You know it’s interesting the tendency lately from feminists as well as mens rights advocates to compare themselves to black people…these sad, sick, silly and insane attempts to ‘steal’ the statistics of these poor people is nothing but an attempt to get more attention for feminist’s or MRA’s own pet causes (mostly themselves).
It reminds me of a few months ago when MRAs were running all over the internet with the phoney crisis of boys doing poorly in school. It turns out that the real crisis was one for black and hispanic boys ONLY and MRAs were trying to manipulate the statistics and make them applicable to all boys. It appeared to be another of their ongoing attempts to paint themselves as victims of discrimination and to get public policies changes made in schools based upon misleading the public.
Sigh…
Yet they continue trying to claim they are not the flip side of gender neutralized feminism with the use of phoney statistics.
Another similarity I’ve noticed with the two groups is the way they BOTH continue denigrating nursing mothers. There is this sick obsession with comparing a mother nursing her child with a man peeing somewhere in public.
Hello idiots, a mother nursing her child in public is not in any way, shape or form the same as a man deciding to expose himself and urinate in the bushes. He NEEDS to use the mens’ bathroom, yet a nursing mother should NOT be forced into the restroom to feed her kid.
Following the link below to see what I’m talking about.
Sigh…
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=370
Reclusive Leftist
feminism, politics, and random pedantry with your host, Dr. Violet Socks
September 2nd, 2006
The difference between sexism and racism
One is acceptable; the other isn’t.
Imagine if the host of a popular TV show on dog training had made the following remarks:
“Black people are the only species that is wired different from the rest. They always apply affection before discipline. White people apply discipline then affection, so we’re more psychological than emotional. All animals follow dominant leaders; they don’t follow lovable leaders.”
He would probably be fired, don’t you think? But professional dog-trainer/fucktard Cesar Millan made precisely these remarks about women — substitute “woman” for “black people” in the paragraph above, re-conjugate the verbs as necessary, and voilá: the Cesar Millan Theory of Gender. Somehow I don’t think he’s going to lose his job. He’s just a crazy colorful Latino, right?
And before any of you rush to inform me that the random remarks of some dog handler don’t amount to a hill of beans in this godforsaken world, dig it: I know. Well aware. I’m not going to start a petition to have Cesar Millan censored, fired, or placed in a choke collar and firmly brought to heel. Actually, the damage he’s doing to dogs is of far more concern to me than his asinine views on gender. I just think little drive-by examples of sexism are interesting precisely because they illustrate so well what we take for granted. In this case, that it’s still basically okay to announce in public that women are an inferior “species” who are more emotional than men.
30. will says:
Violet:
The difficulty is one of self-identification and of identifying your self-interest.
But I want to go back to your starting point:
He identified women as being more inclined to start with affection.
You identified that as a weak trait, not him.
Are you suggesting that men and women are the same?
Are there any gender differences?
If so, is it acceptable to point them out?
Hasn’t this very blog identified actions that are inherently male?
September 4th, 2006 at 2:36 pm EST
31. Violet says:
You identified that as a weak trait, not him.
1. I’m basing my reading on the NYTimes article on Millan’s remarks. He apparently thinks women are weak, emotional, whatever.
The only sexual differences I think we can be absolutely sure of are the obvious biological ones: women give birth and suckle, men can pee standing up. Other than that, everything is potentially cultural. Nature versus nurture, and so far everything we’ve traditionally considered nature has turned out to be nurture. Even greater aggressiveness in males, which it’s tempting to think of as innate given its almost ubiquitous manifestation, may not be: controlled testing hasn’t supported a difference between males and females in this regard, and there are in fact some cultures where men are considered intrinsically more gentle than women. Whenever I refer to men’s general behavior, the assumption is always that we’re talking about socially conditioned norms, not intrinsic traits.
September 4th, 2006 at 2:46 pm EST
*************************************************
“Actually, the damage he’s doing to dogs is of far more concern to me than his asinine views on gender.”
BTW, Cesar Millan has probably SAVED more dogs from being put to sleep by modifying their behavior then any other human being alive. As people will give a dog away to a shelter (where they'll generally have three days for adoption before being killed) for barking too much, fighting with other dogs, biting people in their house, etc.,
"Even greater aggressiveness in males, which it’s tempting to think of as innate given its almost ubiquitous manifestation, may not be: controlled testing hasn’t supported a difference between males and females in this regard, and there are in fact some cultures where men are considered intrinsically more gentle than women."
If such a culture ever existed I've never heard of it...in the human OR the animal world. The male is the larger, stronger and more aggressive in every species, as well as our own. AND please nobody email me about some spider, fish or other off the edge of the bell-shaped curve creature they read about in National Geographic where the female is bigger then the male. As I don't care about these odd creatures. I'm talking about the vast middle of the curve where most living beings reside, not some freak example that gender neutralized feminists or MRAs tout everytime they are trying to make a misleading point.
Anyway, this is more of the gender neutralized bullcrap that has led to many women getting killed in Iraq, for instance. When by law, they were not supposed to be there in the first place.
Back in the 90s, Les Aspin barred all women from the front lines and ALL Special Forces units after research was done that demonstrated how even the best women with Special Forces training could not beat in combat the average man with no special training. The most women could do was hold their own for some limited period of time, while not suffering any life-threatening injury...these were women, as I said above, given Special Forces training. YET they still were no match for the average man in combat. They were not even able to beat the below-average man which is generally the men that the armed forces is trying to screen out...
Those who want to know more about this should read the online article "What Kind of Nation Sends Women into Combat" by syndicated columnist R. Cort Kirkwood who served on the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. April 16, 2003. Or better yet find a link to the Presidential Commission's own report and then post a link to it here so I can read it...
Anyway gender-neutralized feminists are the reason many women are still in Iraq today. As Congress wanted to bring those women home but the Pentagon along with Kim Gandy of NOW convinced Congress to ignore their own law. The Pentagon was facing a shortage of men enlisting since the Iraq War had started; so even though they were the main proponents of the front line ban of women instituted by Les Aspin, they short-sightedly changed their minds due to this temporary enlistment shortage of men they were facing.
The blood of those women, who were not equipped to handle combat, is directly on the hands of the Pentagon and especially on the hands of feminists who forced those women to remain in Iraq to move forward on their gender-neutral agenda.
Thus as I've been saying for a while now, gender-neutralized feminists have forfeited the right to claim they speak for women and should have no more attention paid to their claims of advocacy then any other group.
All in all, the angry comments directed to Dr. Violet Socks by those enraged at her false analogy were totally justified. As not only was she attempting to minimize the real historic suffering of black people in this country by this trite comparison of hers, but feminists like her have contributed to the real-world suffering right now of this very same group. As sadly I believe many of the service women forced to remain in Iraq (due to the attempts at social engineering by gender-neutralized feminists) are African-Americans as well...
Thus she must accept responsibility for her error of judgment, apologize and work to get back into the good graces of the various individuals and groups of people she publicly tried to denigrate through her thoughtless posting.
13 comments:
I'm baffled by these women who seem to feel miffed if women aren't as BAD as the boys. It's like they feel ashamed, as if we're wimps of something.
I was looking at a website on capital punishment recently, and it appears that since the 1600s at least, women have never made up more than 10% of those arrested for murder. Sometimes less, but never more. Sure, gender expectations can change over time. It's more acceptable to become a doctor today than it was 100 years ago. But when you see that certain characteristics just don't budge much over 400 years or more, it doesn't make sense to argue that people are just "the same." Interesting, because some have argued that women are given special preference in terms of the death penalty. Not really. If you look at those times when the treatment was more "equal," it was because women were being executed for such "major" capital crimes as slave revolts, concealing a birth (?), adultery, etc. Some FRA's have argued that women were never caught because poisonings weren't detected. If this were true, we should be finding lots of women getting caught through modern forensic science. And though not all women are non-criminal, the numbers continually and chronically fall short compared to men. Sexist conditioning? I don't think so. Our numbers in the professions, the arts, the sciences, etc. are always improving (even if we don't get to the top because of family conflicts and general lack of support)but AS A GROUP--with individual exceptions of course, we just don't act out violently.
Oh, of course.
It's ridiculous for people to keep arguing that women are just as violent as men...they keep claiming that chivalry keeps the statistics for western women low; but how does that explain that in every other society the numbers reflect the same differentials?
Ten to one in western societies and 20 to one in others.
Men outnumber women in violent crimes and other aggressive behaviors by 10 to one in the west and 20 to one in other societies.
If you read "Taking Sex Differences Seriously" the author Steven Rhodes has outlined all of these statistics.
This is more nonsense from MRAs and gender neutralized feminists.
The name of the author is Steven E. Rhoads...
I always mispell this guy's name.
I don't know why.
BTW, looking at Rhoads statistics it appears men are statistically more violent, anti-social and prone to break the rules in other societies...not less...
So if these MRAs were correct about chivalrious Judges and courts in the west being the ONLY reason statistically more men then women are arrested and charged with more crime here, wouldn't our numbers reflect just the opposite of what they do now...we would have fewer women reflected in our statistics, not more then other societies, the way we have now...as this so-called chivalrious effect would be at work...
I mean looking at the numbers aren't western womens' stats on violence worse...as men only outnumber us by 10 to 1 in violent statistics; whereas in other places men outnumber women by 20 to 1...
So what does this mean?
That places like Pakistan, Iran or China let's say are MORE CHIVALRIOUS towards women on crime then western society.
I don't think so...
Actually I think they are WORSE...
Actually nymom you have your facts wrong. In a 1999 study, it was found that women are 2 times likely as men to poison someone. Overall the incidence of murder is about equal to both sexes, but men are more likely to get caught for thier actions. Actuall women are more likely to kill someone close to them(lover or relative) and women do it more for money and men more for love. You might want to check your facts a little closer nest time.
No. It's you who have your facts wrong. I mean if women don't get "caught" how do you know a murder has been committed...
Quite obviously the percentage of people who are "caught" ie., convicted of a murder (or any crime) are what we base statistics on...
Following your logic or lack thereof, we could make up any number for x and just say well x commits more murders then y but x never gets caught...
So what sense does that make????
Even the fact that women use poison more as a 'weapon' tells me nothing about the murder rate as how many people die of poison versus getting shot to death or stabbed???a heck of a lot more people get stabbed or shot to death I'll wager...
I'm going to listen to the statistics of a man like Steven Rhoads or even the FBI before listening to what you just sprouted. As it's totally meaningless drivel...
Bloggernoggin is an idiot.
Assume for the same of argument that he is right, that women do tend to poison more often. With modern forensic science they should be getting caught, right? So the numbers of female murderers should be approaching 50%, right? Nope. It's still far lower than men. Women are far more likely to kill someone close to them, but more women than men are still killed by intimates. And given that very few women in the history of crime have preyed on strangers--spree killings, mass killings, drive-by shootings, sexually-motivated violence--you are still left with a preponderance of murderers that are male.(I swear that every woman who ever did anything resembling a spree killing has been written about to death. Every single one has been named, that's how rare and unusually interesting they are to people who take an interest in such things. And even then, it's not always clear how much they were the clueless, more-or-less passive accomplice of a male killer, just going along for the ride vs. an equal participant.)
Unfortunately, it seems that MRA's don't like this. And also some women, who fervently want to believe that we can really be "bad to the bone" too, like it's some kind of honor. Well, you can find bad individuals of any gender, any background. Still doesn't change the fact that over centuries in every culture, men have dominated aggressive, violent crime.
The bigger idiot however is that Warren Farrell. He's the one who came up with that ridiculous idea that women are skilled with special poisons that we use to secretly murder people...
It's the stupidest thing I ever heard of...I can't really take someone seriously who would even suggest that as a reason for the lower rate of female murderers...
When they say women usually murder someone they know, they are generally referring to children...as just in the wild there are deviant mothers who abandon or kill their young...it doesn't mean that we should hand over all cubs, fawns, babies, etc., to the male of any species to raise. In most species they'd be eaten for lunch by males. It just shows that sometimes mothers are deviant...
Additionally the statistics that Steven Rhoads uses are not just for murder. He uses domestic as well as international statistics on all sorts of crimes...as murder is not the only way to measure deviance.
AND men do more of that stuff too...From drug running to terrorism they predominate in all these areas. Except for prostitution I would say and let's face it most of these prostitution rings are run by men although women are the ones working in them...of course selling themselves to men as well...
Also crimes committed by strangers are the most frightening to most people...as they are random and there is nothing you can do to protect against them. You can live a good life, not hang around in bars or drive drunk, have good friends, pay your taxes and go to church every Sunday YET some jerk off you don't even know can come out of left field and assault or even murder you...
So those are the random crimes of violence that MOST people are most afraid of...and those sorts of crimes are mainly committed by men...
I mean yes, it's horrible that mothers like Susan Smith or Andrea Yates exist YET more people are afraid of some jerk running up to them in the parking lot and robbing them or carjacking them at a red light...
I've actually read somewhere recently that even in those early so-called 'matriarchal' societies that it's come to light that the remains of some of the earliest inhabitants had different eating habits.
The males it appears ate more meat, while the females mostly grain/veg products...they analyzed the bones...
So it shows that even in societies that they claim women were so powerful, we were still getting the shaft (or the chaff)...
Remember these weren't placs where farming had even taken off yet, so there was no rice, wheat or cereal crops grown yet...so you really had to hunt around to find enough roots and berry, nuts, etc., to keep a human body going...no wonder men evolved bigger then us...they were eating all the high protein food and leaving women with the chaff (or should I say the shaft) again...
LOL...
Goodbye bloggernoggin, you poor sick, sad, degenerated idiot.
I'm deleting all your posts going forward...
NYMOM said, "That places like Pakistan, Iran or China let's say are MORE CHIVALRIOUS towards women on crime then western society."
Please don't group China in with Pakistan and Iran. China is a very different country from these conservative Muslim countries. Very different. Despite the common misconception that the Chinese kill all their daugthers, the women in China do actually have opportunities much on the same scale as women in the Western world.
Furthermore -- and this isn't directed at NYMOM in particular -- I find Cesar Millan's comments upsetting not because he's saying women aren't as "bad" as men, but because I take his comments to mean that women aren't as good as men. He says that women are emotional (ie not intellectual). I, on other hand, know we can be both smart and strong, but sometimes some of us opt not to be. Just like some men (Cesar Millan) opt not to be very smart when making comments.
Post a Comment