I swear, it’s the same oblivious stupidity, just expressed in a different domain, and I deal with enough inanity trying to cope with creationionism — I should probably avoid this stuff lest I suffer an overdose. But Manboobz hurts me again, and I can’t turn my eyes away. This is a real revelation about how these guys think:
[W]hen most men pass the age of 30-35, they begin to awaken from this biochemical “dream” and what do they awaken beside? What do married men look forward to the next 30-50 years of their lives? Sleeping with a living corpse, which continues to torture and destroy them day by day? Looking forward to the time when the woman undergoes the process of metamorphosis, into a completely insane mummy (menopause and post menopause)?
Pussy is indeed way overrated and if younger men could get a shot of “anti-testosterone” for a few weeks, they could see through the eyes of men who are 40+; without the haze of hormones, you cannot believe how much farther you can see! It’s the difference between seeing the horizon through LA style smog and seeing the horizon from a high mountain in the Rockies.
Guys, you’re doing it wrong. I don’t think your wives are the insane ones, it’s you.
If you’re doing it right, the relationship gets stronger and the sex gets better the older you get; while I might well be willing to trade in my sputtering 50+ year old body for a 20 year old model, I would not ever want to exchange the kind of sex I get at 50+ for the kind I got at 20 (which was great, don’t get me wrong, but experience in these matters really does improve everything). People who look at their spouses as hostile occupiers are just weird, sick, and deprived individuals; I simply don’t get it.
I also like my testosterone, thank you very much. If those wackos were serious, there really is an easy fix: a do-it-yourself orchidectomy. Just think, a little knife work, and his vision will be so clear it’ll be like sitting on board the space telescope.
I wonder what will come first. A comment on how PZ “only talks about sexism”, a claim that this proves PZ is a “misandrist” or a claim of No True Scotsman.
Bets?
Hmmm…
It is questionable if these folks have either wives or girlfriends, or if they’ve ever gone on a non-pity repeat date.
Methinks they’ve grown bitter and delusional from the lack of Vitamin D. What with there being no windows in their parents’ basements and all.
That’s my experience as well. The quantity of sex with my 50+ wife is less than when we were in our 20s but that’s more than made up by the improvement in quality.
Hey, I am thirty six, I just want to say these guys wouldn’t recognize my life if it up and bit them.
…Seriously?
I obviously cannot say I’m too experienced in long-term relationship affairs (although I’ve been with my current girlfriend for 5 years now, and I’m only 24), but it seems to me that to these guys a woman is just a walking vagina, once she gets past their prime, discard her.
I sometimes imagine how things would be if me & my girlfriend were to stay together, say, 30 years longer. All the good moments together, all the fond memories we would have of each other in such a long time, and of course, all the sexual experience accumulated. I would still love her dearly, and because of that, I would still enjoy sex with her.
I really pity MRA’s. They’re pathetic in every way.
This thread won’t get too many comments. All the old people leaning on their canes to brag about their phenomenal sex lives is going to creep all the youngsters out.
And Markle proves he’s going to be the first troll in every thread.
It’s a good warning actually: this is the life ahead of you if you are an MRA or married to one.
Wake up, join the living, get better sex! Leave your MRA ways behind!
Maybe someone should check Mackerel for morph/sock puppets.
Actually, if the only thing you can bring yourself to say is an ageist sneer, I might just delete your comment. So don’t bother.
Every day I thank my lucky stars that I got divorced at 23. The life I lead! Every day I come home to my loving…television. I eat dinner in my underwear, drink straight out of the milk carton, and top off the evening by masturbating gloomily. No living corpse next to me at night, by gum.
Suck it, married guys!
Well, that’s classy.
I’m not into voyeurism, but if I had to pick a couple to watch going at it, I’d pick a loving old couple over a young MRA and his penis receptacle du jour (and somehow I doubt the MRA quoted above thinks of women otherwise). One of those is MUCH grosser than the other. I aspire to one day have one, but certainly not the other.
Wrinkly loving sex >>>>> Young and hot MRA-tastic boning.
I wonder whether some of these jerks would be happier and less hate-filled if they could just admit to themselves that what they really want is to sleep with guys.
What sad, hollow lives these people must lead.
Relatedly: I am going to treasure for all time the statement from a (presumably older) MRA that what young men need is get their testosterone levels lowered.
Wow.
Forgive me, but what is an MRA?
These people are indeed weird, but I am pleased to say I have not until now heard of them.
@Moggie
No…these people exist in homomorph as well. Let us not wish them upon anyone.
I may be rude, but a gentleman doesn’t brag. Even anonymously on the internet. I’m perfectly happy creeping out my own kids, in my own home, with any sort of display of affection toward my wife.
“EEEEEEEW, mom & dad” is the most common reaction in that situation.
Men Right’s Activist.
people who bitch about how horrible women are mostly. The harmless end are people clueless and insist that feminism is causing problems even though it solves them…the middle are bitter angry privileged folk who are upset their cock isn’t in something…and the far end are rapists.
@Ray
A Gentlemen may not brag…but who said we were gentlemen.
Reminds me of Al Bundy.
Not sure what an MRA is, but has this miserable dude ever heard of divorce? Has his wife?
Chemical castration is an option for the younger MRAs. They’ll know it’s working when they see this ad on FTB (seriously, this is a real ad on FTB) http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=COyslYO1t8DsyAEQrAIY7wEyCFCuMG8rWC9W and don’t feel the need for a… rational response? Wait a minute…
But seriously, that ad is on FTB. Why?
@Jasper
Divorce means that Teh Bitch! gets 50% of HIS stuff! He also then has to give HER money because SHE had HIS kids!
ING@@20 Well, I never claimed to BE a gentleman, but I do aspire to good behavior.
So Bigfoot sightings are actually MRAs hiding from their wives?
I stopped to read the Manboobz post before continuing with PZ’s post. I nearly spit out the iced chocolate brownie I was eating and I am very happy that my tea cup was only in my hand rather than near my mouth, because I laughed so hard when I came to this:
I guess it’s a good thing too that I had brownie and not tea or some mixture of the two in my mouth. The rest merely had me in giggles. I went back and read the post again and experienced the same reaction.
PZ is right, these guys are hilarious. It’s definitely the stupid and that fact that it’s very serious. When something gets this stupid and is meant seriously, there’s nothing to do but to laugh. And laugh hard too. Computer monitors the world over probably need replacing now.
I’m really at a loss as to how to take this or how to respond. It’s clear that these men are serious, but I’m finding it so hard to take the real problem with their kind of thought seriously because of how stupid they are. It actually hurts to think about it.
These men might actually be funnier than creationists; at least some portion of creationist aren’t serious. If only their hilarity didn’t correlate so well with how disgusting, dangerous and awful their thinking is.
@Naked Bunny
Well like Bigfoot they do have poor focus.
“I’ll draw out the enemy with my human call! ~ I’M SOOOOOOOOOO WASTED! I’m SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WASTED!~”
Makes me think of a pornographic supervillian called Puss-E. She’s a parasitic twin/vagina dentata being that controls men through their hormones.
FEAR THE SIREN SONG OF PUSS-E!
I’d find MRAs funnier if I wasn’t an object of their hatred (though, being older than 25 I’m too old for them to consider worthy of too much thought). It’s like how much of the KKK is inherently ridiculous (those robes and hoods!) but if I were African-American, I wouldn’t find as much humour in them.
Er…wow. They just get more pathetic. Anyone who is that determined to be bitter isn’t going to have much fun in life, let alone have a fun sex life.
As one of those 50+ people (who actually does use a cane) who has been happily married for 30+ years, I can affirm the sex is great.
As for all the living corpse business, someone doesn’t like zombies. Narsty.
On menopause – I went through it at 36, sailed right through, never took anything, no fuss no muss.
Damn it, I hate not being able to edit. I want to add that though they are a bigoted hate group pretty much on par with white supremacists, I do still find humour in them which is why Manboobz is a regular blog stop for me, except for periods where I need to take a break from reading about the hatred.
Don’t forget it would also deprive him of something to whine about and blame his depression on. It would be a step, an action. I mean if he divorced her that would be *doing* something! Damn it. Also, he’d have a hard time getting new pussy… I mean girlfriends.
Thomathy:
I don’t have any problem taking them seriously. Of course, I’m a woman.
Oh, wicked, bad, naughty Zoot! She has been setting a light to our beacon, which, I’ve just remembered, is Pussy shaped. It’s not the first time we’ve had this problem.
MRAs = Misogynist Regressive Assholes
Except not at all funny.
I’m not sure they’re even remotely related. Being a gentleman is about acquiescing to antiquated rules of patriarchy. Good behavior starts with treating people as equals.
They’re funny, when they’re not threatening to assault you I guess. The KKK comparison is good. All fun and games till some one scratches a swastika on your car in the night, or you go to the “wrong” diner in small town Texas while being black.
KWIM?
So let me get this straight…
A woman is only useful for sex, and if she doesn’t turn him on anymore—for whatever reason*—she’s just an unwanted piece of furniture that unfortunately can’t be got rid of.
*If the reason is that she no longer looks like a teenager, that’s her fault for ageing, not his for having a fixation on youth.
Oh, wicked, bad, naughty Algernon! Xe just made me spit my tea all over my desk!
It’s one of those funny posts though, because the little utilitarian that lives inside of me says, “But this *is* great advice, because if more of them just avoided women and left them alone we’d all be happier!”
OK, as an historian I just have to snark on another part of this garbage;
So when was pussy not “in use”? When was this idyllic Girls Not Allowed Age? And how is that not really, really gay? And I mean that in both the good and bad way.
Off the top of my head I can think of one. Nun-Shogun Hojo Masako certainly instigated the Jokyu War. But since she was 64 at the time I seriously doubt it was the promise of her jelly roll that was the prime factor in urging her clan to war.
On the other hand, I can think of many, many wars that were fought using a woman (or women) as a flimsy excuse. Hell, one of the foundational events of our entire civilization was a trade dispute that led to a war they all blamed on some poor lady from Argos.
Yeh, I too don’t find them all that funny.
Daz:
That business always interests me. As it was so eloquently put:
They never manage to mention just what it is their “living corpse” has to look forward to with them. They seem to think they don’t change at all, they don’t age, their bodies don’t change, yada, yada, yada. Nope, it’s only the now dessicated pussy which changes. You betcha.
I’ve never heard of MRA:s before! I find it quite curious that you seem to find all these strange people and highlight them on your blog. I mean, why? What is the purpose? An excuse for bragging about your fantastic sex life? ;-)
Personally sex is not all that important for me for the moment being. I’m not saying I will never have sex again in my life or a long term relationship, but I actually feel sorry for people who can’t imagine a good life without sex. That’s really sad in my opinion… This is what I find interesting with you Americans. You seem to be almost obsessed with sex. Even the adults seem to behave like horny teenagers. But regardless of how deluded these people might be, they have a point. Sex is the cause of much misery in this world. Just think about all the broken families and lives due to infidelity or jealousy. Sex really can drive people insane in a quite unique way. It does not help that we live in a world where sex is constantly used as a marketing tool! We are told that you can’t be happy without sex. A good sex life is the sole purpose of your existence. If you don’t have sex five times a week your relationship is bound to fail! Everything seems to revolve around sex these days. In that sense, I sort of understand what they are saying. Although this of course has nothing to do with gender.
At this point, I think it’s just as well to talk about them openly to show them for the people they are. The thing is, they swarm the place. For years they swarm any topic where women come up. Hell, once long long ago on Pharyngula, PZ asked a simple question to the women who post here about what might get more women participating in atheism.
It was ugly. Since Watson’s been demonized by people within the movement for having the gall to say something women are apparently not allowed to say PZ has sort of been confronting this shit head on, much the way he does creationists.
Since this is probably the safest and least moderated blog I post on currently (amazingly rare) I’d say his tactic of drawing this shit into direct confrontation is effective. Maybe it isn’t something everyone can pull off, and it may be that he is leveraging some of his own privilege to pull it of (which I don’t see as a bad thing anyway) but the point is it does seem to draw the little shits into the cold light of day, which is a beautiful beautiful thing.
PZ, I didn’t know websites like that existed.
It’s interesting and a bit scary how rationalizing bitterness and disappointment turns into its own ideology.
Casual Guy:
If you’re the same douchecake Casual Guy from this thread, yes you have. Which makes you the same liar and empty monster as before.
Casual Guy,
These strange MRAs that you find no good reason to expose are part of the problem that you bring up in your following paragraph. We would prefer a society where sex and sexuality is something that people can explore in a comfortable fashion to whatever degree they prefer, not one where people are told a tale about how they should be that virtually no one actually lives.
Dude…get help.
FTFY
Also, could you include some more sweeping generalisations and stereotypes about Americans please. I’m sure you can do better with effort.
(Not American, by the way.)
Algernon:
So is Casual Guy. See the link in #49.
Well, obviously you must spank her! And when you’re done, you must spank me too, Esteleth!
Casual Guy, shut up.
Seriously, take that garbage away.
But sex is something experienced by everyone, not just men, and not just heterosexuals. And sex isn’t so much the problem as our attitudes towards sex. This guy has a toxic attitude towards sex completely, but instead of addressing that he’s more interested in taking an easy target.
You must be new here. They’ve been an infestation for a long time. Especially the last 5 months or so.
The ARE just like creationists! Right down to the silly, obviously disingenuous questions about why it’s useful to draw attention to their toxicity.
Oh dear fucknuggets, CasualGuy, fuck off.
A spanking! A spanking! *claps excitedly*
Casual Guy is not new here. He’s a misogynistic piece of scum that was dealt with on a sexism issue before: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/too_soon.php
See what happens when you take a vacation from this place?
Casual Guy is lying. Not only has he posted before but his statement is clearly poor concern trolling…and mimics exactly the sex negative Men Going Their Own Way branch of the MRA
“Woman as corpse,” “chastity for rationality,” funny to see tropes I associate with Buddhist literature in such a modern context.
It is a pity that this celebration of chastity is presented with so much other baggage.
Algernon:
I wish I had missed CG the first time around. It’s difficult to get more ugly than him.
And when I say mimics I mean mimics in the same way a cat mimics itself.
Ah, dishonest then. I thought the moniker seemed familiar. Thanks!
These are horrible horrible people and I find it very very scary that anyone on the street could be one of these anonymous internet posters.
I mean how would you ever know until they started to spew bile everywhere? You wouldn’t! Hell, they could be perfectly polite to your face, then start muttering darkly as you walk away.
I think these are the people they should be watching for domestic terrorism. Seriously. I fail to see a great deal of difference between their attitudes and those of Islamists advocating murdering those uppity Danish cartoonists.
…
It is kind of funny to imagine them being eaten by zombies, though.
Yes, won’t somebody think of the children?
Don’t have sex!
If you don’t have sex with the person you love, your children won’t get hurt!
Oh, ehm, I’m running into a bit of a logical problem…
Oh, and, yes, sex has been getting much better. Can’t wait to be 50.
As viciously as they attack women, I bet they would go ballistic at the hint of the suggestion that they might possibly be harboring unconscious homo-erotic considerations of what vaguely might pass as thought.
I mean, if “(kitty) is indeed way overrated,” I have to wonder what they think of (rooster).
I think Casual Guy is also Nunbeliever on parole from the dungeon.
Caine, Fleur du Mal عنت, oh, I do take them seriously. I guess I mean that because of the level of stupidity and the hilarity that such stupidity triggers, it’s difficult to believe that they’re serious and thus difficult to take them seriously. But, I know they are serious. It’s almost like cognitive dissonance.
The difference, of course, is that I do take them seriously in the end. I suppose, for a woman, as you and others have indicated, there’s little room for that marginal disbelief, the difficultly believing, that anything so stupid could actually be meant seriously.
But then, these men tell us they’re serious and if the person writing the dangerously hateful stuff says he’s serious about it, well, we’d be stupid not to believe him. And still, this level of stupidity is hilarious. It’s the most depressing kind of funny.
Casual Guy is a worse liar than you know. On Sb, he appeared as “nunbeliever” on this thread. He’s pretty hysterical for a “casual guy”.
Hertta:
I think those are two different people; only PZ would know for sure.
suyamariyathai
Why would chastity or lack thereof need to be celebrated? The idea that chastity is a virtue is just a polite way of slut-shaming.
A good analogy is food. Just because we might not want to be gluttonous to the point of obesity doesn’t mean we should all be anorexic. Both are unhealthy fixations.
I would be very pleased if these people took this advice.
with the result that their genes are taken out of the gene pool.
Oops, sorry Hertta! You were right. CG/nunbeliever is one person I do not want to see back here. Such serious ugly.
I’m just confused what “creationionism” is. Creation-ion-ism? Creati-onionism?
Oh, and, MRAs are assholeoles.
I don’t care for the generic label ‘MRAs’. It’s imprecise and often inaccurate. Often what is espoused by those so labeled has nothing to do with Men’s Rights, but rather is simple garden-variety sexism.
I propose to fall back to what they were called back in the day: ‘sexist pigs’.
wait, need a TLA…how about ‘Sexist Asshole Pigs’?
Bit offensive to the pigs, Chas.
Chas:
SAPs? Yeah, that’s workable.
Why would chastity or lack thereof need to be celebrated? The idea that chastity is a virtue
I wrote “pleasure,” and not “virtue”. The lack thereof, i.e. sex, is celebrated everywhere I turn, including in this very thread. Celebrating chastity would be a refreshing change, Lorna Goodison’s “Becoming a mermaid” comes to mind.
Food is not an appropriate analogy: not eating is fatal, not having sex seems to have worked out just fine for any number of people, Newton, Da Vinci et al. The appropriate analogy may be drinking alcohol, which doesn’t have to have bad consequences per se, though for rather many people it does, and the pleasures of temperance are under-rated.
The only problem I have with the Men Going Their Own Way is that they never actually do go their own way. They just hang around and complain about how terrible women are, and if women don’t shape up, they’re going to go their own way… any day now. And then we’ll be sorry!
I wish they’d actually try it. If they are sincere, it sounds like a win-win for everyone.
IF…
It also results in a profound fatigue after the act.
Women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I deny them my essence.
To Dhorvath:
“We would prefer a society where sex and sexuality is something that people can explore in a comfortable fashion to whatever degree they prefer, not one where people are told a tale about how they should be that virtually no one actually lives.”
Yes, I totally agree! Perhaps I did not express myself in a proper way. I regard these people as victims of a over sexualized society. They don’t see women as persons anymore. Just sexual objects. When I read comments by people like the one PZ is referring to, I really sense an utter frustration and identity crisis. When I said they have a point I did not mean I agree with what they are actually saying. When I said they have a point I meant that their frustration with people being obsessed with sex is a perspective I can relate to. Of course their crazy portrayal of women is insane. But, as far as I am concerned it’s just a symptom of the superficial attitude toward sex I feel is very common in our societies. Sex is seen as an act where you have to perform rather than talking about sex as a form of communication that is always unique. Not a competition. There is nothing such as good or bad sex from an objective perspective anymore than there is a good or bad conversation. I feel many people today regard sex as some form of sport. You compete and perform. We talk way too little about emotions and sex as a unique and individual expression of emotions and Solicitude. In my opinion, it’s insane to talk about good sex and bad sex from an objective perspective.
Not in the Bible Belt, they’re not.
I’m 21. My wife is 23. If I were being tortured, I’m pretty sure I’d notice hormones or no.
Everything written by the MRAs is irrational and a bit scary.
Oh. Oooooh. Now I get it, he’s talking about relationships. And I thought it was the storyline of Zombie Necrophilia on Elm Street VI.
@Sally Strange
Sounds a lot like those pinheaded Randians and their never-ending threats to go Galt…
Caine:
Agree. I mostly lurk but I read the whole thread linked at #49. Seriously rapey.
Casual Guy, your lies and morphing have been brought up in this thread. You might want to stop digging now. (At the very least, stop fucking lying.) You are the same lying, sociopathic scum as you were before, both as CG and nunbeliever. You are not worth addressing.
Hertta:
Yeah. It’s hard to describe just how loathsome CG is, reading the thread is better, even though it makes for nasty reading.
Okay, sex at 29 is way better than sex at 20 so if it keeps improving like PZ claims, I look forward to be very very happy when I’m 50.
Why? What is there to celebrate about it?
I’m not saying that voluntary chastity is bad in any way (though a fixation on it, as in the RCC, certainly is unhealthy), but I don’t see it as inherently something to celebrate, either.
