than three sentences together, Z could’ve said something like “nuh-uh! Beyonce calls herself a feminist, and she’s pretty hot!” Which could’ve gone in all kinds of interesting directions — heck, Beyonce seems to be a pretty savvy lady; maybe she really is a huge fan of Andrea Dworkin, and can pontificate about Judith Butler and intersectionality with the very best Wymyn’s Studies seminar in the land. And that, in turn, could be a fascinating conversation, knowing — as she must — that some significant percentage of her income comes from guys drooling over her….
But we didn’t get that, of course. All we got is a dictionary quotation, and quotes from a whole bunch of very attractive ladies who pay no social cost, and reap great social benefits, from parroting that definition, regardless of their behavior. Which proves…. what, exactly? I’d get laughed out of a freshman humanities seminar if I claimed that Hitler must’ve been super-popular among ordinary Germans because every coffee table in the Reich had a copy of Mein Kampf on it, but there you have it. Call me naive if you will, but I don’t think your average troll is that stupid. It takes actual mental retardation to keep repeating that stuff over and over.
- Severian | 04/02/2015 @ 15:10Severian: All we got is a dictionary quotation, and quotes from a whole bunch of very attractive ladies who pay no social cost, and reap great social benefits, from parroting that definition, regardless of their behavior.
Didn’t know the Dalai Lama was an “attractive lady”. To each their own.
- Zachriel | 04/02/2015 @ 15:49So how did it go over at Vox Day’s? Did you manage to convince him he’s a racist yet? Or are you still pretending not to know who he is?
- Severian | 04/02/2015 @ 16:07nightfly: It’s pointless when everybody except yourselves realize that you are hopelessly wrong.
If by “everybody”, you mean the few who post on this far corner of the right wing blogosphere, then sure. However, it’s rather obvious that the lexicographers at Merriam-Webster, who study the use of words, disagree.
http://imgur.com/gallery/qwgWQ
- Zachriel | 04/02/2015 @ 16:09Which just brings us back to the same point we started, right? The dictionary says X… but in practice a great many people behave at odds with the definition. How are both of these things still called by the dictionary term? Why are some people so keen on pretending that these contradictory things are alike? Why do we pretend, in defiance of all common sense, that it’s “Hate” to merely question some privileged grad student about her Wymmyn’s Studies curriculum, or that it’s remotely comparable to something suffered by Sir Patrick’s mum 70-80 years ago?
And you think that Merriam-Webster, like Moses from on high, has handed down the definition and that settles it in stone, forever? You’ve never heard the term “mansplaining”? Never even remotely heard of anyone saying that men shouldn’t be allowed to run anything, have any say in society? You don’t believe “all PIV is rape” is a thing… but you have, I trust, seen the attempt to paint all marriage as a tool of male oppression of Woman. Why would that be true? How are all women exploited by the marriage and motherhood of any woman, anywhere?
The simplest explanation is the obvious one: they don’t want it openly said, but that’s certainly how they think and behave. It’s not a big step from this long-accepted tenet of 60’s feminism to the idea that intercourse outside marriage is also a male tool to oppress women, unless no males are involved.
- nightfly | 04/02/2015 @ 18:09[…] all should have fun watching our resident Cuttlers twist themselves into impossible mental shapes in the vain attempt to pretend that two contradictory things are, in fact, identical – and […]
- This is my answer, nitwits | Blog of the Nightfly | 04/02/2015 @ 18:16The dictionary says X… but in practice a great many people behave at odds with the definition.
You know, it occurs to me. Perhaps someone’s already pointed it out, and I missed it.
If anybody here is playing “No True Scotsman” fallacy games with the word “feminist,” it would be The Zachriel, wouldn’t it? We’ve got all these “All sex is rape” feminists, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” feminists, “If women ran the world there’d be no more wars” feminists, feminists who make it very clear they don’t think the sexes are the same and don’t want equal treatment…in addition to which, we have the more passive types who are less militant, but still clearly don’t want the sexes treated equally. Feminists who have never quite gotten around to clamoring for the draft to apply to women, who’ve never quite gotten around to clamoring for the more dangerous jobs to be distributed equally among women, feminists who’ve never quite gotten around to clamoring for men to be awarded custody and alimony in half the divorce cases…
It’s the Z who say these are not “true feminists.” Since all real feminists, mesh flawlessly with this dictionary definition, which in turn doesn’t seem to survive its occasional bumps & scrapes up against reality very well.
- mkfreeberg | 04/03/2015 @ 00:43nightfly: The dictionary says X… but in practice a great many people behave at odds with the definition.
We agree that definitions are only approximations, especially with regards to categorizing people. However, we have provided substantial support that many people, if not most, use the term as found in the dictionary.
nightfly: And you think that Merriam-Webster, like Moses from on high, has handed down the definition and that settles it in stone, forever?
That’s exactly backwards. The dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. They determine how people generally use a term to determine the definition.
nightfly: You’ve never heard the term “mansplaining”?
That doesn’t contradict the definition, but is seen as an expression of patriarchy.
nightfly: You don’t believe “all PIV is rape” is a thing
Your own citation contradicted your position. It was the exception that proved the rule.
nightfly: but you have, I trust, seen the attempt to paint all marriage as a tool of male oppression of Woman.
Yes, some feminists see institutional marriage as an expression of patriarchy.
nightfly: The simplest explanation is the obvious one: they don’t want it openly said, but that’s certainly how they think and behave.
Said what? In any case, you don’t describe a political or social movement by its most extreme expression. It would be like finding a racist in the Republican Party and thereby concluding that the Republican Party is racist.
mkfreeberg: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” feminist
That just implies that women can be independent as men.
mkfreeberg: “If women ran the world there’d be no more wars” feminists …
Not thinking the sexes are equivalent in all respects is not contrary to a position of political and social equality.
- Zachriel | 04/03/2015 @ 06:05M: “If women ran the world there’d be no more wars” feminists …
Z: Not thinking the sexes are equivalent in all respects is not contrary to a position of political and social equality.
There is more to the above quote than “not thinking the sexes are equivalent in all respects.” Others have mentioned this before, but geez, y’all are bad at this.
…they think they’re artfully dodging; everyone else sees laughable fumbling.
- mkfreeberg | 04/03/2015 @ 06:44Feminist Majority Foundation: “Feminism n. the policy, practice or advocacy of political, economic, and social equality for women.”
- Zachriel | 04/03/2015 @ 06:56http://www.feminist.org/welcome/
“The name Feminist Majority Foundation is a consciousness-raiser, inspired by a Newsweek/Gallup public opinion poll that showed the majority of women (56%) in the United States self-identified as feminists. Most polls since then reveal that this majority continues with over two-thirds of young women self-identifying as feminists. Most men, especially young men, view themselves as supporters of the women’s rights movement.”
- Zachriel | 04/03/2015 @ 06:56http://www.feminist.org/welcome/
Morgan (and anyone else interested in the real world, not arguing with dictionaries):
No discussion of feminism would be complete without some examination of its effects.
- Severian | 04/03/2015 @ 07:01Morgan, I think I did mention in passing that the Z were going full No True Feminist on us. But of course that was two days ago, so maybe our Cuttlers thought it was an April Fool’s gag.
Z (quoting the Feminst Majority Foundation): “The name Feminist Majority Foundation is a consciousness-raiser, inspired by a Newsweek/Gallup public opinion poll that showed the majority of women (56%) in the United States self-identified as feminists. Most polls since then reveal that this majority continues with over two-thirds of young women self-identifying as feminists. Most men, especially young men, view themselves as supporters of the women’s rights movement.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA
So they focus-tested the name! They found out what people call themselves and NAMED THEMSELVES THIS ON PURPOSE
- nightfly | 04/03/2015 @ 08:54nightfly: So they focus-tested the name!
Actually, it’s a descriptive name, as a majority of women in the U.S. self-identify as feminist. What do you think most of these women think the word means?
- Zachriel | 04/03/2015 @ 08:57Gosh, I was laughing so hard I accidentally tabbed to the Submit button and sent it.
Seriously, you guys are priceless. They picked a name that people liked, so that they could appear to be what the people favored, whether or not they actually lived up to the name and what it meant. I really can’t believe that you don’t notice this, or else decide that this one single thing provides the permanent definition of all else they say, do, advocate, support, march for, and believe. It defies all credibility for you not to notice this.
I bet you think all those “people’s” “democratic” “republic” tyrants really do have free elections of free citizens represented by democratically-chosen delegates – I mean, it’s right there in the name of their country!
- nightfly | 04/03/2015 @ 08:58nightfly: What do you think most of these women think the word means?
A majority of women in the United States self-identify as feminists. What do you think most of these women think the word means?
- Zachriel | 04/03/2015 @ 09:08“A majority of women in the United States self-identify as feminists. What do you think most of these women think the word means?”
A majority of totalitarian bastards self-identify as democratically-elected presidents. What do you think most of them think the word means?
- nightfly | 04/03/2015 @ 09:11A majority of women in the United States self-identify as feminists. What do you think most of these women think the word means?
This is a fascinating mindset. So, a fraudulent sales pitch becomes an honest one, if it’s successfully sold?
I think if we’re going by popular opinion, most thoughtful people would conclude such a test is indicative of how sultry and seductive a fraudulent sales pitch is; not of whether or not it’s honest.
- mkfreeberg | 04/03/2015 @ 09:12Good news! The chocolate rations have been increased from 20 grams to 15 grams! The word increase means more! Rejoice, proles!
- nightfly | 04/03/2015 @ 09:12“What? I ain’t no burglar. I’m self-identify as a Belongings Inspector. See my laminated card? I’m just gonna take your stuff to check it out, that’s all.”
- nightfly | 04/03/2015 @ 09:17“HEY! You can’t kick me out of your house, I gotta lot of Belongings to Inspect! So what it’s 2:30 am? Less traffic on the roads. I have the right to be here, mister. You gotta problem with my work hours, you take it up with Customer Service. Give ’em my card number.”
- nightfly | 04/03/2015 @ 09:18mkfreeberg: This is a fascinating mindset. So, a fraudulent sales pitch becomes an honest one, if it’s successfully sold?
So then, you are agreeing that most of the women use the word feminist to mean social and economic equality of the sexes.
nightfly: What? I ain’t no burglar. I’m self-identify as a Belongings Inspector.
So then, you are agreeing that most of the women use the word feminist to mean social and economic equality of the sexes.
- Zachriel | 04/03/2015 @ 09:25No. We are stating that many people use the word feminist as a ruse, a lie. They behave in the opposite manner but say “feminism” because they know the word is popular. They know that useful idiots will defend them because of it.
Now give all your money to my Official Charitable Foundation, which is clearly named “Charitable.” Don’t you believe in charity? It’s Official! You can trust me!
- nightfly | 04/03/2015 @ 09:40nightfly: We are stating that many people use the word feminist as a ruse, a lie. They behave in the opposite manner but say “feminism” because they know the word is popular.
Of course they do. They also use the word “freedom” or “liberty” or “fraternity” as a ruse or a lie. That doesn’t change the definition of the term, nor does it mean that what most people mean by “freedom” or “liberty” or “fraternity” changes because some people lie about it.
The thread started based on the false premise that the term “feminism” is necessarily a front for a non-egalitarian agenda. This is clearly false, as witnessed by the strong support for sexual equality, and the use of the term “feminism” to describe that support.
- Zachriel | 04/03/2015 @ 09:44So your check’s in the mail? Splendid! I also take PayPal and most major credit cards: MasterCharge, Access, Diner’s Club…
- nightfly | 04/03/2015 @ 10:04So then, you are agreeing that most of the women use the word feminist to mean social and economic equality of the sexes.
Notably, y’all didn’t answer the question. Does a fraudulent sales pitch stop being fraudulent if enough people buy it?
- mkfreeberg | 04/03/2015 @ 10:15mkfreeberg: Does a fraudulent sales pitch stop being fraudulent if enough people buy it?
No. So then, you are agreeing that most of the women use the word feminist to mean social and economic equality of the sexes.
- Zachriel | 04/03/2015 @ 10:20I am?
- mkfreeberg | 04/03/2015 @ 11:04Severian: falling back on “I’ll know it when I see it.”
Courts make these sorts of adjudications all the time.
mkfreeberg: I am?
Why not simply clarify your view. A majority of women in the United States self-identify as feminists. What do you think most of these women mean by the term?
- Zachriel | 04/03/2015 @ 11:08Why not simply clarify your view. A majority of women in the United States self-identify as feminists. What do you think most of these women mean by the term?
Most of these women have bought into the falsehood that it’s all about “equal rights” for women. Or, all of them have. Or some of them have, or none of them have. And I completely accept this; or, I mostly accept this, or I don’t accept it at all. None of that has any bearing whatsoever on
So what we have here is an issue with relevance, and the thing we really need to have clarified is y’all’s view about perception as it relates to reality. From this exchange, once again (since we’ve been here before) we’re seeing a pattern unfold strongly suggesting y’all’s collective sees one as an adequate substitute for the other; even after something is proven to be true, or false, the verity of the proposition seems to be affected by the perception of “most” other people.
Speaking of perceptions, this has to do with why so many perceive that y’all are lifetime college kids, at best, or at worst, an automated Ruby script. There aren’t too many who perceive that y’all have too much by way of substantial, robust experience actually dealing with something, or solving actual problems.
- mkfreeberg | 04/03/2015 @ 15:36mkfreeberg (quoting): The Women’s Liberation Movement emerged from the extreme fringe of anti-American, pro-Communist radicalism.
And Martin Luther King Jr. hung out with communists.
mkfreeberg: Most of these women have bought into the falsehood that it’s all about “equal rights” for women.
What is “it”?
- Zachriel | 04/03/2015 @ 17:59What is “it”?
This is not an English course, it’s a thread under a post on a blog.
And right now, the pressing question is about y’all’s apparent belief that perception has some sort of effect on reality, rather than the other way ’round. It’s an important question because we know y’all aren’t alone on this thing. As I understand the thinking, if a question arises as to whether or not it’s snowing outside, an informal poll will produce the “right” answer every time and there’s no way looking out the window will ever overrule the “final” verdict. So, y’all’s answer to “kooks built feminism,” nonsensically, is invested entirely in what “most of the women” have to say about it fifty years later.
That, and feigning confusion and demanding I “clarify” my “views,” when the views are expressed quite adequately in the three-word title of the post. This all seems to support what we knew already, that we’re enduring needless decades of civil strife and paying needlessly high taxes, toiling away under the tutelage of needlessly mediocre public servants locally, statewide and nationwide, because too many among our fellow citizens are insufficiently invested in what the rest of us know to be reality.
…they think they’re artfully dodging; everyone else sees laughable fumbling.
- mkfreeberg | 04/04/2015 @ 05:54Zachriel: What is “it”?
mkfreeberg: That, and feigning confusion and demanding I “clarify” my “views,” when the views are expressed quite adequately in the three-word title of the post.
So “it” is “kooks built feminism.” That doesn’t parse. You probably mean “feminism” as you construe it. So we have “Most of these women have bought into the falsehood that {feminism is} all about “equal rights” for women.
mkfreeberg: So, y’all’s answer to “kooks built feminism,” nonsensically, is invested entirely in what “most of the women” have to say about it fifty years later.
Okay, so today’s feminism was built in the 1960s or thereabouts. You’re probably using the word “feminism” to mean the movement itself. If so, you don’t seem for allow for how the movement has changed, or how society has changed due to the feminist movement.
- Zachriel | 04/04/2015 @ 07:12http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4l0zvcDixo
That doesn’t parse.
Right. That’s how normal people figure they read something the wrong way, then make a different presumption about context, and try again. If a lot of other people are doing this without too much trouble, and there’s only one reader who remains confused, that’s one of the first signs that it’s the reader bringing the problem.
You’re probably using the word “feminism” to mean the movement itself. If so, you don’t seem for allow for how the movement has changed, or how society has changed due to the feminist movement.
The massive loss of credibility the movement suffered when it chose to provide cover for Bill Clinton’s crimes against women, is outside the scope of this discussion.
- mkfreeberg | 04/04/2015 @ 09:25mkfreeberg: The massive loss of credibility the movement suffered when it chose to provide cover for Bill Clinton’s crimes against women, is outside the scope of this discussion.
As usual, you ignored the point raised. The movement has changed a lot, and society has changed a lot. It might be argued that many of the original goals of the feminist movement have been achieved, at least in the West.
- Zachriel | 04/04/2015 @ 09:27“I was the first woman to burn her bra. It took the fire department four days to put out the fire”. — Dolly Parton
- Zachriel | 04/04/2015 @ 09:47As usual, you ignored the point raised.
It does not seem so. Y’all raised the sub-topic of “how the movement has changed, or how society has changed due to the feminist movement.” and, like it or not, this was the biggest change in the movement since it started, as we know it today. The mask slipped. People figured out it had nothing to do with rights for women, it was just a way to elect, and protect, more leftist politicians.
It certainly is difficult to envision how the problem of male authority figures, exploiting women who are beneath them in the organizational structure, could be better represented than it was in this particular situation. When the “feminist movement” decided to take a pass on saying anything.
- mkfreeberg | 04/04/2015 @ 10:10mkfreeberg: It certainly is difficult to envision how the problem of male authority figures, exploiting women who are beneath them in the organizational structure, could be better represented than it was in this particular situation.
Clinton-Lewinsky? Thought that was outside the scope of this discussion. Seriously, you think that was an actual issue?
- Zachriel | 04/04/2015 @ 11:08Seriously, you think that was an actual issue?
It revealed the priorities that were present in the so-called “womens’ movement” in 1999, and one must reasonably infer, that were present in it from the very beginning: What happens when the interests of the movement, go against the interests of real, live women who have been harassed in the workplace by a real, live sexual predator who has authority over them?
I completely get how there are teeming throngs of loud people on the Internet, ready to ridicule anybody who doesn’t ignore it. Some of them even have names. That’s the “ignore” part of the word “ignorance.” But anyway; it’s a fact. Once the test was applied, everyone was able to see the so-called “womens’ movement” didn’t give a rip about women at all, it cared only about electing democrats and keeping them protected.
- mkfreeberg | 04/05/2015 @ 04:39mkfreeberg: It revealed the priorities that were present in the so-called “womens’ movement” in 1999, and one must reasonably infer, that were present in it from the very beginning
Heh. Monica Lewinsky refutes the entire feminist movement. Sure…
And nothing’s changed for women in the workplace since Mad Men.
- Zachriel | 04/05/2015 @ 06:20https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxZ3A9giyIo
Heh. Monica Lewinsky refutes the entire feminist movement. Sure…
Heh. A fictional teevee show refutes reality.
No, it wasn’t just Monica Lewinsky. In fact, it wasn’t just Bill Clinton. There are many more (troublesome) bits of evidence, from the real world yet, some large and some small, that the movement is all about the movement and isn’t overly concerned about protecting the interests of women. We’re reminded of it every time they take sexist shots at women who don’t help promote the agenda, like Broaddrick, Willey, Bachmann, Palin, et al.
It’s a political movement, as full of straight-white-sexist-male-pigs as any other. The “womens'” part of it is a gimmick. Every now and then, we get a reminder, and some people choose not to pay attention.
- mkfreeberg | 04/05/2015 @ 08:57[…] — academia being what it is — but somebody really ought to study the links between Leftism and autism. It has often been remarked that liberals love “The People” in the aggregate but […]
- Placeholder Post | Rotten Chestnuts | 04/06/2015 @ 08:22