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.
Only the Abrahamic religions were/are a major influence on people today? I guess that whole thing where the introduction of Buddhism created what was essentially an untouchable class in Japan never happened, then. You should have a chat with the current head of the organization that tries to fight discrimination against the Burakumin, let him know that he can retire.
Also, atheism isn’t supposed to be its own religion, so let’s not pretend that it has an alternative moral code that’s free of all the nasty stuff that’s in a lot of religions. Atheists, just like theists, reflect the cultures they were raised in, which is why so many of them are misogynist, racist, and so on.
Steampunked:
“In any case, a tiny list of prominent female philosophers (I could spam many more)”
– Please do!
Some Manosphere guy:
” Hah, there are so few, if any at all, famous prominent female philosophers, and most popular one is still a sociopathic nutjob wacko hahaha so much for female moral superiority, eh?”
Kittehserf:
“So tell us, O superior manzbrain, who’s claiming women are morally superior to men? Hint: it isn’t feminists.”
– I know, right? Over and again I’ve seen these comments, even entire blogs dedicated to the concept, in the Manosphere about how “men were sold a bill of goods about women being ‘sugar and spice and everything nice’. Only the ‘red pill’ gives us the truth about womens’ nature.”….. as if women are not part of the human species and thus don’t have the same exact imperfect natures of ALL humans. These men claim that they have been “brainwashed” to believe that women were of an ethical/moral cut above men. Brainwashed by religion, the media, society, culture and of course what they refer to as “feminism”. Which religion, media, society or culture is teaching this? I’ve yet to see one. And the religion of most of the online Manosphere men who are claiming this is Christianity. Last I heard Christianity was famous for teaching the concept of “original sin” in which ALL HUMANS are born “sinful”.
So where the hell are these men getting this idea that there is some force out there “brainwashing” them to believe women are the “superior sex” in terms of ethics, morals, empathy, etc? And like Kittehserf points out, it sure as heck is not Feminism because Feminism fights against gender stereotypes, cliches and the madonna/whore complex. Feminism wants women to be seen and treated as what we are: FULLY HUMAN.
Basically I think it boils down to some childhood fantasy of the “ideal perfect woman” that these guys had in their own heads and never grew out of.
By the way Kittehserf, the only account of Skepchick’s elevator-coffee episode I read was yesterday on the link provided by ladyzombie.and it was a brief gloss over as interpreted and described by Dawkins, lacking background details. I don’t follow atheist blogs so had no idea about what had happened previously and leading up to the episode, as you have outlined. There was no reason to get hostile with me.
“Regarding the ‘shy’ man who decided not to attend the class – I remember at university, when taking the required Ethnic Studies class, I picked Asian American Studies. I was the only non-Asian in the class. Gosh, imagine that! How DID I get through it? Funny bit – during one session, we were asked to share stories our parents had told us about their childhoods. I recounted one of my dad’s stories about helping his parents in the laundry they ran.”
– East Asians and laundry mats? Was that supposed to be some “ethnic humor”?
Diana Adams: (I wish I could be done with this conversation, but like torture, it keeps coming ’round on the guitar) And if you decide to follow those writings you will have to accept misogyny as not only your philosophy, but as something divinely legitimized, there is no other way around it.
Really? So I, as a theist; of a Christian sentiment, must accept that at core I am a misogynist?
And Fred Clark has to accept that too?
But you get to play “no true scotsman” with atheists: if anyone is sexist that’s a problem with individual people and it’s a problem that can be corrected.
Yep, all those high-flyers in the Atheist Community (the one’s linked above) “just happen” to be “outliers, who can be corrected. Because Penn Jillette, and Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens are all about taking critique well (google, “Dear Muslima”, and tell me if you think he’s “correctable”).
When the movement holds people like that up as paragons, then the movement has a solid undercurrent of acceptance to their thoughts. Which means they can stand in for your, “religions of influence”, when looking at the “core” beliefs of Atheism as a social phenomenon (rather than a personal belief).
Or maybe people should actually read those religious texts in full so they will see what this whole thing is about. And then decide if this is for them or not. This selective reading and sugarcoating doesn’t make the bad parts go away from the books, they are still there.
See above re Big Name Atheists. I don’t see them being repudiated or shunned.
And again, so nice to argue that people of a religious bent aren’t working to improve the practices of their faith, nor that they understand what’s in the texts.
How many times have you read the Bible (since the thrust of your screeds is against Judaism and Christianity, ignoring the ways in which Zorarastianism, and things like the Pythagorean and Mithric cults were incorporated; and the metaphysical aspects of Plato: which shows a basic lack of understanding how people incorporate the world they are in, and the desire for the numinous, but I digress), cover to to cover.
How many versions of the bible have you read?
How much exigesis have you read? Which sectarian sets of exigesis have you compared? How much of the ways in which Descartes and Kant tried to rationalise “pure” philosophy with the overarching morés of their societies (and Descartes was an atheist; though atheism in the modern sense wasn’t a thing, so his atheism and yours are at odds, and Kant was a devout Catholic, of the Bavarian stripe; with a Prussian sensibility, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire)?
Have you considered that the question of theodicy can be answered, and that texts such as Micah, and Matthew, and Acts, do that, as well as interpretations of Paul in the frame of reference of the Graeco-Roman cultural conflicts with his Hellenic Jewish understanding of the world before his personal epiphany on the road to Damascus, and the difficulties of Koine Greek, which was then translated by conservative-moderates in England who were dealing with several political footballs (in addition to not having any real understanding of Paul’s world) which affected the Ur-text from which US Protestant religious thought was shaped; which suffers from a failure of those American readers to actually speak the dialect in which their religious text was written as they interpreted it through the lens of their political prejudices?
Because if you haven’t, there might be some mitigation for the level of stupid in your statements. I can’t say it’s much mitigation, because when people have tried to address this here, you have blown them off; much the way Hitchens, and Jillette, and The Amazing Atheist, and Sam Harris, and Dawkins… (yes, I’ve read a lot of atheists, you can add Myers, and Chris Clarke, and all the atheists who comment here to my steady list of pay attention to) and pretend you don’t need to listen, because you have, “The Truth™. Which is why I don’t have a lot of hope for the misogyny which is so rampant in so much of atheism being, “corrected”. It’s like misogyny is a major element of the culture, and infects the modes of thought of lots of people; who are then loathe to give it up.
But if you have, and you are still spouting this sort of crap, you’re not an ignorant bigot, but a willful one.
@pecunium
This conversation is the equivalent of the asshole who plays Stairway to Heaven badly in the guitar store. The moment you hear the first bars you should shut it down, and hey, I did try.
I wonder if we should call in the storeowner. It’s not like anything new is being said, and The Song Remains the Same (to continue the Led Zeppelin theme).
I know you ‘boobzers have had it up to here with this conversation, but damn, I was hoping Pecunium would come in and tear strips off this one.
::hands out bon-bons all round::
@ kittehserf
::hands out bon-bons all round::
Thanks!
*melts bon-bons in a microwave safe bowl and eats with a spoon*
http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/1×8517114/a_woman_eating_melted_chocolate_off_a_wooden_spoon_M13783IO.jpg
What!?
melting bonbobs in a microwave
WHY HAVE I NEVER THOUGHT OF THIS
or melting bonbons, even
It’s so boring, though. I mean if she had anything new and interesting to say then sure, let’s debate, but this is such kindergarten baby’s first realization that there are shitty ideas in the Bible stuff.
Not just baby’s first, but baby’s great searing realisation that nobody has ever had before, and which has to be proclaimed from the mountaintop (probably in a Charlton Heston voice, you’ve got to do these things right) so that All The Poor Benighted Ones will cast off their shackles and … buggrit, me metaphor’s gone haywire.
“As neither theist or atheist”
I…don’t understand how that’s possible. Could you elaborate for me, Moldybrehd? sorry…
But Pecunium you’ve created your own religion by not following the text to the T! So either the text is full of misogyny, which you reject, making you no longer Christian (weird calling you that but I’ll go with what you said); or you don’t reject it and are a misogynist; or you refuse to acknowledge it because of political correctness.
There’s no option for having studied it, and rejected the bad parts, that leaves you still Christian. Not when rejecting bits means you’ve created your own religion.
If we’re going to define selective interpretation as creating your own religion then everyone who’s not in an actual cult with a charismatic leader creates their own religion.
