>
Wisdom from misterb, aka misterbastard, taken from a discussion on The Spearhead on “Academia and the Politics of Peer Review,” which quickly degenerated from an idiotic discussion about the evils of academia into an idiotic discussion about how women are stupid, selfish and evil. (Isn’t that how discussions on The Spearhead always go?)
Anyway, the wisdom:
I hate to say this. Feminism dumb down society.
Misterb make feminism mad! Feminism stomp misterb!
More wisdom:
In my opinion. Women should never be allowed to hold degrees in soft sciences. And there should be no degrees in regards to soft sciences.
Just because a woman holds a degree to some cheap laden science or bad science. It doesn’t make her smart, but in fact it has an opposite effect. it makes her downright stupid.
There’s different between knowledge and wisdom. And today’s lacks both of them. Only thing she’s good at is being worthless
In another comment he corrected what he evidently saw as his one and only mistake in this final paragraph: “today’s” should have been “today’s woman.”
Yep, that oughtta fix it.
I’m sorry, but idiots going on about their intellectual superiority: always funny. Always.
>Yes, David, you said "sometimes I mock." You didn't explain that when you mock, you aren't necessarily mocking the whole MRM. You just said that sometimes you mock.
>You know, when I write about an individual MRM, my critique/mocking doesn't necessarily apply to every single person in the MRM. This should not be a difficult concept. Sometimes it applies to lots of MRMs, other times to only a few, or even one. It should generally be fairly clear which.
>Pam, The feminisation of educatation is well documented and real, in the UK boys recently out preformed girls for the first time in 15 years. Why? Because the old method of testing, competition based testing was used rather than course work and conformity making a basis for sucess. You argument up there is the standard one for feminist, the bottom line is that boys are inferiour but if I point to women of the past not doing as well as boys you will say that was down to systemic bias. The truth is the education system played to boys strengths then and now its based around playing to the strengths of girls. We have piles of studies ans articles about this. You dismiss it out of had as paranoia bscause it doesnt fit your world view.And I do believe that the whistle blowers and feminist researchers with a commitment to real research as opposed to ideology comfirming pusedo research and polmics are the more credible of the two groups, for obvious reasons. Its flat eathers v's scientists.
>Ive posted this comment in response to Davids source's piece called "The intellectual space to be anti male is necessary and desirable" because of the likely hood that it wont get past the mod.http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/03/30/the-intellectual-space-to-be-anti-male-is-necessary-and-desirable/#comment-412431By the same logic, “the intellectual space to be anti female is neseccary and desirable”.I’ll cite the female dominance in child abuse and how that inflates the number of abusive and dysfunctional adults later in life. I'll also point to female relational violence amongst themselves, female domestic violence particularly where its most common, in lesbian relationships and the fact that female consumerism is creating the market for most of our waste, pollution and overseas exploitation.As you see, that same logic can be used to justify space and hate for polmics against any group, its been done before, most notably in Nazi Germany. That entire post, is just a weak justification for the prejudice and bigotry that feminism runs on.
>@David Futrelle:"You know, when I write about an individual MRM, my critique/mocking doesn't necessarily apply to every single person in the MRM. This should not be a difficult concept. Sometimes it applies to lots of MRMs, other times to only a few, or even one. It should generally be fairly clear which."Ouch, the prose hurts! Make it stop!MRM = Men's Rights MovementMRA = Men's Rights Advocate
>Way to read conclusions into what I said that do NOT coincide with my worldview! Maybe you oughta take off those biased "feminist=anti-male" reading glasses. I absolutely DID NOT say that boys are inferior, nor do I believe that boys are inferior. But by the same token, I don't hold a strictly dichotomous worldview that says "boys are not inferior, and therefore, boys are superior" or the same view about girls.What I DID say was that there are some proposed "antidotes" to the notion that the education system is feminised that, if you follow the "logic", make a good case for why males shouldn't hold such high positions if the truth about males is that they can't sit still and focus or concentrate for more than five minutes. I'M not the one saying that boys are inferior, what I'm saying is that some remedies proposed by pro-male researchers and academics are actually quite anti-male and make boys appear inferior if you follow the logic."The truth is the education system played to boys strengths then and now its based around playing to the strengths of girls." You say that immediately after saying that I will say that women not doing so well in the past was due to systemic bias. You've so much as admitted that it WAS due to systemic bias, the education system having played to boys strengths then. What I would say, according to my worldview, is why does the education system have to play more to boys strengths than girls or vice versa. And why must we hierarchialize various strengths or disciplines as being superior/inferior and hold that these hierarchies of strengths are a truism throughout everything in all situations.I wish I had more time to discuss my worldview with you, Eoghan, but it will have to wait for another time, as I have other obligations that I have to attend to right now.
>PamBoys in general being boisterous, needing competition and physical play is not inferiority but, and you've as good as said that you think that it is. Heres an article about a study, the findings are that female teachers and attitudes much like yours are holding boys back…"Women teachers are holding back boys by reprimanding them for typically male behaviour, according to a study out today.They are reinforcing stereotypes that boys are ‘silly’ in class, refuse to ‘sit nicely like the girls’ and are more likely to indulge in ‘schoolboy pranks’.Women teachers may also unwittingly perpetuate low expectations of boys’ academic achievement and encourage girls to work harder by letting them think they are cleverer".Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307856/Boys-held-women-teachers-gender-stereotypes-reinforced-classroom.html#ixzz143eCFgAc
>John, thank you for pointing out my typo in the most pedantic way ever.
>@OPThe funniest part, besides the author's lack of English comprehension (which is more sad than funny, imo), is that women are assumed to be in the "soft" sciences. I got this stereotype over at Paul's site – that I must be a social worker or something – um, no. I have a B.Sc. And I've heard more than my fair share of these stereotypes that women can't be in the "real" sciences or be engineers. Not to mention sexist jokes about the women's inferiority in math, science, etc.Such BS. At least we've come far enough (Or at least some members of society have) to be a bit more civilized – I've heard too many older women engineers/scientists' stories of constant blatant sexism and "jokes" by their own professors! At least I had women to look up to in my field. 🙂
>TecMaths and science at the highest levels are generally dominated by Aisan and Jewish males. Generally, most men and women hover around the intelligence mean, but the extremes, high and low are dominated by men, also men and women generally make different choices. Thats why men dominate certain areas and women others. Its just politically correct heresy to say so, the commandments dictate that we pretend that there are no real differences.
>@EoghanUm, no? Nice generalizations about Asians and Jewish persons though. It depends on population demographics and the general access to education. It's similar to saying black people inherently dumber because they don't dominate academia when in reality they simply aren't given the same opportunities. Women don't dominate the Maths and Sciences because women are pushed out by the boy's club. It's well documented that women do not do as well on math tests as men. Neither do blacks do worse than their white counterparts. And it only seems men dominant. Judith Polgar has a higher IQ than Bobby Fischer. You're just trying to justify your own beliefs that women are inferior to men but they're based on straw man arguments.
>*dominate
>No, Eoghan, what I said is that there are articles researched and written by academics, intended to help provide solutions to an educational system that is said to be failing where boys are concerned, that ACTUALLY SAY that males are not capable of concentrating or focusing on anything for more than five minutes at a time. What I am saying is that that is a very narrow view of males, and could probably be detrimental if you follow that to its logical conclusion.Believe it or not, girls are ALSO naturally boisterous, need physical play and are competetive. It's called "being a young, energetic child". And if you think that boys are discouraged from being their natural selves, it's probably more greatly discouraged in girls, from an age long before they enter school. Conformity is not something that only boys must contend with, girls must learn how to be "proper young ladies" from an early age, whereas with boys, there's just a lot of tongue-clucking and headshaking, but "boys will be boys". When a girl is being what people call "a tomboy" (and hoping like hell that she'll grow out of that "stage" and learn to be a lady), she's being in her most natural state as a young person. And if she grows up more inclined to choose math or sciences over homemaking skills, so be it. And if a boy grows up more inclined towards cooking or baking over math and science, so be it. But no, we can't have that, because then she will grow up masculinized and he'll be effeminate. I say "let kids be kids" or "let people be who they are" instead of putting people in boxes of who they are supposed to be, which limits many from reaching the potential of who they COULD be."Women teachers may also unwittingly perpetuate low expectations of boys’ academic achievement and encourage girls to work harder by letting them think they are cleverer."Perhaps the girls ARE more clever than they think they are (which is NOT saying that they are or are not more clever than the boys). An interesting study was performed using IQ tests and male and female subjects' predictions of how they would rate on the IQ tests and how they predicted members of the other sex would rate. Females consistently underestimated how they thought they would score, and overestimated how they thought the males would score. The males consistently underestimated how they thought the females would score and overestimated how they thought that they would score.
>Pam:Link to study on IQ please (if you've got it).
>PamThey are not saying that boys are incapable of concentrating, thats just your intrepetation and slant "boys are incapable".What they are actually saying is that if male physical play and comeptition is demonoised and conformity and obedience are rewarded, boys will have excess energy, lose interest and feel like they are the "bad ones". PC attitudes dont allow for differences and so repress them. Another important point I think is that boys have a longer maturation period than girls, so they will be at different stages of development than girls of the same age. I'd like to see your source on the IQ as the results seem to conform to feminist type thinking and as IQ is another area which has been used to promote the feminist agenda. Im talking about jusifing a female bias in education through dishonesty/patriarchy comspiracy theory (eg. Susan Faludi's fictional Backlash), as well as that, the outcome and the recent independent study I posted seems to fly in the face of the results you mention. If anything, society, education and media has been awash with girls are better than boys memes and "research" for decades now. I take a psychology class for my own pleasure, only the other day our professor said, "we wont get into putting men down, because we have men in the class". Feminist misandry is very present in education, aside that personal story of mine, it has been well documented as you say by academics. Of course, feminists dismiss and repress the work, on political grounds." I say "let kids be kids" or "let people be who they are" instead of putting people in boxes of who they are supposed to be, which limits many from reaching the potential of who they COULD be."I agree with you there, giving people the freedom to chose rather that measuring outcomes generated by differeing choices and labeling them as something that needs to be fixed through coercion is more of an anti-feminist, mens movment or real/liberal feminist position than it is that of a modern/faux feminist.