Here’s an interesting case study in how one’s ideology can color one’s perception of the world:
The blogger behind Gucci Little Piggy – he used to comment here, but alas I can’t remember his name — took notice of my last little post about Scott Adams. Here’s what he wrote about it:
Many are calling Adams a misogynist – none are screeching this pejorative louder than David Futrelle who may finally get that honorary castration that he’s been working so hard for.
Setting aside that somewhat surreal bit about castration, what’s interesting about this comment is that I didn’t actually “screech [that] pejorative” — loudly or otherwise – in my recent posts about Adams. No need to shout, or screech, something that at this point is pretty obvious. In my last post on Adams, I mocked his narcissism, not his misogyny. In my earlier post on the Pegs and Holes nonsense, I wrote this:
It goes without saying that Adams’ notions of human sexuality are profoundly insulting to both men and women . On the one hand, he’s suggesting that men are basically all potential rapists walking around with, er, turgid pegs; and, on the other, he seems to regard women as little more than passive (if stubbornly recalcitrant) receptacles for these male “pegs.”
I think it’s pretty clear to anyone who has been paying attention that Scott Adams is a misogynist. I also think it’s pretty clear that he’s a misandrist as well. (Two great prejudices that taste great together!) I’ve explained why I think this, and cited the specific things he’s said that have led me (and rather a lot of other people) to these conclusions. The only “screeching” going on here is in Gucci Little Piggy’s imagination.
“I don’t know what the MRAs have told you about divorce law, but I understand it’s a lot more complicated than “if the wife wants the husband out of the house, he leaves it and all its value solely to her.”
No obviously the one in the house doesn’t get every last piece of everything, and the husband can hopefully rent a small apartment from another landlord afterwards.
The only times a man is going to be forcibly removed from his house are:
-If he’s being arrested for abusing his wife (and she’s lucky enough to get police to believe her and enforce the law, which trust me is not always)
and
-If a court has ruled (and they do not always, or even usually) that the house belongs solely to the wife.
But it doesn’t just happen in the normal course of a no-fault divorce. When my parents split up, they split the money from the sale of the house. Divorce courts don’t generally award the women 100% of the assets.
Also, if she’s been working and bringing in money, keeping the house, raising the children if any, and her name is on the title–it’s not really “his” house. It’s theirs. Maybe not 50-50, but it’s not like she was a houseguest or something. She’s been working too.
I see my joke about the open relationship has gone down like a friendly smile and a wink at an abortion clinic.
Deed, not title. Anyway.
@Louie:
I see your sense of humor is woefully underdeveloped, as people thought it was a joke until you started acting serious about it. So, how exactly is being married like being in a landowner/tenant situation?
Also the *LOOK AT THEIR SHOES!!!*, clearly men have less money because their shoes aren’t as nice… My dad wore much nicer shoes than my mum throughout their marriage cos dad had an office job and mum stayed at home.
Also, consumables…I wonder if cars count? Many men I know have much nicer cars than their partners and make expensive improvements to the engine etc. because that is what is important to them, they are happy (plus it’s more socially acceptable) to wear jeans and sneakers out and about if it means they have a nicer car.
“Divorce courts don’t generally award the women 100% of the assets.”
That’s because we live in an oppressive patriarchy.
@Louie:
At least have some self-respect, man! When you make a bald assertion, then have it handed back to you on a platter, don’t just give up. Go for the glory, or don’t bother in the first place! Do you really want to begin an NWO-style slide into self-deprication?
“Also the *LOOK AT THEIR SHOES!!!*, clearly men have less money because their shoes aren’t as nice… My dad wore much nicer shoes than my mum throughout their marriage cos dad had an office job and mum stayed at home.”
Add up total women’s wages and total men’s, then factor in male to female relationship cash and asset transfer…. there is a huge and invisible male to female cash and asset transfer that more than makes up for the wage gap.
“Underdeveloped sense of humour”
Ok, I’ve something do, and some video tapes to return.
I see your American Psycho reference and am disturbed.
“Divorce courts don’t generally award the women 100% of the assets.”
That’s because we live in an oppressive patriarchy.
And this is what we call “not arguing in good faith,” children.
Facing proof that men are not as oppressed as you thought? Immediately resort to “well, you want men to be oppressed, so there!”
@Louie:
So… working women and stay-at-home dads don’t factor in here? What about all that female to male cash transfer? What about women and men who both work? And…
Oh now really. “there is a huge and invisible male to female cash and asset transfer that more than makes up for the wage gap.”
Are you serious? So men earning money and giving it to women should more than make up for women making less money at a job simply because they are women? It’s almost like you think women should stay in the kitchen or something…
I think at this point we need to know what framework Louie is working from xD Like what his worldview is, what he believes is happening in society, why and how… and what he thinks feminism is up to…
Like… how does feminism control the world? Specifically make laws if there are mostly male law makers? What’s the mechanism for our control? o_O And how did he come to know that this mechanism is at work?
Or.. what is feminism out to do? What does feminism believe and are attempting to do in… like employment law? Or childcare for men? If feminism rules the world how come it doesn’t just happen like *snap*? xD
In what ways is our society a feminist state? Specific ways… and what should be done about it? xD
etc etc… otherwise we’re arguing w/ a person who is arguing from completely different definitions and beliefs of the world which we don’t see… so.. how can we be convinced? o_O
Didn’t someone else make that same American Psycho reference a few threads back?
I want to say it was one of Eoghan’s many names, but this guy doesn’t talk quite like Eoghan. It was someone not named Louie.
@Holly:
I think it was Eoghan who made the reference. And Louie probably isn’t him, otherwise we would be talking about false accusations right and left. Unless he’s realized he can change tactics as well as names?
Exactly why I’m disturbed by it! MRAs making American Psycho references= a return to the nightmares that visited me after I read that damn book. Is that a thing now? MRAs and American Psycho? Jeebus.
Eoghan has many beliefs as far as I can tell, he has one obsession (that he’ll eventually drag it to xD ) but it doesn’t mean it’s the only thing he wants to fight about xD
I’m still curious about this guy’s worldview tho :3 I mean it’d be easier than constantly asking questions or being accused of being dishonest… if he laid it out then everybody can hash it out… OR he might convince us! :3
Shhhhhh …. Louie’s been listening in!
We should keep it down to a whisper.
So, Louie, you never answered my question: do you subscribe to the Lamarckian concept of evolution?
I feel like singing Louie Louie xD could be like his theme song! Like in wrestling!
“Louie Louie” hits and Louie walks out to massive heat! He gets into the ring w/ a mic and glares at the crowd. He brings the mic to his mouth, still glaring.
“SHUT UP YOU BUNCH OF FEMINISTS! You’re just trying to oppress me because you know… I’m the GREATEST THERE WAS, THE GREATEST THERE WILL BE AND TH…”
THE KIRBY’S DREAMLAND THEME MUSIC HITS!!! THE CROWD GOES CRAZY! IT’S KIRBY WARP!!! Louie looks STUNNED!!!
And Kirbywarp enters the ring, slowly padding up to Louie. He opens his mouth, HE EATS LOUIE! Wait, what’s this? He’s spit louie out again, he’s gained Louie’s abilities!
… Hang on, this is highly unusual. Kirby’s, yes.. Kirby has spit out Louie’s powers! Looks like he really is worthless! That really must have stung…
GOOD LAWD ALMIGHTY KING!!!
This is wrong JR! He can’t do that to Louie! It’s insulting! Louie is a true American hero!
Has nebody noticed by the way that Louie’s way of quoting others (no italics, using quotation marks) is exactly the way that Eoghan and his last guy he pretended to be does it? It’s a bit unusual, which is why it caught my eye xD
Hush your mouth, Ami Angelwings! I do that too. It’s because of that one time, when I broke the thread through sloppy html, and turned everything ital. Rather than trying to force myself to be more careful, I’m just trying not to use tags anymore. Unless I really need to. Don’t want everything to turn into one long blockquote!