So our old friend Janet “JudgyBitch” Bloomfield has written a rather silly post on how men are a bunch of STEM geniuses while women are basically designed to make babies. (On average.)
You’ve heard all this nonsense before, I am sure:
Human achievement depends on the tenacity and ingenuity of men, and their willingness to shoot for the moon (or a comet). Our mastery of the human condition, an end to suffering and poverty and disease and destitution requires technology. Water doesn’t magically clean itself, food doesn’t spring forth from the Earth without coaxing (at least not in sufficient amounts to feed all of us), the oceans do not replenish, diseases do not cure themselves and our ability to communicate and connect with each other, from one side of the planet to the other, all depends on technology.
Technology is designed, built, installed, maintained, repaired and operated almost exclusively by men. Without men, we would be living in grass huts, eating mud.
I’ll give her credit for at least suggesting a slightly novel “solution” to women (allegedly) being a bunch of stupid-heads compared to men. And by “novel” I mean “novel” only to MRAs.
Here is what I propose: we socialize girls to be more like men, and more like exceptionally intelligent men, in particular.
As she sees it, that means (among other things) making girls play with legos instead of Barbies (or any other traditionally girly toys), forcing them all to play Dungeons & Dragons (no, really), and requiring that they
study logic and rhetoric and traditional game theory, to sharpen their ability to work through a problem using reason and the empirical method.
Huh. I’m thinking that most of the dudes in the Men’s Rights movement must have slept through that part of their male socialization.
JB’s proposals are weirdly totalitarian, envisioning a mandatory one-size-fits-all approach to education for girls. And the misogyny underlying her glorification of “male” ways of thinking is fairly obvious. Her attempts to challenge traditionally gendered ways of raising girls fall more than a few steps short of feminism.
Sure, feminists have long fought against the pervasive gendering of toys. But they’re also into, you know, kids making choices for themselves. Encouraging girls to play with legos? Great! Forcing all girls to play exclusively with Legos, because you want them to become STEM geniuses? Not so great. Some girls want to play with legos; others prefer dolls. As do some boys.
For what it’s worth, JB describes her proposal as, yes, a “modest proposal,” so it’s not clear if she actually thinks that raising girls the same way as boys is a good idea, or if it’s one akin to eating babies.
Speaking of babies, here’s my favorite line in her post:
[T]he ultimate expression of femininity is a baby, and the ultimate expression of masculinity is the Large Hadron Collider.
Assuming this is true — and Janet Boomfield said it, so it must be! — just imagine what humans could accomplish if men and women worked together.
Yes, I’m talking about the ultimate in technology: the Large Baby Collider.
Oh, wait, we already have one of those; it’s called the Men’s Rights Movement.
But that’s a pretty primitive model. Here’s a prototype for an improved Large Baby Collider. It’s still a long way away from perfect — you may notice that half of the babies have been replaced by dogs — but it’s still a wobbly step in the right direction.
H/T — @TakedownMRAs
@Argenti
In the episode, the former director of the local school is replaced by what I guess you could call a “PC bro” – He looks and behaves like a charicatural fratboy, but has the most charicatural SJW concerns. He’s not the only one – there’s a frathouse full of them.
Though I’m also not sure what Tehy expects. We don’t actually throw each other against walls because of disagreements.
@Tehy
You know, someone has already asked this, but you haven’t answered (which doesn’t help your case when you say you just want to have a debate): Why does there need to be an ultimate expression of femininity and masculinity?
But if you want to know why we reject those two exemples, I’ll compile they things we’ve already said about it in the comments:
1 – Babies are usually made with the conjoined effort of a man and a woman (even if the woman has to bear the worst of it because pregnancy). Raising a child also usually requires the help of more than one person.
2 – The Large Hadron Collider was not created and is not opperated solely by men.
3 – Most people don’t raise children or study physics because they want to validate their gender.
4 – We don’t buy into the whole “Women can’t science LOL” thing.
5 – A large number of women have babies, whereas only a small fraction of men have worked with the LHC. Someone here even crunched the numbers, look it up.
That was me, and I’ll spare him the effort of looking it up. One man in every half million has worked on the LHC.
Here are some other ratios of 500,000 to one, to put it in perspective.
That’s the proportion of the world’s population that China arrests every year for web security violations, or the proportion of humanity which joined the UK Labour Party immediately after Corbyn became leader, or the proportion of humanity which personally attended the Pope’s address from the White House.
On a smaller scale, that’s the proportion of Atlantans who are currently mayor, or the proportion of Londoners made up by the players on both teams of a cricket match, or the proportion of Americans that can fit in a large nightclub.
If that proportion of British people each gave £1, we could pay two minimum wage person for an eight-hour shift each as long as they didn’t need NI contributions.
That’s the ratio of springbok (which are graceful, wild animals) to cattle (which are not.) That’s the ratio by which a single tiger would be outnumbered if it were surrounded by every American Bison which still exists.
That’s the ratio of two Lego bricks to the depth of the Mariana Trench, or 32 Lego bricks (careful now, stack them properly!) to low earth orbit.
It is a statistically insignificant number. To a first approximation and speaking as a scientist, nobody built the LHC.
@ EJ
I still have hope that eventually they’ll spark up the LHC to such a potential that a time machine will spontaneously spring into existence.
(I subscribe to the theory that you can send a time machine back from the future so long as there’s a suitable back stop event)
“Witless wondertwit” is my new favorite phrase.
Unfortunately for you, nothing i’ve said is assholish. I’m trying to pit trans people and cis feminists against each other because they are, in fact, against each other, but because feminists don’t hold within themselves a consistent ideology, they just make exceptions whenever what they say contradicts with trans people believe.
I’m not entitled to anything, but that doesn’t make you any less of a prick, does it now?
Frankly, when men are mass-shamed for being comfortable on a subway (and in fact, 2 men were arrested for manspreading), it’s a bit of a problem.
Tim Hunt made the crime of stating that, when you add women, workplace romances happen !!! Now of course you will point out that, if it was an all-women environment and you add men, same thing would happen? Of course. And Tim Hunt would agree with that. But he simply observed what had specifically happened in this case, when he was asked about it. By the way, losing honorary positions like ‘member of the royal council of science’, in which you get a lot of influence, and which he apparently valued highly, is a very unfortunate thing. Is money everything?
I’m sorry, is this your house? Are you trying to sleep? Or is this a casual forum for discussion?
I’d understand the discomfort were I to literally stalk you around, but this is just me posting on one platform disagreeing with you civilly. And I think it’s worth noting that you can’t…really do the same, because you’re wrong and I’m not. If i had said to you ‘I could do without women’, wouldn’t you want to open a discussion with me about that? (Well, no, you’d just curse me out. But that speaks to your character, not the general human reaction.)
So basically: Meaningless ad hominem, “Urban dictionary, the crowdsourced, well-known resource, is just trolls”, more meaningless ad hominem, “I don’t owe you anything !_!”.
If you disagree, the burden is upon you to explain why you disagree, instead of just tossing out a random curse.
Let’s see-I don’t dislike sarcasm, just that particular style of shitty humor. It’s just…not funny. Next, you absolutely did say that, but let’s move on to the new definition. Looking at how many, many trans people act, there absolutely are 2 distinct binary options. I guess now I understand what you meant with your wondrous non-binarity. Next up, do you think trans people wear certain kinds of clothes solely so people will perceive them as the correct gender, and have zero desire to wear those clothes otherwise? As for hormones… you wouldn’t need hormones if all you wanted was fake breasts and a vagina, so there is that.
I notice that, so far, about 1 person has attempted to engage me in meaningful dialogue. And it’s been somewhat interesting, actually. I have no problem with people shit talking on the internet, but it is rather like flies buzzing around my face.
No one mentioned you and your wonderful non-binarity, so why are you shoving it in here? Seriously, this has nothing to do with my argument at all.
No, it’s like arguing about peppers, then getting annoyed when somebody brings up their personal love of carrots.
I’ll simplify it even more: gender identity seems to correlate quite heavily with gender roles
What SJ language? Non-binarity may or may not be an existing word, and I could care less. Throwing around words like ‘transphobic’ cheapens their meaning. As someone who actually cares about trans people, I’d prefer if you didn’t weaken the only true weapon they have on your own personal whims :]
You know…no you weren’t. And if you really had a problem with aggressiveness, wouldn’t you have gotten off the ‘fuck you’ train that this entire blog is on already? Better luck next time hun :]
Deviations from the norm are not something to be demonized, made fun of, or any such. But they shouldn’t be taken as the norm, either. Your path is not the path for most women, and telling them to take it may not leave them as happy as you.
Here’s a question:If you were married and with kids, would you be happier? I bet you would.
‘MISOGYNY’ – no. I’d be happier married and with kids, too. I think most people would. But I think women, more than men, have the maternal instincts and impulse. Why deny yourself happiness, just because happiness is normal?
And you have made the same mistake Rebecca Watson made, which is the sad part.
Tim Hunt didn’t say women cry more because they are weaker, less than men…anything like that. He just said they cried more. And you, just like Rebecca Watson, heard a simple statement of fact, and started to reconstruct it until an agreement became a refutation. Don’t you see how you are seeing sexism where none exists?
I bet you didn’t actually laugh, but are pretending to be amused because it’s one of those really good argumentative tools “this is so ridiculous, i won’t even counter it”. Urban Dictionary works on feminism because it doesn’t just take you at your word, it looks at your actions and dissects them. It also doesn’t rely on old perceptions and older women (i.e. real feminists).
I hate to be the ‘educate yourself’ type but I really don’t feel like re-enacting that labor for you. my examples are
“”
I’ll give her credit for at least suggesting a slightly novel “solution” to women (allegedly) being a bunch of stupid-heads compared to men. And by “novel” I mean “novel” only to MRAs.
Assuming this is true — and Janet Boomfield said it, so it must be! — just imagine what humans could accomplish if men and women worked together.
Yes, I’m talking about the ultimate in technology: the Large Baby Collider.
Oh, wait, we already have one of those; it’s called the Men’s Rights Movement.
“”
and so forth. Basically, any sentence with an insult, or which doesn’t engage with the argument while ridiculing it.
What exactly are you talking about ????
Webster’s dictionary isn’t suited to drill down into the social media interactions of people. Not to mention, even if Webster’s knows the true definition of feminism as it exists at this point, they wouldn’t use it for fear of Feminist Outrage slashing their profits. Frankly, Anders sounds fairly intelligent; if you are memorizing something and it’s on Wikipedia, then why are you in the class at all? But this is more of a critique on colleges / schools in general (not enough time spent critically thinking or understanding, too much time spent memorizing facts).
And I submit that those people don’t look very deeply into the actions of certain movements, especially controversial ones. Even if feminism wasn’t apt to try and destroy Webster for telling the truth, I doubt it would be able to regardless. Unfortunately, words change swiftly and for many older people it’s tough to catch up.
Could you give few examples of what you mean by this? I literally have no idea what you are getting at.
My mother taught me to be polite and respectful to others, and I have no problem with that, nor it happening to others. The issue is, boys are being taught not to play (notice, PLAY) roughly, not to be hyperactive, et cetera. When 15% of boys are on Ritalin, it’s hard to wonder if that’s not because they’re ‘defective girls’. Frankly, I don’t have that much first-hand evidence of this occurring, but I have heard people I trust talk and write about it.
How very 1984 of you. Specifically, “if the party believes, and everyone believes along with them out of fear, it is so”
Now, i’ll subtract the fear part, but it’s still not a solid truth. If most people believe something about, say, christianity, but the believers and priests don’t act this out, then what is the truth?
Would you like to provide some proof that women aren’t allowed to express frustration and anger in the same way as the guys? I haven’t ever seen that.
You’re correct; I actually did see that answer before I wrote my post, but didn’t wish to engage further at the moment. However, ‘not being willing to enact that labor’ is a weakness, not something to be trumpeted, so I shall redouble my efforts in future.
Babies are usually made with a slight input from a man and then constructed entirely by a woman; from there, they may well be raised entirely by her as well.
The LHC was probably conceived of and created mostly by men.
Not sure what this point means-they don’t do it to validate their gender, they do it because their gender (i.e. gendered brain) calls them to do it
Neither do I LOL. Women who science are outside of the norm, which I have maintained and will always maintain is not a negative thing. Still true, though
I think LHC is self-evidently a stand-in for any large, important creation. Otherwise, there would have been no ultimate expression of masculinity for millions of years.
I think there must be an ultimate expression of masculinity and femininity because I believe that those bundles of desires, understanding of the world, perspective, etc, are shared by most men and women. Therefore, they will find ultimate expressions. There can, of course, be multiple different ultimate expressions, but I find this to be a remote possibility.
Final notes:
Just because you have the right to be an asshole, does that make it okay?
There were a few small sentences I didn’t respond to. Sorry, but they were mostly, like, ad hominem and stuff.
Remember – valuable and vital are not congruent. Gold is valuable, water is vital. There’s not much gold, so you can’t replace it easily. Meanwhile, there’s a ton of water, so you can replace it easily-thus, gold is valuable. But without water, you would die-thus, water is vital.
Motherhood is vital, LHC is valuable. Don’t take for granted things that are vital, just because they aren’t valuable.
@teh:
First up, a helpful tip: You need to close the blockquotes with </blockquote> . (Or less-than slash blockquote greater-than, if I’ve mangled that formatting there.)
Now, on with the show. Thankyou for confirming that you are just another in the long line of posters who doesn’t understand what “ad hominem” means.
“JB said it so it must be true” (if sarcastic) is not an ad hominem, because JB is known to make shit up. See some of her entries on this site for cases of her forging tweets. “An MRA said it so it must be true” (with the same implied level of sarcasm) would be an ad hominem.
@ tehy5
I’m afraid I must disagree with you on the “1984” analogy.
Now if you were talking about France your argument might have carried some weight. However in England and the US the way dictionaries define words is probably one of the best examples of democracy ever.
No one can dictate from on high what words mean. Words mean what the people who use those words choose them to mean.
The “common usage” test is merely what would most people understand a word to mean?
That’s not to say there can be only one definition. Many words have multiple meanings.
You will see complaints about the “proper” use of the word “literally” for instance, and people can point to the dictionary to demonstrate it’s original and indeed most common meaning.
The dictionary will also however recognises that the word is now used merely to add emphasis, so whilst some if us may cringe at “I literally exploded at him” we can’t say the use is incorrect.
Now people could organise a campaign to promote particular definitions on sites like urban dictionary, but that has no more relevance to the real world than an online petition to make Batman president.
Words do change meaning over time, but that’s as a result of major societal shifts, not a handful of people skewing a poll on an insignificant website.
Why is it always okay with trolls to limit everyone else into tiny little boxes but then they get so upset when they’re put in the troll box? Why are you so special, trolls, that we shouldn’t put you in a tiny little box when you want to do that to everyone else (especially feeeeeeeeemales)?
First of all, as a happily childfree, asexual woman, fuck you. Married with kids is my idea of hell, and there is very little that would make me more miserable than that. Don’t speak for what would make other people happy, you’ll only make more of an ass of yourself.
Second of all, it’s incredibly hypocritical of you to pull out the “oh MOST people like this so therefore everyone should do it” when simultaneously arguing that commonly accepted definitions of words -that are defined as such because the majority of people understand the words in that way- are symptoms of an 1984 style conspiracy and urbandictionary is the brave resistance and only thing that can be trusted.
I have no idea what we’re arguing about so can I just say wow, the mammoth was hungry.
Troll thinks Anders Breivik is intelligent?
My days of not taking him seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
That’s probably the most epic blockquote mammoth I’ve ever seen, and the troll didn’t even apologize for it.
Let me reiterate.
You don’t even fucking know. You admit right here that you’re GUESSING. And your GUESS is made on what premise? That men do science, while women do babies? And this proves that men do science, while women do babies?
There is a term for that. It’s called “begging the question.” What was that about super-manly STEM brains being naturally rational and sciencey?
It means that you pull shit out of your ass and demand that everyone treat it as fact, and give it weighty consideration. That’s not how reality works.
You’re not amusing, and you’re a shitty debater. Go home and read a book.
Let’s see, there are two binary genders (aka I’m wrong about my gender, don’t exist, or something), Breivik is intelligent, Webster won’t be critical of feminists out of fear, and the absurd notion that TERFs outnumber trans friendly feminists by some huge margin that makes feminism transphobic? I think the meltdown has occurred, I’d ask if there were old socks about, but saying I don’t exist seems to be common with the latest crop of trolls.
This trolls 1984 reference is double-plus ungood. If it were the government deciding what words meant than it would be true but its not.
Considering how bloody verbose, sealiony and self important he is, I’d almost think that tehy5 was obsidian’s sock, but tehy5 has been opting for longass screeds instead of two billion separate comments and he hasn’t been frantically shilling AVFM links, so I’m stumped. It’s possible he’s a new troll. Or maybe just one of the older ones that have faded from my memory.
Policy of Madness is, as ever, right.
Also, shame on you, troll. The LHC project was designed by many different teams, but the director who oversaw it was Lyn Evans. A simple google tells you that.
Did you stop to consider for a moment that maybe the reason you haven’t ever seen that is because you aren’t directly affected by it, so you don’t notice it? I know that I personally notice racism a lot less than sexism because I’m white, but since I have empathy and believe other people when they tell me about their lived experiences I know it’s out there in equal force. (At the very least.)
I did have to grow up with that conditioning, and it’s insidious. It’s absolutely everywhere. For reasons that I myself can only theorize about, I associated strongly with masculine ideals and traits for longer than I can remember. It’s not because I have a male brain, either. When I dream I have been both male and female. I have become romantically involved with people who are male, female, something in between, or, if we’re back to talking dreams, even deities or monsters. I’ve loved my dog more than my life, I loved my hometown with the same passion others reserve for people. That love was never reliant on the physical act of sex. It still isn’t.
I don’t know what I am, but whatever it is my brain doesn’t recognize any sort of gender alliance beyond what it needs to chameleon it’s way out of trouble in our society. And while I might be a little exceptional in how far off the grid I am, I’m not an exception. All people share my traits, just usually to a lesser extent.
Now, the way I was taught that I couldn’t show my anger the way other boys could (I always thought of them as other boys, because I believed I was one of them even if I knew I was ‘technically’ a girl) was usually very nuanced and subtle in a way I would have to write a ten page paper to make clear, but there was one distinct occasion that I can easily share. My best friend growing up was my cousin Mark. We used to brawl all the time. Our fighting made up some of my earliest memories, and I was never an easy person to win against. I was fierce and daring, and while I had a low pain tolerance I was also too proud and stubborn to let pain stop me. There were occasions where he would be afraid to even make eye contact with me for weeks after he got on my bad side. He was a year younger than I was, but I was very small and thin for my age, so I never had a size advantage. I was just feisty and had conviction. I was also a good person to have in your corner. His stepdad was abusive toward him, his sisters where cruel to him and enabled by their mother, and I was the one who had his back. I wouldn’t stand for injustice.