Right… Just like how whatever the fuck you’ve been smoking is neither good nor bad from an objective perspective.
Yeah, I’d say if someone wants to practice chastity, that’s their choice of course. Some people feel they need no Sex, or are simply not interested, others have a problem with it and think it best to abstain. Whatever. But if it’s an institution or some kind of officially endorsed idea, that most certainly does not encourage young people growing up in that society to develop a healthy relationship to sex and one’s body.
What fun is inherent in chastity? What in chastity is inherently meant to “celebrate”? I mean with sex (meaning consensual thus enthusiastic sex), there’s the orgasm, closeness, intimacy and often funny snafus, but chastity? IDGI.
If you don’t want to talk about sex no one is forcing you, just as no one is forcing you to read this thread. So you can stop clutching your pearls now. I’m sure they’d like a breather. Don’t let the door hit your ass (Oh, pardon my crudeness – BOTTOM) on your way out.
There is, in fact, a very large overlap. With a lot of conspiracy-mongering thrown in.
So I have deduced from reading the comments at Manboobz.
*snortle*
–
*snortle!*
–
So true. And their attempts to compete for young women in their teens and twenties, against the guys in that age bracket, don’t frequently look sad at all.
–
And every bit of it the fault of us simultaneously sex-crazy and sexually-dead wimmenfolk, too.</sarcasm>
–
Google the phrase “chastity play”. It’s not my kink but it’s a pretty common one for submissive men and their Dominant partner. There is apparently a good deal of fun inherent in it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAhahahh…
Yes. Yes you are.
cicely, Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac says
Well yeah. We all know that WOMEN, or WOMYYN, depending on your level of Y-chromosome envy, are sex-obsessed sluts who fucks every alpha in sight, significantly lowering our value (which means sexual value, duh, because natch) and then marry a poor beta and refuse to fuck him ever while simultaneously continuing to fuck every other man on the planet (sexual value is now so low that even betas will do!) while stealing his sperm to make children so he will have to pay us off, mafia-style, for the rest of our lives.
I mean, it is quite clear that we women will stop at nothing to seduce innocent men with the call of our irresistible vaginae* for the sole purpose of enslaving them to a lifetime of necrophilia, because everyone knows that women don’t like sex and the older a woman gets the less she wants sex and the less the dude wants teh seks with her.
It makes perfect sense. If by “sense” you mean circular, redundant nonsensical bullcrap.
*Intentional.
@100 Naodi:
Well. Imagination fail on my part, I guess. Thanks!
@101
Not sure I understand…?
@103: It’s the real life version of Rule 34. If it exists there is a fetish for it.
Precisely.
That is to say, your arrogance in dubbing all those who have the gall to disagree with you, and do so in less than polite terms, as “trolls,” regardless of the content of their comments to you, fits perfectly with the arrogance of a 21-year-old who’s still trying to figure out the world, but also simultaneously convinced he’s got it mostly figured out already.
Nothing personal, you see… it just explains a lot.
Hate to break it to the MRA quoted on Mamboobz, but if my parents are any indication (in their 70’s, married 50+ years) sex is good when you’re old. My mom tries to tell me about it, despite my “Blah blah blah! I can’t hear you!” and fingers in my ears. I think it’s awesome, but I don’t want details. Sexual attraction does outlast childbirth and gravity and old man hair and all that stuff.
@Sally, Esteleth, Algernon: And after the spanking?
@Feralboy12: LOL, nice one.
@Casual Guy: Fuck off. I remember you, too.
I’ve been browsing Manboobz on and off since I discovered it through some thread here. I’m another one with mixed feelings – sometimes it is so hilariously disconnected from reality that you can only laugh; sometimes it’s utterly terrifying. Often it’s both at once, especially when you stop to think that these are real people, not cartoons. What are they doing to the women in their lives? *shudder*
And wait, what? “Woman as corpse” is part of Buddhist tradition? I knew the Buddhists weren’t as nice as they’re currently made out to be in the west, but that’s a new one to me. While “chastity” is valid choice for some, it’s not so great if it’s chosen out of misogyny or body-loathing. (Usually religiously inspired, the flesh as sinful, weak, vile, blah blah bah especially teh wimminz. Such as how Gautama Buddha was born through his mother’s side, so he wouldn’t have to deal with any nasty vagina.)
To PZ Myers:
“Casual Guy is a worse liar than you know. On Sb, he appeared as “nunbeliever” on this thread. He’s pretty hysterical for a “casual guy”.”
I get it. You despise my opinions. Or rather, you despise your own preconceptions of what you think I stand for. But I’m nonetheless a real human being. A person you know nothing of. You know nothing about where I come from and my personal history.
I find it disturbing enough that you have a history of ignoring vicious attacks against people you disagree with. Not only regarding their arguments, but their personalities. Pure ad hominem attacks that has nothing to do with the actual arguments. But, what really disturbs me is that you by making comments like this one are really supporting and encouraging an inhumane environment where it’s ok to treat people who disagree with you (or have opinions you find despicable) like subhuman trash. This is bullying. Is this how you treat people in real life as well? If you don’t agree with them or find them despicable they are fair game? It would be one thing if we had a discussion on equal terms. But, this is your blog and your opinions and comments affect how people behave. We are not on equal terms here. You are an authority in this regard.
This is particulary disturbing since you are a teacher as well. Is this how you treat your students? Do you allow students to dehumanize and attack their fellow students in class just because they disagree with their arguments or find them despicable? Are they fair game too?
My reading of the above quote is that MRAs are saying that they don’t want to marry and in fact would prefer celibacy. I don’t see the problem with that.
If I were a man, though, I’d be very insulted at the implicit claim that my 43 year old self didn’t have hormones any longer. Really, guys, 40+ year old men can still get it up. At least, some can. MRAs…maybe not so much so.
To Maikalambe:
“Right… Just like how whatever the fuck you’ve been smoking is neither good nor bad from an objective perspective.”
Please elaborate. I am sure you had an argument in there as well… Talking about smoking. Yes, it’s time for a cigarrette ;)
Casual Guy/nunbeliever:
You get nothing. You’re an empty monster, a bag of sociopathic ugliness. You’re a liar. You’re a troll. You’re a waste of skin.
It’s not a matter of despising your opinions. It’s a matter of despising a loathsome, scum-laced sociopath.
Wait wait… it helps to be watching this while you read Casual Guy at 109.
lol but why are you so mad though?
Well, given that there’s MRAs about, we shouldn’t talk about that… it’s far too perilous for them, you see.
And CG demonstrates another moron who doesn’t get what an ad hom actually is.
It’s all about cause and effect. If we say you’re a big doodoo head, and therefore anything you say is wrong, that’s (close too) an ad hom. If we point out your own words and state that they indicate you are a sociopathic, scumbag, that’s simply drawing a conclusion.
See the difference, asshole?
Nah, they don’t believe in that kind of peril. At least not to a women.
And of course, as for all things in life, there’s a British comedy skit about it
And of course, to a man, it’s far too perilous because of the hormone-blinding that occurs straightaway, leaving them vulnerable to manipulation by Evil Bishes trying to suck away all of their, errr, money.
Zerple,
please, please tell us more about yourself. I mean, the topic of sexism is important and all, but I am much more interested in hearing more about you. Today, you have managed to contribute fuck all besides telling us exactly how the topic of feminism and sexism relates to YOU (and mostly that has consisted of you telling us that it hasn’t effected you much, since you are privileged and for the most part unaware of it).
You show up weeks ago, spew sexist and ignorant bullshit, rightfully get called out for it, and then throw a temper tantrum about how all the angry trolls are mistreating you. I haven’t seen anyone trolling you. No one is swearing at you to get a rise from you, they are reacting to what you are saying.
I very much dislike you, Zerple. Your posts are self-centered and extremely arrogant. You calling regular, rational commentators “trolls” because they are not holding your hand and being all nice as they educate you is ridiculously annoying.
You said a while ago that if you found a nicey-nice feminist blog that doesn’t call you out on your shit as harshly as the horde does, you would leave pharyngula. Today you said that you have found such a blog. Go there. Leave.
More examples of Zerple’s riveting contributions,
As has been recommended to you many times already, I suggest you spend less time talking about yourself and about how you haven’t experienced much sexism and spend more time listening to the people who have experienced it. I learned a lot reading these threads which illuminate entrenched sexism. I managed to read and educate myself without constantly jumping in and proudly declaring my ignorance, and without constantly relating it back to my experience as a man. Give it a try.
This post got long, so I’ll put it in bullet form for you.
1) Listen more, try harder to replace your ignorance with understanding that is based on the valuable input from people who actually fucking know a thing or two about sexism
2) Lose the condescending attitude (especially sanctimoniously calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll)
3) Stop telling us that you are “concerned” about how our style of discourse isn’t accomplishing our goals.
Sally,
I was going to suggest “dinner and a movie,” but then I belive that getting to know someone should come before sex.
Even oral sex. ;)
Dianne:
I don’t want to marry, and I prefer celibacy. But you know what? I don’t hate women, and don’t go around insulting them. There’s nothing wrong with a sexless or solitary lifestyle, if that’s what you’re emotionally equipped for, but it certainly doesn’t require MRA bile.
Casual fuckwit –> killfile for terminal insipidity, stupidity, and dishonesty.
Esteleth:
We tend to orgies here, they go along with visits to the spanking parlour. Or, there’s the line for ghey secks with Brownian. Long wait there, though.
Regarding the “women as corpses” thing, it’s not really a “flesh is weak and sinful” it’s more that flesh is impermanent. The idea is that the person you’re lusting after is basically a corpse in waiting, so lust doesn’t make any sense. You are yourself also a corpse in waiting and there is a great deal of practice focused on that idea.
But patriarchy means that the idea is almost always applied to women and it’s women’s bodies that are thus seen as corrupt.
To fastlane:
“If we point out your own words and state that they indicate you are a sociopathic, scumbag, that’s simply drawing a conclusion.”
Are you a trained psychiatrist or psychologist? Obviously not. If you were you would know it’s quite problematic to diagnose a person with psychopathy (or sociopathy). Psychopathy is a serious personality disorder and not one you should use lightly. You have to study a person closely for a long period of time in order to be able to even consider such a diagnosis. The arbitrary use of the word psychopathy you refer to is a text book example of an ad hominem argument. No offence, but your arguments would be much more convincing if you knew the first thing about the subject you are discussing.
There are different views, besides Lorna Goodison’s, which I mentioned in the very sentence you quote, see also Milton’s Comus, Fleur Adcock’s Against Coupling.
There are innumerable Buddhist poems describing women as corpses, aging hags, rotting flesh etc., to show the impermanance of all things and repulse the male student from desiring what seems beautiful now.
@ Dianne
I would be if it was worth the energy. But, eh, young men think that old men are stupid, old men know that young men are stupid.
Personal anecdote: some time ago, visiting my late-50 parents, I stupidly asked my mom how things were going between her and my dad.
OK, maybe I framed my question oddly.
Straightforward answer from my dear mom: “He still honors me regularly”, with a little smug smile.
Take-home lesson 1. Boy, mind your business, or you may get more than you asked for.
Lesson 2. That got me interested. I’m not in a hurry to get at this age, but I’m now sort of curious to see what will happen.
Casual Guy,
Me:
I am suspicious, but I have said those words, so.
Well you did make it sound like culture has a problem caused by sexuality, where I see sexuality as having a problem that is caused by culture.
Poorly sexualized perhaps, but oversexualized? Some of the most culturally aware and conscientious people I know are incredibly sexual, yet that doesn’t lead them down the same paths as some of these misanthropes.
Hey, I think about sex a lot, I do sexy things with people I have known for oftentimes very short periods of time, but it’s easy to focus on how that allows me to relate to other people and they to me. Some people dance, others play chess, whatever.
Which telling them not to think about sex wouldn’t help. However if we set up a framework where they learn boundaries and respect before they start stepping on other people’s sexuality that frustration would be at least understood as misplaced and in many cases mitigated if not eliminated.
And it’s not one that I can relate to, I am, to be fair and honest, sex obsessed.
Sadly it’s not insane, it’s learned. They think shit like that because other people have told them that, or something similar, is truth. And their perspective is broken enough that they can’t see how wrong the ideas are. This is an infection, but it’s not one of sex being too important, it’s one of entitlment, ignorance, and selfishness.
If you are referring to how some people view sex as divorced from personal interaction, yes I do think that some people fit the idea. If you are meaning that sex can’t be a casual activity, I must differ.
This is strong. When you see sex as competition it’s hard to avoid either seeing it as something you win from others, or that you have to keep score to compare with your contemporaries. For that matter, it’s pretty easy to end up seeing it as both of those things.
The sorts of things that define poor conversation apply very well to poor sex. Lack of communication, denial of personhood, monopolizing the dialogue, etc.
Depending on how you define sport, I do that.
Or you participate and revel. Not all sport is about winning.
I am not saying that having sex can’t or shouldn’t have emotions involved, just that trying to tie it to a specific framework of love or devotion has it’s own problems. I don’t want to see any specific narratives tied to sexuality save one of growth and respect, much like how I would people approach all interpersonal activities.
Oh yeah. Casual Guy, the “Won’t someone think of the accused rapists??!?” dude.
Killfile!
I don’t necessarily disagree with you here, but could you maybe check how often you use insane or crazy to refer to ideas which you disagree with? Pots and kettles and all that.
As an avid amateur scumbag detector who is familiar with Casual Guy’s previous posts, I concur with fastlane’s informal diagnosis. Pre-emptive killfiling would be an appropriate response.
Caine:
Well, in that case…
Hmm. [NSFW] What do you think I should start with?
I love how Lesbian + Brownian = ghey secks. :D :D :D But then, I’m ghey and I’m hella secksy, so ghey secks sounds completely reasonable.
To Caine:
“It’s not a matter of despising your opinions. It’s a matter of despising a loathsome, scum-laced sociopath.”
I try to ignore your vicious comments in every way I can, but I think this comment was such a clear example of what I was talking about that I just could not ignore it. I have to get it on record, so to speak. Could there be a more clear example of an ad hominm argument? You actually admit yourself that it has nothing to do with my opinions. It has everything to do with my personality as you perceive it. Since you think I am a “loathsome, scum-laced sociopath” you can dismiss everything I say by default. This should literally be a text book example of an ad hominem argument. It can’t get any more clear cut than this…
Sally Strange,
But I am over thirty five and the haze is clearing. Oh no, whatever will I do?
From Wikipedia,
Specifically, which claim of yours was supposedly fallaciously dismissed? Quote your claim, then quote the comment which said it was wrong because of some flaw in your character. I see your stupid claims being dismissed. I see conclusions being drawn about your character based on what you have written. I haven’t seen any ad hominems though.
How long do I have to study you in order to conclude that you are an ass? Well, It only took a few seconds to find these comments of yours,
so not that long apparently.
Start practicing your cane waving. *hands foam cane to Dhorvath*
The mention of mind controlling vaginas made me think of Go Nagai’s Kekko Kamen. She’s a superheroine who is mostly naked, and one of her main attacks is slamming her crotch into her foe, often leaving them senseless with a smile on their face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kekko_Kamen
Ing @ 28;
I love the Warcraft 3 reference.
——————————————————————-
Casual Guy @ 109;
Oh, not you too. You need to look up what the argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy actually is before you start throwing accusations of it around.
Damnit, there goes another irony metre. You are aware that we are discussing the actual dehumanization of women by MRAs who consider the female of the species to be nothing more than a living sex toy/evil vagina delivery system with designs on world domination via the hormonal mind control of teh poor menz? The replication of these types of memes contributes to actual violence against women in society. The commenters here taking misogynists to task harms nothing other than the fragile egos of men more concerned with maintaining their privilege than with treating women as actual human beings.
What makes you assume that PZ treats a classroom in the same way as he treats a blog? The two environments are rather different, afterall. Though I would imagine that if someone was consistently disrupting the class in order to rant about how evil women are, then PZ would take them to task and rightly so.
Thanks Nerd. Does it look anything like the magic wand that Esteleth was using to entice?
Is this seriously what these people think? I wonder what percentage of MRAs are creationists…
Pteryxx:
Indeed.
Dhorvath, as you may have noticed, many of us are all too familiar with CG’s sociopathic, triggering crap. He’s a rape apologist to the nth degree, a known troll and a morpher. Please stop engaging him or take it private. There are many of us here who aren’t interested in seeing his brand of crap quoted at length. Thank you.
@Dvorhath
I’ve got a Hello Kitty sticker on mine. If that’s the one you’ve got, please wash it before returning.
*cough*
Okay, okay. Sorry. Just got home from work. BTW: thesis word count is 21,567. And it has passed muster with
Godmy advisor. :D :D :DThe first thing I thought of when I read this was that some people would really like a living corpse. Not a really popular type of fetish but not that uncommon. Of course I then read the rest of the sentence and realized they meant this in a rather different way.
I guess I am just weird for having that pop into my head.
These MRAs are stupid, pathetic and miserable. It must be awful being one of them.
I’ve had 20-odd years experience of whatever it is I do for a living. People expect me to be quite good at it (SUCKERS!).
I’ve had more than 20 years experience of playing video games. People expect me to be pretty good at that too.
I’ve been cooking since I was four or five and everyone expects me to put up a decent plate of food.
I’ve been fucking for a long time too, but quite a lot of people expect that I’ve somehow been getting worse at it as the years go by.
I suppose you should ask my wife, but it’s an odd expectation.
Esteleth @ 133;
As Pharyngula Wiki explains, irrespective of your gender, all secks with Brownian is ghey secks, and everyone wants ghey secks with Brownian, whatever their orientation and even if they don’t realise it yet. It is one of the great unexplained mysteries of the Universe…
Look, we’re all good descriptivists here, right? Down with Language Log, etc.?
Well, then, it’s time to start admitting that what people mean by the phrase ‘ad hominem attack’ is not the logical fallacy with the similar name. Nowadays, in general internet use, these are different concepts. Language evolving. Deal with it. Or quit using ‘data’ as a singular.
I’ve run into a few MRA types in meatspace. To a man, they tend to have horrid social skills and be of the opinion that a not-hot, middle-aged guy with a middle-class income (or lower) should have supermodels at his beck and call.
They also seem to be the sort that think, “Y’know, you’d be cute if you lost 30 pounds” is a great pick up line (and yes, I’ve gotten that).
The fact that the world does not revolve around them seems to escape them.
I dunno, you can learn a lot about a person from spanking them. Or being spanked by them. Hence, the Spanking Parlour. :DDD
And congrats on your thesis!
Caine,
Well don’t I stink then. I saw a reply to something I said and didn’t think to read much deeper into the thread before replying. My apologies, I will keep an eye out in the future.
People crying wolf over being attacked with ad hominems aren’t just misusing the phrase by using it as a synonym for “insult”. They imply that their arguments aren’t actually being addressed. They blend the real use of the phrase with their misapprehension that it refers merely to an insult. If they were just saying they are being insulted, fine, but when they say that their arguments are being addressed fallaciously simply because those addressing it also throw in some zingers, that is not ok.
“Pussy is a weapon of mass destruction?”
That made me cat /var/mug/coffee | /dev/nose > /mnt/desktop
Interesting that they refer to it using the language of warhawkery and weapons. I’ve always thought the hawks were cowards deep down. These people seem frightened of vaginas :)
Either way, you’re still left with the problem of explaining that you weren’t claiming that they’re wrong because they’re an areshole. Which means you’re still explaining why what you said wasn’t an ad hominem.
Dhorvath, see the link in #49 and the link in PZ’s post. You’ll see more of CG than you like.
To Dhorvath:
Well, with emotions I did not necessarily mean love or some deeper connection with an other person. Just that it is something two people share. Of course sport can be a shared experience as well, but it always involves a strong element of competition that I feel can be rather destructive if implemented in a sexual setting. I meant that in the western world today many tend to focus mainly on sex as a physical performance. If you do this and that you’ll get this magnificent orgasm. I think this view in a sense reflects the distorted opinions the MRA:s have in this regard. They really see sex as nothing but a physical performance in order to get personal pleasure. The woman is nothing but a tool in order to achieve this goal. Essentially they think a woman is nothing but a expendable fuck machine with a narrow expiration date. This is what I meant when I talked about that we have a superficial view of sex.
View this in contrast to sex as a form of communication involving emotions. You don’t brag with others (or most people don’t) that “I had this really good conversation with this person yesterday” and your friend goes “ok, but I had this even better conversation with this other person”. I think we would benefit vastly from having a similar view of sex. It’s not about competition or to win, as you pointed out yourself. But about sharing a unique experience between two people. An experience that is never the same and I think comparing sexual experiences in a competitive way kind of reflects a superficial view of sex I was talking about earlier. A view of sex that to some extent might be the cause of the distorted view of women the MRA:s hold.
If it makes you feel better, after reading your other comments I have come to the conclusion that you are not arguing in good faith (given that you started out with a lie, for one) and that you are not a person I want to associate with. At all. Ever.
Fair enough, I say.
Markle:
http://files.sharenator.com/U_Mad_Bro_RE_Do_you_have_to_have_the_last_word_RE_Sonisphere_UK_2011-s469x428-137106-580.jpg
Right?
Casual Guy, you are untrustworthy and discredited. You’ve played games with your identity, you’ve put up a dishonest pretense of disingenuousness, and you’ve been caught at it. Go away. No one is ever going to respect anything you might write here, so you are wasting everyone’s time, including your own.
Perhaps there needs to be a MRAA group. I am willing to be an advocate for the Misogynist Rape Apologists. I shall advocate the emancipation of these tortured souls. It pains me to see MRAs destroyed and controlled by the bioweapon that is the vagina. The only way to free the menz is de-testicularization.
So lets raise some funds for the MRAA group, I think financing the removal of these asshats’ reproductive capacity is a laudable goal.
/facetious,
their misogyny isn’t actually caused by genetic factors.
Moronic
Reactionary
Asshole
*giggles*
===
Also, I agree completely with Chas. Referring to the sexists as “Men’s Rights Activists” seems to me to be implicitly ceding rhetorical ground to them. (In the same way that calling anti-abortion extremists “pro-life”, homophobes “pro-traditional-marriage”, or racists “border security advocates”, would be ceding rhetorical ground to them.) When they say “men’s rights”, what they mean is “women should submit to unfettered male domination”.
I think it’s probably most accurate to describe them as “male supremacists” (by analogy with white supremacists, who often display a very similar mindset).
I like it. I have used the term before, but it deserves to be in wider usage.
Oh fuck I love you Walton.
To Gregory Greenwood:
Well, I think you would benefit from actually learning a little about the ad hominem argument. Ad hominem is an umbrella term for a range of different arguments. It’s not necessarily a logical fallacy even if that is the most common way ad hominem arguments are used. An ad hominem argument is simply when a person tries to invalidate another person’s argument by potraying that person’s character in a negative way. Sometimes it might be relevant with regard to the argument. It is an ad hominem nonetheless. But let’s focus on ad hominem as a logical fallacy.
Let’s get this straight though. I would much rather discuss the actual topic, but since people seem to focus more on my character than my arguments this issue seems to be inevitable at times. The most common example of an ad hominem as a logical fallacy in my case is that people label me an idiot, asshole or a misogynist because they can actually present a logical pathway from my arguments to these specific attributes. But, because they disagree with me or find my opinions despicable in general. It’s one thing to call me an idiot with regard to a specific argument. That is not necessarily a logical fallacy per se. But, when you (as you have seen on this page) take specific arguments and use them against me in every other situation it’s a logical fallacy. “See what this person wrote over here. Don’t listen to him. He is a stupid moron!” No, even if I wrote stupid things before it does not mean my current arguments are stupid. Get it? This is also called guilt of association, but is often used as an ad hominem argument.
Another variant of this is that people make assumptions regarding my character that they are not justified doing on basis of my arguments. For example, calling me a psychopath or an evil monster. It’s one thing to call me stupid or my arguments stupid for saying specific things. But, to label me stupid, evil or anti-social all together is a clear cut ad hominem logical fallacy. Many of these terms are really irrelevant in order to refute my argument or describe my argument. They are used solely in order to demonize and dehumanize me. “This man is a psycho. This man is a monster.” And who would ever take something a psycho says seriously. You can see this so clearly in these “discussions”. Perhaps a one or two of the comments regarding me actually deals with my actua arguments. The rest of them really just deals with what an evil psychopath I am. Get it?
“Damnit, there goes another irony metre. You are aware that we are discussing the actual dehumanization of women by MRAs who consider the female of the species to be nothing more than a living sex toy/evil vagina delivery system with designs on world domination via the hormonal mind control of teh poor menz?”
The only ironic thing is the irony that you don’t seem to realize how ironic your comment is. The fact that you think it’s ok to dehumanize others in a discussion about dehumanization of women.
“The two environments are rather different, afterall. Though I would imagine that if someone was consistently disrupting the class in order to rant about how evil women are, then PZ would take them to task and rightly so.”
So, you think it’s ok to treat dehumanize people in CERTAIN situations? Like when you are anonymous on the internet and don’t have to see the person you are bullying. Yeah, that makes sense. In what way am I disrupting the “class”. It’s not like I scream “listen to me!”. In fact I point out all the time that I want to discuss the actual topic, but most of the comments nonetheless are ad hominem arguments regarding my character. Few if any of the arguments actually adress my initial argument. Few of you have even responded to my initial argument. You ignore that one completely and go on shouting what a moron and psychopath I am. And you blame ME for disrupting the class? I have never begged for attention! I have never spammed the thread with numerous repetitions of the same comment or anything such. In fact the real spammers are you who post countless comments dealing with my personality rather than the actual topic. I would be perfectly fine if people would ignore my comments all together. That would be way better that getting all these ad hominem attacks. I would write a few comments and leave.
Just take an extreme analogy. Say that a person in the class would be a nazi. When discussing the holocaust, that person would politely raise his/her hand and express his/her opinions on the subject. Not shout or actively prevent the teacher or other students from expressing their views. Then hell would break loose. All the other students would scream what a moron and a idiot that person is. Then who is actually disturbing the class? The nazi or the others who furiously attack him and actually causes the situation to escalate. If they would have ignored the nazi nothing would have happened. I realize that your consider me the nazi in the class (regardless of how absurd I think this is). But, I am not the one disturbing the class. You are! You are the one who fill the whole thread with vicious commentss about me rather than discussing the actual topic. Before I entered there were 45 comments, now there are almost 200 and counting. How many of those deal directly with me and not the actual topic? How many of those have I written? I dare to say I have written more comments on the actual topic than most of the people who seem more interested in writing vicious comments about my character than actually discussing the actual topic. Do the math… Btw, this is the last comment I will make regarding me or the ad hominem attacks in this thread…
If those wackos were serious, there really is an easy fix: a do-it-yourself orchidectomy.
And thus concludes our daily Bible lesson, on Matthew 19:12:
But CG’s a polite and reasonable gaslighting, teal-deering, rape-apologizing scumbag. Notice how even the oh-so-calm-and-reasonable posts are solely about him and how wronged he is. (Imagine them with a melancholy violin soundtrack, it helps.)
I gotta say that’s my second-favorite Bible verse for dining my WTF meter. #1, of course, is Ezekiel 23:20, cause that’s just weird
Perfect! That is exactly what many MRAs are.
Casual Guy, no-one gives a fuck what you think; their reasons for doing so, good or bad, are irrelevant.
Just piss off.
Pteryxx:
Eh, I don’t give a shit. As CG will continue to whine past all tolerance, I want his sociopathic ass run out of Pharyngula on a decaying porcupine.
I kind of like MRA when it means “Misogynist Rape Apologist” (Yah, I know, tautological.) Male supremacist is a simple and accurate description. “Male Chauvinist Pig” has history, although today it sounds almost as dated as Running Dogs of Capitalism. A quick version that I use is “teh menz”, because it’s like all webby and memey and modern and groovy. Hmmmm, decisions, decisions.
Dhorvath, don’t worry. CG does put up a very good front of seeming reasonable, if a bit confused, and possibly educable. It’s only when you see his history that you realise what a scumbag he is. And so, hey, your replies were possibly quite helpful to the fabled lurkers.
Please please please, can someone tell me how to put killfiles on FTB? I’ll go insane if I continue to see some of the stupid comments that pop on threads like this.
Lotharloo, you need Firefox, then Greasemonkey. Go here for the script: http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Greasemonkey
Awesome! Thanks a lot Caine!
To PZ Meyers:
“Casual Guy, you are untrustworthy and discredited. You’ve played games with your identity, you’ve put up a dishonest pretense of disingenuousness, and you’ve been caught at it. Go away. No one is ever going to respect anything you might write here, so you are wasting everyone’s time, including your own.”
For goodness sake! I changed my nick ONE time! One single time! And this only due to the fact that I was viciously attacked and called an evil monster and psychopath. This whole page is a good example of why I changed my nick the first time. Because otherwise I can’t write a single comment without being called a psychopathic misogynist! I will constantly be dragged into these pointless discussions about what an evil disturbed individual I am. Every single tread is utterly spoiled. Not by me! But by countless people who feel an raging need to express just how much they despise me. I could have changed my nick this time as well, but I did not!
In what way have I been disingenuous or dishonest in this thread? I really had no idea what an MRA was. I had to check it out. Would in your opinion the only honest thing had been to start my comment with “HEY! I am the guy some of you despised and called an evil psychopath! I am back in town!” This is so insane! Was my initial comment in any way inflammatory? Was it off-topic? I guess not. I have largely ignored all the comments regarding my personality and tried to focus only on serious responses of people who were interested in my argument not whether I am a psychopath or not. I have pointed out I am NOT interested in getting countless of comments where my character is questioned or defamed. I have pointed out repeated times that it’s perfectly fine with me to completely ignore my comments. But, nonetheless I am dragged into these smear campaigns where countless of people shout out there despise and what an awful individual I am. And on top of all that, when I point out that you ignore and encourage these comments that are not only offensive to me but really fill the thread with off-topic trash which is an obstacle for serious discussion… then I am somehow disingenuous and dishonest and unworthy of any respect. Man, this is just amazing! What is your problem? Seriously. But yes. You definately won’t see me in here anymore. Hurray! I have said this before but I say it again! Quite a following you got here.
Lotharloo, you’re welcome! Once you have everything installed, check greasemonkey and make sure there’s a checkmark next to FtB Killfile, then you’ll be all set. :)
Comment by Casual Guy blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Yes everything is fine. *sigh of relief*
Seriously, PZ? Seriously? This post is no different in substance to the old “Mao! Stalin! Pol Pot!” standby so loved by religious people criticising atheists.
I am disappoint.
If one’s prior posts can be pointed to and have a strong enough effect on people to make them want to avoid you, how does it follow that one is justified in pretending to be some one else so that people can be taken down that same road again under the mistaken assumption that they’re talking to a new person? That makes no sense at all.
If no apology is forthcoming it can be assumed one stands by their prior comments, and then it is totally up to the discretion of people who read those comments to decide whether the person who made those comments is one worth continuing to talk to.
This is no attack on character, and if familiarity breeds contempt so consistently that one can not post as ones self. Well, then why keep breeding contempt anew? Let’s just stick with the same old contempt. It’s simpler.
Wow. I can almost *feel* PZ giving a shit. It’s amazing.
Tristan:
It’s okay, Sugar. We am disappoint in your substance-free trolling.
Bye now.
The other problem with letting them call themselves “Men’s Rights Activists” is that it lends a veneer of legitimacy to their delusion that they’re the only ones who care about human rights issues affecting men (military conscription, violence and abuse in prison, and so on). They then use this as a kind of rhetorical club to claim that they’re the real victims, and to try to deny or minimize the reality of gendered oppression of women.
(For bonus points, one sometimes encounters a Hyper*n-style moronic incoherent rant about how feminism is solely the domain of middle-class women in academia who don’t care about Teh Poor Opprezzd Blue-Collar Menz!!! Revealing both that (a) the male supremacist in question hasn’t actually met any feminist activists and gets all his information about feminism from TV shows and MRA blogs, and that (b) he’s completely oblivious to the violence, discrimination and exploitation faced by blue-collar women, undocumented migrant women, and other women who are also oppressed on socio-economic, class and status-based grounds.)
In reality, of course, feminism intersects all the time with other human rights issues: in the real world, misogyny and violence towards women intersect heavily with racism, marginalization of migrants and of minority ethnic groups, socio-economic inequality, homophobia and so on. The same repressive societies where young boys are conscripted as child soldiers and where gay men are beaten by armed gangs tend also to be societies where hundreds of thousands of women are raped and assaulted with impunity, where the state does nothing to prevent rampant domestic violence and where women are often treated as slaves in their own homes, where basic reproductive and maternal health services are completely unavailable to poor and low-status women, and so on. And in our own society, women who are also in other marginalized groups – working-class women, women who are part of marginalized ethnic and religious minorities, women who are refugees or undocumented immigrants, and so on – face added forms of gendered discrimination and violence because they are women. Oppression, in the real world, doesn’t break down neatly into separate issues: often, the same people are marginalized and persecuted for many different reasons. Sorry for the digression, but it’s something I’m learning about through my current studies and experience in immigration and refugee law, and is very much on my mind right now.
No need for apologies.
Casual Guy: “Psychopathy is a serious personality disorder and not one you should use lightly. ”
Hmm, you sound like you have some experience with this. Did the prison shrink give you a test?
You are, indeed, extremely disappointing.
You are a sociopath, you proved that on the first thread you showed up in. Have you turned yourself in for taking part in that beating yet? Hmmm? Have you confessed? Let me guess: no.
You’re also a sociopath who has been told by PZ to go away. Take his advice, you lying, rape apologist, empty monster of a sociopath.
That conclusion is not based on your name, it’s based on what you write.
I love you too!
And how did changing your name but not your content work out for you?
dumbass
If you really want to avoid people jumping on you for being a disgusting individual, try not being one.
A poor adaption strategy.
In general, the ideal method of avoiding being called a psychopathic misogynist, is to not write psychopathically misogynistic things.
Changing your ‘nym did squat. I knew nothing about the change, and I just assumed it was two despicable, odious misogynists, neither deserving of the privilege of being considered human beings polluting the threads.
Amphiox, OM:
Oh, it did get him banned.
We don’t use it lightly.
To get oneself called a psychopath here takes some special doing.
And you, CG, are indeed a special, special, piece of work.
It’s not unlike the extremely wealthy getting pissed off that they pay higher marginal tax rates, so they complain how unfair it is that the poor don’t pay any income taxes.
I guess when you’re unwilling to acknowledge the tremendous privileges you’re afforded, you spend a lot your time marginalizing other peoples’ problems. It’s a good way to distract from the fact they’re in a vastly superior position for no good reason and should probably have to give up some of that unearned privilege.
Maybe we can come up with a term to refer to all of them collectively, but “Get Off Your Cross, Use the Wood to Build a Bridge and Get Over It…-ists” isn’t very pithy.
I missed that.
I was actually wondering why he didn’t get banned (he’s still posting here), seeing as even a single instance of sockpuppetry often gets someone banned.
Is this another example of someone failing the Sb-to-FtB amnesty second chance program?
Yet another float in the Parade of Stupid.
CG got in trouble once for running into a room and shitting all over the floor. His solution is to pop on a hat and some shades and try it again expecting a different result.
A misogynist fuckhead and also extremely dull. Those traits often come as a pair…
Unsurprising, naturally.
All human rights issues are the same issue at root. Variant phenotypic expressions of the same genotype, as it were.
Amphiox:
Not quite. Casual Guy, in spite of his ferocious sociopathy on parade in the too soon thread wasn’t banned. It wasn’t until he showed up as nunbeliever in this thread that he was banned.
Tell that to a male virgin.
That sound some pussies make is not really singing, you know. It’s just air leaking out that’s trapped behind the penis during fucking. Also, someone has issues…
Why aren’t the comment numbers searchable text?
Chas
Well, it is true that colloquially, many people might actually be using it differently. Though given the fact that it is a Latin phrase, my wager would be that actually MOST PEOPLE DON’T USE IT AT ALL.
So, Chas, before you make unsubstantiated claims about language use, I would like you to do a proper corpus analysis first. You’d be surprised how even professional linguists can be wrong with their intuitions when actually compared against corpus data.
But you do have a partial point. People here should stop saying things like “ad hominem” has this or that meaning in ABSOLUTE terms. In language, there is no absolute right or wrong, it is always relative to a norm, which can vary according to situation. So in the context of Pharyngula, I’d say there is actually a norm about what “ad hominem” means. Heck, there is even a Pharyngulawiki entry about it.
You seem to be one of many who have misunderstood the folks over on Language Log on this, they’ve posted an list with a large number of entries addressing this issue.
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3144
Were that true, it would already exceed your comment merely by HAVING substance.
Also, the formulation I normally use is that an ad hominem refers to the use of an insult as a premise (possibly not strictly speaking the most accurate description but it’s clear and succinct). An insult attached to a conclusion or independent of an argument isn’t an ad hominem.
As for the 50 year old sex thing, that’s reassuring…
“Spoonerian Shining Wits?” SSW for short.
Are you saying we should give up explaining what a term means, just because people keep getting it wrong on a blog ?
I can cope with people confusing an ad hom with an insult, or a circumstantial from an abusive ad hom, but what gets me is when people imply that an ad hominem argument must necessary be false or invalid. It’s not, it’s an informal logical fallacy, it may be a weak argument, or a stupid one, but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong as such.
Dr. R, there is considerable overlap…but then, we’ve found that there is also a dismayingly large overlap with the atheist community. I’d be interested to know which overlap, if either, is largest, but AFAIK this is unexplored territory.
I don’t recognise you; are you a newcomer? If so, welcome in!
–
A good choice. I’ve been troubled by the implication that to be against MRAs might be (will certainly, tactically, be) interpreted to mean that you are against men having rights. I move that we adopt your phrasing.
–
rorschach,
you seem to mistake my position with Chas’. Every group has its jargon and own linguistic norm, including Pharyngulites, who use “ad hom” in a specific way, as has been documented by the Wiki, which would be evidence of sorts. But what’s right on Pharyngula, might not be right outside of it.
Nonetheless I’m saying that I’d like to see figures that people actually use “ad hom” for insults. For instance, Chas could have said:
“I looked at the usage of ‘ad hominem’ on news.google.com. From 100 occurrences, XX were used in the sense of ‘insult’, and YY in the sense preferred here.”
I’ve got news for those misinformed MRA guys. The sex gets better after 50! We just celebrated our 35th anniversary this past weekend. One of the things that we did was go out and buy a brand new bed to replace our old, worn-out one. We can’t wait for it to be delivered, so that we can “break it in”.
I may be going through menopause, but that doesn’t mean that I like sex any less. In fact, I’ll be glad when it is finished and we no longer have those weeks of enforced abstaining.
Those boys need to talk to real women, instead of those foolish ones who have taken the whole “sex is only for procreation” thing too seriously!
Dr. R is not in fact a doctor at all. He is on probation at the moment, since he apologized for lying about his credentials. He’s also loathe to admit any mistakes he’s made, especially ones involving sexism. Read the end of the ‘It’s a secwet’ thread.
Go get them then.
you_monster,
I didn’t make the claim, so I’m not gonna do the research for those who did.
These MRA types are just pissed ’cause women have half the money and all the pussy.
Aside from earning on average 75 cents on the dollar, and there being a minority of women who don’t actually have physical “pussies…”
This sentence immediately followed this claim of yours,
Where was your corpus analysis for that claim? Don’t call out other people for making claims without citation if you are going to do the same yourself.
If you want to do a statistical analysis of the usage of ad hom attack, do it. Though I disagreed with ChasCPeterson that people shouldn’t be corrected on their misuse of that phrase, his claim that people often mean “insult” when they say “ad hominem attack” seems pretty reasonable to me. Have you been on the internet much?
you_monster,
I was careful to say it’d be “my wager”. My prediction would also be that the term “insult” would be much much more frequent than “ad hom” in the same sense.
Here are some results from the BNC, 100 million words.
“insult”: 635+256+194+420= 1105
“ad hominem”: 21
The most outrageous part of this post was the beginning. You only need to read the first sentence of any MRA tripe to figure out that these people are the skidmarks on the underpants of humanity.
“what” they awaken beside?
Decent humans don’t refer to other humans as “whats”. The male supremacists (I think that is the best referent for MRAs I’ve heard yet (thanks Walton for making it up or passing it along) ) can
fuck
on
off
“MRAs are almost as hilarious as creationists”
Goodness gracious, great balls of fire. The pot and the kettle just exploded.
Comment by THEONETRUEHOGGLER blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Don’t you think it’s a problem that women who accuse their rapists are often by default labelled liars by the society before it even goes to trial?
Methinks they’ve grown bitter and delusional from the lack of Vitamin D. What with there being no windows in their parents’ basements and all.
Wow, second comment in, and the thread was already won.
what the hell are the rest of you doing?
THEONETRUEHOGGLER
ah, it’s frank the guy who thinks masturbating is good content for his blog.
Seconded (well maybe fourthed or fifthed), and thrown open to the floor for a vote. All in favour say Aye.
Heh. Why am I surprised that the Pharyngulite horde don’t seem to know their memes.
Anyway, I certainly wouldn’t claim to be any sort of “MRA” – just someone who values skepticism, honesty and rational discourse. Taking an extreme, disgusting example of someone calling themselves an MRA and generalising that to cover all people that you label “MRA” sets my alarms ringing on all of those fronts. It’s a blatantly dishonest poisoning of the well via guilt-by-association. Lets you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you on the smallest point as “just another MRA” and thus fair game – someone for whom the normal rules of rational discourse don’t apply.
Good luck with that. I don’t know what you’re doing here, but it certainly has nothing to do with rationalism, skepticism or free though. Fuck the lot of you. Sideways. With a rusty knife, to open up enough room to fit the porcupine.
Amazing how often this gets trotted out to justify some fallacy or other. There was even a whole post about it: Evidential Skepticism
Disdain for your content-free tone trolling =/= ignorance of the “I am disappoint” meme.
It’s cute that you think that, though. Such a transparent defense mechanism.
Tristan:
Why would we give a shit? I’m sure this will be a shock, but there are much better things to do with our time.
It’s absolutely amazing just how often this preface is used by various male supremacists and other assorted douchecakes. What you claim is irrevelant. What you write is not.
And here we get to a relevant bit, which is pure bullshit. If you bothered with all the threads on sexism, at sciblogs and here and have been invested in them all, reading every single comment, you’d know that such dismissal doesn’t happen. A lot of people have charged in, disagreeing and expressing different viewpoints. After much discussion, they often end up seeing things from a different perspective and it’s a win all the way around.
When someone is an obvious male supremacist and has no interest in anything outside trolling and calling us hysterical, dominating cunts, yeah, we’re not going to waste our time.
So, Tristan, at this point, you’re just another person looking for brownie points for being uber rational (you aren’t) and patting us all on the head and telling us we’re doing it wrong. Not exactly a surprise.
When you’ve spent as much time in these types of threads as we have, maybe you’ll have gained some perspective. I won’t be holding my breath.
for the record, I had my tongue about 2/3 of the way into my cheek up there.
Having engaged in some word-pedantry in the past and been well and truly spanked for it by the loyal descriptivist brigades, I just get a kick out of turning the tables.
Plus I do get annoyed by kneejerk internet logicians.
If MRAs and Creationists have a similar mindset on their respective topics, (and they seem to). It makes me wonder how and atheist could be a true MRA (that is, somewhat actively promoting MRAish memes). Perhaps a form of doublethink?
A.R., you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that being right about the nonexistence of god or gods automatically makes you right about everything else.
As the past several months have demonstrated, it is quite common for atheists to hold false beliefs about the status/nature of women or feminism. Lots of atheists are also libertarians. They are quite wrong about a number of things regarding economics and human nature, etc. Getting rid of one false belief doesn’t magically make the rest of your false beliefs vanish. And keep in mind that smart people are even better than non-smart people at justifying their false beliefs.
Tristan: I’ve tried that argument, it doesn’t work. From my experience, many posters here are often reasonable with people displaying differing viewpoints until they clearly display that they refuse to consider any other position. Then I believe something involving a porcupine occurs…
Might be that. Or it might be that you’re acting like fucking creationists.
I mean, seriously – the unapologetic quote-mining on your little wiki was bad enough, and the comment threads here have always been best characterised as scattered diamonds buried in shit, but at least PZ’s posts were usually solid. Clear, honest, forthright, and rigorously argued. This, though? Just depressing.
Sally Strange: That’s actually what I was wondering about in general: How can a person who has come to one rational conclusion fail to come to others (yeah, yeah, I know, I was/am an example, but I’m trying). Thoughts anyone?
Yes indeed. It’s an insidious form of doublethink.
I think the new term “male supremacists” has all of the right connotations. I vote Aye.
Because, of course, demonstrating one’s knowledge of some obscure bit of internet crap is far more important than talking about sexism. *sigh*
Funny thing. Many of the MRAs across the spectrum usually make the claim of being skeptics. They use their skepticism in defense of the idea that the female of the species is lesser. You are using a tactic that has no solid ground. And you are showing that, yes, you could be just an other MRA troll. It is up to you to prove that you are not.
I’m rather ambivalent towards “male supremacists” as a replacement for MRA. On one hand, it does accurately describe the intentions of those described, but on the other does it describe their actions? especially in comparison to white supremacists. Literally, of course, it does, but the connotations of x-supremacist are quite numerous. I’m genuinely conflicted here.
Rational thought is not something that most people make regular use of. And people who do had to be taught or teach themselves to use it. All of us have all sorts of irrational beliefs abd assumption. One’s own blindspots can and will keep one from catching all of them. Talking with others, getting a different perspective, can provide a way to see and act on these notions.
You claim to be a student of science. (I read about your outing.) You should know that peer review is one means to editing out bias. You are being very short sighted that a person being rational on one issue will be rational on all issues.
Probably because once you’ve determined you’re right about one subject, it’s easy to convince yourself that you’re intellectually superior and therefore right about all the other crap you believe and biases you hold.
And, I conjecture that for a lot of the male supremacists, atheism/scepticism is a great position to take on *non-rational* grounds and pretend that it’s because they’re rational and smart and clever. But it’s actually because they can feel superior that they adopted the position in the first place. Those are the same “sceptics” who are most likely also libertarians and climate change denialists. It’s contempt for others as ego boost.
Shiii-iiiitttt! I still do not know why All your base are belong to us. is funny. And while I love cats, I never understood lolcatz or the need to post endless clips and photos of cats online.
Inane Janine, OM, Conflater Of Arguments: That’s just it, many individuals holding one rational belief or another often communicate with others holding their beliefs who may have other rationalist principles. But for some reason, peer review (there’s an interesting thread over at RDNet going on about peer review right now) fails in many cases. Sometimes irrational beliefs are made to fit with rational ones (Christian evolutionists). My thought (which is developing) is that an individual who holds one rational belief may have the type of mind that is, on some level, open to rational thought. Of course I’m not arguing (now at least) that an individual who holds a single rational belief will be entirely rational.
Ibis3, denizen of a spiteful ghetto: These posts come in way to fast! I don’t gent time to finish one before another one comes in. Good point though, atheism could be a way of asserting moral/intellectual authority.
**Warning: Some uncivil words ahead**
Jesus fucking Christ on a swivel!
** End of incivility. I think. **
Why in the name of Minerva would you be ambivalent and conflicted? You’re talking about people who have no respect, no regard for women. You’re talking about people who are rapists and apologise for rapists. You’re talking about people who think of women as fucktoys (if “attractive”) and corpses if they don’t meet the standard. They call us cunts and twats and whores. They threaten those who speak out with violence and death. And you’re worried that “male supremacist” is too harsh?
What’s wrong with you?
Don’t you see that your “ambivalence” means that you’re no ally of women, no feminist, but an ally of them?
For what it’s worth, “Male Supremacist” seems exactly right to me. This is a suggested term for those described by Ibis3 just above, as opposed to those MRAs who are bringing up genuine (perceived) concerns about the state of men in society, without diminishing the concerns of women in the process.
A.R., I think you’re getting too bogged down in an attempt to analyze people and concepts. Figuring out there are no gods is akin to figuring out there’s no Santa Claus. It’s harder for some than others, but once you figure it out, that’s pretty much it.
There’s nothing about atheism in particular that necessarily leads people into deeper thought about wider social issues. Why, for example, would a young white male, having figured out the no gods business all of a sudden go “aha! I must now examine my privilege in life and take a good look at the complexity of the kyriarchy, patriarchy and entrenched sexism and its toxic effects on people and society as a whole!”
Some people do start delving into humanism and wider social issues after atheism, but I wouldn’t say it’s standard for all people to do so. Especially not people who have a great deal of privilege and see no reason to admit they have it, let alone examine it.
The issues of privilege and sexism are complex and a lot of people simply don’t want to go past “oh, what’s your problem? You aren’t gonna die if some guy hits on you, you might have fun! You need to lighten up!” and so on.
As for those people who start out with “I’m a skeptic”, well, that’s a different animal. That’s usually someone uses their so-called skepticism as a defense and shield against listening to viewpoints other than their own. They often think being a skeptic means refuting everything, which simply makes them take a contrarian view to whatever someone else says.
Ibis3:
I’ll second that question.
Oh god, not this douchebag again.
Tristan, have you participated on a thread anywhere on FTB where you weren’t condescending, dismissive or ignoring every response made to you?
For all your complaints of “us” acting like creationists, you’re the one who selectively replies to arguments posed against him. You’re the one that cherrypicks who or what he’ll respond to. You’re the one who hides behind a thin veil of intellectualism and ‘aren’t they just being silly’ style replies I’d come to associate with William Dembski.
So… they are promoting asexuality? Not what I would expect from a manly man’s man club.
Well, if they think women are so disgusting, it’s definitely best that they leave us alone.
My flaccid friend looks at the floor
What are you doing this to me for?
He says: you know, it’s not my fault
It’s even better, praise the lord!
Don’t cry! be a man! Can’t you just say
you are just waking from hormone dream?
What are you doing with this living corpse?
Now go and get us a roofless Porsche.
Oh, fuck this shit, you pathetic little wanker. You’re “conflicted” because, on the one hand, the label ‘male supremacist’ accurately describes the actions of this group of people, but on the other hand… what? Some asshole who thinks women are literally nothing more than ambulatory fucktoys/baby machines gets his delicate fee-fees hurt?
You already admitted that tone trolling is stupid. Yet here you are doing it again. I conclude that you are stupid. And sexist. Yes, you, A.R. are a sexist. What you just did here? Only a sexist would do it. Stop fucking whining and piss off to educate yourself about sexism and eradicate that toxic ideology from your consciousness, if you care about feminism and women’s rights. If you don’t care about feminism and women’s rights, then continue right on with what you’re doing: tone trolling, ignoring everything that’s offered by way of education, and worrying your pretty little head endlessly about the feelings of men who sincerely feel nothing but contempt towards women.
A.R. is basically trying to justify the case that being an atheist means you can’t possibly be sexist.
A.R. is an atheist. Therefore A.R. could not possibly be a sexist. Therefore shut up, stop trying to get him to admit he’s a sexist just for saying that Rebecca Watson is irrational.
That’s what the fuck is wrong with him.
I’d love to be wrong about this, A.R.
Just a question to all of you criticising sex negative male supremacists – do you want them to breed?
I mean can you imagine these idiots raising kids?
:p
ew.
hogglin’.
Sorry but I think the MRA’s have a point.
They are expressing an extremely common dissatisfaction with long-term monogamous relationships, in particular the sexual element of it. This is not unusual, its endemic. And of course we live in a patricarchal society and MRA’s by definition are sexist idiots so of course they’re going to offload all their frustration by blaming the “International Feminist Conspiracy.”
But whats the opinion of some posters on this? Blame the MRA’s for “not doing it right?” That theres something wrong with them for not being happy with the institution of the marriage? Its not just MRA’s though is it?
Its great that so many posters – including PZ – claim to be having better sex with their long term partners than they ever had when they were younger but I believe this is the exception rather than the rule. I don’t know anybody in that situation. And I know a lot of liberals in northern and western europe of varying ages, many of whom are in healthy relatively happy long term relationships. Relationships where sex doesn’t play a big part at all because they’re just not interested in sex with that person anymore, even though they love and respect their partner.
They don’t stop getting interested in sex though, they just learn to live without it mostly. Or the tensions resulting from this break their relationship apart becuase as a species we are kinda obsessed by sex.
Ok I’m rambling now but I reccommend anyone who thinks I might have a point to read “Sex at dawn” by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá (also http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn). Its far from perfect and theres some unproven claims PZ has attacked in the past but theres a lot of good science in there and its certainly a fresh perspective.
Holy crap that site is amazing. It’s like they all watch Fight Club all the time, but only half way through.
Yes there is something wrong with them no their reasons for hating the institution of marriage. hen their ife becomes a disgusting thing that’s sucking away their life, I can safely say these guys should go seek help for their sexist, woman hating and male supremist (love that by the way) attitudes.
But feel free to call the people posting here the bad guys.
@254
grrr… Stupid key board. Ah well, wasn’t that helpful a comment anyway.
@julian 254
Personally I don’t see the world in terms of “good guys” and “bad guys” – I don’t think those are helpful labels. Nor am I trying to excuse their misogyny. I just see the frustrations driving their misogyny as far more widepsread than MRA’s. Myself and my friends also experience this frustration. We don’t expres it in misogynistic ways. Well mostly although I have some friends who do, a source of constant argument.
Are we all not normal? What is normal anyway? Monogamous marriage, the nuclear family or long term pair bonding or whatever you want to call it? Is it an accident this is exactly what most religions call normal? Does that not give you pause to worry? Or maybe think perhaps this is not the major social relationship our species evolved with?
@43. Special One : 25 October 2011 at 8:38 pm
[Mycenean pedant] I take it you are referring to Helen of Troy, sister of Clytemnestra, Castor and Pollux, aunt of the sacrificed maiden Iphigenia, daughter of Leda seduced by Swan Zeus.
But wasn’t she from Sparta before she went to Troy? Not Argos?
Also the cause of the Trojan war in that mythology (or variants of it?) was Paris’es judgement (prince of Illium aka Troy NOT Hilton) in a beauty contest awarding an apple to Aphrodite rather than Hera or Athena.
Or was it? Because an even earlier cause apparently if Irecall right (& I may be mistaken natch) is that “.. Mother Earth was groaning from the weight of people upon her.” Ie.. an early overpopulation crisis was the real main cause of the Trojan war! [/Mycenaean pedantry.]
Of course the Trojan war of the Illiad and Odyssey (non-space variety) is mythology with perhaps a kernal of historical truth more than anything else and is hardly surprising for it to represent the biases of the culture the myth arose in.
So maybe it *was* a trade dispute or, hey, multiple causation rather than any one single thing.
@ Ibis3, denizen of a spiteful ghetto says:
Perhaps the same sort of things that are wrong with Aussie radio “Shock Jock” Alan Jones :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nm5bTGqRzI
in terms of being a nasty blighter?
FWIW, I thought for a long time that MRA stood for Male Rape Apologist.
Fine with ‘Male Supremacist’ or though ‘chauvist’ and ‘sexist’ equal the same thing and are shorter ce ne pas?
@ ^ material quoted there from #239 time : 26th October 2011 at 5:54 am.
@Gunboat Diplpmat:
Well isn’t that the entire point? A reasonable person would react to dissatisfaction in a reasonable way. For example, they wouldn’t declare their spouse – and by extension everyone of that sex – responsible for their problems and preach hateful, untrue things about half the population.
The fact that other people face the same frustrations without doing that suggests that there is, in fact, something badly wrong with the MRAs.
@249. Bruce Gorton : 26 October 2011 at 8:40 am
Unfortunately – for their kids who are brought up to be like them and for their women – they do.
Although the fact such MRAs aka Male Supremacist can find willing (?) partners is somewhat depressing and puzzling.
@ 214. you_monster : 26 October 2011 at 3:07 am
*That*. Nail hit on head. Spot on & seconded by me.
@Algernon : 25 October 2011 at 8:27 pm
Classic! Love that scene & movie.
What does MRA stand for again? Misogynist Ready to Asplode?
Gunboat Diplomat
If you read the average male supremacist dating guide it is a “How to” for emotional rape.
And when this results in less than satisfactory relationships – well who could foresee a relationship based on subtly undermining someone’s self worth for sex, and preying on their vulnerability could possibly go wrong?
Oh, ok, did a more careful read into the history of “male supremacist” on this thread. Yeah, those are the people who deserve the label.
Sally: I’m afraid/happy to tell you that you are indeed wrong. I am not trying to connect atheist to a lack of sexism (unfortunately, the opposite effect seems to be true in many cases), I am simply trying to understand why atheists can hold utterly irrational positions. One commenter made the point that it my be intellectually advantageous to be able to declare yourself an atheist (perhaps why we have atheist climate change deniers, and the ever confusing S.E. Cupp). But is seems that other rationalist beliefs seem to be more likely to be held by those with multiple rational standpoints (feminism is a good example). Perhaps then atheism is less likely to engender rational thought on other issues than other standpoints? (Though a logical conclusion of feminism would be atheism, given the function of religion as a maintainer of the patriarchy).
Casual Guy
Really, that was vague and needs elaborating. I’ll try, but more for my own benefit than yours, because I really don’t think you are arguing in good faith on this thread or the others you appeared in.
My problem is this:
I think it should have said:
Sex is very subjective. It’s about physical and chemical stimuli and personal preferences. There is no way to be objective about that. Some things are somewhat more enjoyable to some people. You say that it’s insane to say that, and I think that makes you sound pretty fucked up in the head. Whether it’s a permanent fuck up, or an attitude thing, or a momentary chemically-induced fuckedupedness, I don’t know.
As for this:
That makes no sense to me. There is good sex (for some people), there is bad sex (for some people), there is good conversation and there is bad conversation. For instance, when my boss tried to discuss atheism with me and did a Gish Gallop from evolution to general relativity (ultimately refusing to accept the validity of relativity as even a worthwhile concept), that was a pretty worthless conversation.
Maybe I didn’t understand your point. But to me it seems like you are trying to say that things which cannot possibly be looked at objectively should only be looked at objectively. Or you’re using different definitions for sex and conversation than I am.
And just to be clear, I do not think sexual assault is sex. I gather that you also do not. This is all about consensual encounters.
And don’t worry about responding to me, because I objectively don’t give a fuck.
Can we just agree that every MRA needs this demotivator.
Gunboat diplomat
Does not follow.
You know, a lot of the loving, passionate, monogamous long-term relationships people have are anything but what religious people call normal.
Aprt from that, the fact that most religions on this planet prohibit murder and theft doesn’t make me wonder that maybe those things would be the one good thing and we’d all happily do it if it weren’t for religion.
No, they’re not.
You know, people who are dissatisfied with their relationships usually wonder where they went wrong as a pair and what they can do to fix it. Or they come to the conclusion that it’s not worth the effort and split up.
What they usually don’t do is complain that their wife isn’t a person with needs and thoughts and feelings, too, but a living corpse, who stirrs only when the evil zombie gets up to suck the blood out of them.
Because atheists are people, and people are well known for being irrational. Not necessarily all the time, though, because we’re also good at rationalizing our decisions and compartmentalizing our beliefs.
Atheism is just not believing in gods. I suppose you could call that a standpoint. But there are an infinite number of things out there to not believe in. Not believing in one of those could sometimes lead to not believing others, but not always. Some people who don’t believe in gods do believe in an afterlife. Some are vice versa.
@latsot #260
“Reasonable” is difficult when a person is feeling deeeply frustrated. The displacement of such frustrations into aggression towards ones close to you is common enough. My point is what causes the frustrations in the first place?
Which brings me to:
@Bruce Gorton #263
You seem to to think the frustration is based on bad choices made by the MRA’s based on their misogynistic culture and dating guides. If you’re referring to “the game” I don’t see anything misogynistic about that – its basically make stuff up to start a conversation with women and then play hard to get. Its written in a macho swaggering manner but what do you expect?
People choose sexual partners primarily based on, err, wanting to have sex with them. Seems like a reasonable basis to me.
You can argue thats not a basis on which to choose a life partner. I would argue for most people it doesn’t matter on what basis you choose a life partner – you’re still going to get sexually bored, frustrated and either take it out on the other person and/or kids, break up or learn to live a life without sexual contact and therefore deeply unsatisfying because we are extermely sexual mammals.
This is not to call PZ or anyone else a liar or denigrate their experiences of increasing sexual satisfaction over decades with one partner. Good for them. But its fairly uncontroversial that those are a minority and the more choice people have in a society through wealth, welfare state support, freedom from religious tyranny, the more people choose NOT to stay with one person.
So do PZ & Co. possess a secret in choosing partners they can have this with that the rest of us fail at? Or do they just happen to be predisposed towards such a relationship by whatever mechanisms?
I’d say the later is more likely than the former.
So do some of the women I know. However, the guy in this post isn’t talking about having lost his sexual attraction. He’s saying that he’s glad he lost it because his wife is a worthless non-human dead thing (hello creepy killer talk, by the way) who he only was bothering with because he needed something to stick his cock in.
If you don’t see the difference, feel free to fuck off.
For people who enter relationships on those premises deliberately to be very very stupid. That would be my expectation.
Correction: very very stupid or very very nasty, and sometimes both.
He is also saying that ALL women are useless dead things only good for scratching an itch with your cock, and that all young men should have their sexual organs tampered with because his worldview is dismal.
Honestly, he sounds like a pastor.
@Gilliel #267
No, most religions do NOT prohibit murder. In fact they explicilty sanction and encourage murder, if its done in the “right way” and for the “right reasons”. Just like sex, its ok in the “right way” ie within the nuclear family but its bad in any other form becuase its all about controlling people through their most basic desires and needs. (Also no meat on fridays or prok EVER!!)
Theft is an interesting issue because it goes to the heart of the “sex at dawn” argument (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn yay another shameless plug) – that humans evolved in socially and sexually egalitarian societies where monogamy as we know was rare to non-existent and that it was only with the rise of agriculture and Private Property that we saw the rise of patricarchy, war, inheritance rights, the nuclear family and the subjugation of women. Religion has played a central role in maintaining and justifying that so its no wonder it prohibits ‘theft’
What is theft anyway? If I steal €1000 from a rich bankers wallet is that wrong? Well opinion is pretty much divided on political and class grounds on that one. Suffice to say for many many people the answer is “no.”
Losing interest in sex with a long-term partner? Relatively normal, though not as ubiquitous as you assume. Referring to a long-term partner as a “living corpse, which continues to torture and destroy them day by day? [and]… a completely insane mummy (menopause and post menopause)?” Indicative of such a deep hatred of women that it is unresolvable with standards of civil discourse. That type of verbiages loses you all privilege to even claim you might have had a point, at one time in the past. There is no excuse for it, and none should be made.
I think you need to go and look up the definition of murder.
I think I know what you are trying to say which is many religions think death is an appropriate punishment for things we find trivial. However that is not the same as sanctioning murder, since murder by definition is an unlawful killing with intent.
1. Read *before* replying. Corollary: If you haven’t read, don’t post at all. It’s not only rude (for you who cares so much about civility), but it often makes you look like an ass or worse.
2. If you find yourself ambivalent or conflicted about the general consensus here, read again and *think for a while* about what people are saying before spouting off.
3. If what you’re concerned about is civility, give it a rest. Don’t tell the regulars here that they’re doing it wrong. It won’t get you anywhere and just derails the conversation. It also makes it look like you care more about policing the tone than about the subject at hand. Only assholes and male supremacists care more about rhetorical style than about sexism.
4. Don’t condescend by allowing us to hold certain opinions (You: “Yeah, those are the people who deserve the label.” What it sounds like you expect us to respond: “Yes, thank you very much for your superior opinion. We’ll have to ask your permission if we’d like to apply the label elsewhere.”). That’s just obnoxious.
5. Own up when you make a mistake. Not once have you truly apologised for any of your blunders. No excuses or foisting the problem off on us with notpologies (“I was tired” “I often miss things” “I’m sorry if any of you were offended”). Just say “I’m sorry. I was wrong. I know better now. Thanks for the education.” and mean it. Try not to repeat the same mistakes in the future.
@kate #275
I’m not excusing anything, I am trying to understand and explain it though.
It does show deep seated misogyny. Once again what do you expect? We live in a patricarchal misogynistic society and most mens attitudes are going to reflect that to a gretaer or lesser extent. I know many people who have come out with similar utterances at different times in their lives – men come out with the most awful shit at times, just stand around any locker room.
It doesn’t mean they’re cartoon villains or there aren’t entirely valid reasons for their frustrations. It doesn’t mean they necessarily abuse women (although I’d certainly be wary). Its also uneven and often related to what else is going on in their life. It can also change.
This is nicely explored in the novel ‘Atomised’ by Michel Houllebecq. One of the main characters, an unnattractive uninteresting selfish man (he loves his anti-heroes) comes out with streams of misogyny more or less constantly – until he accidentally gets into his first real relationship.
I’ve seen this happen so much in real life its scary. Make love not war is a cliched hippy slogan buit its not so far off the mark imo.
FIFY. Sorry, minor law quibble, and this is only the definition in English law, but I suspect that the American first and second degrees of murder reflect a similar meaning.
@Matt Penfold #276
Oh don’t try and get off on a legal technicality. If thats your deficition of murder I call bullshit. Stoning women to death for adultery is murder – I don’t give a damn whether its state sanctioned or not. Troy davis was murdered by the state of Georgia.
Zorander,,
Fair point, but murder still remains unlawful by definition.
Accommodationism. The onus is not on us to be abused by them and graciously submit, giving them all the patience in the world to say and do what they please until love saves one of them ( that is unless “love” fades and you have a corpse-twat again).
By the way, that’s a fucking novel. I don’t know about you, but I don’t live in some guys typical girl-saves-the-bad-guy so stay in your abusive relationship bitches trope.
Fuck that, and fuck you too.
A. R, you’re analysing, it sucks. Correlation does not equal causation. There may be a high correlation between atheism and other beliefs, viewpoints or world views, but they are not necessarily causally linked. And atheism does not logically follow from feminism.
Atheism is only the lack of god-belief. It is nothing else. It does not require intellectualism. It does not require a justification. It does not require any kind of deep thought to arrive at. It definitely doesn’t require rigorous scepticism or scepticism at all.
No particular rational belief is more or less likely to exist in conjunction with any other rational belief unless the two necessarily follow from each other (and even then, cognitive dissonance can save a person from having to actually hold a belief, even if it is contingent on another).
Also, atheism certainly doesn’t logically follow from feminism.
Hmm … I repeated myself. Oh well.
You are clearly not very bright so I will try to make things as clear as I can.
Murder is, by common and by legal definition, unlawful killing. That is what the word means.
If you want to make up meanings for words, you can of course do so. However you do not get to complain when people point out your ignorance.
Now either grow up or fuck off. Your choice.
Gunboat Diplomat,
There is a word which covers what you mean, and that is homocide.
The OED definition of murder is:
Noun:
1 the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:the brutal murder of a German holidaymaker[mass noun] :he was put on trial for attempted murder
2 [mass noun] informal a very difficult or unpleasant task or experience:the 40-mile-per-hour winds at the summit were murder
Verb:
1 kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation:he was accused of murdering his wife’s lover
2 informal punish severely or be very angry with:my father will murder me if I’m home late
3 conclusively defeat (an opponent) in a game or sport.
4 spoil by lack of skill or knowledge:the only thing he had murdered was the English language
5 chiefly British consume (food or drink) greedily or with relish:I could murder some chips
It seems your definition does not appear.
Because we are human?
@algernon #270
Sorry A.R., but you saying, “I am not a sexist,” while simultaneously refusing to own up to the sexist things you said, does not make you a not-sexist.
I really don’t like you. You’re an arrogant little twerp who is apparently allergic to admitting his own errors. You’re going to make a lousy scientist someday if this is your approach to reality.
Gunboat Diplomat:
So it’s hard. So what? Relationships can be hard. In the face of intense frustration, do you know what stops people referring to their wives as objects or corpses and blaming them and their sex for all the ills of all males?
Respect. The understanding that women are actual people.
Some people hold themselves to higher standards no matter what life throws at them. We call these people ‘better’.
Newsflash: Relationships are good for way more than sex.
You’re terribly unimaginative. My bedmate and I have a list of sexual experiments on tap that will take us years to get through. Besides, not everyone needs or wants that much variety or kink.
Some of us aren’t vindictive assholes, either.
Not only is this really narrow-minded (no swinging, no friends-with-benefits, no masturbating each other, etc) but it smacks of the male supremacist rant that they’re entitled to partner sex. Being married doesn’t get you free sex on tap and it’s no excuse to bail on your spouse if the tap runs dry.
Your partner’s still a person if they lose their job, if they go back to school, if they get injured or paralyzed or develop depression, or if someone rapes and traumatizes them. Sheer lack of sex isn’t even ON my list of reasons to separate from someone; though them thinking they’re owed sex IS. And I’m one of the horniest horndogs I know.
Yeah. They become life partners to share their LIVES with, not just for long-term sex. Partners being people and all that.
—
This should not be so fucking difficult to understand if our whole culture didn’t have crippling sex hang-ups. I’ve TALKED with my lover about what we would do if one of us is attracted to someone else. We’ve talked about servicing each other if one’s in the mood and one isn’t. We’ve talked about me recovering from abuse, which means there are sex practices that I won’t be able to even contemplate for years yet; but xe’s willing to wait, and I’m willing to learn. We’re even looking forward to my progress.
Why the heck would you agree to spend your life with someone WITHOUT knowing all these things? If sex is so damn important to you, TALK ABOUT IT. Sheesh.
—
For further reading, Erotica Readers collection of anecdotes: Sex and Aging (NSFW, obviously)
Not to mention there are those who through bad fortune can just not have sex at all. And yet you will find these people some times in relationships.
How? How could they? I mean… we’re all driven by the exact same thing. All of us!
Look all kinds of shit happens, but if you use that as an excuse to lash out at people then that’s all on YOU.
Seriously? You seriously don’t see what is misogynistic about this?
@latsot 290
GunboatDiplomat: What’s with the blockquoting of your own words as though you were quoting other people? That’s just weird. :-/ I initially assumed it was a typing error, but you’ve done it twice now.
I need one of those.
I’m with you on that. I mean, some people don’t even care about sex at all. We’re clearly sexually diverse and have differing sexual needs. I don’t see what this means against people who are capable of having respectful relationships though. I mean, are you seriously trying to say “it can’t be helped, it’s in our genes to be selfish asses!” It may, in fact, be beyond some people to be anything but complete shit. I mean, there are those who simply can not keep themselves from strangling people for a rush. That justifies nothing though. There’s a difference between evolutionary traits and a naturalistic fallacy.
Gunboat Diplomat,
I assume your silence is a tacit admission you were wrong in your definition of murder, and that you are simply embarrassed to admit as much.
@Walton
ah yes sorry about that, I made the mistake twice. Luckily no one got pregnant, an std or a broken heart ;)
@Erulóra: Uh, I assume you mean the list? >_>
Walton,
He’s using the blockquote wrong. The text he’s actually trying to quote is inside the cite tag where nobody can see it without looking at the page source. But apparently he’s not previewing or even looking at his own posts after making them.
GD,
It goes like this:
<blockquote>Text here</blockquote>
@Pteryxx,
Yes, a list. Not your list, just the concept. Though I doubt my partner would consent to 99% of whatever I put on it. Variety is seriously lacking. In fact, if I hinted that maybe there ought to be more variety, my partner would probably take offense because that somehow translates into a personal value judgement.
Aye!
–
Frequently, by fishing in the stagnant end of the Evolutionary Psychology pool; i.e., if culture is a by-product of biology, then (circularly reasoning a bit, but never mind that) the cultural “package” wherein we find male supremacy must be mandated by biology, and if so, then that is just the way things are. Fighting against is as useful, and as likely to produce results, as rebelling against bipedality, or mammalianality, ’cause you can’t fight Nature, baby, so be a dear and bring me a beer, and you should wear more push-up bras ’cause I like the way they show off your tits.
–
By the same route that a person can come to an irrational conclusion: it reinforces what they want reality to look like. No mystery, here; the human capacity for self-delusion is considerable.
For instance, I irrationally believe that the peas are going to kill us all in our beds, then sell our souls to the Horses. And you can’t prove it isn’t so. Neener!
–
@Matt Penfold
I don’t really have anything to add to what I said earlier. Your defintion of murder excludes women being stoned to death for adultery as long as its sanctioned by the state. Likewise it excludes the state sanctioned execution of Troy Davis. Many many people who oppose these barbaric acts refer to them as murder including myself. Therefore your definition is lacking.
I’d be much more interested in discussing with you what you think of the main points I’m making.
Ah thanks Erulóra!
@Gunboat Diplomat:
First, learn to use blockquotes, it will be less confusing. Second:
No, because it is perfectly obvious. Relationships exist between *people* and sometimes people want different things from each other. Relationships are about all parties extracting happiness from being together and sometimes that will mean compromise and sacrifice.
These things can be difficult, but if there’s no difficulty then you’re probably not considering the other person. And so it’s not really a relationship.
QFT.
Honestly, I think GunboatDiplomat’s comments reveal a lack of understanding of what a relationship is. It’s about love, companionship, emotional support, trust… not just sex. You have to see your partner as a person and as a friend, not as a vehicle for providing you with sexual satisfaction. To view women as nothing more than sex objects who are there for your enjoyment is the very epitome of misogyny, and a path to an extremely unhealthy and unhappy relationship. If all you want is the opportunity to get your rocks off without having to care about another person’s needs, you can always masturbate.
Of course you’re right that people’s sexual needs are diverse. That’s why, like pteryxx says, it’s extremely healthy to talk to your partner and discuss your mutual needs, boundaries and desires. There’s nothing wrong with polyamory or open relationships, if that’s what floats your boat – it really wouldn’t suit me, but I’m not intent on projecting my own feelings on to the rest of the human race – as long as you’re honest with each other, considerate of one another’s feelings, and take proper care for your mutual safety.
Erulóra, argh, I’m sorry… now THAT must be terribly frustrating. (and, my apologies… I didn’t mean to come across as showing off.)
Well your previous reply lacked any kind of apology or acknowledgement you were wrong. And it is not my definition, so cut out that untruth straight away. The definition I gave is from the OED.
What is lacking is your understanding of English. Well, that is your problem. You made the mistake. That you refuse to admit you did tells me all I want to know about you.
Not unless you are prepared to commit to not making up definitions for words.
The best evidence for evolution are the recent advancements in molecular biology and bioinformatics. An area of research largely ignored by creationists. I outline this in my blog post here: http://digitalkingdom2011.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/best-evidence-for-evolution/
Oh, and I would add Wikipedia is also wrong according to Gunboat Diplomat, as the Chambers and Collins dictionaries (on top of the OED).
If I am wrong I am in good company.
Once I was in a relationship with someone who could most accurately be described as an MRA. By the end of the relationship, I was a living corpse, pretty much, aged 20.
It was his bullying, belittling, constant ridiculing of me and physically/sexually abusive behaviour that had stripped away my personality though, everything that made me interesting and likeable was gone. I initially became a zombie/doll creature dedicated to catering for the wanker’s every whim, then I became very depressed, stopped eating, stopped making any effort to make myself look nice, and he told me frequently, up until the point I’d decided I’d fucking had enough, that I looked like a “fucking corpse”.
Moral of my little anecdote: If you consistantly treat people like they are less than people, they will eventually internalise that and become not much fun to be around. If you act as though every little display of personality and independance is an affront to your oh-so-manly manhood, then you’ll either crumble a person’s personality to nothing, or (like I’d do now, and wish I’d been able to do then) they’ll tell you where to shove it and wave goodbye.
Women are people. Treat them accordingly.
Matt Penfold, you’re patently wrong. Dictionaries are not the be all and end all of definition or use.
State sanctioned murder is a term I use for the death penalty. The United States murders its own citizens. It may be state sanctioned, but it’s still murder. The murder of women by stoning is also state sanctioned. It’s also still murder.
Don’t be a prescriptive pedant just to defend what is a rather unimportant distinction. That is, unless you have some special interest in not naming state sanctioned murder as murder? Unless you agree with state sanctioned murder, I can’t see why you would insist that the death penalty is not murder. Is it, and further, if you’re a citizen of the US, you’re complicit in the murder of your fellow citizens. Yeah, it’s an awful truth.
@Walton #307
Well no, the epitome of misogyny is NOT viewing women as “sex objects”, its hating women for not “giving” you sex or indeed for any other reason, real or imagined. Misogyny is about hatred not sex.
Now this is an important disticntion becuase it goes to the heart of one of the problem in discussion on sex and relationships. Both yourself and Pteryxx posit viewing women as “sex objects” is somehow a morally bad thing, reasoning that such thinking has a causal relationship with not caring about a partner or even misogyny generally.
I contend this is not the case. I contend it is completely possible to view a particular perosn as a sex object, not to want much of a relationship other than sexual with them and theres nothing unhealthy about this regarding the individual or women in general.
Of course it often is the case that misogynist men will hold the “sex object” viewpoint too. However I contend it is not this viewpoint which is the problem but rather the lack of any real social contact with women outside of the sexual context, which has a much more complicated reasons and is down to the structure of the society far mroe than the choices of the individual.
In other words you’re both assigning an incorrect cause which is also the standard narrative of our patriarchal religious society.
No, but they are a reasonable guide. YOu cannot just make up definitions for words, and claim that you are being reasonable.
Given you got this wrong I am ignoring the rest.
Quit being an idiot OK ? I know you are not one, so why play the fool ? It really is pretty pathetic of you. If you want to be treated as idiot, just ask. Gunboat clearly is an idiot though.
If only because the results are potentially being run past several, incompatible, biases.
:p
–
“Normal” is more fluid than some people think, and ≠ “by communal consensus”. As for monogamous marriage being “what most religions call normal”, I point to the Patriarchs of Olde with their multiple wives (and apparently still occuring, according to Wikipedia, in “non-European Jewish communities that exist in countries where it is not forbidden, such as Jewish communities in Yemen and the Arab world”), Islam with its permission to have up to four wives, the Mormons (historically and in the modern-day FLDS, which whether you like and agree with them or not is a ‘religion’), some approaches to Hinduism and Buddhism, and I don’t doubt that there are many other examples both historical and present-day. Heck, the modern acceptibility of divorce and remarriage might as well be considered “serial polygamy” as “serial monogamy”.
As far as monogamy being “the relationship our species evolved with”, I’d say, what with the tendancy to polygamy in some form (legal or otherwise) wherever/whenever conditions permit, and evolution being a long-term, forever on-going process, that this is extremely debatable, hmmmm?
–
Tell me about it. The dehumanizing language is very hard for me to take too for similar reasons. After being raised in one thing, and then having years of abuse you really do lose your humanity.
That is why, of all the things I hate, the myth of “saving” your abusive partner is the one I hate the most.
No one EVER needs the burden of *saving* anyone on them. Hell, that’s some Christian bullshit right there anyway.
Saving?
Fuck that shit. Live, people, live.
Pteryxx,
Oh, no. Please don’t apologize. You did no wrong, in my view. I did not think you were showing off, in fact, I think you were just highlighting one way that a healthy relationship can work. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Thomathy.
I am going to set you a challenge.
Find a reputable dictionary, by which I mean one that has been around for a while, that offers your definition. If your definition is significant use it should appear in dictionaries. None I have found offer your definition, which means either you are wrong or several well respected dictionaries have all made the same mistake.
Well, I have an idea that it might be you who is mistaken. It is rather arrogant of you to claim the staff of at least three dictionaries, all of whom are experts in their field are wrong, and you are right. Are you really that arrogant ? If so, all I can say to you is fuck off.
Further, I might add, that the common use for murder clearly includes state sanctioned murder. Elsewise, you wouldn’t find so many people using it as such. I’ll also point out that the legal use of a term does not definitively define it.
You can quote all the bloody dictionaries and specific jargon you want, but you’re not going to define the word murder by appealing to them, when clearly it’s being used by a great many people in a way consistently beyond the definitions you’re quoting.
What you’re engaging in is a very annoying argument of semantics and you’re blatantly ignoring the fact that the common use of the word murder includes murder with caveats.
Exactly.
Matt Penfold, stop being stupid.
I am late returning to the thread, but I would like to award Walton @ 161 one sniny new internets for the following;
I will henceforth replace all references to MRAs with references to male supremacists instead. I am sure that many plaintive cries about ‘being mean to teh poor menz’ will be heard.
——————————————————————-
ChasCPeterson @ 147;
I disagree. If we start allowing this alternate usage without challenge, then we invite a situation where someone deliberately uses ad hominem to refer to the logical fallacy, where it hasn’t been employed, as an attempt to delegitimise an argument by implying that it relies on a fallacious technique. If called on it, they can claim that they actually meant merely that an insult was used. If nothing is said, they can allow the misconception to stand. Creating such ambiguities is simply inviting the disingenuous to exploit them.
—————————————————————–
Casual Guy @ 164;
Oh, this ought to be good.
(Emphasis added)
That’s the point. Trying to invalidate a person’s argument by attacking actual or perceived attributes of that person rather than addressing the substance is the logical fallacy.
Thus saying “X is wrong because X is an idiot” is an argumentum ad hominem. Whereas, saying “X is wrong because *insert evidenced counter argument/highlight logical inconsistency or argument in bad faith*. X is an idiot” may be insulting, but it is not an argumentum ad hominem in the usual usage of that term. Attempting to render ad hominem into nothing more than a means of saying ‘insult’ in latin simply muddies the water, and as observed above such ambiguity is most useful for those who would seek to argue in bad faith.
Strange. It seems to me that you are far more interested in tone trolling.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
There are times when prior behaviour and evidence of personal character are relevant to a discussion. A case in point being where a commenter has been caught lying about their identity by morphing, for instance. PZ caught you at it as he says @ 158;
When you are caught red handed like this, people are not going to be very likely to grant you the benefit of the doubt again.
It is only a ‘clear cut logical fallacy’ if they make no other attempt to address your point. Saying nasty things about you is not enough to invalidate their responses to your points.
Further, now that you have been cauight misrepresenting your identity, many posters simply want you to leave. They have no interest in a discussion with someone who has proven their preparedness to attempt to manipulate the debate by deceit. It is not an ad hominem to say; “You have been caught lying. I don’t want to discuss anything with you.”
They are calling you a liar because you lied. They are calling you a monster because you are more interested in whining about tone and complaining about supposed ad hominems than you are about addressing misogyny.
You bandy around the term “dehumanization” very readily, but that is hardly what is going on here. No one is denying your humanity. No one is saying that you are less than human. Calling you mean names is not the same as misogynists calmly and in all seriousness labelling women as nothing more than vectors to their own sexual gratification, or with a straight face describing women as creatures that exist solely to ruin the lives of men through some kind of hormonal ‘mind control’. The fact that you seem to view the two things as equivalent, or even to feel that your own treatment is somehow worse, shows that you have a mountain of your own unexamined privilege to climb.
When have I ever ‘dehumanized’ you? when have I ever stated that dehumanization is acceptable in any context? Don’t you understand? Being called on your overweaning arrogance and privilege is not dehumanization. We are not required to be nice to you, and if you think people standing up to you is ‘bullying’ then you are either just trying for a non-existent sympathy vote , or you have led a ludicrously sheltered life. Tone trolling doesn’t fly here. If you don’t like it, feel free to leave. The internet is a big place, and I am sure that you will find more commodious surroundings elsewhere.
By constantly harping on about tone, that’s how.
So, you actually want carte blanche to say whatever you like on the thread and have no one criticise you? Really? That’s your idea of debate?
You know, if you want to leave, no one is stopping you. Indeed, I believe that several commenters have already invited you to do so.
So, in one easy move you Godwinned the thread and presumed to read my mind, and you wonder why you antagonize people?
I hope you actually meant that.
*Looks at 174*
So no, you didn’t mean that.
Remember, the important part now is to stick the flounce…
Thomathy,
It seems you are that arrogant.
Still, if the word has been used as you claim, provide evidence. Then you can submit that evidence to the OED. If you are right they will change their indention, if you are not they won’t. I will abide by the decision of the OED. Or Collins, or Chamber if you prefer. Let me know which is your preference.
That just made me realize why I like PZ’s head on approach to religion better too. There’s something about accommodationism that rubs me the wrong way with regard to religion. I never could put my finger on it, but now I see what it is.
If you confront what you think is wrong about Religion, with no apologies you are leaving those people to make or do what they will. They may cling, and they may be angered, but in the end you’ve had more respect for both yourself and for them that way.
When you say: put up with anything, try to rise above it, be good to them, turn the other cheek, don’t rock the boat, maybe you can *save* them by being good to them, maybe by showing that you are willing to please them you will win them with your sacrifice, your selflessness, your… faith in them.
Well, when you say those things you are by definition playing their game. That’s their bag. You’ve lost. It’s over. Because you have already accepted the parameters of the type of thinking in which you are less than they are. You have to hope, wish, pray and if you fail it is your fault. That’s the language of subservience and abuse.
Worthless.
Matt Penfold
I am not making a definition up. Do not misrepresent me. Also, stop putting making ignorant inferences as per #319. Further, it really is quite obvious that murder is used outside of the definitions of law and the dictionaries you quote. Are you really going to tell me that it isn’t?
I asked for evidence. That is not it. Try again please, and make a bit more effort. That was pathetic.
Matt Penfold, you obviously don’t understand how it is that the OED editors decide to include definitions or uses of words in the OED. Stop being so ignorant.
Thomathy
Stick to dictionary definitions. They are commonly understood and reduce confusion. It is why we write dictionaries.
When people go to war with the dictionary it is generally a warning that they are spouting bullshit because it is harder to counter said bullshit if one can just up and change the meaning of words mid argument.
I too disagree with the death penalty. To call it murder however is inaccurate, and doesn’t really cover the cold blooded and calculated barbarity of it anyhow.
@ Algernon #282
Re: Michael Houllebecq “Atomised”
I only used that novel as an example of how sexual and social isolation from women can really twist a mans personality which in a patriarchal society can be really dangerous. The lesson is not at all “stay with a man no matter what” Hes actually quite a nihlist and if there is a lesson in his writng at all its angst over us all dying alone so every human relationship is pointless – argghhh!!!
Literature is a really useful way to explore some of these issues in my opinion and despite me disagreeing deeply with Houllebecqs pessemistic worldview his writing does touch on some truths.
Matt Penfold, what evidence am I supposed to present to you that murder is used as I’ve said? A google capture? You’re being really obtuse. It’s so obvious that murder is used outside of the definitions you’ve provided. You’re being ridiculous.
I’ve been lurking through this discussion but wanted to add the following:
In the US, first-degree murder generally contains the component of ‘malice aforethought’ or premeditation. Second-degree murder contains intent but is designated for where the murderer wasn’t planning things out in advance…and they usually get a lighter sentence because of that lack of premeditation.
Manslaughter (not sexist at all, right?) is when you accidentally cause the death of another person or had no intent to cause someone’s death.
I’ve never understood what is so painful about that. Honestly. Death is solitary, but why do we obsess over keeping things. I mean, the very idea of “keeping” something in death is irrational anyway. Death is losing the only thing you ever had, right?
Then please let me know which dictionary you are uisng.
I’m not.
I asked you to provide evidence to support your usage of the word “murder” so you can submit that evidence to the OED.
The OED accepts nominations for new words, or new definitions of existing words, for inclusion. Nominations need to be submitted with evidence supporting the new usage. That policy is published on their website, so it is hardly ignorant to point it out.
I addressed this point. Submit your evidence to the OED.
It seems you are big on claims and short on evidence. You are making the claim and you have refused to offer evidence. Well tough shit, I am going to point out how dishonest that is.
Begone ignorant fuckwit.
And besides, other people aren’t things anyway and neither are relationships. People are people, and relationships are shared states. Both of those are impermanent anyway.
Dunno, just thinking out loud here.
Ask the OED what is acceptable.
But yes, examples of usage are normally considered evidence by the OED. Whether it is sufficient evidence is upto them.
Really, you know who you need to contact. Why ask me ? It is your claim, so it is upto you to do the work.
Oh yeah, I think I’ve been tacitly banned from talking about that kind of shit. So I’ll stop. I have to go buy some tamales anyway.
Mmmmm…. tamales.
Is Gunboat Diplomat actually Verbose Stoic mark II? We had this argument. Women are people, whether or not you want to sex them, and depersonalizing is wrong and not even necessary for casual sex.
Link to VS comment in the “Your name is Tucker” thread
But I will anyway.
That’s not an object. That’s a person with mutual goals for a short term sex based relationship.
You’d be amazed. It turns out even men without women at all can find these. The objectification only comes in when you can’t bring yourself to think of the other person as a person. And what does that come from buy a deep disrespect for sexual enjoyment and for life in general?
Also:
Walton, that’s an amazingly excellent point. I’ll use that term in the future, and look forward to all sorts of whininess.
Twist,
I am so sorry you went through that shit. Your closing words bear repeating:
“Murder” is a term which has a common colloquial usage wider than its technical legal definition; it’s a political and moral term, not just a legal one. When we describe a killing as “murder”, in ordinary colloquial usage, we do not necessarily mean that it is unlawful; we may well mean that we think it should be unlawful.
Many other terms that have legal definitions are used in this way. When an anarchist says “property is theft”, when a pacifist says “war is murder”, or when a pro-choice activist says “access to abortion is a universal human right”, xe is not making the claim that existing laws, constitutions, treaties, etc., support hir position. Rather, xe is primarily making a normative moral argument that war should be regarded as murder, that abortion should be regarded as a human right, etc.
I also think there are good normative reasons to accept this usage. “Murder” is a term that, in regular usage, carries a strong moral opprobrium. If we give the state exclusive power to define its use, such that we only describe unlawful killings as “murder”, we are implicitly accepting the authoritarian assumption that a killing perpetrated by the state is less bad than a killing perpetrated by private individuals. I don’t accept that; I don’t think there’s any great moral difference between a state-sanctioned execution and a killing by a lynch-mob, notwithstanding that one is (in some jurisdictions) legal while the other is not. We should not accept the state’s claim to have “sovereign authority” to use and abuse its subjects as it pleases; we should resist that kind of mindset, and apply the same moral standards to the conduct of the state that we apply to the conduct of private individuals.
I also think this discussion should be taken to the endless thread, since it’s nothing to do with sexism.
Bruce Gorton, I appreciate the fact that dictionaries are good guides as to how words are typically used.
This,
latsot,
I keep encountering this idea, that relationships should be hard or difficult, and I find it puzzling. It shouldn’t be hard to exhibit concern for other people. It shouldn’t be difficult to take other people’s feelings into account when deciding how to behave. Do people truly feel put out by being aware of other’s needs and reactions?
___
Gunboat Diplomat,
It is certainly possible to view a relationship with another person as based solely on sexual chemistry and the ensuing dance, but that is not objectifying, it is recognizing how their personality is a strong fit with one’s own for sexual purposes. But when one descends from there to seeing another in object terms, the relationship is gone, the personality denied and only the body considered. Where there should be two narratives engaging one another there is one narrative pushing another aside.
Walton, I was trying to figure out how to express the concept you get at in paragraph three of your post. You’re often so articulate. I was struggling to maintain my ability to type, because matters of language often put me right on edge, it being something I care very deeply about.
Pardon my blockquote failure at 343. I hope it’s obvious which parts are mine.
Yes. They really do.
I’m not kidding, and I wish I could tell you the story that just popped into my head but I don’t want to post it publicly.
But, yes, this is asking a lot of some people…
Thomathy,
You are also misunderstanding, on purpose I imgine, the role of the OED.
The OED does far more than just provide definitions for words. It records the use of words, at least English words or words used by English speakers speaking English. A word gets into the dictionary when the compilers are satisfied there is evidence of the word being used in the submitted context and that the usage gained some traction. So one person making up a word, and no one else using it is unlikely to merit an entry. But if, as you claim, murder is being used in the way Gunboat is using it on a widespread basis then it should be in there. If it is not then either it is a genuine commission, which you can help rectify, or it is not in as widespread use as you claim.
If you want me to accept you are correct then why not submit your usage for inclusion ?
The problem is with the …view a particular person as a sex object… part.
Like I said, I’m not at all morally opposed to polyamory, open relationships, or friends-with-benefits type relationships (the latter seems to be what you’re describing, I suppose, though it’s a very alien concept to me). But it is morally obligatory to respect the other person, to be honest with hir about your respective goals and to care for hir feelings – just as it is in every human interaction of any kind, sexual or not. Whether or not you have a “relationship” with a person, you have an obligation to treat hir as a human being and to consider hir feelings. This applies in every single human interaction, from dating to friendship to co-workerhood to buying a cup of coffee. Everyone you interact with is an individual person, with hir own needs and feelings, and you have a responsibility not to dehumanize hir or to see hir as an instrument for fulfilling your own needs.
I would like to continue the conversation but I’ve got to go now, will be back later or tomorrow.
Also, no Pteryxx I am not a pseudonym (?!)
@Gumboot Diplomat
I find this, scattered throughout various of the Diplomat’s comments very, very illuminating as to his overarching perceptions.
Underlying this question But what do you expect? is the notion that eh, boys will be boys, whatya gonna do, they dogs, yo, they’re not mustache twirling villains, more like piddling unhouse-trained puppies. With incontinence. Sux to be you ladies, but what else do you expect?
I don’t stand for misandry like that.
What do I expect?
I expect more
Gunboat Diplomat @ 314;
To view someone as an ‘object’, whether sexual or otherwise, is to dehumanize that person. Dehumanization is the core element of all bigotry, and misogyny is a term used to describe extreme bigotry against women. Objectification (and thus dehumanization) of women is the vital prerequisite of all misogyny.
Once you view a person as an object, not a human, then it becomes that much easier to rationalise abusing them. The sexual objectification of women feeds directly into the social discourse that seeks to legitimize rape – the rape culture that so afflicts our society, and of which the religious patriarchy is a major component.
An object has no rights and no will. An object cannot give consent, and the absence of its consent is not significant. It is not hard to see how the objectification of women forms the basis of rape apologia, and rape is most certainly bad for the individual, as rape culture is bad for women (and broader society) in general, since it seeks to validate the perspective that women are nothing more than living sex dispensers.
The objectification of women does not exist solely at the individual level, but is also reflected in broader society; in pop culture, fashion, advertising – everywhere. It is pervasive, but it is not sufficient to attempt a solely ‘top down’ approach of trying to change society at the macro level, it is also necessary to perform a ‘bottom up’ campaign of challenging misogyny and the objectification of women whenever it is expressed by individuals as well. This is the only way that lasting change can be affected. If men who objectify women (and those women who replicate the same attitude themselves) refuse to take responsibility for their own attitudes and actions, then the objectification meme will continue to persist in the broader culture, and with it the misogyny that relies on the dehumanisation of women that objectification brings.
Matt Penfold, are you always such a patronising asshole? You make it incredibly difficult to have a conversation when you start telling me how to go about submitting suggestions to the OED and getting hung up on me presenting readily apparent evidence, as if it were even necessary. You are being ridiculous and you’re also quite wrong about how the word murder is commonly used. You, actually, can fuck off.
Matt Penfold, I don’t need a lesson on what the OED is from you. Thank you.
Just to make it clear. Quoted from my link in 352, written by Melissa McEwan.
Shorter male supremacist: “It’s good to be the King!”
–
Thomathy, since you do not want to submit your usage for murder to the OED, I will do the resposible thing and do it myself.
Odd you should be so lackadaisical about correcting what you think is such an obvious mistake. Guess your sense of duty has gone awol.
Algernon,
I am sorry, a look back shows that I was less clear than I intended. There has been more than enough shitty experiences shared here for me to recognize that such people do exist. My apologies for calling that into question, it was insensitive and I can see how harmful my comment was. I would clarify though:
What I was aiming at is the message from people who do care about others that relationships are hard, require work, and so on. This does not align well with my experience in life and I get nervous that the message put out about relationships and effort leads to people putting up with situations that they don’t need to or as often as not are actually harmed by.
@Dhorvath:
Heh, it turns out I need to learn to do blockquotes too.
Matt,
since descriptivism already came up in this thread. A word can have multiple meanings, or shades of meaning, something known as polysemy in linguistics.
You’re referring to the legal definition, about which you are undoubtedly correct. But lawyers don’t get to prescribe the way language is used in society.
Looking briefly at corpora and the like, it is true that it usually means “unlawful killing”. However, I think a case can be made for it also just meaning “killed/slaughtered” irrespective of legality. Probably Googling for “murdered by the state/government” will lead to many more evidence of “to murder” being used in that sense. Often “murder” is used by activists to express their moral stance towards government actions, be it war or executions.
The OED doesn’t own the English language either, if the OED doesn’t include a non-legal meaning, it’s the OED that is at fault, plenty other dictionaries include a colloquial meaning, see for instance http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder
There is also the issue of positivism. Many of the killings done by the Nazis were lawful according to German laws at the time, but legal theory has held that if the law is so obviously in violation of human right, it has to be regarded as unlawful (in Germany the legal scholar Gustav Radbruch is credited with this approach). So probably in that spirit also, many anti-death penalty advocates may regard executions as unlawful killings, and thus murder.
But the bottom line is, words are usually polysemous, if there are misunderstandings about how a speaker means it, these situations need to be sorted out by arriving at an understanding of what the other person means, not by lecturing.
Gunboat Diplomat, it is wrong to treat a person as an object.
It’s wrong in both senses of the word “wrong.”
It’s empirically incorrect: a person remains a person, not an inanimate object, no matter how you treat them. Well, barring killing them. Then they become an object.
It’s also morally wrong: when you treat a person as an object, you erase their humanity, their capacity to give or revoke consent, and open the door to abusing them or even killing them.
I’m puzzled as to why you think it’s okay to treat people as objects. As someone else mentioned, we ran into this before. Not an uncommon attitude, it seems.
If I may guess, perhaps you are confusing “treating X as an object” with “just wanting to have sex, not a long-term relationship or friendship, with X.”
Well, here’s a news flash: you can have one-night-stands, or fuck buddies, or whatever, all you want, and there’s no need to objectify or dehumanize the person you’re lusting after. There are plenty of people out there who share a desire for a quickie, or a friendship-free fuck or two. Too bad our patriarchal culture teaches us that this isn’t true, but it is. If you think it’s necessary to treat people as objects in order to obtain one-off, commitment-free sex, well, you’re standing on the border of Rape Land. Put that belief into action, and it’s pretty likely you’ll cross over and become a rapist.
Objectifying people is both unnecessary and harmful, so I’m at a loss to understand why you are so intent on defending the practice.
Matt Penfold @ 358
Do what you like. Also, it’s not my definition. Honestly! Further, the OED does have the resources to track words and their usage. It’s not ‘responsible’ to submit a suggestion yourself, it’s helpful.
I have never once said it’s a mistake! It’s something that happens all the time. The OED is not exhaustive, nor is it meant to be a complete compendium. In fact, it never will be. It also does not aim to include every possible use a word may have, historically or others, nor can it considering the pace at which words evolve or their myriad uses.
Really? You’ve quite an imagination.
Sally,
GunboatDiplomat (incidentally! what a ‘nym – getting what you want because you have
more gunsa penis!) is emblematic of the problem.He wants a relationship with a woman he can respect.
Unfortunately, to get his respect, she has to give him sex. Good (as defined by him) sex. If she doesn’t, well, then he’s justified in treating her as an unperson.
After all, men are people. Women are granted personhood by contact with penises.
Yech.
Sally Strange, OM
QFT.
Gay men pick each other up all the time. They meet in bars, or on Craigslist, or kijiji or on the street, in malls, on Grindr, Manhunt, Gay.com in all kinds of places, and they mutually enter into a kind of contract about having sex.
It’s necessary, as you might imagine, to ascertain what the other person is ‘into’. In fact, it’s one of the first questions a gay man would ask if he’s trying to hook-up. You have to figure out if the person is a top a bottom or versatile, whether there will be fucking at all, if they’re into oral sex, either giving or receiving and a bunch of other pertinent questions about the potential sex.
It’s difficult in a situation like that to dehumanise the other person or treat them merely as an object. What they want really matters if the sex is going to take place at all because everyone involved needs to be on the same page about the interaction and what everyone is willing to do or willing to have done to them.
It’s not only possible, but necessary, for a potential sex partner to be treated as a person. As far as I’m concerned people, even people I’m lusting after, are never merely objects for my pleasure, they’re people who want their own pleasure too and we all have terms that need to be negotiated and agreed upon before anyone is going to experience pleasure with anyone else.
Besides, isn’t that some kind of dualism anyway. I’m not attracted to your “mind” only your “body” so therefore you aren’t human.
If that is seriously the way human beings seem to you, please save your money and buy a doll.
That works the other way, too, right? People who only care about my mind, and not my body, are also being dualists? If no-one has ever been attracted to my body, but they have been attracted to my mind, then I’ve never been recognized as fully human either, right? I wish there was more empathy in cavalier discussions regarding sex, which of course is my fault for reading the thread in the first place, I realize…to re-iterate what the otherwise foolish CG said earlier, in America it is VERY difficult to avoid sexual imagery all over the place when one can never participate in it.
Argh, I’m absolutely sorry for having brought up the word “murder”.
I will not comment on that further.
But it’s hard arguing with Gunboat Diplomat who constantly uses his own definitions of words, not only for “murder”, but also for “misogyny”.
Yeah, wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was nice?
But you’re constantly putting the burden onto the women to not give men their “entirely valid reasons” to turn into misogynists.
No, there is no entirely valid reason to treat women like shit, to talk about them as if they were evil monsters.
No matter how frustrated you are with your love life or relationship or lack thereof
No, not really. At least, not in our culture. We have inherited a legacy of Cartesian dualistic thinking, but the two complementary opposites are never accorded equal value.
In our culture, “mind” and “body” have long been regarded as complementary opposites that correspond with a number of other value-laden dualistic categories. Mind corresponds to male, rational, human, civilized, spiritual/heavenly. Body corresponds to female, emotional, animal, savage, base/earthly.
Thus, no, it’s not dehumanizing to value a person for his mind only. In fact, it’s seen as a noble and civilized act. Whereas valuing someone for her body is seen as dirty, crass, uncivilized.
@slothrop1905, sounds to me like you’re less interested in discussing dualism or dehumanization, and more concerned about whether your body makes you undesireable. Without getting too far into it, let me just say that lots of us horny people aren’t that shallow. There are discussions on Erotica Readers about sex and aging, obesity, disability, paralysis and cancer; I just saw a Dan Savage column about sex and hypospadias. I’ve written a few times now about the huge fat bald dude that I swooned after some years back. Honestly, it’s probably not the game-breaker you think it is. Give yourself a chance.
It’s dehumanizing in the sense of “superhumanizing”, placement on a pedestal with idealization beyond the human.
The cartesian duality is layered on top of the old concept of the chain of being. Humans are in the middle. Everything above, from the angels in all their ranks to the big kahuna, are supposed to be pure mind, while everything below, from ape to amoeba, is supposed to be pure body. Humanity gets both, but “casting off the body” is supposed to be a good thing, a thing to strive for, and act that leads to climbing up the ladder.
Many have argued that this sort of idealization is also wrong, of course. It’s probably less harmful, though, than dehumanizing in the other direction.
To paraphrase Discworld, people as things. That’s where all evil starts, and all evil ends.
Everything else is details.
Pteryxx:
Word. A while back, we watched a movie called Wolke Nine (Cloud Nine.) We recommended it to a few people, who went “eeeuwwwww” after finding out it had sex scenes with old people, “oh, icky!”.
I’ve found it to be a good litmus test as to how people really feel about sex and people who may be their sex partners.
Hmm… I was thinking about atheism in a context of generalized rationalism, but if you separate it into its most basic form (lack of belief in gods) you really don’t need any rationalistic thought to hold that belief. (By the way, I’m fully aware that correlation =/= causation, intro to psychology taught me that years ago, but sometimes they’re related, and until it can be proven that in a specific case, a correlation does not imply causation, it is acceptable to consider possible mechanisms of connection). Whether there is a logical connection between feminism and atheism is debatable, I would argue that there is (but not all atheists are feminists, nor are all feminists atheists) on some level, considering, as I mentioned before, the role of religion in establishing and maintaining patriarchy. Thank you all for giving me something to think about!
Amphiox:
I had to do it. Sorry.
Heh! I’m glad for you (seriously, I am!) but personally I’d rather talk about old people sex. ~;>
Pteryxx: There’s some interesting biology and psychology in old people sex! :)
Caine,
Yey go german film makers! :) Interestingly, the IMDB keywords for Wolke Neun are
Older Woman Nude | Male Nudity | Male Frontal Nudity | Female Nudity | Couple
The first category – Wtf?
Anyhow, that’s a very interesting observation. My mom once was fascinated by a series of artful photographs on the topic of (physical) love and aging, and those left quite an impression with me. I think I was like in my early teens, and had never thought of “old” people in this way.
But also slightly on topic, What’s wrong with people???
I sit in a packed movie theater, and the protagonist goes around
killing people, preferably shooting off body parts. Of course, everyone’s like “yeah, what a great splash”. Then, about halfway in, the protagonist kisses another guy. The entire theater goes “EEEEEEEWWWWWWWWW”.
I think some deep lesson is to be learned from this, but I don’t know quite what it is.
Alex, Tyrant of Skepsis: It might have something to do with religious suppression of sexuality.
Tell that to the slaves who were of course seen by the Church as humanoid beasts that lacked the soul.
That sort of idealization is very bad for those riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight bellow the cut off line.
Alex:
I think the lesson is that most people are much less open minded about sex than they think they are.
Alex,
there is also a song, called “Omaboy” by the German punk rock band called Die Ärzte
It’s about a conscientious objector who chooses to do his substitute service in an senior citizens facility because he loves older women…
Ooh, that reminds me:
(NSFW!!)
Check out Ashley Savage’s erotic photographs of disabled and otherwise unconventional people:
Bodies of Difference
And this series documenting mastectomy:
Cancer Sucks
Well, not sure if I qualify. I’m only 45. But Wife and I have been married for 22 years. And yes, it really does keep changing and getting better.
As does our relationship. We are certainly not the same two people who were married over two decades ago. Well, legally we are, but our experiences and maturity have really changed who we are. But we have changed with each other; my change has responded to her change which responded to my change which responded to her change, etc.
Ogvorbis:
Yep. Mister and I have been together since our very early 20s (actually, I was 19) and are now in our 50s.
I think a lot of how your sex life evolves has to do with how you are when young. If you’re open, experimental and willing to learn when young, your sex life will get better and better. If you’re staid and unwilling to experiment or learn when young, it’s not going to age well, so to speak.
There’s a german punk rock band by that name you say? ;-)
Wow, those were the days, 1 1/2 years of civil alternative service. Those days are long gone.
If no-one has ever been attracted to my body, but they have been attracted to my mind, then I’ve never been recognized as fully human either, right?
No, the problem isn’t being attracted to one or the other, as you imply. The problem is negating the other because of one. You aren’t a whole human because I am only interested in your mind is just as fallacious. I can treat you like an object, and you have no consent and no rights because you’re not a person since I don’t care about your body makes no more sense.
Or, even worse, when your roles are cast in stone (yeah, I know, metaphor mixing) and there is not opportunity for one or both partners to grow emotionally, maturationally, or in any other way, frustration can create a simmering resentment which poisons the entire family relationship. I’ve been watching it happen with a semi-relative and his wife. And their daughter.
The mind is a process of the body. Admiring it is like admiring someone for their long distance running, they have a skill that is a process of toning and developing part of their bodily systems. I fail to see why a difference is made. Granted it may be more highly weighed, just as no one admires someone for their impressive digestive processes (unless they’re like a side show performer and can eat bicycles or something)
(Woohoo, another point in favor of the furries! <_< )
Some people do start out unwilling to experiment because they're naive or shy, but then become adventurous with age. That gets mentioned a lot in anecdotes about sex and aging. Or, to put it another way:
Speaking strictly for myself, I did come to be atheist as a result of feminism. The role of religion in establishing and maintaining patriarchy is well documented. I recommend When God Was A Woman as a good book on the subject.
Preface excerpt-
Ogvorbis:
Yes. That’s an intensely toxic situation, I’ve seen it happen too.
Exactly. No body = no mind.
It’s the difference between admiring and appreciating things about a person and invalidating them because they aren’t a useful means to your end that matters.
Why do some people (not only male supremacists) get freaked out at the thoght of people who are not supermodels having sex?
While, in most cases, they themselves, not being supermodel either, still want to get laid?*
Speaking for myself, I needed some time to get familiar with the whole thing at first. Think about it like skying: You start on the kiddie’s hill, not the olympic parcours. Once I managed the basics and was comfortable with that, I became a lot more open for the “advanced” stuff.
Every challenge that has been put to us has led to creativity, not to bed death.
*Pure speculation:
Could it be that everybody identifies elder people as = my parents ewewewewew nononono, they stopped after the youngest sibling was born?
Oddly I’m not even sure if that’s limited to Western values. I remember reading a memoir of a Soix medicine man where he stated that because traditional living conditions are so close, everyone of course hears what’s going on…but nobody HEARS it.
Tethys: I shall have to Amazon that book.
Hate to bring up Evopsyche, but maybe there is (contrary to Mr. Freud) a highly ingrained incest revulsion reflex that is triggered at any thought of close relatives being sexual?
Same. I couldn’t accept religion because I never felt like it could accept me. Feminism helped me understand how and why, which made all the difference.
Giliell:
Maybe, but for a lot of [young] people, I think it’s simply more of being unable to imagine themselves as old.
I’m not the person to talk on that matter, but I’m pretty sure some where at some point I really did read a study that seemed to suggest there is.
They assume people having sex should be doing it for their voyeuristic pleasure?
Well it exists in some crickets. But I doubt that’s helpful for primate behavior.
It is called Westermarck effect and has been known since 19th century. It means that people who have lived in close proximity, e.g. same house hold, during a crucial period in early childhood develop sexual ‘revulsion’ for each other. There is empirical evidence for it from several societies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect
@Pj
I knew of the Westermarck effect from evopsyche class but was curious if it had been confirmed outside of it.
I read a paper a few years back that determined that puberty in females is delayed (often by a year or two) by the presence of a biologically related male. I’ll hunt it down and post a link if anyone is interested.
My above comment should read: biologically related adult male in the household.
@Walton #349
I agree we have a moral obligation to consider the feelings and respect everyone, in particular people you are intimate with but also someone you buy coffee or a newspaper from.
Seeing someone as a sex object does not necessarily dehumanise them either. How could it? We’re such an anthropomorphic species we humanise inanimate objects in the world all the time. We get upset when we break a favourite coffee mug for gods sake. We have favourite pens – we miss places and don’t get me started on cats who we humanise far more than they deserve.
I see sex as seperate from love and seperate even from liking someone. I see it as a form of communication and certainly our closest relatives – bonobos and chimpanzees – often use it as a form of conflict resolution. Although I really wouldn’t recommend having sex with someone you don’t like, some people get off on it so who am I to judge what sick shit consenting adults get up to? ;)
Viewing someone as a sex object is a recognition of reality IF that is the type of relationship you have with the person. It doesn’t mean you treat them like shit. You don’t treat the guy who collects your garbage like shit so why on earth would you be anything but respectful to someone you’re having intimate relations with?
Yes I know, people do just that to the garbage man and to their lovers. And its mostly men because they have most of the power, physical, economic etc.
I contend its not because of some mysterious “objectification voodoo”. Its because of the structure of the material world, and in particular to the structure of a patriarchal class based private-property society.
Once again I’ll plug Sex at dawn http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805
Sorry, I’m not related to the authors in any way but its a really fresh perspective wuith lots of good science and some, eerr, dodgy speculation ;)
*headdesk*
So, you objectify them first and then anthropomorphize the inanimate object and that means that you’re viewing them as real people, just like your favourite coffee mug.
Yes, that makes total sense, especially with regards to respect and consens.
I don’t brak them for gods’ sake, I’m an atheist, I break them for clumsiness
@Gileill
We all have our little cultural foibles. I use “for gods sake” and “christ” but I refuse to use the term “evil” to describe anything as i feel it lets the perpetrators off the hook to ascribe their viciousness to some non-existent supernatural force.
Gunboat Diplomat,
se sing set u heard woooshing over your head? set was se djoke
@Guilleil
No, I don’t think that to view someone as a sex obbject means you dehumanise them at all. I’m saying thats essentially impossible unless you become a psychopath.
The mere fact that you’re justifying treating a human being as an object with the anthropomorphising of actual objects points to a great depth of idiocy. There’s a healthy stench of mscrap about you as well.
*Cue theme music to the twilight zone* What else does it do????
Gunboat Diplomat:
If you can’t manage to spell people’s names correctly, cut & paste. It’s disrespectful, to say the least and there’s little excuse, given that people’s names are conveniently located above every post they write.
@Caine Fleur deMal #415
My point is if we don’t even “dehumanise” inanimate objects how on earth can we do that to people?
Well of course we can but it takes extreme circumstances and extreme bigotry.
But how exactly is sex the cause of that? Lack of sex sure, rectrictions on interaction netween the sexes sure, but actual consensual sexual and social contact? You’re starting to sound like my former sunday school teacher. You’ll never become the Great Dictator if you don’t take “Social Manipulation 101”
Peer-reviewed?
Gunboat Diplomat,
Please, normal, mentally healthy, adults objectify other people. This hurts and should be avoided. One of the ways we need to fight that is by making people aware that there is no simple magic pill, you can’t just claim to think of everyone as human or place definitional constraints on objectification such that it appears to no longer be a problem. To say that anyone doing so is a psychopath pretty much denies a large scale social problem exists and tries to push it into an individual context, one where it is easier to ignore and harder to fix.
Yawn, has Gunboat said anything remotely intelligent all day? Nothing I can think off. Just trying to apologize for the MRA’s, which is utterly and totally stupid behavior, just like his posts.
It seems to me it’s more patriarchy using or twisting religion to maintain itself.
As there are/were plenty of matriarchal and neutral religions.
I think it’s more accurate to say that it is secular humanism that implies feminism, and vice versa, and the link between atheism and feminism is actually indirect, due to the way atheism can be a bridge into secular humanism.
@Azkyroth #419
I don’t believe so ;)
Its a great novel though and the author is often accused of being misogynist. Some of his characters certainly are and then theres “Platform” which – I’m not making this up – one of my best female friends told me changed her mind on prostitution.
Societal issues are often explored through art and literature historically. Crime and Punishment certainly preceded and influenced Freud for example.
Someone doesn’t understand the term “dehumanize”. Specifically, the “de-” part.
The act of humanising inanimate objects is irrelevant and unrelated to the act of dehumanizing a human being.
Someone doesn’t understand the term “dehumanize”. Specifically, the “-humanize” part.
Dehumanizing inanimate objects if definitionally impossible, so of course we don’t do it. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with dehumanizing human beings.
Pardon my ignorance, but is this the most awesomely spelled real word in existence, or is the the most awesome misspelling ever?
Ugh. Ain’t that the tragic truth. The amount of accomodationism of catastrophically stupid adherence to misogynistic religions is stunning on some feminist blogs. They excuse it with the “I chose my choice!” crap or the “you can’t chose not to believe” nonsense, which neatly erases atheist feminists who were, in fact, once religious.
I know of only one unaccomodating atheist feminist blog, but its too much of a pain in the ass to sign in. LOL
@Amphiox
So let me get this straight – ‘humanising’ and ‘DE-humanising’ are two totally unrelated things?
….
As is clear as is the summer sun!
(Sorry to plaigarise Henry V)
</lurk>
So, PZ enticed a few trolls to come out from under their bridges by virtue of mocking the idiocy of MRAs, even provoking a spittle-flecked diatribe from the hogglin’ one. Yet when PZ makes an impassioned argument against the misogynist, inhuman ballot initiative in Mississippi, these same oxygen thieves are not in evidence: what’s up with that?
I’m with Nerd.
I’m sure they’ll show up. Something about child support, wallets, and their mother no doubt.
The ballot initiative makes women less than men, which is what fuckwits like Gunboat wants…He hasn’t proven he thinks a woman his is equal…
Amphiox, OM: That is an interesting way of thinking about the connections between atheism, feminism, and religion. And considering that most (if not all) of the more patriarchal religions were pulled out of the rectums of misogynistic males, it makes perfect sense. I wonder at what point (and if) the roles are reversed and patriarchy becomes dependent on religion?
Philip:
Why on earth would they be concerned? That’s a problem for sluts, not them. A fair amount of male supremacists are happily anti-abortion anyway, and they do not see contraception as their issue.
@430 Nerd of RedHead
Fuck you and your lies asshole.
I’ve been on many an abortion information security line in my home country where abortion is still illegal and where abortion information protestors have been physically attacked by fascistic clericalist thugs aided and abetted by the cops.
Considering that science and true academic studies shows little, if any, difference in the capability of the sexes for almost all jobs, what do you think? Religion is the reason many MRAs are still fighting rear-guard battle against true equality…
Also, we’ve seen countless male supremacists snivel and whine about a woman having the right to abort their baby, and it’s not right, it’s not right at all! They should have a say. Then they snivel and whine about a woman having the right to go through with a pregnancy, and it’s not right, it’s not right at all! They should have a say, after all, they don’t want a kid and they don’t want to pay!
GD,
Humanizing is more regularly referred to as anthropomorphizing and is when a person projects themselves onto something which doesn’t actually have human character in itself. Dehumanizing on the other hand means taking the human character of something which possesses it and pretending it doesn’t exist, whether to project a different human characteristic in it’s stead or to place non-human projections. They are not flipsides of the same coin.
Yawn, all MRAs and their apologists lie, and that has been proven time and time again. I suspect the above is another lie. Even if it isn’t, you can’t convince us that MRAs aren’t stupid, toxic, and just lying through their teeth. So, what do you really hope to accomplish? I strongly suspect, you aren’t doing what you hoped to do, as you just appear stupid and witless at the moment…
Oh, and GD, I’m laughing AT YOU….
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls: It’s a very interesting question, and one I would love to see some academic research on (if anyone has any, I’m begging you now to post it!). I suppose it depends on whether there is an existing patriarchy when the religion is founded. If there is, I assume that the patriarchy would support religion (though religion would doubtless reinforce the patriarchy at this stage) until such a point that the religion becomes so engrained in a society that they support each other. When patriarchy comes under significant attack (history tells us that this often happens first, remember, feminism as an organized movement is somewhat older than anti-religious atheism (as contrasted with areligious atheism)), the roles likely reverse, and religion is used to defend the institution of patriarchy. Thus the need to demolish both institutions before true equality can be gained. (The same probably applies to racism (just replace patriarchy with X race hegemony)
@437 Nerd of Redhead
Had you actually read my posts you would realise I have no objection at all to MRA’s being referred to as stupid lying and and toxic. Why let the truth get in the way of a good slander though, eh?
I’m done with this thread if anyone else wants to continue you can reach me on [email protected]
As I suspect you know, my question was rhetorical. The comparative silence is telling, however.
Oh golly, well, that makes everything OKAY then! Here’s your fucking cookie; you don’t think women should be forced to give birth against their will. Obviously then everything else you say must magically be absolutely pure, 100% free of the taint of misogyny!
Asshole.
I presented a well-supported and clear argument as to why objectification is causally linked to abuse, harassment, and sexual assault.
If you’re a feminist, that alone should be reason enough to drop your stupid argument that it’s A-OK to objectify and dehumanize women. But you’re not dropping it. Conclusion: you’re only a feminist when it’s convenient. You’re only a feminist when it makes you feel good. If it involves changing your behavior, your perceptions, even just a little bit, then fuck it and fuck those bitches who have the gall to expect to be treated as a human being AND a sexual being.
Do you have an argument as to why I should believe that objectification and dehumanization AREN’T linked to abuse, harassment, and sexual assault? You haven’t presented one so far. All of your persuasive arguments seem to revolve around quibbling about the definitions of these words. The harm that flows from objectification and dehumanization is clear and present and a great many women live with it every day. Show that we’re wrong about the connection between the objectification and the ensuing harm, and we might have something to talk about. Otherwise, you’re just making excuses for male supremacists.
I haven’t read comic books for awhile so maybe someone can answer this for me.
Is “anti-testosterone” like red kryptonite or blue kryptonite?
I read you all day. I stand by my assessment based on your words…and your flounce.
AR
Think about it cricket. The babble was written from 500 BC to 100 AD or so. The Koran circa 600-700 AD or so. You don’t think patriarchy was rampant in the Middle East at that point in time? Read either book. Given that you are most likely a student in the US, I suggest the babble. Cover through Psalms. Irrefutable evidence that women are property, and treated like property; tainted property due to their monthly cycle. Patriarchy isn’t new. Rather, the concept that women are real people equal to men, and deserve all the rights and privileges men have, is.
Gunboat Dipshit, you first appeared in this thread with this comment,
and you didn’t expect a little criticism?
Stop apologizing for and explaining away misogyny. You can’t even bring yourself to call “the game” misogynistic?
You’re an idiot, and your getting in the way of equality.
And which is it, do you think objectification is fine or is it not even possible for non-psychopaths?
I don’t actually give a fuck about your answer to that, and I would prefer that you stick the flounce so I don’t have to hear it. It’s pathetic though that you can’t even remain consistent while you provide cover for the male supremacists.
I have been with a guy (also a rapist) who came to view me as an object which he owned. (We had a D/s relationship, and bad stuff happened, and the sorts of things said in play bled into everything else until there was no such concept as “consent” anymore. Yes, you do start to lose your humanity.) He physically attacked me more than once when I angered him. When I confronted him about it once (since I hadn’t done a very good job of confronting him when I was curled up on the floor sobbing in pain and terror), he told me that he wasn’t attacking me. He told me, quite seriously, that what he was doing was more akin to shaking a vending machine when it didn’t work, or hitting your computer when it froze. That if I would only work properly, he wouldn’t have to do that anymore.
I’d rather people not argue that dehumanization is impossible, or that objectification doesn’t lead to abuse.
Thanks.
Nobody missed that. But apparently you have a problem recognizing when you are spouting MRA rhetoric, and are therefore worthy of being labeled as stupid, lying, and toxic yourself.
Awwww. Poow widdle male supwemacist. Didn’t get the cookie he expected, now he’s taking his ball and going home. Won’t all those horrible, mean feminists be sorry now! How will feminism ever survive without Gunboat Diplomat?!? He supports abortion rights, goddamnit, what more do you bitches want?
I want more. I expect more.
Sally:
I won’t exactly miss his misogynistic rhetoric side by side with his avatar of a woman in a bikini. A little less of that is a good thing.
So men are pheremone zombies until they’re 30 by which time women are dead.
This isn’t mysogonistic. This is full tilt misanthropic.
Maybe my personal weather pattern is in the way of seeing it.
I’ll go climb the rockies to be sure.
ROFLcopter
And I thought the new term for MRA couldn’t get any better. “male supwemacist” Is perfect (though hard to type). They are bigots and widdle children whinging at the oppression of those rude feminists, both at the same time.
Male supwemicists sums it up nicely
@ Classical – That is horrible. Thank you for sharing your story, even though it gave me the chills.
@ Caine – I missed the bikini-clad woman avatar. Funny, that. I’m sure GD’s advocacy of objectification has nothing at all to do with the fact that he himself objectifies women all the time, and is heavily invested in seeing himself as a Good Person.
Equal opportunity hatred!
All bigotry is, at root, the same thing.
@Sally
That’s not just a woman in a bikini. It’s a communist woman in a bikini.
It’s clearly a metaphor saying that all things are property of the people, including ones body.
or maybe he just thought it was “cool”.
Sally:
Oh yes. After all, all the supremanists are Good People underneath, really truly! They’re in such need of Good Diplomats to plead their case.
Heh. I wasn’t thinking of it when I wrote it, but you are right.
Now, whenever I think of a male supwemacist, I will have a mental image of an Elmer Fudd type character. “Those howwible feminists have wuined my wife! Now, be vewwy vewwy quiet because I am hunting one right now!”
I have this suspicion that it actually is a very old idea, that was, long ago, brutally suppressed, only to re-emerge in recent times.
Hunter gatherer societies tend to be very egalitarian.
@amphiox
I should have put a just in there.
wascally feminists!
In the contexts in which YOU used the terms?
As unrelated as jumping and digging, killing and healing, building and breaking.
The only remote area of relation is in the field of spelling.
As is clear as is the summer breeze.*
The summer sun is opaque.
*(Not in Los Angeles….)
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls: I was making a very general statement, not one that was intended on targeting specific religions. Yeah, patriarchy was established before the current Middle Eastern religions took hold, you can go even further back and see it if you want to (thus my “it depends”). But as someone mentioned before, hunter gatherer societies tend to be more egalitarian than some modern ones, so the question becomes: “How is new religion able to create institutionalized misogyny in an egalitarian culture?”
The part I still can’t get past is that at the time, I pretty much just believed him. There weren’t any alarm bells left at that point. I just understood: I was a broken thing.
When he actually did it, I felt so utterly worthless and so ashamed of making him angry that I wished I didn’t exist at all. Simply dying wasn’t bad enough for something like me – I wanted to be completely erased. I was a thing that existed only for him and I wasn’t doing my job of making him happy so I might as well not exist. For the people who may be reading this without any similar history, none of that is exaggerated or metaphorical. That was how I actually thought of myself.
So yeah um… bit of a trigger, maybe?
Think it through. What changed between the Bushmen of the Kalahari, and the small farmers/herders of the biblical era? It doesn’t take much to see that agriculture brought the need for land, and someone to own it and defend it, and all that was on it, including the women, who were breeding stock, like the cows, ewes and does/nannies. A little anthropology reading on your part is necessary.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls: I’ve taken a few anthro/soc classes, and suspected a link to agriculture, but I’ve never seen the idea presented in that manner. Makes sense though, considering the need for children to serve as farm laborers, women would be considered breeding stock, and religion simple served to reinforce that meme.
Truly, none of these men have any idea, nor have they made any effort to comprehend, what it truly means to be treated as a thing.
In fact they seem devoted to avoiding coming to any understanding of it.
Misogynist is as misogynist does. Just like momma always used to say.
I feel you there. Honestly, when it got to “we pretend objects have feelings so why is it wrong to pretend people don’t when we want to stick our cock in them” I couldn’t stay on for it.
Threshold reached.
It’s a condescending denialist naivete that absolutely fucking enrages me. Of course dehumanization couldn’t be happening! That would be outrageous. Who would do such a thing? You all must be imagining it.
That was what did it for me too.
@Matt Penfold (quoted) and others arguing about the definition of murder. (sorry this is late)
I find this disagreement strange given how common it is to hear comparisons to murder used as a rhetorical device.
“meat is murder”
“abortion is murder”
“the death penalty is murder”
The first of the Merriam Webster* definitions of “murder” is a lay description of the statute of murder:
1) the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
I disagree with the sentiment that “meat is murder” but I would be surprised if the animal rights people believe a crime is being committed at the slaughterhouse in a literal sense. The suggestion is that meat involves a killing that ought to be considered the moral equivalent of 1.
This use of the word murder is actually denoted explicitly in the second definition:
2)
a : something very difficult or dangerous [the traffic was murder]
b : something outrageous or blameworthy [getting away with murder]
Bracketed examples are taken from Merriam Webster.
*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
(unless I am shown some reason for believing otherwise I am under the apprehension that OED has no greater authority to dictate the english language than any other dictionary)
Hurin, no dictionary has the authority to dictate the English language, at least not in the English speaking world. Interesting enough, there is no regulating body determining a formal standard for English, unlike for some other languages.
What dictionaries try to do is to DESCRIBE the national standard language plus any number of additional regional and sociolectal speech forms. In order to do this, lexicographers employ a mixture of intuition and corpus-based methods.
Addendum: even in a language with a defined standard, let’s say French or Icelandic, there will still be a sizeable percentage of dialectal, regional or sociolectal variation, not falling under the standard.
@pelanum 469, 470
I realize and fully agree with what you are saying. I only wanted to emphasize that I don’t feel bound by the OED definition, in advance of any claims that I should be.
*pelamun (sorry, that goof was made in carelessness, not disrespect)
CC
Big hugs are coming through your USB port this moment (if you want them, if not click “abort”)
It makes me cry, it makes me want to hold you and make things good again, but I know I can’t.
I can just tell you that you are awesome and strong and brave.
Gunboat Diplomat
Did you read that? Did you read the stories of other women upthread who have been treated like objects, much worse than most people actually treat objects? How it killed them inside?
Yes, treating people as objects happens, and if you treat them that way for long enough they break.
Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM – I don’t even know how to say how much I despise that piece of shit for treating you the way he did, and how much I admire you for having the strength and courage to fight against the damage he did you. He is a pathetic excuse for a human being. Thank you for everything you bring to Pharyngula (and if I may, I’d like to send you a {{{hug}}})
@Pteryxx
Just thought I’d pop back briefly having now read the discussion in the other thread you linked on Objectification with Verbose Stoic.
Thank you for that, it was very informative.
I think we have different views on what viewing someone as a sexual object means. I don’t think it precludes viewing them as a person, in fact I think its very difficult for humans to do that at all. There must be a large element of psycopathy that enables rapists to carry out their crimes.
I also don’t think this psycopathy is caused by viewing people as a sexual object, as I said I think its more the lack of sexual contact and the lack of other social contact with women in non-sexual contexts.
However other aspects of this psychopathy are completely non-sexual. An example would be to look at final moments of Gadaffi when he was sexually assaulted with a metal pipe. I very much doubt the assaulter in this case viewed the former “beloved leader” as a “sexual object” nor indeed was this mysterious “objectification process” involved at all in the case of this sexual assault.
Verbose Stoic was certainly on to something when he talked about the link between pornography and feminist positions though. It would be interesting to hear what feminists on this thread think about pronography as european feminists I know have a wide range of views from thinking its by nature misogynisitc and oppresses women to those who are enthusiastic users and advocates.
———————–
@Sally Strange
I’ve never been a feminist – I should have thought that was obvious. As a socialist with heavy marxist leanings I’m opposed to all forms of oppression and one doesn’t have to be a feminist to oppose womens oppresion in the same way one doesn’t have to be a black nationalist to oppose oppression of black people or a zionist to oppose anti-semitism.
My political positions which are often convergent with feminist positions but not always so, I’m in favour of free abortion, contraception for example but am against calling for increases in the rape conviction rates due to my distrust of how such measures would be used by the bourgeois state.
I would have thought I’d be judged on my poltical positions and actions however, not that my THINKING was somehow “wrong” and certainly not on my analysis of the source of misogyny being different from bourgeois feminists. Bit Orwellian donchathink?
———————————-
A couple of people don’t like my name and photo. Its actually not me in the photo (unfortunately) but it is meant to be ironic as well as indicative of my political leanings.
———————————-
And finally, because this was hilarious:
@Amphiox #460
I’ll be sure to write to all the publishers of Henry V and tell them that Shakespeare got it wrong, it SHOULD say Summer breeze ;)
Gunboat Diplomat said:
GD, I haven’t commented on this so far, but I’ve read this thread and it’s still not clear to me what you understand by objectification. Upthread, you seemed to argue that objectification is compensated by “anthropomorphization”*, and, therefore, not really a problem. If you’re saying that one process completely compensates the other, then objectification becomes a meaningless word, as you cannot distinguish what was objectified from what was not. On the other hand, if you do think that objectifying is not completely compensated by the “anthropomorphization”, then those who were objectified are being viewed as less human than those who were not. And here lies a problem.
You’ll forgive me if I still can’t understand the joke.
* Using scare quotes because my browser says this word doesn’t exist.
idiot me said:
Fixed that for me.
A marxist? Oh great. Another Crypto-faithist who just transferred their dogma to an economic insanity rather than a theological one. No surprise that marxism is typically a horrendous system for women.
Ironic? How’s that?
@ Phalacrocorax
I haven’t used the term “objectification” for a number of reasons. It has several different meanings for a start. In this thread its meant as “sexual objectification” but I see this as a political more than a psychological description of personal mental and social processes. Because it is so political I don’t think its a useful or very objective way of describing them.
So I’ve limited my use to “sexual object” which was probably a mistake as feminists seem to think “object” is counterposed to “person” whereas I see “object” as empirically a physical thing which can also be a person. So for me, the choice to call someone a sexual object is a matter of emphasis of interest – ie for someone whos interested more in the physical sexual act with a particular person rather than the personality and life outside of that. Although there is of course overlap.
There’s an analogous term in (but not limited to) the Marxist movement: “False consciousness” which is specifically used for someone who disagrees with the Marxist perspective, a right-wing industrial worker for example, or a woman who endorses the veil. Yet theres not many people outside of the radical left who would agree with that description and its so politically loaded it would be ludicrous to pretend it somehow refers to objective psychological and social processes.
My point about anthropomorphisation was that its indicative of how deeply social animals we are. And that very sociability necessarily means we have problems with dehumanising other members of our species. Its the one of the reasons PTSD is so common with soldiers. Its why so many people throughout history have risked and lost life and limb to save complete strangers in the face of genocide. Not because such people are objectively “good”, although my personal morality does admire them. But because our evolved sociability predisposes us to that perspective even in the face of massive economic political, legal and (offical) moral pressure to the contrary.
So for me the whole – sexual objectification -> dehumanisation -> rape and abuse argument is the wrong.
I hope I answered your question.
—–
Also I can appreciate if you don’t find my avatar funny, humour is often like that. I doubt many would find it terribly offensive though, at least not the scantily clad woman element.
@Godless Heathen #479
Its ironic because Marxists generally are often quite prudish personally even if they generally support LGBT rights and other elements of sexual liberation. And the Stalinist states usually have repressive laws on sex. So a viewer doesn’t expect to see the two images together.
Plus its a nice contrast with the often used image of the american flag with a scantily clad female, often with a gun! See, imperialism is sexy! join up today!
Gunboat Diplomat,
Had anyone here cared to find out more of the ways in which you fundamentally don’t understand the problems that culture pushes on people they would certainly have contacted you via the email you left in your supposed last post. That you came back is not surprising, it’s hard to see you as having any concern for the impact of your words save that you want them witnessed. But that you have come back acts to confirm the poor opinion I, and I suspect most others here, have of your ability to emphasize with people who have different experiences than your own.
Your words above, where you say that such tripe as “There must be a large element of psycopathy that enables rapists to carry out their crimes.” or ” sexual objectification -> dehumanisation -> rape and abuse argument is the wrong.” are errant and harmful. Most rapists don’t think they are raping. Most rapists think they are good people. Most rapists think they understand their victims. Most rapists don’t even understand after being informed that they have raped why an experience which looks to them like the cultural script they were told is normal sex was not a good experience for the person they have violated.
This is not because they are psychopaths, but because society is built on flawed ideas about how sex works. They function fine, but they are playing a broken game. This does not excuse the harm rapists cause, but fixing the problem requires understanding it first. Your latest words indicate you have poor to no understanding of what allows rape to occur, what motivates rapists, and what things third parties say which exacerbates the harm caused to those who have been raped. You are helping rape to be easier to commit, you are helping rape to be easier to get away with, and you are not helping those who have been raped in their healing. If you want to change that, stop telling people who have been objectified, dehumanized, and raped what their experience means.
And in other news, evolution is just a theory.
@Algernon #483
If you really think that perhaps you’re reading the wrong blog? Ah you’re being sarcastic.
Evolution is a theory that is so well established and accepted it is considered fact. Not by any stretch of the imagination can the causes of misogyny and womens oppression be considered likewise, not least because the womens oppression itself is actively denied by huges swathes of our species, including in the scientific community.
Gunboat Diplomat, it seems to me that you are using ‘seeing someone as a sexual object’ as meaning pretty much ‘seeing someone as sexually attractive in a purely physical sense’. Yes/no?
If ‘yes’…that’s not the way others here are using it. You’re focusing on the “sexual”, we’re focusing on the “object”.
–
Or a blowup doll. As cicely said, you’re focusing on ‘sexual’ when you should have been focusing on ‘object’. That also should have been blindingly obvious from the context. The thing is, not all objects have feelings. People do. By calling a sexual person a sexual object, you’re putting a human being in the same category as some unfeeling thing made out of human-shaped plastic and a bunch of air. You’re putting a human being in a category of things which does not have “is alive and deserving of respect” as part of the definition.
@Dhovarth #482
Its not that I don’t understand the bourgeois feminist perspective – I just don’t agree with it. I’m sorry if you think my disagreeing with the causes of misogyny and womens denigrates the experience of women who have been raped but thats absurd and many feminists think likewise.
Do I blame women for their oppression? No. do I excuse the perpetrators? No. Do I think its systemic and is to do with the structure of our society? Yes. So we actually agree on much but I don’t buy into this “sexual objectification” nonsense and I don’t see trying to peddle a political and moral viewpoint as scientific fact helps anyone at all – except in the way perhaps belief in a never never land helps people deal with the death of a loved one.
There are other reason for misogyny and womens oppression. I’ve outlined some of them in an historical sense – private property post agriculture, inheritance rights, the nuclear family, restriction of sexual and social contact and surely we can all agree on religion – but you don’t seem interested in discussing those and instead blame it on the “wrong sort” of sexual desire and thinking. there was an smbc about this:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110829.gif
It’s ok. I knew you wouldn’t get the joke.
Also, if you think about it from a grammatical perspective, the object is the thing being acted on by the subject. It doesn’t have agency of its own. Generally, men are considered the subjects, the people with agency, the people acting on other things, and women are considered the objects, the people being acted on, the people who have no agency, who don’t cause things to happen, but are rather the receivers of the action.
Sorry, but if you think that treating people like a means to an end is ok then you are not a maxist.
Fuck off, shitbag.
Maxit? Actually you might be a maxist. It should be obvious what I mean.
Please, calling SC to this thread, we have a bourgeois Marxist.
@Gunboat Diplomat,
I notice you responded to me by name, while ignoring extremely salient comments about the damage done by objectification. I’m willing to bet that’s because I don’t have a female-sounding nym and I didn’t give a deeply personal account of my experience. You’re responding as if I’m one of those Cool Considerate Menz like yourself. So let me just clear that up right now. I’m a freaky queer horndog with PTSD and a survivor of abuse including rape. And I’m downright insulted that you’re treating ME with more respect than you’re treating Classical Cipher, Algernon or Sally Strange.
I repeat what I told Verbose Stoic: You are not competent to have this discussion until you understand two basic concepts – the difference between objectification and sexuality, and that the difference between persons and objects is inherent. Moreover, you need to realize that you are doing real damage by your insensitivity in harping on these points. I suggest you go educate yourself on the concepts of enthusiastic consent, its intersection with rape, and the male gaze in media and advertising, and learn how to pay attention to women speaking. Personally I see no reason to waste my time with you.
Gunboat Diplomat said:
I’m still not sure why you chose you to use the word “object”, if you’re not employing it as the opposite of person. I’d suggest you not to try to clarify things by comparing relationships with the “sex objects” with relationships with mugs and pens. To me, it certainly sounded like you were using “object” as an inanimate thing.
Anyway, I think who brought up the theme of sexual objectification was Walton. You took exception to the following statement of his:
” To view women as nothing more than sex objects who are there for your enjoyment is the very epitome of misogyny”
If you now know that “object”, in these threads, is used as opposed to “person”, do you still disagree with the statement?
@490 Algernon
I’m not a marxist becuase I’m not really politically active these days and thats a prerequesite.
However marxists tend to avoid using expressions like “treating people as a means to an end” How wonderfully simplistic and bourgeois of you.
You’re a dishonest sack of shit. And I usually have to be drunk to say things like that to people. Not only are you ignoring everyone’s attempt to actually explain what they mean and why they believe as they do, your playing yourself up as some fucking cool rational guy, who’s just trying to be reasonable while all those hysterical feminists are being irrational about their rapes and what led up to them. Fuck you you self serving shit.
Guboat I-don’t-understand-words-so-use-my-definitions Diplomat,
reminds me of Hyperon.
I don’t give a shit what you think of me because I think you’re a sexist idiot, and I suspect you’re one I’ve met before as well.
Fuck off, asshat.
Also, I’m still right. You’re just a wanker who likes to spout shit on the internet, and who has a very shallow understanding of the things he likes to jaq-off with.
You’re vapid, and you’re dishonest.
@Algernon
oooo baby, keep up the smack talk guy, some of us have got real wierd fetishes ;)
@ julian
I have never used the term “hysterical feminist” becuase I rarely use sexist or racist language or characterisations of any sort.
However some of the responses to my arguments have been really OTT and I don’t think that helps the argument much or paints those posters in a patricularly good light. Certainly more selective use would have more impact.
@ Phalacrocorax #493
Thats an interstinng question but I’ve got to go to my local MRA meeting now (right after my klan rally). Ok sorry, bad joke.
I will answer later this evening or tomorrow becuase it does require a bit more thought on my part as I’ve got really drawn away from my original arguments.
Yeah, no shit. Part of what makes good humor is being unexpected.