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.
Um, hmmm…should jokes not make some kind of attempt to make enough sense to be funny?
Uh oh… Bee might be Eoghan now :O Or Bee is actually Louie! :O
Hee hee! Yeah, I almost felt like Louie was some regular poster “dressing up” like a troll at first, like aMiRA, but it went on way too long. But I’m curious. If it’s not Eoghan using a different voice, then it’s some other weird troll who’s been here before, I think. Maybe it was Scott Adams!
Or no. Not enough talking about how Scott Adams is a certified genius.
I was almost thinking it was Natasha, because I had totally forgotten that she and Eoghan are good friends, but the voice is different.
he has a totally different writing style than the other trolls i recognize here.
it’s a style i recognize, but can’t quite put my finger on…
SallyStrange:
How severe is your autism?
And if I’m irrelevant then I’m afraid of what that implies for you.
You know, some of us here actually do have Autism. It would be nice if you could not be a colossal douchebag about it.
Wait wait wait … so, as a single, non-dating woman who is going to always feel the sting of the wage gap without a husband “making up for it,” am I like, going to have some man *appointed to me* or what? Because otherwise, this idea of “there’s no wage gap cuz men give women money” doesn’t quite work.
*ears prick up Fred Basset-style* Hmmm???
Anyway.
Denelian, I too recognize Louie’s style. It’s the same style as your boyfriend’s creepy uncle who’s the family joker – and by joker, I mean he likes to tell horrible unfunny racist and sexist jokes to embarass you/at your expense and will probably grope you in the kitchen after Christmas dinner. But it’s just Louie! That’s just his way! He doesn’t mean any harm!
Ami, thanks to you I now have “Louie, Louie” stuck in my head. I will retaliate by mentioning…SINGLE LADIES! The song you cannot escape!
*evil laughter*
Kristin;
in a delicious instance of either serendipity, irony, or FATE, my boyfriend’s creepy uncle who did INDEED try to grope me [at my boyfriend’s father’s WAKE] after spending 2 days regaling us with his LOVELY humor [how are a women and pig alike? they both want everything! sigh] is named LOUIE! the jackass then went on to try to steal the bar that my b/f’s dad owned, and tried to steal the TV. also told my b/f that i had had sex with him, at my insistance [thankfully, my b/f? has a working BRAIN, and effing KNEW BETTER. Louie was creeeeeeeepy]
and… now i have this weird amalgam of both Louie Louie and Single Ladies in my brain…
i’m DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
also, “Louie” no longer looks like a name.
I dunno if you’re still reading this thread, G.I. Piggy, but just in case you are –
[citation needed].
More specifically:
“our different biological natures are made to be forced into a rigid legal and social system. If you take 150 million males, a lot more of their behavior spills over the boundaries of what we’ve accepted as socially positive behavior and into the illegal or antisocial realms. This has to have a natural element to it. And keep in mind that our moral and legal systems are social constructs. They were developed for society by members of society. ”
That looks a wee bit like an “appeal to nature” fallacy.
1. What are our “different biological natures”? What sources do you have to demonstrate that said nature is truly 100% “biological” (for which I assume you mean “genetically predetermined,” correct me if I’m wrong) and not either socialized or epigenetic?
2. How do you know these antisocial behaviors aren’t socially constructed/shaped? Why does it HAVE to have a “natural” element to it?* Do you have evidence for that claim, or do you just find it intuitive? And again, seriously, define “natural.”
*Honestly, the whole debate – which comes up regularly in the media and on teh internets – is sort of silly. Genes don’t exist in a vacuum, so in a sense there is no “pure” genetic trait free of environment.
Chocominties: Not to mention how I screw up the system as a never married woman earning my own living whose lifetime partner is another never married woman earning her own living, but living together.
No men!
NO MEN AT ALL.
I think the official term for this is feminist separatist utopia, ahahahahahhahahah.
“*Honestly, the whole debate – which comes up regularly in the media and on teh internets – is sort of silly. Genes don’t exist in a vacuum, so in a sense there is no “pure” genetic trait free of environment.”
nothing exists in vacuum, so in a sense there is nothing pure? Honestly, that is one of the worst ways to put down an argument, often a new refuge for those who reluctantly gave up the blank slate. Environment does have an effect, but it’s ridiculous to say that it makes the debate “silly”.
“What sources do you have to demonstrate that said nature is truly 100% “biological” (for which I assume you mean “genetically predetermined,” correct me if I’m wrong) and not either socialized or epigenetic?”
If it were not(of course, not your 100% pure), you wouldn’t need to come up with such stupidities:
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2011/06/swedish-school-wants-to-make-conception.html
just exchanged one church for the other. Except the old church didn’t use fantasies for human nature.
” How do you know these antisocial behaviors aren’t socially constructed/shaped?”
Their being antisocial is socially constructed.
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/mens-rights-feminism/weakness-is-a-mighty-weapon-for-fragile-feminist-crybaby-girls-the-sexual-harassment-industry
“Um, hmmm…should jokes not make some kind of attempt to make enough sense to be funny?”
I wonder the same about ‘feminism’.
In case anyone is interested, Scott Adams has now responded, sort of, to my latest post mentioning him:
http://manboobz.com/2011/06/23/scott-adams-self-proclaimed-misunderstood-genius-part-xviii/comment-page-3/#comment-32698
>>And if I’m irrelevant then I’m afraid of what that implies for you.<<
So what? Who cares? We're all just posting on the Internet. I know I'm a total unknown, and I don't give two shits.
You, however, seem to be all eaten up inside about whether or not people pay attention to you, given your recourse to the “I know you are but what am I” tactic.
Ah… Human stupidity… I’ve looked at it. As I said before, I don’t think they’ve cornered the market, but it’s not for lack of trying.
@namae nanka –
No, it’s simply an acknowledgment that environment can effect both gene transcription and the effect of the transcribed protein. It doesn’t mean genes don’t matter, but it does mean that context matters.
And those are not exactly what I would call empirical sources…nor do they really back up your claims. Actually, they seem to be simply an attempt to divert attention by saying “SEE? LOOK AT THE DUMB THINGS FEMINISTS SAY AND DO!” without actually citing sources that back up your claims.
Look, it wouldn’t surprise me if, on a population level, there were behavioral differences between men and women that could be tied to certain genes. But to just assert a difference, based on anecdotal experience or what “everyone knows” exists, and to then come up with a biological/evolutionary story for why that’s the “natural” way of things is careless.
Teasing out gene and environment interactions is hard, especially in a social organism you can’t do truly controlled studies on. The fact of the matter is that we just don’t know how behavioral genetics plays out in humans. But people talk about men and women’s “natures” as if the discussion is over. And that’s just misuse of science.
There *is* a wage gap. In sex work women an average are paid a lot more than men.
Ah but, it’s because there is more risk in it for the women ? Yes, that is probably part of the reason.
And in other industries, it sound plausible that men are probably paid more because they take on more responsibilities, work longer hours, more risk…etc.
Were all laws made by men ?
It’s terribly naive to think that women had no influence on the lawmakers.They were men’s mistresses, wives, daughters, courtesans …
And there were plenty of powerful female rulers throughout history.
Actually it is because women are the desired sex in that kind of work Luke.
As for other industries, it generally is because men are considered to be more valuable even in the absence of proof that he is.
@luke123:
The wage gap is not about how one job differs from the next. Its about how incomes between the genders are different, normalized for type of work.
“And in other industries, it sound plausible that men are probably paid more because they take on more responsibilities, work longer hours, more risk…etc.”
Here’s the fundamental issue; in addition to women simply being paid less on average for the same work, they also are subject to fewer raises, promotions, and hires. Thus, even if women were being paid the same for the same job, men would still be paid more by virtue of being placed into better positions. Its not a matter of what’s riskier, its a matter of bias towards males.
source, and a couple relevant quotes.
“Some people think that if women move into male-dominated occupations in larger numbers, the wage gap will close. However, there appears to be a gender-related wage gap in virtually every occupational category.”
“Women are more likely than men to work part-time. However, most gender wage comparisons leave out part-time workers and focus only on full-time, year-round workers.”
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
It’s good that we have established that women are more desired in the sex industry than men.
In other words ‘equality’ doesn’t work very well when it comes to sexual desire. There is a fundamental between men and women.
hey, if porn was geared towards both sexes then it would not be possible for women to command the higher wages. Or for prostitutes or any other type of sex work.
@Luke123:
I’ll give you a chance to check my link, but I want to clear something up. Equality doesn’t mean everyone is paid exactly the same. There is a matter of who is more educated, who can perform the task better, etc… As I see it, the fight for equality is to remove gender from the equation of pay. Its true of other things as well; when it doesn’t matter whether you are a man or a woman, be it in crime, housing, industry, or politics, equality has been acheived (at least between genders).
@kirbywarp
There might be some factors that make women more costly for an employer than men. Pregnancy leave, child care…
And if they really think women are collectively treated unfairly be employers, maybe women should start their own companies, or go and work at companies that are led by women. It’s not like there is a conspiracy that bars women from working for themselves ?
But I doubt that there is any evidence that working conditions are better an average in companies with a female CEO or board of directors.