But everything started changing. He stopped talking to me if he saw me at school, and since all of my male friends in my own grade had already stopped talking to me a few years before I sort of knew what was coming. Then, one day, he came up to me when I walked to his house and told me that he couldn’t hit me anymore, because I was a girl. And that was it. It might sound cute to someone who doesn’t understand the context, but I was insulted. I was STRONGER than him! I was more tough! I WON most of those fights! But now we couldn’t fight anymore. I couldn’t hit him or any other boy, because they couldn’t let themselves hit me back and I wouldn’t hit someone who couldn’t defend themselves. I couldn’t hit girls for the exact same reasons those boys wouldn’t hit girls. I held myself to the same code of honor, after all.
So that was it for me. No more fighting, and I knew of no other way to express my anger. So yeah, I’m 27 now, and to this day when I get angry I still feel the urge to hit people, or break something. But I won’t let myself. I was a preteen on that day when Mark told me he wouldn’t hit me anymore. That was fifteen years ago. And now, I’m one of those women who cry when they are angry or frustrated because there is nowhere else for the rage to go. It turns inward, turns on me, and then the anguish escapes through my eyes. And most people, most MEN, assumes it’s weakness. And it’s fucking ironic and cruel.
Not that my endless effort to be a better, more noble, honorable person doesn’t win me a lot of friends and bring a lot of good things into my life. It does, and it’s worth the pain. But knowing how the sort of men those boys I was friends with became see me now leaves me bitter. And it’s all because of bullshit stereotyping and gender roles.
None of that is okay.
I just skimmed read because I’m tired but I’m going to address some points tehy5 said.
Feminism has been around for over a hundred years, and with its age, its developed several different branches and types that are dedicated to different things. Some of, but not all, are listed here.
This is because feminism is a philosophy, and every school of philosophy has its own branches.
Most of us here, I believe, are intersectional feminist who believe in equality for all women, regardless of race, disability, religion, home country, etc.
So the comfort of other people on the bus or whatever don’t matter, just the guys that are spreading? Manspreaders take up around two people worth of seats and encroach into other people’s spaces. You telling me you would stand on a bus or subway so a guy or two can take up two seats? Why does he have to spread his legs to wide, anyway? Do these guys also walk bowlegged since they need so much room? Or are they just being inconsiderate of other people also needing seats who are likely just as or more uncomfortable than the guy is?
Please note the banner on the top of the webpage: “We Hunted the Mammoth: The New Misogyny, Tracked and Mocked.” This isn’t a debate website or a news site or anything like that. This is a forum that tracks ridiculous manosphere and general misogyny for feminist and people to mock.
Occasionally we get a heavy bit of news about men gunning down woman or people trying to get rid of abortion or schools getting death threats from guys who believed they are owed a girlfriend but we’re here to make fun of people who think “manspreading” is something of an inalienable right. Or that feminist are taking away men’s sexbots before they even exist. Just a bunch of ridiculous shit.
In a society like the USA, yes it does. But it really shouldn’t be. A man should be able to be a man and still want to be a stay at home husband and a woman should able able to be a woman and go out and provide the bacon if they should so like. We shouldn’t be defined by the genders we’re assigned at birth. That’s like assigning us jobs at infancy. Would you have liked to have been groomed to be a traffic cop? A nurse? A janitor? What if you wanted to be a lawyer but, no, you were born and assigned to be a bird keeper, even if you have a phobia of birds, even if you’re really good at debating? That’s basically what gender roles try to do.
The gender system many western societies have based on genitals and what we think those genitals should do in their lifetime makes no sense. Everyone should be whatever gender they want and do whatever job they want without people harassing or making fun of or deeming them “weird” just because the job or role doesn’t match what society dictated us to be at birth. This is one thing many branches of feminism is trying to stop.
And not to mention there are many societies around the world that have mroe than two genders. This website has viewers and commentators from around the world, from the USA to Britain to Argentina to, um, I think I remember someone talking about Southeast Asia area? I don’t remember off hand. So, honestly, you dismissing Argenti’s (and in turn, my own) non-binary gender identity is rude on many different levels.
Not really – at least not the sort of discussion you’re trying to have.
http://i790.photobucket.com/albums/yy190/MetalAmaya_photo/obviously.jpg
This is what this blog is for. It’s right in the header.
“You don’t know humor! I know humor!”
He implied that women were the only ones who disrupted the work with emotional reactions. To say that the only people who react emotionally (and in potentially disruptive or even dangerous ways) are women, is to deny reality.
Would you be happy shutting your mouth and going away? I bet you would be happy shutting your mouth and going away.
Seriously, don’t tell people what would make them happy when they have made it clear that it wouldn’t. What you’ve said is disrespectful in several levels.
I wouldn’t have guessed.
That’s vague. What does constitute playing roughly? Cause I’ve played roughly with my cousins before, and I’ve got a serious beating from one of them before. If we’re talking about boys playing cowboy or rolling around pretending to wrestle or something, I also don’t think it’s the sort of thing that people should try to stop, but sometimes the “just playing” of a kid might be the “feeling attacked” of another.
Also, I’m curious, how do you feel about boys who like to play house or girls who like to play with plastic swords?
Wait, what? Babies are a half of each of their parents, no such thing as a slight input. Unless you’re talking about things that happen in utero?
“Probably”. Much science.
See, I get where the whole “women are generally motherly” comes from, but I have no idea why science is supposed to be biologically a “man thing”. Science isn’t even a “thing” in the way babies are, it’s a construct – a method. And, yeah, gendered brain? Wanna give some sources on that?
And most men have been responsible for all the large important creations? The counter-argument is still valid.
And this is a ridiculous argument : “Science is a man thing because most science was done by men.” Because there was never a time when women couldn’t go to universities.
Let me see if I got this straight… You think ultimate expressions of femininity and masculinity are bound to exist because men in general want the same thing and women in general want the same thing?
Which is, respectively, “large important creations” and “making babies”.
Also, isn’t that completly binary? Are the only people who matter the ones who subscribe to one (and only one) gender?
So what? What you “find” most likely to be true has no bearing on reality. You’re arguing from ignorance.
Your whole point seems to be that men are usually a certain way and women are usually a different way. Fine, but you don’t even seem to consider the possibility of this being a self fulfilling prophecy.
You also say you don’t think deviating from gender norms is wrong, but you don’t seem to really believe this yourself (You know, with the whole telling someone else that something would make them happy because it’s the norm)
And, you might not know this, but I’ve never seen any of the regular commenters saying that motherhood has no value. Some really don’t want to be mothers, and, what a shocker, some really do, but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone here saying that you shouldn’t behave in a way that is traditionally considered feminine just because it’s considered feminine.
You are not being polite by disregarding the objective of this blog, and you’re not being respectful by telling other people that they’re wrong in how they live their lives.
Whenever my computer scrolls past that blockquote, Carmina Burana starts playing of its own accord.
I’ve re-read this and I realized this can be seen to mean something I didn’t intend.
I’m trying to criticize the notion that liking science usually accompanies being a man, or being a woman usually implies you won’t like science. Sorry if there was any confusion.
– Admits to trying to pit cis and trans feminists against each other
– Calls a commenter a prick
– Passes judgment on a commenter’s character
– Chides others for using curse words, and then uses curse words
– Dismisses a trans person’s extremely reasonable post while mansplaining why people are trans
– Compares regulars to flies
– Dismissively calls a regular “hun”
– Tells a happily single, childless woman that she doesn’t really know what she wants or needs in order to be happy
– Told me I was only pretending to be amused, because apparently I am lying about laughing
– Sides with Anders Breivik
Such civil. Much polite. Wow.
I find it amusing that the troll is telling us what he finds not funny. Are we supposed to care if he finds us funny?