Thursday, March 17, 2011

Earthquakes and Ideologues

A scene in Haiti, after its earthquake.
Sometimes The Spearhead, probably the internet's leading angry-man site, seems like a giant interactive game of "pin the blame on the feminists." When uprisings broke out in Tunisia and then Egypt , you may recall, W. F. Price -- head honcho at The Spearhead -- suggested that the unrest in both countries was a male reaction to the excesses of feminism and female power.

Now he's returned with an even stranger article, comparing  the current disaster in Japan with the very different outcome of last year's earthquake in Haiti-- and blaming women in general and feminists in particular for the far more lethal outcome in Haiti.

You might think that the staggering death toll in Haiti -- estimates range from 92,000 to more than 300,000 --  might have something  to do with the fact that it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with a weak and corrupt government and almost nothing in the way of intrastructure.  And that Japan's relative resiliance in the face of an even more powerful earthquake might have something to do with the fact that it's a wealthy nation -- the world's third most powerful economy, with a GDP per capita about 30 times greater than Haiti's -- with a great deal of experience in handling earthquakes.

But Price has a rather different, and highly peculiar, explanation: Haiti suffered more because it's a  "matriachal" country, unlike properly "patriarchal" Japan. Comparing  "matriarchal Haiti’s and patriarchal Japan’s respective responses to natural disaster," Price writes that

in Haiti the women are still living in open encampments well over a year after the quake, [while] Japanese women are already sheltered, which is necessary, because it is still cold in northern Japan this time of year. ...

Price goes on to argue that Japan is doing better by its men as well. While in Haiti in the aftermath of the quake, the UN and some relief organizations targeted aid towards women -- who tend to literally get pushed aside in the mad scramble for food supplies otherwise -- Price argues that

Japanese men ... have it far better than their Haitian counterparts as well. There are no foreign troops pointing guns at them and denying them food, they are taken care of and respected if old, and given jobs and a place in society if young. Perhaps most importantly, They are given the opportunity to do what men often do best — they are allowed to take care of their families and communities.
Let's set aside for a moment that it is a tad early to be declaring, er, "mission accomplished" in the Japan crisis, especially with the specter of a nuclear reactor meltdown looming. Price is a man with an agenda, and he moves fairly quickly to his grand conclusion: The two disasters, he argues,

give us an opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of a society we want to live in. Do we want, as the feminists would have it, to be helpless, disease infested, homeless and starving if we face hardship, or do we want to have the ability to come together and pull ourselves up from the rubble? For the sane people of the world, the choice is clear.

Yes, that's right. Feminism is the party of helplessness, disease, homelessness and starvation. Anyone who's just made the argument he made really shouldn't be offering any opinions on the sanity of others.

Before we get into a critique of Price's argument, such as it is, let's pause for a moment to ask how his novel thesis was received by the Spearhead regulars. While a few commenters did take him to task for ignoring economics, others took his absurd argument and ran with it. (This is The Spearhead, after all.) Alucin declared,

Feminism is a crime against humanity. What happened in Haiti regarding food distribution will be repeated again and again as long as feminism prevails. Fighting feminism is something good people do on behalf of humanity. The men and women of Japan will get their lives back together again far more quickly than the matriarchal people of Haiti.

The future is patriarchal. It’s just a matter of which form it will take and when the West will re-masculate.

Epoetker took it a step further, adding a bit of racism to the misogynistic mix:

Haiti is a land of men who look like men but think like women. Japan is a land of men who look like women but think like men.

Rebel, meanwhile, found a grim humor in it all:

The Haitian case is proof positive that feminism is exactly like AIDS.
No matter how many die, feminism will be the last thing to die.
It was planned that way.

Whichever way you look at it, the answer is always the same: feminism is a religion of death.
Feminists are death worshippers.

That leaves very little hope for the future.
Life is so short and we worry too much. And it’s so futile.
One day we will all be Haitians. LOL!!

A note: These aren't a couple of weird comments I've "cherry picked" to give a distorted picture of the discussion. In fact, these comments got anywhere from 20 to nearly 70 upvotes from Spearhead readers, and almost no downvotes. There were many other comments, also heavily upvoted, agreeing with these general premises. If you don't believe me, go take a look yourself.

