Byron_at_ERV

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit-archive/E-3Dawkins/Dawkins%20coup%20de%20grace%20in%20Vegas.htm

Select portion of DavidByron's initial posts.
A)Justicar's post starting 486: unnecessary rudeness. Search 'Justicar' to see relevant comments.
B) Byron ultimately gets called misogynist for taking only anti-feminist position.

411
ERV replied to PZ,
"Did you stop to think for half of a fucking second that maybe, just maybe, *I* had ACTUALLY been in a situation where I could have been raped ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS and *I* thought Watson (or anyone) comparing her absolutely BENIGN encounter on the same level as the HELL I went though"

Sadly, you lowered yourself to their level here by implicitly agreeing with them that a female's emotional experiences trump all logic. Your "argument" is that PZ should shut the fuck up (he's only a man after all) because you have a personal emotional experience and a vagina.

That's exactly the logic that their side uses.

Yes I realise it's a great slap in his face because you're using his own bigoted "logic" against him to shut him up but the danger is you end up promoting / endorsing that which you oppose,

(1) if you are really for equality you don't need to shut them up -- its them who tries to win by censorship; our side doesn't need to. We have truth.

(2) you have facts and reason on your side, so why would you grab up this other tool of emotional (and sexist) blackmail?

BTW the answer to the strict question asked is that by opposing feminism you cease to be a woman as far as the feminists are concerned and therefore your emotional anecdotes don't count -- just as any emotions of men never count. You become a non-woman.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 2:46 PM

423
"I don't see anyone here saying RW is hysterical for simply saying she felt uncomfortable."

Very few people (I am one) even think she was wrong (ie sexist) to make that statement. I think its sexist of her for the same reason I would oppose her if she had said disabled people or gay people make her feel icky.

I would not call her message hysterical. Hysterical? No. Sexist? yes. Even so I wouldn't make a big deal of it. It's the sort of sexism that is so common against men that it is the air we breath. Sometimes it is worth pointing out such sexism. Most of the time there's far worse sexism (against men) going on to be bothered with the little stuff.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 3:33 PM

426
Raging Bee,
"You made an assumption about one guy based on a wild over-generalization about an unspecified group of totally different people? Dude, you're really not in a position to lecture others about how skeptics are supposed to act."

That's foolish talk. Everyone makes generalisations based on prior evidence. It's an efficient mental process. The fact is that my very wide experience of feminist blogs is that they all censor critics. Now I don't mean 99% do either. (Although about 1% close down to avoid both critics and censorship per se) At any rate it is a very well attested correlation.

Nevertheless I didn't only make an assumption. I made an assumption and then tested its validity by trying to post at PZ's board.

And yes. Yes I am in a position to lecture others on what skepticism is.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 3:39 PM

435
bluharmony,
"I see it as a problem as well. I don't want men to perceive us as having irrational threats, and elevator rape is pretty far out there. We face so many real threats on a daily basis"

No. You. Don't.

This is an example feminist hysteria and sexism. Sure, it's not as ridiculously obvious as the all men are rapists stuff, but still. Women are the safest demographic. That's especially true in public places, meeting strangers. Whenever you say this rubbish you just label yourselves as fearful children that big strong men have to protect (while also avoiding because fearful child women might think they are rapists).

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 4:03 PM

439
Raging Bee,
"You really thnk it's "sexist" for a woman to judge a man by his specific behavior toward her?"

The comments by other feminist, later endorsed by RW, were to the effect that it was not any specific behaviour but the mere fact of being male which was the crime here. The problem they identified was that any man might be a rapist, simply by virtue of being born male. ie they gender profiled.

Bee again,
"Examples, please? [of feminist sites that censor]"

What part of the word "all" did you not understand? Name me some sites and I bet they already have me banned. The NOW web site was taken down because they didn't want to explicitly ban me per se - so maybe that one was an exception. That was back when Grendee was vice pres. One other did the same thing.

Obviously I have not attempted to post on ever feminist web site. Nor have I seen every blade of grass yet I feel confident in saying the remainder are green.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 4:09 PM


453
Raging Bee,
"They were merely being cautious of men in specific situations where sexual assault is known to be more likely."

Rape is known to be less likely in an elevator. But even if it were in a situation where it was more likely, it would still be gender profiling and a sex stereotyping of all men as "potential rapists".

Raging Bee,
"The NOW took down a Web site because they didn't want to ban you? Dude, you're so self-inflating it's downright funny. You actually think that statement even sounds plausible?"

I don't see how that makes me look better or worse. Believe it or don't. You asked for an example and I gave you one. To elaborate:

Kim Grandee was the VP and she had a thing at the time for expanding their internet presence or something. Their comments forum was a mess of fighting so I guess she decided to take it down (she said that was the reason explicitly though she didn't name me by name and others were involved I was probably her highest issue). They reworked their web site and placed the forum beyond a pay screen or membership screen. I think she then became president of NOW or something. We all moved to the Ms boards. Feminsits and non. They reacted by changing their board rules to a formula closely followed by most feminist boards in later decades, namely they said critics of feminism were not welcome to post.

You seem unaware of the history of your own movement. Many are.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 4:46 PM

457
Ms Magazine boards that is.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 4:48 PM

464
How old are you Raging Bee? Perhaps these events happened before you were born? At any rate I regret mentioning them now. It was a long time ago and my memory is not good but the substantial events did take place. Sometimes odd things happen, when they do they involve people, I was one of those people. It is nothing, but I guess you are right that it sounds pretty funny.

The point is that feminist sites quickly realised they needed to exclude critics from making comments or they would not survive. This is the same conclusion that other hate web sites such as the white supremacist ones came to. This is an important point in the development of the internets because way back in the day it was feared that such groups would use the internet to recruit and become more powerful. In fact the freedom of the web led to their destruction and they all had to respond by becoming insular and xenophobic.

The site "HateWatch" closed down because it concluded it was not needed any more. This was and is the dynamic that played out in the early years of the internet.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 4:59 PM

468
Raging Bee,
"simple threat-assessment and routine precautions are NOT "stereotyping" or "sexism." (Besides, outside of prison, the overwhelming majority of rapes are indeed committed by men; so being more cautious of men is not at all unfair.)"

You are making a conservative argument. I am a liberal. I believe in equality. I agree that what you are saying here makes sense from your anti-equality view point. Do you understand WHY profiling is wrong to begin with?

I bet you do not, because you are really a conservative pretending to be a liberal (like Obama). Please explain to me why profiling is wrong. Just humour me here. If you are really a liberal it should be easy enough.

Hint: what you said above in no way justifies profiling. If it did then nobody would have any issue with Arizona's racist law. What you said as an argument is just what conservative racists say in support of that law.

If you like to make it easier for you then please explain why it is wrong to say, "Mexicans are the majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona. Simple threat assessment and routine precautions are not racism." Or if you prefer please tell me what is different between your argument for sexism against men, and the racist argument for Arizona's immigration law.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 5:09 PM

470
Raging Bee you are making two contradictory arguments in response to my accusation that feminists always censor. This self-contradiction is typical of feminists because they are irrational (when on topic). I simply point it out to you in case you can refute.

You firstly claimed what I said was false. Now you claim that it is true but that it is a good thing. Which is true? They both can't be. Pick one and go with it please :)

Or don't. Either works for me.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 5:15 PM

483
@Tabby Lavalamp:
I'm not ignoring you but I didn't see anything worth replying to in what you said. Your use of "No True Scotsman" was inappropriate, your accusation of hypocrisy invalid.

I do want to recognise that you made a good effort to contribute though. But I am just not interested in responding to personal attacks. If you want to hate me I just don't care. If you respond to the argument then I'd be interested in that.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 6:09 PM

486
Why should either person take the risk of crossing the street? Being hit by a car is a far greater likelihood than being sexually assaulted and all.

Why is being aware and "concerned" not enough? Why must we think that people are in outright fear at every turn? Which women are like this? Why aren't they taking medication?

Or am I just the brave little soul who manages to get from point a to point b without thinking I've survived some harrowing story culminating in my escape from a sneak-attack coffee invitation of death or something?

I'm starting to get scared that I'm not scared to walk outside. Apparently, it's a combat zone out there and I haven't noticed the mortars exploding off camera before the stray body parts zip behind my clueless head. FUCK!

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 6:18 PM


488
@Justicar
The creation of myths portraying the targeted "out group" as dangerous, and the "in group" as victims, is a hallmark of hate groups. It's certainly not just feminism that creates such myths. Whether it's the Jewish Global Conspiracy or just the War on Christmas it seems that it is pretty normal behaviour for such groups.

As to why, I assume it is functional for creating and increasing tribal feeling among the in group. Fear of the outsider leads to a reinforcement of loyalties.

In short terrifying women is good business for feminism.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 6:32 PM

502
@Mr DNA
I wouldn't want to dismiss the idea that the use of certain words was a significant source of prejudice in itself. Instead my criticism of feminism on that issue would be that it is inconsistent and biased. There's no real theory that applies fairly to men and women both, coming from the feminists.

As an example in this and the other threads on "elevatorgate" there was a lot of use of the word "creepy".

"Creepy" is used in that context as a sexual slur against men. Compare it with "slut" for example. "Creepy" is a word applied to men who perform poorly as judged by gender role expectations placed upon men but not women.

A man's role is to approach women. A lot. And get rejected a lot. So the man is in a double bind. He has to do the "shit work" of cold approaches and constant rejection. If he doesn't then he is a "wimp" or "fag". And at the same time if he performs badly by female demands then he is "creepy".

So the use of "creepy" in this context is a sexual slam against men to contain them in their tightly restrictive gender role.

If feminists genuinely cared about the sexist use of language in our society they would make such an analysis. On the contrary we find them employing such sexist language against men to preserve their female privilege. That clear hypocrisy is why I never take seriously any feminist on the subject of how words can denigrate women.

Again it's not because the subject matter itself is trivial necessarily. It might be in some cases, and others not. But with a feminist its always insincere because its inconsistent and biased.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 7:06 PM

503
Tabby Lavalamp:
"Do you want me to show you feminist websites that don't censor and ban critics? (Reclusive Leftist would be a good start,"

I'm banned from there.

Actually she more than banned me, she blocked me from even SEEING the web site. Now that is pretty extreme. In fact I can't think of another case off hand though I think there were one or two.

In addition let me quote from Reclusive Leftist's comment policy.... oh wait I can't can I? Banned from accessing the web site. But (from memory) if you were to go and have a look at it then it explicitly says critics are not welcome. I'm not sure now about that as I couldn't find it under the Google cache so I may be confusing hers with another site.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 7:15 PM


505
Davidbyron@487:
I have no use for unsourced assumptions as to social group dynamics. Indeed, I have no use for wild assumptions on any particular matter.

If you have carefully reasoned, supported analysis on what you propose, I'll look at it. Otherwise, you might as well tell me you assume that voodoo practitioners prefer drinking AB- blood to O+. It is just as useful an expenditure of your time with respect to imparting to me any information. Idle speculation is something I'll leave for less discerning minds. Thanks for the protip though.

Sophie @ 489:
I get and take your point. I was more just throwing a balloon up about the issue. I see this crossing the street thing get mentioned and it pisses me off. I don't know any people who are that afraid of the outdoors who aren't taking medication for it.

I agree with you completely, and I've said many times: someone else's irrational fears are their problem to deal with, not mine.

It reminds me of a letter I saw on the internet about 10 years ago. The letter came from someone who lived in suburbia. Their fair neighborhood had been infiltrated by a vile, immoral, disgusting gay couple. This caused quite the consternation on the part of the letter-writer who wanted to know what could be done to remove the problem.

The response was perfect:
"You could move."

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 7:16 PM


507
@Justicar
It's not my job to educate you, so don't be so arrogant. I used to have a web site. Other web sites are out there. Google is your friend. I won't spoon feed you like a baby.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 7:26 PM

508
Davidbyron @ 506:
I appreciate the attempt at condescending to me; it's special.

I don't need to do research, particularly of the google variety, to know you were making shit up.

The "I assume" bit clued me in on that straight away.

You're free to assume whatever you'd like, of course. I just have no interest in someone's imaginary reasons as to why groups behave in a given way. I prefer evidence, studies, data, analysis. But if imagination is the best you can do, it's the best you can do.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 7:28 PM


512
@Justicar: I have no evidence or graphs or data or statistics, but DavidByron's "out-group/in-group" theory sounds to me like being a fairy sensible assumption. I'm not entirely sure why you were so aggressive in your response. Sure, it might be a load of shite, but it does at least sound plausible.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 20, 2011 7:39 PM

523
@Justicar: Is there perhaps some sort of history here with DavidByron that I'm not aware of, with my only having popped up in the whole atheist blogosphere a few days ago? I see what you're saying, and making baseless assumptions will indeed get us nowhere, but it seemed to me that DavidByron was making a tentative claim that essentially supports what we've arguing in favour of. *shrug*

@Phyraxus: Keep up the sterling work! I'd join you, but I was over there for a good two and half hours last night, and it really was like talking to a brick fucking wall. Let us know when the first accusation of your being a "cupcake" lands.

@Steve Thoms: What a pathetic, snivelling waste of a post that was. If you're going to stroll in and post then at least try to engage with the arguments that we're making, instead of trolling about the langauge that we're using, and then hitting us with a patronising "Good day". Good grief.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 20, 2011 8:11 PM


525
Mr. DNA:
I have no interaction before this thread. I don't know him from Adam.

But when someone comes up to me present a putative explanation about something and start off with "I assume" and then tell me the conclusion, I immediately dismiss them from the conversation. They might be right, but if so it's only going to be by accident. I don't like those odds, so I decline to accept the conclusion on someone's assumption.

Yes, in science and math we make assumptions. Those assumptions are not the conclusion of a problem. They come at the beginning as a place to start from, the thing to test.

If I assume x to be the case, what can I do to test x to see how it holds it? Ok, I assume x is wrong, what data suggests this? How can I get those data? How can I can control a problem to only see if x plays a role?

It doesn't go, "I assume x is the case. QED."

tas121790 @ 524:
I chuckled.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 8:22 PM

625
@Justicar
"I appreciate the attempt at condescending to me; it's special."

Your welcome.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 11:06 AM

626
@JUsticar:
"plausible just doesn't seem to quite good enough"

You should stick with the implausible, and above all don't research the topic as I have. Facts are not your friend I sense. Fats tend to be all "plausible" and stuff. Or how about this? Insult randomly people who've done the work of research even as you admit you yourself are clueless?

Sounds good.

I however will stick with an alternative concept which I like to think of as giving due regard to people who have knowledge and trying to learn everything I can from them while slamming bloviators.

I suggest you start again with me if you want anything from me.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 11:14 AM

627
@Tabby lavalamp
"I've seen critics post comments there and not get banned, even if they and Dr. Socks disagreed vehemently. But a self-described "liberal" who claims NOW is the same thing as Stormfront? Yeah, I can see how she could tolerate that for only so long."

Well as I said -- this seems to be misunderstood by people so I'll go over it explicitly -- I sometimes post stuff that tends to show I am wrong. OK? because I'm weirdly honest. When I do so you don't get to yell "gotcha" as if I was hiding it and you discovered it by yourself or something.

Well it doesn't seem weird to me but apparently its so weird other people feel i can't really have intended it and therefore give them self credit for the "discovery".

So, yes I was wrong in my memory about that site's comment policy - confused with another site maybe. I did try to check the facts but as I'm banned from even viewing that site I was only able to get the Google cache which I admitted ran against me. I said that,

Anyway -- to get back on point we have reached an agreement which is that we both agree feminists censor and they pretty much have to. So that's good right? We substantially agree on a point you initially assumed I was wrong on.

Now can we get back to why you think that profiling on the basis of race is wrong, but profiling against men is a good idea? (eg "OOoooh he might be a rapist so I should respond to him as if he was dangerous") You keep saying that this point has been replied to on other boards but I have never seen any such reply. To me it is all the same. Negative stereotyping for mere administrative convenience is prejudicial.

In fact the practical advantage of stereotyping all Mexican-looking people in Nevada is far greater than women's advantage to thinking all men are rapists. The former arguably might help enforcement of immigration (it doesn't) but the later just fucks up the women having such terrifying and prejudicial thoughts and actually probably makes them LESS SAFE if anything.

Beyond the ethics this is a point in law as discrimination is outlawed under the 14th amendment and decades of legal decisions have framed when exactly something is profiling and when it is not. Obviously they consider only actions by the government and government contractors not individuals. There's no law against being racist or sexist. But sexist is the correct word to describe prejudicial stereotyping of men as a group in the way you advocate.

Once again if there really is an answering argument from the feminists I have yet to see it and I would LOVE to hear it. Please please PLEASE tell me what it is.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 11:39 AM

636
Raging Bee:
"Why don't you go back and actually read the feminists' explanations on the several blog posts"

I already did that. No such answer exists does it? You feminists have nothing to say in response to the charge that you are advocating gender profiling.

Raging Bee:
"Here's the difference... You can't say virtually all muggings are committed by a particularly race."

You already tried that line and I pointed out that almost all illegal immigrants in Nevada are Mexican looking. So yes, you have the exact same argument as other conservatives who are prejudiced on race. Congratulations. Also: you cannot recall that you've already made the same argument. What do you have fluff between your ears?

You have nothing else to add do you?

Good grief.


"Waah waah waah, but men are so HORRID that's why its DIFFERENT WHEN WE DO IT."

It isn't different. You are a sexist.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 12:56 PM

638
@TylerD
"Why do I always get the impression that feminists can be the most misogynistic and sexist peeps in the world when they face dissent from females?"

That isn't sexism exactly. Yes, feminists hate men as the "out group". Now let me be clear that I mean "hate" the political term not the emotion. The KKK don't hate black people as an emotion. The actual emotion involved would be better described as "contempt", but politically we call it "hate".

It's sexism (or racism etc) when they hate their out group, but when they attack perceived traitors to the cause, that's really just simple tribalism. The defector, the turncoat, the tribal betrayer is always more of a threat to the tribe and always gets worse attacks. So yes feminists often brutally attack women as individuals and also often attack whole groups of women who are perceived as behaving against the interests of the tribe, but that is not sexist hate in the sense they hate men.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 1:02 PM

641
DavidByron,

I'm thinking more about the fact that they use they same kind of language that they consider awful and hateful toward women when an individual woman isn't on their side. It's hypocritical so act like such language is universally contemptible and then use it, on women, when they refuse to conform. It's much like blacks calling dissenters "house negroes" and "watermellon sucking Uncle Toms", in that it's equally hypocritical.

Posted by: TylerD | July 21, 2011 1:16 PM

647
@TylerD:
"I'm thinking more about the fact that they use they same kind of language that they consider awful and hateful toward women when an individual woman isn't on their side. It's hypocritical"

Yes and no. In my opinion they don't really care about women being called cunt or whatever. So I'd say they were lying when they made the claim that such name calling is sexist. That's why they use the same words so easily when attacking.

Is this hypocrisy?

My own view is that feminists are conservatives. by that I mean they fundamentally don't respect liberal concepts of reason and equality. To them tribalist "values" are key. The tribalist has a morality which says "anything I do, or a member of the tribe does, is good, anything an outsider does is bad even if it is the same thing."

For example many pro-life women get abortions. When asked to explain the apparent hypocrisy they explain "I'm not a slut like those women"

This ok for me, but not for ye attitude (ie inequality as a moral principle) is the hallmark of conservatism. Conservatives will say ANYTHING to win an argument because they have no actual moral principles save for one: loyalty to the tribe.

They will often even state contradictory arguments and be happy about it. The conclusion justifies the argument to a conservative (the ends justify the means). They fundamentally don't believe in making sense or being consistent or honest. Not when the tribe's identity is challenged. Loyalty trumps EVERYTHING else.

So it's not a mistake or moral flaw to them to argue against X and simultaneously do X. For a liberal such behaviour is a moral failing ("hypocrisy"). To a conservative? Just business as usual.

If you press them their answer always comes down to saying "THAT'S DIFFERENT"

And why? Why is it different? because when they do it, its always assumed to be for the good, for the best of motivations, and for the good of the tribe. When an outsider does it then their motivations are always potentially the very worst.

This is the heart of tribalism. It is the polar opposite of liberal equality.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 1:35 PM

651
@Tabby Lavalamp
I apologise for getting you confused with another feminist. You all have identical arguments. But I get confused between people easily I'm afraid. At least it means I concentrate on the debate not the person.

Now you raise the idea that it's OK for feminists to gender profile against men as long as they don't make a law about it. So firstly, thank you for admitting that you are gender profiling against men. Progress. I am not quite clear but it looks like you are (for consistency) saying you support racial profiling too as long as it is not enacted as law? Is that so? And you don't see that as a conservative position on profiling?

Why do we have laws? It's against the law because its immoral. It's immoral when the government does it and it's immoral when an individual does it. The difference is the government has power and so it's a far larger issue practically speaking. As I said above we don't have laws against racism by individuals, but we do have racism laws when the government does it. Why? I say it is because governmental immorality is far more serious. I say racism is still wrong when done by an individual, even though it may be quite legal. Does your view differ? If not I can't see your thinking here. It would seem to make no difference if feminists advocate a law gender profiling men or not.

However in passing I note that feminists HAVE lobbied for gender profiling laws against men, and have seen them pass into law, and those laws have been challenged as unconstitutional discrimination under the 14th amendment, just as with the Arizona law. I take it you'd be against such laws even as you favour profiling by individuals?

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 2:02 PM

654
@Tabby again:
"You are arguing that a woman who feels that it's okay to take precautions around strange men is a sexist, therefore is a conservative and not a liberal. You are using the No True Scotsman argument"

Well, we haven't really discussed this have we? But since you raise it my own view is that people all have a lot of tribalist and egalitarian tendencies in them, and can express either tendency at different times (I of course am the exception!)

However, the context of my remarks here is that of the feminist movement which I am saying is specifically a conservative / tribalist group. Now any individual feminist may express liberal traits in other areas of life. In fact I am sure they would. Dogmatism is non-functional in many areas of life. You'd be a basket case if you never were able to express liberal traits, especially in a society like ours which unthinkingly assumes liberalism is right and conservatism is wrong on moral issues.

But I am not talking about feminist behaviour in other areas. I am just talking about their behaviour with respect to their movement, gender, gender issues and so on. That is deeply conservative. Again, I am trying to usefully characterise the entire movement (just as feminists do when they claim feminism is for equality).

Making broad characterisations about things is not a logical error. The No True Scotsman thing is a silly comment because you have to basically assume your interlocutor means to make an absolute black and white statement instead of a broad generalisation. It is rude to make an assumption involving the interpretation of someone's words that makes them out to be an idiot, when a simple alternative interpretation is available.

When a hate movement is in its empowered stage (as feminism is currently) people of goodwill can easily become involved with it. In the 1920s in the US the KKK had similar-ish power and politicians competed to be the KKK candidate just as politicians today always want to be seen as pro-woman.

As a former member put it, "all the best people were in the clan". In some respects the clan was quite liberal -- ironically wrt to women in fact. The first woman bishop in the US was a clansman I believe. The Women's KKK was quite "progressive".

Nevertheless I identify the KKK as a conservative hate movement. Does that mean everyone in it was racist? No. it is a description of the movement as a whole. But was being in the KKK a bad sign?

You betcha.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 2:24 PM

672
ERV:
"I get this regularly-- though it used to be PZ, for equally baffling reasons-- and that is nothing if not sexist and ageist and sometimes borders on heteronormaitve"

I don't think so. This is simply an appeal to an authority figure to keep a member of the tribe in line. If either of the men in question had been women it would have gone the same way. If you had been male it would have been different perhaps because men are not considered true members of the feminist tribe and therefore don't need to be attacked as traitors the same way. Instead, you'd be dismissed as a privileged white male. If the feminist movement was male dominated instead of female dominated maybe the attacks would have been direct instead of indirect. But I see this behaviour on feminist boards all over the place. In fact on so-called progressive blogs too.

I see no reason to suspect (their) sex or age is involved. The implication of what you're saying is that you are younger than the two men? I would have guessed the opposite actually. You seem to have your act together much more.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 3:12 PM

673
Just for what it's worth, I would like to distance myself from DavidByron. Feminism is NOT a hate movement. SOME feminists might be man-haters, but that's not even remotely close to the feminist movement's stance. There's a bunch of other things he said I don't agree with.

Won't elaborate unless REALLY needed.

Too lazy.

Posted by: Phil Giordana, FCD, aka Schroedinger's Dog | July 21, 2011 3:15 PM

683
@Tabby
"Most rapists are men, most men are not rapists."

So what? Racists can say, "Most illegal immigrants are Mexicans, most Mexicans are not illegal immigrants"

But you don't ACT as if "most men are not rapists". You ACT as if they were.

Tabby:
"You confuse understanding and accepting with favouring."

I understand why bigots do what they do and I repudiate it. You appear to be advocating it, but perhaps that's too strong. Certainly you are seeking to justify prejudicial behaviour here.

Maybe I asked Bee before but I also sense you don't really "get it" as to why profiling is wrong. It's wrong because it is discrimination. You are treating one group negatively for no good reason - discrimination. You are advocating (or defending) discrimination against men. ie treating them -- but not women -- as if they were potential rapists or criminals. You admit it makes no sense to do so as the vast majority of both men and women are NOT rapists. But you are OK treating the two groups entirely differently.

We keep coming back to WHY and you have no answer beyond what is equally true of the Arizona law. You've failed to differentiate the two cases.

Tabby:
"This is why I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you considering that you see feminism as a hate movement.
Please be honest with me here, do you see the men's right movement as a hate movement as well?"

Of course you're wasting your time. You're arguing with someone on the internet. If you don't like doing that why would you be doing it? Are you supposed to be working?

The men's movement -- in as much as it exists at all -- is dissimilarly situated (duh). It isn't sexist and it has no power. eg it doesn't enact laws discriminating against women. They are fighting for a genuinely disadvantaged minority group, not a majority group that is empowered and uses its power to pretend to be the victim, and pretend to be a minority when its over half the population.

Now hypothetically if they succeed beyond their wildest dreams and are as "successful" as the feminists then maybe they could become corrupt and sexist in the future but I doubt it. Why?

(1) Feminism was corrupt from the start. From the Seneca Falls meeting they characterised the relationship between men and women as a war of the sexes where men had to be defeated by women. An astoundingly sexist metaphor.

(2) Feminism is a conservative (in the sense of preserving the social status quo) movement, whereas rights for men is a radical movement. Feminism is establishment and men's rights is very dangerous to the establishment.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 3:34 PM

687
@Tabby again:
Nevertheless I am (in theory) opposed to the men's right's movement as a gender specific movement, because of the inherent dangers. Even though I can see men are hard pressed these days not women, still I think the only way forward is a genuine movement for equality regardless of gender. In practise they are so powerless it hardly matters either way.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 3:36 PM

688
Raging Bee:
"you're stupid, uncaring, hateful, phony, and morally retarded"

Aww you got me pegged so well!
You've been talking to my mom haven't you?

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 3:39 PM

690
@Tabby:
"you keep saying what women shouldn't do to protect ourselves from rape (no "gender profiling"). So what is acceptable in your eyes that we should do?"

(1) I'm not addressing women's actions but the support of those actions by feminists. People do stupid prejudiced shit all day, OK? It's human nature. What I am more concerned about is that this unthinking naive sexist action is being thoughtfully defended by smart people who PRETEND to be against sexism, and who PRETEND to want to challenge sexist behaviour that has become a norm for less thoughtful people.

So quit pretending this is a criticism of women (it is of some, but only tangentially) when it is a criticism of feminists (of either sex).

(2) Being terrified of all men is (duh) NOT HELPING anyone to stop themselves being raped. In fact I asserted that if anything it makes rape more likely because the vast majority of men are very PROTECTIVE of women but if women reject those men they will not get assistance in the very rare chance they need it.

As for what to do to avoid being raped, just don't be a man. Men are the victims of assault more than women.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 3:47 PM

703
@Tabby:
"Take few dozen random people off the street, equal numbers of men and women. Which of those two groups is more likely to contain at least one rapist?"

How many times do you have to put forward the same flawed argument? That is EXACTLY what racist conservatives say in support of the Arizona law. You have no ability to refute what I am saying there.

Let me try a different way to make you see it. Women are the majority of child abusers. That's a fact as you put it. So should everyone go around assuming all women are "potential child abusers" in our society? Would that make sense to you? We should take children away from female single parents? Ban women as teachers and as creche attendants maybe?

------------------------------

I'm sorry to be the one to say this Tabby, but as a woman you don't know what discrimination is. These men in the MRA are often victims who can get quite angry and bigots opposed to them. Anger at injustice is NOT sexism and is NOT inappropriate.

Now I do agree (from what I've seen which is no more than you I expect) there are a lot of angry guys -- justifiably. And many blame all women, instead of just feminists. What do you expect when they've suffered under decades of indoctrinated sexist hatred of men?

Once again: show me the discriminatory laws passed by MRAs and then you have a case.

As for your riotous view that women in the US are disadvantaged please name me just ONE are where they are. Most feminist cannot name even ONE. Here's some where men are:

(1) over 90% of prison population - and 99% of executions
(2) life expectancy years shorter
(3) one third the money spent on male specific health as women
(4) women have 60% higher chance of attending college
(5) women account for 80% of consumer spending (men have to earn the money women spend)
(6) no reproductive rights
(7) almost no family rights
(8) 90% of workplace fatalities

And you KNOW I could go on and on all day but you got nothing except dome big fat lie about women being paid less which as adults we both know is bullshit because it compares women and men in dissimilar circumstances and passes it off as "equal work".

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 4:29 PM

704
@Tabby:
"One is about individual women doing what they think is best for their own safety and has no real effect on men other than making it more difficult to get strange women to go somewhere with them. The other is the force of law that has wide-ranging effects and it can and will hamper the daily lives of those it affects."

No effect on men? Jesus Christ you are privileged. You really don't know. Fine but you'll have to ask others not me.

What I already said here was that while I agree governemnt action is worse in degree, nevertheless this argument in no way suggests that the action of individuals is not immoral too.

Do you disagree then? You think its good for a woman to profile but bad if a governemnt does it? Or you agree its bad when a woman does it but its no big deal?

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 4:36 PM

706
@ThreeFanged Jarvis:
"There are still some bastions of male power"

That's the Frontman fallacy. This is a feminist myth that states when the 0.001% people at the top are mostly men then the other 99.999% of men are empowered. That's bullshit and if anything the reverse is true. When men are in charge they tend to kick down other men and pander to women. Men in charge means a worse deal for the vast majority of men not in charge.

For example a female judge is far less sexist (against men) than a male judge, although still quite bad enough. This probably stems from men being naturally sexual competitors with each other. And for that part, women are "natural enemies" of each other too.

Feminism's gender war metaphor stands this obvious evolutionary fact on its head and pretends all men are best buddies who conspire to screw over all women. They also pathetically pretend all women are on the same page as each other. It's an incredibly sexist myth which has come to dominate our society's thinking on gender. But it is entirely FALSE.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 4:45 PM

714
Tabby I see you are one of the classic pro-choice for women, no choice for men people. Very common. Still you agreed with most of the items. But I didn't list those issues for men so you could try and prove you weren't a complete asshole towards men. I was demonstrating how easy it is to list multiple and serious issues men face. Now can you please name EVEN ONE issue women face that are comparably important?

It was easy for me. Most feminist can't name even one.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 5:14 PM

717
@Tabby:
"Women's clothing generally costs more"

Yes. Rich people's clothing generally cost more than poor people's too. The rich are so oppressed.

Actually this reminds me of a piece of literature from medieval England where some wag made the same comment about how typical it is to see the wife dressed in finery and the husband dressed in plain clothes.

At least the rich pay their own bills. Women -- as feminists keep reminding us all day long -- do not and cannot pay for themselves because men earn all the money.

But is it better to earn it, or spend it?

OK, ok, I didn't want to get sidetracked but it's funny that I recalled this story about a man saying the same thing about women spending all the family's money on expensive clothes for themselves from centuries ago.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 5:24 PM

726
Lawl. 625 from Davidbyron:

"@Justicar
'I appreciate the attempt at condescending to me; it's special.'

Your welcome."
His response is two words, the rest of it is copy and pasted from what I wrote earlier, plus a salutation. A two word reply tripped him up.

Ok, I'll play. My welcome?

Posted by: Justicar | July 21, 2011 6:08 PM

729
Davidbyron@626:
"I suggest you start again with me if you want anything from me."
After prattling on for a while you end with this little nugget of stupid. What part of I have no interest in your guesses indicated there was something from you that I wanted?

How could I make it more plain that I have absolutely no fucking interest to the slightest degree of interest possible in what it is you just imagine in your head and then state as a model of the world?

I want nothing from you. Why? You have nothing to offer but what goes on inside your head. And it's not a particularly good bit of fiction either. So, I wouldn't buy the book, or see the movie.

If you want my interest (which you apparently do considering, you know, how much you're trying to get it and impress me), either make the fiction really extravagant and detailed so as to inspire awe by your superlative literary imagery skills, or do some research and write a technical paper.

Having left grade school, my interest in reading first draft of badly thought out fiction is not what it once was.

Tootles, pumpkin.

Posted by: Justicar | July 21, 2011 6:22 PM

730
@Tabby:
"Sticking to the western developed world, of course..."

Sticking to something you know about? Yes.

"The Republican war on reproductive rights. Cry that men don't have as much say in reproduction, the drive to remove choice from women is reprehensible."

Maybe you didn't get the idea. I am looking for an area where women are worse off. You just gave an area where women are far FAR better off than men. Are you really trying to say women are oppressed because they are far better off than men, but haven't yet reached utter fucking perfection?

Women have a right that no man has -- the right to decide form themselves when they are ready to become a parent. Fuck. You don't even think men OUGHT to have that equal right with women. And you dare try and bitch to me that women have it worse on reproductive rights???

Strike one.
Do try again.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 6:44 PM

742
Tabby - your big proof that women are really worse off than men is to bitch and moan they have their legal right to not have to be forced into parenthood somewhat partially under attack -- while you admit men have no such right, that you oppose them having such a right?

It's like Michelle Bachman telling me white slave owners were worse off than actual slaves because their freedom and liberty was under assault from people wanting to make them pay taxes (taxes slaves didn't have to pay!!)

Is that the very best example of oppression of women you can think of? Because if it is I don't think I have to say any more on that topic. Your answer speaks for itself.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 7:23 PM