Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Ducks Going Their Own Way (DGTOW)




Donald Duck was evidently a Duck Going His Own Way. This Disney cartoon from 1954 pretty much sums up, in 7 short minutes, every single discussion on every MGTOW message board ever, right down to the little jokes about Daisy riding what we might call the “bad boy duck cock carousel.”

This is quite literally how MGTOWer’s see the world, except for the part about everyone being a duck. (Oh, and that Donald doesn’t blame modern feminism for Daisy’s behavior, as it didn’t actually exist in 1954.)

Thanks, I guess, to the fellows on MGTOWforums.com for finding this.


--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

132 comments:

  1. because god forbid men should do housework amirite?

    ReplyDelete
  2. (Oh, and that Donald doesn’t blame modern feminism for Daisy’s behavior, as it didn’t actually exist in 1954.)

    Oh, that's what you think, David. Feminists have been running the world all along. It's only in the past century that they've finally gotten men beaten down enough to come out of the closet*.

    *Gay reference intentional, because feminists are all lesbians.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you bothered to do in-depth research on MGTOW positions instead of just mining the comment sections for quotes that fit your prejudices, you would see that we don't just blame feminism and also regard pre-feminist society as also being a raw deal for men, except for the tiny elite. Feminism took what was already a lopsided deal for women and just made it even better for women and even worse for men.

    That's why the whole "reactionary bullshit" charge falls flat; we don't yearn for the 1950s or any other time in history. We're trying to create a new system, not revive an old one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. also regard pre-feminist society as also being a raw deal for men, except for the tiny elite

    And the massive historical ignorance you display every time you make this claim is a source of unending amusement, I assure you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your refusal to actually back up anything you say with evidence is a source of unending amusement for me, rest assured.

    ReplyDelete
  6. okay cold. Give us the list of the mgtow ideology. Prove to us that david is wrong and you aren't arguing for a return to the 1950's

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cold, but I was right about the duck thing, right?

    ReplyDelete
  8. You're right that he could be considered a duck going his own way, yes. The fact that our grievances were recognized back in 1954, however, proves that we are not motivated by any kind of reactionary 1950s nostalgia.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So instead you guys were motivated by the tyranny of mowing the lawn and the trauma of seeing your wife without makeup?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I see that I'm being ignored. Hmm... guess david is right after all and the MGTOW don't actually want anything other than to go back to the days when they could be abusive misogynists and no one cared

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah, I gotta agree with some previous comments.

    This is without a doubt, your lamest post yet.

    Feminism has been around way before the 1950's.

    Feminism is not the only factor to blame for the current state of western women.

    However, feminism has been a very negative influence on the current state of western women.

    Excellent display of your ignorance sir!

    This is the kind of intellectual philosophy I would expect from somebody who gets all their information from trash talk shows like Dr. Phil and Oprah.

    Go play some more video games you shut-in.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It proves that this whole MGTOW thing on the Internet has always been around way before you “feminist haters” (meaning any woman with her own opinion who won’t have sex with you) got together to bitch together.

    It proves that it didn't take feminism for "that kind of a guy" to want a woman sexually but not want them as a partner or a friend. Did the duck ever have a real conversation with the duckette? Get to know her as a person?

    It proves you are really nothing new Cold. You are simply just someone who can lust and call it love (I’d guess it happened in your teens once) and get rather pissed when your "love " is not meet in kind. There is nothing new under the sun.

    Have you ever loved someone Cold? I’m guessing you have and probably from afar. When she didn’t love you back you needed to blame both her and everyone… hence you became involved in bashing women on the Internet. It’s been a vicious circle for you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cold says this:

    Feminism took what was already a lopsided deal for women and just made it even better for women and even worse for men.

    Followed by this:

    Your refusal to actually back up anything you say with evidence is a source of unending amusement for me, rest assured.

    I think no more really need be said here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Kave - nice projection. Watch movies on it much?

    @Capt Bathroom

    "I think no more really need be said here"

    Well poot. I good not of said it butter.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well done, Scarecrow. If you can't beat 'em, at least leave 'em scratching their heads in utter confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cold, I never said that MGTOWers want a return to the 50s. As for the duck thing, I just wanted to make sure that I was correct in saying that you guys don't think we're all ducks. I would hate to be wrong about something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Actually those words were meant to be a link to a YouTube video but the link didn't appear. Here's where it was supposed to go:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1blFCznAtw

    You can skip ahead to 3:30 in the video which the beginning of a section called "A Short History of Male Privilege" where RamzPaul sarcastically addresses the ridiculous notion that men(apart from a small elite) had it better than women prior to modern feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I see that I'm being ignored.

    If you asked me to do your math homework for you I'd also ignore you. Our literature is available for free online if you are actually motivated to take it upon yourself to learn about us. You could start by reading the articles on A Voice For Men and Menz Magazine, or if videos are more you think you can view the manwomanmyth and johntheother channels on YouTube.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Scarecrow, could you clarify who your initial post was aimed at? Maybe I'm just tired, but I can't tell if you're talking to David or Cold.

    That being said, as long as we're posting old disney cartoons, this a pretty great "misguided Donald Duck" one about how tax evasion harms the war effort. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xphiYdfd-Tg

    ReplyDelete
  20. Your refusal to actually back up anything you say with evidence is a source of unending amusement for me, rest assured.

    Usually I don't cite sources when I claim, for example, that most people have two thumbs. Just because I'm talking to someone who stubbornly claims that most people have three thumbs doesn't mean my statement of obvious fact is suddenly controversial.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @tri, don't you know women only exist amoung the upperclass? (Please ignore that reality is obviously to the contrary).

    ReplyDelete
  22. @tri, don't you know women only exist amoung the upperclass?

    Ah yes, good point. Since our MRA friends are kind enough to inform us that every woman in all of history was a housewife who sat on her ass while her husband slaved away to buy nice things for her, we must assume that these and these and these are all mythical creatures. The last one is a photograph, so I suppose it's a fake, like a photo of Nessie or Bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Addendum: Manboobz has, more than any other blog, made me realize how much the MRM is steeped in class privilege as much as gender privilege. When MRAs talk about people in the past, you can be pretty certain that they're actually only talking about upper-class people. This is an easy mistake to make when looking at history - almost all of the educated people before the 20th century were rich, so they did most of the writing, so most of the narratives from previous centuries are about the upper class. So there's a natural bias there.

