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.
Pecunium:
I just realized I forgot to answer your question the other day re: my issues with the categorical imperative. It’s basically that it doesn’t matter what the action in question is, because unless said action is “breathing” it would violate the categorical imperative, because there is nothing that can be done by 100% of the people 100% of the time which wouldn’t be disastrous, if even possible. (Eg making pb&j? Can’t do it, if everyone was always making pb&js no one would be working and society would crumble) But if it doesn’t need to be 100% of the time, then there isn’t much that DOES violate the categorical imperative (how many people have never stolen something? Never lied? Not a significant enough number that our world doesn’t resemble one in which everyone steals/lies occasionally), so I find it to be a useless guide, personally.
But this seems so obvious that I know I must be wrong.
@pecunium.
K. Thanks for the info on Paul 🙂
Molly Moon: Ah… you have missed a step.
Let’s say the question isn’t should everyone do it all the time, it’s, “what happens if everyone chooses to do this thing?”. In your example the thing isn’t “making a PB&J”, it’s “making a sandwich from storebought ingredients.
Let’s look at a hunting.
If everyone hunts deer anytime they feel like it, and shoots anything they want (does, fawns, bucks), then pretty soon there will be no deer. So just going hunting violates the, “make it a universal rule”. One has to accept that there are limits on hunting.
Which is where the second formulation comes in. So long as it is a personal matter (say masturbation) and it affects no one else, there is no moral reason to say, “this cannot be done”.
Pecunium — you ever read the Vulgate? Interesting eh?
*is commenting on learning Latin for the sake of it and then applying it to the Bible*
As for Kant, it’s his response to lying that gets me. I get that it’s sorta turning people into a means to your end, but if your end is something like “not being abused”, shouldn’t that be important? Idk, file it as a categorical imperative — if everyone was abused society wouldn’t function, thus preventing abuse by any means short of more violence is ok?
I guess my question here is how to you reconcile the categorical imperative with not using people as a means to an end? Cuz obviously the latter is usually wrong, but what to you do when they’re violating the former? (And I don’t mean the axe murderer scenario, I mean lying when it’s about you personally and such, f’ex I’m totally willing to lie to my father when the truth would probably result in screaming and possibly violence)
Kant got himself lost in the weeds because his ideas about things were absolute. Actions are only virtuous if one does them solely because that action is the right thing to do. Desire for reward, fear of punishment, consideration of repercussions, all taint the action.
He suffered from working in the purely theoretical (and there is some evidence he had some serious neuroses: among other things he was so regular in his habits that people used to set their watch by his afternoon walks. If he was passing the corner of X and Y streets it was 18 minutes past three in the afternoon, etc.).
Kant would say that lying is a moral wrong; your father flipping out is a greater moral wrong.
And yeah, taken to it’s extremes, it’s unlivable, unless one is as semi-reclusive as Kant was. He had relatively little interpersonal interactions, which is probably how me managed to keep the system so simple, philosophically consistent/pure and not realise just how impossible his metaphysics were in practice.
His students, and those who studied his works, all modified the absolute nature of his principles (myself included).
Poor Old Reader, mansplaining menstruation and no one is paying any attention. Maybe it’s ‘cos all we women are taking a few days’ rest while we mentstruate. ‘cos that happened. All the time. /sarcasm
Oh, and pro-tip, Old Reader: If you’re going to comment on Dawkins and Elevatorgate, try googling it first. and maybe actually read what you googled. ‘cos right now you’re looking pretty pathetic in trying to tone-troll Kitteh over your wilful ignorance.
OMG, kittehs, were you being hostile? For shame.
(Still think Old Reader is a troll)
Oooh oooh was I being tone trolled and I missed it?
::starts scrolling up thread for a bit of fun::
So you had the nerve to prate about how RW was in the wrong and how you’d have been fine with what happened (always provided it was a good looking bloke) without knowing what you were fuckingwell talking about.
Three years this has been going on, you manage to be aware of it, yet somehow only know that shit Dawkins’s take on it. Too much to read, say, the account by the woman in the middle of it. Noooo, someone who doesn’t read atheist blogs just happens to take the info from a loudmouthed, egotistical, misogynistic, racist atheist blogger.
You haven’t seen me been hostile yet.
And no one disagrees. It is true that people, in those situations, bring their beliefs with them, and that ends up causing problems. I’m being deliberately ambigious about belief. But you are right!
However, as people have pointed out rather a lot, it’s not true that all religious mean misogyny. It is patently ilogical to judge atheism by the standard of the general concept (“No gods!”) and judge all religions by the standard of specific precepts or bits of scripture in those religions, which are then considered immutable for some reason, despite millions of adherents forming their own belief systems with or without them based on their own thinking and judgement (“Leviticus 23:11 says…”)
There is nothing about the idea that “There is a different power of some kind, and this is how I interact with it” which neccesarily infers misogyny.
There are many religious texts that have a solid core of misogyny, but, with that same argument, there are plenty of atheist texts that have a solid core of misogyny (I direct you to evolutionary biology as misunderstood by people). You are right there, again.
It’s true that without inherent marklar, getting rid of sexism or anything else is a question of changing the attitudes of the people involved. It’s true to the point of tautological absurdity.
It is untrue that all religions postulate misogyny, when you are given so many examples of religious experience that clearly does not. Saying that they “Merely choose to form their own, disregarding their texts” is irrelevant to the fact that, well, they’ve formed their own based on different sets of text.
Unless you’re telling me that, by neccesity, being an atheist means agreeing with Dawkins Dear Muslima letter, and if I don’t, then I have formed my own branch of atheism (Atheism Fibian, if you will), and that it still means being an atheist also involves a sizable core of pillock-ery. But we both know that’s absurd. The argument works the other way to.
