 |
| Making a list, checking it twice. |
Periodically, in the comments here, someone will post a dubious list of “evil feminist quotes” they have found on some Men’s Rights or antifeminist website. These lists are always faintly ridiculous, filled with decades-old quotes from a handful of radical feminists (most notably, Andrea Dworkin), most of whom have been soundly criticized by other feminists and whose ideas have been rejected by the majority of feminists today. The lists also tend to be very sloppily put together. When I’ve gone to check the accuracy of these lists, I’ve invariably run into problems — one quote may have come from a character in a novel, another may be a quote that doesn’t reflect the author’s own point of view, and so on.
Recently, one of the antifeminists who regularly comments here (Cold) posted a link to one such list, helpfully titled “Hateful Quotes From Feminists.” It’s fairly typical of these sorts of lists: many of the quotes are decades old, there are ten quotes from a single radical feminist — yes, Andrea Dworkin — and the list is sloppily put together.
I decided to give this list a fairly thorough fact-checking. And the results were, well, more or less what I expected, which is to say that the list was a sloppy mixture of truth, half-truth and outright falsehood.
The story, in brief: Some of the quotes I checked were indeed accurate — or mostly accurate. But several quotes were simply imaginary, or uttered by fictional characters; one was a complete misrepresentation of what the author was saying; two were paraphrased, which is to say, words put in the mouths of feminist authors by feminist critics; some were from obscure or anonymous sources, and in a few cases it wasn’t clear if those quoted were feminists at all; several were improperly sourced. There were a number of quotes that didn’t specify where they were from, and which turned out to be impossible to check. And then there were a couple of quotes which were not actually hateful at all.
I didn’t check everything in the list, but –if you have the patience for it — let’s go through what I did check, as a sort of case study in the shoddiness of much antifeminist propaganda.
Let’s start off with the very first quote:
“In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, p. 129.
We’re off to a bad start here. This is not a quote from MacKinnon. The words were in fact written by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, the actual authors of “Professing Feminism,” a polemical book critical of feminism. They purport to summarize the views of MacKinnon and Dworkin, though, as Snopes points out in its debunking of the false quote, both M and D have specifically stated that they don’t believe intercourse is rape. Apparently the quote was attributed to MacKinnon in a column by right-wing columnist Cal Thomas, which is evidently how it entered the land of antifeminist mythology. Somewhere along the line, Catharine had her name changed to Catherine.
Then there’s this alleged quote from Andrea Dworkin:
“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.”
According to Wikiquote, this quote is quite literally fictional:
The first appearance of this quote is from P: A Novel (2003) by Andrew Lewis Conn as a quote from the fictional feminist “Corinne Dwarfkin”. The original reads “In capsule form, my thesis is that heterosexual intercourse is the pure, distilled expression of men’s contempt for women.” In the slightly altered form given above, the quote is attributed in several books to Andrea Dworkin. Neil Boyd, in Big Sister (2004) attributes the quote to Letters from a War Zone, however, this quote, nor any one with similar phrasing, appears in that work.
Indeed, our listmaker seem to have a lot of trouble quoting Dworkin correctly. A bunch of the quotes are taken from her book Letters From a War Zone, which I happen to own. The first quote I checked was this one:
“The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape.” Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 114.
It’s a weird quote, which sounds a lot like it’s coming from the the middle of a complicated argument. That’s because it is. And when you read what precedes it, it becomes clear that it’s NOT a statement of Dworkin’s own beliefs. She was in fact summarizing (in her own words) the beliefs of “male supremacist” sociobiologists like Edward O. Wilson. It may or may not be a fair summary of their views, but that’s not the point: it’s NOT what she thought. Later in the paragraph, in fact, she compared these views to Hitler’s.
The other quotes from the book are more or less accurate. Words are missing, moved from one sentence to another, verb tenses are changed; they’re very sloppy transcriptions, but at least they aren’t complete and utter misrepresentations of what Dworkin wrote.
There’s also quote from Andrea Dworkin that’s listed as being from “Liberty, p. 58.” Dworkin never wrote a book called Liberty. But I found the quote in what seems to be a scholarly work; it’s evidently from Dworkin’s book Our Blood.
Finally, there are a few other alleged quotes from Dworkin; they don’t have sources listed for them. I found the quotes elsewhere online — but only on dubious “quote pages” and other iterations of “evil feminist” lists. They sound Dworkin-ish, but given the listmaker’s track record I have no faith that they are actually real, correctly transcribed Dworkin.
It’s bizarre. How hard is it to find hair-raising quotes from Andrea Dworkin? Dworkin was so radical that most feminists disagree with her, sometimes violently. You could practically pick a sentence at random from almost any of her books and chances are good it would offend somebody — including me. A number of her writings are available online. How lazy and sloppy do you have to be to fuck up your Dworkin quotes like this?
Let’s now turn to Marilyn French’s famously fictional quote:
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983
Oh, the quote is real — she wrote it — but it is not a statement of French’s beliefs. Nor did it originate in People magazine. It is a line of dialogue from her book The Woman’s Room. Wikipedia, take it away:
Following the rape of Val’s daughter Chris, Val states (over Mira’s protests), “Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes” (p. 433). Critics have sometimes quoted Val’s dialogue as evidence of French’s misandry without noting that the passage is only spoken by one of many characters in the novel.
Now, it’s true that this sentence was quoted in People magazine — in the issue of Feb 20 1979, not Feb 20, 1983 as claimed. It’s not clear from the rather sloppy People article that this is a line from the book, but it is.
In the article, French notes that the book is partly based on her experience — drawing on the emotions she herself felt after her own daughter was raped.
“Sometimes I felt so violent about it and how the courts treated her,” French admits, “that there seemed no recourse but to go out, buy a gun and shoot the kid who did it, and the lawyers too. I couldn’t help my own child.” Plenty of that rage made its way into The Women’s Room. “I’m less angry now. Being too deep in anger corrodes your interior.”
So, again, it is very clear that the “all men are rapists” quote is meant to reflect a character awash in rage and pain; it is not an ideological statement of misandry.
The “Hateful Quotes” list also contains a bunch of quotes from people I’ve never heard of; they’re obviously not major feminist figures, and may not even be feminists. Gordon Fitch? Never heard of the guy, and can’t find anything about him online.
Hodee Edwards? Never heard of her either, and I can only find a handful of mentions of her online, but she’s mentioned in the footnotes of a Catharine MacKinnon book, and it looks as though she is, or at least was, a feminist with Marxist leanings. But there is no way to even find out what the source of the quote is — a book, an essay, a quotation in a news story? — much less actually find the source and confirm that the quote is real.
EDITED TO ADD: I’ve been contacted by Hodee Edwards’ granddaughter, who tells me that her grandmother never said or wrote the quote attributed to her; while Edwards was indeed a Marxist and a feminist, she was not anti-sex. (The faux quote in question claims that all sex is rape.) Edwards has recently passed away, and her family members have been, the granddaughter tells me, “very distressed to learn that this quote has somehow been linked to my grandmother’s name on the Internet.”
Then there’s Pat Poole:
Melbourne City Councilwoman Pat Poole announced her opposition to renaming a street for Martin Luther King: “I wonder if he really accomplished things, or if he just stirred people up and caused a lot of riots.”
Who the hell is Pat Poole? I looked her up, and yes, she was a city councilwoman in Melbourne, Florida, but I was unable to find out much beyond that. Is the quote accurate? I don’t know. There’s no source given, and I can’t find the original quote online. Is she actually a feminist, or is the author of the list simply assuming she is one because she’s a woman?
And then of course there is the anonymous “Liberated Woman” whose quote ends the list. She definitely sounds like a feminist. We just don’t know for sure if she or the quote are real.
Moving on, I can’t help but notice that a number of the allegedly hateful quotes are in fact not hateful at all. Take, for example, Barbara Ehrenreich’s quote about the family, which is in fact part of a sharply written essay on “family values.” You can find it here.
Here’s another distinctly non-hateful quote:
“Women take their roles of caretakers very seriously and when they hear of someone who’s taken advantage of a child, they react more strongly than men do.” – Kathleen C. Faller, professor of social work at the University of Michigan
Faller, if she did indeed say this, may or may not be correct, but it’s hard to see how this is “hateful.” Women on average spend much more time caring for children than men do and it may well be that, on average, they react more strongly than men. I couldn’t find the quote in question — again, this is because the listmaker didn’t actually provide the source — but her faculty web page is here.
Then there’s this “hateful” quote on religion:
“God is going to change. We women… will change the world so much that He won’t fit anymore.” Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions.
The quote is real; Goldenberg is indeed a feminist theologian. But here’s a little newsflash: There are lots of people in the world, feminist and non-feminist, who do not believe in traditional notions of God. Or in God at all. Nietzsche famously said “God is Dead,” Richard Dawkins says God is “a delusion,” and about 80 zillion internet athiests (many of them not feminists in the slightest) regularly compare belief in God to belief in unicorns, fairies, and Santa Claus.
I checked out a few other quotes on the list. The Hillary Clinton quote is accurate; the source is here. The Barbara Jordan quote appears in a Texas Monthly article here.
The quote from Catherine Comins — a favorite “evil feminist quote” amongst MRAs — has its origins in a Time magazine article, but it is not actually a quote from her; it is someone else’s summary of what she told Time in the article in question. Nor do we know the full context in which she spoke.
I don’t have the time or patience to fact-check the rest of the list. If anyone out there happens to have time and/or patience, or happens to own any of the books that are cited as sources, feel free to fact check it yourself and post your findings. (EDITED TO ADD: triplanetary has risen to the challenge, and has factchecked the rest of the list, as well as offering some excellent commentary on the alleged “hatefulness” of many of the quotes. You can find the post here.)
The numerous errors in this list — some minor, some huge — say something not only about the creator of this list but about all those who’ve distributed this list without, clearly, bothering to check anything in it . (Or, in the case of Cold, to contine to distribute a list he’s pretty sure is less than reliable.) Is this the result of laziness, or dishonesty? A bit of both, I imagine.
But I think this list is also a symptom of the tendency of many in the Men’s Rights movement to inflate the evils of their opponents. So many MRAs are so determined to prove that their supposed oppression is worse than that of women, and so determined to blame it all on feminism, that they need to make their opponents larger than life and twice as nasty. Given that the feminism they fight is largely a paranoid fantasy, bearing very little resemblance to feminism as it actually exists in the world today, it’s hardly shocking that a number of the quotes on this little list are fictional — and that none of the MRAs posting this list here and there on the internet seem to have even noticed (or, if they have noticed, to care, or at least to care enough to stop distributing the list). When you’re fighting phantoms in your own mind, the truth doesn’t really matter, does it?
Given how poorly this list held up to my fack-checking attempts, from now on I will consider this list and others like it spam, and delete any comments that link to them.
If any of you antifeminists still feel the desire to post “evil feminist quotes” in the comments here, you may do so, but only if you (or the list that you link to) provides clickable links to the original sources of the quotes in question. If you can’t provide a link to the source, I’ll delete it.
When I quote from MRAs and MGTOW-ites and other misogynists on this blog, I provide links to the sources. What’s so hard about that?
EDIT: Fixed links, and a few verb tenses.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>In my original post, "a PUA seminar" should be "a couple of PUA seminars," but otherwise my point still stands. Pardon me if it seems like disrespect, especially now that I've cooled down a bit, but attending a couple of seminars from a PUA doesn't really make one a a devoted member of the manosphere, or even an actual PUA, in fact. Now, if the mgtow forums had been available to Mr. Sodini, and he spent all his time on there…maybe he would have found he just didn't have enough time to go shooting up women. That's all I'm sayin'.
>Man, this takes me back…Way, way back in the ancient days of the Internet, a guy who saw me on a Usenet group or something emailed me out of the blue, very politely, to recruit me as a sounding board for his theories about female inferiority. I don't know why me. He thought of himself as perfectly rational and beyond mere emotion, so of course there was no way his ideas could be influenced by his own prejudices or desires or fears.He was, of course, full of shit, as are all people who think they're perfectly rational. I dunno… I answered his questions as best I could, and one day he stopped emailing me, as suddenly as he'd started. I sometimes wonder what happened to him. Did he find some way to twist my answers into proof of my inferiority? Did he eventually get out of high school (he had that teenage passion for ten-dollar words) and get over himself? I hope he's doing okay.I remember one of his arguments was that women should be enslaved because that's what the ancient Greeks did, so it must be a practice that creates great empires. I should have asked him whether he was willing to be enslaved, himself, for the greater good of his society. I'm sure he never even considered the idea. It must be very nice, not to have to consider certain ideas.You're not getting the answers you want, Vagrant, because your questions are coming from the wrong place. They're not questions about reality. In the real world, you've never lifted a car or hunted a tiger. In the real world, men and women are not separate species competing with each other for survival. In the real world, there is no contest running in which we have to pile up our assets, and there is no magic bullet, no Brown Bull of Cooley women can add to the top of the pile to prove their worth to you once and for all. Nor do we need to.I do find it funny that you say women can't endure pain after going on and on about how the one thing we're good for is childbirth. You see? The assumptions here are all skewed.Also, if you're really interested, there are plenty of places to learn about the capabilities of the female body. (I personally like Natalie Angier's Woman: An Intimate Geography, but, you know, hairy-legged feminist and all. There's a book called The Frailty Myth that's also pretty good.) Do your own damn research.
>VagrantI somewhat agree with keeping them crazy in front of their computers. My personal problem with it is they start off with a small thoughts then 10, the 20, then 100 thoughts later that small thought turns into something really wrong. Like my brother deciding his kids could be killed instead of living with their mom after a couple of years on mra boards combined with schizophrenia and a paranoid disorder. Not once has one poster on a mra board ever questioned my brothers mental health, though for the record he’s not come out and stated he’s taken them out now he’s made numerous posts about how they are just like their mother, should never have been born, etc.
>You're not getting the answers you want, Vagrant, because your questions are coming from the wrong place. Er…not to be nitpicky, but I actually did get the answers I wanted; chocomintlipwax provided them to me earlier. The female advantages in manual dexterity, balance, and body fat storage were exactly what I was looking for. As for your suggestions, I'll look into them. Thank you for those.
>If they spent time on their forums talking about things they like doing by themselves or with other dudes, like, I dunno, reading books, or playing with model trains, or fly fishing, or Buddhist philosophy, or, hell, flower arranging, I'd say more power to them. And if you go to blogs and forums dedicated to singlehood or celibacy as a lifestyle, this is usually what you'll see. The MGTOW thing is something else.
>@ David:David: "Richard, why on earth should Marilyn French apologize for a comment by a fictional character?"If she put the words inside that characters mouth and then lionized the character, she'd be responsible for what was said, right? Random Brother
>No Richard… no more then Stephen King would be. Understand?
>@ KaveWhat about the author of the Turner Diaries?Random Brother
>No Richard, in Davids perspective, a woman and/or feminist shouldn't apologise because they hold a superior status over non feminist men. Non feminist men are not worthy enough to earn such an apology. But if it was an MRA doing the same, David and the rest of the lunatic bigoted feminist crowd would be singing a whole different tuneMale and female feminists try their very best to pull misandry under the rug or pretend it's not misandry at all even that it's obvious and right in your face.This form of bigotry is the most disgusting and most socially acceptable in western societies at this day. There is not one small doubt in my mind that PC these days is heavily gynocentric and yet its so damn laughable how these feminists keep crying that women are second class citizens and a so called patriarchy still exists.WTF is wrong with these people
>‘A man born without eyes is not "inferior" in terms of his ability to see things to someone with eyes–he's merely 'different?'’Now you’re moving around the goal-posts. Eyes completely embody the ability to see. The ability to lift something heavy is but one thread to be pulled from “physical superiority” blanket. “The problem is, as I said above, the female "superiority" in communication is arguable–it's possible men are just as good communicators as women, they're simply more efficient at it.”Or maybe men are unskilled and oblivious to details. *shrugs* And how is being able to lift heavier things “physical superiority” if it often leads to an early or foolish death for men? Why didn’t they come up with methods alternative to detrimental physical tasks thus saving on health costs, physical pain, time, and energy? Maybe women are just more physically efficient!But to add to the communication topic, women are also generally better at decoding body language and non-verbal emotional cues.Again, not that I believe these are inherent brain differences. One’s brain molds to what one learns. My brain looked a lot different before my anxiety diagnosis than after because I became aware and implemented coping mechanisms.“How's that for taking into account the unique misfortune of women being the ones who have to bear the weight of pregnancy?”Just making sure I'm correct about you doing all you can to bitterly ensure men may have their cake and eat it, too. “If WOMEN have abortion rights, men should have abortion rights! Even if they don’t get pregnant AND didn’t use a condom to begin with! *harrumph*”Womb envy, I guess. Let's bend over backwards so that men can do whatever they want reproductive-wise and women shall shoulder it all.“Perhaps so, but if they manage to convince other men to follow them–to not only get vasectomies, but avoid women entirely–it seems they're doing legitimate work.(…)”I don’t care about any of that because they’re weak of character; I just liked showing how you insist on men retaining privilege and power in reproduction. “You're really a wonderful advertisement for the MRAs and MGTOWs, Cinnamon.”Again, I don’t care about any of that because I do not seek their approval. But thank you and tell your friends I guess.
>“Well, okay, in that case, why not do the same for other groups? The characteristics of MRAs and MGTOWs–their whininess, anger issues, etc.–are only 'detrimental' or 'worthy of mockery' because of the conclusions you've already drawn. One could argue they're actually beneficial characteristics! If we wish to comnpletely deny any characteristic is beneficial or detrimental, what's the point of condemning anything, as you folks do for MRAs?”You’re conflating the context and function of characteristics in the two cases then assuming identical arguments are being made for each case.Allow an example: Conclusion of Mr. X – Women are inherently built and programmed to be mothersStudy presented to Mr. X – “Report B indicates women are generally better multitaskers than men and have less muscle strength”Mr. X – “Hrm, of course women are generally better multitaskers than men! You need those characteristics in order to raise children! As opposed to men, with their excessive muscle mass and single task focus, characteristics for working OUTSIDE the home! If anything bad happened, women couldn’t survive physically!”Other study presented to Mr. X – “Report B2 indicates that women are actually single task focused and are physically built to survive famine”Mr. X – “Hrm, of course women are actually single task focused! You NEED to be single-task focused to take care of children! You NEED to be able to survive famine also if you have children!”His conclusion is safe. “I honestly don't understand much of what this paragraph intended to say, and things like "burdan" make me suspect it's not entirely my fault. I don't say this to be snarky; rather I think you may have typed faster than you thought, in this case.”I didn’t want to lose momentum and retyped for brevity and it wasn't well-done. Nonetheless, the ad hoc rescue covered most of it. Otherwise I was noting that not one male worker at any point thought outside the box, yet the one woman did, and you conclude it doesn’t mean a man couldn’t. That much whereas one woman unable to use the (inferior) method means it is her femaleness preventing her. There is no consistency.My point about the primitive, counter-advancement was a joke; it referred to how you framed emotions. In this case, the woman’s alternative methods were clearly progressive and advanced.Kave -“Also, I really hate the feminist line that men should just keep it in their pants if they don’t want 25 years of child support. This is a dogma that really needs to end and is simply akin to just crossing your legs.”“Keep your legs crossed” is a moral-value context where she is somehow “tainted” by intercourse outside of marriage/reproduction, not because she refuses to use contraception and then wants off the hook. Rather than absolving men of responsibility for what neglecting to do his part in prevention has wrought, thus leaving women to shoulder his foolishness, opting to not drop-trou if you don’t want to impregnate a woman is quite wise.If a woman doesn't want to be impregnated, yet engages in vaginal intercourse without protecting herself, I'd say she should stop as well.
>The ability to lift something heavy is but one thread to be pulled from “physical superiority” blanket.Fair enough, I can concede that point thanks to the references chocomintlipwax provided earlier.they come up with methods alternative to detrimental physical tasks thus saving on health costs, physical pain, time, and energy?Haven't they? As many MRAs might tell you, men have invented many (though contrary to what the MRAs might say, perhaps not all) of the labor-saving devices which have freed men from the risks of dangerous, labor-intensive work and have even allowed women to participate and contribute to such work. Therefore, they would say, men (now, in this case I really am not sure I agree with the MRAs, because I'm not certain how much of the machinery we take for granted today actually was invented by men. However, I'd have to look it up before I said much more).womb envy, privilege and power, etc. etc. etc.Considering how several of your fellow feminists/non-MRAs have pointed out that allowing men to abandon paternal responsibilities isn't necessarily such a bad idea, it's hardly just me (or even other MRAs) you're arguing with here. As for the more extreme scenario I postulated, coercing women to have abortions at the behest of the man who impregnated them, under that thought experiment womnen wouldn't "shoulder it all;" the man would be required to pay the cost of the abortion. However, even under that condition I assume it would offend your sensibilities. Therefore, the alternative of allowing men to abdicate their financial duties to any child they may have fathered, while perhaps not entirely fair, while perhaps "privileging" men, still seems preferable.I don’t care about any of that because they’re weak of character; But their "character weaknesses" are actually strengths! It's all in how you look at it. Saying MGTOWs are "weak of character" is like saying women are "physically weak." It's all in whether or not you look at their characteristics, be they mental or physical, as benefits or drawbacks. It's a matter of perspective!Again, I don’t care about any of that because I do not seek their approval. But thank you and tell your friends I guess. Perhaps not, but if they ever gain any significant political power or influence–horror of horrors, I know–you and people like you may have more of a hand in that than you'd care to admit. Still, so long as there are folks like Kave, Chocomintlipwax, and the others who've actually managed to provide cogent responses to my queries, I guess you won't be able to do too much damage.
>@ nicko81mYou're right. Women, er, pardon, WOMYN, have no need to apologize to us mere men, besides it was just fiction. However, if some man were to right a fictional account of "Brutus Bitchkiller" the man who offed feminists. And his adventures consisted of him doling out punishments to feminsts, somehow I don't think the femnuts would just say, "Eh, can't blame the author, it's just fiction." Random Brother
>I have to disagree, Cinnamon. I don't think that 'cross your legs' and 'don't drop trou' in this context are all that different from each other. It's judgmentally anti-sex and it ignores the fact that birth control isn't 100%.How do either one of those differ from the anti-choicer argument that because Person X engaged in an activity which had a risk of pregnancy, that Person X should now be able to do nothing to ameliorate the consequences, full stop?
>His conclusion is safe.So you're essentially saying he's interpreting the data (no matter what it is) to fit his conclusion. Well, okay, fair enough. Then again, while your intent may have been different in regards to our MGTOW friends, it's still not much more defensible. It may not be an example of confirmation bias, but that doesn't mean it's valid, either. MGTOWs aren't "whiny," they're "keenly attuned to injustices!" They're not "angry," . There's no real objective basis for your judgement of them. The only objective thing you can say about them is that they seem to have a lot of animosity towards women. Whether that's good or bad is another debate.My point about the primitive, counter-advancement was a joke; it referred to how you framed emotions. In this case, the woman’s alternative methods were clearly progressive and advanced.Ah, I see what you're saying. The problem is, one could argue–as many MRAs do–that the inventive woman was one of those rare ones who thinks more like a male than a female (a commenter at Roissy's would claim she had a high T-level). They would also claim that a man would've figured it out eventually, and the fact she beat them to the punch was merely a fluke. Me, I wouldn't be so sure of this, though–it's in contradiction with how many MRAs (I know John Dias has explicitly said this before) claim some traits are "exclusively" male and others "exclusively" female. It is the argument they'd make, though.If a woman doesn't want to be impregnated, yet engages in vaginal intercourse without protecting herself, I'd say she should stop as well. Well, you actually hold women to the same standards? Perhaps my assessment of you was indeed overly harsh. However, this leads us into murkier territory on the subject of abortion and financial responsibilities. Say, for the purposes of argument, that we have a man who thinks he's done everything to prevent a pregnancy outside of a vasectomy–he thinks his woman is on the pill, he's wearing a condom, etc. However, his lover sabotages the BC, lies about being on the pill, etc. (again, you'd say this is statistically unlikely, I'm just using this example for the purposes of argument). She does not choose to have an abortion. Despite the fact that she lied to him and intentionally sabotaged the BC, would you still say he's obligated to pay her support for the child?
>Okay, on the 'physical superiority' line. First, by this conclusion apes are far superior to humans, who are by far inferior. Not a one of us can out benchpress those chimps. Compared to the most similar species to us (apes) we totally and utterly suck in this skill set. Even if we assumed better physical levels for men (this is not true, while men on average have higher body strengths, women do far better on average in endurance activities, such as supermarathons), physical strength really isn't a great evolutionary advantage of humans. We lose to apes in this area solidly. Our skills that set us apart are tool design and use and social unit cohesion. These all fall under the mental set. Still, even if you assumed that men should dominate "strength" jobs, it does not follow that men would dominate political or legal spheres, as these rarely involve physical strength components. If anything, women being 'free' from pysical labour should make them ideal choices for such low physical labour positions as politics, academics, and arts in cultures where physical labour is common. We would also expect that big slave economy states would have equality between men and women of the free class (as this class does no physical labour), but this has not historically been the case at all. Even granting your premise does not lead to your conclusions. On the issue of abortion, women do not have rights to abort by virtue of being the biological parent or egg provider. This may sound silly, thinking of an average case where the women who is pregnant also provides the eggs, but consider the case of the gestational surrogate. It is the surrogate who has the legal right to elect to abort, not either of the bio parents, even in states where the bio parents are the ones with legal rights and responsibilities after birth. It is the state of being pregnant that grants this right, not the state of being the bio mother. Bio mothers and fathers have equal rights over fertilized eggs and fetuses that are in neither party's body (frozen embryos have consitently been ruled to be equal property of both, in some states). Both parties also have the same legal rights and responsibilities over the child after birth. The only period during contention is that of pregnancy. In the pregnacy period, the pregnant person, regardless of the genetic parenthood of the fetus, is placed in a unique situation. Pregnancy carries health risks and bodily changes bore by the pregnant person alone. It is the pregnant person's body that is being used by the fetus, so the pregnant person alone has the right to decide useage of their own body. There is no way to give the non-pregnant parties rights at this stage but to coerce pregnancy or coerce medical procedures. To clarify: Conception-male and female partner have equal rights to prevent. Pregnancy-only pregnant person has right to terminate. After birth-male and female partner have equal right. On to the stupid line: If I can't abort, I should be able to have no legal responsibilities. Well, then if you can't abort, you should have no option of legal rights either. This is the natural corrallary to your position. If choosing to abort or not abort makes the person solely responsible for the conception and the birth, then they should also be the sole holder of rights. If the person who gets pregnant carries all of the responsibilities for the children born, they should carry all of the rights for them as well.
>David, you missed the holy grail of feminist stories:
>"Hating women IS their hobby."—DavidJust like being self-righteous and pro-feminist in your bias is yours?
>Vagrant, make sure that you find ones that give an accurate accounting. Despite Richard's (and Nick's) belief that men have never ever ignored women's contributions because of patriarchy, there have been numerous examples of female inventors not getting credit for things they created.One story in the hilarious (no, not because it is anti-men Richard and Nick) Uppity Women series by Vicki Leon showed that even when it was obvious and the males around said "hey, SHE was the one who came up with it" historians still accredited the man with inventing something.
>In this thread Cold forgets we had internet in 2001 and claims list posted to the internet was made before the internet was a thing.Also admits it might be hard to find crazy quotes from the last decade.Is there some kind of causal relationship between being a feminist and having piss-poor reading comprehension? I never said there was no Internet a decade ago; I said that it wasn't as prolific as it is today. Oh, and where did I say it would be hard to find crazy quotes from the last decade? I acknowledged that they have a funny tendency to disappear when they start attracting attention, but thanks to the miracle of page caching this isn't much of a problem. The worst that happens is that feminists claim that the cached pages were doctored, as they did with Biting Beaver back in 2007. (link is slightly NSFW)
>BTW cold… does your friend Patrick use other people without their permission? Because… if people on you tube freely use each other's material and such, then it's fair game.Well some people on YouTube, including you, freely false-flag other people's channels. Is everything fair game as long as some people do it? You got my channel suspended from YouTube for bullshit reasons, so will you not complain if I do the same to you? Oh, and if I have "no credibility" then why bother false-flagging me in the first place? You wouldn't do that unless you had some reason to fear what I have to say.Cold…you mean…"oops I should have apologized for posting complete fucking garabage."Did you even read the post all the way through before you started spewing tribe? David called the list "a sloppy mixture of truth, half-truth and outright falsehood." Got that? It contains truth, in fact most of the quotes are completely true, so it's not "complete fucking garbage."
>Cold, again, if you knew the list to be unreliable, WHY DID YOU POST IT?You really want an answer to this, don't you? Ok, I'll give you one after you give me satisfactory answers to the following questions:1. Why have you given Shaenon a free pass on her direct, physical threat against rich people? You declared the following quote from Avenger, which is actually just an argument for why men are not as violent as Josh claims, to be a threat:If men really were as violent as he claims they would have shut him up long ago. One good beating and this mangina would never open his mouth again.Yet when Shaenon says "I will punch you if I find you" you express no concern at all. I would like you to explain this gross inconsistency.2. Why did you harp on me for not accepting a jury verdict as absolute proof that Goodyear engaged in sex discrimination, and then defend Amanda Marcotte, a so-called skeptic, when she declared that the Duke Lacrosse players were absolutely guilty of rape? She didn't just express an opinion, she flatly asserted that they committed the crime while presenting zero evidence to back her claim. How do you explain such an inconsistency?3. Why didn't you demand that Josh Jasper provides sources for the threatening emails and comments he claims to have received? Is it because it's a personal claim? If so, I could easily claim that I met Marilyn French in person and that she said to me "All men are rapists and that's all they are." Who would you be to doubt my story?
>Cold I don't flag anyone, and you are talking out your ass. There is NEVER proof of anyone's flagging, so even though we're sure that your friend Patrick is a flagging NUT who even had a channel called "I flag stupid people" and a rap song saying "Flag my shit and now I'll flag yours", we still can never prove he flags anything. But I'm honest and you are full of slime ball tactics as you show again here. Again and again you show this, you also show no decency for not bringing outside drama to David's blog. You need to drop this, and stop accusing people of things you can not prove isn't that LIBEL? You "sanctimonious dweeb" as you were called by someone else here? Got anymore libel? Or anymore lies in the form of false quotes that you will not take responsibility for? Any MRA knows that those quotes have been debunked it's all over the web.
>@Richard, no, it is not clear she believed it at the time because she never said it. A character in a book, who did not represent her but her daughter, said it. She made it clear the quote was meant to represent irrational anger, no the truth.
>No, most of the quotes are false for one reason or another Cold. Go back to work-your temper is showing.