So I get periodic visits here from hostile and uninformed visitors demanding to know just what I have against those Men’s Rights activist-adjacent fellows who have declared themselves to be Men Going Their Own Way. Surely, they sniff, I can’t be really opposed to men living the lives they choose to live, independent of women? Don’t feminists encourage women to be similarly independent? You go, girls, and all that?
As a fellow calling himself Praetorian wrote:
Why are women so bitter towards men going their own way, without them
“John,” meanwhile, thought he detected some hypocrisy:
So, if a woman says she does not need a man in her life, she is seen as a strong independent woman. If a man says he does not need a woman in his life, he is seen as someone who has a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of women.
How convenient and how logical…………….
Happpily, the commenters here always put these misguided souls straight: we don’t object , in principle, to men “going their own way,” if that’s what they want to do.
But in practice, the men who classify themselves as Men Going Their Own Way don’t go anywhere; they stick around and stink the place up with their raging misogyny.
If you go to MGTOWforums or any other popular MGTOW hangout, you’ll discover that the regulars there don’t spend much time talking about the fabulous lives they’re leading on their own — the things they’re learning, the hobbies they’re pursuing, the experiences they’re having.
Nope. They spend virtually all their time and energy taking about women, and how awful they are. The typical MGTOWer spends more time thinking about women on any given day than the president of Planned Parenthood does. And what they think about women is awful. Just go through my MGTOW posts here for example after example.
You want to see some men who are really going their own way? Watch the video at the top of this post. These are guys enjoying themselves and not giving a shit what anyone thinks. They are AWESOME.
That’s what Men Going Their Own Way should look like. And I’m not even joking.
NOTE: I think I’ve posted this video before. I don’t care. Some people might not have seen it. EVERYONE MUST SEE IT.
Makes note to self to add something about religion, atheism, and general asshattery to the Welcome Package, based on the comments in this thread. If anyone wants to send me suggested text, David’s got my email if you don’t have it already.
Among the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century, besides Anscombe, there’s also Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson.
One of the greatest Kantian philosophers today is Christine Korsgaard.
Philosophy is still a very male-dominated field, but today there’s at least many more women in philosophy than it used to be. An obvious reason for there being so few great women philosophers of the past was pointed out by J S Mill; creativity and intelligence may be necessary for becoming a great philosopher, but you need a philosophical education too in order to turn your intelligence and creativity into philosophy proper. Historically, few women received a proper philosophical education.
And speaking of Mill, he said himself that Harriet Taylor (his girlfriend and later wife) had actually co-authored all his political and ethical works (although not his works in logic), only by the time they were written she was married to another man, so it was a bit hush-hush for that reason.
Speaking of Philosophy:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/02/03/the-cu-boulder-philosophy-department-gets-failing-marks/
Philosophy is still a boy’s club in many respects, and I don’t blame any woman who decides she doesn’t want to put up with that crap.
I tend to play Chaotic Good because screw the rules, I’m doing the right thing appeals to me.
I dunno about D&D Next, but in 4th Edition they took out alignment combinations like that. You can choose from Lawful Good, Good, Neutral, Evil, or Chaotic Evil. Now mind you, maybe you can make a case for how players weren’t making much of a difference between NG and CG, but there’s a definite difference between LE and NE.
Hi, Fade! Hi, Marie!
Have some babies!
@oldreader,
Can you please not use “fat” as an insult? There’s nothing inherently shameful about being fat (the MRM’s obsession with David’s weight notwithstanding).
@Robert
Amen!
@Ally
Yup. A lot of anti-Islam Atheists, too. Hell, look at Dawkins and the “dear Muslimah” thing during Elevatorgate: using sexism against Muslim women as a sexist weapon against women. It’s the reason I’m so suspicious of Western, non-Muslim men (Christian, Atheist or w/e) when they criticize sexism in Islamic countries: are they genuinely concerned about women, or only the ones they can use to justify their xenophobia? Half the time those same men will dismiss instances of sexism in this culture, and/or follow their “poor oppressed Muslimahs” spiel with some racist bullshit.
I missed Marie’s comment, hi Fade!!
And oh boy Falconer, they’re upright! Watch out, they’ll be running in different directions soon!
@Ally
Pretty sure anal falls under the “not haram but you should probably avoid it” category. And even if it was allowed…so what?
Compared to conservative Christianity, Islam is practically sex-positive. Things like “both parties are entitled to orgasms (because women can enjoy sex)” and “penetration without foreplay is cruel” and “use whatever position you want as long as you’re not facing Mecca” are pretty foreign to this culture. I’m not saying it’s perfect – you’re supposed to be married and heterosexual, and menstruation is unclean, and shit like that – but the differences are interesting.
Why would they make shit up when there are legit, factual things to take issue with, like his marriage to Aisha (she was nine when they married, 14 when the marriage was consummated) or his having a shitload of wives? Were those criticisms too mainstream, or were they afraid some Christian readers wouldn’t see a problem with having a teenage bride or half a dozen wives? (For the record, I don’t have a problem with someone having a bunch of spouses as long as everyone’s on board, but I don’t think Muhammad asked his wives’ opinion on that point)
Re: Ayn Rand, has anyone here managed to sit through the movies? I’m wondering how the infamous monologue turned out.
@Kittehs,
Or worse, “all religions/religious people”. Dude, your Christian-centrism is showing.
@oldreader,
JFC
When has segregation ever solved this kind of problem?
@Diana
What about the religions that have no texts? What about religions/religious movements that are women-led or even feminism-based? What about religious women who say they are empowered, even elevated, by their religion?
What definition of “religion” are you even using? It sounds very Abrahamic-centered, and that would be pretty dismissive of the wide variety of religions out there.
Also, your last sentence: I fucking HATE the “false consciousness” argument. It’s so goddamn patronizing.
But…but…religions are all bad! Don’t you know that lots of famous atheists think so!? How can any possibly be led by a woman when they all hate women? Anyways, without a text it isn’t really a religion is it?
That’s pure snark, and I’m pretty sure I’ve actually heard that one.
I think it’s perfectly OK to make this generalization without including every single minor religion without a serious social impact worldwide. Yes, the main religions that exist and are in practice today are misogynistics. Not just mildly, but deeply.
Diana: Please, just… stop. You’re making some very broad statements that don’t mesh up with the lived reality of millions of people. It’s very bad form. I get where you’re coming from, I really do. But you’re failing to acknowledge that the reason the religion is misogynistic is that the society that birthed it was, too. There’s a lot of cyclical reinforcement from that point, but I can’t think of any example of a religion that created a new culture–instead, they’ve either been birthed by a culture, or been used as a means to spread that culture elsewhere.
One thing this means is that, as our culture improves, the religions ‘improve’ as well, because they have to if they want to survive. Critiques of religion are fine in a setting where such things are being discussed, be it a formal debate or an online forum or blog dedicated to the subject. Here, we like to mock misogynistic asshats and post cat (and other furrinati) pictures, and maybe offer one another some moral support or advice from time to time.
Sorry, did you just say you feel OK using the Abrahamic religions as a stand-in for religions with worldwide social impact? Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism and the Orisha religions would like a word with you. (if you’re simply arguing that these religions are all misogynistic, that’s different, but I’d still like to see your citations as far as Buddhism and the Orisha faiths, the latter of which doesn’t even have sacred texts)
Also, I’m gonna need you to define “serious social impact”. I mean, yeah, individual indigenous religions tend to be very small, but globally there are hundreds of millions of people adhering to faiths that are polytheistic, textless, nature-centered and much more egalitarian than the “world religions”. Why do you think it’s OK to erase them just because they don’t fit your generalizations?
Diana Adams, you know you are basically alienating anyone who believes in any kind of religion, right? What good does it do to insist that someone’s belief systems are bad, and bad to the core? What are you accomplishing?
Sort of like attacking everything by Shakespeare because of “Taming of the Shrew” (and “Merchant of Venice”, if you want to throw ethnic bigotry in there.)
@mejas
Boring ableist troll is boring and ableist.
@diana adams
Oh, god, not this thing again. 1) way to generalize. 2) and problems in religon can’t be corrected why? Or is that just necessary for your argument.
If it sounds like I have no patience with this, it’s because this conversation happens over and over and over again.
@diana adams
*headdesk* well, thanks for trying to tell me what to believe, asshat. And misogyny isn’t nearly everywhere in the atheist community? Just fuck off, you’re full of shit.