You can change the attitude of the people involved, or you can change the system. The thing is, when people choose to disregard parts of scripture (
LeviAh screw it, let’s pick Exodus 22:18 instead), they are changing the system of their belief.I don’t understand why we are having this conversation. Everyone is agreeing with everyone else. And, Diane, if you are being misquoted, then I apologize, but it seems that everyone is rather consistent in their misqouation of you. That kind of hints that the point isn’t quite what you think it is.
And I know Leviticus 23 : 11 is about sheaf waving. Do you see any priests waving sheafs?
pecunium:
That wall of text at 7:48, let me just say it only solidified my belief that you are an incredibly charismatic individual, and I envy your way with words. I didn’t really feel like throwing down in this one myself because Diana seems to be entirely missing what is being said anyway.
And this is not to discount any of the other good counterarguments I’ve seen here. This is where I come to learn how to tear down bigoted ramblings. I plan on taking some kind of logic/critical thinking class at some point, when I can get the authorization, but this is a great way to see it in action.
But there are so damned many little choices that have no moral bearing to be innately the right thing to do…how in the fuck does someone function if they only do things because they are morally right and never give any thought to reward (which presumably includes simple enjoyment) or punishment? F’ex my interest in dairy products is inherently a cost benefit analysis, but whether I eat some ice cream or a lot of ice cream has no moral bearing unless eating all of it means somebody else doesn’t get any…wait, that’s still considering the repercussions isn’t it?
I can’t even come up with an example that doesn’t wander off into the weeds…
Kant would say, “are you eating because you are hungry?” That’s pretty much where that ends.
The big problem with Kant (with a very different outcome) is the same as the basic problem with Libertarianism/Anarchy/Etc. It requires everyone be a Rational Actor, and starting their decision making from the same place.
Once you start trying to account for people outside the system, you can’t work with the Pure Stuff, and have to make compromises.
Which is why I sum Kant up as, “You aren’t special”.
Makes you wonder how Kant got dressed in the morning. Which coat to wear? Which shoes? Wig powdered or not?
speaking of Kant and wigs
The portrait at the bottom of that page…
Indeed. Eek.
“You are not special” really does work much better. I can eat ice cream, or not, you can eat ice cream, or not. And I can like mangos XD
“Poor Old Reader, mansplaining menstruation and no one is paying any attention.”
– I’m a man? News to me but…. er, ok, whatever.
“Maybe it’s ‘cos all we women are taking a few days’ rest while we mentstruate. ‘cos that happened. All the time. /sarcasm”
– It happened a lot. Still does for many women. Me included.
“Oh, and pro-tip, Old Reader: If you’re going to comment on Dawkins and Elevatorgate, try googling it first. and maybe actually read what you googled. ‘cos right now you’re looking pretty pathetic in trying to tone-troll Kitteh over your wilful ignorance.”
– Sigh. If you’re going to comment about me, scroll up and read all my comments. I made it clear that I don’t follow Dawkins’ work, his blogs or articles, but have merely watched a video or two. That is why I asked for links to his racist and/or sexist comments. I was provided a link and I read it and commented on what I read.
Who’s trolling who now?
“So you had the nerve to prate about how RW was in the wrong and how you’d have been fine with what happened (always provided it was a good looking bloke) without knowing what you were fuckingwell talking about.
Three years this has been going on, you manage to be aware of it”
– Read above.
Oh and Pecunium, you may want to check the time, it’s getting to be early. But if you’re staying up, can you teleport me a manhattan? That was delicious.
Ah…is booze immoral by Kant? Outside religious ceremonies where you’d be questioning the ceremony, not the booze. But booze for the sake of booze. Wouldn’t “I wanna be drunk sometimes” be doing it for the reward? So drinking for drinking’s sake, no matter how little, is immoral? And I guess social drinking would be too since socialization is also a reward that is inherently morally right…
The second one only sorta applies, and could go either way, since someone has to make the booze. So booze is good cuz no one drinking would make a bunch of people unemployed, or booze is bad cuz of the general social cost people like my fucking father cause?
Kant sounds incredibly not fun to be around.
Nice generalisation there. So you take a few days’ rest. Lucky you that you are abel to although sorry that your menses affect you to the extent that you do this. But what makes you think that, historically, women had the luxury of being able to put their lives on hold to do so and not, you know, lose their jobs and starve? and what makes you think that most women today are not in that same position?
Yep, we’re the ones trolling you. Because making an ill-informed statement, doubling down, being corrected, reading the correction and then, rather than exhibiting embarrassment or maybe even regret, attacking other commenters and re-justifying your lack of knowledge. Yep, that’s not the trolling. The person taking offence at your support of a misogynist – that’s the issue here. /snark
Yet you still thought fit to say how RW should have reacted, based on knowing SFA about it, except what a noted misogynist who’d already been called out on it, said.
Very impressive, if showing your arse can be called impressive.
Here’s some information for you: PZ Myers had to clarify that it really truly was Dawkins doing that Dear Muslima shit, and doubling down on it. It was so foul, so wilfully blind, that people reading Pharyngula thought it was some douchecanoe using Dawkins’s name.
Well, it was a douchecanoe troll all right, but it happened to be the real Dawkins.
Showing your actual ass can be impressive, depending on how (and the ass in question). And impressive can always be used to modify another word, like, idk, impressively stupid.
And thus the threads converge!
🙂 To a kiwi, this is an ass:
http://www.canstockphoto.com/images-photos/donkey.html
This is an ass’s arse (SFW):
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1077/1068900221_6faa0d1680_o.jpg