@scott
I’d assume Moldybrehd meant zie’s* agnostic.
*sorry, modlybrehd, I don’t know your pronouns 🙁
Diana Adams: As for misogyny in the bible yeah it’s a pretty central motif.
So misogyny is what Judaism and Christianity are about? The Central Motif of Atheism is, “god(s) existence is untrue”. Then Central Motif of Objecivism is, “Greed is Good. The Central Motif of Feminism is, “Women are People”. And here you are saying “Women Suck” holds that place in Christianity.
So show me the accepted texts which are seen as of primary importance (i.e. if you don’t accept them you can’t call yourself a Jew, or a Christian), which mean, “women suck”.
And explain why you see them as so central.
Kim: That he’s collecting samples from all over is awesome. Did you see you can send him samples? I could really get into that.
Maybe I should send him some sand from the second really big sandstorm in Iraq (the one in May 2003). The last geologist I shared that with was sort of shocked; it was all “new”. The edges weren’t rounded down at all.
I’m Brian of Nazareth!
No! I am!
I’m Brian and so’s my wife!
Diana Adams: You take my words out of context.
We quote you, and take your words at face value in the context of the sentences/paragraphs you write. If it was one person who was taking this interpretation it would be a lot more plausible that you were being misunderstood; but this is a lot of people, of a very different swathe of beliefs, from atheist to agnostic, to theist to anti-theist.
So the smart money is that you are either wrong (and unwilling to take correction) or that you have so weak a grasp of argument that you don’t understand what you are saying; and so poor an understanding of logic you can’t understand your structural errors when they are pointed out.
Neither of which reflects well on you.
kittehs, next you’ll be melting bonobos, and they really don’t deserve that kind of treatment.
That’s what I thought with that typo, which was not a happy idea!
Marie: Paul is difficult. One, he had an amanuensis. We can assume he double-checked what Luke wrote before it was sent, but we don’t know (we know he had an amanuensis because the letter to Timothy opens, “See how I write to you in my own hand”).
Two: Paul’s letters were copied, and circulated: there were opportunities for errors to creep in, as well as for those who wanted to “correct”, or “clarify” to insert what they thought Paul ought to have said/really meant.
Three: Paul was writing in a dialect of Greek which had a lot of cultural baggage which isn’t present in the Classical Greek which the parent translators of the Bible into English were familiar with, so a lot of the inflectional aspects were confusable, because the grammar wasn’t the same; and the directionality of some verbs wasn’t all that clear; and some aspects of Latin had crept in, because the language of Imperial Law was Latin; for all that much of the day to day was in Koine.
Four: a lot of Paul was saying was at odds with what the people who were in contention with him for the direction of Christianity wanted to see, and so there are some letters which were attributed to Paul, because those people wanted to reduce the radicalism of Paul’s central tenets.
Five: The people who translated Paul (and the other texts) in addition to not speaking his language, understanding his cultural frame reference, were dealing with 1,500 years of interpretations, and their own cultural baggage, which they were using the Bible to support.
So yes, there is a lot of, “Deutero” Paul in the New Testament. If you want a Classical Scholar, who learned Greek and Roman to understand the Roman Empire, as opposed to someone who studied to “understand the Bible”, and so has a wider grasp of the background in which Paul was working, I commend, “Paul Among the People” (caveat, she attacked this after becoming more religious, and trying to reconcile what she saw in the interpretations of Paul, and what she saw as internal contradictions; so she took her knowledge and applied it to the texts in a new round of exegesis: it’s not a completely neutral text, but it is a well supported set of arguments).
Reading the Sam Harris stuff on screening… that man has the Dawkins’ level special hatred for Islam. Never mind that the majority of terrorist acts in the US have been committed by white males under 35; of a conservatively; at least quasi-fundamentalist nature, the thing we have to fear is the small fraction of 2+ billion people who are terrorists and muslims. Pretend that finding out (after other indica) that someone is also muslism and “proof” that anyone who, “looks” muslim is to be suspected.
He’s one step short of demanding religion be on airline tickets.
But he’s not “racist” he’s just a realist.
Which is bullshit.
Cassandra: Yeah. These days I ignore it as much as I can; if someone else can shut it down, I’m overjoyed to leave it lie.
But it’s a fucking zombie.