Lol ‘religons of social importance’. Clarify, own your shit, and social importance when and where. The worlds a big fucking place.
@cassandra
Eh. Pretty sure I”m getting hissy to, so I’d be a huge-ass hypocrite if I thought you were too hissy. (which I don’t)
Care to provide a citation for all of your shit?
@diana
Wait, reading the religious texts I’VE NEVER TRIED THAT BEFORE OMIGOD YOU’VE SAVED US WITH YOUR WISDOM!!!!
fuck off.
posting before wordpress eats this or whatever.
Hey David Fattroll. Is the picture of that ugly child supposed to be you? I do see a resemblance…..
You mock misogyny (Me too!) I also mock trolls like you 🙂
One is fiction, while the other is the word of god and moral codes for people to follow.
What good it is to pretend those texts are something else just for the sake of political correctness?
Bull fucking shit. You know anything about animism? It’s one of (if not the) biggest form of belief in the world, from what I’ve read.
Or doesn’t it matter, because the people affected by it aren’t writing about it, or maybe even because they’re not mostly Westerners?
Your showing exactly the sort of narrow-minded, ignorant attitudes that got the term AsshatAtheism™ coined, the very things we were saying are part of the problem with New Atheism. Your whole “but atheism isn’t misogynistic of itself, AllReligion is” was a stupid and pointless derail. DUH, you think nobody here knows the Abrahamic religions have a lot of misogynistic texts? No shit, Sherlock. But coming in and trotting out what looks more and more like bog-standard bigotry isn’t welcome. One, we’ve seen it all before. Two, it’s ignorant, flies in the face of what people right here have already told you about their beliefs. Three, it’s so fucking Western (dare I say US?) centric that my eyes are about to roll out, again. Four, have you never bothered to read any comments by other people here? You do know you’re dismissing everyone here who’s not your variety of atheist – or who even, shock horror, are members of Abrahamic religions – as being ignorant of their own faith?
::slow clap::
@shayla
All the fucking seconding.
@fade
Fade says your babies are cute :3
@diana adams
NAME SOME FUCKING RELIGIONS, YOU ASSHAT! what, christianity, judasim, islam? Hinduism? (that’s practiced by a lot of people) Buddhism? WHAT CONSTITUTES AS MAIN, YOU ASSHAT?
@emilygoddess
Do we need to ask why?
@diana
Oh, lordie, lets through around ‘political correctness’ like it’s some horrible thing.
Keeeerist you’re obtuse.
Nobody is “pretending” anything about those texts.
What we’re saying is that people don’t choose to follow each and every single fucking verse in the texts (which is impossible anyway).
You don’t seem to grasp that people of faith DO know what they’re talking about – your default is that they don’t. Have you read the texts in the original? Have you read scholarly works about the meanings and how they’ve been changed (in the case of the Bible) through different languages and interpretations? Why are you making the blanket assumption that people of faith haven’t?
Oh, because you’re taking USian fundies as the basic form of Christian, I’ll bet, like they’re the template for one country, let alone the whole world.
Way to lose any possible allies you might have, or even any sympathy from bystanders … y’know, people with faith or without who don’t like bigots.
Seriously, Diana Adams, take your bigotry and drop it in a deep dark hole somewhere. I don’t go AAARGH at this topic like a lot of Manboobzers do (especially those who’ve been through it more often) but I am totally fed up with your wilfull ignorance and bigotry. This is reaching MRA levels of stupid.
Time for my train but important things:
neuroticbeagle – SQUEEEE puppy in beret!
auggz and leftwingfox – OMG I had no idea sand was so beautiful!
Again, what the fuck are you trying to accomplish? Because your insistence that all religion is inherently misogynistic is a slap in the face to people who believe, who would otherwise be your allies. So what the fuck you doing? Do all your allies have to be ideologically pure? Do they all have to have the exact same views on religion that you do? Wait a minute, what does that sound like?
“Political correctness.” Really? Respecting the fact that some people may come to a different answer on the whole god/religion thing than you is “political correctness?”
“You’re fat and ugly.” Yeah, that’s an intelligent and rational criticism. What’s that, like, kindergarten level insult?
You fail at troll, josorio300.