>
I recently ran across this picture online, which is evidently from a feminist protest in Mexico City in 1991; it was part of an exhibition of photos tracing the history of the feminist movement in Mexico City. (Here’s a link to a Google Translated version of a web page on the exhibition,.)
I think the slogan is a pretty good description of how most feminists would like women to be regarded: Not as saints, not as whores, but just as women.
Or, in language more understandable to a lot of the MRAs/MGTOWers out there: “Not as pretty princesses, not as Ameriskanks, but just as women.”
—
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.
>"MRA positions are generally self-contradictory, incoherent, and driven by emotion rather than logic."—SSSpoken from self-projection like a cowardly misandrist.
>So nicko doesn't want to spend much time reading through proposed evidence that David provided at (I presume) nicko's request, and nicko doesn't want to spend much time providing evidence to back up his own assertions at David's request, and yet David is the one being disingenuous.
>Having looked back at the Part 2 on Lara Logan topic, the taking it "to the hypothetical extreme" example that was provided is actually fairly representative of how historical accounts were written… men did the important stuff, the stuff that matters, women (the few who existed, anyway) just came along for the ride, doing trivial shit along the way.I'd wager that there are quite a number of people who have heard tell of Watson and Crick… I wonder how many have heard tell of Rosalind Franklin…I'm not looking to raise the "wage gap topic" again, but for those who don't or can't take time to look through that thread for the example I alluded to above, here it is:"Women are half the workforce… so? Let's take what I am getting at to the hypothetical extreme. Let's say that in a far-off planet in another part of the universe, there's a society where all the men are employed as miners and all the women are employed as tea-ladies. Exactly half the employed are women, and the other half men. But what does that prove with regards to contributing to the economy and economic growth? Saying that women are exactly half the workforce is meaningless without providing an analysis of their activities, whether it's part time or fulltime, how it relates to their career aspirations, and so on. It's the wage gap fiasco all over again."
>Thevagrantsvoice said: "One of the most persistent of their memes is that men can be divided into two groups–betas, the average guys (like them) who comprise the vast majority of society, and alphas, the top 10% or so of men who hold the real power (and whom women love)."So true. I actually (me! a feminist!) find a lot to agree with in so-called MRM issues. I am against circumcision, I think that men should have more (socially supported) options when it comes to their family lives, I see a lot in men's health care that should be improved, I am a staunch anti-rape advocate in men's prisons (as in, I've actually worked on that issue in men's prisons), I think it's awful that crotch-violence humor is as prevalent as it is in American TV, etc. But then there's all the woman-hatred that accompanies those positions.But what really blows my mind–getting to your point, tvv–is that, at base, the MRA belief really seems to grow out of a fear that everyone is out to get them. Seen in that light, the movement becomes less about hating women or ensuring rights for men, and more about indulging paranoia. For me, that discredits the movement entirely and moves it into Incredibly Stupid Conspiracy Theory territory. Luckily, the MRM makes itself irrelevant. It just honks me off that it purports to be about men's rights when on the surface it is actually about hating women, and once you scratch the surface it becomes clear that it's actually about fearing the world.
>Chuck: Here's a basic summary of our recent discussion.1) I suggested you were being a bit of a hypocrite demanding that someone provide a citation for a fairly basic fact — the % of women in the workforce — while yourself making an assertion without proof. I asked for proof.2) Also, I provided a citation for the % of women in the workforce. 3) Instead of providing an answer to my question, you mentioned a couple of books, without actually saying where or how they refuted my argument. (If I were trying to rove there was misogyny in the Bible, I wouldn't simply cite the entire Bible; I'd point out relevant passages.) 4) Also, you ignored the citation I gave on %of women in the workforce. And once again demanded the proof I HAD JUST GIVEN. 6) I gave you yet another citation on women in the workforce. 7) You wondered why were were talking about the wage gap when YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP. 8) You responded to my info about the % of women in the workforce by: a) suggesting that lawyers were parasites and b) making up a hypothetical example of a planet where men are miners and women are "tea ladies."9) I bowed out of the discussion because you're an idiot. 10) You complained about this.http://www.manboobz.com/2011/02/new-low-in-victim-blaming-part-2-in.html?showComment=1298188088188#c7239336625962242455
>"That being said, men are the privileged class and women are the oppressed class."Will someone please prove this to me. The only privilege that I have seen noted is the "privilege" not to be raped.Random Brother
>"heh nope, just pointing out the obvious and unwanted truth of feminist bigotry."Lol, here's what you just said. "Huurr no, I meant to do that! Derp!" It's cute when you make a mistake then act like you meant to do that. Too bad it always fails you. The fact is that she said women aren't perfect, then you asked her if she thought that was true. It made no bloody sense.
>"So nicko doesn't want to spend much time reading through proposed evidence that David provided at (I presume) nicko's request"The funny thing is, Pam, it didn't seem like evidence at all. It just looked like opinions from feminists of what their POV of what patriarchy is. If you call this evidence, I feel sorry for yours and David's intelligence. If it was an MRA having opinions of what this or that is when it comes to gender issues, you and David would be the first to dismiss it solely because it's from an MRA. And I agree, just someone's opinion is not proof of anything. It's just basically someone's opinion.But if patriarchy is so persuasive in society, it would be easy to point out within a few paragraphs instead of giving me a million words worth of reading knowing that I am not likely going to bother taking up the time to read it. It's a game that David plays often."and nicko doesn't want to spend much time providing evidence to back up his own assertions at David's request, and yet David is the one being disingenuous." For one, I have a life, unlike David who spends most of his time in this blog because he has no friends in real life, no job, and no things to do in his life that seems more important.Secondly, I find it pointless to do time consuming work to that extent when it's just likely going to be dismissed by typical feminist bigots like David and the others in this blog. Not to mention, the work will be forgotten in a flash. Not worth the trouble.But I think David knows deep down inside what I am talking about when he has heard me use the "perfect princesses" phrase towards him when he tries to cover up sexist behaviour from women.I think everyone who at least has a balanced mind knows that David is a female favouring feminist bigot that is heavily deluded in feminist theory. Maybe his mum is a feminist, maybe he grew up surrounded by feminists, who knows what his disturbing childhood was like to make him end up to be an feminist extremist.
>But if patriarchy is so persuasive in society, it would be easy to point out within a few paragraphs instead of giving me a million words worth of reading knowing that I am not likely going to bother taking up the time to read it.Patriarchy is so pervasive that most people, even people who aren't feminists, can see it, and MRAs have to spend practically all their mental energy denying it.
>@ triplanetarySomething is so pervasive that it can't be seen? I don't understand how that works.Random Brother
>If we note the title of the post under which this thread takes place, namely, "New low in victim blaming", and if we note the subject matter (Lara Logan), we will realize that it has nothing to do with the wage gap. I made a brief reference to the wage gap in order to draw attention to the contradictions and the many complex variables that need to be considered. I did not introduce the wage gap to debate it. Why go into detail about the wage gap when the topic is Lara Logan?And insofar as some contributors have elected to labor over subthemes that have nothing to do with Lara Logan, the proportions of women and men in the workforce are subject to variables that are not explained by citing how many women are employed in one profession and another. There's affirmative action favouring women, there are air-conditioned office jobs favored by women over dusty, dangerous mines favored by men, and so on, on and on. Wage gap stuff all over again.Do we get it? Telling me that there are as many women as men who are "employed" (whatever that means, whether it includes part-time or full-time, or casual, or 1 year over a 10 year period, on and on and on) does not tell me anything. It tells me nothing about the social forces at work, and it tells me nothing about Lara Logan.Going off on a tangent to analyse a topic (the wage gap) that has nothing to do with the debate at hand (Lara Logan) is not only pure sophistry, it's just plain dumb.
>Something is so pervasive that it can't be seen?That's the opposite of what I said, sir. I said, and I quote, "Patriarchy is so pervasive that most people, even people who aren't feminists, can see it."
>Going off on a tangent to analyse a topic (the wage gap) that has nothing to do with the debate at hand (Lara Logan) is not only pure sophistry, it's just plain dumb.Then why did you do it?
>triplanetaryIf patriarchy is so pervasive, wouldn't it be easy for you to give us a simple example in a paragraph of 2? Like it's something that you could provide here within 30 seconds?
>Women earn 23.5% less than men earn in the United states.you can find out more about that here:http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_001.htm
>@ triplanetary Ah, yes my bad about that.
>@ brigetThat's because they work less hours and cluster in less lucrative fields.Random Brother
>I cannot believe I co-exist with such ignorant and hateful men… :(too tired to hate you, or anybody.
>doctressjulia said… "I cannot believe I co-exist with such ignorant and hateful men… :(too tired to hate you, or anybody."For a moment, I could have sworn that doctressjulia was a female version of Buffalo Bill from her pic alone. Then I realized it was the crack alley shot taken during the morning over a bizzard that made her hair askew, and the fact she was awoken from her cardboard home that pissed her off. As far as hate is concerned, she's hatin' on the haters! "I was just inspecting the inspected inspection, inspector!"
>"That's because they work less hours and cluster in less lucrative fields."Why?
>"That's because they work less hours and cluster in less lucrative fields."Why?Well if you ask him, it's because women are lazy and would prefer to let their husbands take care of them.Any notion that employers are inclined to give higher-paying positions to men would just be bigoted, misandrist, feminazi propaganda.
>no richard, that figure is only concerning full time employees
>Hide and Seek: Maybe Random Brother needs to have a chat with Chucky, who asserts that (most?) women are lawyers. (Or was that most lawyers are women? Or merely just that some women are lawyers or some lawyers are women? Honestly, his point is borderline incoherent, so it's hard to tell.) Regardless of lawyers' relative value to humanity (for what it's worth, Chucky thinks dimly on this subject), I think we can all agree that overall, in aggregate, on average, lawyers work a shittonne of hours and are fairly well compensated.It's just when it comes to pesky, trivial, basically worthless jobs–like educator–that women workers are seen to "cluster in less lucrative fields." Hey, you don't suppose that's because women's labor is traditionally valued less than manly labor, do you? Or do you think that fields that are harder for women to break into are just several times more important than jobs that have traditionally been seen as acceptable for women to fill?Oh well, it hardly matters that we reach a nuanced understanding of how sex roles, expectations, and values play into employment and wages, since MRAs can just point to the "part-time, more sick days" thing as their catchall explanation for the wage gap. (And for the love of god, DO NOT pay attention to child care and division of labor in the home!!!) I think it was O'Connor who said that the more men enter the field of nursing, the more we can expect nurses' pay to rise overall. Surely that's not because employers still, to this day, find reasons to pay their women employees less. Ah, but what does O'Connor know? She's a girl.
>@ briget/hide and seek/triplanetaryThe reason they cluster in less lucrative fields and work less hours is because women tend to value their home lives/schedule flexibility more than men. Most financially lucrative careers have huge downsides in the amount of time one has to invest. 60 – 70+ hour weeks. This leaves little time for the kids. In fact according to this studyhttp://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2010-09-01-single-women_N.htmWomen without kids are making more than their male counterparts. (I won't bother holding my breath for NOW to start the fight against this staggering inequality).In other words the opportunity cost of children is less money. If you don't like it then find a house husband/boyfriend and have him watch the kids as you climb the corporate ladder.Random Brother
>No Richard, the feminist argument is that most or all male employers are sexist. They run an evil scheme and secretly pay female employees less. What a huge coincidence ay?If men were to make such a ridiculous accusation against women or an accusation in the same level of ridiculousness, we would get laughed at and called misogynists as it's impossible for all these women to be so evil.Even that the US Department of Labor backs up your claim, Richard, you still must be wrong.http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf