Dispelling the misconceptions about feminism.

Many falsely assume that feminism is somehow about self loathing women, illogical emotion driven women, women with hairy armpits, women who look like men, unattractive women, lesbians, and supplicating men who think being a feminist will get them laid.  Fortunately a group of feminists at Duke University have banded together and launched the website Who Needs Feminism.  They are combating the misconceptions about feminism, while directing public attention to the real and pressing issues which only feminism can solve.  Here is their About statement from the bottom of their site (emphasis mine):

Identify yourself as a feminist today and many people will immediately assume you are man-hating, bra-burning, whiny liberal. Perhaps a certain charming radio talk show host will label you as a “Feminazi” or “slut.” Even among more moderate crowds, feminism is still seen as too radical, too uncomfortable, or simply unnecessary. Feminism is both misunderstood and denigrated regularly right here on Duke’s campus.  We, the 16 women of Professor Rachel Seidman’s course on Women in the Public Sphere, have decided to fight back against these popular misconceptions surrounding the feminist movement. Our class was disturbed by what we perceive to be an overwhelmingly widespread belief among students that today’s society no longer needs feminism. In order to change this perception on campus, we have launched a PR campaign for feminism. We aim to challenge existing stereotypes surrounding feminists and assert the importance of feminism today.

They have created a submission form where feminists can submit their own photos and statements.  Based on the text on the form it appears that they are exercising editorial discretion regarding which submissions are published.  This is a very good idea, otherwise some non feminists might submit caricatures of feminism to try to discredit the campaign and make feminists look foolish:

We prefer and prioritize photo statements that use our original poster format, but we do read all submissions!

Once you’ve taken a moment to rid yourself of any male privilege and preconceived notions of what feminism is about, I’ll point out some of the insight the learned ladies at Professor Seidman’s Women in the Public Sphere are sharing with the world as part of their PR campaign.  Note that each entry has both a photo and text.  Be sure to click on the links to see the photo.

I’m serious though;  put away the male privilege and open your mind.  Feminism isn’t about a bunch of hairy pitted misfits trying desperately to change the world so they personally will fit in better and be seen as more attractive.  It is a serious intellectual pursuit.  If you don’t knock this kind of thinking off I’ll have to ask you to quit reading.

That’s better.

First up is Leah, and she is here to destroy the stereotype.  Leah needs feminism because:

I need feminism because I shouldn’t need a reason for not shaving my pits (I’m not making a statement; it’s just more comfortable).

Way to go Leah!  Just because one feminist happens to have hairy armpits, it doesn’t mean this is an important issue to feminists!  This is simply a personal matter and one of comfort.  It isn’t like they are broadcasting their hairy pits on the network news or making political statements with them.  And men think they are so logical!  Next on our tour of enlightenment is batmanisreal.  She needs feminism because she looks like a man.  Her poster reads:

I need feminism because I am a woman, even though I may not look like society’s version of a woman.

The text below the poster states:

I’m tired of getting beaten up because women don’t understand and men are intimidated.

Some of the patriarchal smartasses among my readers are likely thinking (no doubt with their male privilege):  Women like batmanisreal already get special protection under the law and in the workplace.  Isn’t that the mark of a society with great compassion and tolerance?  However, what you need to understand is we need feminism so that people won’t just tolerate her lifestyle but will applaud it.  She can’t be fully free to look and act as she wishes so long as others are free to form their own opinions.  So check that male privilege and start thinking logically or I’ll seriously ask you to stop reading.

Next on our list is an entry by what appears to be the creator of the site herself, whoneedsfeminism:

I need feminism b/c my roomie’s philosophy textbook valued men’s experience as more “valid” and “logical” while the “feminist alternative of care” recieved a 1/2 pg. explanation of why emotions are “too subjective” to produce LOGIC…no wonder western thought is so patriarchal. Symbolic logic does not equal moral/women’s issues

Oh.  This is embarrassing.  In my own moments of male privilege above I accidentally implied that logical thinking is better than emotional thinking.  I’ll leave the errors there though instead of burying my shame.  Perhaps others can learn from my mistakes.

At any rate, now that I’m quite angry with myself for invoking my male privilege of logic over emotions I can at least better understand this next entry, also by whoneedsfeminism:

I need feminism because I hate myself.

Now that I’ve shed my own preconceived notions, I’m starting to better understand how women are being oppressed by not being encouraged to display their armpit hair with pride.  Jade is being oppressed by the patriarchy and desperately needs our support:

The fact that a woman has armpit hair and does not hide it whilst on a television program for Ireland, should not make several news programs in Australia. This is RIDICULOUS and furthermore the men on said programs do not have a right to look disgusted or make horribly degrading comments.

She doesn’t link to the specific case, but with some searching I found this story which may be what she is referring to.  Next on our list is girlwiththemouseyhair.

I need feminism because 70% of people living in abject poverty are women and as a lesbian, poverty is 24% more likely for my girlfriend and I. This makes me worry about our life together.

Next is the powerful story of askdreambaker.  She needs feminism so people won’t focus on her breasts:

I do not fit into the “ideal body image” at all and have been told as such. I have had remarks made about my breasts and about how if you ignore everything else I am bang-able. It has gotten to the point where I paranoid that, they are the only things that people see in me.

I’ll bet the only parts of her you looked at in the photo were her breasts, and you probably wondered if she is “bang-able”.  What is wrong with you?  Why did you objectify her by focusing on her breasts?  Why didn’t you notice her hair, or her eyes?  Why did her bang-ability even come to mind when you were reading about this serious feminist topic?  See what she has to face every day?

Lastly I present the entry by stevenewlins.  Note the decorative flair he drew around the word feminism to show how serious he is about the topic.  If I’m reading him correctly, he wants to make sure women know he is down with them having casual sex and aborting any unwanted pregnancies which might occur as a result:

“I need feminism because I’m tired of living in a country where women are treated as if they’re undeserving of making decisions regarding their own bodies, they’re made to think they don’t need to be compensated equally for the same work, and they’re raised to think that slurs like ‘bitch’ and ‘slut’ are okay”

I’ve only pointed out a few of the entries, all from the first page*.  However, there is much more insight where this came from.  In fact there are 174 pages (and counting) of it.  I only focused on the first page so you patriarchal pigs wouldn’t accuse me of cherry picking the best arguments the feminists had to make.  I have no doubt however that I could have found equally enlightening entries on any of the 174 pages.

*At the time that I wrote the post on Saturday morning 7/28.

This entry was posted in Feminists, Philosophy of Feminism, Satire. Bookmark the permalink.

241 Responses to Dispelling the misconceptions about feminism.

  1. deepankar007 says:

    I just can’t stop laughing.
    Who the hell are these bitches to tell us how to behave and what to think??
    Thank you sir.

  2. Phantasmagoria says:

    Seen this before, it’s been floating around the internet for a little while. Doesn’t make it any less laughable though.

    Kinda sad that there are men posting on it too though.

  3. Feminist Hater says:

    Dalrock, sies man! You should have put a crass site warning for the link to the hairy armpits lady. Yuck, seriously! I have to go rinse with mouthwash now as I threw up a little bit in my mouth. Did you see her legs? They look like mine.

    If you keep posting such ugly stories, I swear! I will go join feminists just to get them to shave! You have been warned!

  4. deepankar007 says:

    The best part is that these bitches wonder why every sane person hates them.
    I don’t know why the white males tolerate this nonsense??

  5. Phantasmagoria says:

    Eh, the hairy armpits and legs aren’t really that bad. It would be nice if they did shave but I’m not going to hold them down and shave them or anything like that.

    What frustrates me is people harping on about eradicating inequality and how the pay gap is such a big thing and all that jazz. You can’t eradicate inequality without making society as a whole weaker because in order to do that, you’d have to lower the standards until they’re acceptable for the weakest link. It isn’t a bad thing for people to have different strengths and weaknesses, it’s part of what makes us unique.

    As for the pay gap, I’ll believe the whole equal work for equal pay when there is a nice 50/50 split for all the dangerous jobs like mining or oil rigging or high-rise construction.

    Oh, and I’ll believe in equality when the women who still think that it is a man’s prerogative to pay for everything while dating regardless of who makes the most money shut up and start paying their own way. Of course, these are the same harpies who cry shrilly about all the good men being gone and how chivalry is dead. Funny thing about chivalry is that is was a moral code, a social agreement between men and women to be respectful of one another in order to protect them both. I don’t see why men should have to be chivalrous if women won’t hold up their end of the bargain.

  6. Jason says:

    Thank you for reminding us Dalrock that feminism is a serious scholarly pursuit and that any appearance it gives of having all the intellectual depth of cheap veneer is just that, an appearance. Thanks for clearing up my misconceptions😉

  7. Deli says:

    Ok, I read the comments to the confession made by a brony – and the amount of backslash that it got from the locals at “OMG, white man talking about ponies got more support than any of the other posts in this tumblr, UNFAIR!” just made my day.

    http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/post/28268367340/i-need-feminism-because-liking-pretty-pink-ponies#notes

    I hope the dude in the picture got an idea about how welcome he is among THAT crowd.

    Also, I hope he googles MGTOW at one point of his life and finds what he is looking for.

  8. deepankar007 says:

    QUOTE_” I need feminism because on
    the women’s website I write
    for, too many men comment
    to tell me I’m wrong.”
    I am not sure if they are real.
    lol.

  9. Ulysses says:

    More people need to think about this line from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”: “-Ism’s in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself.”

  10. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    They have created a submission form where feminists can submit their own photos and statements.

    Wait a minute, did they just say they wanted people to “submit?” THEY SOUND JUST LIKE THE EVIL PATRIARCHY!! OH NOOOOO!!!

  11. Feminist Hater says:

    I need feminism like a fish needs a bicycle.

  12. dude says:

    Brilliant!

  13. Forgive me, I couldn’t resist,…it was too tempting,..

  14. Lad says:

    “I need feminism because on the women’s website I write for, too many men comment to tell me I’m wrong.”

    In other words, I need feminism for its de facto censorship of ideas I don’t like.

  15. Feminist Hater says:

    The whole site is a bunch of wimmenz telling us that they need feminism because there are still people out there that don’t agree with them. It basically boils down to them thinking they have a right to be taken seriously and they need feminism to drill that into everyone.

  16. sunshinemary says:

    Breast-girl misspelled the word “feminism” on her little sign. Note to girl: You might want to learn how to spell the name of the movement with which you self-identify.

    As for me, I’m pro-paytriarchy, er patriarcky, um…well, it doesn’t matter how it’s spelled, I just FEEL it’s right, and you have to accept my feelings whether I can spell them out or not!

    [D: In her defense, the poster doesn’t appear to be what she hoped the reader would look at. She had to include it or they wouldn’t have published the submission.]

  17. God bless Roosh:
    http://ineedfeminism.tumblr.com/

    [D: I had forgotten about that and didn’t make the connection when I stumbled on the site Saturday while searching for something else. Roosh clearly beat me to the punch on this, by several months.]

  18. koevoet says:

    Mary, don’t most women approve of the PAYtriarchy? All the women I have dated have…

  19. sunshinemary says:

    I FEEL very oppressed by that remark,koevoet. 😉

    I need feminism because i’m entitled to feel safe walking down the street

    Silly girl. She has confused “feminism” with a “Kimber Solo Carry 9 mm”.

  20. Mikediver says:

    SSM very nicely put. God created man; colt made him equal.

    But really, what would have to be done to make every woman on the face of the earth “feel” completely safe at all times? Since men are bigger and stronger I would assume that all men would have to be put in chains so they would not make women “feel” frieghtened. And since even there words can make a woman “feel” threatened; they would all have to be gagged. And since even the gaze of a man can eye rape a woman; all men must be blinded. Does that about do it? If we are seeking to make all women “feel safe, as opposed to being safe, then this is where we are headed.

    What most women do not know, and do not want to know, is that men are much more likely to be the victims of violence (including rape), and lead much more dangerous lives. We just have to deal with it. We learn early in life that no one will come ot our aid (except possibly some close male friends). Usually, we will be percieved as the dangerous ones and threatened or harmed if we call for help. Otherwise we will be laughed at and told to take it like a man.

    On the other hand I appreciate the comradery that men share, and women do not. The average man has a few real friends. Women have many frenimies. Women’s female friends will stab them in the back without a second thought. My wife has many female friends; none of which she trusts at all. I don’t know how this weighs on the scales for men, but at least it is something.

  21. koevoet says:

    Help, help! I’m being repressed!

    That solo carry is an interesting looking little pistol. I have mixed feelings on both the Kimber and 9mm compacts on a 1911-esque frame, but I guess I have no right to judge anyone…I get all kinds of crap for my preferred Radom P-64.

  22. koevoet says:

    Mikediver – My ex used to FEEL almost safe with an old Model 10 .38. But she usually felt safer when I was around because I knew how to use “those bigger guns that carry a million rounds and the bullet comes out the top after you shoot it”.

  23. CL says:

    Between this and LGR’s post this morning, just LOL. It is truly pathetic how little substance there is with these people. As I said at Laura’s, I’m embarrassed for them. Their best bet would be to just shut up and try to look pretty.

  24. Jim says:

    I recall in 2008 a group of women who would have sex if one made a pact to vote for democrats. Can’t remember the name though.

    Women feel safe walking down the street? Does that apply to the one’s that smile and get nothing back? They are safe though, right? Better to be safe than sorry even if it means some men are downright avoiding them because they don’t feel safe around them.

    Or do women feel safe when a man speaks up about them being loud and in turn gets stabbed?
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rowdy-group-women-stab-manhattan-subway-rider-tells-calm-article-1.1124361

    Women have nothing to fear these days. It’s the men that do.

  25. Dalrock says:

    A new entry but worthy of an honorable mention:

    My fiancee needs feminism because:

    He shouldn’t be judged for not caring whether or not I
    – shave my arms or legs
    – wear makeup
    – dress “pretty”
    – have an “ideal” body type
    – audibly burp and fart

    Stay classy feminists.

  26. CL says:

    @ Dalrock

    Also note the feminine spelling of fiancé. Woops!

  27. okrahead says:

    I judge her finacee to be an omega and desperately wish I knew his name and address so that I could send him a free copy of Athol Kay’s book. Because I care. Really, I do. Is that enough emoting?

  28. sunshinemary says:

    koevoet – Judge ye not my firearm! Seriously though, those cute little “mini” pistols are nice for a lady to carry – no unsightly bump under one’s blouse. My aim is crap with it from any distance, which is fine because I would only ever be using it for self-defense up close. My husband carries a .40 Glock with the extended barrel – I think it’s 5 1/2 inches. It gives you great accuracy but tends to become visible if he reaches up to get something off the top shelf at the store, eliciting audible gasps of terror from liberal housewives. I think he secretly enjoys that, though.

    Oops, sorry, I’m doing that thing where I derail the thread with gun talk again. My bad!

  29. sunshinemary says:

    I was curious to know what the guys who “liked” these submissions looked like, so I clicked on one of their handles. I won’t even link to it because it’s NSFW. All that was visible in the only one I clicked on was the top of the guy’s head and a woman’s legs…I won’t say what he was doing, we’ll just say it rhymes with ruff hiving , but I think this proves the point that these guys are into feminism because they think it will get them laid.

  30. CL says:

    I need feminism because I shouldn’t feel required to carry a knife when I walk across campus every night, just to feel safe.

    Actually, it’s because of feminism that you need to carry a knife to feel safe. In the bad old days of patriarchy, you would have had A man to protect you; now you have nothing. Of course, he would protect you in exchange for your submission, but now you have all those ‘privileges’ that you thought were so great but you feel unsafe. Can’t have everything, eh?

  31. xvfb says:

    My friend writes a tumblr for sex tips, and comments about feminism complete with “you go girl!” type of content. But in my opinion no one is more misogynist than this dude. At the same time he’s very effeminized, it might be hormones, or social. Most of these guys are only out to stimulate themselves.

  32. Opus says:

    I’ve just picked up the first one which reads:

    ‘I need feminism because I shouldn’t feel required to carry a knife when I walk across campus every night just to feel safe ‘ accompanied by photo of girl in low-cut top – albeit with a miserable face and showing her knife. Feminism must be very powerful as it seems able to induce irrational fears of desirability in women who even Manboobs Futrelle would have difficulty being inspired to achieve erection (I would guess). Is this another case of a woman wanting to imitate men and thus deducing that because a man who carries a knife is powerful and attractive, that she, carrying a knife will make herself more attractive to men, when it will clearly do the very opposite – I was once romantically linked to a female who was boasting to me of her Judo skills which she had acquired for the purpose of defending herself against male attack. I must say I have never come across any female who ever claimed to have foiled a ‘Rape’ via Judo or indeed by any other means, (largely I suspect because that would prevent them from boasting of the ‘Rape’ which is what they always seem keen to do to establish their desirability) and of course what it says to me as a male – is – ‘you are unneccesary for my protection’ – a bit as if I were to boast to a woman that I was a pacifist and she must fend for herself. I quickly ended the association, to the young ladies considerable distress. Feminism – and not male violence – was thus responsible for her, doubtless temporary, misery.

    I say that what the girl with the knife needs is not Feminism but Patriachy (which is what Grandma Opus succesfully relied on, – let Grandpa Opus take the bullet as it were – for history has neither recorded that she carried a knife or needed to use one – but then Grandma Opus was not a Feminist and clearly used her looks to achieve what she wanted) for even a girl with a knife is no match for a determined man – armed or unarmed – and if by chance (most unlikely I know) she is at a British University [a word to the wise] she may well receive a visit from the local police for ‘carrying an offensive weapon’ – i.e. carrying said knife is illegal and against the law over here, even for avowed Feminists. Perhaps it is different in America?

  33. “I need feminism b/c my roomie’s philosophy textbook valued men’s experience as more “valid” and “logical” while the “feminist alternative of care” recieved a 1/2 pg. explanation of why emotions are “too subjective” to produce LOGIC…no wonder western thought is so patriarchal. Symbolic logic does not equal moral/women’s issues”

    Well, that’s true, isn’t it?

  34. Feminist Hater says:

    The truth is no excuse. We need feminism because the truth is sexist.

  35. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    i.e. carrying said knife is illegal and against the law over here, even for avowed Feminists.

    You can’t carry knives in England? Is it over a certain blade length, or concealed, or something tha tmake it illegal?

  36. Feminist Hater says:

    I swear I saw pictures of Sikhs or whatever they call themselves brandishing full on swords during the London riots. To the applause of the left.

  37. Feminist Hater says:

    Should just add that they weren’t using them to riot but to protect their properties or temples, not to actually riot with. The point still stands though.

  38. Doomed Harlot says:

    That is true, theprivateman! That’s why the kind of “essentialist” feminist thought expressed in that comment is very controversial in feminist circles. The idea that “intuitive” or “emotional” thinking should be considered just as valid for the same purposes as logic and abstract reasoning does come from a feminist impulse — i.e. questioning the premise that qualities associated with so-called femininity are automatically inferior. However, this does take us down a ridiculous rabbit hole, because obviously intuitive or emotional thinking IS inferior for many or most practical purposes, except perhaps in the arts or in the interpersonal sphere.

    The fact is that inferior qualities are associated with femininity not because they are inherent to women but because women have historically been second-class citizens. Women probably have historically been more intuitive and emotion-driven in their thinking because historically women did not receive the same rigorous academic education that men did. But we women who have been fortunate enough to receive a top-notch education are every bit as much the heirs of Socrates and Plato and the many other great thinkers and philosophers throughout history as our men are. The feminist commenter quoted is doing herself and her sex a disservice.

  39. van Rooinek says:

    So check that male privilege and start thinking logically

    Uh, no. Male “privilege”…IS…thinking logically. Logical thought is what creates the advantages that are falsely deemed to be some sort of illegitimate privilege.

  40. van Rooinek says:

    Women probably have historically been more intuitive and emotion-driven in their thinking because historically women did not receive the same rigorous academic education that men did.
    Come to engineering school….

  41. Opus says:

    @Rock Throwing Peasant

    I clearly surprise you with my assertion as to English Law in relation to knives. What is illegal, is carrying offensive weapons, and that would include not merely a Gun or a Flick-Knife but such things as Kitchen Knives, Baseball Bats (a game we don’t play – so there is no excuse) and so on.

    In practice the only people who carry such instruments (illegally, of course) are those intent on committing violence and not those seeking protection therefrom.

  42. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Women probably have historically been more intuitive and emotion-driven in their thinking because historically women did not receive the same rigorous academic education that men did.

    That explain why women are now 54% of STEM fields, cuz it was a matter of circumstances keeping them from those field.

  43. Doomed Harlot says:

    Meh. This project seems a bit sophomoric, and typical of very young women. I think feminists need to stop worrying about being stereotyped as fat, or ugly, or hairy, or butch or whatever. Personally, even when I was a young woman, I wouldn’t have cared if every single feminist on the planet fell into those stereotypes. The point is that the feminism as an idea — that it is important for women to achieve social and cultural equality — is right; the appearance of feminism’s adherence, whether attractive or not, is irrelevant.

    Sure, the stereotype dissuades some young women from using the term “feminist” to describe themselves, but (a) many will outgrow the fear of being perceived as unattractive, and (b) feminist ideas have proliferated quite successfully without necessarily being labeled as such.

  44. Anon E Myshkin says:

    Rollo Tomassi says: July 30, 2012 at 9:14 am
    Forgive me, I couldn’t resist,…it was too tempting,..
    https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/1336508962438.png?w=500

    Golly, I like hearts… on jewelry, clothing, everywhere. This girl needs to seriously set up shop teaching armpit feminists how to dress.

  45. Feminist Hater says:

    Who else would want to dress like that?

  46. Doomed Harlot says:

    On the STEM fields — it’s only been about 30 years since the notion of women in the professions STARTED to take off. You can’t expect our culture to change overnight. The deeply ingrained belief that hard sciences are a male preserve isn’t just gonna disappear at the snap of Lisa Randall’s fingers. Some of this stuff really is a self-fullfilling prophecy.

  47. Feminist Hater says:

    DH, more like 60 years, but who’s counting. Women are now over 50 % of college entrants for quite a few years and yet female representation in STEM has not increased by much . If feminazis were really serious, they would stop all university feminist quotas now, as they have achieved their goal of over representation of women on campuses around America and thus should back off and let the education market settle at its own equilibrium.

    Oh wait, that would mean no more funding for them. My bad, what we need is more feminism, right? Women have it all now, the responsibility for upkeep now belongs to you and yours. You pay for it and good luck with that.

  48. Todd says:

    “I need feminism because 70% of people living in abject poverty are women and as a lesbian, poverty is 24% more likely for my girlfriend and I. This makes me worry about our life together.”

    Well, that PhD in Women’s Studies isn’t going to any! Neither will all the hand-wringing! Go learn a trade. You’ll be better off!

  49. YBM says:

    FH: Its not about equality. Its about getting revenge on their ancestors. Simple as that.

  50. UK Fred says:

    How about , “I need feminism because truth hurts”

    @RTP with regard to offensinve weapons, members of an angling club who stopped in a minibus on their way back from a trip were “advised” by some police to leave their knives in their tackle boxes in the bus or they would be confiscated and the anglers charged with carrying offensive weapons. On the other hand, there are numerous urban myths about people ringing the police to say that they are being burgled to be told that the police are too busy to attend to the burglary, but finding their home surrounded by police in minutes when they say things like, “I just scare them off with my shotgun, then”.

  51. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH
    The point is that the feminism as an idea — that it is important for women to achieve social and cultural equality — is right; the appearance of feminism’s adherence, whether attractive or not, is irrelevant.

    Exactly. “Equality”, as defined how? As defined in numerical terms. Equality of result, of outcome, at any cost, by any means necessary. Thus, the AAUW claim in the 1990’s that because fewer than 50% of college undergrads were women, there was a vast, discriminator, Konspiracy to deprive women. Now that women are a majority of undergraduates, the AAUW has nothing to say, of course.Suddenly the simplistic game of nose-counting no longer “proves” anything.

    All humans are equal, under feminism, but some are more equal than others.
    Once again, I point out that feminism is merely a form of Marxism.

  52. Feminist Hater says:

    They just a bunch of whining bitches as far as I’m concerned. A whole three generations of women have now grown up in Feminazis Utopia, you would think they have the freedom to do anything and everything, yet they don’t choose STEM subjects. DH’s answer, of course, is to punish men more and have another 60 years of feminist crap. And I hope they do. Put more women into tertiary education, let them have massive loans on their backs that men do not have to payback, let them carry the weight of the crumbling United States Empire. Let them be the ones to default.

  53. Anon E Myshkin says:

    >>Golly, I like hearts… on jewelry, clothing, everywhere. This girl needs to seriously set up shop teaching armpit feminists how to dress.
    Feminist Hater says: July 30, 2012 at 12:19 pm
    >Who else would want to dress like that?
    Maybe I should have said “This girl needs to seriously set up shop teaching armpit feminists how to shave.

  54. YBM says:

    Exactly. They want jobs? Go ahead. I did that part. I was an audit manager for a big 4 accounting firm for 3 years. Then when my engagement broke off I realized I was only spending 25% of my paycheque, so I quit.

    Now I work from home, maybe 15 hours working in a week. I make enough to live, nothing more.

    Let them slave for the future, I’ll be poolside as Roissy would say.

  55. Feminist Hater says:

    Maybe I should have said “This girl needs to seriously set up shop teaching armpit feminists how to shave.“

    No, I think it’s great that feminists want to highlight themselves like this. I wish every single feminist in the world would grow forests under their arms. That way I could avoid them and save myself the trouble.

  56. ar10308 says:

    The Chem-Bio-Life Sciences have TONS of women. However, Mechanical and Electrical fields do not.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH
    On the STEM fields — it’s only been about 30 years since the notion of women in the professions STARTED to take off.

    Nonsense. I personally met a woman in the mid 1980’s who was a physician, on the verge of retirement – she went through medical school right after WWII, in the late 1940’s. I know another woman who was a psychologist in the 1950’s, she studied and did clinical work at UCLA. I used to know another woman who worked in microbiology in the 1930’s, but she’s dead now. There were women physicians in the US 100 and more years ago. Qualified women, who are willing to do the work, have been admitted into professions for well over a century.

    Go peddle that feminist lie somewhere else.

    You can’t expect our culture to change overnight. The deeply ingrained belief that hard sciences are a male preserve isn’t just gonna disappear at the snap of Lisa Randall’s fingers. Some of this stuff really is a self-fullfilling prophecy.

    The fact of the matter is, some areas of research require an IQ that is above average – in some cases, a full standard deviation above average. Women’s variance in IQ is lower than men’s variance. Therefore there are fewer women with IQ under 80 than men, and also fewer women with an IQ over 120. Thus there are more men in prison than women (lower IQ plus poor impulse control often leads to various crimes such as robbery), and there are more men in science. All the affirmative action, “reviving Ophelia” feminized K-12 schooling , Title IX Procrustean higher-education beds you can think up won’t change the science. Deliberately holding men back will result in the outcome you desire, of course, as it has in so many other areas. But the price will be very high.

    The 2nd wave feminist dogma that “women are just like men except they can have babies” is not supported by science.

  58. Doomed Harlot says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    Well, yes, the devil is in the details. And lots of us are going to disagree on what “equality” means. But agreeing that the goal is “equality,” (whatever that means) rather than the hierarchy is an important first step, and that differentiates us from you lot.

    I agree with you that equality of OPPORTUNITY is the key thing, rather than equality of outcome. The question is whether equality of opportunity exists. And that’s a hotly debated issue. It isn’t just about the numbers of women in a particular field, which is only one piece of evidence. The numbers of women in a particular field could signify discrimination and/or cultural bias against women in that field, or it could mean that women are inherently less likely to choose or succeed in that field. The case for either point or view shouldn’t begin or end with the numbers.

    More to say on a couple of your other points in a minute.

  59. Feminist Hater says:

    Nor the other sciences, nor the Maths and technology fields. But this point of debate is worthless. Feminists will not stop until we have ‘equality of outcome’ therefore there is nothing left to do but to abandon ship. Especially considering a woman’s prerogative of jumping the career ship and having a family instead whilst having her husband pay, thus leaving yet another man out in the lurch because she took the education spot but never actually did much with it. By funding feminism, society funds its own destruction.

  60. CL says:

    Women probably have historically been more intuitive and emotion-driven in their thinking because historically women did not receive the same rigorous academic education that men did.

    Then why is that women seem to be more out of control and hysterical than they have ever been? Could it be that they each need a man to keep them in check?

  61. van Rooinek says:

    On the STEM fields — it’s only been about 30 years since the notion of women in the professions STARTED to take off. You can’t expect our culture to change overnight. The deeply ingrained belief that hard sciences are a male preserve isn’t just gonna disappear

    Working in STEM since 19 (I’m now in my 40s), I’ve observed that academia is begging for female STEM students. Women, in general are just *not interested*. The few who are, get an enthusiastic welcome. Also I’ve noticed that women who actually do get STEM degrees, are more likely to drop out of the business than men.

    Women seem to take a different path to science than men. For men, science is usually their hobby long, long before it ever becomes their career. They collect bugs, build telescopes, make their own fireworks, etc., as children, and growing up into adult science geeks is a natural progression, because it’s a large part of WHO THEY ARE. I don’t see many women doing that; for most of them, science seems to be simply something that they go to college for — something they just learn to DO. There are exceptions… I gave away my childhood microscope to the daughter of a church friend, who — like me — was a childhood science buff. But that’s rare in my experience.

    In one of Adele Davis’ nutrition books from long ago, she relates the story of a female scientist who had only recently discovered the subject of practical nutrition. For years she’d been giving herself and her kids the standard industrialized crappy American diet… while going to the lab every day and working as a clinical nutritionist, carefully controlling the level of vitamins, proteins, minerals, etc, in the diets of her experimental animals as she did her research. Looking back, she exclaimed with woe, that she worked in clinical nutrition for years and…. “…yet it never once occurred to me to apply those same principles to my own family!” A MALE scientist would never, never, never, never, never, never, never, NEVER make that mistake. The very FIRST thing he would think, would be, “Hey, the rat’s health improved greatly with higher levels of vitamin D…. I wonder what would happen if I take it??” Why the difference? Because men.. boys… grow up doing science for themselves, for their own interest and pleasure and benefit, first. So if he makes a discovery, how he can personally use it, is the first thing on his mind (if such an application exists… with some things there isn’t.)

  62. Feminist Hater says:

    My comment in response to ar10308

  63. van Rooinek says:

    …. PS… even “stealth aircraft” technology potentially had a personal application. If we could have made a spray-on coat that made an aircraft invisible to radar (alas, it didn’t work)…. it could equally well have been used to protect a car from the cops’ speed-detection radar!

  64. Doomed Harlot says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    On the AAUW thing, the AAUW is, I believe the American Association of University Women, and part of their mission is advocating for women and girls in the educational realm. So, naturally, they would be silent on the issues facing men and boys, because their organization is not dedicated to that issue. Similarly, when I advocate on issues that affect men primarily, I am not speaking as a “feminist” because “feminism” is about women’s equality. But being a feminist does not mean one is oblivious or unconcerned with men’s issues — rather that we generally don’t speak on those issues “as feminists” or through feminist organizations.

    In terms of women’s versus men’s represenation in academe, I think it’s clear that historically women were underrepresented because it simply wasn’t viewed as especially important for women to have a higher education. Families saved for their sons’ college tuition but not necessarily their daughters. Now that’s changed. Now there is a question as to why men are less likely to go to college and it does bear scrutiny. I don’t know the answer but one theory is that the discrepancy occurs among working class families, where men expect to go into well-paying trades (or those famous well-paying dangerous jobs) while the women (who assume they will not go into those jobs) seek more education (i.e. medical technician, paralegal studies, that kind of thing). in order to earn a living wage.

    Feminism does involve a class analysis (i.e. the recognition that women and men are separate classes of people, treated differently in society) and therefore does owe a debt to Marxism in that sense. But crying “Marxism, oogah, boogah,” doesn’t qualify as an argumetn.

  65. Feminist Hater says:

    DH, more women should take up trades and allow their brothers into university to study such things as medical technician, paralegal and bio-chemical studies. Why should the men suffer whilst the women get better education? Why should men do more dangerous jobs, women must put their feet to the ground and do their fair share.

    Feminism is Marxism, it’s based on the same shit, the oppressor class and the oppressed class. Get over your shit, women have never been oppressed more than men but in fact have been protected.

  66. Doomed Harlot says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    Absolutely! I am not surprised that you have personally known women who have been involved in the sciences going back many decades. As I said, my own grandmother, who attended college in the 1920s, was a biology professor and researcher (although she did feel she had no choice but to quit 15 years into her career when she had a baby and when her husband took a job that involved frequesnt moves, both factors that stymied her career). There are also folks like Henrietta Swan-Leavitt, Rosalind Franklin (obviously) and lots of other successful women in the sciences. My own alma mater is a women’s college renowned for its chemistry program.

    And yes, I think many or most science programs today are actively trying to encourage women to enter the profession.

    But the issue is not as simple as all that. You have to start young, and the fact is that we still, culturally, tend to view hard sciences as a male preserve and that view is very easy to internalize. I myself — a relatively young woman from a liberal family and with a scientific grandmother — was constantly told growing up that women are naturally deficient in the hard sciences and that we tend to lack scientific curiosity. Is it any surprise that I then stayed away from the hard sciences, despite very much enjoying my childhood chemistry set and microscope? Sure, if I were a determined genius, I could have simply bucked expectations, as quite a few women have, but the point is that these reduced expectations are not a problem boys and men face in this field in the first place.

    IQ is not a reliable indicator of inherent ability, since it’s been shown that individuals and groups can improve their IQ scores with education and practice.

  67. Doomed Harlot says:

    Feminist Hater says:
    “DH, more women should take up trades and allow their brothers into university to study such things as medical technician, paralegal and bio-chemical studies. Why should the men suffer whilst the women get better education? Why should men do more dangerous jobs, women must put their feet to the ground and do their fair share.”

    Well, yeah, families should work to ensure their children have equal opportunities regardless of sex! I do think it would be unfair for parents to say, “We’ll save the college funds for Susie, because Johnnie can get a good-paying gig inspecting subway tracks,” just as much as it would be unfair for parents to say, “We’ll save the college funds for Johnnie, because Susie can just find a man to support her.” I also support equal opportunity for women in dangerous, physically demanding jobs, like mining for example — as long as the women involved are able and qualified to do the job.

  68. Doomed Harlot says:

    “Equality? Equality would be a step back for women, since they have always received special treatment throughout human history. Even in Islamic society.”

    But such special treatment comes at a cost that most western women are not willing to pay. I would rather give up such privileges in order to have an equal voice in how my society, community and household are run. Those women who want to be provided for by men remain perfectly free to enter into such arrangements.

  69. Feminist Hater says:

    …as long as the women involved are able and qualified to do the job.

    Oh, got to love the femcunts. Of course most women are not capable as men in those jobs and never can be. Therefore they are not required by society to do them. Men must pick up the slack again and again. No more quotas, women must do their equal share in all jobs relating to society. Else you just have men doing the shitty jobs and women, sitting high and dry, doing some boring lab work.

    Exactly what femcunts want of course, which is why society is on a course with a wall. Better to live well, live free of debt and slavery and sip your martini and watch Rome burn.

  70. Feminist Hater says:

    DH, glad you brought that up. Can you please tell your feminist sisters that they need to shut up about needing protection from rapists and that society, men and everyone else owes them shit? Pretty please.

    Thanks.

  71. ar10308 says:

    @DH
    I also support equal opportunity for women in dangerous, physically demanding jobs, like mining for example — as long as the women involved are able and qualified to do the job.

    No you don’t. You support lowering the standards. Such women do not exist in sufficient quantities to get the quotas your ilk believe they should be getting.

    And don’t start on saying how Feminists don’t believe in quotas, because every time a Femininazi gets put in charge of something (military, police, firefighting, etc) it immediately becomes about percentages and numbers, and The Standard is lowered accordingly.

  72. Anonymous age 70 says:

    Some years ago, my wife and I drove into Chicago to visit her cousin, an engineer from Puebla who was working there. There was a very pretty young wife living in the same house. She had unshaven legs, great long feminine looking leg hairs.

    I wanted her!

    My wife noted my response and whispered to me to stop ogling her legs, because some Mexican men are very jealous.

    I don’t mind the arm pit hair, assuming it is clean. One reason women claimed they want to shave is to keep it clean. I am not sure, but it seems as if getting it soaked down with cologne the hair will also maintain the cologne smell.

    Also, that bundle of hair makes for a good, ahem, handle in moments of need.

  73. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >>Those women who want to be provided for by men remain perfectly free to enter into such arrangements.

    No. Not only no, but a thousand times, no. Why should each woman be able to spell out her own legal system and her own employment system? Enough already.

  74. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    …. PS… even “stealth aircraft” technology potentially had a personal application. If we could have made a spray-on coat that made an aircraft invisible to radar (alas, it didn’t work)…. it could equally well have been used to protect a car from the cops’ speed-detection radar!

    Related to nothing in the thread, but I the Serbs as they danced on the smoking wreckage of the 117 they shot down over Bosnia (we were over there for Kosovo). Folks standing around, breathing in that paint, not thinking, “You know, this stuff is probably one of the more toxic substances known to man and it’s now in the air I’m breathing…” Dunno, makes me chuckle (darkly).

  75. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Man, that comment was all sorts of messed up. Maybe it was me huffing the fumes.

  76. Doomed Harlot says:

    I SAID: “Those women who want to be provided for by men remain perfectly free to enter into such arrangements.”

    ANONYMOUS AGE 70 SAID: “No. Not only no, but a thousand times, no. Why should each woman be able to spell out her own legal system and her own employment system? Enough already.”

    I SAY: Well, no, women should NOT be able to spell out their own personal legal and employment system. Nor are they able to. A woman who wants to be supported by a man should be free to enter into such an arrangement — IF she can find a man willing to do it. The fact remains that there seem to be plenty of men left in our society who are willing to support women who serve as stay-at-home wives and mothers, and many even advocate such an arrangement. It’s a free country and both the men and women involved have that right.

  77. Doomed Harlot says:

    In terms of lowering standards so women can enter firefighting and other professions, the commenters on this issue have already proclaimed that they know my position. In fact, I agree with Justice Ginsburg that sex by itself should not be the criterion for assessing fitness in these types of professions. The criteria should be tailored to the actual demands of the job. If only a couple women, or no women at all, can meet the criteria, then so be it.

  78. evilalpha says:

    @Dumb Harlot
    You’re blowing smoke. Culture is not destiny! The lack of STEM women is only partially explained by environmental factors. Let sports be your guide. Title IX has brought about an overfunding of women’s sports to the detriment of men’s and yet women remain athletically inferior to men. The biggest result has been that USA women beat up on the rest of the world’s women, but American female Olympians still wouldn’t make my high school track team.

  79. D-Man says:

    Women are encouraged to go into STEM, while men are discouraged – blocked, even – from going into teaching. No surprise then, to see girls doing better than boys in school, and the so-called pay gap reversing.

    Boys are shamed for their very nature by teachers whose agendas, conscious or not, are programmed by the feminine imperative. Boys are getting their confidence chopped out from under them whe they’re too young to understand it. Some boys mope, turn inward and act spergy as a reaction to this, and still there is little effort made to understand how they learn differently.

    Meanwhile, girls are beginning to act more like boys used to, getting in more fights (and more vicious ones), talking back, etc. And yet they aren’t disciplined in the same way, because their teachers are all women, and most of them are feminists.

    The takeaway message to boys is: Nobody cares about you unless you fuck shit up, and nobody’s going to give you a hand, whether it’s a hand up or a hand of congratulations.

  80. ar10308 says:

    @DH

    I don’t care what you say you believe. The actions of those you support and side with speak louder than anything words you could possibly put on paper.

    When women fail strength tests and get booted from military academies, police forces and firefighter training, they sue. And win. And the standards drop and people get hurt.

    That’s all there is that needs to be said.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH
    Well, yes, the devil is in the details. And lots of us are going to disagree on what “equality” means.

    Some years ago I actually cared what equity feminists thought vs. gender feminists vs. radical feminists, but with the enactment of ever more misandric laws I came to realize that all the alleged disagreement was moot. Feminists will support each other, no matter how unjust, no matter how unfair, no matter how much feminism may offend basic human decency. And so your disagreement with your sisters is of no interest to me.

    But agreeing that the goal is “equality,” (whatever that means) rather than the hierarchy is an important first step, and that differentiates us from you lot.

    The real goal of feminism is gynosupremacy. Equality is the slogan, but as a student of Game I pay more attention to the actions of women than to their words. Feminists want a hierarchy, with women in charge, but paint over it with a slogan. Just as Marxists bloviated about a “classless society”, and then proceeded to create totalitarian, top-down pyramid structures that looked a whole lot like some sort of monarchy.

    What differentiates you lot from me is simple: I want men to be equal to women in all courts.

    You do not.

    DH
    I agree with you that equality of OPPORTUNITY is the key thing, rather than equality of outcome.

    Hogwash. You are a feminist. Feminism has gone far beyond equality of opportunity in the last 20 years, to equality of result, to celebrations of “The End Of Men”. Stop pretending that it’s 1980 or some of other date in the past.

    The question is whether equality of opportunity exists.

    Nah, that’s so 1980’s. The question now is how to continue to enslave men.

    And that’s a hotly debated issue. It isn’t just about the numbers of women in a particular field, which is only one piece of evidence. The numbers of women in a particular field could signify discrimination and/or cultural bias against women in that field, or it could mean that women are inherently less likely to choose or succeed in that field. The case for either point or view shouldn’t begin or end with the numbers.

    Again, stop pretending Reagan is President. This is the 21st century. Any good thing that isn’t shared by 50+% of women is proof of discrimination. Period. The Obama admin’s plan to extend Title IX to STEM – thereby mandating real discrimination against men, in areas of work where they tend to excel – will simply be another example of that.

  82. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH
    On the AAUW thing, the AAUW is, I believe the American Association of University Women, and part of their mission is advocating for women and girls in the educational realm. So, naturally, they would be silent on the issues facing men and boys, because their organization is not dedicated to that issue.

    Naturally. Of course, that also means that all the AAUW press releases and reports that stressed words such as “fairness” and “equity” and “equality” were just smoke to cover the real agenda.

    The real agenda, of course, had and has zero to do with “fairness”, “equity”, “equality”, and so forth. Thanks for the confirmation.

  83. Doomed Harlot says:

    Evilalpha,

    Sure, culture doesn’t guarantee equal performance between the sexes. In terms of athletics, I don’t think anyone believed that Title IX would result in equal performance by male and female athletes. But athletics in an educational setting (which is what Title IX regulates) exists for the benefit of the participants. The purpose of Title IX was to extend that benefit equally to women, not to try to create equal results. As it happens, however, women’s athletic performance in the last few decades has far outstripped anything thought possible for women to do, so culture certainly does have a major effect.

    In terms of performance in the sciences, we know already that this isn’t a situation where women can never match men. A top female Olympian will never beat a top male Olympian in a sprint. But top female scientists do perform on an equal basis with top male sciences. (I forgot to mention Barbara McClintock, among the others I named above.) The question is whether the numbers are likely to be equal if the culture provides equal support and encouragement in this area to both sexes.

  84. I was thinking about a different form of submission than their “submission form.”

  85. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH
    Feminism does involve a class analysis (i.e. the recognition that women and men are separate classes of people, treated differently in society) and therefore does owe a debt to Marxism in that sense. But crying “Marxism, oogah, boogah,” doesn’t qualify as an argumetn.

    Feminism is a form of Marxism, that uses the “oppressor – oppressed” mindset to explain all social problems. Note that there is no feminist way to explain the decline in men in college – it would require explaining how the oppressors have decided to oppress themselves. I doubt that there is any serious research into why fewer men are in college than women, because that would lead to flipping over too many flat rocks, starting with the widespread use of drugs in K-12 to force boys into compliance with the order of their feminist teachers.

    Dismissing the fact that feminism is a branch of Marxism via handwaving and a lame attempt at namecalling is not an argument.

  86. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >>It’s a free country and both the men and women involved have that right.

    I will say, DH, you are consistently wrong about most things. Men do not have the right to enter into an agreement of the sort you describe. No matter what the agreement, the minute she changes her mind, the agreement is over, and he is a bonded slave, period. With the government helping her. Which means no such agreement ever exists.

  87. CL says:

    I’m really starting to think that women, absent social controls, need to be on leashes. ::shakes head in dismay::

  88. Anonymous age 70 says:

    Where I live, Opus, little boys walk down the streets dragging knives with 22 inch blades, but we don’t call them knives. I have one with a really cool blade of 26 inches.

  89. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    I’m really starting to think that women, absent social controls, need to be on leashes.

    Isn’t that from 50 Shades?

  90. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH
    Absolutely! I am not surprised that you have personally known women who have been involved in the sciences going back many decades.

    Thanks for agreeing with me that your claim is false. Now, quit peddling it. Stop falsely claiming that women were not allowed into science prior to the last 30 years.

    One of the aspects of the Soviet tyranny that fascinated me years ago was their constant re-writing of history. For example, Sergei Eisenstein’s movie about the Boshevik coup d’etat, “Ten days that shook the world”, was drastically edited at the last minute in order to excise all images of Leon Trotsky – he’d been purged from the party, and could no longer be seen in any role. He had become an un-person. One of the aspects of feminism that clearly is drawn from Marxism, is the similar desire to constantly re-write history in order to keep the propaganda flowing.

  91. Doomed Harlot says:

    Anonymous age 70,

    Well, I never said that the stay-at-home-mom/provider-dad was a good deal for men (or women either for that matter). Just that you have the right to do it.

    But yes, the alternative is that stay-at-home-mothers be required to provide free labor to another person for the rest of their lives under duress OR that they be permitted only under circumstances of poverty if they are at a point where they have sacrificed their earning capacity because they’ve been out of the workforce too long. No matter how you slice it, the traditional provider/SAHM arrangement is fraught with peril.

  92. Doomed Harlot says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    Where did I say that women were not allowed into science prior to the last 30 years? I said no such thing. If I weren’t so charitable, I would say you are the one who is lying. But since I argue in good faith with my opponents, I will simply proceed as if you mistakenly read something into my comments that wasn’t there.

    I think that there were plenty more discouragements (if there is such a word) of women going into science prior to the last 30 years, and that the situation STARTED to improve more rapidly roughly 30 years ago.

  93. Alexander says:

    No, because you can always ‘slice’ it by way of returning to the societal norms and laws that resulted in overwhelming success at providing stability for the married family. You may not like slicing it that way (and it may not be practically possible to do this far down the current path), but the idea that it is inherently perilous is false. In fact, the opposite seems most likely true, in that deviating from the traditional path of societal structuring we have made ourselves more vulnerable,

  94. @Anon E Myshkin, errh, I dunno how to say this politely so, here goes,…the girl in that picture I linked?

    IT’S A MAAAAN BABY!

  95. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH, if you truly believe that IQ is no predictor of educational success in the aggregate, then you’d better tell the US armed forces – they’ve been using IQ tests since the 1940’s to match new enlistees (and draftees for decades) with jobs, and it works. You also better inform all the colleges in the country to abandon the SAT and ACT, as those tests are IQ test proxies that have been shown to have accuracy predicting success in college. Not to mention informing all the graduate schools there’s no need ot require the GRE anymore – they use that IQ test proxy to determine the probability of success in grad school.

    Alternatively, you could accept that IQ tests do provide results that have a strong correlation with intelligence, and with success in many academic areas.

  96. van Rooinek says:

    I think that there were plenty more discouragements… of women going into science prior to the last 30 years

    Based on what evidence?

  97. YBM says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    July 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    The IQ is an invention of the DEAD WHITE MALE and therefore has no relevance in this modern, FEMINIST world. IQ is misogynist.

  98. van Rooinek says:

    Feminism is both misunderstood and denigrated regularly right here on Duke’s campus.

    I don’t doubt it. Especially at lacrosse practice.

  99. And look, the sort of project like “Who Needs Feminism” gets press because it is officially approved by the gray-haired commissarettes still in charge of the official culture, like the haggardly harpy professoress who inspired the lonely-uglies to apply their youthful energy to a moribund cause.

    Don’t mistake a parting shot from a retreating, enfeebled cohort for an enemy in control of our fate or in need of reply. There is a rising (crimson?) tide of true femininity steadily replacing these termagants, real girls who cannot be represented within the confines of their cramped vision of the sexes. Most everyone recognizes the unintentional self-mockery of the old guard’s final efforts.

    Once the official culture’s stranglehold loosens an inch, women will feel free to be women again without shame, and the counterrevolution will yield swift results. The only element that will loosen the stranglehold will be the dying off of that generation, and until then, nothing will keep the last of the failed feminists from going back to the dry well one last time before extinction.

    Even the chick with the hairy pits will one day look back and cringe, I predict. She will not live out her adulthood in the presumptions that drove the previous age.

    Matt

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH
    In terms of lowering standards so women can enter firefighting and other professions, the commenters on this issue have already proclaimed that they know my position. In fact, I agree with Justice Ginsburg that sex by itself should not be the criterion for assessing fitness in these types of professions. The criteria should be tailored to the actual demands of the job. If only a couple women, or no women at all, can meet the criteria, then so be it.

    You say that, but you support feminism, an ideology that has consistently demanded, and obtained, ever lowering standards in order to get that equality of result.There are far too many men, scattered across society who have to do their own job and part of an unqualified woman’s job as well, for this generation old “fitness” myth to be believed. So you words say one thing, but your actions say the exact opposite. I know which I believe.

  101. Doomed Harlot says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    I don’t necessarily dispute that IQ test (and SATs too) are predictors of academic success. I dispute whether they are a measure of in-born ability

  102. Hf says:

    Do feminists even hear themselves when they say this silly shit??

    Feminist: I need feminism so that ________ (insert ANYTHING here).

    And @Sunshinemary
    Just a heads up- Your hubby exposing his weapon is illegal, even if by accident, and even if he has a concealed carry permit. One cant even have an “outline” of said concealed weapon. Wouldnt want him to get busted…

  103. Feminist Hater says:

    Damn she is getting her tingles today! She was be positively aching in her crotch

  104. Feminist Hater says:

    Wasn’t there a scandal at Duke’s? Something about a false gang rape accusation? Where everyone and sundry went after the men and turned them into guilty before innocent degenerates and yet it turned out they were completely innocent of all charges and the lady in question has now gone on to commit other crimes?

    Oh bam! So much for not believing feminazism!

  105. Doomed Harlot says:

    Van Rooinek,

    The role of women in society was completely different prior to roughly 30-40 years ago. So it was harder for women to excel in MANY professions, including but not limited to, the hard sciences. Success at the highest levels of science involves years of dedication, which is hard to square from women’s traditional stay-at-home-wife-mother role, a role that only started to change 30-40 years and really is still very much alive and well. Moreover, prejudices about women’s rationalism (or supposed lack thereof) served to create enormous bias against the notion of women in hard sciences in particular among parents and teachers, long before many girls could even get to the point of competing for high level degrees in physics. Lastly, women were often as a matter of course, consigned to more supporting roles. The case of Henrietta Swan-Leavitt, who made one of the more significant discoveries in modern astronomy, is instructive; she did this despite being a relatively low-lab assistant.

    That said, it is starting to change, and the numbers of women will grow, to the benefit of society at large. Twice the pool of talent is a good thing.

  106. evilalpha says:

    @DH

    Are you running for office? Your comments are so squirrely and contrived.

    1. The unstated purpose of Title IX was to transfer cash streams from moneymaking male sport to women for female control. Women and men are divided on the the field so why should they have pooled financial resources? We know the answer.
    2. “Outstripped anything thought possible???” Nope. Women’s athletic performance is below multi million dollar expectations. Girls are fatter than ever.
    3. While women will indeed be closer to male performance in the sciences than in sports, men will still be far superior. How do I know this? Black athletes have had less support for fewer years than women in science and yet blacks dominate sports. Women have no excuse to lag, yet they do. Even with the AAUW’s unilateral support of girls and disregard for boys, girls still lag.

  107. Doomed Harlot says:

    Tingly as I am, I have to step away. I have many hours of work ahead of me tonight.

  108. Feminist Hater says:

    Yep, screwing other men is always hard work.

  109. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    @FH,
    Well, the woman in question (Crystal Magnum, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Gail_Mangum) was a stripper, and therefore very “decisive.” The District Attorney failed to overlook her history of “decisiveness,” buried evidence that would’ve cleared the lacrosse players, and portrayed her as a single mom-type, working for a living.

    She’s now on trial for murder and, if there’s justice, she’ll be “decisive” to her cell-mate for a pack of Kools.

  110. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH
    Where did I say that women were not allowed into science prior to the last 30 years?

    At 12:20 PM, in the posting below that I reproduce in toto:

    ————————————————————–
    Doomed Harlot says:
    July 30, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    On the STEM fields — it’s only been about 30 years since the notion of women in the professions STARTED to take off. You can’t expect our culture to change overnight. The deeply ingrained belief that hard sciences are a male preserve isn’t just gonna disappear at the snap of Lisa Randall’s fingers.
    —————————————————————-

    This clearly says that prior to the last 30 years, there were no women allowed in science; that’s what “male preserve” means. Your words, your standard feminist trope, I’ve seen it many, many times over the last few decades. it’s tiresome.

  111. Feminist Hater says:

    Yes, RTP, obviously the handy work of the evil patriarchy again. Even if those Lacrosse players did nothing as proven, they should still suffer for their innate male privilege. This is why we need feminism.

  112. evilalpha says:

    Feminist Hater sets the record straight on Duke & Feminism!

  113. CL says:

    @ RTP

    50 Shades didn’t invent bondage and from what I’ve seen of it, it certainly hasn’t perfected it! It could just be a metaphorical leash.

  114. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Twas a joke, CL.

  115. YBM says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    July 30, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    You should know by now that this is the method of women commenting on the internet. She does not remember what she says as soon as it leaves her mind. She recognized that she was caught in her previous words so she is “busy and has to leave” in order to give the impression that she still has status, even when caught in a contradiction.

    To argue with a woman is to argue with a brick wall, and the brick wall at least can achieve something.

  116. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH
    I don’t necessarily dispute that IQ test (and SATs too) are predictors of academic success. I dispute whether they are a measure of in-born ability

    They are a measure of ability, and given that the abilities in question are to some degree genetic, they measure at least some degree of in-born ability. The wider variance in male human IQ vs. female human IQ is beyond dispute, it has been demonstrated consistently for generations.

    That variance in IQ explains why more men than women are found in electrical engineering, computer science, mathematics beyond the undergraduate level, and so forth. Just as it explains why there are more men in prison than women.

    There is disagreement within the various fields, such as neuroscience, how much of intelligence is in born vs. environmental, but I doubt anyone believes in that Rousseauian ‘blank slate’ fable anymore. Feminism, of course, insists on the blank slate, nurture-is-all, notion when it is useful to do so, as in Var(g). Then when it is useful to speak of in-born qualities, such as “peace loving” women vs. “violent” men, you feminists all of sudden become 100% Nature.

    it’s really quite boring after a while. I’d ignore feminism, if it weren’t so dangerous to my existence.

  117. Hey Dal, do you think she’s a feminist?

    Gotta love the airport.

  118. CL says:

    @ RTP

    I got that, was just kind of adding to it in a lame way. Sometimes text lacks tone and I hate using smilies to convey the missing tone. Never mind! lol

  119. Doomed Harlot says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    I’m still here. Yes, I am aware of that men seem have more representation at the higher and lower ends of the IQ “bell curve.”

    And I am not saying that we are all a mere “blank slate” uninfluenced by inborn factors. I would even concede that there may be a gendered basis to the distribution among the sexes of some intellectual and other mental abilities (such as leadership ability or nurturing ability, to give the obvious examples).

    What I am saying is that it is way too soon for us to untangle nature vs. nurture in this area. I am opposed to the knee-jerk mantra, “Men and women are just different,” because we don’t know that that’s inherently true in many areas. Egalitarianism between the sexes is still a very NEW approach to social organization, and we haven’t yet achieved full cultural egalitarianism since many widespread assumptions about the inherent nature of the sexes still exist. (And, of course, my position also supports YOUR point of view to some extent. The lack of equal numbers of women in the hard sciences does not necessarily establish the existence of discrimination.)

  120. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rollo, I’m not Dalrock but I am pretty certain the young woman in question would hotly deny being a feminist, just like Sheila Gregoire. And just like Sheila she’d insist on dominance in marriage, labeled “equality”…

  121. van Rooinek says:

    The case of Henrietta Swan-Leavitt, who made one of the more significant discoveries in modern astronomy, is instructive; she did this despite being a relatively low-lab assistant.

    Shows what you know of STEM. MOST discoveries are made by low level lab assistants, or by struggling grad students. The professors just write the grants and the papers!

  122. Dalrock says:

    @Doomed Harlot

    What I am saying is that it is way too soon for us to untangle nature vs. nurture in this area. I am opposed to the knee-jerk mantra, “Men and women are just different,” because we don’t know that that’s inherently true in many areas. Egalitarianism between the sexes is still a very NEW approach to social organization, and we haven’t yet achieved full cultural egalitarianism since many widespread assumptions about the inherent nature of the sexes still exist. (And, of course, my position also supports YOUR point of view to some extent. The lack of equal numbers of women in the hard sciences does not necessarily establish the existence of discrimination.)

    The problem with your view on women in science is there is no proof which will ever be sufficient to stop placing your thumb on the scales in favor of women. If affirmative action works, this is proof that women can in fact perform at the level of men (and in comparable numbers). If it doesn’t work, it is simply proof that we need more affirmative action. This is the kind of logic feminists are famous for, and for which they are (as pointed out above) starting to formally admit to. It isn’t logic at all. It is “I feel women are being kept from excelling in science through some invisible force!”, followed by a foot stomping temper tantrum.

    If all feminists were asking for was equal opportunity (no formal barriers), then it would be something different. As history proves, the vast majority of men and women are/were open to allowing women in, and as AR points out, women have been allowed in for much longer than feminists like to pretend. But this isn’t what feminists wanted, and it certainly isn’t what they are demanding now. Now we are in a cycle where all past feminist boondoggles are proof that we need more feminism.

  123. Doomed Harlot says:

    Well, it is a problem that we don’t know, Dalrock. I certainly wouldn’t want JUST an end to formal barriers. I think cultural change is important too. And that is happening, verrrry slowly but surely.

    Affirmative action, by the way, does not apply in the private sector and is not about quotas. It merely means that employers have to show that they are making an effort to locate and recruit members of certain minorities. I’ve represented government contractors who have been audited for compliance with these requirements. We’ve passed such audits despite not having female or minority employees simply by showing the lack of qualified applicants, and showing that we have taken steps to recruit applicants from female and minority pools. No preferential hiring required. I think many critiques of AA are valid, but we have to keep it in perspective.

    The real preferences happen in science programs for female students designed to nurture scientific talent.

  124. Doomed Harlot says:

    Oops, TFH, I messed up. Henrietta Swan Leavitt’s name was not hyphenated. I don’t think she was married so her name was not a feminist statement. It was just her name!

  125. holonomy says:

    DH, it turns out you CAN untangle nature and nurture, and it only takes some basic calculus and linear algebra. To paraphrase the article, if feminists could do Fermi problems, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Unfortunately, math is hard😉

    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm

  126. Dalrock says:

    @Doomed Harlot

    Well, it is a problem that we don’t know, Dalrock. I certainly wouldn’t want JUST an end to formal barriers. I think cultural change is important too. And that is happening, verrrry slowly but surely.

    You are missing entirely the circular nature of your argument. Women not being equal (as a group, not talking about individuals here) is proof to you that we need to rework the culture. But there is no evidence that the culture is actually what is driving this. If men and women are in fact different then that would drive the culture. But you (and others) made an assumption that nurture trumps nature so the entire culture needs to be massively disrupted. And only when your original hypothesis is proven true can we stop disrupting the culture. You have defined an experiment which can’t fail. Don’t you see the logical problem with this? The thing is, your argument is no more plausible now than it will be 100 years from now or 1,000 years from now (and feminists will still be making the same claims they can’t back up 1,000 years from now).

    This is important because there is no theoretical reason to believe that men and women should be equally good at all things (again, as groups). We are in fact quite different, and the science is all falling in this direction. This is especially true when we look not just at averages but at the extreme ends of ability, which is what feminists are mostly focused on.

  127. Doomed Harlot says:

    No, I understand perfectly well the circular nature of the argument you are characterizing as the feminist position. But I think you have it slightly wrong. The argument is this: (1) We don’t know how much of the distribution in certain abilities based on sex is due to nature or nurture. (2) We do know that cultural bias (which has historically caused discrimination in the past) exists. So let’s address that.

  128. Feminist Hater says:

    Cultural bias is in fact the outcome of some people doing the work and reaping the rewards. It is not a ‘bias’ as such but a privilege for getting things done. It causes ‘discrimination’ in as much as me eating a sandwich I made is discrimination against a beggar on the street.

    You’re an insufferable bore. Go away.

  129. gdgm_ says:

    I wonder, do the writers on the “Who Needs Feminism?” site also write on the “We Are The 99 Percent” site, also on Tumblr? The complaining tone is quite similar.

  130. sunshinemary says:

    Off-topic alert
    @Hf

    Just a heads up- Your hubby exposing his weapon is illegal, even if by accident, and even if he has a concealed carry permit. One cant even have an “outline” of said concealed weapon. Wouldnt want him to get busted

    Thanks for the comment! However, the lawyer who spoke at our CCL refresher course assured us that the courts have consistently ruled that accidentally/briefly exposing one’s firearm is not considered brandishing. And strangely enough, open carry is legal in this state, though it is rare to see someone open carrying. But thanks for posting that warning just in case…it’s always best to be as careful as possible.

  131. farm boy says:

    @Doom Harlot
    I agree with you that equality of OPPORTUNITY is the key thing, rather than equality of outcome.

    So what is stopping them from STEM careers? I work in engineering, and nothing is holding them back; in fact they get a leg up due to affirmative action.

  132. sunshinemary says:

    O/T
    @Hf
    Just a heads up- Your hubby exposing his weapon is illegal, even if by accident, and even if he has a concealed carry permit. One cant even have an “outline” of said concealed weapon. Wouldnt want him to get busted…
    Thanks for the comment; the courts generally will not consider accidental, brief exposure as brandishing. Also, open carry is legal here, though rarely done. 🙂

  133. van Rooinek says:

    So what is stopping them from STEM careers? I work in engineering, and nothing is holding them back; in fact they get a leg up due to affirmative action.

    The answer is stunningly simple: They DON’T WANT TO. There is your answer. Seek no other.

  134. farm boy says:

    Wow, Dalrock, such a target rich environment. Saul Alinsky’s 5th rule for radicals was “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” In general, I think ridicule is potent weapon against feminism, as facts and logic seem to have limitations in this instance. So, may I suggest to everyone, we are over the target, ridicule away!

  135. farm boy says:

    @DH
    We do know that cultural bias (which has historically caused discrimination in the past) exists. So let’s address that.

    Was it cultural bias, or something else? Check out my assessment here
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/some-are-more-equal-than-others-and-being-superior-means-you-need-a-helping-hand/#comment-48523

  136. Feminist Hater says:

    Farm boy, you can’t convince her. She will merely bleat that that can be changed by giving women extra education and hitting boys over the head with a mallet whilst plugging them with Ritalin and other drugs. The only way to achieve equality is to dumb down everyone to a common denominator.

    When feminazis speak just replace what they say with the above and then kindly tell them to ‘take a hike’.

  137. farm boy says:

    She will merely bleat that that can be changed by giving women extra education and hitting boys over the head with a mallet

    Extra education is of limited effectiveness, but hitting boys over the head with a mallet would work. It may come to that.

    Perhaps we should switch to plan B: ridicule
    How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb.
    36, one to change the bulb and 35 to make a documentary (Stolen from John Cleese)

  138. farm boy says:

    Maybe we should have a contest to come up with feminist jokes.

  139. CL says:

    My favourite feminist joke:

    How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

    That’s not funny!

  140. Anon E Myshkin says:

    @Rollo 2:27pm
    I assumed that. That’s why I figured even here no one would get upset when I suggested that the girl should ‘set up shop’ (start a business)😉

  141. sunshinemary says:

    Patriactionary did the feminist joke thing a few months ago…it’s a hoot:
    http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/its-national-offend-a-feminist-week-2012/#comments

    @farm boy
    re: Your comment about hitting boys over the head with mallets
    Have you read “Harrison Bergeron”? It’s a short story by Kurt Vonnegut, and I posted in on my blog earlier today. I think you’d enjoy reading it.

  142. farm boy says:

    Surely you don’t think that logic is of any importance to a feminist at all…?
    The very first step towards becoming a feminist is a complete rejection of all logic

    Ridicule, jokes. Yea, that’s the ticket! (Channeling Jon Lovitz)

  143. Anon E Myshkin says:

    (BTW, Anon Reader is ruling this thread.)

    I found it strange that the feminist chose the time period 30 years. Because if you look back exactly 30 years ago, you see an abundance of women in math and computer science degree programs, and a dearth in engineering. And despite efforts to enhance participation, and to aid their academic success, and to lower standards for them in hiring, these numbers have hardly budged. Really, all the advances in removing obstacles to women entering the STEM professions were removed well over 30 years ago, and everything has just been an effort to institutionalize providing women with advantages.

    I remember when I was in elementary school in the late 60’s, and the media drumbeat was all about what a disservice society was doing to girls by making them think that they would be regarded less well (by society and boys) if they were smart and applied themselves to school work. All the feminist media drumbeats you see today were present back then too. And I remember noticing how it was the exact opposite; it was the studious girls who were praised, and also the ones well regarded by the boys even; and it was the boys who were being discouraged. This was the thing that first made me realize, wow, the media is full of bunk. And I remember attending grade schools in several different towns thereafter, and it was the same in all of them, to varying degrees.

  144. Jason says:

    @sunshinemary and @farmboy,

    I would also recommend the short film 2081, which was Harrison Bergeron made into a film (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1282015/). It has the saddest ending though.

  145. T. Chan says:

    “That said, it is starting to change, and the numbers of women will grow, to the benefit of society at large. Twice the pool of talent is a good thing.”

    Not when the pool of jobs is limited.

    The troll should just be banned.

  146. ar10308 says:

    @T. Chan,

    Argueably, the economy would expand and the number of total jobs would also increase. The real issues arise though when these women leave the workforce to start families, especially from high-demand, high educational requirement fields like medical doctors. Right now, females outnumber males in medical schools. What happens if even 25% of these women drop out of the field to have families and never return? That leaves massive gaps in services that very few people can fill.

  147. jg says:

    If the economies had expended in past before the financial crisis, then why have salaries dropped by nearly 50% (excluding any inflationary effects)and the tax based doubled? So did we have real jobs or make work or a combination of both? Of course there will be more outsourcing and companies will have to make work and pay the same salary…

  148. Pirran says:

    @Deli says:
    July 30, 2012 at 8:28 am

    “Ok, I read the comments to the confession made by a brony – and the amount of backslash that it got from the locals at “OMG, white man talking about ponies got more support than any of the other posts in this tumblr, UNFAIR!” just made my day.”

    Of course, this is the problem with such an hysterically self-obsessed site; Poe’s law comes to the fore. When I first saw the brony, I was convinced it was a Poe, but now I’m not so sure. The comments, though, are the cherry on top.

  149. Anonymous Reader says:

    Right now, females outnumber males in medical schools. What happens if even 25% of these women drop out of the field to have families and never return? That leaves massive gaps in services that very few people can fill.

    Well, this would mean more H-1 visas, for a start. I expect the US is already importing a fair number of physicians from the rest of the world, this will simply accelerate the process. That makes the US a kind of “free rider” on medical schools in the rest of the world, but, eh, so what?

    This brings up an interesting question.Rather a lot of foreign nationals, many of them men, come to the US for science, math or engineering degrees. If Title IX is applied to STEM as it has been applied to college athletics, this will mean an ever decreasing number of openings in those majors for men, along with all the usual special goodies for women to bring them in. Limiting the number of men who can enroll in, say, computer engineering, at Enormous State U. is not only going to affect young American men, but it will also dramatically decrease the number of Indian, Korean, Chinese and other men who come here to study. Unless, of course, the Caesars (“Czars”) in the Dept. of Education decide to exempt them…which could well happen, given the political pull of various groups.

    in that case, we’d see American men discriminated against doubly; first, in favor of women in the usual way, and second in favor of foreign men. I can see feminists definitely would be in favor of this; it’s hypergamously yummy, it squashes more American men like bugs, and of course benefits women in the short run. What’s not to like, for feminists?

  150. ar10308 says:

    @AR,
    Ya know, I just realized something. Most of those lady MDs AREN’T going to be able to find men they consider worthy of starting families with. Since they don’t start their actual practice until they are basically at the Wall and simultaneously being so near the top of the pyramid, they will have almost no one able to marry them. Whereas most of the male docs will so easily be able to snatch up beautiful 22year-old ladies who studied early childhood education to have families with that they wouldn’t even bother dating the aged, stressed, demanding, relentlessly hypergamous and shit-testing lady docs their same age.

    With regards to the Title IX, that is exactly what I’d see happening. American men would get absolutely hosed in this deal.
    “it’s hypergamously yummy, it squashes more American men like bugs, and of course benefits women in the short run. What’s not to like, for feminists?”
    Until they all hit the Wall and the epic crisis of “There’s No Good Men Left” reaches tsunami proportions completely unimaginable in years prior.

  151. Anonymous Reader says:

    Let’s consider the way Title IX has played out in college athletics. Starting in 1972, with an ‘equity’ and ‘equal opportunity’ approach, early in the first Clinton administration the enforcement was changed to a numbers game. So that means that the newer nose-counting approach is close to 20 years old (18 or 19, I am not sure).

    To the best of my knowledge, this is how it plays out: some ratio of “women’s athletes” to “men’s athletes” is deemed to be Good. If the ratio is too low, that is deemed to be Discriminatory, and corrections must be made. Initially this usually means increased funding for women’s athletics. However, because a lower percentage of women are interested in college athletics than men, increased funding doesn’t do enough. At this point, even more money is demanded, and given that even at Enormous State U. the athletics budget is finite, it means that some men’s programs must be cut, in the interests of “equity”, “fairness”, “equality” and so forth. Typically this will result in programs that don’t have a lot of participants going away, such as wrestling. The effects of Title IX on intercollegiate wresting has been notable, and in a few more years it may simply cease to exist as a college men’s sport. Larger scale sports, notably football, baseball, and basketball are less vulnerable to the Title IX mallet.

    At least, so far. It will be interesting to see what the feminist-driven decline in men’s college attendance will lead to. At some point, when the women/men ratio is 2:1 then logically one would think that Title IX was clearly fulfilled, but ideologies never stop at any logical point like that. I expect to see more further pushes to eliminate men’s college sports in the years to come, not fewer.Not totally, of course, because some sports are required to attract the Alpha men to college, where they can form a carousel for women to ride on. But to a larger extent. It would not surprise me to see uni’s dropping track and field, for example, in the years to come. All that’s needed to keep the women happy is football players, some basketball players, and maybe baseball players.

    So what Title IX as enforced since the early 1990’s boils down to is this:
    Women can choose to participate in college athletics, or not. But not enough of them choose to do so, then some number of men must responsibly give up their chosen sport in, in the name of “equality”, “fairness”, “equity” and so forth.

    Thus women have increased choices and men have increased responsibilities.
    Just as we see in so many other areas of US life.
    This is feminism in action.

  152. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH
    Affirmative action, by the way, does not apply in the private sector and is not about quotas.

    In practice, EEO compliance in Fortune 500 companies pretty much boils down to Affirmative Action, so far as I can tell both from personal experience and other sources of information. And while it is officially not about quotas, often there is an unspoken quota that a hiring manager better meet, or else.

    It merely means that employers have to show that they are making an effort to locate and recruit members of certain minorities. I’ve represented government contractors who have been audited for compliance with these requirements. We’ve passed such audits despite not having female or minority employees simply by showing the lack of qualified applicants, and showing that we have taken steps to recruit applicants from female and minority pools.

    And how much did it cost to “pass” that audit? I’m sure that you don’t work for free, and if such a case involved Federal court in any way that’s not cheap. It’s been some years since I looked into it, but the last time I checked just walking into Federal court as a defendant with legal representation was in the neighborhood of $10,000 to $20,000. Any amount of time on the case could push that up over $30,000. Appeal? I don’t know – $50,000 on up, at a guess.

    The cost for such a “victory” comes right out of the company profits. Enough “victories” of that sort will mean bankruptcy, given the fact that most companies run a profit margin of under 5%, often on the order of 2% to 3% per annum.

    No preferential hiring required.

    Right. Sure. Just pay law firms over and over and over again, to represent the company in Federal court, until bankruptcy sets in. Or, alternatively, hire preferentially a few times and stay out of trouble.

    In the old gangster movies from the 1930’s, often times there’s a scene where a low level thug and a few henchmen pull a shakedown on a merchant. They walk into the store and talk with the proprietor, Mom or Pop, about what a nice store it is, and how much of a shame it would be if something bad were to happen to it. Usually accompanied by some minor destruction of wares for sale — oops, clumsy boy, he dropped it – by a henchman, this threat makes it clear that the hapless family, whose entire net worth is wrapped up in the store, better pay what the mob wants or face losing their entire living and maybe more.

    Of course, only a cynic would look at EEO and see something similar: “Nice business you got here, even though You Didn’t Build That. It’d be a shame if something were to happen to it. How about you hire a couple of my friends to work here, make sure nothing bad happens?”.

    As I say, only a cynic would see that. …

  153. jg says:

    @AR:
    Actuall the University of California system and a few ivy leagues are reclassifying Asians as white to limit their number on the campuses.

  154. Boxer says:

    You can no more appeal to logic with a feminist than you can with a sea cucumber…

    Let’s be fair: the feminists on dalrock’s site do serve a noble purpose (other than cheap entertainment). They do a great job proving all the contentions in the subtext.

    It’d be difficult to explain the astounding level of cognitive dissonance to a blue-pill brother without living examples to point to, and the femchicks who show up here do a great job at that.

  155. jg says:

    In the 90’s I was hearing from people in the financial services industry that all accounting work was being outsourced because the local CPA’s were incompetent and all they demanded was a 6-figure salary and a coner office!!
    There was an articel in the NYT earlier this year about women medical graduates where close to 50% of them never returned to full time employment and some of them after getting their residency etc simply dropped out of the profession altogether. This article was written by female anesthatist with 40+yrs of experience and had raised a family as well. What she basically said was that if women were not wiling to make the sacrifices to work full time in medical profession, then they should not have gone and obtained their MD’s in the 1st place!! This created a big stir in the comment pages. The Thinking Housewife wrote about it and had a link to that article as well.

  156. deepankar007 says:

    According to MANUSMRITI-
    “She is protected by father and brothers in the childhood, husband in youth and sons in the old age. A WOMAN SHOULD NEVER BE MADE INDEPENDENT.”

  157. Anonymous Reader says:

    ar10308, you got it in one. First stage feminists, and second stage feminists made out quite well. They got their MBA’s thanks to “outreach” and married a Beta as well. Later second stage feminists such as DH did well, also. But the diminishing returns are setting in – by actively and deliberately making K-12 education a pit of drugged misery for boys, thus reducing the number of young men who go to college, feminism is guaranteeing an ever more intense competition in college between women for men. This will have a couple of side effects: ever more slutty behavior by many (not all) women in order to gain the attention of the desired Alpha, which will “up the ante” for all other women by association; and increasing diffidence and hostility towards women on the part of the invisible (beta) men.

    The glass floor in employment will only exacerbate this. “Where Have All The Good Men Gone” will all but certainly become a national crisis in a few years, as the unleashed hypergamy of women goes all but totally unsatisfied.

    But in the short run – ah, in the short run, all is good. Girls Rule, Boyz Drool , Throw Rocks At Them in high school and college, and increasingly on the job. Trample the betas, ride the alpha cock, take all the institutionalized privileges as just natural for women, and life is good…for a while. But, so long as women aged 15-25 are haaaapy, what more does a civilization need to provide, eh?

  158. Anonymous Reader says:

    Actuall the University of California system and a few ivy leagues are reclassifying Asians as white to limit their number on the campuses.

    Careful, do not confuse the well known prejudice in US college admissions against native-born Asian Americans with the desire for more foreign college students who can be hired cheaply on H-1 visas after graduation.

  159. Here's a Red Pill 4 Ya! says:

    Did anyone bother to watch the national televised debate on “ARE MEN FINISHED?”? An interesting way to pass the evening.

  160. jg says:

    @AR:
    Well, UCLA and UCB are also concerned by this reclassification becuase, they will not be able to get the best Chinese and Indian talent to build their depts. I read an article in NYT about this where Harvard math dept is trying to build a world class dept but now are concerned about the ability in the future to attract the required talent to do exactly that. Well, native born Asian Americans are also upset because it is going to hurt them as well. It seems UCLA has a sizeable native born Asian American population and it may take a hit as well. I wonder what will happen at a place like Univeristy of Hawaii Manoa which is a research school with a lot of Asian students?

  161. GKChesterton says:

    This was a cool comment thread till you’all fed the DH comment troll. She’s attention whoring, just ignore her.

  162. bskillet81 says:

    I’m tired of living in a country where women are treated as if they’re undeserving of making decisions regarding their own bodies, they’re made to think they don’t need to be compensated equally for the same work, and they’re raised to think that slurs like ‘bitch’ and ‘slut’ are okay

    I’m not sure what country this guy is talking about, but if such a country actually exists, I would consider moving there.

  163. Steve_85 says:

    Token Feminist Joke:
    Q: Why is it impossible to tell a funny joke about Feminists?
    A: Because the feminists don’t think it’s funny, and no one else thinks its a joke.

  164. The Continental Op says:

    This was a cool comment thread till you’all fed the DH comment troll. She’s attention whoring, just ignore her.

    Just goes to show that even the red pill men can’t resist a woman, no matter how unhinged she is.

  165. Hermit says:

    This one:
    “I need feminism because even though I’m only 16 and we’ve only been going out for six months, I still need to justify why I haven’t slept with my boyfriend yet.”

    There are literally millions of Americans that can easily justify this without feminism.

    Or this:

    “My girlfriend needs feminism because as a “dykey” lesbian going off to college, I should not have to worry about her getting sexually harissed [sic] (but I do)”

    I’m not quite sure how fminism is supposed to fix this. I mean, they’ve had 50+ years, and somehow they haven’t managed to override nature. I’m pretty sure it’s not going to happen within the next 4 years.

  166. Feminist Hater says:

    Hermit, the first one actually spells out why they DON’T need feminism. Feminism places on women the ‘burden’ of losing their virginity early and does in no way protect it.

  167. emotions are “too subjective” to produce LOGIC…
    ————————————————————————-
    That she stated the above proves the above, it makes less than zero sense.

  168. shinzaemon says:

    Dalrock,
    This is my favorite blog in the manosphere and I formally request you ban that persistent, obnoxious troll Doomed Harlot.

  169. tm says:

    OT-ish This is why the church needs feminism:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19062426

  170. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton says:
    This was a cool comment thread till you’all fed the DH comment troll. She’s attention whoring, just ignore her.

    Irony. Oh, the irony.

  171. Anonymous Reader says:

    Continental Op, DH used to be a regular here until sometime last year. In some ways she’s toned down her presentation.

    While I’m sure she digs the attention, she’s also something of an exemplar of the 2nd stage feminist. Such a specimen is not always easy to examine in the natural world – one can interact with DH in a way that one would not interact with the childless, 40-something 2nd stage feminist head of Human Resources at work, for example. Not if one intended to continue employment, anyway. Therefore, in some ways, it is useful to have DH post here from time to time. So long as she doesn’t totally derail a conversation, of course.

    IMO. YMMV.

  172. Feminist Hater says:

    I need feminism because when I say I don’t want marriage and babies people tell me that I will. Absolutely assuming I know less about my future than they do. Asserting that I do not have a choice.

    Oh, if I could be a fly on the wall when this one reaches 28-30 years of age…

  173. Hermit says:

    “the first one actually spells out why they DON’T need feminism”

    But at least with feminism she can just emote her way through life, not having to think things through logically. I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong.

  174. siquaeris says:

    I need feminism because there is much work to do in widening the chasm between men and women.

  175. Feminist Hater says:

    Dalrock, please put blockquotes around the quote above, thank you.

  176. Doomed Harlot says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    You are right that government contractors do have to pay big bucks to law firms to help them with Affirmative Action audits. But this is a matter of business choice. The way to avoid such an audit is to not contract to provide services to the government. I am not a government contractor myself, but I enter contracts with clients who have all sorts of demands. It is up to me to determine whether the cost of my client’s demands are worth the value of the business they give me.

    That said, certainly businesses do incur costs in responding to employee lawsuits filed with the EEOC or state anti-discrimination commissions, but that is a different matter than responding to a full-scale audit.

  177. Just1X says:

    “So long as she doesn’t totally derail a conversation, of course.”
    enough said?

    if not, how much material do we need that she’s a disingenuous twunt? there’s no point arguing with someone who is without intellectual honesty (or intellect or honesty).

  178. Just1X says:

    @Steve
    “Q: Why is it impossible to tell a funny joke about Feminists?
    A: Because the feminists don’t think it’s funny, and no one else thinks its a joke.”

    got any more like that? I LOL’d

  179. Lovekraft says:

    These self-righteous professional whiners are simply a reflection of extreme attention-whoring, because anyone who steps out of college-level analysis sees problems on a global scale.

    I for one am welcoming up here in Ontario the looming battle between the powerful teachers unions and their (former partners) Liberal government. It will be a wake-up call to every Ontarian to see how selfish the former group is in their demands. BTW, the public teachers union is rife with feminists and manginas.

  180. freebird says:

    *Those* wymyn need feminism because they haven’t a thought in their pretty little heads.
    I have a plan to remedy this is a humane fashion.
    We need Mary to submit a (brain) DNA sample via a small sample needle from the base of the brain area (IT won’t hurt,promise-and it’s for a great cause!)
    Then replicate that DNA by cultures,bind it to the common flu virus,and release it in the up-scale shops on 5th avenue,and up-scale clothing and shoe stores nationwide.

    The genetic sample will bind to the public and now actual functional brain cells will be present in the majority of women again.Perhaps it has been the breeding with the pug nosed ever-child like-blondes that have dumbed down the population.

    As to the joke about police response the local version goes something like this:

    Guy calls 911 and says he’s got an active break in.
    The dispatcher says there is a 30 minute back-log on police response.
    He calls back a few minutes later and says “I just wanted to let you know I’ve killed three armed intruders.”
    The police were there in minutes.
    “Yeah, I thought that would get you here.”

  181. freebird says:

    Regarding the “Christian sexy” jpeg linked above:
    Beware the woman who wears more than one earring per ear!

    It is always the sure sign of a nutter!
    I am guess that her dilated eyes and dark areas around the eyes are caused by anti-depressants and not exhaustion/jet-lag.

    She does have the look of a *lost* soul.That’s what happens when ones theology ceases to be an anchor of serenity and becomes a (working) point of contention.

  182. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH, if an audit is a contractual obligation that is spelled out up front, then it’s just another business expense. No complaint from me.

    It’s the government “surprise parties” that can become quite expensive in short order, and tend to resemble mob shakedowns after a while, in my opinion.

  183. This is why I need feminism. It pays my bills so effectively,..

  184. freebird says:

    “The very first step towards becoming a feminist is a complete rejection of all logic (step two is a rejection of human decency, but again, that is just step two).”
    Exactly,several posts on the site whined about how logic was never “moral” or fair.”
    In fact inroads have been made to label logic as criteria for abuse.
    These non-logical fems are like children with the terrible two’s stamping feet,screaming mouths,and holding breath until blue to get wrongful concessions.
    Logic?Pashha, logic is abusive,therefore anyone employing logic is engaging in abuse.
    Hence most of this site is in violation of future hate crime lawz.

    How are you contradict a powerful empowered wymyn with the subversive logic and offense at body odor.

    The fact is most wymyns thinking is about their bodies and how to manipulate it to get cash and prizes and johnny law to protect the privilege.
    I reserve the right-when attacked by emo-hate-fems-to say “Your cunt stinks.”
    Now there is a non-logical response that they understand,almost as effective as calling a man a creep,but lacking the implication of a criminal mindset.
    We’ve got to get some irrational lawz for men to lock up or use the threat of lock up in return.Elsewise it’s a losing battle.

  185. Tricket says:

    I just went browsing through the site. I can’t even begin to comprehend what imaginary world these women think they should be living in. But it’s obviously not the “real world”.

    Also, found this one on the front.
    HERE


    I need feminism because:
    It doesn’t matter what I choose,
    I matter’s that I choose.

    The ability to choose. More important than the consequences that follow.

  186. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tricket – that’s half of the deal, the increased choices.

    The other half is not mentioned – someone else pays for those choices.

    Feminism is like a group of women in an all-you-can-eat Dim Sum restaurant, who never have to pay the bill – some guy in the corner, or out in the street, gets the bill.

  187. T. Chan says:

    “Argueably, the economy would expand and the number of total jobs would also increase. The real issues arise though when these women leave the workforce to start families, especially from high-demand, high educational requirement fields like medical doctors. Right now, females outnumber males in medical schools. What happens if even 25% of these women drop out of the field to have families and never return? That leaves massive gaps in services that very few people can fill.”

    Resources are the primary limiting factor, not labor. There can be no creation of non-productive jobs without an economic base for them.

  188. T. Chan says:

    Might be an oversimplification, but suffice it to say, there are plenty of unemployed or underemployed PhDs in the sciences as well.

  189. Feminist Hater says:

    Sure T.Chan, but when you have an over supply of labour in the market, the labour competes for the shortfall of work available, which drives down the wage, keeping productive capacity exactly the same but driving down the standard of living.

    Also, you have to draw a distinction between primary and secondary sources of production; namely mining, agriculture and manufacturing, which are indeed limited by resources as you say, and then ‘service’ work, such as the medical field, the law field and so on. Service fields can be expanded by government to huge proportions by simply printing debt money. Passing the cost to the following generations. This is what feminism does. Educates women in mostly useless careers and then creates jobs for them in the ‘service’ sector. Which is another reason why feminists don’t like STEM. They would actually have to work and create real production.

  190. Feminist Hater says:

    Honest question. As anyone ever known competent Doctors who are unemployed? Obviously barring those that lost their licenses.

    I’m pretty sure Doctors are always highly needed. If you can’t find work in your own country, you simply ship over to Canada or Britain and you will indeed get work very quickly.

  191. Feminist Hater says:

    Should be ‘Has anyone…”.

  192. T. Chan says:

    Sure. I just don’t think that there are enough research jobs being created, which is how I interpreted DH’s claim about increasing the talent pool with respect to the hard sciences.

  193. T. Chan says:

    Not unemployed, but I have read about doctors going into retirement early because of Obamacare.

  194. Feminist Hater says:

    DH thinks she’s right no matter what. Not even God could convince her otherwise. Pay her no mind.

  195. sunshinemary says:

    In fact inroads have been made to label logic as criteria for abuse.
    These non-logical fems are like children with the terrible two’s stamping feet,screaming mouths,and holding breath until blue to get wrongful concessions.

    Oh boy, is this ever true. I had this experience recently when trying to state calmly a disagreeing opinion on a feminist blog. Their responses made me think that if magpies ever develop the ability to type comments on blogs, it will look quite similar to the responses I got.

  196. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >>Well, I never said that the stay-at-home-mom/provider-dad was a good deal for men (or women either for that matter). Just that you have the right to do it.

    You consistently show no comprehension what it means to be a man in the US. There is no right for men to enter any agreement with any woman, ever, because the minute she changes her mind, she gets everything, even if she was an adulterous slut.

    Dalrock, reading DH, I wish I knew where you put that analysis some months ago, explaining why these female trolls think they are somehow going to set us poor male sinners straight in the world, if we only would listen to them.

  197. bitter_irony says:

    Young woman + hairy pits = wood for me. Not enough of it going around.
    Strange, but true.
    Hairy legs, not so much.

  198. Anonymous age 70 says:

    Hohoho hahaha heeheehee. DH seems to believe women who are employed are actually the most qualified candidate.

    Many years ago, the government agency, I think by memory called in those days, EEOC, sued Sears because their buyers were mostly men. Sears showed they had made every possible effort to hire women as buyers, and women simply did not want to travel etcetera as buyers must do.

    EEOC then said Sears must take women in easy office jobs, call them buyers, and pay them the same as buyers make. Sears actually won that law suit, and it cost them millions to defend, not $50,000.

    But, EEOC went back after them like the jackals they are. And, Sears and many other companies do indeed give women secretarial or book-keeping jobs, and pay them what the extremely productive men get paid.

    The company I worked for before retiring had some of the best engineers in the world. Few women wanted to do what it took to be an engineer, and those who did seldom won patents. So, to save itself the company did just what I said, created a special class of jobs that women could handle, and paid them what engineers get paid. No men can ever get those jobs, no matter how competent they are, because men stay on jobs four times as long as women do, and women change jobs every 2.5 years, so even one man on such a job throws off the averages. Can’t be done.

    The worst example was the US forest service. They announced several decades ago no men would be promoted until management reached a certain percentage of women. Women come on the job; get promoted to management very fast then in a very few years quit and go into easier work. At one point in the 90’s the press reported male employees with nearly 20 years on the job were still at the bottom. They will never reach the mandatory percentage, and the same is true of most companies. Because women simply don’t stay on the job.

  199. Retrenched says:

    The issue re: women and STEM isn’t a lack of opportunity or encouragement. There are already programs in place which spend millions of dollars every year in outreach to try to encourage more young women to go into STEM, but they still choose to go into other fields like education, health care etc. instead. Given the lack of female interest in STEM subjects, there’s no way you can get 50% female participation in STEM without strictly capping male participation rates.

    And when the M/F ratio in STEM changes, as it inevitably will if Obama’s plan comes to fruition, the Hanna Rosins will no doubt gloat and sack dance and celebrate the “end of men in STEM” while of course neglecting to mention the role gender-based preferences played in bringing it about.

    I wonder what the young men who get Title IX’ed out of STEM education will do. Maybe go to study STEM in another country that won’t discriminate against them, or (more likely) self-teach, particularly in the technical sciences like computer programming.

  200. van Rooinek says:

    I wonder what the young men who get Title IX’ed out of STEM education will do. Maybe go to study STEM in another country that won’t discriminate against them, or (more likely) self-teach, particularly in the technical sciences like computer programming.

    Title IX or not, the sheer unaffordability of college necessitates alternatives. For every engineering discipline, there are one or more skilled trades which are in some way associated with it (electrical engineer/electrician, chemical engineer/plumber, mechanical engineer/mechanic, etc.) If you doubt this, consider what would happen to each of those engineering disciplines in the absence of the skilled trades needed to put the contraption together…

    So if college is off the table due to title IX or $ or both….
    (1) go into the skilled trade most nearly associated with the engineering field you’re interested it. This will get your foot in the door of the industry, enable you to make a good living…
    ,,,and then….
    (2) get the syllabus of the engineering school that didn’t let you in, and buy (or better yet, just rent or borrow) the textbooks and teach yourself. Then you can laugh at those who…

    “…. dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f***in’ education you coulda’ got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library” — Good Will Hunting

    And no, you won’t be serving fries. Worst case scenario, you’ll be a well paid and well read skilled tradesman. But if you play it right, your skills can help you climb the ladder. Because at the end of the day, getting the work done is what counts. Especially when only elites can afford a BS degree any more….

  201. van Rooinek says:

    .PS… and might I add, the hands on experience will make you a better engineer or scientist. 6 months spent as a chemical compounder — not formally classed as a skilled trade but it should be — made me a better chemist.

  202. mojo says:

    LEAVE FEMINISM ALONE!!!

  203. ar10308 says:

    van Rooinek,

    I would adjust your trade comparison’s slightly.
    electrical engineer/electronics assembly, mechanical engineer/machinist

    A MechE that knows about programing CNC machines becomes a massively better CAD-jockey.

  204. Pingback: Father Knows Best: So Hard Done By Edition « Patriactionary

  205. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/08/01 « Free Northerner

  206. Legion says:

    van Rooinek says:
    July 31, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    I like the trades / engineering comparison. They don’t stack up evenly. Mechanical engineer can be covered by various trades as you and ar noted. Plumber is an essential trade in construction and maintenance. I remember welders being in short supply when the Alaskan pipeline was constructed and that can happen again when we get the Keystone pipeline going. (Obama, any environmental president out.)

    For the record, I’m a licensed civil engineer. Not many women in engineering back in the 70’s. Many large engineering firms take the best female engineers and fast track them into managers, so they don’t develope the technical expertise they should.

  207. Dalrock says:

    @Legion

    Many large engineering firms take the best female engineers and fast track them into managers, so they don’t develope the technical expertise they should.

    Note: Doomed Harlot is busy so I’m standing in for her this morning.*

    You know that more feminism will fix that problem, right?

    *I was just called into a meeting. Can someone else cover for me covering for her while we both are out? It sounds harder than it really is. All you have to do is copy and paste the sentence above in response to any problems. Don’t worry if feminism hasn’t helped the issue in the past, or even if feminism was the cause of the problem in the first place. It is always the right answer.

  208. Alexander says:

    @ Dalrock

    You, a MAN, got called into a meeting? You, a MAN, are going to offer opinions or proposals from a position of authority?!?!

    You know that more feminism will fix that problem, right?

    [D: Perfect. I see you have this covered.]

  209. Doomed Harlot says:

    Dalrock,

    I see you’re getting the picture!

  210. Doomed Harlot says:

    And, no, I don’t think that fast tracking women engineers into management positions before they have sufficiently developed their technical skills (if that is indeed happening) does them or anyone else any favors. There is nothing about the belief in equal rights that requires such a thing and, indeed, a belief in equal rights would be contrary to such fast tracking.

  211. van Rooinek says:

    ar10308: I would adjust your trade comparison’s slightly. electrical engineer/electronics assembly, mechanical engineer/machinist. A MechE that knows about programing CNC machines becomes a massively better CAD-jockey.

    Legion: Mechanical engineer can be covered by various trades as you and ar noted. Plumber is an essential trade in construction and maintenance. I remember welders being in short supply when the Alaskan pipeline was constructed and that can happen again when we get the Keystone pipeline going. (Obama, any environmental president out.)

    You both are of course quite correct. My list wasn’t intended to be exhaustive. Several trades can relate to most engineering disciplines, and those trades have applications elsewhere.

    I think that my main point still stands, though: For those who have STEM-level talent, yet can’t get STEM degrees due $$ or Title IX misandry, learning the associated trade(s) and self-teaching from the engineering or science books, is a route in the back door.

    I have a friend who has the equivalent of a couple of engineering degrees, all self taught (he never went past high school). Among other things, he can do CNC milling and has bought his own machine. I may apprentice one of my sons to him, if any of them are so inclined when they get older.

  212. van Rooinek says:

    DH: I don’t think that fast tracking women engineers into management positions before they have sufficiently developed their technical skills (if that is indeed happening) does them or anyone else any favors. There is nothing about the belief in equal rights that requires such a thing and, indeed, a belief in equal rights would be contrary to such fast tracking.

    This undercuts all present day affirmative action, racial and sexual. The original Republican form of affirmative action was simply, casting a wider net, and opening your mind to the possibility that the right person for the job might be black, female, or both. Because Republicans have always supported equal RIGHTS, since our founding in the 1850s.

    However, today, affirmative action is held by liberals to require equal OUTCOMES…. forced if necessary. This means that females and nonwhite/nonAsian males are often promoted above their competence. EVEN IF they could have eventually succeeded on their own (and undoubtely at least some of them could), this artificial promotion tends to call their qualifications into question — and, as noted above to inhibit their skill development.

  213. van Rooinek says:

    Jobs most in demand in 2012 — Global Survey
    1. Skilled Trades Workers
    2. Engineers

    3. Sales Representatives
    4. Technicians
    5. Drivers
    6. Laborers
    7. IT Staff
    8. Accounting & Finance Staff
    9. Chefs/Cooks
    10. Management/Executives

    http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-most-in-demand-jobs-around-the-world-right-now-2012-5

  214. Alexander says:

    @ DH

    More than enough time has passed for us to see the disconnect between the sanitized spoken promises of feminism and reality. It doesn’t even matter if you yourself are philosophizing in good faith – the movement is not. Fast tracking happens because even if it’s all about ‘opportunity not outcomes’ and ‘a belief in equal rights’, what we actually observe and thus respond to is political strongarming of companies and groups that don’t have the acceptable amount of the womyn in charge, and the banshees cheering this series of events.

    I don’t ask that you change your opinion to fit the facts. I ask that you don’t take us for fools.

  215. Doomed Harlot says:

    But Van Rooinek, Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex (and race and other categories). So fast tracking unqualified female engineers at the expense of qualified male engineers is illegal. Male engineers who were passed over so that women could be fast-tracked would have a Title VII lawsuit against the employer.

  216. Male engineers who were passed over so that women could be fast-tracked would have a Title VII lawsuit against the employer.
    ——————————————————————–
    Really?

  217. Feminist Hater says:

    Yea, empath, she really thinks that individual men have the power and money to take on the bureaucracy of the feminist United States. She really thinks middle class male engineers can take on the power of government to sue an employer who fast tracks female employees over male employees to receive government benefits.

    Anyone remember Obama saying that Obamacare wasn’t a tax and then Judge Roberts ruling that it was a tax? This is the madness that DH expects individual men to go against to seek redress over sexist issues.

    She’s a nut.

  218. van Rooinek says:

    But Van Rooinek, Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex (and race and other categories)…Male engineers who were passed over so that women could be fast-tracked would have a Title VII lawsuit against the employer

    Yeah, of course. The laws are equal. And equally enforced. So,sexual harassment of men is punished as vigorously as sexual harassment of women. And racial hate crimes blacks against whites are punished with the same vigor as the reverse. And the tooth fairy will give you a quarter… and the easter bunny lays chocolate eggs… and santa claus is coming to town…

  219. Alexander says:

    Careful vR, in some areas that list of european-centric imaginary people could be deemed offensive.

  220. Doomed Harlot says:

    It’s true! Title VII is gender neutral. I have a client who recently paid out $50K (the maximum under Title VII for an employer the size of my client) to a man who was sexually harassed by a female supervisor.

    Now, obviously this does not mean that the law is applied equally. A plaintiff who can’t get a settlement is going to have to take his case to a jury — a cross-section of men and women from the community. He is going to have to make his case to them. A lot of average jurors are going to have trouble with the concept that a man can be sexually harassed by a woman. I am not saying that’s fair. In fact, I think that’s unfair. But you can’t blame the feminists for that one.

  221. Dalrock says:

    @Doomed Harlot

    Now, obviously this does not mean that the law is applied equally. A plaintiff who can’t get a settlement is going to have to take his case to a jury — a cross-section of men and women from the community. He is going to have to make his case to them. A lot of average jurors are going to have trouble with the concept that a man can be sexually harassed by a woman. I am not saying that’s fair. In fact, I think that’s unfair. But you can’t blame the feminists for that one.

    I think I know the answer to the unfairness feminist laws have created! Is must be more feminism, right?

  222. Alexander says:

    Indeed. If only those chauvinist pigs on the jury could come to terms that women are just as good at sexually harassing their employees as the good old boys, then these well-thought-out laws would work as intended. The short term fix of course would be to take men off of juries entirely until they were sufficiently open minded.

  223. Feminist Hater says:

    Sure thing Alexander, I think your American Justice system also needs more wise latina women too. God forbid you could ever have gotten anything done before they arrived.

  224. JoeS says:

    Juries follow what judges and lawyers tell them. Hell hath no fury like a feminist confronted with the truth. Feminism is about women being liars, whores, infanticides, and getting legal and social approval for it.

  225. van Rooinek says:

    Careful vR, in some areas that list of european-centric imaginary people could be deemed offensive.

    Oh, gee, I forgot leperchauns, woodwoses, trolls, fairies, and sprites. Thanks for the reminder.

  226. Doomed Harlot says:

    Now you’re getting the picture, Dalrock! Your the ones who are always complaining that feminism says men and women are the same. Well, surely that’s a useful principle for getting juries to understand that yes, women are capable of engaging in poor, sexually agressive behavior, like harassment in the workplace and yes, men are capable of being damaged by it. And you would agree, no, that feminism stresses the importance of consent in sexual relations — a principle that would apply to men’s right to consent as well.

    Joe S, Juries hear from lawyers on BOTH sides of the case. They also hear from judges who tell them what the law says — and the law says that Title VII is gender neutral.

  227. Alexander says:

    Trains are neutral to. You lay the tracks, and that’s the way they go.

  228. JoeS says:

    ” Well, surely that’s a useful principle for getting juries to understand that yes, women are capable of engaging in poor, sexually agressive behavior, like harassment in the workplace and yes, men are capable of being damaged by it. And you would agree, no, that feminism stresses the importance of consent in sexual relations — a principle that would apply to men’s right to consent as well.”

    Feminism stresses that women don’t lie. That women are oppressed by men. It justifies women killing their own offspring because it is fundamentally amoral, and it teaches people to presume that women are in the right.

    “Joe S, Juries hear from lawyers on BOTH sides of the case. They also hear from judges who tell them what the law says — and the law says that Title VII is gender neutral.”

    Uh-huh. And judges and juries tell the jury that the law is fair, while ordering them to be unfair. And feminists say that unfair is fair, and that to make things fair they just need more unfairness in their favor.

    Feminist rat-bitches who support abortion don’t give a damn about justice or fairness in the laws, they don’t give a damn about “equality” or “consent” – what they want is for women to get what they want with impunity – and they will never admit the fact that that’s what it’s about. They won’t admit they’ve turned the laws into instruments of oppression, but they will make up every excuse in the book. They are gung ho on abortion because they are soulless psychopaths, and really it’s folly to pretend to have an honest conversation with such individuals.

  229. JoeS says:

    When juries are allowed to consider that women tend to be dishonest about sexual matters, that they are attracted to high status men and prone to whoring themselves out to them, and are more vindictive than men, then you might see more balanced outcomes. That is, outcomes based on truth and justice.

  230. Doomed Harlot says:

    Joe S,
    I defend companies on sex discrimination and sex harassment claims, and I will definitely incorporate your suggestions into the proposed jury instructions in my next case!

  231. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH on women in STEM
    Well, it is a problem that we don’t know, Dalrock. I certainly wouldn’t want JUST an end to formal barriers. I think cultural change is important too. And that is happening, verrrry slowly but surely.

    As has been pointed out to you multiple times, formal barriers to women in science have been gone for generations. If they every really existed. It would be useful if you could admit this fact, rather than implying once again that science is a Boys Only Club due to some konspiracy. One of the boring things about feminists is their forgetfullness – one minute, it is acknowledged IQ plays a role in many areas of science, and the difference in Var(g) between men and women means there are biological reasons why some areas are dominated by men. Then a short time later, it’s back to the same old game, i.e. any numerical difference in the number of male particle physicists vs. female particle physicists has to be due to the evil minions of Patriarchy, laboring hard to keep women down, and out of the field.

    It is tiresome. Really tiresome, to have to argue the same point over and over. Especially so in the same thread. It’s as if you just forget what you’ve written, when it is convenient to do so.

  232. Doomed Harlot says:

    Anonymous Reader,
    You read my clumsy use of the subjunctive to mean that I think there are currently formal barriers to women entering STEM. I don’t think that at all. My point was that it is primarily a cultural issue.

  233. evilalpha says:

    “It’s true! Title VII is gender neutral”

    LMAO. Sorry but an act written in femspeak with an emotional female point of view is implicitly not gender neutral.

  234. Anonymous Reader says:

    DH
    You read my clumsy use of the subjunctive to mean that I think there are currently formal barriers to women entering STEM. I don’t think that at all. My point was that it is primarily a cultural issue.

    All, right, I’ll accept sentence number one. Thank you for that.

    My point is that the percentage of women who have the IQ and the disposition to enter some sciences smaller than the percentage of men with the same properties, and that this is due to factors not cultural at all. So the various affirmative efforts, from K on up to the university level, to increase the number of women in (issue of the month) are not going to succeed. Only by limiting science opportunities for men , in a similar manner to the way Title IX has limited athletic opportunities, will the goal of ‘equal number of noses’ be achieved. This will, by the way, be yet another example of feminism at work: women will be offered more choices, men will get more responsibilities (and fewer choices).

    And I’ll reiterate Dalrock’s point: the mallet of ‘affirmative effort” in these cases is always the preferred tool, no matter what. A few years back, when the numbers of women entering CS were on the increase that was ‘proof’ that all the special treatment of women worked, and therefore in order to achieve parity in CS more of the same was needed. Now, with a couple of years of small decline in the number of women majoring in CS, guess what? The decline is “proof” that more of the same is needed. So whether women’s numbers in that major are increasing or not, they need special treatment.

    Always, and forever, even if they are a majority – there are still plenty of extra efforts being made to get women into college in general, women-only grants & scholarships, women-only tutors, etc. and any attempt to assist men at all runs right into….TItle IX, as interpreted. It’s very difficult to do a “men, you should go to college” campaign because it is inherently discriminatory towards women. The reverse, as AAUW shows, is perfectly fine. Men are still recruited into athletic programs, of course. There’s some recruitment on the basis of GPA and test scores (SAT, ACT). But nothing like what is done to encourage women can be done for men. Why? Many administrators will insist that men do not need encouragement to enroll in college, despite the numbers, because of the “historical discrimination against women in higher education”. And yes, I know that in theory that could be justification for a suit, in practice it ain’t gonna happen.

    So women’s “progress” is a one-way ticket to a gynosupremacy state: no matter what, they always need and deserve “more” than men, of anything. And all in the name of “equity”, “equality”, “fairness”, etc.

  235. Hf says:

    DH defends “companies on sex descrimination and sex harassment claims”

    AND

    DH has ” a client who recently…to a man who was sexually harrassed…”

    LOL at how hard DH tries.

  236. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – 8-5-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  237. Pingback: Feminism…who needs it? « "What is a blog?"

  238. Mark says:

    “”as long as the women involved are able and qualified to do the job.””

    “”Oh, got to love the femcunts. Of course most women are not capable as men in those jobs and never can be. Therefore they are not required by society to do them. Men must pick up the slack again and again. No more quotas, women must do their equal share in all jobs relating to society.””

    Awesome post FH!!!……….This is one thing that I admire about the Sicilian Mafia.When was the last time you saw wimminz being inducted into the ranks of La Cosa Nostra?….Never!..THERE AIN”T NO SUCH ANIMAL!!….Never has been nor will be!…This is a man’s game!…Could you imagine a Femi-Nazi wimminz in the Mob?….what a joke! They would screw everything up royally…as they usually do! I would give a FemCunt about 7 days in the Mob….then they would get “whacked”!

  239. Mark says:

    “”Feminists don’t believe in quotas, because every time a Femininazi gets put in charge of something (military, police, firefighting, etc) it immediately becomes about percentages and numbers, and The Standard is lowered accordingly.””

    Women cops and fireman?……Now this is a joke! Ever notice that when a womyn cop shows up it is usually backed up by a man?……waste of resources for the appeasement of the wimmin cops! I am 5’10” 200lbs. What if a 5’2 120lbs little FemCunt wanted to arrest me….and I did not want to go quietly?….I could bust her loser head for her right there! What if I was trapped in a burning house would I expect Ms Prissy fireman to at 120lbs to throw me over her shoulder and drag me out??…I highly doubt it!……Women cops and firefighters are an abysmal joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  240. Pingback: I am a feminist | It Goes On

  241. Pingback: Blog Post #11 | English Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s