I’ll give Sofia, the antifeminist bloggress behind the blog Sofiastry, credit for one thing: unlike a lot of Men’s Rightsers, she doesn’t deny that there is a wage gap between men and women. She just thinks that it’s justified – that women should be paid less.
Why? Well, I admit I don’t quite understand her explanation, which has something to do with women getting worse grades in school, working less, and, well, whatever the hell she’s trying to say here:
women who are likely seen in executive and higher-earning positions are estrogenically flawed in their lack of sufficient desire to prioritize family life. Its the equivalent of a man who has no creative, intellectual or ambitious drive — all hallmarks of testosterone.
Oh, and because, like Barbie, women think that math class is tough:
can it not simply be reduced to the fact that the average man has more of of an aptitude for finance and numbers than the average woman?
No, I’m pretty sure it can’t.
In a followup post, Sofia raised a critical issue that she somehow had overlooked in her earlier analysis: women are a bunch of blubbering crybabies.
I couldn’t count on one hand the number of times a female co-worker cried on the job (myself included), but I couldn’t name a single male (homosexuals excluded & even then…). Women are more emotional, more likely to take days off for such reasons (or no reason) and quantifiably put in less hours on the job. Depending on the field, I’d also wager that women are less likely to revolutionize an industry or make the same amount of exceptional contributions men do.
Seriously, gal. Don’t be a bunch of Lady-Boehners. Stop all of your sobbing! (Oh, oh oh.)
Smug? No. Punctilious, perhaps; pedantic, if you like, but…
smug
/smʌg/ [smuhg]
adjective, smug·ger, smug·gest.
1. contentedly confident of one’s ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent.
I didn’t link to feministing, or to Dworkin, I didn’t even link to the Urban Dictionary (which disagrees with you, but nevermind).
I linked to a sociologist. I didn’t link to him before because you (smugly) attempted to pre-empt him.
Rutee has implied that it’s not just an obscure feminist idea, but a more mainstream one. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to, in turn, ask for a non-feminist link.
Define “non-feminist”.
By the way, that was a whole lot of philosophical bullshit that amounted to absolutely nothing. No, language isn’t static. That doesn’t mean you can take a word and immediately redefine it to something that is actually AT ODDS with the current accepted definition as written. Well, I mean, you can, but don’t expect anyone else to go along with you.
It wasn’t bullshit. Language is part of what I do. I’ve been making a living using it for longer than you’ve been breathing (and yes, there is a bit of smug in that. I am content, and confident in my superiority with language, at times I’ve even complacent. I’ve earned the right to be a little smug. That’s because I’ve studied language, and rhetoric, and put them to use in the world).
I am old fashioned in many ways (lend/lent, my; almost certainly hopeless, rearguard action in defense of the adverb, my english habit with words like apologise, etc.) and I am mixed user of the doctrines of the prescriptivist/descriptivist schools of definition.
I own more dictionaries than you’ve had birthdays.
So lets see what Webster’s New International had to say about it, in 1957: dislike or disesteem of man by by woman — opposed to misogyny That opposed is important. It makes it the flip side of misogyny: i.e. the two are inextricable in connotation.
So, as misogyny is defined as systemic, and has to do with effects, not motive, I have the dictionary on my side; at least as much as you do. Moreover, I have the usage on my side.
But… we can put your last passage to the test too…
Who agrees with me on the definition?
Who agrees with MRAL?
SC, I’m taking you off moderation too.
Point of Pedantic Order: It wasn’t philosophy I was using in the post you called bullshit, it was linguistics.
If you want to insult me/a discipline you will look better if you abuse the right one.
Okay it’s pretty obv MRAL will dismiss ANYTHING ppl show him. xD So you first MRAL. Tell us what sources we CAN use that you’ll accept?
Say a group of housewives talk about how useless men are. Not a big deal. It happens regularly, I’m sure. No men are going to be hurt by them talking that way. But it’s still misandry. Rutee would have us believe it’s not.
What if a group of men talk about how useless women are? That’s misogyny right? :3
No because, you see, women really ARE useless.
See, here’s the thing that’s a difference here. The christian argument was apt; There’s not a central authority, and there’s only one central tenet to the faith that is absolutely non-negotiable. Feminism’s central thing is help women. Those two are trying to throw women that aren’t Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann into the kitchen.
Libertarians saying “NOT A LIBERTARIAN” is far more like Christians doing it than anything else, because it’s not one single central thing. And it’s even more annoying, because the Libertarians most apt to do it are the ones that seem to be in the utter minority, so they’re even less in a position to say “No True Libertarian”.
If that were true, you’d have evidence of systemic bias. But you don’t, because men are the advantaged class, and it isn’t. I mean, hatred of men might be more widespread, I suppose, but it doesn’t do anything to men, so what of it?
Why, because you can’t do your own research? No, you at least have JSTOR, go learn what words mean on your time rather than wasting my own. At any rate, you constantly deny, deny, deny without reason or substance. You did it with Jensen; note, that *I* wouldn’t count Jensen, because he’s not a sociologist. But you did it without substance. That’s all you ever have, your own whining and puling.
You don’t get how definitions work at all! See, a link would be to you know, academic work; basic definitions are hashed out in textbooks. And you’re just going to call anyone doing work on feminist issues afeminist anyway.
I find it amusing that you’re willing to throw out the only work that approaches scholarship by the MRM to try and lash out and hurt Ozy and feminists. I mean, it still sucks, but it’s hilarious to see *YOU* throw it out.
That’s not how hatred works. HAtred is conscious. Your definition doesn’t even permit unconscious bigotry (Not that much, if any, is applied to men anyway). That’s why it’s hilariously useless. Seriously, you don’t want to stick to this definition.
Like I said, you want to be able to use misogyny as feminists use it, to mean serious and widespread *DISADVANTAGING*, while claiming it’s only hatred. Hatred isn’t subconscious; period. You can’t have ‘unconscious misandry’ by your definition.
The draft is a downside of being considered fully human. It has no benefits itself, unlike most of that shit that comes to men. Although it’s probably never going to happen again, it *Is* misandrist because it is one of the few ways men could be disadvantaged as a gender(And is a complete nonissue for men in the USA now, thanks to the modern era.)
MRAL, I’m a sociologist and an anthropologist. Let me inform you that you’ll never get the definition your specifically looking for in sociology because you are determining it only by the definition that you desire. Reality, unfortunately for you, has a liberal bias. Now there is such a thing (gasp, I’m about to hand you a feminist concept, you’ll clearly dismiss this useful tool) called Intersectionality. This is a methodology for looking at the relationships of cases along multiple dimensions, class, race, gender, etc. and how they create social inequality. In there you will find discussions of misandry, but in the form of say, misandry against black men.
For instance, this study
Smith, W. A., Allen, W. R., & Danley, L. L. (2007). ‘Assume the position . . . you fit the description’. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(4), 551-551-578. doi:10.1177/0002764207307742
discusses specifically black misandry otherwise known as “anti-Black male stereotyping and marginality”. But you see, there is a specific power relation here. It is not being uniquely male that this occurs. It’s marginality along other power lines where we see this, specifically something that sets them below the white able bodied middle class cis-standards. The male organ isn’t what makes them institutionally marginal (which is what I am sure you are looking for), but the social constructions of their skin, their ableness, their wealth, and so on do. The specific effects is modified then because they are also male. The form of marginalization is different for men and women.
Hey MRAL: USian!
Pecunium, remember, language isn’t static, LOLZ. I want smug to mean what I want it to mean, holy shit I think I want it to mean cotton candy!
Anyway I would accept something from a REAL sociologist, as opposed to some fuck mangina and/or Her Holy Highness bitch that spends who has a huge axe to grind regarding gender issues. Basically, someone who doesn’t concern him or herself primarily with the bitches. Someone like Freud. But you can’t because it’s all fucking bullshit.
Is that okay XDXFDXXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXD?
Also, I’m not interested in arguing about who’s more disadvantaged. Men are, and I’ve explained why a hundred times. The manginas and bitches disagree with me. I can live with that.
Settle down, Beavis. It’s too damn early for one of your shitfits.
Remember when MRAL got all huffy and told us he was leaving?
Man, it’s like they canceled Christmas.
I don’t know how someone who goes on this much about “manginas and bitches” denies that misogyny is a big problem. I mean, he’s got a mirror, right?
MRAL: Female dogs disagree with you? How do you know this? Do you talk to them?
Lauralot: He did flounce, didn’t he? Clearly he didn’t stick the landing, plus the mandatory deductions for being insulting and a general asshole (consults calculator)… Are we allowed to give negative scores?
“Man, it’s like they canceled Christmas.”
My mother actually did that one year. It’s family legend now.
Flib’s work is primarily in fandom, and he is a published sociologist. So that suits your definitions, and you can STFU now.
Freud was a psychoanalyst from before psychology’s development of rigor, you stupid twit.
Can and did. You’re just a petulant child who doesn’t like that reality disagrees with his worldview.
MRAL, in the 2 months I’ve been here, you’ve never substantiated this bullshit. You’ve asserted it, frequently, but NEVER substantiated it.
He’s disadvantaged because he can’t get laid.
MRAL’s cock is the only thing that matters in this world, don’t you know?
I am trying to get off my default setting, after listening to David Foster Wallace’s Kenyon address. But I sympathize with external men, not external women.
MRAL: If your default setting is asshole, then ur doin it rong!
Also: External? Meaning the way we present ourselves to others or our physical body?
MRAL: Wtf is an “external man”? Considering I googled it and one of the front page links was to a site selling external catheter bags, I’m guessing it’s not a common term.
Isn’t it ironic that a 21-year-old woman who is still in school and has no children and likely limited job experience (due to school being a priority) is expounding opinions on women in the workplace? Especially the child-rearing nonsense and the taking personal problems to the workplace.
Some young women my age think that feminism is outdated or unnecessary, those in their early twenties, who haven’t yet gotten jobs in the field they are earning degrees in. Life has been good to them, why should it change? Then, when they start on a career path post-grad, they experience much of the stuff that feminists have been talking about for years.
Young women are often pandered to (in our sexism-heavy society, young women are often treated as things to be desired instead of people) in the jobs they work as college students (often retail, basic clerical, or food service), not realizing that life isn’t as easy once you’re older or have children. We had this very discussion in one of my art history classes, with a staunchly feminist professor who has four kids.
I’m a young woman myself. This position of ignorance about the workplace is painfully prevalent amongst inexperienced college-aged people of any gender.
A REAL sociologist, like FREUD.
OMG, I’m laughing so damn hard, my stomach hurts!!
Since sociology and psychology are both mostly bullshit and mostly similar, a psychologist is a sociologist.