    It's interesting, because I don't think that the MRM is overwhelmingly upper-class. But that makes sense - if an upper-class man is incredibly sexist, he can find gold diggers to satisfy his desire for personality-free pussy. Lower- and middle-class men who are incredibly sexist have a harder time because they can't use money to compensate for their contempt for women.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The most astonishing thing in the movie is that Donald's nightmare about marriage with Daisy is just that... a nightmare. It has no basis in reality whatsoever, but it's all about Donald's anxiety. There is no proof that Daisy could actually act that way at all. In short, the MGTOW are admitting that their only problem is their fear of commitment and intimacy, and that they're projecting it on the women in their lives.
    They might as well start a website to argue that planes are evil because they crash ALL THE TIME, spam everyone with links to newspaper articles about plane crashes, and insult everyone who tries to tell them that you're more likely to die in a car crash than in a plane crash... all that because they're scared of heights.
    Gentlemen, if you don't want the nightmare scenarios that you're always talking about to come true, there's a very simple solution: don't be an idiot. There are hundreds of websites and books dedicated to the signs that the person you're dating is abusive and will do you wrong. Just learn to be a good judge of character (it's not that hard) and if you don't want to marry someone, just don't propose (or say no if she does).

    ReplyDelete
  25. Scarecrow said:

    "This is the kind of intellectual philosophy I would expect from somebody who gets all their information from trash talk shows like Dr. Phil and Oprah."

    This is coming from someone who according to his profile follows such intellectual sounding blogs as:

    "Western Women are to be used ONLY for sex"
    "Objectify Chicks"
    "Stupid Chick Tricks"

    Perhaps it's because you're such a profoundly damaged individual that you associate yourself with a scarecrow, an empty simulacra of a man.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I want to see a version from Daisy's POV. Being cooped up in the house all day, her only catharsis through consumerist impulses and spending time with her family. The former which she depends on Donald for, having no income of her own.

    She's COMPROMISING HER IDENTITY!

    ReplyDelete
  27. SimulacrUM. Singular.

    That is I mean, "going its own way."

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sam:

    Slightly pedantic, but yes. The singular of simulacra is simulacrum.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Cold said:

    "[...]you would see that we don't just blame feminism and also regard pre-feminist society as also being a raw deal for men, except for the tiny elite. Feminism took what was already a lopsided deal for women and just made it even better for women and even worse for men."

    As has already been pointed out, you are making a(profoundly zany) claim; the burden of proof is on you. If you feel up to it this should be amusing!

    P.S Sorry for the slightly intemperate tone of my last comment Scott!

    ReplyDelete
  30. "P.S Sorry for the slightly intemperate tone of my last comment Scott!"

    Err, replace Scott with Sam. I'm not having a good day!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Augh! Blogger ate another brilliant post of mine! When will this indignity end? I tell you, it's worse than dying in childbirth in a pre-industrial society--which isn't saying much, since our MRA friends will tell you, with unimpeachable authority, that pregnancy and childbirth are no big thang.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Donald apparently lives in San Francisco -- dig those crazy hills.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Perhaps it's because you're such a profoundly damaged individual that you associate yourself with a scarecrow, an empty simulacra of a man.

    Yeah, but no one can make a diarrhea joke like Scarecrow.

    Did I say "can?" I meant "would."

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Indeed, the idea that women have historically had a better life than men does reveal a class bias. But surely MRA's recognize that in pre-industrial times (which are virtually synonymous with pre-feminist times), 99% of women lived lives that were filled with unending drudgery. For that matter, most women in the world today are performing arduous, grinding labor day after day (the "affluent north" doesn't include the majority of human -beings).

    And for anyone who's tempted to think that upper-class women had it so great in pre-industrial times, I recommend a viewing of The Other Boleyn Girl to set 'em straight (the MRA's should like it because it's about hypergamy). Among other things, that movie makes it pretty clear that hypergamy is a poor substitute for having power of one's own.

    ReplyDelete
  36. However, feminism has been a very negative influence on the current state of western women.

    I'll decide what is or isn't a negative influence on my current state, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman? "

    -Sojouner Truth's response to an argument similar to cold's (that women were weak and given special consideration) in 1851 at the Akron Women's Convention

    Poor women worked in fields, factories, and mines and then came home to birth and raise babies and do all of the housework. Even the pathetic "chivalry" displays of meaningless drivel in return for being an obedient dog to the patriarchy are contingent on being wealthy, white, cis, hetero, able bodied, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  38. More proof that the MRM is still early in its "2nd wave." Perhaps they need a "meninist" faction to lead them to intersectionality.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings, and would surely perish without male protection."

    -- Queen Victoria, 1870

    Hmmm, looks like this feminism stuff has been around since 1870.

    You are clearly ignorant about feminism David.

    And, that seems to be a topic you talk about quite a bit too.

    You sir are an ignorant moron.

    In addition to this, women were employed to help aid the war effort in WWI. Once it was realized that productivity could be increased by employing women, the government forced that down their throats.

    Way before 1950 David.

    Why don't you blog about things you are not ignorant about - like masturbating in porta-potties to pictures of Mr. Bean.

    ReplyDelete
  40. David: "... Donald doesn’t blame modern feminism for Daisy’s behavior, as it didn’t actually exist in 1954."

    Scarecrow: "looks like this feminism stuff has been around since 1870. You are clearly ignorant about feminism David."

    Someone missed the word "modern".

    ReplyDelete
  41. As Jon helpfully explained to us in the last post's comments: "ALL the words count."

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hmmm, looks like this feminism stuff has been around since 1870.

    Quit harping on this point as if you're scoring some kind of victory dude. David pretty clearly said "modern feminism," not "feminism." Don't pretend there's no difference or that I'm splitting hairs. Feminism looked pretty different in 1954 than it does today.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Uh, MODERN MODERN MODERN MODERN MODERN. I was referring to second and third wave feminism. That's why I didnt' say "feminism," because obviously there were feminists before the 1960s, though very few of them used that term. (Given that I have actually referred to pre-second-wave feminism numerous times on this blog, Scarecrow, I suspect you're being willfully obtuse here. Either that or you're an even bigger idiot than I think.)

    If you were to go back to 1954, though, and use the term "feminism" people would look at you funny. No one used the term then, and there was essentially no movement for women's rights at that time. (People would know what you were talking about if you used the term Suffragette.)

    Here you go:

    "Feminism is commonly split into three “waves.” During the First Wave—the women’s suffrage movement pioneered by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and a host of other sidebars in American history textbooks—the term “feminism” wasn’t used at all. Once it entered the American lexicon, “[The word] then disappeared after the 1920s. Nobody wanted to call themselves a feminist,” says 300th Anniversary University Professor Laurel T. Ulrich. “Then it came back again in the 60s and 70s, after people realized there were a few problems to be solved.” "

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/3/7/a-brief-history-of-feminism-at/

    Scarecrow, even by your standards you've being an idiot here.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Just to make myself completely clear, the 3rd sentence in the above should read:

    That's why I said "modern feminism," instead of simply "feminism," because obviously there were feminists before the 1960s, though very few of them used that term.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This is quite literally how MGTOWer’s see the world, except for the part about everyone being a duck.

    And he complains when we state the darker trends of feminism. Stay classy, Dave.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "even by your standards you've being an idiot here"

    Yes, I agree, I've being an idiot.

    I've going to do moor resurch, and I've will get back too yoo.

    While I am doing more research, you can go back to jacking off in that porta-potty to that picture of Mr. Bean you are so fond of.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "entlemen, if you don't want the nightmare scenarios that you're always talking about to come true, there's a very simple solution: don't be an idiot. There are hundreds of websites and books dedicated to the signs that the person you're dating is abusive and will do you wrong. Just learn to be a good judge of character (it's not that hard) and if you don't want to marry someone, just don't propose (or say no if she does)."

    This is victim blaming. Men and women both end up with abusive people. It is not the fault of the victim. It is the fault of the abuser.

    It's not that hard? Really? That's some smug shit. Abusers can be extremely charismatic. Really, saying "that's not hard" is as bad as saying that it's not that hard for women to tell who the rapists are and avoid them.

    I'll raise my hand as someone who knows a man who was married to a woman who abused him. Fuck her. It was not, in any way, his fault or his responsibility to prevent.

    ReplyDelete
  48. e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73 said...

    This is quite literally how MGTOWer’s see the world, except for the part about everyone being a duck.

    And he complains when we state the darker trends of feminism.


    You mean the article that says this:

    "These results show that changes in gender role attitudes have substantial effects on pay equity," Judge said. "When workers' attitudes become more traditional, women's earnings relative to men suffer greatly. When attitudes become more egalitarian, the pay gap nearly disappears."

    And this:

    "These results cannot be explained by the fact that, in traditional couples, women are less likely to work outside the home," Judge said. "Though this plays some role in our findings, our results suggest that even if you control for time worked and labor force participation, traditional women are paid less than traditional men for comparable work."

    That's some dark trend there. And, yes, before you predictably accuse me of poor reading comprehension, etc., I realize that men with egalitarian views tend to make less than men with traditional views. I'd like to see some studies that look at the reasons for this before jumping to any conclusions. Sexism may pay, but it hardly seems worth it for a lousy $6000 a year more per couple (figuring the $8500/year advantage for traditional men minus the $1500/year advantage for feminist women).

    ReplyDelete
  49. Correction: $7000 a year. (8500-1500).

    ReplyDelete
  50. And he complains when we state the darker trends of feminism.

    ...? The fact that non-sexist men make less money on average is "dark"? First of all, making less money isn't the worst thing in the world. I know this is hard for MRAs to grasp, but given how much they whine about issues of money, it's pretty clear to me that many MRAs value a human being's worth by his or her income.

    Second, you're automatically assuming, because you want to believe it, that the causation works in a particular direction. There's no guarantee that being feminist causes you to make less money. Arguably, making more money makes a person likelier to hold traditional values. Class privilege and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  51. ScareCrow: "While I am doing more research, you can go back to jacking off in that porta-potty to that picture of Mr. Bean you are so fond of."

    OOOOH, he called you GAY! What a zinger! Now watch as David, flustered by this deeply wounding insult, struggles to defend the image of traditional wood-cutting steak-eating sex-is-a-conquest manliness he so values from the suggesting that he likes sex with men, which is inexplicably incompatible with aforementioned manly image.

    In all seriousness, though, Mr. Bean has the sexiest set of eyebrows I've ever seen.

    In even more seriousness, rachel-swirsky is right. Abusers are predatory people who often have an instinct for deceit and manipulation. Suggesting it's easy to scope them all out and avoid them is offensive and ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  52. In even more seriousness, rachel-swirsky is right. Abusers are predatory people who often have an instinct for deceit and manipulation. Suggesting it's easy to scope them all out and avoid them is offensive and ignorant.

    Agreed. Girlscientist was headed in the right direction but took a wrong turn somewhere.

    Because the real point as far as MGTOWs whining about marriage is this: If you're sexist, you're only going to attract women who are deceiving you or who are accustomed to being dependent. To be sexist and then moan that all the women you date are deceiving you or leeching off of you is hilarious. If you want to attract interesting, empowered, independent women, you're going to have to do something about your naked contempt for women, doodz. Sorry, but your cock isn't worth your asshole attitude.

    The issue of abusers is completely different, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Donald apparently lives in San Francisco -- dig those crazy hills.

    I noticed that too, and was very excited because I live there. You can see what appears to be the Golden Gate Bridge in one background. Go figure.

    Also, Donald's nightmare is remarkably similar to his nightmare of living under the Nazi regime in the famous wartime cartoon "Der Fuehrer's Face."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iumEGAUceDg

    Women: AS BAD AS HITLER.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Usually I don't cite sources when I claim, for example, that most people have two thumbs.

    If you seriously think your claims are as self-evident as the claim that most people have two thumbs then you are seriously bordering on fanaticism.

    how much the MRM is steeped in class privilege as much as gender privilege. When MRAs talk about people in the past, you can be pretty certain that they're actually only talking about upper-class people.

    Ironic considering that second-wave feminism began with women looking at the small elite of men who lived lives of power and comfort and saying "I want some of that" while completely overlooking the lives of danger, drudgery, and/or hardship that were the reality for most men.

    When we talk about people in the past we are talking about all people. Life was hard for the vast majority of the population back then, but it was harder for men in almost every case. While women were digging turnips their husbands were doing even harder work or were getting their heads chopped/blown off on the battlefield. The amount of bias it takes to overlook that is breathtaking.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "If you're sexist, you're only going to attract women who are deceiving you or who are accustomed to being dependent."

    If you're a misandrist, you're only going to draw the attention of men who want to harass or rape you. To be feminist and then moan that all the men you meet are making unwanted sexual advances or trying to rape you is hilarious.

    Note that I don't actually believe what I wrote in the above paragraph; it's a reductio ad absurdum.

    ReplyDelete
  56. It's also February 29 in the cartoon, the one day when women are "allowed" to propose to men.

    http://www.snopes.com/oldwives/february29.asp

    ReplyDelete
  57. Cold: "Ironic considering that second-wave feminism began with women looking at the small elite of men who lived lives of power and comfort and saying "I want some of that" while completely overlooking the lives of danger, drudgery, and/or hardship that were the reality for most men."

    No, actually, they looked at the privilege that men of the middle and even lower classes are granted.

    The privilege to avoid most sexual harassment, to have one's work treated as valuable and worthy, to be compensated fairly for it, to have your opinions and interests and preferences treated as normal and mainstream, not silly or incidental.

    To be a leader in your peer organizations. To have someone to be expected to defer to your authority (wife). To have books and movies and TV shows about you or written from your perspective. To wear comfortable clothes while those of the other sex wear clothes that enhance their sexual attractiveness to you.

    To judge those of the other sex by their physical sexual attractiveness while they must judge you on your actual achievements.

    ReplyDelete
  58. That's awesome when I make a point about feminists and then a feminist comes along in short order to illustrate the point. This is almost too easy.

    ReplyDelete
  59. e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73
    "By the same token, men who reject feminism tend to have higher IQ scores than those who embrace it. You can check the citations provided by The Bell Curve to see what other correlations are tied in with higher IQ."

    I used to have a copy of The Bell Curve next to my computer to look up and check on such claims, but I put it away a couple of years ago. What page?

    ReplyDelete
  60. "it's a reductio ad absurdum"

    No, it's not. It's a tu quoque. A reductio ad absurdum is when you show that ridiculous conclusions follow from stated premises. You simply replaced the wording. Now, that might be an argument if you've carefully established the parallels, but you didn't. Instead, you replaced key words to render it an indictment of the speaker. Given that there doesn't seem to be a substantive argument in that post, save your rhetorical trick, I'm willing to accuse it of being a fallacy.

    Please, please do not use latin unless you know what it means.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I know exactly what the words mean and it is a fair description of what I was doing, even if it differs from the textbook example since I was illustrating the absurdity of the logical structure rather than the premise or conclusion.

    I most certainly did not make a tu quoque, so perhaps you should take your own advice on the use of Latin to heart.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Please, please do not use latin unless you know what it means.

    Now, Erl. It's just been explained to us that misogynists have amazingly high IQs. Obviously Cold is right, and it's the Latin language that's wrong. (This is also true if the misogynists here appear ignorant of history, science, or observable reality.)

    In all seriousness, the salary advantage enjoyed by men in non-egalitarian marriages reflects the fact that, contrary to the MRA idea of homemakers as bon-bon-eating leeches, having an unpaid housekeeper, nanny, and personal secretary at home tends to be a significant career advantage. Feminists have known this since, well, always.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I wonder what the Latin phrase for this little theory on what women will do to get legal abortions.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ho! Ho! It looks like e-String is doing some quote mining of his own. You wouldn't be so kind as to mention in your little journal that I corrected my arithmetic error nearly as soon as I posted it, would you?

    As for women rejecting feminism, it's already been explained to you, in previous threads, that women generally favor the policy aims of feminism, even as they tend to reject using the actual term to describe themselves.

    And, please, The Bell Curve? I have a friend who is heavily into statistical methodology, and he's thinks The Bell Curve is crap.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Life was hard for the vast majority of the population back then, but it was harder for men in almost every case. [...] The amount of bias it takes to overlook that is breathtaking.

    Actually, the amount of bias it takes to reduce women's labor throughout history to "digging turnips" is what's breathtaking.

    In a moneyed society, most people view paid work as a privilege which allows them the opportunity to make money to feed themselves and their family. Men have had access to that privilege far more often throughout history than women did. And women wanted it, and needed it, just as much as men. Most of them would have been out working if society had allowed them to.

    ReplyDelete
  66. (sorry for the double post, Blogger seems to have issues with long comments)


    Because when those men went out and got their heads blown off on the battlefield (at the orders of and to the advantage of more powerful men, I might add), women often found themselves starving. Even those who managed to find work would almost never, prior to the 20th century, make anywhere near as much as a man. In Victorian England, some women who needed income would work as clerks in shops. When the shops were out of season, the women were out of a job until next year. But they need the money! Too bad, not the shop owner's problem. Many of those women turned to prostitution until the shops opened again.

    And you really think those women wouldn't rather be doing "man's work" and making a good salary?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Yes, trip, and that's not even taking into account the mortality rate for women in childbirth before advent of modern medicine and the widespread availability and birth control. A woman's lot in pre-industrial societies was typically to give birth as many times as they could until they were worn out or died.

    Although there may have been sound reasons for having lots of kids in the past (high infant mortality rate, the need for farm labor, lack of social security in old age), those reasons largely evaporated with the advent of modern, industrialized societies, modern medicine, and social welfare systems (especially national old age pensions). In a sense, feminism was the logical response to changing economic conditions: there was no longer the same compelling reason for the same old division of labor.

    ReplyDelete
  68. In all seriousness, the salary advantage enjoyed by men in non-egalitarian marriages reflects the fact that, contrary to the MRA idea of homemakers as bon-bon-eating leeches, having an unpaid housekeeper, nanny, and personal secretary at home tends to be a significant career advantage. Feminists have known this since, well, always.

    That seems a likely explanation for at least some of the variance, even though the study supposedly accounts for number of hours worked as a variable. If it is agreed in a standard hetero relationship that the man's career will be prioritized, then it stands to reason that the man will be able to take better advantage of good career opportunities as they present themselves. If both careers are valued equally, then there has to be some give and take in terms of career/family balance. Even if two men work the same hours on average, the man who can prioritize his career over family concerns--for example, by staying late occasionally or by being willing to relocate at the behest of the company--is likely to come out ahead in terms of salary in the long run.

    I would be curious what the effect is for gay and lesbian couples.

    ReplyDelete
  69. And, please, The Bell Curve? I have a friend who is heavily into statistical methodology, and he's thinks The Bell Curve is crap.
    This just in - your BFF Jill who associates with feminists and is "into statistical methodology" thinks "The Bell Curve is crap." Of course, I wisely foresaw such claims and hence invited you to visit the sources directly. If you're too busy doing whatever ("too busy mocking me to read an article" or whatever excuse you have not to think), you could read a little bit of the book and get a feel for the veracity of its claims before you jump to conclusions. Hell, read the wikipedia article if you're too busy to learn for a change, despite the fact that society places a third less value on your work it does on mine.

    ReplyDelete
  70. It's just been explained to us that misogynists have amazingly high IQs.
    Well, we supposed misogynists are smart enough not bitch to about prejudice, or any form of trend-analysis for that matter, while stereotyping anyone who disagrees with us. That is why we are worth more to society.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Well, we supposed misogynists are smart enough not bitch to about prejudice, or any form of trend-analysis for that matter, while stereotyping anyone who disagrees with us.

    Yep, none of the misogynists on this blog have every simultaneously gone on about how disgusting and stupid feminists are while claiming men have been the slaves of women throughout history and never get custody of their children EVER.

    None of this has ever been said on this blog. Ever. At all. Not once.



    ... why are you all looking at me like that??

    ReplyDelete
  72. People who earn more tend to be more intelligent.

    Wow. The classism in that statement is fucking staggering. Sweatshop workers, minimum-wage service industry labourers, and unpaid caretakers rejoice: you aren't being exploited! You're just stupid!

    Thanks, e-string, for proving triplanetary's point about the MRM being steeped in class privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Wow. The classism in that statement is fucking staggering.
    Here, you can see for yourself when you're done being outraged. Also, "tends to" does not equate to "always." China, for example, has a lower average income but higher IQ average. Africa has a lower IQ average than most of the world. Tends to is no the same as "always is without exception." You might want to practice thinking rationally and logically, you can't bitchfest and "oooohhh, I'm so offended!" your way out of everything in life.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Now, in a given population there is a definite correlation between scores on intelligence tests and performance on the job. I know you tend to fixate on the extremes, but many jobs will allow some degree of upward mobility. Hence, the most industrious and intelligent individuals tend to gravitate to the top.
    Did I say they always do? No, and only a feminist would be so stupid as to assume such a thing. I know that sometimes people get a bum deal and cannot advance economically and socially no matter how hard they work or how smart they are.
    However, the tendency is that smarter people pay more. I am smart enough to acknowledge that, you are not. That is probably why you have embraced your little pet theory while I have considered and rejected it.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "Gentlemen, if you don't want the nightmare scenarios that you're always talking about to come true, there's a very simple solution: don't be an idiot. There are hundreds of websites and books dedicated to the signs that the person you're dating is abusive and will do you wrong. Just learn to be a good judge of character (it's not that hard)"

    "Abusers are predatory people who often have an instinct for deceit and manipulation. Suggesting it's easy to scope them all out and avoid them is offensive and ignorant."

    Oh, look! A catfight!

    Erl Daschund said...
    "it's a reductio ad absurdum"

    "No, it's not. It's a tu quoque.
    Please, please do not use latin unless you know what it means."

    Ur so smort and edumacatid!

    Tricommunist
    "Even those who managed to find work would almost never, prior to the 20th century, make anywhere near as much as a man."

    That's because they either wouldn't or couldn't do as much work. You think men are/were paid more just because their men? Moron!

    NO amount of sexism or misogyny is going to make a businessman loose profit by paying a dude more than a wimminz for the SAME quantity/quality of work!
    What planet you from?

    (EVEN I WOULDN'T DO THIS!)

    Try using your brain just once.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Whilst women were digging turnips, we hunted the mammoth to feed you.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Well, we supposed misogynists are smart enough not bitch to about prejudice, or any form of trend-analysis for that matter, while stereotyping anyone who disagrees with us. That is why we are worth more to society."

    Is this before or after you all go Galt and start living in your cars?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Actually, Coryat, we earn more than you do. You are the ones who are more likely to leech off the welfare system and become homeless.
    I know you were trying to be snarky and cute, but try to be a little bit rational, hon.

    ReplyDelete
  79. You are the ones who are more likely to leech off the welfare system and become homeless.

    We're dealing with 10% unemployment in the current economy. A lot of very diverse people are drawing welfare right now, and I guarantee you they don't conform to your stereotype of welfare leeches.

    NO amount of sexism or misogyny is going to make a businessman loose profit by paying a dude more than a wimminz for the SAME quantity/quality of work!

    You're right, prejudice and bias never, ever get in the way of rational economic thinking. Those great, rational, hyper-intelligent Galtian businessman are all calculating, profit-maximizing machines.

    Hang on, let me pull my head out of Ayn Rand's ass for a second. Wait, it turns out all that stuff I just said is horseshit.

    What planet you from?

    Earth, where cultures have values and customs beyond maximizing profit. I assume you're from the planet Randius Maximus or somesuch.

    ReplyDelete
  80. You think men are/were paid more just because their men?

    Because their men what?

    ReplyDelete
  81. A lot of very diverse people are drawing welfare right now, and I guarantee you they don't conform to your stereotype of welfare leeches.
    A lot of very diverse people are in the MRM right now, and I guarantee you they do not conform to your stereotype of misogynists.

    Do you see what I did there? Oh, wait, as a feminist you are incapable of admitting fault (as you did earlier with the whole engineering prejudice) so you'll just shoot off some bizarre long-winded horseshit rationalization about how taking other people's money is more noble than disagreeing with feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Here, you can see for yourself when you're done being outraged. Also, "tends to" does not equate to "always." China, for example, has a lower average income but higher IQ average. Africa has a lower IQ average than most of the world. Tends to is no the same as "always is without exception." You might want to practice thinking rationally and logically, you can't bitchfest and "oooohhh, I'm so offended!" your way out of everything in life.

    Ooh, I'm so offended... oh, wait, Im just acknowledging the fact that IQ is an imperialist social construct with little bearing on reality. Which you might have noticed, had you read that Wikipedia article in its entirety! For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views

    Good luck sterilizing immigrants though.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Because their men what?
    I think that is supposed to be "they're," as in "they are men." I'm sorry you missed that, but then that's what we antifeminists are around for. That is also why we antifeminists earn more.
    Or were you trying to be cute and snarky?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Or were you trying to be cute and snarky?

    Yes, yes I was. I think I succeeded, too.

    Wait, you antifeminists are around to make obvious grammatical errors? No wonder that whole movement doesn't make sense to me!

    ReplyDelete
  85. Im just acknowledging the fact that IQ is an imperialist social construct with little bearing on reality.
    Then why test people for anything, really? Why test intelligence, why test workplace competence, why test general knowledge? Fuck those imperialist social constructs, I keep failing because of them and their numbers and words! If someone wants to be an engineer or a journalist, let 'em! Forget those patriarchal tomes and thoughts and computers, who needs that shit anyway?
    I think I've seen similar cases put forth by degree mills.

    ReplyDelete
  86. No wonder that whole movement doesn't make sense to me!
    Nor does IQ or standardized testing. You just write them off as "imperialist constructs" without further thought, which is one of the reasons you earn less. You know what they say, you get what you pay for.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I think I've seen similar cases put forth by degree mills.

    Right, I forgot, Serious Universities (tm) never devote courses or entire degree programs to questioning the enduring effects that imperialism has had on academia. That would be silly!

    brb loling forever

    ReplyDelete
  88. @String:
    A lot of very diverse people are in the MRM right now, and I guarantee you they do not conform to your stereotype of misogynists.

    I like how you tried to make it seem like one's willful choice of ideology is the same as one's socioeconomic status. My stereotype of misogynists is that they all look down on women. That's sort of the definition of the word.

    Oh, wait, as a feminist you are incapable of admitting fault (as you did earlier with the whole engineering prejudice)

    Oh look, turns out you stereotype feminists. And for a second I might have thought all your moaning about my stereotypes of the MRM were intellectually honest. Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended by your stereotypes of feminism. They're more goofy than anything. But like I said, stereotyping a self-selected ideological group is not really overly offensive to me.

    As far as the engineering thing goes, do you think I'm ashamed of that? Yeah, I have an opinion about that that turned out to be unpopular here on Manboobz. Doesn't mean I automatically have to recant it. As we have to remind you constantly, feminists are not one big monolithic hive mind. We have differences of opinion. I'm open to arguments against my opinion, obviously, and I do change my opinions. But "disagreeing with the feminist hive mind" is not some crime among feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  89. @String:
    Then why test people for anything, really? Why test intelligence, why test workplace competence, why test general knowledge? Fuck those imperialist social constructs, I keep failing because of them and their numbers and words!

    You're really going for the low-hanging fruit here, String. Those of us who critique the concept of IQ do so because we don't like our IQ test results? That's laughable. You'll have to take my word for this, but my IQ is high enough that I could be one of those douches who parades it around in everyone's face. But I don't, because I don't think it means shit.

    Nor does IQ or standardized testing. You just write them off as "imperialist constructs" without further thought, which is one of the reasons you earn less. You know what they say, you get what you pay for.

    Gosh, it's almost adorable how convinced you are that we dismiss ideas just because they don't work out for us personally. You know, there's a whole body of sociological literature written over the preceding century that talks in great depth - and with a great deal of thought - about things like "imperialist constructs."

    Meanwhile you can't seem to get past this kneejerk reflex of measuring a person's value by how much money they make.

    ReplyDelete
  90. My IQ is high enough that I could be one of those douches who parades it around in everyone's face.
    I was in an advanced placement program. The determined I would benefit there because of that "imperialistic construct." You see, you are thinking in absolutes, which is synonymous with a low intelligence. Of course, there are always anomalies, such as savants who cannot tie their own shoes. When you pan out the scores to a set demographic of people, however, the trends are unquestionable. White males of the same social background who have high IQ scores at age 10 are more likely to get into college at age 20 - longitudinal studies have proven this.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Meanwhile you can't seem to get past this kneejerk reflex of measuring a person's value by how much money they make.
    You seem to have confused trends with absolutes again. Many great artists and writers lived in poverty most or all their lives, as did a number of great political and social leaders. I simply acknowledge that the most intelligent people tend to be richest in their population group, and tend to score the highest on tests of standardized intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Standardized intelligence tests tend to have some of the same flaws as standardized achievement tests. Who, in general, tends to score higher on these tests? Why, those whose gender, race, culture, socio-economic background, etc., are most similar to those who design the tests.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I was in an advanced placement program. The determined I would benefit there because of that "imperialistic construct."

    So was I. Was there a point to this non-sequitur or have you just been waiting all night for an opportunity to drop this fact?

    I simply acknowledge that the most intelligent people tend to be richest in their population group, and tend to score the highest on tests of standardized intelligence.

    Whether or not the people who score highest on standardized IQ tests are the most intelligent is arguable. The already privileged groups - white, male, upper-class - tend to do the best on IQ tests. Naturally defenders of privilege paint this as proof that the privileged are a superior breed and deserve their privilege. It's not like Stanford and Benet deliberately biased their design in favor of non-working-class white men, but unconsciously they certainly did.

    This comic sums it up. It's old as hell so you may have seen it.

    But I do find it endlessly amusing that you keep trying to imply that we're opposed to these constructs simply because we're on the losing end of them. You're thinking in absolutes there, buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I don't know if you have blind spots or something, but you missed the part where I said, "in a demographic" and "in a population."
    But hey, feminists aren't the most observant lot. They see or claim to see an organized conspiracy everywhere to either rationalize their flaws or get a sense of belonging, and yet they overlook three words.
    Oh, and one more thing - Asians do better on IQ tests than Whites do. This is why we get paid more, buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  95. But hey, feminists aren't the most observant lot. They see or claim to see an organized conspiracy everywhere to either rationalize their flaws or get a sense of belonging, and yet they overlook three words.

    There you are thinking in absolutes again. Your IQ must be low as shit, dude.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I have to concede, I tend to think in absolutes. For example, "e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73" is absolutely cretinous.

    ReplyDelete
  97. @tri, yes we have known about cultural bias from the beginning of IQ tests. Many of the first IQ tests were developed for children in France. When only language translation was done, American children consistently tested extremely low. Why? Because the games, objects, etc. familiar to the French kids were unfamiliar to the American ones. A similar pattern occurs when you move across social and economic classes. I grew up rural poor and I was given an IQ test at twelve. There were objects on that test that I had never seen in my life. The man testing me actually responded in shock when I was asked the "what is wrong with this picture" question and responded with "I have no idea what that thing is." He was also surprised that, on the verbal section, there were many words that I knew the meaning of but had no real idea of how to pronounce. A large portion of my vocabulary came from my reading and so I had only seen them written, but never heard them spoken. I was also made to write down some or rephrase some of the things I was speaking naturally, because my dialect differed too much for him to understand at times (which I could do, because my father was not a local and talked with a midwestern accent). And I was born and raised in the US and spoke English alone as my first language. Poor people and other isolated communites have different survival habits, ways of living, possessions, skills, and sometimes even different dialects than privileged groups have.

    "Asians do better on IQ tests than Whites do" Not when you control for income class. You see, many recent Asian immigrants to the US are economic immigrants, rather than refuges, and hence often have rather high economic class status.

    As each generation after you institute IQ testing improves its scores by an average of about ten points, we know very well that one can be trained, at least to some degree, to do better by the education system as well.

    "White males of the same social background who have high IQ scores at age 10 are more likely to get into college at age 20 - longitudinal studies have proven this." Ever heard of "self fullfilling prophecy"? There actually were studies done in response to studies like the one you cite. They found that the children who were told themselves, or who had teachers or parents told, that they had the higher IQ tests did better than children who had the exact same IQ results in fact but were informed (or had teachers or parents informed) that they were lower. One study only told teachers and not parents or children and still found a significant difference where the children who were claimed to be high IQ did better than those claimed to be low IQ, though in fact, they had equivalent scores. How people perceive and respond to these results appears to matter far more than the results themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "I wisely foresaw such claims and hence invited you to visit the sources directly."

    You haven't yet pointed to where in The Bell Curve they say that men who have more conservative views about sex roles are smarter.

    You may think you're appropriately deriving that from adding together "men who make more money are smarter" and "men who have conservative views about sex roles make more money."

    This is not a valid conclusion. For example:

    Women who are taller tend to make more money. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15161403

    Women who are Black tend to be taller than women who are White.
    http://www.halls.md/chart/women-height-w.htm
    http://www.halls.md/on/women-height-b.htm

    It does not follow that women who are Black tend to make more money than women who are White.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_inequity_US.png

    "However, the tendency is that smarter people pay more. I am smart enough to acknowledge that, you are not. That is probably why you have embraced your little pet theory while I have considered and rejected it. "

    Dang, now you've made me think about Mad Magazine's "horrifying cliches."

    ReplyDelete
  99. @rachel-swirsky:
    I'm not trying to blame anyone who gets abused by their partner. But if they get into an abusive relationship, it's because they're not aware of the warning signs that they're dealing with an abuser (like these) or they're vulnerable enough to ignore them. It's not their fault, and just because they're ignorant about the dangers of relationships doesn't mean they deserve to be abused, just like someone who has never been told anything about sexual consent doesn't deserve to be raped.
    The MWGTOW, however, assume that if they ever get into a relationship, it will be abusive because they believe that every woman is an abuser. They're utterly paranoid and they blame the whole world for the fact that they're making themselves miserable because they can't be bothered to look out for a few warning signs and get out before it's too late.
    In short, abuse victims and MWGTOW approach the problem of detecting potential abusers from completely different angles. If you know that you might get abused, it's easy to look up and apply some safety precautions. If you don't know that you might get abused or nobody has taken the time to teach you that you have boundaries and you have the right to enforce them, it's very difficult to figure out how to avoid abusers.
    I hope that this clarifies my position.

    And by the way, MWGTOW? Once you claim Donald Duck as one of your own, it's way past time to start thinking about what you're doing wrong with your life. Are you so desperate to get rid of David Futrelle that you've started mocking yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  100. e-string:

    I think you're mistaken, you seem to think that things are the way they are for a reason and that someone sometime in the past sat down and figured out how things would work best, and that we should trust that imagined person and not change what they decided.

    Really, people in the past were just stumbling along and trying to do the best they could, just like we are now. There is no reason to believe they had any special knowledge, and if you survey the results of the system that their ideas has evolved into, there is every reason to think that we could build something just as good or better. We could build a system that harms fewer people, and does not choose who is harmed by random things like skin color or gender or sexual orientation or even by how much money they have or their parents had.

    My point is this: If enough people decide to live differently, who knows what the future could look like.

    ReplyDelete
  101. David, you should write a post about relatively high-profile MRA, Roy Den Hollander's appearance on the Colbert Report last night. Hollander didn't disappoint in bringing the delusional misogyny, pettiness and face-palm worthy rhetoric we've come to know and laugh our arses off at:
    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/379605/march-31-2011/difference-makers---roy-den-hollander

    ReplyDelete
  102. e-string wrote:

    This just in - your BFF Jill who associates with feminists and is "into statistical methodology" thinks "The Bell Curve is crap."

    Actually, I met him in graduate school. He's a policy analyst now, I believe. Also, implying that I'm some sort of Big Girly Man isn't really that effective an insult. Since I don't regard women as inferior, comparing me to them doesn't really sting in quite the way you apparently hoped it would. Better luck next time.

    In any event, the methodological problems in the The Bell Curve are old, old news. In fact, the Wikipedia article that you suggested I go read has a link at the bottom to an article critiquing those very methods. You may want to check it our sometime--if you're not too busy posting links to the "You Will Not Shame Me" blog post. Seriously, how many times have you posted that one here? 5? 6? And don't get me started on the YouTube link to that smirking douchebag reading from Steven Pinker. Gah, that's several minutes of my life I'll never get back. I'm still trying to recover from the psychological trauma. Never Again, I say.

    Are you sure you're in a Ph. D. program? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands...

    ReplyDelete
  103. Trip wrote:

    So was I. Was there a point to this non-sequitur or have you just been waiting all night for an opportunity to drop this fact?

    Some us were in those programs back when they were called "MGM"--mentally gifted minors. The other kids called us the "giftees" as if it were some sort of insult. Good times, good times...

    And you know what? That and a buck fifty will get me a cup of coffee (though not at Starbucks, apparently). I long ago realized that what I do with my brains is a lot more important than the fact that I have them. Sure, IQ matters--but so do people skills, compassion, and morality. I like what I do, and I like myself for doing it, which is far, far more important to me than earning a few thousand more a year (though that definitely has its appeal, especially now that I have kids). I also like that I'm in a relationship that places a premium on equal roles and equal work. Is it perfect? Hell, no--but I wouldn't have it any other way.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I'm disappointed that this entire IQ pissing contest has gone on so long without anoyone dropping numbers. Bathrobe, e-l0ng2t3dname, lay down those scores so I know whose arguments to believe!

    ReplyDelete
  105. I'm disappointed that this entire IQ pissing contest has gone on so long without anoyone dropping numbers. Bathrobe, e-l0ng2t3dname, lay down those scores so I know whose arguments to believe!

    Ha ha! You should believe mine, but only because I am morally superior in every way. String may make more money (eventually), but I'm goddam Mother Teresa compared to him--and don't you forget it! :)

    Actually, I kind of wish I hadn't gone there, as the whole thing is puerile in the extreme. I pre-emptively concede the IQ contest to String and Trip (and whoever else)--they are free to slug it out however they see fit. May I suggest Wechslers at ten paces?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Mine tested at 165, but I always do very well on exams so I have no idea if that is a true reflection or not.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Mine tested at 165, but I always do very well on exams so I have no idea if that is a true reflection or not.

    Then I kneel before you. Of course, I would anyway, if only for the bacon.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Fresh, crispy bacon from a smart woman is just the way I like it. ;)

    Hmmm...that looks a bit creepier than I meant it to be. Oh well. :)

    ReplyDelete
  109. E-string's comment about Asians and IQ scores reminded me of a horrid book that came out recently, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother whose author smugly recounts how a strict regimen of concentration camp-style discipline, emotional abuse and complete isolation has helped her daughters achieve high grades and to master musical instruments. The author, Amy Chua, states that she herself was raised in a similar atmosphere, and that this kind of upbringing helped her get into the best schools and eventually become a law professor at Yale. But there is a comment somewhere in that book that's very telling: she muses how, when she was a student at an Ivy League law school, she didn't care about analysis or pro's and con's or the rights of individuals the way everyone else seemed to; she just wanted to memorize everything in the book.

    So here's the thing: It's possible to achieve vast improvements in one's test scores, including IQ scores, through ruthless training, but the authoritarian environment necessary to accomplish this stifles creativity and makes the subject less capable of thinking outside the given parameters. Quite often, unfortunately, high IQ scores and test grades mean that the individual is highly capable at learning a specific set of complex tasks, but he may lack the gift for innovation, which is what's really important. I think a fairly accurate definition of intelligence is ability to solve novel problems, that don't fit a known formula. The IQ test doesn't evaluate that.

    ReplyDelete
  110. @Sam "I'm disappointed that this entire IQ pissing contest has gone on so long without anoyone dropping numbers" Well, as I am arguing for the side that opposes the proposition that IQ tests are good objective measurements, essentially saying that the score is a relatively bullshit number, giving said number actually undermines my point regardless of my score.

    ReplyDelete
  111. JFP, your wish is granted! Thanks for the url.

    ReplyDelete
  112. The Tiger Mother really needs to hook up with Charlie ("tiger blood") Sheen, so they can breed some Tiger Children. Winning!

    ReplyDelete
  113. Are you sure you're in a Ph. D. program? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands...
    I combine my writing time with my exercise time using an exercise bike and a desk, and I exercise a lot. So yes, in a manner of speaking, I do have a lot of time on my hands to write.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Rather than supplying a number, I'll only repeat what I've said before: I'm a privileged-ass motherfucker. The reason I want to tear down existing cultural norms isn't because I'm on the losing end of them.

    That being said, those who are on the losing end of them have every right to want to tear them down for that reason, and accusing them of simply envy is idiotic.

    ReplyDelete
  115. e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73 said...

    Are you sure you're in a Ph. D. program? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands...
    I combine my writing time with my exercise time using an exercise bike and a desk, and I exercise a lot. So yes, in a manner of speaking, I do have a lot of time on my hands to write.


    Hmmm...actually, that sounds like a pretty good set up.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Brett K
    "Ooh, I'm so offended... oh, wait, Im just acknowledging the fact that IQ is an imperialist social construct with little bearing on reality."
    So just how badly did you score?

    Elizabeth
    "Mine tested at 165, but I always do very well on exams so I have no idea if that is a true reflection or not."
    Tell me another joke.

    Captain Flasher
    "I like what I do, and I like myself for doing it, which is far, far more important to me than earning a few thousand more a year (though that definitely has its appeal, especially now that I have kids)."
    Heh. It'll appeal to you a lot more if she ever decides to take you to the cleaners pal.

    tricommunist
    "I'll only repeat what I've said before: I'm a privileged-ass motherfucker. The reason I want to tear down existing cultural norms isn't because I'm on the losing end of them."
    It's because you think that by tearing them down there will be unisex bathrooms and thus a chance for you to loose your virginity.

    "You're right, prejudice and bias never, ever get in the way of rational economic thinking. Those great, rational, hyper-intelligent Galtian businessman are all calculating, profit-maximizing machines."
    Nice try. We've all had bosses, supervisors, etc. and we all know the drill here. Business leaders ARE greedy ass mother fuckers who only care about one thing and it ain't oppressing females.

    e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73
    "Because their men what?
    I think that is supposed to be "they're," as in "they are men." "

    You might as well get used to this.
    Feminists are quite skilled at refuting the content of arguments by pointing out spelling, punctuation errors, etc.
    Same way they use the movies to prove that women can beat us up.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Nice try. We've all had bosses, supervisors, etc. and we all know the drill here. Business leaders ARE greedy ass mother fuckers who only care about one thing and it ain't oppressing females.

    Of course they're greedy. But that's never a person's sole motivation - people are more complicated than that. And trust me, if there's one group in this society that's 100%, unfailingly rational, it's not businessmen.

    But you must be right. After all, if I were right, there would be examples in the past of business owners turning away potential profit by banning customers of a certain race or something. But that would be crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  118. I usually just skip and ignore EWMs comments at this point, but I must say that, tri, should you ever in fact host a unisex bathroom orgy, count me in.

    Related sidenote: I always use the unisex bathroom on my campus, but the only bathroom sex I have had was in a women's bathroom. Must be doing something wrong...

    ReplyDelete
  119. Unisex bathrooms --> Tri loses virginity

    uh??

    I mean, what's the connection? "I hear you pissing in there, you have NO IDEA how HOT you're making me!"

    Leads to some disturbing questions about EWM's ideas concerning getting laid...

    ReplyDelete
  120. Business leaders ARE greedy ass mother fuckers who only care about one thing and it ain't oppressing females.

    In a sexist society, all you have to do to oppress women is not care or not pay attention.

    It takes effort to avoid being sexist. Just like it takes effort to avoid being racist, classist, ablist, etc. Equality runs against the grain of this society.

    ReplyDelete
  121. girlscientist:

    I really hope you never have the opportunity to see your theory proved incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Captain Flasher
    "I like what I do, and I like myself for doing it, which is far, far more important to me than earning a few thousand more a year (though that definitely has its appeal, especially now that I have kids)."
    Heh. It'll appeal to you a lot more if she ever decides to take you to the cleaners pal.


    Considering that she makes more money than I, it seems unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Considering that she makes more money than I, it seems unlikely.

    You must be mistaken. Women don't work for their money, they marry up and take half their husband's money.

    Are you sure she isn't whiting out one of the digits on your paycheck in an attempt to subjugate her? Women are tricky like that.

    ReplyDelete
  124. triplanetary said...

    Considering that she makes more money than I, it seems unlikely.

    You must be mistaken. Women don't work for their money, they marry up and take half their husband's money.

    Are you sure she isn't whiting out one of the digits on your paycheck in an attempt to subjugate her? Women are tricky like that.


    No, it's because I'm a great big mangina, don't you know? Feminism has impoverished me and muddled up my brain. Mark my words, before long I'll be tearing my hair and gnashing my teeth, wondering why o why did I not listen to EWME and his ilk...

    Oh, wait, no I won't.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Re: unisex bathrooms, my university had them in the dorms, and it was the opposite of sexy. Somehow seeing my bleary-eyed hall mates brushing their teeth in the morning was not as boner-inducing as EWME would imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  126. @Rachel Swirsky:
    I worked for a sexually/morally harassing paranoid narcissist for over three years. I did see the warning signs and I felt something was off from the beginning, but I chose to ignore it. I also have friends who have been in abusive relationships and the feeling from the start that something if wrong and that the relationship is too good to be true is very common. Once you come out of the relationship you start thinking things over and you realise you should have listened to your instincts. I'm no big fan of de Becker's, but he is absolutely right on that one.
    Again, it's not the abused person's fault that nobody has taken the time to tell them that, and there is no way you can defend yourself against an abuser's blitzkrieg if you're not armed with a strong sense of self and of your boundaries. Naiveté should never be considered as an invitation for cruelty. But once you've been made aware of the necessity of the lesson, it's not so difficult to learn.

    ReplyDelete
  127. @Rachel Swirsky:
    P.S.: Before an idea is proven or disproven, it's called a hypothesis, not a theory. If you don't know the meaning of a word, don't use it.

    ReplyDelete
  128. That's right, girlscientist. Language is probably absent of all contextual slippage, and it is definitely more offensive to use culturally acceptable connotations in casual conversation than it is to opine randomly without any recourse to, I dunno, the academic scholarship on the subject.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis