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.)
Holly:
Not really, since this wasn’t actual science but instead, Fake Science.
NWO, I really wish there was a big underwater city where you could go live out your mega-libertarian fantasies far away from the rest of us.
And I wish that the waterproofing was left up to private charity and personal responsibility.
I need to start a Society for the Prevention of Abuse to vowels. NWO would be the first target.
With a special subcommittee: No, You Can’t Substitute a ‘Y’ for Every Vowel in a Word. No, Not Even if it’s ‘Ironic.’
What if it’s Yrynyc?
Hey Slavey, how’s trying to have sex with fifteen year olds working out?
Now, I’m no native speaker so I might not understand the subtle nuances of the language, but I think the word сволочь applies to you.
FOREVER ALONE!
NWOslave
@Holly Pervocracy
“NWO, I really wish there was a big underwater city where you could go live out your mega-libertarian fantasies far away from the rest of us.”
These, “mega-libertarian fantasies” of mine are what the country was founded on. It’s that constituion thingy, pre-amendments of course. You do know all these socialist policies, (laws) are new don’t you? Before all these policies were taught as something normal as part of your freedom, everyone had freedom and much more disposable wealth as well.
Look at it this way, if having one child is such a financial burden that “paid leave” is a financial must. How is it that 50 years ago people had the financial ability to have four and five children as the norm? When every policy enacted, which supposedly creates wealth and ensures your freedom, actually causes a loss of wealth and freedom. Those policies must be destroyed, before everyone is destroyed but those very policies.
Uhm, MRAL… You’re not “men” you may be “a man” but you are not “men”
You are not the whole of men, you do not speak for men, you are not the final arbiter of men.
Get over you’re self. You’ve been a dick and Rutee responds to YOU not “men”
Now sit down and open your ears before you embarrass yourself again
Holly: Especially not then.
NWO: Have you ever actually read the Constitution? Because it really doesn’t say what you think it does.
Weren’t you going Galt to show us how society was going to fall apart without you?
I mean you’re such a producer. Go, make us suffer. We’ll do our best without your contributions. It’ll be hard and we’ll eventually fail. But you’ll never know until you finally actually start your life apart in Galt Gulch.
And by ‘new,’ NWO means these ‘socialist’ laws have been around… well, for quite awhile. Laws to assist the poor (for various values of ‘assist,’ of course) have been around in England since before the reign of Elizabeth I. The laws weren’t great by modern standards, but the bones of a system to help people have been in place for a long, long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Law
50 years ago?
With lots of welfare
And socialism
Libertarians are dumb.
@NWO
Just a few points which I’m sure I’ll be wrong about.
Well, since you haven’t actually stated any facts, I’m not sure that your comment is wrong so much as wrong-headed. The purpose of family leave is primarily to benefit the child, from the increased bonding time with an available parent. In my own family, Paid Family Leave allowed my wife and I to spend more time at home with our children when they were infants than we otherwise would be able to afford to do. Far from hurting everyone, this sort of policy benefits everyone, in the form of reduced social costs down the road. Studies have shown that every dollar invested in early childhood programs brings a return of 7 dollars in savings on prisons, special education, and other services.
I would think that a pro-life, lower taxes guy such as yourself would be in favor of policies that benefit children after they are born, and which decrease the overall cost of public services, but, sadly, this is usually not the case.
MRAL: Do you really want to open that can of worms, Pecunium? How often do feminists use the word “misogyny” to refer to anything from pro-lifers to street harassment to men looking at women the wrong way? You can use Rutee’s way out-there definition, or you can take contempt and prejudice to be a form of hatred (which I think it is).
Ok, let us open that can of worms.
By your definition you hate women.
Why, since you so plainly hate them should they give a rat’s ass about you?
Now, to look at the things you just mentioned.
Pro-lifers are disadvantaging women (that’s Rutee’s defintion).
Street harassment is putting women at a disadvantage; hate need not be involved, but it actively makes them feel insecure, it denies them the free and easy use of public spaces (that’s Rutee’s definition).
Women looking at men, “the wrong way”? What does that mean? Who has said this is misogyny, and how did they define “the wrong way.”?
Trust me, I’m more than willing to defend my positions. If I weren’t, I’d not bring them up.
Kobold, that’s a really unkind thing to say about swine. They are clean, intelligent, and friendly.
For a more apt explication of NWO, and one which is fit for general consumption, дурак.
For a more descriptive phrase тот мальчик очень некультурный.
Hey, NWO, I’m a libertarian anarcha-feminist. Maybe we should fight sometime. Until then, I’m just gonna leave you with a quote from Kevin Carson.
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-dissolving-state-and-what-to-replace.html
” it’s a messed-up state that systematically creates poverty through the enforcement of special privilege, and then uses welfare programs to ameliorate a small part of the poverty and inequality caused by its own policies. “But it’s a messed-up libertarianism that looks at that situation and says, ‘Man, first thing we gotta do is get rid of that welfare!'” Or as I once put it,
If the privilege remains, statist “corrective” action will be the inevitable result. That’s why I don’t get too bent out of shape about the statism of the minimum wage or overtime laws–in my list of statist evils, the guys who are breaking legs rank considerably higher than the ones handing out government crutches. All too many libertarians could care less about the statism that causes the problems of income disparity, but go ballistic over the statism intended to alleviate it. It’s another example of the general rule that statism that helps the rich is kinda sorta bad, maybe, I guess, but statism that helps the poor is flaming red ruin on wheels. ”
Sometimes? When people auto turn on people who start with the “Private Charity/Personal Responsibility/Socialism bad/Safety Net Evil” talk – It aint cause they’re BOUND TO BE COMMIES, so much as plenty of right wingers use that as barely designed drooling over some pseudo-Randian bircher mad-max world where the poor are ground under the boots of the worthies. In other words, keeping state privelege for the powerful, and corporate, you know all those “movers and shakers and employers,” and taking away the bones they throw the workers. And people don’t like that shit.
Yes, I think there’s a genuinely freed market libertarian alternative that provides for peoples needs and freedoms. Wouldn’t be a libertarian otherwise, especially since it doesn’t exactly make me lots of cool feminist friends. But my libertopia looks very f’n little like Fifties America.
Yes, a lot of people in this country could use a better, more nuanced picture of variously libertarian ideas, particularly progressives, and plenty of people do just shout them down or straw them ad nauseum. (It’d be nice if people realized we aren’t all Rand Fans, for one.) But PART of the reason for that is idiots on the internet giving the strawiest version of libertarianism possible.
And NWO, you aint helpin. Also, if you don’t identify as libertarian, and I don’t think you do, please state so when you state your crazy pseudolibertarian ideas.
I really hate this game a few libertarians play, actually. It’s not straw if people on the same side constantly spew this rhetoric. You don’t get to say the blame is *partially* on your side when your side does this shit ad nauseum. It defies the definition of straw man to begin with. You can say it straw mans you, your specific positions, if they tell you what you, specificlaly, believe, but it is not the fault of anyone else that you have a fractured movement wherein no school of thought has a clear claim to the title. And it’s certainly not our fault that if you’re not in a minority, which I strongly doubt, that the libertarians who go everywhere else are the ‘straw’ ones.
Pecunium, I choose to see misandry and misogyny by, you know, their actual definitions, as in expressing a form of hatred. Thus, street harassment of women is misogynist, because it’s an expression of contempt and disrespect, a form of hatred… just as anti-male behavior is misandrist. It has nothing to do with the “disadvantage” it may or may not cause this woman or all women. Rutee wants to basically invalidate misandry (but not misogyny) by attaching this weird tag that it “has to cause societal disadvantages” to “count”. Er, no it doesn’t. Go invent your own word.
HEY NWO IS HERE! 😀
(also Zhinxy! 😀 *hugs Zhinxy* :3 )
HEY NWO WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU 😀 (me, Ozy and Summer Snow)
Do you want a golden apple? 😀
I’m just trying to establish that you’re using the incorrect definition of misogyny and misandry.
What are the correct definitions? :3
Tu Quoque does not establish you as correct, but to answer the question asked:
Pro-lifers *ARE* misogynistic by my definition: They disadvantage women by campaigning against bodily autonomy for women, sometimes successfully.
Street Harrassment is almost entirely directed to women, and it prevents most of us from enjoying our time out as much. It is not a large thing, but it *is* a disadvantage extended based on belonging to a class.
I’ve never heard of a feminist use that choice of words… but if you mean that feminists are against the objectification of women because it’s misogynistic, well, you’re not judged for your looks as a human being as a man.
It’s a definition that looks at broad effect. It’s the same reason cracker isn’t really racist; white people don’t suffer for it.
You would win. She’s an anti-feminist.
“you’re not judged for your looks as a human being as a man”
This isn’t really an argument you can make with MRAL. XD
I know what paranoid fantasies he holds. I also know how wrong he is.
Holy crap, I think he may have evolved sentience!
What if a company finds it can’t attract the young, bright workers it wants because those workers demand the security to be able to have a family later in life? Libertarian fail.
(Unless NWO is just trying to create a workplace biased towards 50-year-olds?)