Male-strom in a Teacup
No, not THAT kind of “male study.”
“Men’s Studies” has existed as an academic discipline for several decades now. Not surprisingly, most of those involved in it identify themselves as feminists – as people interested in studying gender tend to do. But not all of them: A couple of years back, a group of mostly anti-feminist academics and popular writers with an interest in gender decided to try to do a sort of end run around the discipline of “Men’s Studies” by conjuring up a whole new, altogether un-feminist discipline called “Male Studies.”
Recently, The University of South Australia announced that it would start offering postgraduate courses in Male Studies sometime in 2014; our old friend Eoghan/Sigil1 brought this earthshattering news to the Men’s Rights subreddit the other day, where it was greeted with … suspicion and hostility.
GotMyFrogHatOn wrote:
Great, now men have the same opportunity as women to waste their time and money on a worthless degree!
Liverotto was even blunter:
YES, because the cure to bullshit is… MORE BULLSHIT! /s
That’s right: Men’s Rights Redditors hate Women’s Studies, and Gender Studies, and apparently every academic discipline with the word “Studies” in it so much that they’ve transferred this hatred to a new academic discipline that could well have been (and sort of was) designed just for them.
But don’t worry, they still hate Women’s Studies the most:
What was I saying the other day about projection?
Posted on May 24, 2012, in antifeminism, crackpottery, evil women, internal debate, irony alert, masculinity, MRA, victimhood. Bookmark the permalink. 495 Comments.
Ruby, you make feminists look bad with your random capitalization of the word and your bullshit, essentialist, erasing statements. If you think we’re extreme or radical, you really know fuckall about feminism.
You could change this by educating yourself, but I fear that might be too much work for you.
Ironically enough, some of Ruby’s statements would be more warmly received on a radfem forum! And others torn to shreds, obviously, but if she’s so fond of essentialism…
True enough, Cassandra. I think she’d manage to irritate the shit out of them too.
Ruby: Sure, Jumbofish, anyone who doesn’t think like you is a dumbass, right? I admire your tolerance.
You could do with being a bit more like jumbofish. You aren’t, “being a dumbass” because we disagree with you, but because you are presenting your opinion as fact.
Historically, when you do that you then abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with you, saving the strongest abuse for those who provide evidence which contradicts you.
If it were so easy to sexually repress people so that they denied their true desires, gay people could learn not to be sexally attracted to people of the same sex. And we all know that’s impossible.
You can repress them so they don’t share those views, or restrict the ways in which they express them. Read Kinsey, or do you suppose that in the 1930-1970s there were just a lot fewer homosexuals in the world?
Can you sexually repress males so much that they don’t find naked women sexually attractive? Somehow I doubt it.
But that’s not what is being said. You are arguing for a comparative difference: Men like looking at naked women more than women like looking at naked men.
That’s not an issue of, “men don’t like”, and no one here has said that.
No matter how sexually free women get, we will never get as exited over a dick as men get over boobies.
Citation needed. So far the only thing we have to support this is your opinion. Want to take a poll of the women here and see how many agree with you that naked men aren’t pleasurable to look at?
You started this trainwreck by making an absolute claim: i.e. naked is not a good look for men; by implication that naked men are unpleasant to look at.
You moved the goalpost to say that men like looking at naked women more than women like to look at naked men.
You can’t prove either claim; the first is completely cultural (and the opinions of aestheticians of previous ages disproves it) and the second might be provable (as a cultural norm), but you’ve not shown any evidence to support it; and I defy you to prove it as an absolute.
Ruby: The fact that men like to look at naked women more than vice versa probably has a lot more to do with women being the fairer sex than sexual repression. I’m not saying men aren’t nice to look at. It’s just that I’d rather view GQ than Playgirl.
What you like isn’t representative of all women.
If you want us to accept the first premise (that men like to look at naked women more than women like to look at naked men), you have to provide evidence.
The middle third is nonsense. “The fairer sex” is a cultural idea. Michelangelo, for example, thought men’s bodies were inherently more interesting than female bodies (and no, he wasn’t homosexual: 1: gender roles were less binary then, and 2: he had female lovers. It was an aesthetic issue, and widely agreed upon that male bodies were prettier than women’s bodies).
Ruby: I’m a Feminist, you people are extreme Feminists. You make Feminism look bad with your denial about the differences in women and men.
I disagree. 1: We aren’t “extreme”. Devout, dedicated, confirmed, but not extreme.
Here is my belief: Men and women are equal. The law, and culture, ought to reflect that.
That’s it.
As to “denial”, prove it. Show where we say they aren’t different.
What we don’t agree with is the idea that these are 1: innately biological for all observed behavioral differences. 2: That you have shown any good science to support the claims you have made in this regard.
Where you are getting the pushback is the ways in which your observation of some cultural behaviors has been transformed into essential truth about the inner nature of “woman”. Moreover, you have the knack of making those comparisons to a male benchmark.
Your views on hypergamy, for example. This thesis of yours is actually related to that one. You argued women like money, and men like looks. That a man with more money was more attractive.
This idea of yours is actually sort of essential to that one. If women find “hot” men hot, then they aren’t really chasing after gold.
If (it’s a big if) you were to put up studies which supported this idea, you’d be getting a very different reaction. We’d probably still disagree; but we’d be doing what we did with the other studies you’ve posted, i.e. examining the data, and the methods.
You don’t link to studies (in general), so the only thing we can do is talk about what you say. And what you say is your personal opinion, which makes it absolutely useless in proving a claim of fact.
ithiliana: There are some significant differences between some of the people who comment here. In the main it seems the less vehement about the issues tend to not speak on them.
I know there is at least one subject I no longer talk about because I know it will be counterproductive, and lead to flaming wreckage all over whatever thread I might take part in.
@Pecunium: Oh, yes, significant differences exist here–but (and this is solely my take on it, and that means my memory, etc.) they seem to be able to be discussed in terms of the ideas, history, etc., not based on personal attacks (and when people are talking about their personal lives, even if they then go on to do fairly uncomfortable generalizations, I still have the sense that, despite the trolldudez chant of ad hominam, there’s less chance the discussion descends into personal attacks based). I remember a few very vehement disscussions, and yes, there are topics I avoid commenting on, but not because I’m afraid of being personally attacked.
I would say, in the main, this is true. But it’s not true on all topics/between all people. It’s rare, but it has happened (at least in my experience).
I did try to avoid saying it was universal! And only my sense. But still, given general internet discourse patterns, the rarity here does stand out!
Yes, this Making Light, Slacktivist.
Those are all places where there is a large, and thriving, commentariat which avoids that sort of problem. Feministe seems to be that way, but I am not enough of a reader to be certain.
My blog is much the same, but lacks the traffic to make it stand out.
“Feministe seems to be that way, but I am not enough of a reader to be certain.” — that seems to depend a lot on the topic, Hugo Schwyzer caused a 1,000+ comment shit storm. Also, while they aren’t radfem blatantly transphobic, they generally need some help in the trans* erasure department.
And then there was that disaster post on Native American identities, that blew up into basically “show me the bodies if it’s still genocide” and someone listing all the friends and relatives they’ve lost (eg went into foster care for no good reason and ended up dead) — that disaster has sent me back to lurking over there actually, that was just a royal mess.
Oh and there was that absurd asexuals versus sex-positive feminism “debate” — that had people calling each other rapists (Cliff, I love your post on enthusiastic consent, I’m saving that as a reference if that shit storm happens again).
Shorter version — feministe is good at this as long as there’s a mod around, and there often isn’t. And sometimes the mod sides with the ad hominems.
Thanks for proving the point feministe >.<
Kill It With Fire
An incomplete list:
Man-jewelry (exceptions: watches and wedding bands).
I wonder if pocket watches are acceptable? (ignore me if this isn’t quite wtf you meant, I really am still bristled over that whole “it’s not genocide, how dare you call it genocide, the holocaust was genocide!!”)
Pecunium — that “small boobs” post was one of those explosions, and you saw how much they were coddling the trolls, they always do that, it’s another corner of the internet women need to “watch their tone” on (at least sometimes anyway, with increasing frequency it seems) — it almost seems like the Hugo fall-out behind the scenes was way more than they let on?
And then stupidity like this, this is a comment from another thread derailed into man-jewelry:
“BTW Jill did put up a pretty comprehensive apology, for those who aren’t following that thread as closely as I am.”
Well brilliant, but I wonder which of the *242* comments it is? The offending line is one of 4 in the post, so maybe link to the comment or something? Buried apologies don’t help any >.<
Now I just sound like I'm complaining about feministe though…idk, maybe I am, I want 2011 feministe back, I warm up to the new theme and the content goes sideways…
@Argenti
I don’t understand what is going on in that feministe post. Why should “man jewelery” be killed with fire? O_o
jumbofish — honestly I think it was just Jill listing things she doesn’t like and phrasing it poorly, and then it blew up because that’s what feministe does these days it seems >.<
I'm not really sure how many of their mods are still modding post-Hugo-fiasco though, Jill has a full time job that isn't feministe, so some of it is just her being at her real job went the shit hits. And idk, I really am still pissed over how that thread about Native American identities went completely to shit (you can see that coming out sideways in my rant at NWO) — that thread got really nasty and there were no mods to be had.
Is there any explanation as to why jewelry on men is supposedly bad?
I feel like there’s this thing that happens on some feminists blogs where “what I like in a man” becomes the One True Path, and any sort of disagreement is taken as a challenge to the first person’s right to like what she likes, and then there’s all sorts of fucked-up stuff said in response, and then other people call that stuff out, and then it just turns into a huge mess. A lot of people seem to have a really hard time grasping the concept that their preferences are neither natural nor universal, and that other people having different preferences is not a direct attack on theirs. I really wish people wouldn’t get so defensive about that, and that they’d refrain from othering groups of men who they’re not attracted to in really fundamentally unfeminist ways, and then backtracking and trying to justify that.
One of the worst clusterfucks I’ve ever seen on a feminist site was started by someone posting something about how she prefers hairy muscular men because she’s not a little girl any more and she doesn’t like little boys and it’s just natural to outgrow any preference for men who aren’t hairy, or who’re thin, and that just looking at men who don’t have chest hair makes her feel like a pedophile. I did point out that that’s a rather racist attitude to have since there’s an entire continent where on average men are not very hairy, and problematic for that reason even if you ignore all the other problems, but she didn’t want to hear it.
CassandraSays — I’m looking for Jill’s apology comment now, but it looks like the blow up is more over “did you just imply all men are cis men?” (among other issues) — I do agree this one probably could’ve been avoided with an “I think that…” in there.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminist?s=t
Nowhere in the definition of, “feminist” does it mean that one has to believe men and women are wired the same. So who the fuck are you people to say I’m barely a Feminist?
Found Jill’s apology — looks like she was just annoyed at stuff and venting with badly chosen words.
There’s another hundred comments after the apology, so idk, still skimming.
The “I like X” problem was probably how that asexual/sex-positive feminist thread went so completely to shit though.
Feministe has always been prone to giant angry clusterfucks, though. Not sure why, but it’s one of the notable features of that particular blog.
And from left field Ruby’s back. It’s the traditional gender roles, not the brain wiring. Reread Pecunium’s comment.
Shut up, Ruby.
Cassandra — I’m reading some of the comments after Jill’s apology, and I blame the same asshole I wanted to strangle on that NA thread. Run a find on R.Dave and you’ll see what I mean >.<
When it's not letting the trolls take over I like it, but it seems like lately the trolls outnumber people willing to swear at them (and pull gaslighting/derailing "watch your tone" shit 3 times in the same thread — that “small boobs” post)
I’ve tried to block out my memories of that discussion, but I believe the asexual/sex-positive Feministe thread went to shit because somebody started up the “asexual/sexual relationships are abusive to those with sexual attraction” nonsense, and then someone else started the “why would asexuals want a relationship anyway” nonsense, and then it snowballed.
Ruby – seriously consider reading this book. Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine
Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference
No one ever said that men and women are alike, but this idea of hardwired gendered behavior is a whole lot of bullshit.
lauralot89 — that sounds about right. One of? The only? asexual on that thread was variously accused of lying or rape (because “I wouldn’t consent if I knew my partner was just pleasing me”) — people were actually comparing a lack of enthusiastic consent to rape by deception >.<
Oh and slut shaming, not wanting sex yourself is slut shaming also made an appearance. It was just a damned disaster. As is "kill it with fire" why has R.Dave not been banned? Can we at least mock him outright then? I think the lack of banhammer around here only really works because “misogyny, we mock it” — no need to try playing nice to the tone police and that shit. (and no going to mod queue for saying shit!)
I think R. Dave actually was banned in the Kill it with Fire thread. At least, I thought I saw a post saying such. Maybe it was just wishful thinking on my part.
I’m not done with it yet, so here’s hoping you saw right!
lauralot89 — you are correct! Excellent! His comments on this thread had truly grated my nerves. It gets bad around #114, and turns to total shit by #173 (the infamous “you’re minimizing genocide” argument), and then #193, Native Americans have higher suicide rates because tribal practices are inherently abusive — mind you I lack tribal practices because of USA policies regarding Natives 100~ years ago, and I’m pissed, I can only imagine how much he upset Native Americans (I kind of get the “let’s bred white women out of existence” logic, it’s the same logic that’s been successfully breeding Native Americans out of existence)
And since this topic apparently cannot be broached without a disclaimer — I’m not saying white Americans are committing genocide, but that the UA gov’n is (slow, systemic, but genocide all the same) — great, now I’m fuming at R.Dave again, I just had to review that thread? >.<
Ruby, just fuck off. Your pseudosciencing ass isn’t wanted here, and you are enjoying it what happens whenever your stupid-ass beliefs go on display. Just leave.
You know, I took classes about feminist history as part of my political science classes, and I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as Extreme Feminism (sponsored by the X Games, maybe?). There’s radical feminism and socialist feminism and liberal feminism and environmental feminism and Marxist feminism, even Maoist feminism, but somehow we did not cover Extreme Feminism. Maybe Ruby can dig up someone talking about it on YouTube,
Maybe it’s like radical feminism but without the transphobia? Which, to Ruby, reads as men and women are “wired” exactly the same in all ways? (um, it doesn’t really work like that, but assuming the brain is hard wired is the least of the issues)
Extreme Feminists is a Rush-Wing of the Conservative Movement phrase.
It’s related to Feminazis.
Argenti: Pointing Ruby to a comment of mine is pretty much a wasted effort. For some reason she has always pretty much completely ignored me.
Ruby does rather remind me of a less articulate version of this laughing stock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers
Ah, well, you make actual points, which would require her to make actual points in response, and I don’t think she really has many of those that she can back up. Opinions, sure, but how much would we care if she’s state them as opinions? She doesn’t find penises (penii?) attractive, well ok then? (She seems to ignore me too, or maybe she just doesn’t ever reply to people directly *too asleep to tell*)
Argenti: Penes.
It bothers me that I know that that makes it 3rd declension not 1st…I haven’t tried reading Latin in almost a decade and never knew this shit all the well to begin with >.<
Thank you though
err…second, not first…I just called penis a feminine noun, I should maybe go to bed… (and this is kind of moot since it’s apparently sitting out there in 3rd declension land) — It is a miracle I passed Latin btw.
Ruby, I don’t care what science says about average differences between men and women, you’re wrong. You’re saying women don’t like to look at naked men, and I do. And I know many women who do too. So when you tell us women are this or that, you’re erasing completely our existence.
Do you not see how that is extremely bad feminism?
Ruby: I top your dictionary definition with a BETTER dictionary definition:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/
Why do you care so much about what people here think of you in relation to feminism?
Look at how many flying fucks are not given at your claim that we make feminism look bad (a claim often thrown at feminists by misogynsts), or that we are “Extreme Feminists” (not a sport I’m interested in).
Here’s the bottom line: as long as you keep spouting a patriarchal discourse like “all men and all women are inherently/essentially different” (and thus all women are alike), feminists are going to be judging you, some of them hard.
That’s life.
Ruby’s consistently evaded the issue of where queer people and trans people fit into her little schema. I suppose that’s better than saying horribly wrong things about them or brushing them off with “well you’re just a rare exception to everything,” but it shows a severe lack of willingness to question yourself.
And it’s hard to call yourself a feminist when you’re completely ignoring or erasing millions of women because they don’t fit your ideas.
It’s bad feminism to ignore science. Or call it pseudoscience if you don’t like the results. And personally attack fellow feminists because they don’t toe your particular belief system.
Also, there’s nothing about being wired differently that says we can’t have equality.
It’s bad feminism to ignore women’s experience. Our experience contradict your blankets statements. Or do you think we all lie? Calling yourself a feminist doesn’t mean we owe you any particular respect after all you’ve said.
Ruby, you can toe whatever belief system you want, you’re still a shitty feminist. At this point, you really have no leg to stand on and tell us what’s bad feminism.
Science does not consist of “calling things science.”
It does not consist of things that involve big words and fancy equipment.
It does not consist of any activity that involves Designated Science Subjects like genetics and neurology.
It consists of rigorous observation and testing of reality, without making assumptions.
Most often, in the case of the studies you cite, the actual science is okay, but the conclusions are spun up in the news. That study you showed earlier showed that men’s and women’s brains appear different under fMRI when viewing sexual images. That part was science.
However, taking that information and then using it to say “therefore women aren’t turned on visually, which makes sense because it’s widely known in the making-things-up-about-cavemen community that cavewomen weren’t interested in cave porn” is ludicrous. That’s not science. That’s pure speculation. Nothing has been rigorously tested in that statement.
Science also involves being honest about the limitations of your research. You don’t assume that what’s true for rats will be true for monkeys, and you don’t assume that what’s true for some straight cis women in modern Western society is true for every woman everywhere ever.
@Ruby: It’s good feminism (i.e. good critical thinking) to question everything, not automatically accept SCIENCE (especially given that there is BAD science).
There are feminists doing science, and it’s possible to talk about feminism science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Feminism_and_science
Feminism practiced by human beings will involve critique and questioning of others practicing the same thing–and sometimes, because feminists are human beings, that will devolve into personal attacks. And taking a historical-cynical view, it’s possible to say that feminists were attacking each other from the get go along all sorts of axes of identity and issues–the purge of lesbians from NOW, the sex wars, the debates over racism in feminism. If you think feminism means uncritically pressing to one’s bosom and calling her sister anyone who says “I am a feminist,” then you know jackshit about actual feminism in action. The fact that you keep claiming you are being personally attacked when, for the most part, the critiques are aimed at your ideas has been extensively documented by Pecunium, so I’m not bothering to refute that.
OTOH, you also seem unwilling to acknowledge that YOU have attacked others. Mote, beam, eye, check it out.
I do wish that you could quit reciting “wired differently” as if it fucking meant anything when it comes to human brains and our incredibly new, not very sophisticated, fumbling around in the dark when it comes to neuroscience.
And, as I said way back when, I really think it’s depressing how afraid you are of differences AMONG women (ditto among men, I guess, but then as evil feminist, I don’t care about men all that much). What a boring monotone sad little life your statements reveal.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/are-men-women-wired-differently
Research shows men’s brains don’t work the same way that women’s brains work. More than being a factor of cultural differences or upbringing, it’s because the sexes are simply wired differently from birth.
THE WORD “SCIENCE” IS NOT A MAGIC SPELL THAT MEANS YOU DON’T HAVE TO THINK
It used to be “science” that black men were less intelligent than white men. Do you accept that with a shrug and “well, if it’s science than it’s true, but hey, they can be equal even though they’re different!” or do you admit that science and its interpretation are done by humans and can be flawed?
So do trans people not exist?
Men and women’s brains are wired differently. Science has proven it. So why get your noses bent out of shape at the suggestion that the genders don’t have the exact same sexual responses?
And now that I think of it, how does it make any sense to say “naked men don’t look good” if your belief is that the difference lies in people’s brains? Couldn’t gay men see each other as sexy?
And how do you even define ‘men’ and ‘women’ in this context? Can queer gendered men or women sexy? What about transwomen, is the “I find you hot” factor in our DNA, in our hormones?
Do you realize you act like MRAs toward science? You only accept what you think support you point, often don’t consider the source and don’t analyze properly what you link. We didn’t ignore science, several people responded to your link. It says:
Science has proven some differences between men and women under some circumstances.
Saying that this proves men are ugly and women only get wet from fat stacks of money is just taking the science and MAKING SHIT UP.
Just because the shit you make up has a tenuous connection to science doesn’t make it science itself.
HEY RUBY HOW ARE GAY AND TRANS PEOPLE WIRED
SCIENCE ME UP SOME SHIT ABOUT THAT
REMEMBER TO CALL IT SCIENCE
SCIENCE MEANS AUTOMATIC TRUTH
“So why get your noses bent out of shape at the suggestion that the genders don’t have the exact same sexual responses?”
Do you really not understand that I can’t accept “naked men are not sexy” because I am a woman* who find a number of naked men sexy? Am I lying? Stop reapeating your mantra and answer a few questions.
*and far from being the only only one
Maybe we just need to fight fire with fire here.
Ruby, there’s some new science that shows that a lot of apparent differences between genders are actually socially constructed, and highly variable between genders.
This science was conducted by very important-looking men in white coats.
They used large words and sounded very sure of themselves.
Why are you arguing with this science?
Ruby
Did you notice the science articles, journals, etc. that said you were wrong?
Did you forget last time you were quoting “science” and claiming a few anthropologists, except you didn’t even understand their work?
Can you even accept that individuals are wired differently?
Ruby, this is my most important question to you. Do you have any clue what the word ‘generalization’ means?
Oh, fuck this. I’m going to ignore Ruby’s ignorant ass from here on out even if it means grumbling “What the FUCK?!?” at the cats.
Her and NWO should get together. They both furiously resist knowledge or anything that counters their poorly thought out, blinkered worldviews. Match made in hell, right there.
Ruby, fuck off.
No, it hasn’t. Remember how I was literally hired by NIH to review brain anatomy research?
Later, I worked with neuroscientists on an image processing workflow that performed some of the morphological operations and averaging that I was talking about upthread, to estimate overall brain anatomy.
So I’ve not only literally worked on the exact data that would be used to prove that there are gender differences in neural anatomy, but I’ve also been hired by the agency that funds biomedical neuroscience in the US to help make funding decisions on projects that would assemble the necessary data into to databases so that it could be used to find this result.
As a reviewer, if someone was going to, say, publish a paper claiming that neural anatomy fundamentally differs between biological sexes, I’d be looking for where the data came from and what analysis was done, before I’d make a recommendation to publish.
So let’s get it on the table. Where’s your data, and what’s your analysis?
Oh, wait, you don’t have one. You would get exactly nowhere in the scientific community with your claim. Once you have some data and an analysis, you would get further–you’d get to the review panel. Then your data would have to be collected with appropriate controls, and you’d have to have a coherent analysis. And if your conclusion contradicted earlier results, you’d have to cite those in a way that shows that you understand them and did a better job collecting and/or analyzing data.
If you don’t want to do all that, but still want to make your claim, you have to find someone who did all that and cite them. The problem with your current citation is that study that you cited the article about doesn’t actually make the claim you think it does.
tl;dr: science is a real thing that you have to do.
Ruby might also want to consider that the extent to which 1970s white feminists focused entirely on “all women are alike, all women suffer the same oppression, we white women will help all women” ended up in some pretty racist spaces (i.e. the focus on abortion without any concern for forced sterilization, lack of prenatal care, and lack of access to medical care which is more related to the axes of class and race than gender).
Intersetionality, let us try it!
Ruby, do you think finding one more link to a site that does not in fact say only “all women are wired exactly alike and not like those men” will convince people here given the pattern of you give us link, and people here with more training in the sciences point out the errors in the reporting, the errors in the study, or the sheer lack of claims you claim are made?
Why do you keep doing the same thing over….well, I guess I should ask why I keep doing the same thing over and over again too.
Hmmm, Ruby, do you LIKE this kind of attention?
WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE, PEOPLE? WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF THE TRUTH?
CLEARLY RUBY HAS ALL THE ANSWERS AND WE SHOULD CROWN HER QUEEN.
because your sources are invariable of the lowest quality and show a fundamental lack of understanding of what science is. it’s not even the lazy generalizations that are annoying any more, it’s your pig fucking ignorance and total disrespect for scientific inquiry
ruby has Brave Truth-Teller stamped all over her. hell yes she gets off on this shit.
@Sharculese: Yep, I’m coming to think so–which means the most effective response is…………….NONE!
I will try to sit on my hands next time.
Ruby: Men and women’s brains are wired differently. Science has proven it. So why get your noses bent out of shape at the suggestion that the genders don’t have the exact same sexual responses?
1: SCIENCE has not proven it. Some scientists have argued it.
2: We are perfectly fine with the idea that men and women could be wired differently.
3: It’s quite possible women and men have different sexual responses
3a: That isn’t what you said (and you have not linked to any studies which actually show this).
4: It’s your specific claim about how women don’t like looking at naked men which is in dispute.
5: It’s not really about you. Honest. Get over yourself. It’s about how you are turning in piss-poor work that any decent high school teacher would grade with an F. Then you rail that if we just accepted how you were right we’d see this was the bestest paper ever.
Ruby: It’s bad feminism to ignore science. Or call it pseudoscience if you don’t like the results. And personally attack fellow feminists because they don’t toe your particular belief system.
QFT
“Physician, heal thyself”.
You can’t say you’ve offered, “Science” here. Moreover people have asked for science. You refuse to offer any; or when you find a study which superficially resembles what you’ve claimed “is true”, you expect us to just take your word for it and admit that you were right and we were wrong.
All the while ignoring any of the studies we provide.
That’s dishonest.
Then you call us evil and small-minded because we don’t adhere to your belief system.
NWO does all that shit too. You’re just less directly insulting about it than he is.
Seriously Ruby, start with the book I recommended. Read it before you keep doggedly repeating your evo-psych/hardwired differences talking points. The science may surprise you.
…things I’ve learned today:
@Ruby Hypatia – there are only ugly straight men and hot straight women, who are different. Science has proven it (note to self: check Judd Apatow’s scientific credentials). I look forward to related discoveries science will make such as the planets of origin of these disparate groups.
@Cliff Pervocracy – cavewomen weren’t interested in caveporn. It’s sad how our ancestors lived. It’s a shame that we have to live exactly the same way, and feel the same way about things. And why? Science.
@xavan512 (the redditor quoted in the post) – the Feminist Industrial Complex is most interested in perpetuating violence against women. Anything to keep lining the pockets of Big Feminism.
…therefore:
I’m rich and powerful, like all feminists, which will help since rent’s coming up. I’m not interested in porn… which will hurt my career significantly since I make porn. And from now on I have to pick a gender not just for myself but for my bed partners, and they can’t be the same… decisions, decisions.
I feel like it needs repeating, because I still don’t know if Ruby noticed.
The study DID not revealed women never enjoy looking at sexy naked dudes, it revealed their frigging amygdala activated less when looking at the pictures. Don’t you see the difference?
Are you also calling the women in the study liars? Were they imagining being aroused?
You need to understand that even if you – and maybe all the women you had talk about this subject before today – never got wet by looking at a naked man, that doesn’t mean you can project that onto all of us.
The fairer sex is just a cultural idea?! LOL! Sure, and the peacock being fairer than the peahen is just a cultural idea. Really you guys, what alternate reality are you living in?