Numerous other commenters, I should also note, offered frankly racist interpretations of "the tale of two earthquakes," blaming the greater scope of the disaster in Haiti on what one commenter called its "largely negro, largely indolent society." While some objected to the racism, many clearly racist comments got numerous upvotes from the Spearhead crowd.  (The comment I just quoted got 60 upvotes and 20 downvotes.)

Getting back to Price's argument, let's try to unpack the various layers of bullshit here. First of all, Haiti is no matriarchy. Yes, women often head up households there. But they don't run the country, by any measure.

Life in Haiti is no picnic for men, but women have it even worse; as one human rights group noted in a recent report, "Haitian women experience additional barriers to the full enjoyment of their basic rights due to predominant social beliefs that they are inferior to men and a historical pattern of discrimination and violence against them based on their sex. Discrimination against women is a structural feature in Haitian society and culture that has subsisted throughout its history, both in times of peace and unrest."

Rape is a constant threat, and, as a recent article in the Los Angeles Times notes, it "wasn't even considered a serious criminal offense in Haiti until five years ago. ... Before 2005, rape was considered an offense against honor, or "crime of passion," meaning it was a minor infraction in which the perpetrator would go free if he agreed to marry his victim."

The earthquake only made the situation worse for women. Rapes are especially widespread in the camps that sprung up in the wake of last year's earthquake. Instead of "tak[ing] care of their families and communities," as Price would put it, many Haitian men have instead preyed on women and girls, sexually assaultng them and stealing their food and other supplies. This is not, to put it mildly, a country suffering from an excess of feminism or female authority.

No, Haiti is in dire straits mostly because of its extreme poverty. Anyone looking at the history of natural disasters can plainly see that they tend to cause far more chaos and misery and death in poor countries than they do in rich ones: In highly patriarchal, and poverty-stricken Pakistan, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake killed an estimated 75,000, though the quake there was an order of magnitude weaker than Japan's.

I'm not sure why I feel the need to remind readers of these basic points; the absurdity of Price's arguments should be immediately obvious to anyone not blinded by misogyny. Sometimes I wonder if Price even believes all of the shit he shovels. Stupidity would be easier to forgive than that level of cynicism.

--

If you appreciated 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. Thanks!

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

73 comments:

  1. Wait, wait, I thought the evil feminist agenda was to create a socialist "daddy state" with a massive government safety net to care for people in need, mostly women because they suck at stuff and men never need government support. Now our plan is to create an anarchic banana republic with no infrastructure, no working government, and rifle-toting thugs patrolling the streets?

    I am so behind on the newsletters.

    In all seriousness, my heart goes out to the people of Japan. Even with the country's fantastic level of disaster preparedness and ability to pull together in a crisis, terrible things are happening there. Everybody, please give if you can. And to Haiti, too, as it's still in desperate need of aid.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Price goes even further down the rabbit hole. Taking issue with the poster who pointed out the obvious apples and oranges problem with comparing a highly industrialized nation's disaster response with a barely functional third world.

    Poster Phloridian states: Haiti is dominated by men and always has been. The history of Haiti is one of men taking the reins against the French and dominating that society with repression via the Tonton Macoute and the military.

    Price counters: Matriarchal societies are characterized by the presence of a few dominant men at the top who command gangs of dispossessed, disaffected young men who grew up not knowing daddy.

    So, in short, matriarchal societies - run by and for those notorious women - end up being oppressed and terrorized by the men they rear.

    But, but, but... I thought the wimminz were in charge? Isn't that what a "matriarchal society" is???? How did those men get so alpha and aggressive with only women as role models?

    So many questions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ^Maybe one of the answers is that Haitian society is trying to "re-masculate" itself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think it's safe to assume that they think that every bad thing in history was the fault of feminists.

    Plague? Feminists.

    Ice age? Feminists.

    Atomic bombs? Duh, feminists. (Why do you think there were two? Deadly bosoms from the sky to show those patriarchial Japanese who's boss.)

    History and reality are trivial things that shouldn't get in the way of a good crazy rant.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Earthquakes are caused by women showing too much cleavage. Remember Boobquake?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Augh, really?

    Haiti suffered because it had no infrastructure. Women are sheltered in Japan? Because we /have/ shelters that didn't fall over...because here, we have earthquake-resistant buildings. Here, we have emergency vehicles and trained responders. Here, we have good warning and information systems. Did you know I've gotten text-messaged warnings in advance of the aftershocks? Do you think they had that in Haiti?

    And Haiti is not poor because of some moral failing on the part of black people, or because of some alleged matriarchy.

    They are poor because they have been getting screwed over by the US and France, and also the US, ever since they revolted and were forced to buy their freedom from slavery with cripplingly high 'compensation' payments. Not to mention all the abuses since.

    Haiti never had a chance. Thinking otherwise is mere ignorance of history.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thinking otherwise is mere ignorance of history.

    Ignorance of history is what MRAs do best.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Ignorance of history is what MRAs do best."

    LOL I thought feminists really take the cake for this.

    As they think ONLY women were oppressed throughout history but they are forgetting that men have been forced to be the financial slaves for women. All the burdens in the outside world were all placed on men while the only problems women had was inside home.

    ReplyDelete
  9. nick said: "As they think ONLY women were oppressed throughout history"

    This is how you know that nick doesn't actually know anything about feminism, and that he doesn't actually read the comments from feminist here on the blog.

    The rest is how you know nick doesn't actually know anything about history.

    ReplyDelete
  10. cactuar -- didn't know you were in Japan. Glad you're ok.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "This is how you know that nick doesn't actually know anything about feminism, and that he doesn't actually read the comments from feminist here on the blog."

    "The rest is how you know nick doesn't actually know anything about history."

    Uhuh.

    I have never seen a feminist in my whole life complain about what issues men had in the past.

    I know all too well that feminists only CARE about female issues.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why, yes, nicko, patriarchy does hurt men, too. Now, back to the topic...

    ReplyDelete
  13. He also never responds when you point out his inadequacies or do anything but bleat "show me XYZ that I will subsequently ignore."

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have never seen a feminist in my whole life complain about what issues men had in the past.

    I know! And I once stopped by the NAACP offices, and they never said one word about the issues white people have. I was so offended!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Feminists only care about female issues, huh? Guess again.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm going to take issue with the phrase "properly sheltered." In Sendai and Fukushima they are cold, there's no blankets, no fuel, not enough water. I saw one report from a hospital that said they had enough supplies for two days, which sounds peachy until you realize that they had no way to tell anyone this until the reporters showed up.

    This isn't because of a bad system or a moral failure on anyone's part. It's because there is no culture on earth capable of adequately preparing for a 10m wall of water.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think Nick is a spambot that is programmed to repeat certain phrases at random intervals: "feminist bigots," "perfect princesses" etc. Everything else is filler.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "He also never responds when you point out his inadequacies or do anything but bleat "show me XYZ that I will subsequently ignore."

    I don't bother to reply 99 percent of the time when its just a long read of feminist literature garbage.

    Amnesia said

    "Feminists only care about female issues, huh? Guess again."

    How the flying fuck is it patriarchy when a man wants to do everything for a woman? He wants to be her financial slave, he wants all the burdens in life to be placed on him and save her from these problems.

    More than anything, this is submissive behaviour from a male.

    You feminists have a seriously...I really mean... seriously fucked up mentality on what patriarchy truly is.

    That link is really not so much showing sympathy towards that man, its more so expressing how much of a so called clueless patriarchal jackass he is.

    This is a very bad example that you are showing me.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh my god, my head is going to explode.

    Didn't we give a whole list of feminist authors who wrote about men's issues in the clusterfuck that was the comments section of the robot thread?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't bother to reply 99 percent of the time when its just a long read of feminist literature garbage.

    So you summarily dismiss feminist literature. That's fine. It's your right. But it does beg the question - why do you talk to us? What did you expect when you came to a feminist blog? That all of our arguments would come from patriarchy-approved sources?

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ nick
    As they think ONLY women were oppressed throughout history but they are forgetting that men have been forced to be the financial slaves for women. All the burdens in the outside world were all placed on men while the only problems women had was inside home.

    I happened to write a post on my blog recently that addresses just this type of problem. Put simply: It's not about who has what burdens, It's About Power.

    Also, why do so many MRAs seem to think that gender is the only possible site of oppression? Of course feminists acknowledge that not only women are oppressed, because it's obvious. People are also oppressed due to their class, race, sexuality, ability, etc. Intersectionality aside, it seems like so many MRAs chalk up to gender inequality what is really a matter of racial or class inequality.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "What did you expect when you came to a feminist blog? That all of our arguments would come from patriarchy-approved sources?"

    A feminist to come up with a straight forward example to their argument instead of just passing links of long reading of feminist literature that are supposed to derail the actual question instead of getting straight to the point.

    Marissa said

    "It's About Power."

    This is absolutely, totally, and completely laughable. How can a man be all about power when he wants to slave himself for a woman?

    It doesn't make sense. In other words, you are saying a man being the financial slave for a woman is him seeking power. WTF is wrong with your brain?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "How can a man be all about power when he wants to slave himself for a woman?"

    'Wants to slave'? You have a funny command of the language, Nick. Generally, when someone volunteers to do something it is not slavery.

    "In other words, you are saying a man being the financial slave for a woman is him seeking power."

    This is somewhat at odds with the actual world. The notion of the woman as a leisured class is still something confined to the wealthy and those who believe that the world should resemble a '50s sitcom. Even if we ignore that working women have traditionally held low-paying jobs make ends meet, 'homemakers' still have a substantial amount of work to do, and that in partnerships there is a split of labour that is often not in the woman's favour.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 'Wants to slave'? You have a funny command of the language, Nick. Generally, when someone volunteers to do something it is not slavery.

    So in a feminist world, when a woman volunteers to be a house wife, she is not being submissive.

    Oh fuck, another double standard. Anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  25. @ nick

    Have you ever been financially dependant on another person? It is not a position of power.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "A feminist to come up with a straight forward example to their argument instead of just passing links of long reading of feminist literature that are supposed to derail the actual question instead of getting straight to the point."

    Translation:

    "What I want is evidence but if you link me to evidence I'll ignore it."

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't bother to reply 99 percent of the time when its just a long read of feminist literature garbage.

    Yeah, in the last thread you angrily demanded examples of feminist literature, so I can see where it would bug you that people responded by giving you examples of feminist literature. Man, life is hard.

    How the flying fuck is it patriarchy when a man wants to do everything for a woman?

    That's patriarchy. That's what we're against. We don't want men to have to do everything. That's why women have jobs and stuff now, so men don't have to do everything.

    ReplyDelete
  28. So I guess a woman doing everything for a man is matriarchy.

    Wow the stupidity

    ReplyDelete
  29. This is absolutely, totally, and completely laughable. How can a man be all about power when he wants to slave himself for a woman?

    It's enslave, you idiot. Or would using the proper vocabulary be giving in to the matriarchy, too?

    ReplyDelete
  30. This is absolutely, totally, and completely laughable. How can a man be all about power when he wants to slave himself for a woman?

    Nick, nick, nick. Do you *really* mean (en)slave(ment)? Really?

    Because if a man actually wants to "slave himself for a woman" (sic), that would mean that he chooses to give up any and all autonomy, decisions and say over his own life and body and affairs and grants it to the person he's becoming enslaved to, with no way to back out of that agreement, although obviously there would be no legal way to enforce such a gross violation of human rights legally if the enslaved wished to get out of the agreement or change the terms.

    Slavery is, in fact, an international customary and treaty crime seen as so heinous that any country at all can have jurisdiction over any alleged offender perpetrating slavery from any country - international jurisdiction.

    Slavery is, in fact, what women have been subject to until very, very recently.

    Is that REALLY what you meant, nick? Because if you did, I'd really, really like a motivation of why you say men are enslaving themselves to women.

    Or did you mean "commitment", which is something that can theoretically be continually negotiated or instantly negated by any of the parties involved? Because these two things, nick, they are not the same.

    Many women (and men!) are trapped in relationships where they are not allowed to negotiate their commitment or terminate it, out of fear of death or physical retribution - that may morph into a kind of slavery to a certain degree, it can be debated, but it does happen, and often.

    That is a huge problem, as I'm sure you'll agree, so I'm sure you completely support any and all legislation and institution that supports and protects victims of IPV (intimate partner violence) so that that kind of enslavement can be curtailed?

    Right, Nick?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Care to respond to the OP, nicko?

    Or do you want to follow your MO, which is to wait until someone makes a comment that irritates you, then bang out a Tu Quoque to get the crazy train rolling?

    You can't win by running the same play over and over again, especially when it doesn't work.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "So in a feminist world, when a woman volunteers to be a house wife, she is not being submissive."

    Yes. In a feminist world, when a woman volunteers to be a house wife, she is not (necessarily) being submissive.

    There is nothing inherently submissive about doing housework.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Just realized I'm being sort of disingenuous by not responding to the OP myself.

    The disaster has brought out ideologues all over the political spectrum. We've seen religious types blaming the victims (including the governor of Tokyo), racist nationalists claiming the disaster is payback for Pearl Harbor, and pro- and anti-nuclear advocates making outrageously speculative claims about the outcome of the nuclear crisis. And Rush Limbaugh claiming the tsunami is payback for inventing the Prius.

    Kicking people when they're down appears to be a sport of ideologues. I claim it's one way to sort ideological rhetoric from substantive discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "It's because there is no culture on earth capable of adequately preparing for a 10m wall of water."

    The Dutch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Wall

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Kicking people when they're down appears to be a sport of ideologues. I claim it's one way to sort ideological rhetoric from substantive discussion."

    I think it's also about maintaining the illusion of control. If bad things happen to "bad" people, and you're a good person, then you're safe.

    So, when something bad happens it's very important to figure out why it happened (even if that reason is hokum) and why they could not possibly ever happen to you.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yup, if there's one thing that characterizes a matriarchy, it's roving rape gangs.

    Oy.

    ReplyDelete
  37. One other way to sort out ideologues never fails: ideas matter more than people.

    This could manifest itself in many ways:

    - archetypes matter more than individuals
    - roles matter more than relationships
    - rules matter more than discourse
    - reality is "all one thing," not diverse and unpredictable, but "hard" (acts like a rule)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Deviant One

    Blah blah blah, the simple fact is that a man is submitting himself to a woman.

    If he pays the way for everything and all and the burdens in the outside world is on him, that is submission.

    You are a fucking idiot if you think otherwise.

    This example can’t be anymore clearer

    ReplyDelete
  39. nick:

    Isn't "why" he's making those choices important? Aren't there other choices he could make? For example, he could go his own way.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Blah blah blah, the simple fact is that a man is submitting himself to a woman.

    There's your answer, in your own words. He's submitting HIMSELF. His choice, to commit or stop committing. He chooses, for himself, when the commitment starts and when he wants it to stop.

    That, nick, is NOT slavery. Not even within shouting distance.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Thank you, nicko, for making me realize that my car is the boss of me. I find myself in a situation where I have to WORK in order to take care of my car, making sure it looks and feels great. To that end, whenever my car wants something, like gas, or oil, or antifreeze or windshield washing fluid, I open my wallet and take out MY hard-earned money that I earned with MY sweat and blood, while the car was just sort of just hanging out there, doing nothing in the parking lot (aside from looking pretty). I even give up my money to a car-spa, where its tires get rotated and its perfect-princess insides get all checked out, so that it doesn't start coughing, god forbid, while I'm driving it on a highway at 100 mph.

    And if you think THAT's unfair, consider that if I don't give my car what it wants, it gets all bitchy on me. Oh, sure, it starts with just these irritating noises that I really don't want to hear, and if I don't budge, then it's stalling, stopping, crashing. All because I didn't give it more of my money. I WORK because of my car -- me!! I could just sit on my ass all day, playing WoW, but instead, I'm slaving away in a cubicle, all for the good of my car, which is just sitting there in the parking lot and totally not doing the heavy lifting. You'd think my car would do something for me once in a while, change MY oil, but noooooooooooooooooooo, it doesn't even have to figure out where to go, leaving me with the onerous burden of making all the decisions.

    Of course, my car can't vote. And my car can't leave me. And my car can't do anything if I decide to beat it, abuse it, drive it recklessly, paint it in ridiculous colors, drive it into a ditch, sell it to someone else, give it to my 17-year-old idiot nephew, cannibalize it for parts or take it to a junk yard. And I don't ever ask my car for its opinion concerning what I plan to do with it. But none of that matters, because based on me working to pay for my car's stuff, it's clear I'm a slave and my car is my master, and anyone who says my car is a piece of property without rights or privileges is a total idiot with an agenda.

    Also, these laws that say I can't even set my car on fire or abandon it whenever I want? It's a fucking conspiracy by pro-car fanatics who just want all this special treatment for cars, while making the lives of drivers -- as if they weren't hard enough already -- even more hellish. It's a fucking conspiracy, is what it is. I am submissive to my car! My car does not submit to me, it doesn't do anything! I am the VICTIM here!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Nick is never going to change his mind. He has decided (regardless of facts to the contrary) that his view of feminism is the accurate one. And we are all dumb for not agreeing with him. Sure we can spout the truth all day long but truth does not matter to him.

    For those in the US-it is like dealing with the teabaggers. They have no interest in the truth either.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Nick's Revisionist History, Lesson #457: Prior to the US Civil War, Southern whites were enslaved by blacks. The whites had to provide food, shelter, and clothing to the blacks who worked their plantation. They were financially enslaving themselves to the blacks. Fortunately Abraham Lincoln invaded the blackocracy and freed the oppressed whites.

    ReplyDelete
  44. One other way to sort out ideologues never fails: ideas matter more than people.

    This could manifest itself in many ways:

    - archetypes matter more than individuals
    - roles matter more than relationships
    - rules matter more than discourse
    - reality is "all one thing," not diverse and unpredictable, but "hard" (acts like a rule)


    I would also add "institutions matter more than individuals." But good points all around.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Well, that is pretty negative stuff.

    However; you'll be delighted to know that I just did a very positive story about the crisis that Japan is now facing:

    http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2011/03/japans-nuclear-threat-no-pretty-white.html

    ReplyDelete
  46. P.S. I heard that the earthquakes are causing massive outbreaks of diarrhea.

    I do blame the feminists for that.

    HA!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Your blog is not as nasty as it has been, are you in love ScareCrow? (Yes that is a rhetorical question as it is none of my business.)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Yep, I think the part about "financial slavery" is a recent update to the Nickbot 2000's program. It's good that someone is updating the software, otherwise the comments might become tiresome.

    Oh, wait...

    ReplyDelete
  49. You'd think MRAs oughta be grateful to feminists for encouraging women to get jobs, become financially self-supporting, and release men from their terrible financial slavery.

    But then, that's require consistency and logic. And if they had that they wouldn't be MRAs.

    ReplyDelete
  50. P.S. I heard that the earthquakes are causing massive outbreaks of diarrhea.

    I do blame the feminists for that.

    HA!


    Now THAT'S the Scarecrow we know and grudgingly tolerate.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @Captain Bathroom -

    SHADDDAAPPP!

    ReplyDelete
  52. I think the page Scarecrow linked above, complete with comments, is probably the most offensive thing I've ever seen on the Internet.

    All together now.

    That's.Saying.Something.

    But I'm saying it.

    RG

    ReplyDelete
  53. According to Nick's logic, we live in a pedocracy, since adults do everything for children. Children are the ones who are in control of our society, enslaving adults to their will.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I'm sorry, but "Pedocracy" does not bring to mind children ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Perhaps pedocracy would be rule by feet?

    ReplyDelete
  56. lol, you know what I'm saying, though.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Or perhaps we are all ruled by our household pets.

    Sometimes when I am feeding or petting or opening a door for the cat, I will say in a little cat voice, "I rule you, human."

    ReplyDelete
  58. "According to Nick's logic, we live in a pedocracy, since adults do everything for children. Children are the ones who are in control of our society, enslaving adults to their will."

    I wonder how or what evidence does the male treat a woman as a child when he does everything to make her life better?

    Explain in logical detail?

    I guess if a woman easily gives sex to any men, she is not being submissive.

    If Asian women want to be the stay at home wife and do the house chores, they are not submissive.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I wonder how or what evidence does the male treat a woman as a child when he does everything to make her life better?

    So, you're saying that in Nicko's world, adults do everything to make their children's lives worse?

    ReplyDelete
  60. @ nick

    ...and parents do everything to make the lives of their children better.

    Having things done for you means you lack agency - you lack power. Parents do everything to support their children. But children lack power.

    Same thing with the model of happy family life that you're suggesting. If men are the ones who make all the money, they are the ones who have power, because women are dependent on them. Like children are dependent on their parents.

    This parallel is pretty self-evident. Especially considering the fact that in the West, until about 100 years ago women had pretty much the same legal status as children.

    ReplyDelete
  61. You feminuts are screwy lol. You need actual evidence, meaning that there needs to be some type of scientific study that observes each household where the man is the bread winner.

    You can't just pull out of your ass that a man is automatically a controlling chauvinist because he wants to support the woman he loves.

    But of course, in a feminist world this is always the case. Feminists make any excuse really to make the man look like an evil oppressor and the woman the poor victim we must feel sympathy for.

    ReplyDelete
  62. So, Nicko, you're saying you require scientific evidence for the existence of the history of Western civilization? LOL indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  63. ...the Russian judge awaits, with bated breath and score cards in hand, the performance of Nicko's next gymnastics routine.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Nicko: We don't want your sympathy -- we want civil rights, which would include the right to make our own lives better, without being beholden to some piece o'shit such as yourself. Hey, you are free, by your own argument, not enslaved by anyone. So what are you moaning about? You are free thanks to feminism, go ahead and celebrate.

    Also: we don't need to present evidence that people who lack agency actually do lack agency. Rather, it is you who has to present us with "some scientific study" that observes each household where the man is the bread winner and shows that every one of those men is a "slave" to the wife. You can't just pull it out of your ass that a man loves the woman he regards as inferior to him just because he has an income and she does not. I won't hold my breath, though.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @nick

    I never claimed that men who are primary earners are "automatically a controlling chauvinist".

    That's like saying all parents are child abusers.

    A guy can have respect for his wife, but that doesn't change the fact that he does have more power if he is the primary earner.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "A guy can have respect for his wife, but that doesn't change the fact that he does have more power if he is the primary earner."

    No one can give an explanation on "how" he has more power? The femninists just simply make up a staw man and call it fact.

    When I have seen the man as the bread winner in couples, the woman has access to the family bank account as well.

    My brothers family for an example:

    He is the bread winner. His wife has access to the family bank account. She can go out when ever she wants such as eat out with friends etc. She doesn't have to ask permission or anything.

    In fact, when my brother goes out for drinks with friends, his wife tells him that he has to be home at a certain time.

    All in all, it’s really silly and ridiculous to say just because the man is the bread winner, he automatically has all this control over the woman.

    The woman can go out and get her own job and earn her own income. No one is stopping her. Only she chooses to be in the position she is in.

    A lot of you feminists are paranoid and delusional. It's quite funny.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Nicko, please look up the definition of strawman.

    Not a Strawman-
    A guy can have respect for his wife, but that doesn't change the fact that he does have more power if he is the primary earner.

    Strawman -
    All in all, it’s really silly and ridiculous to say just because the man is the bread winner, he automatically has all this control over the woman.

    Once you've figured that out, I'd recommend looking up disingenous.

    You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  68. 6.5!

    The Russian judge is disappointed. The Russian judge was expected more unusual logical fallacies. The straw man routine was too obvious to be very well executed. The Russian judge is also bored with baseless accusations and projection.

    ReplyDelete
  69. We give people like Price too much respect when we say they believe everything feminist is evil. That assumes they have any interest in what feminism really means or is. In fact, their position is that everything evil is feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  70. When Nicko says that the average sole-breadwinning men become "financial slaves" to their homemaker wives, I wonder, does he think that the men would otherwise do all the household chores themselves? That they'd somehow save money by paying somebody else to do it? That they'd find staffed accommodation that was somehow cheaper? Because, if you look at it as a purely commercial transaction- as Nicko seems to do- it seems that the husband is at least going to break even on this deal. And if they're *saving* money, well, can you say "exploitation"?

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis