Stop your sobbing (or expect to get paid less, ladies)
Quit it with the waterworks, lady!
I’ll give Sofia, the antifeminist bloggress behind the blog Sofiastry, credit for one thing: unlike a lot of Men’s Rightsers, she doesn’t deny that there is a wage gap between men and women. She just thinks that it’s justified – that women should be paid less.
Why? Well, I admit I don’t quite understand her explanation, which has something to do with women getting worse grades in school, working less, and, well, whatever the hell she’s trying to say here:
women who are likely seen in executive and higher-earning positions are estrogenically flawed in their lack of sufficient desire to prioritize family life. Its the equivalent of a man who has no creative, intellectual or ambitious drive — all hallmarks of testosterone.
Oh, and because, like Barbie, women think that math class is tough:
can it not simply be reduced to the fact that the average man has more of of an aptitude for finance and numbers than the average woman?
No, I’m pretty sure it can’t.
In a followup post, Sofia raised a critical issue that she somehow had overlooked in her earlier analysis: women are a bunch of blubbering crybabies.
I couldn’t count on one hand the number of times a female co-worker cried on the job (myself included), but I couldn’t name a single male (homosexuals excluded & even then…). Women are more emotional, more likely to take days off for such reasons (or no reason) and quantifiably put in less hours on the job. Depending on the field, I’d also wager that women are less likely to revolutionize an industry or make the same amount of exceptional contributions men do.
Seriously, gal. Don’t be a bunch of Lady-Boehners. Stop all of your sobbing! (Oh, oh oh.)
Posted on September 14, 2011, in antifeminism, antifeminst women, misogyny, MRA, reactionary bullshit. Bookmark the permalink. 421 Comments.
Let’s not forget that Sofia was a blogger at GIRL GAME, the blog that was supposed to be the female version of Roissy, inspired by him.
Her, Bhetti, Lil Gil and a few others tried their damnedest to fit in over at his blog and get his approval, some even posting pics for ratings. When that never happened they created their own blog, but not as a counter to his half-baked and hacked theories, but as a “supplement” or “complement” thereof.
Its like Hestia and other “homesteading housewives” over at The Spearhead. They are desperate to prove NAWALT (I’m Not Like That! Please Love Me!) and get male approval.
On top of that Sofia is desperate to fit in with White people, hence her HBD talk, even though she belongs to one of the minority groups that HBDers don’t like.
Identity issues much? I’d say so.
Pecunium, I’m sorry for that. I was in the mode of “in house yelling at troll in a libertarian setting” where [i]GTFO of my movement, asshole,[/i] was appropriate, not a mixed setting where “No no, guys, you don’t get it, little anarchistic left-libertarians like me are DIFFERENT, so when you say libertarian you should really mean US” could be interpreted – Crucial failure of context, and I deeply apologize. I know I’m part of a fractured, divided movement, and voiced like mine are far from the loudest, or even audible.
P.s – I’d love to discuss that Lind article after I do mom stuff? Forums?
Here’s the deal, guys. Basically, Rutee wants to be able to piss and moan about every little instance of misogyny she can possibly suss out, but doesn’t want herself, women in general, or feminists in general to have to do any inconvenient soul-searching about their own misandry in return. So while hating on men isn’t okay per se… it’s also not that big of a deal, so don’t get too worked up over it, gurlz.
I say again, Rutee, this entire argument is imbecilic and moronic because you are factually incorrect, by any dictionary. Go invent your own word.
And Pecunium, yes, some words have multiple meanings. “Fuck” for instance, has two, and you’ll find both in any dictionary. Misandry, on the other hand, has just one meaning. It’s not Rutee’s fantasy definition.
And furthermore, Rutee’s definition is at odds with the actual one. It’s basically a way for her to say “That’s not actually misandrist”, when, going by the dictionary’s definition, it is. So we’ve got two contradictory meanings, one of which was dreamed up by some feminist victim fetishist living in la la land, and one in Merriam-Webster. I know which one I’m going with.
Open a thread, and I’ll try to spot it. I don’t spend much time in fora, but I’ll look for it.
I’d like to see you provide substantiation for your points, you grand idiot. Hell, if you’d like to claim you actually have a serious objection to the studies I linked already, be my guest. But you have to actually come up with substantive arguments, and I think we both know that’s not going to happen, because if you could do that already you would have.
I’d like to see you provide substantiation for your points, you grand idiot.
Look, jackass, it doesn’t matter what “substantiation” I provide for my points, you’ll just say they’re wrong. It doesn’t matter what studies I use to support me, you’ll just say they’re flawed, and all your friends here will automatically agree with you. I’ve been here long enough to see how this works. So why bother? Why do you think I said I’d like to see you support your views in a place which isn’t a yes-man echo chamber for feminism? But we both know that’s not gonna happen either, so forget it. Personally I’m done with this pointless argument.
Pecunium: Go to Stormfront.org and try making a persuasive, well-documented argument that all races should get along as equals for a change. Let me know when you’ve won them over. Then I’ll do the same here.
Hengist: If you think this forum is that closed-minded, why bash your head on the wall?
The thing is, what happens here is substantively different.
Rutee didn’t actually say you couldn’t defend CONSAD. Rutee said that just citing it won’t cut the mustard. If you think you can analyse it in some way that will actually show that the wage gap is non-existent, you are free to try.
You have your work cut out for you, because you are going to have to take the data, and find a way to look at it which is 1: rigorous, and 2: substantiates a different conclusion than the authors of the paper came to.
Good luck with that.
But, if the wage gap is so non-existent as the anti-feminists purport, then there ought to be any number of studies which aren’t CONSAD, which support you.
But you aren’t willing to do that. You are going to play the internet version of, “you’re all a bunch of meanies, so I’m going to say I won, take my ball and go home.”
Fine, if you want do that, it’s your privilege to pull a cop-out. It’s ours to point it out for what it is.
If I can, yes. If I can point out obvious flaws in a study, it is, and this may be weird to get, obviously flawed. Take CONSAD; it tries to conflate part time and full time workers and erases benefits packages from consideration. Guess which gender was more likely to be part time within a profession (And take a flying leap as to why), and guess how much benefits packages mater (Even at the lowest levels of income). Then, *AFTER ALL OF THIS*, it still finds a wage gap, just ‘not a large one’, at 13%.
Find studies that lack obvious flaws. Point out the problems with mine, if you’re so sure you can find a substantive argument against them.
Oh HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO.
Are you familiar with the atheist community? Because I’ve defended and expanded feminism successfully within it. And that is now what any remotely reasonable person would consider a ‘yes-man echo chamber for feminism’. Funny how those who claim someplace is an echo chamber never seem to be able to offer actual arguments, claiming instead they are drowned by the multitude of voices. It’s as if we can cut off your posts halfway.
“Hengist: If you think this forum is that closed-minded, why bash your head on the wall?”
Now that is a good point.
“But you aren’t willing to do that. You are going to play the internet version of, “you’re all a bunch of meanies, so I’m going to say I won, take my ball and go home.”
Er, not really. More like “this is pointless and not worth wasting time on.” If you want to treat it as a victory, feel free. I’m sure those guys who spend their days arguing about how Star Wars ships could totally kick Star Trek’s ass also feel like they “won” when a normal person walks away.
The wage gap exists alright! The problem is that you can’t, and won’t ever be able to convincingly prove, or demonstrate, that the wage gap is a result of gender bias. Every differing job has a differing rate of pay, every different company pays a differing rate of pay to other companies. Every worker works differing hours to the others. The longer a worker works with the same company (think maternity leave) the more rises in pay they earn. The more over-time a worker works, the more pay they receive etc etc etc. How many variables are there exactly?, and yet people can claim with certainty that “men are paid more than women”: it isn’t true and it can’t be proven to be so.
See, that’s a cute trick, but no. You didn’t shake your head and walk away initially; you made fact claims about the state of the world. You said feminists were wrong. When approached with studies, and told you were going to have to do better than your movement’s flagship on the matter (And you do, because your flagship study against the wage gap is, to continue the metaphor, taking on water and has half the bilge pumps disabled), you huffed and said that obviously the playing field wasn’t level. That isn’t a normal person choosing not to engage; that is a spoiled child who wanted to win whining that it isn’t being handed to them.
Look, you obviously aren’t willing to let this go, so I’ll just stop giving you material. You’re right about one thing, shaking my head and walking away is what I should have done from the beginning.
qwert, this is blatantly false. BLS statistics control for experience, as do others. One study specifically of academia found that it was at 7%; pretty good, but still a gender bias, and along with construction is one of the most gender-equal fields.
And you know, Ig otta say as a feminist? The wage gap is quite frankly the least of my worries. The Promotion and Hiring gaps, as well as the difference in who gets to work full vs. part time, is FAR more important to the distribution of wealth in the USA, if much less sexy to discuss.than the wage gap. And those hiring and promotion gaps are specifically controlled for by experience; women still are less likely to be hired and promoted (So are non-white people in the USA)
GYOW: ur doin it wrong. <{:D
@ Rutee
“qwert, this is blatantly false.” – I disagree, and am confident that you can’t conclusively prove otherwise.
Thanks, I’m doing pretty good GMOW! I’m not here to start a fight, It just irks me when I hear people talking about the “wage gap”. I know that all the evidence says that women earn less than men on average and I don’t dispute it: it’s just that it can be no more proven that this is based upon discrimination whether through promotion or hiring or firing, than it could be proven that men with white hair earning more than men with black hair are doing so because of discrimination. One thing that these statistics and studies do not include is personal choice, i.e. I choose to work this job or for this many hours because it’s my choice to do so.
Apologies if this is not the discussion at hand, I haven’t read all the comments here.
The GYOW is to hengist.
If you specifically mean that it the wage gap is not due to INTENTIONAL discrimination, then I am inclined to agree, I just don’t give two fucks. If you do a racist thing, I don’t care if you mean to do a racist thing. What matters is that you have done a thing that makes it harder for a particular racial minority to get ahead, in a small way. Intent is meaningless to me, in the face of this.
And yes, this applies to the wage, hiring, and promotion gaps by gender too. That people are probably not intentionally being misogynist does not mean they aren’t substantively being so. It’s just not important, since this isn’t really the blame center.
@ Rutee
I don’t think it’s about intent though, it’s not INTENTIONAL discrimination or any other form of discrimination. Either men earn more than women, women earn more than men or they both earn the same. Whatever circumstances dictate this, one of these must be true. I think that it’s far too complex a set of variables to simply focus on gender and say that this is the reason “women” are paid less than “men”. To even begin to try and classify a man as one of the “men” and a woman as one of the “women” would be utterly ridiculous.
Yes, if you only ever had individuals on hand, that would be an absurd proposition. You would have to study large populations, preferably controlling by field, and most ideally, by experience….
Good God, man, be less solipsistic. It sounds too simple, except it’s what you’re left with when, even after you control for other factors, you’re left with a gap between the genders. Even if the only evidence we had was a clear wage gap within professions, given that the hiring, promotion, and FT/PT gaps are substantiated on their own grounds, can you really pretend that it’s groundless to say that the gap in wages, by gender might be due to discrimination?
@ Rutee
The gap between the genders is not in doubt, it’s the reasoning behind this gap. And the reasoning behind this gap is far, far more complex than simply saying that women are being discriminated against. I’m not even saying that the discrimination doesn’t exist, I’m saying, that from a scientific perspective, it’s wholly impossible to prove that it is does exist, and if it did, that it would be the main cause for the effect.
“except it’s what you’re left with when, even after you control for other factors, you’re left with a gap between the genders”
Why do you assume that the gender of the subjects is the thread that binds them together? Why not their race or religion etc etc etc?
What does intent matter? It’s completly irrelevant to the question.
Usually when you detect a strong statistical correlation between gender and a low wage and you’ve corrected for other factors, you tend to think gender might have something to do with it…
WAIT!!! I had my own personal internet stalker! Now he’s going his own way. And I never got to meet him in person. How can I go on now?
I’ll be all alone without someone cross referencing my manboobz/pandagon/pharyngula/dailykos/myspace/livejournal/facebook accounts to trace me down through my crazy racist nephew!
I haz a sad. :(
@ BlackBloc
You are right, intent doesn’t matter, as I said…
“it’s not INTENTIONAL discrimination or any other form of discrimination.”
Intentional or unintentional it’s, in my view, not discrimination either way.
Are you stupid? Science isn’t about proving things true. It’s about failing to disprove something repeatedly. You don’t disprove a hypothesis with empty conjecture; you disprove it with studies. As it happens, for race that’s been attempted; women still do worse. For class that’s been attempted; women still do worse. Ad nauseum. If within these categories women do worse, and women do worse in the general population, and if in other similar fields we *can* control specifically for gender and have found it to have a strong factor, than the most concise explanation that fits the evidence is that there is also discrimination on gender grounds themselves in pay, absent data which demonstrates this to not be the case.
Not sure if trolling or just stupid. You’re asking why I’m looking at gender as the factor when, after controlling for experience, hours worked, and profession, there’s a gap in gender? Because that is itself strong evidence that *GENDER IS A STRONG FACTOR* you nitwit. There’s evidence that race is a factor as well, but women within a minority almost always, if not always, do worse than men within that minority.
@ BlackBloc
“Usually when you detect a strong statistical correlation between gender and a low wage and you’ve corrected for other factors, you tend to think gender might have something to do with it…”
And do these studies mentioned provide and detail a breakdown of race and religion for each gender? Or are these studies conducted with the intention of discovering if discrimination exists based solely on gender?
Qwert, you’re playing the “Invent a confound” game. That’s not how it works. Just because you can speculate on a confound doesn’t demonstrate the confound is meaningful. You do’nt actually understand how science works if you think the name of the game is to prove something true. Confirmation ist rivial; failure to disconfirm after repeated attempts is substantially more interesting.
@ Rutee
You are confusing cause and effect. The effect being that women earn less than men, the cause being that women are being discriminated against based on their gender. The effect can be demonstrably proven, the cause cannot. That is my point. It is useless even to point at studies, there are no studies that factor in all of the significant variables. It can’t be proven one way or the other.
Incidentally, ways to substantiate your confound may have been a factor:
Checking demographic data to show that, more or less, there are substantially fewer white women than there are white men (And conversely that there are more non-white women, proportionally, than there are non-white men, and that this is true to a statistically significant degree).
Checking to make sure religion has a strong economic effect to begin with, that there is substantial discrimination based *solely on religion* (Good luck with that, because it’s mostly against ethnic minorities; white people who practice are just weird, in general), then demonstrate that again, religions that make less money have substantially more of the total population of women. Etc.
Absent data like this, there’s no reason to take your confound as remotely accurate until you demonstrate its accuracy yourself with a specific study
Petulant Qwert is Petulant. “If I say the confound matters, it does, and I don’t have to demonstrate my case”. You don’t understand how science works if you think science proves things true. It fails to prove them false; the difference is *CRITICAL*.
I don’t get to say “Climate Change studies are on hold and useless; their predictive power is nil, until they prove Cheetos aren’t the real source of AGW” unless I have a serious evidence that Cheetos are themselves a factor in AGW. There’s no reason to think that religion is a factor at all, and there’s precious little reason to think that *race* can account for the gender gap. You find the confound, you substantiate it, I’ll put the hypothesis on hold. Til then, you’re just a puling child who refuses to cede that you’re wrong.
@ Rutee
Please, enough with the name calling, it isn’t called for.
I can’t prove that the wage gap is not based on discrimination any more than you can prove that it is, and that’s my point. It can’t be proven to be the case. I don’t think that the wage gap has more or less to do with race or religion, my point is that it can be no more proven these things are more or less a factor than gender is. There’s nothing petulant about that.
@ Rutee
Anyway, it’s been nice talking to you.
’till the next time.
Just took a bunch of comments out of moderation; scroll up to read them.
MRAL, I’m taking you off moderation.
Foolish solipsism deserves mockery.
Your point is that you’re trying to claim science works in ways it doesn’t. We have a mechanism, we have data supporting it, we have nothing disconfirming it, it dovetails with findings in other, similar problems that *can* have those things controlled for, and it the explanatory mechanism can account for all the data. Absent evidence disconfirming it, there is actually no reason to think the gap isn’t discrimination by gender.
Again, Cheetos and AGW. If science had to go on hold until it eliminated every potential confound any idiot could dream up, it’d never get done. But only a confound with potential evidential support is a serious problem absent a study that specifically demonstrates the confound was a factor. I told you how to go about establishing that confound to the degree that I feel it would put the hypothesis on hold. Your response was to clam up and continue to say “Well I can’t DISPROVE it.” Yeah, I know you can’t prove your point; that’s why I extended the challenge to substantiate your claim. If you actually had evidence that it wasn’t the case, you’d have offered it. But you don’t, and we do have evidence substantiating mine. If you can’t even establish your confound is meaningful, then your moronic speculation is pointless.
Also, not particularly going to rush to make sure we defend and protect White People. The majority isn’t hated, dude. This is like pretending “White people can’t dance” is as harmful as “black people are criminals”.
But not by sociological textbooks! And when discussing societal effects, sociologists are the group who’s opinions I care about most.
Well, you’re kind of stuck because unfortunately for you, it’s abundantly clear that you’re trying to claim that misogyny and misandry are actually equivalent problems that cause equivalent harm when they occur. You’re not going to get away with that here, to say the least.
Minor clarification:
I was using his definitions for misogyny and misandry. Basically, he wants us to treat sexism against men and women as equal problems, when one actually disadvantages the majority of its class, and the other doesn’t. In a word, no. It’s idiotic to treat them as actually equal problems. Problem sto both fix, sure, but I gotta be honest, I can’t see sexism against men ever needing the same priority (What with the majority quickly moving to salve perceived injustice against men).
P.S. “I’m not one of *those* Libertarians!” sounds a whole fucking lot like “I’m not one of *those* Christians!” from where I’m sitting.
Actually, I think she’s more saying “he’s not a Libertarian”, the way we do when ppl regard Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann or others as a “feminist”. xD She’s even slamming him down, not ignoring him and arguing with us that NALALT.
This is something I’ve always found hilarious about NWO xD What about him says anti-statist anyways? He says the word “state” a lot but it means as much as “Jew” means to racists… after all he thinks feminists run the state too. xD He seems to actually LOVE the state a lot (as I’ve pointed out in the past). He wants them to solve ALL his problems, he’s anti-abortion, anti-queer people, anti-transition, etc… anti-other-people’s-lives-and-choices basically. Doesn’t sound like he wants a state-less society. I’ve tried to probe him more about how this works but he dodges like woah xD I don’t think even he understands what he believes.
Oh and NWO…. me, Ozy and Summer Snow, have a kwestchun for you! :D
Hengist: Er, not really. More like “this is pointless and not worth wasting time on.” If you want to treat it as a victory, feel free. I’m sure those guys who spend their days arguing about how Star Wars ships could totally kick Star Trek’s ass also feel like they “won” when a normal person walks away.
Ooooh. I’m hurt. You compared me to a Science fiction fan and said I wasn’t normal.
I’m not “claiming a victory”. I’m saying you picked a fight, and when you weren’t winning you said, “hey, I quit,” while saying it was over a point of intellectual dispute, and pretending that we aren’t willing to argue in good faith.
qwert666 The wage gap exists alright! The problem is that you can’t, and won’t ever be able to convincingly prove, or demonstrate, that the wage gap is a result of gender bias. Every differing job has a differing rate of pay, every different company pays a differing rate of pay to other companies. Every worker works differing hours to the others. The longer a worker works with the same company (think maternity leave) the more rises in pay they earn. The more over-time a worker works, the more pay they receive etc etc etc. How many variables are there exactly?, and yet people can claim with certainty that “men are paid more than women”: it isn’t true and it can’t be proven to be so.
That’s why statisticians do regressions, and compare rates of pay across several variable; to control for the problem of x vs. y. But when you have a large enough population, you can spot actual trends.
@Cynikal–
Barca (Dawn still tend bar there), huh? I miss that place and Seattle in general, but was always more of a Bad Juju kind of girl.
MRAL: Ah… you are trying to be a prescriptivist, and conveniently the definition you describe means exactly, and only, what you want it to mean.
And you’ve used it in exactly the way Rutee uses it, but right now that makes it impossible for you to beat up on the people whom you want to beat up on.
So… I’m not convinced.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people who say they’re libertarian are actually just control freaks. They want the world to run according to THEIR rules. They don’t want anyone in charge of them, and they don’t really want to be in charge of everyone else, they just want for everyone to do things they way these supposed libertarians think they ought to be done.
They mostly don’t take the time to examine their beliefs or preferences, because if they did, they’d realize that most of their beliefs are in direct opposition to each other.
I’d find them more entertaining if so many of them weren’t in positions of power in North America.
Well I actually think misandry is a far more widespread problem than misogyny, but I think debating about that is just a big fucking waste of time here.
Secondly, I’d like a link to a non-feminist, reputable sociologist(s) or a sociological journal that defines misandry and misogyny as based on societal harm. Otherwise, I think you’re talking out of your ass.
So let’s accept your (incorrect) worldview for a second. Let’s say misogyny is a bigger problem than misandry (again, it’s not). So what? That makes absolutely no difference in our argument. You’re saying sexism towards men, for some reason, has to cause large-scale problems to be termed “misandry”. That is not the case. I don’t give a flying fuck about anything else. Game Over.
Pecunium, seriously, are you a fucking idiot? It’s not *my* definition. Again-
Definition of MISANDRY
: a hatred of men
That’s the only given definition, by the way. There’s really not a lot of room for interpretation. If you hate men, you’re a misandrist. If you make that known through any means, you’re practicing misandry. It’s really that simple. Rutee is somehow trying to say that it’s only misandry if there are… large-scale repercussions to this hate. I mean, really? Is my hating trees going to cause them to wither and die the world over? No, but I’d still hate them. Likewise, if some bitter female divorcee in Connecticut kicks some random man in the testicles for being male, there aren’t going to be repercussions for men the world over. But she’s still a misandrist, and has committed an act of misandry. Jesus Christ.
Secondly, I’d like a link to a non-feminist, reputable sociologist(s) or a sociological journal that defines misandry and misogyny as based on societal harm. Otherwise, I think you’re talking out of your ass.
Are you going to define “reputable”? Because last I heard, you’re still an undergrad.
Robert Jensen doesn’t count.
What are some examples of misandry? Top end and bottom end?
MRAL: Well I actually think misandry is a far more widespread problem than misogyny
Really? You think, (based on your definition?) that more people hate men that hate women.
And, since it’s merely a question of, “hates men” who cares? Does this hate have some manifestation?
Oh, wait, that would be the definition you deny.
Secondly, I’d like a link to a non-feminist, reputable sociologist(s) or a sociological journal that defines misandry and misogyny as based on societal harm.
What’s stopping you from finding it? You are at an institution with .edu domain, so JSTOR is wide open to you. I’ll wager you have some top-flight referece librarians whom you can ask to help you in the search.
Pecunium, seriously, are you a fucking idiot? It’s not *my* definition. Again-
Definition of MISANDRY
: a hatred of men
And your definition is counterproductive to your argument. It requires that “misandrist” behavior be the result of actual animosity to men.
Are you so fucking clueless that you can’t parse the simple logic of that.
Because you are taking the systemic issues, and trying to make the issues of intent. Hatred of men, as opposed to systemic bias against men.
The definition you are trying to use is worse because it means you can’t call things, like the draft, misandrist, unless you can prove it’s done out of hatred for men .
I don’t, quite, agree with the example you give. A single attack isn’t dispositive. If she went kicking every man she saw in the balls, that would be. A sudden lapse, not.
But it’s irrelevant. You’re definition isn’t consequence based. If someone passed a law that said, “only women can be president” and the justifications were based on things that had nothing to do with male hatred, it’s not misandrist; by your definition
You’ve increased your burden of proof.
Stamping your feet and saying, “they are misandrists, because you say so. Good luck with that. I reccomend you try it in an ethics class, or Philosphy 101. Get back to us.
Really? You think, (based on your definition?) that more people hate men that hate women.
NO, NOT BASED ON MY DEFINITION. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS THE DICTIONARY’S DEFINITION, NOT MINE. SECOND OF ALL, THE DICTIONARY’S DEFINITION OF MISANDRY IS “HATRED OF MEN”. THE DEFINITION DOES NOT INCLUDE WHETHER SAID HATRED IS MORE COMMON THAN MISOGYNY. I HAPPEN TO THINK IT IS, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEBATE, WHICH IS WHY I DON’T WANT TO GET IN AN ARGUMENT ABOUT IT. CLEAR? HOLY FUCK.
Oh, wait, that would be the definition you deny.
No it’s not. Rutee says that only a manifestation of hate that has “large-scale consequences” counts as misandry. A manifestation of hate can be minor and inconsequential, in my opinion. Say a group of housewives talk about how useless men are. Not a big deal. It happens regularly, I’m sure. No men are going to be hurt by them talking that way. But it’s still misandry. Rutee would have us believe it’s not.
What’s stopping you from finding it?
I don’t think I will find it, because I don’t think it exists. I’m not a major, but I’m taken two basic sociology courses, and I never ran across that definition.
And your definition is counterproductive to your argument. It requires that “misandrist” behavior be the result of actual animosity to men.
Well… yeah. I mean, I’m sure it’s not always *conscious* animosity, but yes, to be misandrist one needs to have some level of animosity towards men, in some capacity.
The draft’s misandry is debatable. On one level, it can be seen as a relic from a society that believes men simply make better soldiers. That’s not misandrist. It still sucks for men, but it’s not indicative of hatred. On another level, you can argue that the draft is a result of a culture of male disposability. That is misandry. Unconscious misandry, but still.
You’re definition isn’t consequence based. If someone passed a law that said, “only women can be president” and the justifications were based on things that had nothing to do with male hatred, it’s not misandrist; by your definition
It’s not possible to pass that law without misandry. It is by definition misandrist.
It’s not possible to pass that law without misandry. It is by definition misandrist.
How is it,”hatred” of men?
What is the requisite hatred of men? What if it’s that’s men’s inherent aggression, and the way Alpha’s are all that ever get elected, and the entire point is to overthrow the “Greek System”.
That would be doing it out of a sense of the injustice of the present system.
Your definition requires actual malice for something to by misandrist. Hatred is, by definition, a conscious emotion.
What’s stopping you from finding it?
I don’t think I will find it, because I don’t think it exists. I’m not a major, but I’m taken two basic sociology courses, and I never ran across that definition.
So the entire discipline of Sociology doesn’t understand the meaning of the word?
Or perhaps the dictionary isn’t up to date?
Look, Pecunium, it’s not my job to do Rutee’s research for her. Presumably she has run across that definition, since she came in here talking about it, so I’m asking for a link to it.
What if it’s that’s men’s inherent aggression, and the way Alpha’s are all that ever get elected, and the entire point is to overthrow the “Greek System”.
As I’ve said once before, I subscribe to the notion that contempt and prejudice are a form of hatred of men- or, at least, a hatred of aspect(s) of men. Thus, an assumption that men are “too aggressive” implies a hatred of this supposed “aggressive” aspect of masculinity, which is hatred of men.
And STOP saying “my definition”. It’s not “my definition”. It’s Merriam-Webster’s very, very simple, four-word definition.
“MRAL, I’m taking you off moderation.”
But not me?
Hmmpf!
@Hellkell
Yet you can’t provide evidence. Hell, you think harsh language against *you* is misandry. And have yet to show harsh language against *you* is systematic and widespread against all men.
Yet you never do. Grow up. You have personality problems. The system isn’t out to get *you*, you’re just too self absorbed to actually understand people don’t like you because you suck at behaving.
MRAL: It’s your definition because it’s the one you are using. Language isn’t a platonic ideal. It’s a consensus activity.
Impact doesn’t mean affect. Children are reared, not raised.
Booked are lend you a book, I don’t, “borrow it” to you. Money is lent. Due to is different from because, over is not the same as more than, I am doing well, not good (unless I am making the world a better place). People move quickly, not quick.
All of those are the way the dictionary defines things, and they happen to be they way I use words, but language isn’t static.
Wench doesn’t mean, “woman”, nor is “boy” something you dare call a white man in Mississippi, unless you are a cop.
More to the point, you have already said that using any source you don’t like doesn’t count.
So this comment, from Allan Johnson you will dimiss, out of hand, because you define him out of the realm of, “reputable”
… “misandry” has no place in a male-identified, male-centered world. Moreover, Johnson states: “And it takes almost no criticism at all in order for men to feel “bashed,” like it’s “open season on men.” In fact, just saying “male privilege” or “patriarchy” can start eyes rolling and evoke that exasperated sense of “Here we go again.” (Allan Johnson, “Privilege, power and difference,” p. 197) “Accusations of male bashing and man hating work to discredit feminism because people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people. Given the reality of women’s oppression, male privilege, and some men’s enforcement of both, it’s hardly surprising that EVERY woman should have moments when she resents or even “hates” men.” (Allan Johnson, “The gender knot,” p. 107
Why? Because he uses the word in a way that MRAL, Lord of the Lexicon, Lictor of Linguistics disagrees with.
MRAL: Look, Pecunium, it’s not my job to do Rutee’s research for her. Presumably she has run across that definition, since she came in here talking about it, so I’m asking for a link to it.
Bullshit, this is what you said, “Secondly, I’d like a link to a non-feminist, reputable sociologist(s) or a sociological journal that defines misandry and misogyny as based on societal harm. Otherwise, I think you’re talking out of your ass.
You didn’t ask for a source, you asked for a source that wasn’t one you don’t like. Until, and unless, you explain who is, “reputable” and justify why you (the admitted non-sociologist) exclude them, your conditions are just a way to avoid having your pet definition shown to be nothing more than the way you make misandry mean what you want it to mean.
Pecunium, you’re just being an smug, obtuse douchebag. Linking to Feministing.com or an excerpt from Andrea Dworkin or Robert Jensen would merely confirm that a certain strain of feminists has repurposed this word to operate within a larger societal context. I think we all know that. But, by saying “sociologist” as opposed to “feminist” Rutee has implied that it’s not just an obscure feminist idea, but a more mainstream one. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to, in turn, ask for a non-feminist link.
By the way, that was a whole lot of philosophical bullshit that amounted to absolutely nothing. No, language isn’t static. That doesn’t mean you can take a word and immediately redefine it to something that is actually AT ODDS with the current accepted definition as written. Well, I mean, you can, but don’t expect anyone else to go along with you.
I’m a sociology major and, yeah, the common use of the term is in line with Rutee’s definition.
Let’s see a quote, then. Also, sociology is a fucking waste of time.
Does anyone else get the sense that MRAL is actually… calmer? Trying harder, maybe, with less keyboard smashing? o.O
MRAL: But, by saying “sociologist” as opposed to “feminist” Rutee has implied that it’s not just an obscure feminist idea, but a more mainstream one. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to, in turn, ask for a non-feminist link.
Ozy: I’m a sociology major and, yeah, the common use of the term is in line with Rutee’s definition.
MRAL: Let’s see a quote, then. Also, sociology is a fucking waste of time.
Which you can, of course, determine from having taken two (count them! TWO!) courses in it. If you think that an entire academic discipline is “a waste of time,” why did you demand that Rutee find you examples of its practitioners talking about sexism? Is it so that you can move the goalposts some more?
Smug? No. Punctilious, perhaps; pedantic, if you like, but…
smug
/smʌg/ [smuhg]
adjective, smug·ger, smug·gest.
1. contentedly confident of one’s ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent.
I didn’t link to feministing, or to Dworkin, I didn’t even link to the Urban Dictionary (which disagrees with you, but nevermind).
I linked to a sociologist. I didn’t link to him before because you (smugly) attempted to pre-empt him.
Rutee has implied that it’s not just an obscure feminist idea, but a more mainstream one. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to, in turn, ask for a non-feminist link.
Define “non-feminist”.
By the way, that was a whole lot of philosophical bullshit that amounted to absolutely nothing. No, language isn’t static. That doesn’t mean you can take a word and immediately redefine it to something that is actually AT ODDS with the current accepted definition as written. Well, I mean, you can, but don’t expect anyone else to go along with you.
It wasn’t bullshit. Language is part of what I do. I’ve been making a living using it for longer than you’ve been breathing (and yes, there is a bit of smug in that. I am content, and confident in my superiority with language, at times I’ve even complacent. I’ve earned the right to be a little smug. That’s because I’ve studied language, and rhetoric, and put them to use in the world).
I am old fashioned in many ways (lend/lent, my; almost certainly hopeless, rearguard action in defense of the adverb, my english habit with words like apologise, etc.) and I am mixed user of the doctrines of the prescriptivist/descriptivist schools of definition.
I own more dictionaries than you’ve had birthdays.
So lets see what Webster’s New International had to say about it, in 1957: dislike or disesteem of man by by woman — opposed to misogyny That opposed is important. It makes it the flip side of misogyny: i.e. the two are inextricable in connotation.
So, as misogyny is defined as systemic, and has to do with effects, not motive, I have the dictionary on my side; at least as much as you do. Moreover, I have the usage on my side.
But… we can put your last passage to the test too…
Who agrees with me on the definition?
Who agrees with MRAL?
SC, I’m taking you off moderation too.
Point of Pedantic Order: It wasn’t philosophy I was using in the post you called bullshit, it was linguistics.
If you want to insult me/a discipline you will look better if you abuse the right one.
Okay it’s pretty obv MRAL will dismiss ANYTHING ppl show him. xD So you first MRAL. Tell us what sources we CAN use that you’ll accept?
Say a group of housewives talk about how useless men are. Not a big deal. It happens regularly, I’m sure. No men are going to be hurt by them talking that way. But it’s still misandry. Rutee would have us believe it’s not.
What if a group of men talk about how useless women are? That’s misogyny right? :3