I know you’re all tired of him, but NoelPlum99 is a sincere troll, so I’ll actually answer him, despite the fact that his sincerity is really just a side effect of self-absorption. So he asks in a video, where all the dissenters are (why in a video, I don’t understand; isn’t this a case where his written paragraphs are simpler, shorter, and easier to get through then 2+ minutes of yelling at a camera?)
PZ I ask you – given the footfall of Pharyngula; the contentious nature of the subjects in question; the substantial number of people who disagree with your position; the way in which you are regarded as a lead figure in many of these things; given all of this, is it really credible for you claim you don’t mind reasonable dissent when you appear, for all the world, to not have a single regular dissenter who has not been banned?
You may think I am a troll but please don’t mix up trolls with idiots. If you had a good couple of dozen REGULAR dissenting posters on these issues your arguments would look more convincing. In my couple of months before being banned I never encountered a single one. Not one. Nada. Zilch.
So where are these dissenters PZ? Is this just some incredible statistical freak of nature that you are the only person on earth with a substantial number of detractors but somehow none of them EVER bother to argue regukarlyon your blog, except the ones who are trolls????
Oh, yes. Why don’t I tolerate dissent, from a dissenter who posted here for over 4 months, making 168 comments. I have to say, this is a remarkably stupid question.
Why aren’t 50% of my commenters creationists, just like the American population? Why aren’t 90% of them Christians? Why aren’t a third of them Republicans? We can apply this to every site on the internet: why aren’t the comment threads at AVoiceForMen full of people aghast at the misogyny on display? Why aren’t 10% of the comments at RaptureReady people belittling the inanity of Bible prophecy? Perhaps NoelPlum99 ought to think it through a little bit, and wonder why he assumes that the internet ought to be a great gray panmictic uniformity.
But all right, I’ll just assume that he’s not very bright and explain the obvious. There are a number of reasons why you aren’t ever going to see mobs of angry dissenters here.
This is a self-selected community. Look at the header on the blog: liberals, atheists, science-minded people will congregate here. It’s a successful center for that kind of person, and that means that people with different views — well, those that have a speck of self-awareness — will know that they are going to be a tiny minority in a swarm of opinionated, outspoken, ferocious liberals. Venturing here will be daunting. The mirror of community is that there will also be self-selected avoidance.
I have commenting rules, linked to on the main page. It’s not just the community, but me: this is my party, and I am the bouncer. I keep on eye on things and disruptive intrusions will get shown the door. I hope it’s clear that this is not a completely open noise machine with no expectations or standards of behavior. Reasonable dissent is allowed, but the key word there is reasonable.
So why aren’t there a bunch of reasonable people here disagreeing with the major premises of the blog (there is, of course, a great deal of disagreeing going on in the comments — NoelPlum99 has to have his blinders on to fail to see that — but it’s just not over fundamentals, like the value of science)? Because they can’t disagree reasonably.
Part of the reason is that the culture here means people who have a minority view often charge in here with a chip on their shoulder, promoting confrontation for confrontation’s sake. They’re not here to have a conversation, or discuss issues philosophically; they’re here to assault the fortress, to do their best to piss everyone off. They want to disrupt rather than argue. And like any good bouncer at a party who sees the angry drunk blundering about interrupting conversations, I give them the boot.
Another reason is that when they aren’t aggressively abusive, these dissenters are often completely tone-deaf and unable to see beyond their own myopic little obsessions. Case in point: NoelPlum99. He wasn’t openly abusive; he didn’t charge in like another recently banned spammer who had the username “PZ MEYERS IS A FUCKING DOUCHEBAG”; he was just consistently narcissistic.
In this case, I posted my regrets that Natalie Reed was leaving FtB, and also pointed out something that NoelPlum99 ought to find ironic: that the trolls and abusers are driving someone out of their own space. Oh, no…the real problem, in NoelPlum99’s head, is that blogs have some expected range of behavior that might preclude the participation of assholes, but that those same resentful assholes might be actively trying to shut down entire blogs and blog networks? No, not an issue. No worries. Create an environment of such unremitting hostility that people can’t bear the pressure of posting on their own sites is OK, but how dare a blog ban NoelPlum99?
So NoelPlum99 got banned for a couple of things. One was the complete inappriateness of jumping into a thread regretting Natalie’s departure with the deep sentiment that he didn’t like her. Another was the complete lack of awareness of context: it’s all about him, everywhere. And finally, there was the absurdity of a guy complaining now about how we don’t allow dissent arguing at length in that thread (completely off topic) about how skeptics ought to be able to disallow certain topics, such as gender politics.
And there was another obvious reason why some dissenters get banned: they are obtuse and don’t listen. There are regular commenters here who are similarly obstinate, but at least this is their space and they have voluntarily joined up with a group sharing similar views. If you’re a dissenter, holding a minority view, there’s an expectation that you’re actually here because you’re looking to learn about a different point of view (although, as I said above, usually you’re here about confrontation for confrontation’s sake). You’re getting dogpiled; there are 20 people telling you you’re wrong. Then what happens, typically? You pick the worst possible argument (it’s true, sometimes people I agree with in general do make bad arguments), ignore all the reasonable arguments, and never ever listen. NoelPlum99 was notorious for that. He hung around for 4 months and never changed his tune, never addressed any sensible arguments, and never acknowledged any points that might represent serious concerns by commenters here.
Imagine a party where some boor keeps walking up to conversational groups, announcing his position on some sociopolitical point that may not have anything to do with what the conversation was about, and when the others actually try to engage him, he goes glassy-eyed, ignores them, and eventually wanders off to assert his great truths to a different group. That was NoelPlum99. That was not reasonable dissent.
One last remark: sometimes there is no such thing as reasonable dissent on certain issues. Sometimes trolls are idiots. NoelPlum99 lasted as long as he did because he didn’t come right out and shout some intolerable stupidity; I will, for instance, ban racists on sight, because their arguments are not in any way scientifically or ethically defensible, and in fact are simply odious and evil. NoelPlum99 was smugly privileged and dense, but there was some faint hope that he might actually wake up and recognize his own blinkered view, a hope that faded fairly rapidly.
But otherwise, there are views that I find insufferably stupid, that only idiots would hold, and I’m happy to make this environment as hostile as possible to them. There are no rational grounds, no context for reasonable dissent, for being anti-feminist, for instance, or denying that our culture is deeply patriarchal and sexist. I can see reasonable argument about how we ought to deal with this fact of life, but denial (or worse, the kind of inane argument so many make that “why, calling someone a ‘cunt’ is not a reflection of de facto sexism!”) is going to be fired upon with all ferocity and anyone holding such a view is going to find interacting here intolerable and infuriating, leading to them lashing out and trying to turn the whole blog into a brawl over some really idiotic issues.
And then they get banhammered.
Because really, how do you express “reasonable dissent” from the view that women are people, and that our society institutionalizes discrimination of all sorts?
Anybody know what is the longest thread ever generated at Pharyngula ?.
I’ll quit “dehumanizing” Lee, when he quits dehumanizing half the human population…
Chas used to keep track of such things. But a recent Thunderdone or Lounge went over 1600+ IIRC.
Sorry Nerd, lee coye is a fuckwit, nincompoop, shit-stirrer supreme, but a reasonable skeptic will admit that he is probably a human being.
(discounting the notion that lee is actually a computer program that generates random MRA talking points mixed with a few phrases from the ongoing conversation.)
Fascinating.
Do explain.
How could I have made such an egregious mistake…
I think a couple of the cracker threads went over two thousands comments.
lee coye:
That was an explanation, O dolt.
What the fuck is “normalising” in your strange, tiny, ridiculous world?
What I was describing – a world/state/society/whatever in which people aren’t discriminated against due solely to their gender (or other inherent physical characteristic such as sexual orientation, ethnicity or skin colour, NOT FUCKING INCLUDING a person’s aptitude or skill or natural talent or level of dedication, you pissy, hair-splitting fucking deflector) is not Marxism of any brand. The removal of barriers between genders in the workplace or society at large is not Marxism. Your “anwser” – your “example” – is nothing of the sort. It’s a desperate grasp at straws and you’ve come up empty-handed.
Social & economic equality for all genders is not Marxism. Social and economic equality for all genders can exist in theory within nearly any political paradigm. The fact that it does not exist in most modern democracies is shameful; the fact that you defend this status quo by invoking Marxism (for fuck’s sake!) is shamefully ignorant.
You clearly have no fucking idea what you’re on about when it comes to your chosen hobby-horse.
However, by invoking the all-purpose conservative boogeyman of Karl Marx to defend a long-standing culture of sexism, you’ve still revealed plenty – mostly that your knowledge of politics is as fucking gossamer-thin as your knowledge of feminism.
So, no, your answer fails as hard as anything else you’ve vomited onto this thread.
Most often it’s framed as a faustian bargain, to be sure, but nonetheless:
Patrick 1152
1295
bradley 1262
Feline in 1320 appears to endorse them as a “tiebreaker”
Theophontes in 1330 seems to think they would be a good idea, conditionally;
Balloon in 1343 opined:
Impro Joe in 1351 seems on board.
Erikthebassist in 1362
I’m in favor of removing barriers. The plain reading of your words was a lot more than barriers. Marxism is not the end result, it’s a method for achieving it.
Fuck off, Lee.
Sure, and the sun comes up in the west tomorrow. Barriers are removed by YOU stepping aside NOW. Put up or shut the fuck up…
more redefining words–now it’s “brute force.”
yawn
That’s a nice exercise in using blockquotes and accreditation, (Bravo!) but you need to show the advocacy of brute force. Unless you can show the existence of feminist ninja assassins, or at least a few commandos with assault rifles, using physical force to increase gender diversity, your fears (and claims) are completely baseless.
No, that was your unashamedly selective reading of my words (or blatant projection of a meaning of your own invention onto them). But do elaborate: what do you mean by “a lot more than barriers”? What exactly do you think I was talking about?
Nobody here mentioned Marxism as an end result of – or as a method for – achieving gender equality (or any kind of equality). Nobody except of course you, in your feeble attempt to defend current inequality by linking its opposite to America’s age-old ooga-booga nemesis. And that’s what I responded to.
You’d do well to separate Marxism from whatever position on gender equality Marxists actually advocated and worked for. While Marxism certainly failed, it’s up to you to demonstrate it did so due to a commitment to gender equality.
“It was tried. It failed.” That’s what you declared in response to me discussing a world where people are not discriminated against to due inherent characteristics (which I then clarified, just for you, to mean gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc, not your “being good at stuff” school of herrings). So back it up – or retract it.
And, assuming you can back up your declaration you can tell me why that’s any reason to not try again.
*obligatory*
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US, LEE. BWAHA HA HA HA
At which point I noted that you weren’t talking about what I thought you were talking about. I quoted myself saying so. You needed to clarify, frankly, because when you said “socially, economically, or in any other way privileged”, that clearly goes beyond social privilege, contra-John.
Now if you didn’t mean what you said, fine, but I responded to what you said, not what you later clarified to be the meaning. You can’t very well hold me to my original response unless you’re going to hold yourself to the original words you used.
You need to add the term ‘hyperbole’ to your lexicon.
Show the advocacy of brute force, pusillanimous, putrescent pillock.
Lee, you still insisted on arguing against the original “unclarified” position after I’d clarified it.
And you still took several hundred posts to not-answer my very simple question. Again, after I’d clarified my position – specifically for your benefit, I should add; noone else in this thread took from my words the meaning that you presumed. That means that they’re either psychic or that they don’t need (or pretend to need) simple concepts made more complex before they can comprehend them.
Frankly, if you’d clarified you were talking about fucking Marxism (of all things!) several hundred posts ago, I could’ve laughed in your face right then and saved myself a bunch of keystrokes.
Unless those barriers keep women from intruding in your cooties-free zone.
Yep. Bugger this, I’ve said quite enough in this thread.
See you about the blogswarm, Horde. This was fun!
BTW lee
feminist ninja assassins = hyperbole
claiming we advocate equality by brute force = blatant misrepresentation
Liars aren’t worth a pixel.
*Applause to the Horde!*
Really, lee coye; you are commenting as if you think no-one can read everything you have already posted.
Aaaaaaand now we’re redefining “hyperbole”! You really are a one-trick pony, aren’tcha Lee?
Your whole series of posts is hyperbole. Especially claiming we should remove barriers. You are the barrier. You know that. So, remove yourself voluntarily from the discussion.
“Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech.” [Wikipedia]
I’m using it similarly to how you used the term ‘blunt instrument’. I assumed you weren’t referring to actually beating people over the head with a blunt object, why is this so fucking hard for you?
Shut the fuck up.
You’ve had had PLENTY OF TIME to make a coherent statement and to back up your claims, and YOU HAVE DONE NEITHER.
You are not here for an honest discussion. You have nothing to add but noise.
Yep, that is all your posts. You know that. Evidenceless claims, guidelines becoming laws forced at gun point, your privileges irrelevant to self-inspection, lowering barriers not becoming universal education at the level you wish you and your children educated…… I can continue.
I have not used the term blunt instrument, but that is besides the point cupcake.
Your current claim (that we weren’t referring to actually beating people over the head) is in direct opposition to your previous claim (we advocate using brute force).
Why is being honest so fucking hard for you?
More meaningless and idiotic hyperbole on your part not forwarding your argument. What forwards your argment is found here and here. Not in your words, and definitely not in your OPINIONS. You are a proven liar and bullshitter. Your word is bullshit until you evidence yourself otherwise. And you haven’t done that. In fact, every time you attempt to provide evidence, it ends up proving our point, not yours. You, as a liberturd, don’t understand evidence. If you did, you wouldn’t be a liberturd. It is a theology, out of touch with reality. Any non-fool knows that.
That comment was directed at Sally, who used the “blunt instrument” phrase. I only quoted you for context.
When Sally said “blunt instrument” she was using a metaphor for an imprecise application of force. When I said “brute force” I was using a combination of hyperbole and metaphor to convey the idea of forcing equality of outcome.
Yours and others insistence on turning this into an argument about semantics is not lost on me.
Fuck off, untie yourself from the computer screen if you’re so bothered by reading. I have no fucks left to give for whiny children who aren’t happy with the discussion in a single, tiny, incomprehensibly backwater corner of the internet.
Go watch cartoons.
Who the fuck cares about you lack of writing ability? Show us some maturity, as you talk to everybody when you post. Only an extreme egotist would think otherwise.
Hey liberturd BOY, grow up, and stop pretending those you respond to aren’t better and more mature intellectually than you are. The only non-adult intellect here is you. Stop being an egodtist, expecting us to accept your drivel as anything other than bullshit. Your immature OPINIONS are *floosh* sent to the toxic waste disposal system like they should be.
If you think the issue is semantics, the point is not the only thing that is lost on you.
Lee, are you the person over on the A+ Facebook page that is saying that the difference between “cunt” and the n-word is that people haven’t been raised from birth to regard “cunt” as insulting? Or that the problem with calling Vacula et al sexist is that it is a charge that chases people for life, and this is totes unfair?
Lee, the issue is your unevidenced sexist attitude, and lack of your moral responsibility to acknowledge those not as privileged as you need a boost up until the playing field is actually level. This requires you to understand your concept of meritocracy is a liberturd dog-whistle for keeping the old-boys-network intact, and the de facto discrimination of those not in the network. Which is what you seem to really want.
Your fictitious meritocracy only works if everybody has the same family income and background, same level of schools, same ability to attend the college of their choice without worrying about paying for it. That is what is required to remove the barriers for total participation. A large number of progressive (not communistic) things can allow for a true meritocracy. Anything short of that perpetuates the status quo.
[meta]
lee coye:
Whereas you are a whiny child who is more than happy to participate in a single, tiny, incomprehensibly backwater corner of the internet?
(Had you hoarded that fuck you just gave, then you’d have one left! :) )
Too late!
Welcome to lee coye’s backwater playhouse!
It is notable how in @1533 lee coye obsesses over just the first line of the post @1528, but ignores the second.
Because, of course, he has no answer to that second line. Which of course was the more important part of the original post.
Pathetic.
If you can’t give a fuck, just go the fuck away.
Why can’t you do it, I wonder? No, you have to keep going back because not having the last word is unthinkable to people like you, who think matters of equality are just abstract things to measure your e-penis over.
You can go away and pretend the toxic shit you believe doesn’t have real consequences because they don’t affect you. We don’t.
Lee doesn’t understand the concept the horde will always have the last word at Pharyngula, and his choices are to shut the fuck up now, or shut the fuck up later, but he will shut the fuck up. I suspect he wants the banhammer, which he can twist that into thinking he didn’t fail, and was getting too close to what he considers the truth which was causing us grief in his delusional imagination. All it means is PZ recognizes he is nothing but a mealy-mouthed evidenceless liberturd, whose bigotted and well refuted OPINION was demolished time and time again, and his OPINION became irrelevant because of that…
I’m in favor of removing barriers.
A quota serves as a crude measure for making visible where barriers might exist. The visible under-representation serves as a marker of a good place to look.
I favor having quotas or at least clear targets and then using that to motivate working hard to remove barriers to get closer to representative participation from marginalized groups. Otherwise barriers are ignored by people who were passed through without encountering a barrier. After barriers have exhaustively been removed, then I’ll consider that simple and unforced personal preference in the population as an explanation. (Consider, not accept outright.)
I see this a lot, and yet, I can’t find any country where what Marx described as a process actually was carried out in accordance with Marx’s description.
there are a few small, closed communities where this was tried, and it was successful.
but then, you can say the same thing about pure democracy.
I have a question for ironpants Lee:
Lee… when the backlash against affirmative action programs in the US started in the mid 80s, were you for or against keeping those programs in place, and why?
Flat wrong, Lee. Just really, really fucking wrong. I wasn’t referring to any type of force at all when I made that comment. The fact that you read force into shows that a.) you’re still allowing your personal biases to filter everything that people say to you and b.) you’re too lazy or arrogant to bother ascertaining whether you have correctly understood the person you’re talking to and responding to.
Fucking liberarians.
Libertarians, even.
I like the connotations of this, as it perfectly describes lee.
A libertarian with an etch-a-sketch dictionary.
His approach of digging numerous shallow holes, rather than one enormous pit, is unusual.
I just can’t understand what point he thinks he makes by trolling. I don’t think there is an award for the category of ‘proudest asshole on the internet’.
Tethys,
Yep.
It’s like a game of internet whack-a-mole.
Make an assertion; when someone criticises it and asks a pertinent question, claim they misunderstood, (or, just for variety, make a comment showing one totally misunderstands the criticism) ignore the question and make a different assertion.
Leading to threads 1500+ comments long large swathes of which (all with the heading ‘lee coye’) are meaningless drivel.
Fortunately, there is meat in the cardboard sandwich. Thank you, Horde, for your sensible contributions to this thread.
And thank you, lee coye for so thoroughly disproving the suggestion that PZ is banhammer-happy. =^_^=
Iron pants lee?
I want a macho name like tar.
How about spikey codpiece chimp?
Tar = that
me? I want a macho name like ‘Tar’.
Marian Marashian, the libertarian librarian.
a character in my novel.
Tar hungry. Tar smash.
Why do I get the opinion the liberturd librarian puts glue in the card catalog to keep the hoi polloi in check?
Dang copypasta fail. #1555 should read:
Why do I get the opinion the liberturd librarian puts glue in the card catalog and charges an inverse rental based on looks to keep the hoi polloi in check?
She works in the department of disinformation.
Careful, he will come back and accuse us of brute force with blunt instruments.
Again and again and again.
yup, you did it to yourself, Tar Chimp.
but if Tar=That, I’m now tar really confused tar.
embrace your inner Tar?
oh sorry, I just HAVE to…
*sigh*
not ashamed to admit it’s my favorite musical, and nobody ever did it better than Preston.
I don’t recognise that musical at all…
@Tigger_the_Wing
No kidding! I went off to do fun things in life, came back, and he’s still here. Does he have nothing else to do?
C’mon lee coye, some of us can go tour Nashville while you’re being an example of the worst the internet has to offer. :)
If I stumbled
And I busted my what-ya-macallit
I could lie on your floor unnoticed
Until my body had turned to carrion
Sounds like a libertarian paradise to me…
Or, indeed, Christianity.
No, my understanding of A+ is a “safe space” for it’s members now, so I avoid it.
I haven’t any fucks left to give for people who don’t like what I’m saying, and as a consequence, want me to leave the discussion. No one is making them stay, or read, or comment, or get their panties in a twist.
Of course, because the ideology of Marx wasn’t the problem, it was implementation?
In the short-term, and in the context of a wider economy operating under different rules. Much like the Amish, whose way of life is beholden to the protections and provisions of the societies in which they reside.
Indeed, this was why the founders of our Constitution decided against such a system. Not only must power be checked by the people, but society must be checked by the Constitutional provisions. It wasn’t just a matter of restraining a tyranny of the majority, but preventing tyranny itself(which, despite the glorious perfection of Marxism, tends to be what you get).
This makes me wonder if you’re advocating toothless quotas. What if we put them in place and businesses just…ignore them? Is this social justice via suggestion?
Oh? I ignored this:
No coherent statements? That’s not mere hyperbole, that’s just nonsensical. I have made coherent statements, provided evidence for some of my position, you just think I’m wrong.
It is pathetic that no one thought to point out how blindingly false the quoted sentence was, and the only person to comment on it seems to think I should take such a notion seriously.
Hi Lee Coye. *Waves*
I’m tempted to applaud your tenacity for hanging on here, like a pitbull who’s got hold of the postman’s leg, but am dissuaded from doing so by the suspicion that it stems from an absolute inability to contemplate the fact that you might be wrong coupled with the delusional certainty that, given enough time, you will win us round to your way of thinking. A quick hint; your best chance of achieving this goal lies in replying to the points raised rather than simply rephrasing the same argument. For example, I last wrote to you over a page ago (under the ‘nym bradleybetts) and you don’t appear to have responded.
Also, since you don’t seem to understand what Marxism is, I did some legwork for you:
You’re welcome.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism
Hi Thumper.
I’m not here to prove any of you wrong, I’m here to defend my own view. If I come away from this having changed my mind or yours, so be it; but whether I ultimately hold to this view, or you hold to yours, has little to do with the purpose of public discussions like this.
Feminism is Marxist in it’s characterizing ‘gender’ as a ‘class’, among many other similarities and bastardizations. I’m not the first person to notice this. It’s also important to point out that, to those suggesting that previous failures of Marxist socialism rested on “doing it wrong”, you’re doing it wrong.
You pointed out that we shouldn’t have female mice in the boardroom, which kind of misses the point of the research. They’re not trying to find a cause for autism in mice, after all, despite performing experiments on mice. The reason we can’t go turning genes on and off in the brains of humans should be pretty obvious, and the reason we’re reduced to such barbarism even on mice is a function of our limited understanding of behavior in all species. We can observe and record it, but discerning the internal algorithms is still some ways off. Certainly too far beyond the horizon to conclude that there are no relevant differences between the sexes that would make a mockery of quotas.
My position accepts either contingency, whereas endorsing quotas doesn’t. That is, at bottom, the problem as I see it with the idea.
And yet tyranny was written into the Constitution.
You’re substituting the idiotic libertarian redefinition of “force” for the normal definition of the word “force.” No, passing laws and instituting company policies are not violent acts. Libertarians who insist otherwise are merely proving that the world is correct in refusing to take them seriously.
Short answer…yes.
I’m not going to give you a history lesson. Go watch Animal Farm.
Huh? Do you mean their own insular society, or are you referring to the larger society in which they reside?
On a side note, Anabaptist sects like the Amish predate the birth of Karl Marx by at least 150 years. Once again lee coye has gotten his cause and effects completely backwards.
Citation needed, OPINION *floosh* sent to toxic waste.
Since you can’t show yourself right with evidence, all you have is trying to show us wrong with OPINON. Opinon that is *floosh* dismissed as liberturdian toxic waste. Occurs anytime a liberturd gives an opinion. Nothing but hot self-serving air.
Sorry fuckwitted idjit. You have defended your view, and you can go away with the knowledge we haven’t changed your opinions. What you haven’t done is have us accept your fuckwitted, unscientific, and unevidened view. You can keep your view without us accepting it. I refuse to accept such unevidenced views, and coming from a liberturd, understand the morally bankrupt backing that your theology of libertudism gives you. Which is why your opinion is *floosh* automaticly sent to toxic waste.
The philosophies are complementary in some aspects. They both seek to give power to the people rather than an outside authority such as the Holy Roman Empire or some hereditary royal class.
Hi Lee Coye; re. #1570
Marxism is concerned with socioeconomic class, Classism being the prejudice people of one socioeconomic class hold against members of another. Feminism does not characterise gender as a socioeconomic class in any way, it simply states that women have historically been the victim of prejudice based on their gender, which they demonstrably have been. That is a ridiculous strawman of feminism which you know damn well is wrong. Feminism is not Marxism, and is not comparable to Marxism in any way. To compare a social justice movement which demands equal treatment and opportunity for women with a political position which advocates the disempowerment of the plutocracy and the redistribution of wealth in order to attain fiscal equality for everyone and the nullification of classism is utterly ridiculous.
I intentionally missed the point of the research in favour of being flippant, however you do raise a valid point here in that we do not know enough to say conclusively that there are definitely no differences between the sexes… however with no hard empirical data either confirming or denying the existence of these differences and a wealth of evidence confirming the existence of cultural pressure and biases, would it not seem more sensible to base your opinions on the known facts rather than the possible presence of unproven “Biological Differences”?
Your position most certainly does not accept either contingency, you ask for the scrapping of quotas based on the unproven assumption that there are Biological Differences™ between the sexes which naturally skew gender ratios in the work place. This does not even begin to accept the possibility that these differences do not exist, you merely begin with the premise that they do, dismiss cultural pressures and biases and demand the removal of the current scheme, without ever proposing a better one, on the assumption that better qualified people of the dominant gender/race are somehow being pushed out of a job by other applicants because they happen to be a woman/not-white, whom you assume are also less qualified people for some reason, without ever presenting a shred of empirical evidence to prove this is the case. You simply assume it is happening because the current system presents the possibility of it happening, and commence moaning. I fail to see even a nod towards any theory opposing your own pet Biological Differences™ hypothesis.
@Tethys
The analogy was to small communities who can operate within larger ones, because the larger stable societies allow for a wide range of variation within.
If that’s a proper understanding of feminism, then it’s 200 some years too late; the power is in the hands of the people. I don’t think that’s feminism or Marxism.
@thumper(out of order)
That there are biological differences isn’t really up for debate. The question is whether those differences cause differences in behavior between men and women, to what extent (if any according to feminists[when it suits them]), and how much is caused by culture. It seems to me the most sensible position that men and women possess innate differences in how we socialize, compete for and select mates, and these differences are predictive of gender representation in the workplace; competitive pressure between men for high status positions in the social hierarchy in order to attract higher quality mates is a cultural universal, as is mens’ success at attaining those positions.
I’m not claiming that this makes it good, as that would be fallacious, only that it is. The problem with using culture as an explanation is that it appears every culture ever observed causes the same behavior. I view culture as, in part, emerging from biology, whilst also standing as an environment to which men and women apply their mental algorithms. So we create a culture according to our natures, and then react to the culture according to our natures. The first explains universal patriarchy, the second explains the vast majorities of men, generation after generation, striving for and attaining high status positions in society.
The reward system that generates this behavior in men, and not in women, is what has made the marriage of capitalism and our patriarchal natures so successful. Men strive, and compete, and sometimes succeed greatly, and the rewards of that success afford them the kind of lives and mates that young men are driven to access. On and on it goes, producing capital/innovation/opportunity, as it has and will so long as human nature is under no selective pressures to change (as it is not presently). Men will continue pursuing wealth and status, and women will continue rewarding them, and this is why idealized socialist utopias will always fail: it creates a power vacuum that can only be occupied by an extremely small group of elites(who always abuse it), and affords the vast majority of men no possible opportunity to meaningfully compete with one another. Thus stagnation, violence, and eventual fall when too many men try to usurp the too few at the top.
The exceptions prove the rule.
The attitudes that can be quoted endlessly throughout time, from Aristotle and Cato, to idiotic proclamations today about the inherent inferiority of women, aren’t themselves causal of anything but distress. They are extrapolations from the natural to the normative. I’m a farmer, not a business executive; I kind of wish things weren’t this way, but this isn’t an exercise in wishful thinking.
Why the fuck should we care what a liberturd trying for de facto discrimation thinks? You have no real justification for your insensible position. Just your presuppositions. That is why you aren’t convincing any of us about anything, and why you won’t. Your OPINION IS *FLOOSH* SENT TO THE TOXIC WASTE SYSTEM ONCE AGAIN. Lose the opinions as facts.
Lee Coye,
You’ve not ben keeping up with your anthropology, have you? Naughty Lee!
You could do worse than start here – http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Temperament-Three-Primitive-Societies/dp/0060934956/ref=cm_lmf_tit_11 – then ask yourself why someone who first read the book in 1960 might, against all logic, be converted by your disjointed musings.
@maureen
Perhaps you should not have stopped reading books in the 60s, as many feminists seem to have done.
Lee coye, I would love if you backed up your claim that feminists have stopped reading books.
(Please answer. I want the laughs.)
Why?
You forget the part where they browbeat every woman who tries to do the same.
Vaiyt, it was how lee coye is raised. He needs his security. And his peace of mind is lessened if he thinks that men and women possess more innate similarities then differences.
Gee, the last book I read was last month. For Lee, I think it was when he turned liberturd. They don’t facts getting in the way of their theology, based on ignorance, arrogance, ignorance of history, arrogance, ignorance of economics, arrogance, ignorance of politics, arrogance and even more arrogance to fallaciously think anybody wants to listen to their ignorant and arrogant opinions.
Silly Vaiyt. Women are to be the prizes for those victorious competing men. In order to be a proper prize, they must be happy to be a trophy. And a trophy does not compete. There lies the innate difference.
If you have not stopped reading books back in the sixties, you would know this.
I tell you what, Coye, you get your snivelling little arse over here and check the publication dates on the books I not only read but bought a copy to keep. You’ll find everything from Herodotus through to 2012, including a fair bit on the history and politics of the textile crafts.
Then I could sit you down with a blankie and a pacifier to read Elisabeth Badinter’s The Myth of Motherhood – published in French 1980, my edition 1981 (NB: that’s after 1960) as my French is up to newspapers but not to textbooks – which would scare the shit out of you.
Silly child!
*snicker*
An impressive feat, to stop reading books in the 60s, especially since many of us were not born then.
Just to be clear: you are asserting that power currently rests in the hands of the people?
Before we proceed, to avoid any possible misunderstandings, are you talking about political power or some other kind of power? And when you say “the people,” what exactly do you mean?
Biology may have an impact on how horribly inequitable our society is. Therefore we should not try and change culture which absolutely has an impact on how horribly inequitable our society is.
Also if we accept that everyone is equal then as a white male I might have to give up my privileged position which would suck for me. Screw that.
Vaiyt 1583
Because Lee is as ignorant of biology as he is of economics, history, and sociology, most likely.
Somehow I have a feeling we’re going merrily down the semantic rabbit hole, but in most western countries, yes, the rulers are chosen from among the ruled, by the ruled. Not like a king, or an outside power like the HRE, at least in principle.
Though, with a 15% approval rating and a 90% re-election rate, American senators are nearly kings in their own right. Still, the power is in the hands of the people, whether they choose to exercise it or not.
Especially since you arrogantly and ignorantly keep redefining things. Typical of liberturds..
The people voted against your idiotology in the last election. See reality, and fade into the bandwidth like you actually possess a modicum of intelligence, and are humble enough to admit you defeat…
lee claims that Marxism has been tried and when asked where it has been tried he points to the Amish. He left out half of the original quote, which I have bolded :
Lee answers.
Amish are a sect of Anabaptists. The schism that led to the Amish branching away from the Mennonites happened in 1693. Their philosophy cannot possibly be Marxist as Karl Marx wasn’t born until 1818.
The oldest continuous Mennonite congregation dates from 1527 and is located in Langnau im Emmental, Switzerland
.From the wiki link;
If you read it further lee, you will discover that rather than being subject to the “protections and provisions of the larger society” the Anabaptist community was in fact;
Once again, your ignorance seems to know no bounds. Marxism may very well be informed by the social policies of the Anabaptist communities (including the Amish), but the communities are not an example of Marxism.
I also do not consider a community that has been in existence for nearly 500 years to be short-lived. The fact that it has managed to live according to their radical social philosophy and persist at all despite centuries of persecution that included witch-burning and mass slaughter is remarkable.
So, once again, where has Marxism has been tried and failed.?
Why the fuck are we even talking about Marxism anyway? The basis for egalitarian values wasn’t invented by Marx. This is just like trying to argue Golden Rule morality while accepting the false premise that Jesus came up with it. I’m not falling for this bullshit, and neither should you.
In the delusional liberturdian world, anything that is “coercive” (laws requiring them to be moral or taxed), or they don’t agree with, is by hyperbole definition “Marxist”, nevermind it would never be considered even socialist in the sane world…
@Tethys
The point is that small communities can try a wide range of structures within the larger context of a stable society, without demonstrating anything about the stability of those structures. It’s notable, however, that even within a stable society, communes never last long.
Translation: “You have identified an area where I accidentally made an unqualified, non-weaselly statement of fact that is actually quite wrong, so I intend to weasel like hell to avoid being called on it.”
And voila! The bolded words indicate the first attempt at weaseling!
Congress has a 9% approval rating, last I checked, and they keep getting re-elected. Why? Because elections take money and because of that simple fact, the ruling corporate class has hijacked the electoral process and subverted government so that it serves their needs, rather than the needs of their constituents. So, yes, in principle the people hold the power, but in reality that is not the case.
Not to mention, “the people hold the power” applies only in realms political. In economics, which is a sphere that affects most of our lives far more directly than politics, the organizing structures are profoundly anti-democratic and “the people” exercise very little control at all.
Only when both our politics and our economics are organized in democratic ways will we have a hope of achieving equality.
Yawn, more unevidence OPINION FROM A LIBERTURD. *FLOOSH* SENT TO TOXIC WASTE WITHOUT READING. Nothing cogent her folks. That requires third party EVIDENCE, not the opinon of a proven liar and bullshitter.
I think Lee’s channeling Catharine MacKinnon.
“Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory”, in N. O. Keohan et al. (eds.), Feminist Theory: A Critique of Ideology, 1982
It is, and always has been the case that the people have the power to vote in and out the representatives that would correct this disparity, or dismantle the entire edifice. This power is even written into the constitution as a duty of the citizens.
These failures of our gov’t are ours alone to shoulder or rectify.
That’s likewise not true, we’d just rather not be inconvenienced. All the money and labor comes from the citizens, but we get things in return that we kind of like. These power structures know this, depend on it, and take full advantage of it.
They are, we simply don’t use those tools towards egalitarian ends when it’s inconvenient. Whatever mess you think we’re in, we’re in due to our own stupidity, greed, apathy, and shortsightedness.
Yawn, FUCKWITTED LIBERTURD OPNION SENT *FLOOSH* TO TOXIC WASTE. NOT ONE CITATION.
WHO THE FUCK IS THE WE, LIBERTURDIAN FUCKWIT? THOSE WHO DOEN’T BELIEVE IN SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND ARE MORAL BANKRUPT LIKE YOU? CITATION NEEDED….
Missed this earlier. I pointed out, god knows what comment, that it’s not just the evil, oppressive, rapey white men who will come to harm under quotas, but will equally effect innocent, lily-white, doe-eyed women who rather like being vet techs, or teachers, or nurses, or whatever else. Don’t let your eyes glaze too much at the prospect of doing-down The Man that you fail to categorize all the collateral damage.
Your unevidence OPINION is meaningless drivel, ergo, more bullshit from someone who is incapable of supporting their word, making it lies and bullshit.
What collateral damage liar and bullshitter. All claims, not one citation. Logical and intelligent people can only think you have nothing but idiotology and bombast. Nothing in real life….
lee coye,
Please fuck off.
+++++
Nerd of Redhead,
Please do not call your political opponents insane.
That encourages misunderstanding of the real problem with them, and simultaneously stigmatizes morally decent insane people.
Strange gods
Please ask yourself who the fuck appointed you the internet policeman, If you want me to even listen to you, pull in your hair trigger outrage a bit. I never called Lee insane. Just indicated that intelligent and rational folks find his arguments not worthy of consideration. Which is true.
Oh, look! The snide little shit seems to think he has the evil little feminists caught between the horns of a dilemma.
Yes, you smug sack of shit; if there is true equal opportunities for all people, those who are not as qualified will as some not-so-innocent, off white, squint-eyed men who are more qualified to be vet techs, teachers nurses or what ever else.
You are no where near as clever as you think you are.
Langnau im Emmental, the location of the oldest continuing Mennonite church in the world, with its roots going back to 1527. The Langnau congregation is alive and well.
Lee, you need to tattoo this backwards across your forehead.
I really like the bit from lee that Janine quoted there. It clearly shows that lee, pathetic idiot that he is, simply cannot conceive that the aim really, truly is to STOP preventing a lot of the best candidates from getting the jobs.
I simply cannot fathom the sad, empty mindset of people like lee.
Ah, yes, the collateral damage which quotas cause when people are forced (BY THE GOV’T!!!) to have some job other than a vet tech, teacher, nurse or whatever else which they actually wanted. You see, they’d be quite happy with those jobs, which makes you wonder why they applied for a different kind of job. But it goes without saying that now it’s too late. They have no choice except to abide by the “quota” and take the job Dear Leader assigned to them.
Nerd of Redhead,
I asked myself, and the answer was that I am morally obliged to say something when socially destructive things are said.
I think the reason you feel compelled to address lee’s errors is approximately the same reason I feel compelled to address yours.
There is no outrage, although it would be okay if there was. In fact I asked you kindly and explained the problem:
Please do not call your political opponents insane.
That encourages misunderstanding of the real problem with them, and simultaneously stigmatizes morally decent insane people.
You directly called him “delusional”, and indirectly called him insane by contrasting his views with “the sane world”.
If you had in fact only said that, I would of course support you.
@Lee Coye 1578
OK, we need to stop saying biologial differences. I started saying it because you were but it is vague and useless. What we are talking about are genetic differences, and while it is perfectly obvious that there are genetic differences which affect a difference in physical appearance between the sexes it is not at all clear that there are genetic differences which affect mental/behavioural differences between the sexes, or even that such mental/behavioural differences exist. And as much as it may seem to you to be “the most sensible position that men and women possess innate differences in how we socialize, compete for and select mates”, you have yet to prove any such thing. This is what we keep trying to get through to you, your opinion means fuck all. However sensible it may seem to you, if you can’t prove it then it is not going to convince anyone.
OK, so you think that Patriarchy exists because we “created a culture according to our natures”. OK, that’s a fair enough comment, but why do you think patriarchal societies are in our nature? Is it a logical choice that has been made for the betterment of humanity? I look around and I realise that most mammals have systems analogous to patriarchy and that we’ve simply inherited that trait, but that doesn’t mean it’s right, does it? The fact that lions have a harem and get to eat most of the kill without working to get the damn thing just because he’s bigger and stronger than the females doesn’t mean that humans should follow the same model. Someone above mentioned that you have a tendancy to follow the Appeal to Nature fallacy; this is yet another example. The second bit; that we”…react to the culture according to our natures… explains the vast majorities of men, generation after generation, striving for and attaining high status positions in society”; I’m not sure what you mean by that. The second part is certainly true, because there is societal pressure on the man to succeed and be able to support a family, because gender roles have dictated that that is his job, but I don’t know what you mean by the first part.
Ok, you’ve somehow managed to go from a discussion of the genetic differences between men and women to a firm defence of the status quo, followed by a teary-eyed support of Capitalism, to a cynical condemnation of Socialism. I’m not sure what any of that has to do with the conversation we’re having. The first part, however, is relevant because you yet again fail to see that the reward structure you talk about is cultural, as has been proven to you many times throughout the thread.
This phrase is bullshit. How can an exception ever prove a rule?
Distress at what? Because todays are certainly caused by distress at the prospect of losing the traditional advantages to having a penis.What distress was historical misogyny the product of? And you’re right, this isn’t an excercise in wishful thinking, this is an excercise in Proof by Verbosity, Appeal to History and mental masturbation in which you still have yet to prove your central claim on which the rest of your argument rests. The fact we have to keep coming back to that shoukld clue you in to the fact that it is rather a sticking point in people accepting your argument.
[OT]
thumper1990, Exception that proves the rule
Ah, thank you John, much appreciated. However it does mean that Lee seems to be using it in the misused sense to which your link referrs. If we take the example “”No parking on sundays” means that parking is allowed the other six days of the week”, what is the exception Lee speaks of and what general rule is it supposed to prove? Is the exception that situation in which too few men hold power and the others have no means to compete resulting in “stagnation, violence, and eventual fall”, supposedly proving the general rule that when men can compete this situation does not arise? Because as far as I can tell the former has been the norm throughout most of history, what with Monarchies, Plutocracies and Tribal Leaders having been the status quo for millenia.
[meta]
thumper1990, I was responding to your question, no more. :)
I will not give up delusional. PC run amok. So, don’t bother me again about it.
Fair enough :) thanks again.
This sentence doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as is, but I’m guessing you mean that there are more qualified men who are being passed over for jobs as vet techs? I thought the research suggested that society discriminates against women? Did they run the same experiment on veterinarian recruiters and find a bias against men?
Wow! The smug sack of shit seems to think that because people are conditioned to think of jobs as being gendered, and the fact that men can be discriminated against in a job deemed to be for women, seems to be confusing him.
He also seems to be unable to understand just how fucking condescending innocent, lily-white, doe-eyed women is.
Or he does and old fuckface just loves playing with sexist tropes.
Neither speaks well for his character.
@lee coye:
Since when do quotas apply to people who aren’t going for the job?
You seriously need to release your grip on that straw, it’s chafing your palm.
Right Lee, every sexist sentence you write doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as is. It is nothing but sexist bullshit, from an arrogant and ignorant liberturd who is essentially saying “I’ve got mine, fuck you woman” to half the population. And you wonder why nobody here listens to such idiocy except to laugh at you.
Try acknowledging the truth that you are trying to convince us of something. I know I can’t convince you of anything. Your ignorance and arrogance is in the way of your actually learning.
@thumper
If you read the link, notice that the genes aren’t different, they’re expressed differently due to different hormone levels. Testosterone and Estrogen aren’t the only hormones that are found to vary between men and women, there are quite a number of them that flow from that basic difference in gene expression. This is shown in pain tolerance, how the sexes handle stress differently, what triggers anxiety, on and on and on.
By whom? God? I explicitly denied that I was claiming this is “good”, I even went on to say I “wish it weren’t this way”.
It’s debatable how much of that pressure is “societal” and how much is biological, frankly, though I would be very surprised to find that culture after culture, generation after generation, milennia after milennia, men just happened to find themselves motivated to father children and support families. That somehow the analogous behavior, though variable, is found throughout the animal kingdom, magically without culture. That we now know we are mixed with the same genetic material, but it’s actually our culture that causes such uniform behavior. It beggars belief, I’m afraid; you may take that as the most reasonable assumption, but I can’t fathom why, and I shan’t goose-step no matter how many insults or mocking taunts are leveled at my views.
There is enormous cultural variation, but just as any person from any religious background can have spiritual experiences, the core similarities prove that there is a deeper principle at work.
It’s no mystery that these are politically charged issues, so I’m not sure why it’s a mystery why political points would be salient. The success of capitalism begs an explanation beyond simply saying we’re just smarter than everyone else, and any structure of governance would be just as successful.
QFT. I’m not the cultural deconstructionist here.
This is a pretty sloppy rewording of what I said, but I think I see what you’re asking. I already answered this:
They are a product of fallacious reasoning. I’m not saying the cultural framework is “good”, only that it works, and we need to tease out why it works. The reward system is important, as absent that, men tend to compete in less socially acceptable ways. This is played out in every prison system in America; where there is no possibility for financial rewards, men tend to compete violently. The same is not true in women’s prisons (though violence is just as problematic there, for different reasons).
Quotas are just one minor step, and not necessarily towards the end-game of socialism. However, as we’ve seen in this thread, it quickly becomes apparent that we need quotas at all levels of the spectrum, to even out the playing field wherever a disparity arises. Such a project is bound to be incredibly burdensome, not to mention expensive and error-laden, but in the interest of universal equality, progress must be made. Since any construct that provides a reward system inevitably results in men striving for and attaining dominance (eg universal patriarchy), the only route to equality of outcome is to trash the reward system.
I seem to remember a recent article, somewhere.. which discussed an examination of corporations and CEOs, and found that the ones that where run by women tended to be a) less likely to go bankrupt, b) less likely to get in troubles with the law, and c) tended to be more successful. But, maybe I was just like.. completely imagining that… But, if its the case, then it would seem to me that denying men positions would, generally, increases the number of qualified people available for the job, rather than the other way around, like our, as usual, delusional, self-serving, ideas based purely on what helps them, rather than actual facts, ‘libertarian’ guest. All I see, having decided to look at why the hell I still get email alerts on this thread days later, is the usual, Daffy Duck, “Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine!”, bullshit theories about why libertarians, and more specifically, the poster, don’t rule the world, and have 100% of everything they can ever imagine wanting, but have to, “gasp!”, compete with all those damned unworthy people around them.
If you have 50 women applying to be vet techs, and 20 men, yet you only hire 20 women and 20 men to match the quota (and get funding/avoid penalties), it’s rather unlikely that the 20 men are really as equally qualified as the best 20 out of 50 women. As someone pointed out upthread, moar peeple = moar better people (spelling might have been different).
Ahh, much better.
Not in Lee’s liberturd world, where all men are better qualified for every job they want than any woman.
Do quotas actually work like this in the real world or is this a straw-quota?
Straw-quota.
When analyzing systems created by humans, systemic analysis is necessary. Observations of human psychology are helpful but not sufficient to explaining why we live in a system which most of us think should change.
You’ve assumed a premise, without ever showing evidence for it: namely that “quotas,” whatever the hell you even mean when you write the word, will cause women who want to be nurses to not be able to be nurses. If the reason is that they’re losing out to more qualified men who are suddenly applying for nursing positions in greater numbers due to the lessening of anti-male bias in the nursing field, well, then, I guess it just shows that this “collateral damage” is of little concern whether it’s men or women taking the “damage.” If the reason is that some Authority is going to forbid them doing that kind of work because the quota is already full, well. You’re already shown how little regard you have for the truth. So not too surprising that you’re still willing to just make things up.
Seriously, though, if it’s so thoroughly natural that men strive and achieve, while women don’t, why was it necessary to devote so much energy into making sure that it was impossible for women to strive and achieve high positions in society? Why was it necessary to ban women from reading and writing? Why was it necessary to ban women from going to school? Why was it necessary to ban women from owning property, from voting, and from running for office?
Or is there some gene that’s triggered only in men that makes them pass laws banning people slightly different from them from voting?
Your first “reason” just assumes that anti-male bias is what prevents men from pursuing those fields in greater numbers, rather than, say, pro-female bias, or just that more women than men view such work fulfilling. Or that men, in greater numbers than women, pursue status over fulfillment/balance when choosing a career.
No authority is going to descend upon job applicants. When Norway instituted their quotas, companies swelled boards, shared qualified employees, veritably begged, borrowed, and stole to toe the line. That’s simply not feasible for nursing. You can’t just hire more male nurses without firing female nurses, and you can’t share nurses with neighboring hospitals. Moreover, the numbers coming out of schooling indicate that the disparity starts much sooner than the application process. Somewhere along this continuum, you’re going to have to convince some number of men that, no, you don’t want to be X, you want to be a nurse; likewise, you’ll have to convince some number of Rowants’ that, no, you don’t want to be a vet tech, you want to be X.
I wish you the best of luck on that, but quotas aren’t going to get that done, they’ll just cause problems.
Huh? Women have always held high positions in society, just not always directly. The vast majority were perfectly happy with that. The world has changed, history needs context to be understood.
I was unaware women were ever banned from reading and writing.
Same here, I’m at a loss.
Long, complicated history surrounding this.
They weren’t banned, they simply weren’t included. Along with blacks, and for most of history, 95% of men. There were many women opposed to it as well, we’ve broached this topic before.
Never actually looked into this one, probably stems from a number of factors.
This is not an issue of legal equality, we’re beyond that.
Describes lee coye’s entire output so far, really.
Liberturds are ignorant of history, economics, and politics, as you so aptly prove. But they are arrogant, arrogant, and arrogant in pretending they know said subjects.
You have been at a loss since your first post. But then, that is always the case with liberturds. Their ego makes them think they are far, far smarter and more erudite than they really are. Evidence is always their downfall, just as you so aptly prove time and time again….
Wow, so basically you have no idea of what’s been going on with regards to women and their role in world history. And yet you’re opining that it’s totes natural that ladies like nursing and men like holding 90% of the world’s wealth and political power.
Excuse me while I point and laugh.
Lee is not only psychic, he’s a psychic time-traveller!
Nerd of Redhead,
Particularly in the case here, since you were explicitly contrasting it with sanity, you were calling lee insane, and thereby encouraging misunderstanding of the real problem with him, and simultaneously stigmatizing morally decent insane people.
I will continue to object to whatever I am morally obliged to object to, time permitting.
You’re neither, yet you feel confident in opining about the past.
You’ve just asserted that men banned women from reading and writing, voting, owning property, and holding political office. These claims are ludicrous. Women as far back as ancient greece were reading and writing, even teaching. Queens, baronesses, privileged women in every civilization have held more rights and freedoms than most men. Broad claims like yours show a distinct lack of both sophistication and learning.
Point and laugh at will, the joke is on you.
Except that inheritance was usually through the male line and even women who were noble had to marry where their fathers said and then do as their husbands instructed.
So basically you’re saying that because a tiny percentage of women in the privileged class that was a tiny percentage of the total population had more power than most of the men who were outside of the privileged class there wasn’t an inequality?
Fuck you.
lee coye:
“The guilty fleeth even when no man pursueth”
(What was that about the exception proving the rule, again? ;) )
Were women allowed to be citizens in the ancient Greek poleis?
Point and laugh at will, the joke is on you.
Sorry Lee, the only ludicrous claims the whole thread have come from you. You don’t know history. Actually, what do you know other than the slogans and dog-whistles of a morally bankrupt theology? Precious little.
Wow, he’s still going, is he? I hadn’t checked into this thread, because I thought endless unevidenced opinion would … end. Obviously I was wrong!
Hey lee coye, mind reading my links way, way above that indicate that companies in Norway is not actually in compliance with the quota laws, and yet .. corporations not in compliance in Norway still exist? I’d link, but since you apparently ignored them the first time, I’ll assume you’re not exactly big on that “reading” thing.
In short: why the fuck are you still here? Do you get a kick out of looking like an idiot?
And woops, that should be “companies in Norway are“. Silly proofreading. :)
@steve
Yes, estates generally passed from father to son, but that did not mean women didn’t own property. Some societies were even matrilineal, but that didn’t mean men didn’t own property.
To claim this, you have to A) hate men, B) not have a daughter, C) never been married. This also ignores that men didn’t choose either.
The inequality was between class, not gender, in much the same way it is today. Feminism has redefined gender as a class, and canvased history for a one-sided view of class struggles with which to bludgeon men today. Even if it’s just a few privileged women in each society, it’s also only a few privileged men. Y’know, pair bonding?
@Patrick
Not due til 2017, if I recall. I haven’t gone back up to check, though. So they’re not enforcing them, then? Brilliant.
No, as citizens were required to serve in the army/navy. This was when warfare was the swords and knives, a rough and tumble bloody mess. Poor them.
Yawn, what is your point with continuing posts Lee, other than for your ego not being able to admit you can’t convince us with your idiotology? Your word isn’t anything other than bullshit to be *flooshed* flushed into the toxic waste system. Convincing us requires third party evidence, which usually disproves what you are trying to prove. There’s a hint there if you are smart enough to get it.
@lee coye.
Some black men are rich. So what?
lee coye @1649
No, they’d just have to a) actually know some history, b) not be swimming in toxic crybaby misogyny, and c) not be prone to throwing in irrelevant bullshit that has nothing to do with the specific subject.
Remember lee, this bullshit about noblewomen was your attempt to once again pretend that women are not given the short end of the stick by society.
So you threw in the nobility. And as it was pointed, a) the nobility are a fraction of 1 precent, so it’s ridiculous for you to be bringing them up in the first place and b) noble women were still under the thumbs of noble men.
And your response to that is just priceless. You really are a big whiny baby. Hate men? Is that the current term for knowing history? Not have a daughter? Never been married? What do current marriage customs amongst the likes of us have to do with historical marriage in the nobility, which you brought up?
Another own goal for lee coye.
@Lee Coye #1625
The post I replied to did not contain a link. What link are you talking about?
That question was asked merely as a rhetorical device to preface my observation that most mammals live in a patriarchal society. It was intended to hihlight that simply because something is “natural” doesn’t make it right, and that you continue to fall back on the Appeal to nature fallacy. Also, if you wish it weren’t this way, why do you disagree with every proposed measure to make it not this way?
It’s not debateable until the actual presence of both is proven; then you can debate how much effect each one has. So far only the presence of the former has been proven. Men are motivated to father children for exactly the saem reason every male of every species everywhere is; because that is the purpose of biological life. Women have the same drive, or hadn’t you noticed? No one ever claimed that the desire to produce children was cultural, so stop burning strawmen and try focussing on arguments people have actually made.
“Menz need to compete so Capitalism is better than Communism” is entirely irrelevant to the entire conversation we have been having and is indeed a mystery as to why you felt the need to go off on that particular tangent. What’s mystifying is the fact you thought it was relevant.
What? The fact that the reward structure has been proven to be cultural many times throughout this thread is a fact, if you fail to read or understand the evidence that is your problem.
It’s not a rewording of what you said, it’s a question based on what you said.
Ah, arguing for the status quo despite acknowledging that it isn’t “good”. The rest of that paragraph is going to need some serious citation before I even consider taking it seriously, starting primarily with proving that:
a) violence in men’s prisons is more frequent and serious than in women’s prisons
b) that having proven the above, the increased violence in men’s prisons is due to competition and is increased due to a lack of other avenues through which to compete
c) that having proven the above, explain the presence of violence in women’s prisons
d) that competition through finding a mate or for financial reward actually diminishes competition through violence outside of prisons
Note that you have to prove causality in each case; “Correlation shows there is more violence in prison than outside and there’s no sex in prisons so I’m right” doesn’t cut it.
Why are you still on about Socialism? And you speak as if quotas are the be all and end all, the imperfect start and finish of a flawed plan. They are not. We need to ensure equal education for everyone at all educational levels. We need to dispell the cultural myth that univeristy is for rich white people. We need to dispell the stupid stereotypes which dictate certain jobs as male and others as female.We need to dispell the ridiculous myth that ladybrainz are worser than manly brainz. A good way to go about doing this is to introduce quotas in the short term so as to ensure a more equal ratio across all spheres, thus changing people’s perception and dispelling the above myths.
And we need to educate stupid sexist pillocks who can’t see past their own priviledge and have stupid negative knee-jerk reactions whenever that priviledge is threatened without having the capacity for self-analysis necessary to understand their own motivations, so that eventually they learn to shut up rather than simply ignoring all the evidence thrown at them and arguing in circles because they are utterly convinced that there is no way they can be wrong. Hey, I’m a dreamer, sue me.
Opps, missed an important point:
What? Are you saying that women will not compete in order to gain reward? Only men can strive under such a system? On what evidence are you basing this ridiculous assumption?
Thumper, you appear to be deliberately misunderstanding me.
The link you were talking about. The one we’ve been talking about. The reason I’m using “biological” rather than “genetic” differences.
No, I don’t. I continue pointing out that the natural world, and anthropology, suggests that it’s not a coincidence that we persist in creating patriarchal societies; it’s unlikely to the point of absurd that it’s just men “doing-down” women for cultural reasons.
“An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that “a thing is good because it is ‘natural’, or bad because it is ‘unnatural'”.” [Wikipedia]
It’s only fallacious if you apply a moral judgement based on it being natural. I don’t.
I disagree with bad strategies, not every strategy.
I said “motivated to father children and support families.” Both fathering and support carry with it other behavioral norms, namely, striving for status to bid for the best mate, or multiple mates, and to better support their children. It makes good evolutionary sense for males to push for control of resources, power being one avenue for that, thus patriarchy. Still, I could have been more clear.
You’re failure, not mine.
…
At this point, things just get stupid
1. What I said:
Mind the bolded. Now you respond:
2. What I said:
You respond:
No shit.
That’s a bad strategy, precisely because it assumes that men and women are interchangeable; in their interests, in their motivations, in all the relevant factors that make greater numbers of women prefer teaching, and greater numbers of men prefer high status jobs. Even if it’s all cultural, you have to deal with the culturally caused preferences, and quotas won’t accomplish that.
Your desire is to create a baseline “human”, on the supposition that it’s just culture that causes the differences between men and women. Fine, have at it, but you haven’t done it yet, and quotas aren’t going to get you there. They assume you’re already there.
lee coye:
Take a look at this comment on an unrelated thread . Read it carefully. This involves perceived race and ethnicity rather than sex. Do you still think that quotas are bad? Now think about how you would feel if you were not the one benefiting from the social perceptions.
Against my better judgement, I unhushed Lee Coye.
Lee:
[Woman who at some point in history held non-negligible power] is not a refutation of the argument “Women, on average, are disadvantaged relative to men and are oppressed by institutional sexism” any more than [PoC who at some point in history held non-negligible power] is not a refutation of the argument “White people, on average, are advantaged relative to people of other races and benefit from institutional racism.”
You would do good to research intersectional theory.
Actually it starts to break down the culturally caused differences due to patriarchy and fuckwittery, such as you show. You haven’t demonstrated you are right with third party evidenced. All you have is your unevidenced allegations, which *floosh* are dimissed as sexism.
@Lee Coye
Ah, you were talking about the mouse link. I’m not deliberately misunderstanding you, you just weren’t very clear. Now I know what you’re talking about, no one is denying that hormonal levels differ between sexes, among several other things. What we are saying, or at least I am saying, is that it is entirely unproven that the two sexes have specific behavioural or mental differences, as a result of gentics, hormones or whatever other possible reason we have thusfar lumped under the heading “Biological Differences” which make men more suited to some jobs than women.
OK, perhaps, due to your lack of moral judgement on it, I have mislabelled it. I apologise for that. But you do point out that “that the natural world, and anthropology, suggests that it’s not a coincidence that we persist in creating patriarchal societies” which is, essentially, “Patriarch exists because nature”. That’s what you just said. OK, you aren’t saying the patriarchy is good because it is natural, but you’re assuming it is the normal way of things and can’t be changed because it is natural. You have yet to convince anyone of that point.
I have a problem with your views on fatherhood. How exactly do a womans parental instincts differ from this, and why? Because I can’t see anything in your list which a mother is not motivated to do. Do women not try to pick “the best mate”? Why would it not make evolutionary sense for women to push for control of resources?
No, the failure is yours there Lee, in it’s entirety. Quotas =/= Socialism, so why do you keep bringing it up? Bringing up irrelevant shit is the failure of the writer. It is your job to explain why it’s relevant, not the job of the reader to follow your convoluted thought process. If you equate quotas with Socialism you have to convince people you are correct before proceeding, and when earlier you compared women to a “Class” as defined in Marxism I, and I think a few others, disagreed with the analogy.
And you’re right, things have gotten stupid and quite frankly part of the reason is the ridiculous walls of text we’ve been writing. Quite frankly I’m tired of this argument and I’m tired of your disingenuous attempts at Proof by Verbosity, but I think that you genuinely believe you have a point so I will try again. Do not reply to what I’ve already written, I don’t care. Let’s get back to basics.
As I understand it, your argument is that quotas are unfair because they push through less well qualified candidates at the expense of better qualified candidates due to tokenism, and that they won’t work anyway because behavioural and mental differences between the sexes mean that men are just better at some jobs than women. Is that correct? If not, please lay out, in plain English, what your argument is.
Leaving aside that this is not what Sally said, and thus not what I was responding to, that’s still overly broad and mostly false. The divisions of power and privilege have always been between the powerful and the powerless, and this was primarily what Marx was talking about.
It’s simply false to say women were a class, for the vast majority of history, and they aren’t a class now. You can always dial in to some specific metric and then generalize from that to women’s position in society, but that’s just lazy. Taking a bird’s eye view of history, claiming women were denied the vote ignores that men were likewise denied it, in almost precisely the same ratios. The history of civilization was both patriarchal and plutocratic. Yes, men occupied most positions of power, but the privileges afforded them were shared by their wives and daughters. Most men were in the same underprivileged position as women, for most of human history.
It hasn’t even been that long that men had universal suffrage, and they’ve never had it without paying (usually with their lives). While four and a half million american men were fighting and dying in the trenches in WW1, 35% of whom were either wounded, killed, or captured/lost, women were granted the vote for a song.
If you mean “better at X job”, the no, that’s not what I mean. If you mean “more likely to pursue X job”, then yes, you’ve got it now.
You can’t change reality, no, but reality here is human (more specifically male/female) nature. This constrains us the number of possible combinations of successful societies; it’s not all up for grabs.
Women do not compete for high status positions in society to attract mates. Primarily because it doesn’t work, men are attracted to youth and beauty, not status. At best, they might strive for those positions in order to get on the radar of high status men, or just to serve their own interests. However, I’m not claiming that no women behave this way, only that more men than women do, and this redounds to biologically hard-wired mating strategies. This accounts for some of the disparity (remember, I’m granting a mix of nature/nurture for the sake of argument), and it’s also predictive of the history of societies.
If you did, I missed it. It’s also kind of humorous, from my perspective, to see feminists attempting to distance themselves from Marxism, while at the same time claiming I’ve unfairly dismissed it. My cousin is on her fifth year of English/GenderStudies double major, and most of the overlap is the marriage between feminism and Marxism.
I explained, you missed it (twice now).
1. Unethical: quotas risk discriminating based on sex/color/creed in exactly the same way you claim it’s done now. The reasoning you use is that it is unfair to discriminate in this manner, so if the solution is to discriminate, either your reasoning is false or your methods are. I agree with your reasoning, I disagree with your methods.
2. Impractical: As I said before, putting quotas into place at one stage, eg boardrooms, ignores all the different stages at which, as you claim, some groups are discriminated against from the crib onward. This means that to actually do the job right, you need quotas all along the way (see Pteryxx comment to this effect, one of many to make this point). That promises to be a massive undertaking, in many ways: massively expensive, massively burdensome, requiring massive manpower to implement and maintain.
3. Troublesome as a precedent: Following from the two above, the solution that offers the least burden financially, and is the least likely to fall prey to the problems with quotas, is to just flatten society a la socialism. Sure, it’s not the guaranteed result, we might just stick with the quotas and turn everything into a massive bureaucratic nightmare, but I doubt it.
4. Unscientific: The core assumption is that the entire disparity is caused by culture, and not a product of differences between how the sexes approach employment, realize their goals, socialize, etc., all factors that affect on average the work that women will pursue in contrast to men. Differences that have remained roughly equivalent throughout all societies (contra-Mead). To blithly plow ahead with them is to fail to control for the most plausible account of human behavior: a combination of culture and biology.
…ಠ_ಠ
Lee, let me ask you a simple question.
Do you believe it is possible for there to be multiple axes of oppression operating simultaneously, and thus for a group of people to be subjected to different oppressions and benefits? For example, compare a straight poor PoC and a rich white gay man. It is inarguable that the PoC is subjected to racism, and to class-based (i.e. in relation to his poverty) oppression. However, he is not subjected to homophobia. By contrast, the rich white gay man is privileged to be white in a racist society, and also benefits from his wealth. However, he is subjected to homophobia. They are both simultaneously privileged and oppressed. This is not to attempt to “rank” the oppressions and argue over which one has it “worse” – this is derisively known as “playing the Oppression Olympics,” a sport at which everyone loses – but acknowledging a simple truth.
The appropriate metric is to compare a single variable at a time. Is homophobia thing? Does it hurt LGBTQ people? Does it confer benefits on straight people? To analyze this, find two people who are equivalent in every other way, one of whom is straight and one of whom is not, and compare their situation: how does society treat them, how does the law treat them, etc. The answers to those questions, as should be obvious, are yes, yes, and yes. Likewise, to determine if racism is a thing that hurts non-white people and benefits white people, find cohort-matched people, one of whom is white and one of whom is not. Et cetera with poverty, disability, and so on.
And thus, we come to sexism. The cohort-match of a rich, politically-connected white straight woman is her male equivalent. Variables must be controlled for. Don’t compare the rich, politically-connected white straight woman to a poor, unconnected PoC gay man. There are too many variables.
For example: there was a study not long ago where a group of researchers sent CVs to companies that were advertising openings. The CVs were all fake, but carefully tailored to be attractive for the positions (i.e. the people were all qualified). The CVs were all identical, except that one set had a male name (“John,” IIRC) at the top, and the other set had a female name (“Jennifer,” IIRC) at the top.
“John” got several times more calls and encouraging follow-up than “Jennifer.”
And remember, the name at the top was the only thing that was different. What could explain this?
I see you, I read you, I’m thinking, Og.
You have to make this comparison when saying the things Sally said. The disparity between “a rich, politically-connected white straight woman and her male equivalent” is massively overshadowed in privilege terms by the disparity between her and “a poor, unconnected PoC gay man”, or even just a poor man, or the average man. It’s the purest form of crocodile tears to bemoan the plight of the rich white woman vs. the rich white man, especially since the closer you get to the lower rungs of the privilege ladder, the less personal characteristics matter.
One possible explanation is that only about 60% of women with young children remain in the labor force, making men a better investment from a hiring perspective.
WHOOSH!
You are dense, aren’t you?
Yes, the person who is privileged in every way bar one is doing pretty nice. But that doesn’t mean that their one area of oppression is “nothing.”
Also, I’m going to argue with your statement that one when goes down the ladder, these differences matter less – I’m going to argue they matter more. Because if the difference is between getting minimum wage and getting an extra $2 an hour, then the person getting the extra $2 is able to pay rent. Or buy groceries.
Also, if 40% of women drop out of the labor force, why don’t we ask why? Would they have rather stayed in, but felt that they lacked the support system that would have enabled them to have a family and a career simultaneously? After all, men do not drop out of the labor force in response to having children at nearly the rate that women do – is this all attributable to “differences” between men and women, or is more than a little bit of it due to social stigma?
Lee, you missed the point per usual, in you vain and sloganistic attempt to muddy the waters. You have to compare apples and apples, oranges, and oranges, and when checking to see if ****ism is rearing its ugly head, you have to have only one variable in play at a time to be scientific. Which is why everything other than the names on the resumes is good, solid, evidence. Which makes your dismissal of it unscientific, and you a fool.
You keep attempting to play a DOE (design of experiment) type game, where you don’t define the parameters, and don’t run the 2^n (n = number of parameters) experiments to find out which of the parameters are significant, and which aren’t. Your OPINION of those parameters and their relevancy is worthless without showing stastical significance. I know, I’ve done those experiments.
Note that Lee did not argue with my “rich white gay man vs poor straight PoC man” argument by saying that the rich white gay man is so privileged (by virtue of his race and his wealth) as to make the fact that he is subjected to homophobia irrelevant.
In fact, note that he ignored it utterly.
Of course. If he acknowledge the argument, his argument evaporates and he knows that. And it dents his idiotology and sexism. That can’t happen. The Cone of Evidence Deflection must be lowered and so he can ignore what is obvious and conclusive to everybody else.
Does he even have an argument, aside from Nuh-uh?
You know, if you’re going to make reference to “the things Sally said,” the considerate thing to do–the thing which a person who is interested in clarity and edification for his readers, rather than obfuscation–would be to quote what Sally said.
But please, feel free to continue to demonstrate your utter contempt for the concept of clarity and truth in communication, Lee.
Did you know? 1976 was when gender-based discrimination was outlawed in the USA. That’s a little more than one generation of women who’ve pursued educational opportunities in the USA without legal barriers to their participation. (That’s not saying anything about the cultural barriers.)
Again, Lee, if it is so “natural” that women just aren’t interested in certain (highly-paid, highly-respected, powerful) fields, why was it necessary for men to protect their privileged access to those fields by officially instituting, in law and in policy, rules which made it harder for women than for men to enter those fields?
Sorry, I omitted a key phrase – I meant to say “gender-based discrimination in education.”
IIRC, equal pay for equal work was first mandated in the Civil Rights Act of 1963. It was introduced as a poison pill by someone trying to torpedo the whole thing.
Which, uh, is interesting, I guess?
lee coye:
Please read this post that has just gone up and tell us again that you don’t think systemic sexism is a problem in the United States. Or you could actually think about these real-world examples of endemic sexism and racism in the US. Either one.
Ogvorbis, hate to tell ya, but the link isn’t working.
Poor them! Yeah, the empathy just fucking flows from you, old fuckface.
The joke continues to be on you.
I don’t ‘HAVE’ to do any of those things to claim that because it’s a fact that these things were the case.
I feel I should repet myself now: Fuck you.
Other people have already pointed out what was wrong with your response to me but I’ll do it some more because apparently you still don’t get it: The fact that not all, most or indeed any men abused their power over women is irrelevant. I’m sure there were plenty of happy marriages but here is the thing: If a man DID decide that his daughter had to marry a man she didn’t want to marry because it gained the father an advantage he had the power to do so. It was acceptable.
FWIW, the most vicious (and I mean vicious) misogynist I ever encountered in meatspace was:
(1) married to a woman, and
(2) father of several daughters.
He professed to love his wife and daughters. And I would believe that he believed this himself.
It is just that he fundamentally did not see them as people, but as things that he owned.
How much would he have loved his daughters if they acted on their own accord?
@1683 He’d probably love them so much that he would correct their behaviour. With a stick.
We’re talking privilege disparity, not oppression. Rich white women aren’t fucking oppressed. Further, men and women are privileged in different ways, as are rich and poor. Women have a great number of privileges in society, now and in the past.
You can pay rent and buy groceries on minimum wage, I’ve done it. You can’t support a family on that wage, though, so it’s best to keep it in your pants until you find a better job. I do hope you’re not claiming that “society” is preventing groups from getting anything but a min-wage job?
If you can’t afford kids, or don’t have time to take care of them, or don’t have someone to help raise them, don’t have them. Women aren’t victims of their own choices, and it is indeed a choice today for women to have children. It is not likewise a choice for men, certainly nowhere close to the same degree.
Rich white gay man vs poor white straight man = massive privilege disparity in favor of the rich.
Rich white gay man vs poor PoC straight man = massive privilege disparity in favor of the rich.
This is why I keep coming back to the difference between the privileged, and the non-privileged. It simply doesn’t fall along gender/race/SO lines.
Ask yourself this: who benefits from creating a false construct of privilege disparity? Who benefits from women accusing men of privilege, blacks accusing whites of privilege, disabled accusing abled, trans accusing everyone else, gays accusing straights? When the true disparity is between the powerful and powerless, who benefits from pitting everyone against everyone else?
Probably poor, PoC gay women, amirite? You’re all playing victim olympics while the gap between the top and bottom grows by the year, and the middle class is all but vanished. Coincidence?
*shrug* Given all the other nonsense ya’ll believe, you probably think it really is a coincidence.
Gee, liar and bullshitter. There are still differences in privilege between men and women of the same background, which is the topic we have been discussing, with you losing big time, so you keep moving goalposts like a liar, bullshitter, and loser liberturd. We are discussing women versus men. If you can’t keep to topic, its time for you to fade into the bandwidth. You have no argument, as you keep showing with your inability to stay on topic.
Not cited, allegation, *FLOOSH* DIMISSED AS FUCKWITTERY. What part of you need to back up yourself with third party evidence are you having trouble with? It’s the part where we don’t accept your claims as anything other than liberturdian bullshit.
Gee, this from a fuckwitted lying liberturd posturing like made? You are the one presenting nonsense now, just like you have since your first post. How can we tell? YOUR LACK OF THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE. Your word is not worth the electrons used post them. Which is why, if you can’t/won’t back up your claims, you should fade into the bandwidth.
Somebody is preventing you from having a vasectomy?
Good grief Lee.
Is your world so unsubtle as all that? You can’t understand that there are different kinds of privilege that all combine together to affect how you’re treated?
The rich guy might be better off in general but that’s of little comfort when he is beaten to death by a group of anti-gay assholes: An extreme example of a situation where being straight REGARDLESS of the other factors is a privileged position.
Equality of opportunity means that if in every other way you are the same you should not be discriminated against because you’re, gay, a woman, a PoC or come form a poor economic background. But that’s not how our society works: Women who are in every way the same as a male counterpart get discriminated against simply because they are a woman. Doesn’t matter if they’re rich or poor. That is an entirely different problem that needs entirely different answers.
No one here is saying that the disparity between rich and poor isn’t a problem but they are saying it’s not the ONLY problem and you’re either too stubborn or too crude of thought to grasp such subtleties.
Others have dealt with the other shit, so I’ll take these:
Congratulations! You’ve done it. People have.
But:
(1) it is extremely hard, especially if anything at all goes wrong.
(2) it is much harder today than it was even a few years ago.
So. Poor people don’t deserve to have families. Poor people don’t deserve comfort. Poor people don’t deserve anything nice?
You do realize this makes you sound like a grade-A asshole, right?
To be fair, Esteleth, it doesn’t make him look like any more of an asshole than the other shit he’s been spouting.
Esteleth,
Do you mean title VII of the civil rights act, prohibiting discrimination? The equal pay act was signed by Kennedy in 1963, and the Civil rights act was 1964.
Yes, probably, Echidna. This is, after all, a factoid that I learned when Peggy referenced it on Mad Men.
Ha! I just watched the last episode Mad Men yesterday. Inspired by your comment, I tried to find out more. I guess it’s a little more complicated than Mad Men implied. wikipedia:Howard Smith
First, I ask myself, is the construct fake? The answer is no.
There is no One True Disparity. Your questions are based on the false premise that the accusations exist, but the bigotry does not.
For a guy who allegedly hates Marxism, you’re sure doing a good impression of one of the brogressive dudes who are unfortunately common in the Occupy movement. For the record, no, shutting up about bigotries that are a contributing cause of economic disparities is not a path to achieving economic justice. But it is really touching that you pretended at least for a minute to give a tiny fuck about injustice.
The decline of piracy over the past century has a perfectly correlated curve with the disappearance of the middle class. Coincidence? Ah, since you’re such an idiot, you probably do think it’s a coincidence. HA HA HA, you are so stupid.
Abortion envy. Common malady among MRAs.
Just the latest burrow of our current whack-a-troll,
How dare those women have more control over their bodies than he, the mighty sperm maker, is allowed?!
It’s so unfair!!
I’m sure he will pop up again soon with some comment about Amish feminist commumarxists who will enforce strict quotas under Obama with implantable GPS devices.
@Lee Coye #1662
Sweet Jeebus, what do you not get about no more wall o’ text?
Right, two things:
As a feminist I find your characterisation of women in general as ornaments that must get through life on their “youth and beauty”, by implication becoming useless and unwanted the second they lose both with the inevitable march of time, and who only display drive and ambition due to self-serving capriciousness to be fucking insulting; and as a man I find your implied characterisation of men as self-serving, single-mindedly ambitious robots who only want to get to the top in order to attract a trophy wife half their age because of their “biologically hard-wired mating strategies” to be fucking insulting. That sort of stereotyping is not going to win you any friends.
Now, to the actual answer:
1- Introducing the risk of discrimination is not the same as actual discrimination. However, I do understand your concern on this point but I fail to see any better alternative. The long term goal is to intrduce women and minorities into roles they previously avoided in order to break stereotypes which stop women and minorities from applying for them in the first place. The only way to do this is to say “No, you can not have an office full of middle aged, middle class white men. You must employ some women and ethnic minorities.” The situation you are presumably imagining is that a better qualified white man loses out to a less well qualified woman or non-white person who is hired purely to fullfill the quota, but, leaving aside the fact that it is based on the assumption that none of the women or minorities who apply will be as well qualified as the white man, do you really think that ever actually happens? As I said, the theoretical risk of discrimination =/= actual discrimination.
2- It does not mean introducing quotas across the board, at least not in my view. It means improving education in deprived areas thus giving people from lower income backgrounds, who are more often than not ethnic minorities, better qualifications and access to higher education. It means attempting to end ghettoisation and other things which enforce separation between people of different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, so as to break down stereotyping. And it means removing the workplace stereotypes mentioned above, for the reasons mentioned above. It means convincing people that they do have better prospects. Implicating quotas at every level of the educational system as well as the workplace may be impractical, but they only really need to exist at workplace and college level.
3- That may be the cheapest and easiest option, but it’s not one that anyone here is calling for and it’s certainly not one I support. I aim for a true meritocracy, but such a system cannot be put in place until prejudice is eradicated or at least reduced to truly negligible levels. It’s only troubling if you believe it leads to socialism, but if you do then you are confusing equal opportunity with equal outcome. The fact you are a woman or you are not white should not count in the slightest and yet current employment figures show that people belonging to such groups get white collar jobs less often and get highly paid jobs less often. Since it can’t be the case that white men just happen to be the best at all white collar jobs, the issue must be that equal opportunity has not yet been achieved.
4- It is not unscientific, it is the very opposite. It is based upon the assumption that cultural pressures cause the disparity because cultural pressures are the only ones proven to exist. You cannot go around basing policy on supposition and unproven hypotheses, and I’m afraid that until someone provides empirical proof, that is all that these “differences between how the sexes approach employment, realize their goals, socialize, etc.” are. Unproven hypotheses which no unbiased rationalist or skeptic would ever base their opinions on.
@thumper
RE: your rant
Men are attracted to youth and beauty, not status, whereas women are the opposite, and this explains men’s and women’s choices to a great degree. Women aren’t “useless”, but they are less attractive as they age and lose their beauty. Men aren’t likewise “useless” if they’re low-status, but they are far less attractive to women than their high-status counterparts, irrespective of their appearance. This has been measured in both sexes, it tracks along fertility markers in women, and it makes evolutionary sense.
Both men and women display drive and ambition for self-serving reasons, success simply tends to benefit men more in the mating game.
So bizarre.
Now hang on a minute, how the fuck can a company discriminate against someone who doesn’t apply?
I’m basing this largely on your assumptions that educational and work-experience opportunities are being denied these groups, and so are less qualified when they do apply (or don’t, according to the above). Remember the “quotas at all steps” pieces from above?
Sally misunderstood me, per usual, when I said these factors either are salient or aren’t. If the societal factors skew the qualified candidate demographics towards the privileged, it’s hardly the fault of companies to hire the most qualified candidates. If the societal factors don’t skew the qualified candidate demographics, what then of your societal factors? This is why I say quotas are a bad strategy; they’re either too late in the pipeline or they assume uniformity of interest (and fail to control for a plausible biological account).
It can’t be both, contra-Sally, because it’s not even unethical, much less illegal, for companies to hire the most qualified candidates who apply.
Furthermore, the only time this bias emerges is between identical applications. The race, sex, etc., discrimination shown by submitting carbon-copy CVs assumes theres just a mess of equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds being discriminated against in reality. The bare fact that it can happen, doesn’t mean that it is common, and doesn’t establish that it’s the true cause of disparity.
I would also be curious if the researchers corrected for own-group bias, by submitting, say, British and Pakistani CVs to Pakistani organizations.
do you even listen to yourself?
It explains choices only if one has glommed onto pop-pseudo-evo-psych in order to confirm one’s existing biases. I am impressed, though. You have just said, in effect, that when a man divorces his wife of 30 years and marries a woman young enough to be his daughter, it is because that is the way women are.
This from somebody who doesn’t understand the need of companies to hire qualified candidates, but can’t recognize that the qualified pool is much larger than he thinks it is, as it does include many more minimally qualified people than he thinks. But they are women and PoC, and they are more than capable of doing the job. I know, I’ve been in on hiring decisions.
Lee, you purposely and with de facto sounding bigotry aren’t changing society to make sure all people can achieve their potential by not removing the barriers of privilege and patriarchy from the system. In fact, you keep arguing to maintain them or your poor fee-fee will shrivel if you really had to compete on a truly level playing field. Tell us how you would change the system, with details.
Lee Coye wants to know how someone can be discriminated against in hiring for a job they don’t even apply for.
Well, how ’bout them hearing credible reports that if they apply, their CV will be tossed on sight, because they’re [whatever], so they don’t bother applying for that reason?
Incidentally, this is one way it works – if minorities don’t apply in the first place, then the company can throw up its hands and say “We tried! We really tried. But for some reason, we just didn’t get any applicants.”
This can be subtle – an interviewer is rude or asks an inappropriate question, a company leader makes a certain comment in public, etc. The word goes out that company X is unfriendly to people with [attribute].
@Lee Coye
That wasn’t a rant, that was really quite a mild criticism of your sexist fuckwadishness you stereotyping douche. You want a rant? Fine.
You are a slippery fuckwad with a bad habit of redefining words in order to add a veneer of respectability to his otherwise baseless arguments. You continually role out the pseudo-scientific babble and evo-psych buzzwords, blithely proclaiming the “biological differences” and “biologically hardwired mating strategies” which separate menz from womenz without ever proving that any such things exist. You throw out sexist tropes and stereotypes left right and center and then try to cower back and convince everyone “I’m not a bigot, it’s in our nature! I can’t change that!” when you still have yet to prove it is our nature.
Assumption and confirmation bias abound throughout your posts, and you seem utterly incapable of understanding that just because you took one glance at something and found it convincing does not mean that you can simply parrott the basic themes at us without ever providing third party evidence and magically bring us round to your point of view. Seriously, I have seen you provide one citation throughout this entire 1700+ post thread, and it didn’t prove a single one of your points; indeed the only link between it and your argument seemed to be that it was about differential expression of genes between the sexes. It was about mice, and it discussed 16 genes out of the 20,000+ genes which mice posess! You call that evidence? It’s not.
While people have acknowledged your concerns about quotas and laid out reasons for them, other measures we can put in place beside and supplemental to them, and offered you the opportunity to come up with better, you have ignored all this and simply repeated, endlessly, that quotas aren’t fair because “What about the white menz?! And Socialism!”. And you continue to throw the same points at us, rephrased but still lacking any support or evidence, over and over again in an effort to win us around with nothing more than good grammar and syntax and Proof by Verbosity because, let’s face it, you have fuck all else to offer.
In short I am done with you, you sexist, pseudo-intellectual, borderline racist, disingenuous, bigoted twonk.
@Esteleth
Thanks for handling that particular piece of stupidity. I have lost patience and couldn’t be bothered.
thumper1990:
You are good. Thank you.
The flounce
Well, that’s a mess.
Ahhh yes, the famous network of non-privilege, disseminating discouragement like it’s a good thing. Blame the system for your failure to try.
“I just know they won’t accept me, because they didn’t accept suzie, so I didn’t apply. Miracle of miracles, they didn’t give me a job anyways. Fucking patriarchy.”
Yawn, still not one iota of third party evidence from Lee. When will he learn that his OPINION will only be laughed at without supporting evidence. Being a liberturd, and constantly wearing his Cone of Evidence Deflection, apparently never.
ಠ_ಠ
So, that’s your response to “people tell each other about discrimination”?
CLASSY.
At last! lee coye finally says something we can all agree with.
In the end, lee coye’s argument has to boil down to denial, denial and more denial. How pedestrian.
Why do you hate pedestrians so, vaiyt?
I love the irony in the way MRAs come in here, determined to promote their stances, and always end up showing what fucking nasty dishonest bullshit the whole this is.
Good work, lee coye.
Nine hundred and ninety-nine comments later and lee is still just as casually misogynistic as his first comment back at #718;
No oh foolish twit, misogynists are incapable of being egalitarian by definition.
One thousand comments later, and we are still waiting for you to present reasonable dissent or one single shred of evidence that institutional discrimination is an unsupported claim.
Stupid minorities, always telling each other about hostile workplaces! If they’d just STFU about discrimination, nobody would know about it and more minorities would apply and… erm, they’d be hired or something? I’m not sure how this works but clearly it’s the minorities’ fault for listening to each other, not the company’s fault for not doing anything about their biased hiring process.
It’s always the fault of the less privileged. <– Golden rule of MRAs
Noelplum made a video about how hostile and insular this forum is, having been banned himself for what he considered bogus reasons. According to you, men continue showing up, continue arguing their case, even in the face of some pretty personal, abusive rhetoric. I don’t have to quote it, you’re all aware of it.
Here I am, covered in the filth you’ve persisted in throwing, still defending my position. So yeah, suck it the fuck up and apply, I think I’ve earned the right to say that.
Failure to try?
Really?
Wow!
Louis
Of course, like you, he is an egomaniac who thinks everything is about him. You and your OPINION, like his, needs to be backed up by evidence. YOUR WORD ALONE IS *FLOOSH*, LIKE HIS SENT TO THE TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL.
Fixed that for you unhearing loser. You must EVIDENCE your case. Your word isn’t and never will be evidence. Just like all liberturds, MRAs, godbots, creobots, and over OPINIONATED losers.
You aren’t defending your postition. That could occur with you fading into the bandwidth. What you are doing is aggressively trying to change our opinions, which do require evidence, and you present no evidence. YOUR OPINION ISN’T AND NEVER WILL BE EVIDENCE.
Well, you’re lying about the video: Noelplum99’s video was a question for PZ Myers about his banning procedures. Noelplum99 never once mentions the Horde. He also requested in comments to leave his own ban out of it. Tsk tsk tsk.
What’s your tie-in with the video without falsely including the Horde? That Noelplum99 opined that there should be “long-term, regular” dissenters? What part of that didn’t he pull out of his ass? By what math does he determine that there should be ~24 “long-term, regular dissenters” in the comments at any one time?
He acknowledged that he has regular dissenters who meet him on the equal playing field of answering by video, but he does not have (nor does he know of any YouTuber with any reasonable number of followers who has) long-term regular dissenters in the comments. He acknowledged that he’s made a separate video about the LACK of dissent for some of his religious videos. He acknowledged that he had virtually no dissent for a video on gendered terms in which he expected to draw it. One commenter disagreed reasonably with NP and had NP reply reasonably. That reasonable disagreement received too many negative votes and disappeared from easy viewing. Noelplum99 says he’d change that if he could. Well, actually, from my understanding, he can disable votes on comments; he’ll just have to do it separately for each video he posts because it’s not automatic. I’ve seen others do it; he hasn’t.
You’re funny. You didn’t need to “earn” any right, and certainly no one here need pay you any fucking thing. You seem to have applied for the position of a “long-term regular” dissenter that even Noelplum99 finally admitted that he DOES NOT have in his comment sections.
So if you’re really here about Noelplum99’s video, then you’ve derailed the thread away from it because…?
An interesting thing about YouTube comments v blog comments that I’ve found. Their “Don’t feed the trolls” is to keep email notices from going out to them. I can subscribe to this thread and get every comment. If no one replies to my comment on YouTube–even if they talk around it and about it–I know nothing about any discussion without going there again. It’s a little home team advantage, but it’s there.
The uploader can respond to the dissenter directly by name without hitting “reply.” Where do the uploader comments go? At the top of the list–the dissenter’s comment only joins it there if the uploader hit that “reply” link. So, someone may read what seems to be a devastating point against dissent on the front page, but they’d have to go hunting through the replies to find out the other side of the argument.
And if a dissenter makes an excellent case and gets comments upvoted so that they appear in the section directly under the uploader’s comments? Disable comment voting, and they go back into the longer list, usually on the back pages out of sight. The commendation disappears since the upvoters usually make that one click rather than an approving comment.
Sorry, but I had decided to research a little on what perceived YouTube comment section/no banning superiority would make this burning question come up.
About #1343, it struck me that the comment numbers had become so big that they were retracing the arc of history.
In that spirit, I offer, as #172
34 (curse you, athyco! *shakes fist*):The Four Seasons, a set of violin concertos by Antonio Vivaldi, was composed.
I look forward to the rest of the Englightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the 20th century, and latterly, events which even I can remember.
PS, and totally random: Hover is selling .co domains for $15, if you’re interested athy.co ;-)
Noelplumjim made a sour grapes video, after he bored us all with the same tired false arguments for the umpteenth time.
<blockquote According to you, men continue showing up, continue arguing their case, even in the face of some pretty personal, abusive rhetoric. I don’t have to quote it, you’re all aware of it.
The rhetoric only becomes hostile (I say pshaw to your personal and abusive mischaracterization) when said MRA’s persist in spewing their hostile hate-on for women all over our threads.
They can STFU and go away at any time, but that logical thought never seems to occur in their petty little brains. Perhaps you could shed some light on this phenomenon lee?
Why the hell do you assholes persist in bothering the nice people?
cm:
Well, that’s a good way to stop my cowering from a shaken fist. :-) But the dot would throw off the pronunciation!
Wait, it’s a word in Pistach. I don’t even have the mouthparts to pronounce it correctly.
Poor sad lee coye. It’s just too bad for him that anyone who is interested can read his whole sorry parade of dishonesty, name-calling, reality-denial, misogyny and just plain ass-headedness for themselves, thus making his recent attempts to portray himself as some poor, badly treated victim of Horde bullying utterly useless, like every other post he’s made.
Lee what exactly do you mean by “men” in your most recent post?
I ask because I am male and I feel quite welcome here even when I argue my case, some people have quoted me favorably even. Perhaps by “men” you mean “MRAs” or “Asshole Libertarians”? If so I request you define your terms more clearly because I as a male want nothing to do with your political views. Oh and incidentally not defining your terms is quite a maddening trait you’ve got Lee, see the 500 posts where you were coy about the fact you were talking about Marxism.
lee coye, you are aware that, before you made it your personal sandbox, this thread was about that video that noelplum made?
Wait…an imperative in bold. Does that mean lee coye thinks the Horde is all women and/or minorities?
He sure seems to, amongst other bizarre assumptions. It’s weird, I mean it’s not exactly a secret that Nerd is the only woman on Pharyngula.
Lee,
Do you have any idea why so many employers post jobs and include in the posting that they are an equal opportunity employer?
Because they recognize the value in putting out the message that women and minorities are encouraged to apply. Why do that lee?
Becuz moar peepal to chuze frum = moar better peepal! Yes, I said it the first time and I’m saying it again because you still don’t get it.
Companies that broaden their pool of potential candidates by including women and minorities will inevitably end up with a higher quality work force. The cream of the crop from the larger group will simply be better, unless you make the assumption that by including women and minorities, you can only add in useless token fodder that does not add to the talent pool overall, which is what you appear to be doing.
I put it in I can haz cheezeburger speak hoping you might be able to comprehend that a little better than plain English, which you seem to struggle with.
Why do you think that women and minorities are by default less qualified or talented than white dudes? Why do you think women and minorities can only serve to dilute the talent pool but not enrich it?
erikthebassist: To be fair he’s already outlined his reasons for that: Women are not as driven as men mainly because they are too busy making sure they look young and pretty to study properly.
Now men like me who procrastinate, waste time and generally coast through life doing the minimum to get places… We’re clearly the best choice for any job.
@lee coye being fucking hilarious:
How? Certainly not by defending that women aren’t qualified a priori to jobs, that they shouldn’t even be allowed to worry their lady brains about it because men are the strivers and competers.
If there’s an egalitarian anti-feminist out there, it isn’t you.
Can’t stand them, with their walking and stuff.
Jumping Jeebus, he’s still here?
Wait, I’ll call the Waaahmbulance.
So, suck it up and apply, and don’t you DARE think about applying systemic solutions to systemic problems. Legal equality has been reached; therefore all gender and race disparities that still exist (a whole FORTY YEARS after the fact! after a paltry millennium or so of oppression) are evidence of the lack of aptitude and drive and talent of, oh, about 60% of the human race. White men just happened to be the beneficiaries of a system of oppression that turned out to be completely fair. Sure, it was bad that it was enforced with brutal violence and systemic efforts to impede the ability of non-white non-male persons to get educated and achieve positions of power and influence, but now that the enforcement is (mostly) tacit, (sort of) non-violent and not encoded directly into law, we can see that the underlying premise was sound: white men deserve to be in charge.
Yeah, we knew that this was your position all along Lee, but it’s nice to see you at least approaching a modicum of clarity.
Oh look, a handy lee-coye-to-English translator.
Women are not oppressed, they never have been oppressed in anything like the terms blacks were oppressed, and for all of human history they have been privileged; though not in the same ways as men, certainly in greater numbers than men. They remain privileged today, and even feminists like yourself aren’t all that interested in curtailing the privileges enjoyed by women, only those enjoyed by men.
You only ever look at the highest performing men, or whites, and ignore the vast body of humanity under the identical thumb. Women are less likely to be hired, or are paid less, because they work fewer hours on average, are more likely to work part-time, manifold more likely to get pregnant and leave the workplace for long stretches, if not for good. They cost more to insure, and are a legal liability from a purely cost-benefit perspective. The fact that the discrimination is only 5% and unconscious is an incredible concession on the part of men. If a man was known to have those proclivities, he’d be lucky to find work at a fast food joint, and no one would bat an eye.
Required by law.
Real fucking funny how “women” are a completely different category from black. I know of black feminists who would have fucking issues with you.
And, please, explain all of the privileges that women have had over men throughout all of fucking history.
As is stands, lee coye is a sniveling idiot who thinks his sniveling makes him a fucking #bravehero.
(If you do not know what I mean; if you are on twitter, look up Justin Vacula and #bravehero.)
If lee coye did not have his hubris, he would have jack shit.
Poor oppressed lee coye, being shackled by the jack booted fedgov. If only there were not an unfair interference by the feminist dominated US federal government, the lee coyes of the US would be free to treat women as they deserve to be treated.
Weep for what the mighty male has been reduced to!
Lee Coye: “Women are not oppressed, they never have been oppressed in anything like the terms blacks were oppressed, and for all of human history they have been privileged; though not in the same ways as men, certainly in greater numbers than men.”
Cough. Cough. European witch trials. Cough.
“Over the entire duration of the phenomenon of some three centuries, an estimated total of 40,000 to 60,000 people were executed.”
In 1874 Harvard faculty began to offer examinations but no instruction to women.
In 1894 the Harvard Annex was chartered as Radcliffe College, with the power to grant academic degrees. The two were still separate in the ’60s.
What color is the sky on your planet, Lee?
AVFM-colored. don’t expect anything with any semblance to reality to come out of that one.
lee coye: Required by law.
Ahem. From that link:
That refers only to employers with federal contracts or subcontracts, and it refers specifically to disability — that is, it relates to affirmative action, not to equal opportunity, and has a very limited scope.
(Now, if you were speaking about Australia, you might have had a point)
Don’t pull that shit, John. Only the laws of the US matter.
I see Lee is still “giving testament”, and not arguing from evidence.
Godbots, evangelicals, and creobots “give testament”. They try sound calm, logical and sincere in their approach. The one thing avoided is backing up their claims since they can’t do so. We must accept their claims without evidence, as they are calm, appear rational, and are sincere. Sound familiar Lee? That is what you are doing. That is what folks like noelplum the egotist does. But do we have to take their word for anything? NO! That is because when somebody gives testament, like most MRA videos, there is no quality control over what they say. Their facts can be off, they have leaps of faith not supported by the evidence, and their wholes claims can be nothing but fallacious presuppositions. Just like you do Lee.
Now Lee, how does one treat such testament to get to the truth of them? By being skeptical of the claims. For example, some godbot claims their deity exists, I ask for evidence of it. Conclusive physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Likewise I challenge the presupposition that their babble is inerrant, demanding third party evidence, not just their word, they are right. For creobots, I ask for citations from the peer reviewed scientific literature. I even go so far to link to a scientific library to show what I mean. I’m not the only person who does that here Lee. Almost all the regulars do the same.
Why third party evidence Lee (and lurkers)? In order to evaluate your claims, we need another source for said claims. If your claims are from personal research, you can cite your paper. If it is based on previous work, it must be cited. (For example, at work I found a solution to a problem we have. Being honest and having integrity, I’ll cite the paper that I’m basing my recommendations on to solve that problem. Making the recommendation stronger, and showing that it isn’t just me thinking out of my ass.) A famous Christopher Hitchens quote, which he used against all forms of presuppositional claims, is “that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” In other words, unless the person making the claims can cite an academic/scientific/government paper to back up their claims, it can *floosh* be dismissed without even bothering to refute it. It’s like a case where the DA hasn’t met the least standard of evidence against an alleged criminal. Case dismissed with prejudice.
So Lee, when are you going to stop giving us nothing but testament, and start arguing scientifically with third party evidence? All you show without ever showing evidence is that you have nothing but hot air, blather, noise, and ignorance. If there are significant mental differences between the sexes, show us the evidence. Point to the evidence, don’t claim/assert/pretend it obvious or “already proven” *snicker*. Until you do, *floosh* all you say is dismissed as being unsupported by the evidence.
*buzzer* Wrong answer farmer boy.
The only time that is required is when the company holds a contract with the government. Plenty of companies who do zero business with the government also put that in their job postings as a way to attract a more diverse workforce.
Your last post was the coup de gras. You finally admitted you’re just a misogynistic scumbag MRA, and an unapologetic one at that. You live in a dreamworld of your own making.
I hope reality bites you on the ass some day in a way that’s leaves teeth marks. You need it.
I suspect that lee’s reality has a lot of unpaid child-support payments.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but even when Americans were lynching people like it was a good thing, over eight times as many white men were lynched as black women. Black women were a tiny minority of those lynched (159 vs 3446 black men[this may refer to women total, white and black]). Let that sink in a moment: even as a genuinely oppressed class (AA), being a woman mitigated the danger to a greater extent than being a man in a non-oppressed class (white).
It’s also notable that the most frequently cited instance of institutionalized misogyny in the last milennia, indeed perhaps the only instance of organized violence in which women were the majority of the victims(depending on the country), was largely driven by other women(anywhere from 40-60%). Women accused, testified, and perpetuated the hysteria alongside their equally sadistic and uneducated male counterparts. Once touted by mainstream feminists as a sure sign of our patriarchal heritage (still is by some), a radical change in our understanding of the facts and events hasn’t changed the conclusion by a hair. A “milennia” of oppression no doubt refers to this half-milennia of fabricated non-historical male-bashing.
One of the many privileges that women have had over men over the millennium.
That’s true, in most cases it’s the law for companies who do any business with the gov’t, but for the rest it’s often just good PR. They’re required by law to be in compliance anyways, so why not boost their image a little with a $50 trip to Staples?
@John
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/pdf/eeopost.pdf
Eat your heart out, pal.
Non-sequitor, and citation needed liar, bullshitter, and testament giver…
Still no evidence Lee. Must be a character default found in all liberturds. They find evidence an anathema, as it refutes their iditotology…
Bah, should have refreshed, I could have just cited this.
For the lurkers:
If you’ve read this whole thread, good for you, but notice something here. Notice how disingenuous Lee has been since the very beginning of his interaction here.
Notice how he lied and said multiple times that he agrees with efforts to reduce discrimination, but just wants to nitpick the methods. He’s not opposed to affirmative action no way, no siree. He just doesn’t think quotas are the way to go about it.
Then, in his last post at 1740, he comes out and finally admits that he thinks the oppression of women is a myth. So he’s been lying for hundreds of comments!
This is what happens all the time. We get MRA assholes that come in here and JAQ off, pretending to want an honest discussion about the subtleties of feminism and racism, pretending to be on our side but just having minor reasons to dissent.
They are almost always later found out to be wolves in sheep’s clothing, only here for the troll, for the lulz. THIS is why people who appear right out of the gate to meet this description get piled on so quickly. THIS is why it’s hard to earn the trust of the horde.
And he is still… not… banned.
Holt shit! Even black women have it better than white men!
No need to take about the enforced poverty. No need to talk about the black women raped by white men.
lee coye, please keep cherry picking stats. It is very funny in a very sick and twisted way.
lee coye @1753, you really are a dill, ain’t ya?
From your most recent link: “Applicants to and employees of companies with a Federal government contract or subcontract are protected under Federal law from discrimination on the following bases:”
Here, I will emphasise the relevant section for you: Applicants to and employees of companies with a Federal government contract or subcontract.
You still imagine the original comment to which you replied only addressed Applicants to and employees of companies with a Federal government contract or subcontract?
(So, you reckon in your glorious country someone who (say) dismisses an employee because they find that employee too attractive is breaking the law?)
erikthebassist, it has been long established that lee coye is affiliated with A Voice For Men. Very few of us were under any illusion that lee coye is arguing in good faith.
John, how dare you even imply a real life example.
*snort*
I know Janine, but HE was under the impression that he might be getting away with it, and some lurkers might have not caught the AVFM reference. That was for the lurkers not me, I had him pegged pages ago, almost as soon as he showed up. =)
And the kicker is that Lee probably doesn’t acknowledge the psycho-social reasons for the difference in statistics: black women were not seen as a threat to white purity as much as black men were because the black woman, in contrast to the purity of a delicate white flower, wasn’t a threat to their breeding stock.
@Janine
Since, from past experience, the difference between what I said and what you *think* I said is not going to be glaringly obvious to the “fair” commenters here, I’ll point out the obvious for them:
What I said:
Yes, any way you twist it, not getting killed is a privilege.
You reply:
Notice that I’m not claiming black women “had it better”, only that being a woman was quite obviously a benefit to an African American when vigilante groups were hanging them from trees for (largely) fabricated infractions. That’s a privilege, and the fact that more white men than black women were lynched during this time period is a striking example of just how relevant gender is on how likely you are to be a victim of murderous violence. Men today are still far more likely to be the victims of murder and assault, and any point in our past paints the same (or perhaps a starker) picture of the relative privilege of women in this regard.
@John
If you can’t read, I can’t help you. It’s pretty obviously referring to sex as well as disability, and only using disability for examples. You can tell, because it says “for example”.
Why should lee coye acknowledge that, throwaway? To do so would admit that men were treating women as their property to be protected. And that would contradict his claim that women have privileges that men lacked.
Citation needed, I just read disability. No wonder you can’t prove your ass isn’t just a hole in the ground….
I will be highly amused by lee coye’s idea of a “fair” commenter.
Remember, not being killed is a privileged.
Truly one of the most darkly funny things I have read in a long fucking time.
Right, it’s the possession of a penis that counts. That’s how we make it not female privilege?
Lop off the excess “d”.
What you said without third party evidence is nothing but bullshit to be *floosh* sent to the toxic waste stream. Grow up intellectually, and actually realize your unevidenced OPINION isn’t worth anything other than our laughter…
I think we are finally seeing the synapses of the troll going frizzle and fry.
This, Janine, is NOT a fair commenter.
From the link:
The notice, which reads:
must be posted, for example, where visually disabled or wheelchair-bound applicants can read it.
That’s your unevidenced theory and futile and fuckwitted attempt to be snide. Grow up intellectually. Cite your claims.
Sorry, must be read to the visually disabled, and posted where the wheel-chair bound can read it.
That wasn’t what you claimed. Non-sequitor. And why shouldn’t those purposely and and unlawfully discriminated against not understand their rights? Gee, you are just so compassionate, and non-bigoted *snort*.
Oy, every time I think lee has plateaued on sheer wrong, he starts erupting moar stupid.
I assume this statistic was pulled from your ass lee?
It is beyond idiotic to claim that black women are somehow privileged over white males to not be lynched, considering that it was white males doing the lynching. Also notable: Leaving the largest group of lynchings out as it was done almost exclusively to black men, and omitting the detail of WHY those white men were lynched.
But Nerd, black women were not lynched as often as white men. And not being murdered is a privilege.
That is why JFK did not have the same rights as a black domestic worker.
lee coye:
<snicker>
You are a dolt, and it’s most amusing that you think you can in any way help me regarding comprehension.
Again: It’s not the law insofar as it applies to every employer; it’s the law only in relation to “Applicants to and employees of companies with a Federal government contract or subcontract”.
Had you attempted to answer my question (“You still imagine the original comment to which you replied only addressed Applicants to and employees of companies with a Federal government contract or subcontract?”) you might have gotten an inkling of why your red herring was very stinky.
Oh joy, this is a nice one.
1. Not being lynched is not a good thing, and can’t be categorized as a privilege.
2. Women weren’t present or complicit (so ludicrous as to defy debunking).
3. The claim that I left out black men is…I mean, just read 1751 again.
4. If white men were lynched, they deserved it.
This is why I’m still here, the endlessly idiotic responses are almost criminally entertaining, even if I resist the urge to blast them as they so obviously deserve. I’m confident that the lurkers can see and comprehend these blessed moments in great irony, but sometimes I just can’t help myself.
Janine
You evvilll radfem you!
Lee:
You’re so histrionic. Black women were sperm recepticles, so they at least got off without being lynched, but were instead often brutally raped. Cases brought against white men who raped black women? Yeah right! SOOOO MUUUCCCHHH PRIIIIVIIILEGE! Argue that rape is at least better than being dead, I fucking bet it’s creeping up in your bile ducts…
Lee fuckwit, I made the point that employers freely post EoE in their job postings because they know a diverse applicant pool is a good thing. I asked why you thought most employers put “EoE” in their job postings.
You replied, because it’s the law, with a link to a law that specifically only addressed government subcontractors, a nonsequitor.
You later agreed that it’s not always the law to advertise EoE, but that it was good PR.
Now you’re arguing the instracies of the law. Stop fucking doing the gish gallop, take your logical fallacies and your bigoted, sheltered world view and kindly fuck off.
I’m off to have a weekend.
It is amusing to see that lee coye thinks so highly of his own intelligence.
@John
It’s still not clear to me what you’re claiming, or what you think it means. I *think* you’re referring to the fact that only companies with federal contracts have to post this, which is like saying only companies with employees have to post it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_100_Contractors_of_the_U.S._federal_government
Even if it were so limited (it’s not), I gave a plausible, non-humanitarian reason for any company to put up the posters for a law they are already obliged to follow.
Remember, not being murdered is a privilege.
(Sorry. This cannot be repeated enough.)
lee coye:
The irony is strong in this one.
—
Tethys: “Also notable: Leaving the largest group of lynchings out as it was done almost exclusively to black men, and omitting the detail of WHY those white men were lynched.”
Lee:
Sure. You wrote:
In the first clause there, Tethys refers to your comparing the lynching of white men with black women; in the second, Tethys refers to your leaving out the reason for that comparison.
—
I too doubt that your incompetence has escaped the lurkers to whom you appeal.
(Or that you need help, alright ;) )
Gee Lee, the liar and bullshitter, not every company has federal contracts (we don’t have federal contracts where I work.). If you lie about that, what else will you lie about? Since you are a liberturd and MRA, that means everything, which is why all statements must be backed by third party evidence. Or you tacitly acknowledge you lie and bullshit….
You’re life isn’t over if you get raped. It’s over by definition if you’re dead. It’s horrible, and some victims commit suicide, but most recover and would tell you to pound sand if you were to tell them that their life is over. I know some victims of rape, and I can make them laugh, and feel safe, and they can love, and live, and bring joy to other people. I don’t know any victims of murder who can have these feelings, or these experiences.
But this isn’t really a comparison. It isn’t as though every black woman not killed was raped. Further, bringing rape into the discussion (shocking move on FTB, never would have expected it) ignores the very simple point I was making; namely, that women are privileged in ways that men aren’t, and this is one example.
The problem with lynching is not that the victims weren’t guilty of the accusations, it’s that due process was subverted by a mob rule. The fact that you (or whoever it was) would suggest that the white males probably had it coming is to fail to understand the problem with lynching, and fail to empathize with certain human beings on account of their sex or race. It’s blatant hypocrisy.
lee coye:
Why do you imagine I think of you as a dolt? :)
Yawn, still no one shred of real evidence int Lee’s fuckwitted and bigoted testament. That is the trouble withe presuppositionalists of any stripe, be they godbots, creobots, or MRAbots. They can’t back their claims with evidence, which is absolutely expected in true adult intellectual argument….
Lee, are you seriously arguing that black women being raped instead of being killed is an example of female privilege? Seriously?
I think it’s your pedantic nature, frankly, given how hair-splitting and irrelevant your ambiguous point is.
lee coye:
Like that, is it?
Well, let me tell you something: Real men are privileged in ways that you whining MRAs aren’t, too — for one thing, we ain’t you; for another, we have a sense of perspective.
—
More to the point, leaving rape out of it when you refer to the life-experience of (in particular) women in America is to ignore the historical reality.
There is no papering-over that infamy.
=> 1787, second paragraph. Read slooooooooowwly.
This, from somebody who can’t (link) to real evidence? Gee, why do you keep lying, bullshitting, and pretending you testament is anything other than bullshit? Oh, right, your EGO….
Hey, that’s my line! Look, if you’re not going to leave the MRA rhetoric to me, how are we ever going to know which of us is the asshole?
No, it’s to discuss one aspect of female privilege. In particular, an extremely obvious form of it, extreme in the disparity and extreme in the impact. I keep saying that you can’t generalize privilege, this is one example among many others.
Well that should fucking answer everything. Except for those victims who never feel secure enough to be able to do so.
But lee coye says so, no need for any rape victims to counter him.
Yawn, what a fuckwit lacking intelligence, honesty and integrity. Since you meant it to be sarcastic.
Then you should be able to cite literature to back up your OPINION. And OPINION which is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Your WORD is bullshit until you prove otherwise.
[correction]
More to the point, leaving rape out of it when you refer to the life-experience of black (in particular) women in America is to ignore the historical reality.
lee coye:
Real men don’t mewl that they’re oppressed and don’t whine that women have it better.
(You’re lesser than me even at being an asshole, O piteous one)
Lee Coye seems profoundly ignorant that part of the “official” policy (not necessarily government-sanctioned as such, but certainly widely practiced of groups-in-power toward groups-they-oppressed was the “kill the men and rape the women” pattern.
Why?
Easy. Rape the women, and a non-insignificant number of the them will subsequently give birth to half-blooded children. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the undesirable group is eradicated.
I will point out that this pattern has been followed to a tee by:
(1) The janjaweed militias in Darfur
(2) various groups in the Balkan wars (google “rape camps” if you want…)
(3) slave owners in the Antebellum US south
(4) white people in dealing with Native Americans, both North and South
as well as many other examples.
The only time a woman would be killed is if she was deemed “unsuitable” for this.
Noelplum99 quoted by PZ:
Trolls mixed up with idiots. :)
Real stupid men do mewl endlessly about oppression.
Case in point; I asked lee why those white men were lynched and he replied thusly
No, wrong.
I’m giggling right now.
Neither do real women.
You are historically ignorant if you do not understand the pivotal role which rape played in the lynching of black men. White men were lynched mainly because of murder accusations. Black men were lynched for *drumroll* (and here I come to the point which I repeat my initial comment on this topic): accusations of raping white women. This hyper-retaliation for white women was due to inherently sexist ideals – yes, chivalry is sexist – that the women who were doing the accusing, or the women (white women) whose honor was being defended. Unfortunately the statistics do not speak to such a charitably misguided reason. If it were the case that white women had the privilege, then why is the prevalence of accusations of rape among the white men who were lynched so low? No, the chivalrous reason is an excuse.
Now as to why black women and women in general were not frequently lynched, I suppose you’re referring to postbellum statistics in the south, it is due to the fact that freed black women couldn’t vote and posed no threat of being politically mobile in a direct way.
So there’s your explanation for the way things were. No privilege, just racism (which is a method of controlling privilege.)
Imagine that I completed the sentence.
Remember, lee coye said in #1763 this: Yes, any way you twist it, not getting killed is a privilege. What is a contradiction when you are fighting against shit flinging feminists?
Wrong. Lynchings were often a community affair. Wait, I see no women here.
That was not your point in pulling out this bullshit about lynching. And you fucking know it. Your point was that less black women were lynched then white men, therefore privilege.
So, the same mob action against black men that murdered thousands of innocent black men somehow never killed white men who did not deserve it?
I fail to see why you think you are defending your position so well.
@1804
Tethys, put down the shovel(or pitchfork, as the case may be), put on your reading glasses.
YOU said:
As though some pertinent details would somehow justify a mob of people acting as judge, jury, and executioner in clear violation of constitutional protections.
I pointed out, in aghast and no little humor, that your claim amounted to implying the white men who got lynched deserved it.
(Here is where it gets good)
THEN you come back and, as though you asked a straightforward question:
No, you didn’t “ask” me anything of the sort, you implied that I had omitted important reasons that would justify their lynching.
But whatever, that was…like…a whole twenty comments ago, right? AIN’T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT:
So you quote me making fun of you, as though I was providing a non-sarcastic answer, and then, with all the moral authority and righteous indignation of the horde:
You really can’t write this stuff. MOAR, tethys, please.
Yes i realize i contradicted myself. Damn you, whiskey…
lee coye:
True. They confront you with reality, instead.
Which is why you mob call those who do speak out “feminazis” and “radfems”; they don’t fit into your stereotype of womanhood because they’re assertive.
(Get used to it)
Oh, wow, it’s ALL of you now? I’m about to asphyxiate from paroxysms of stunned laughter.
No one understands that 1779 is a list of Tethys’ repugnant claims, presented sarcastically, and followed by a paragraph noting how idiotic those claims are?
Should I come back later, when you all get your rabies shots?
Recommended reading for Lee Coye. It’s probably in your library.
You’re tone deaf if you can’t parse an instance of privilege from rape. From a purely statistical point of view, speaking of having a mob come around and hang you by a tree for any reason, you were far safer as a woman than a man, even if you were black. That doesn’t deny that black women, or women in general, have other negative experiences eg rape.
It’s a fairly simple point: you were less likely to be lynched as a woman of any race, even when lynching was a common occurrence, and it even impacted your safety as a cruelly, and legally, oppressed class. Thus, one form of female privilege.
lee coye:
Bullshit.
(And “stunned laughter” is an oxymoron ← that is pedantry)
You’ve never left, so you can hardly come back ← so is that.
How fucking difficult it must be to be thee only rational man surrounded by a bunch of shit flinging hysterical feminists.
It must be just like being surrounded by a gang of violent knife carrying feminists.
No idiot lee. Those are your claims. Do not ascribe one bit of your hateful world-view to me.
Now answer the question. Why were those white men lynched?
Yes, women are far less likely to die violent deaths. Because they weren’t a threat. Because they HAD NO PRIVILEGE.
Fucking hell, you’re dense.
lee coye:
You don’t know to what parsing refers, do ya?
(Hint: it doesn’t mean ‘comprehend’ and it doesn’t mean ‘distinguish’)
All of us understand that you are a racist, misogynistic, asshat.
Furthermore, we understand that the list of things that lee coye is abysmally ignorant of currently runs to several hundred entries. (and grows with every post lee makes)
Ol’ Lee is one dumb cracker! Dude, did it ever occur to you that one reason why more white men were lynched is because there were simply more white men?
Lee is as stupid as he is reprehensible.
Educate me. Go on, provide a justification for a mob dragging someone out of their home and stringing them up from a nearby tree. Let’s hear it.
lee coye brings up lynching and now he demands the we answer for it.
So one definition of privilege is being more likely to die a violent death. This is the danger in defining a group as privileged, which I alluded to earlier. When even an objectively negative marker of the average experience of a group can be classed as a privilege, the term loses it’s functional meaning. By this logic, black men were privileged over white men in that time period.
That’s not the sense of ‘why’ which was meant. The sense of ‘why’ was meaning ‘what motivation was there’. That you would attempt to twist it to imply that there was a rhetorically justifying answer for the lynching of white men shows the depths of your dishonesty.
lee coye: You’re a disingenuous specimen, aren’t ya?
It was you who introduced lynching into the discussion, so the onus is on you to explain its relevance. Here:
(bah)
Xander Harris says it best.
What do you think I am trying to do, you lazy POS?
I didn’t ask for a justification. I asked you to go learn why white men were lynched.
Show your work!
And here again you’re being intentionally oblivious to the meaning of the words as they were presented to you. (Though some would argue that it isn’t intentional, I could not say.)
They were not privileged due to their predisposition to being killed. They were being killed due to the fact that they were the ones with the privilege, the ones with power, the ones with wealth. You have the definition twisted on it’s head because… why? Oh, that axe you have to grind. Totally forgot about that.
PZ has been notified of lee coye’s commenting issues.
A. R (Monitor)
You know, I thought I had actually witnessed the extent of lee coye’s total absence of honesty. And then he goes plunging past it like a naughty five-year-old.
1800+ comments in, I’d think he was already aware. :)
This thread is like an affair with a zombie, I keep coming back to it even though I know it’s just trying to eat my brains.
He’s gone to lynching now to illustrate female privilege? For real? I’m halfway to believing my suggestion way upthread where I postulated lee coye was actually an AI programmed with AVFM talking points. C’mon, a heuristic fail is more plausible than anyone actually trying to make an argument along those lines!
But really, lee coye…
A better conclusion would be that just completely failed to understand the logic involved here, snuggles. Or that you’re just a dishonest hack.
I’m a pretty kind, compassionate person. I try not to judge. So when I see someone spouting gibberish like lee has been, my first instinct to be charitable and say to myself, “Well bless them, they’re speaking out of ignorance, with any luck the Horde will point them to some good sources and they will learn.”
Then, when someone (like lee) continues to spout nonsense, or even (like lee) begins to spout Deep Gibberish, I enter Phase Two, and I say to myself, “Oh, I see the poor dear is deeply stupid, and will require a few gentle whacks with the Hammer of Knowledge. Which the Horde will happily supply.”
But when someone (such as, say, lee) then resorts to Deeper Gibberish From Beneath the Realm of Go Fuck Yourself, I have no other option but to conclude, sadly, that the person is, in fact, a complete and utter assmuffin.
Over all of these many, many posts, lee has made zero attempt to argue honestly or to make any point that rests in the sphere of reality. He has no actual point, he just wants to stir the shit by acting the obtuse shit-flinger. Bereft of anything worth saying, he refuses to stop saying it.
No, you didn’t, though you have now. What you said was:
You’ve here suggested that there is some detail to explain “WHY those white men were lynched.” Here’s the problem: there are no justifying reasons. It’s illegal, unethical, and irresponsible, no matter who it happens to.
The various reasons given for white men being lynched, of which there have been a few, are on the one hand comically false, while on the other are indicative of a double standard. However, this response from you all is a very important learning experience for feminists who might be reading this. If something bad happens to a protected group, it’s tragic and there are no mitigating or justifying reasons, to even suggest it was anything but a conspiracy of the white male patriarchy is to be a horrendous human being. Alternatively, if something bad happens to a non-protected group, it’s justifiable and the result of them being so damned rich and privileged. Yes, they were individuals, probably exceedingly poor, demonstrably less powerful than the mob that came to kill them, or the blacks who were strung up in the same time period, but those are minor details which stand as just as invisible as the legions of underprivileged white men in your reality space.
Still, though, since most of the recent responses have been pretty inept, lets examine what I’ll call the PC Dilemma. So we have thousands of black men accused of raping white women, and the pictures and stories would suggest that those and other women were complicit in the punishment being meted out. Men given no trial before being beaten and hung. Now we come to the dilemma:
1. If all, or most, of those accusations were accurate(cause women don’t lie about rape), didn’t they deserve that punishment? After all, they were rapists.
2. If most, or all, of those accusations were inaccurate(cause black men aren’t evil), why is there no serious consideration of false rape accusations?
It might not be obvious, or, lets be honest, even discernible for some of you, but this does actually present a dilemma. If you accept (1), you’re bound to hold that most of the black men lynched deserved it, which is to do down a protected class (might even say the patriarchy did a good thing *gasp*). If you accept (2), we’re facing a human rights emergency in the form of innocent men being falsely accused, imprisoned, and their lives destroyed. Abrogating due process, not protecting the anonymity of the accused, and pushing for lowered standards of evidence to secure a conviction is, in the face of (2), tantamount to consigning men just as innocent as those lynched to a punishment nearly as severe.
So? Racist, or MRA? What will it be, horde? (I’m guessing mental gymnastics).
So now we know. lee coye’s actual reason for bringing up lynching in the first place was because he had this oh-so-clever plan to turn it into BITCHES LIE ABOUT RAPE HURR DURRR.
Yeah. Doesn’t work that way outside of MRA lodge meetings, idiot.
Another “gottcha” moment made irrelevant by lack of third party evidence. YOUR WORD IS BULLSHIT WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP LEE. NO EVIDENCE, YOU WORD IS *FLOOSH* DISMISSED AS BULLSHIT. *floosh*
Wow. 1838, in which we see the establishment of Duke U, the first transatlantic paddle steamer service, and the coronation of Queen Victoria. Keep up the good work, y’all!
Ah, lee coye’s master plan. Because thousands of black men were lynched, mostly on charges of rape; modern feminists are somehow pulling a similar abuse of power when the topic of rape is discussed.
Never mind that feminists are not calling for the extrajudicial use of hanging against rapists, many are seeking to work on racial issues, trying to make rape an issue that is taken seriously and handled withing lawful means and working with men who wish to stop rape from happening.
I said this before and it is fucking worth repeating, lee coye is nowhere near as intelligent as he thinks he is.
There is no need for mental gymnastics to prove if lee coye is a MRA or racist. He is both. His arm waving is all the prove that is needed.
So… if we accept that probably most of the rape accusations used to trigger lynch mobs against black men were false, we must also accept that contemporary rape accusations, about 100 years after lynching culture reached its zenith, are false at a similar rate? Even knowing that rape accusations these days lead to lynch mobs against the accused about zero percent of the time, and accusing someone of rape is no more likely to lead to the accused rapist’s public excoriation than it is to lead to the public excoriation of the person reporting the rape.
Yeah… Lee, you’re just kinda dumb. But I guess that’s kind of required to believe MRA bullshit, such as thinking that it’s bullshit that women haven’t been oppressed for centuries.
Oh yeah, and you’re racist as well as misogynist, but I’m sure you already knew it. The only puzzling part is why you don’t act more proud of what is clearly a central defining aspect of your self-identity.
You’re a dishonest ass. This was never about justifying the lynching of white men, but about explaining the disparity in their being targeted. Your persecution complex must have carried over from the time where you were a Christian.
You continue to twist the definition here. Try using straight line logic, not this fucking silly-straw logic which apparently goes on in your head.
You are a lying shit here, again, as no one has ever attempted to justify lynching, for any reason. Fucking stop.
Because the scrutiny of the court system, societal attitudes, rarely made it possible for an economically deprived white woman to get a rape conviction. The demands for satisfying sufficient evidence, the accusations about her character, were all scrutinized. Simply put, there was no hope of even true rape convictions for a poor white woman, even against a black man in the south. And let’s not oversimplify here, women who would make false rape accusations in the past were usually doing it as a way to protect themselves from the men of society. Were she a willing participant in intercourse with a black man, free or slave, what do you think the outcome would have been for either of them during that era and she was pregnant?
I’m going to go with you being a black & white thinker. Your dilemma is grey.
SallyStrange, I have to make a correction. The zenith of lynching was not a century ago. There were a lot of lynching of black veterans of the Great War from 1918 into the twenties. Lots of photos of lynchings from the twenties through the forties are easy to find. And as late at 1948, their was the Dixiecrat Party(an offshoot of the Democratic Party) with Strom Thurmond as it’s presidential candidate, with a platform that included opposition to a federal anti-lynching law.
Many of the Dixiecrats moved over to the Republican party twenty years later as part of a combination of George Wallace’s political activity and Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy.
Sorry, you’re right – I was thinking of the 1930s as being the zenith (with a slow tail of decline after that), but I guess that’s closer to 80 years ago. Thanks for clarifying.
Clearly, racist MRA.
So why were the white men lynched?
Clearly they were lynched on the orders of the radfems.
Jesus fuck. I get distracted and this thread bloats up to over 1800 comments, all driven by one FLAMING ASSHOLE, Lee Coye. He has posted a grand total of 337 comments in precisely two threads: this one and the “Why shouldn’t women serve in the military” thread.
I really hate broken records who play one note over and over and over again, and turn threads into a milling melee because they’re so fucking obtuse they can’t pay any attention. And I especially hate sexist racist twits, like Coye.
YOU’RE DONE, LEE COYE. BYE.
that doesn’t make it marxist any more than it makes it capitalist.
in fact, it’s best described as opportunist, since to get rights passed in most western societies, any minority basically has to make the class argument in order to even make progress. This should not be puzzling, since, as you yourself note, you are not arguing with Marx’s thesis about the struggle of class vs class/
this was the same method used to obtain votes for women too, btw. and the same used during the civil rights movement.
ever ask yourself why that is, Lee?
of course not, as you seem to be really more about defense than reflection, but the hint was in Marx’s writings, which was kinda why I brought up the subject again, but you seem to have missed it.
maybe someday, when you really actually CARE about your OWN rights, let alone someone else’s, you’ll start to be more reflective about how YOU go about maintaining your own rights, and why those methods are dependent on the past history of the society you claim those rights in.
*Enters with the HazMat unit of of the Pullet Patrol™ in full gear to clean up the egotistical debris. After cleaning the residual toxic waste, checks the atmosphere and surfaces.*
You may resume your normal discussions.
could be neither. could be both.
could be an entirely ignorant hole digger suffering from Dunning Kruger.
it’s just so hard to tell any more.
I heard it was done on the direct orders of Rebecca Watson herself!
*makes sign of warding*
I have to say, that looking back on it, I’m terribly sad to see so much suffering inflicted on people through the fallout generated by “elevatorgate”, but it has been VERY educational as to the reality of how internet communication will unfold in this time, and what impacts it will have, and that it’s way past time we looked at this new social media as just what it is, new, and serious, and that it has lasting impacts.
There simply is no realistic way to say the internet is not part of the “real world” any more.
It’s time it was taken much more seriously; this is a NEW way of communicating, that has NEVER happened to human society before, and the impacts of it are just now starting to be realized.
Brave new world indeed. We all need to be way more careful in this space than we typically are.
duh, it was so that Lee could use it to irrationally defend an untruthful statement he made on the internet.
why else?
PZ
Thank you! I’m so glad he’s gone I’m all teary eyed.
He was insufferable. Seriously with “Women are raped instead of killed so be thankful” shit was triggering for me.
My abuser told me that SO many times before, after and during beating and raping me. The threat of death was always there and I actually tried to end my life to get out of the abuse. It’s so easy to brush off how horrific and terrifying being treated, manipulated and groomed that way is with “At least your not dead!”. There are times still I wish I died before, either by his hand or mine just to stop having to deal with how hard it is living on afterwards. It was a life and death struggle then and it’s still a struggle to live now. I’m not the same person. I never will be the same. So many things are different, I can’t even….
Anyways, thank you again for banning him finally. He spread his bullshit, pain and misery long enough.
And there was much rejoicing! Yay!
JAL, I fear I may have steered him toward that direction with my little ‘challenge’ to him to argue that topic. I had not expected him to actually do just that. He’s more Vulcan than I had anticipated. Except for the whole “live long and prosper” thing.
Lee Coye if you’re still there, gloating over your own martyred avatar, nobody gets to tell a victim of abuse how they should feel about their abuse, how much better off they are with their situation compared to anyone else. Period.
“In the U.S., where ninety-six percent of the reported perpetrators of rape are white, eighty percent of the men in prison for rape are black.”
Joseph Weinberg & Michael Biernbaum, Conversations of Consent: Sexual Intimacy without Sexual Assault
Still happening.
Looks like someone just earned his “I got banned by the FTB BULLIES!” badge.
Thanks, PZed.
Obligatory
*tosses a handful of dirt in the grave and walks away*
Sorry. Can’t resist!
#1859. Charles Darwin publishes the Origin of Species.