Check out the way that the notion of male rationality involves an ideology that lacks rational method.
>Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 08:51:49 +1000
>From: "Dooby"
>Hi MC,
>>
>>
>You ask for comments about Rebecca Watson's "
>DELUSION" post, so here are mine. I believe that my opinion is not
>motivated
>by any minority group bias, so I looked at this post with an open mind.
>>
Could your opinion be motivated by a majority group (rather than a
minority group) bias? Actually, there is no neutral position in this
world. Minds are only ever partly open, because it simply isn't possible
to operate within an ideological vacuum. At the very least, you bring
with you certain biases based upon your life's experiences (particularly
in terms of what are common or uncommon experiences for you). Education
or the lack of it and numerous other factors all work to give us "bias".
A completely open mind would be like a Zen state of nothingness -- good
for meditation, but not likely to produce any grist for your mill,
particularly in terms of stating strong opinions one way or another.
>>
>Firstly, I should add that I identified very strongly with the early
>feminist movement until it was infiltrated and over-run by the lunatic
>fringe - the fanatical misandrists. (This observation was shared by
>numerous
>female acquaintances of mine at the time).
>>
>
We'll take your word for it that there are women who busy themselves with
fanatical hatred of men. Your statement, of course, begs the question as
to what would motivate them. The hobby of hating men seems odd enough on
the surface of it.
>
>
>
>>
>Secondly, the entire post seems to be devoted to blatant male hatred and
>aimed at her radical feminist supporters. I didn't read ALL the posts,
>but
>there seems to be a clear lack of contrary or balanced views.
>>
>
I wonder if stating that many women feel uncomfortable with men is the
same a "blatant male hatred". I guess it might be, in some instances,
but those are not the instances Rebecca Watson mentioned in her article.
Rather, she speaks of how she has received: "More and more threats of
rape from those who don't agree with me, even from those who consider
themselves skeptics and atheists."
Okay -- so it seems that the threats of rape were not made by Rebecca
Watson herself (which would indicate "blatant male hatred" on her part),
but rather on the part of males against Rebecca Watson.
>
>>
>This recent post "I thought I detected the stench of the MRM in your
>posts.
>Good to know my nose for jerks is still infallible - nullifidian" is
>quite
>typical.
>
>
Men's Right's Movement? Men's Rights Magazine?
>
>
Another describes all the locations where she considers that it is
>not acceptable for males to approach a woman - "That includes places
>like:
>work, home, parking garages, elevators, shopping malls, gas stations,
>etc".
>This reminds me of an occasion, where a woman told me that I don't have
>the
>right to pat her cat which was rubbing its nose against my leg in a
>public
>park. These people are clearly control freaks in need of professional
>help.
>
>
The use of ad hoc psychiatric insinuations to put women down has a history
in the systematic discriminatory practices against women, through
patriarchal ideologies and institutions. It is as old (and unoriginal)
as can be: Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria
>
>
>>
>Ms Watson claims to be a skeptic and that she was pushed into feminism -
>"I
>am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one". It seems to me
>that she has real issues with taking responsibility. "Skeptic" and
>"feminist" in the same sentence? Surely that's an oxymoron.
>>
>>
>
The idea that women have difficulty "taking responsibility" is directly
linked to the traditional hysteria accusation made against women who did
not conform to patriarchal mores of quietitude and subservience to males.
Indeed, they were thought to be incapable of "taking responsibility" for
their emotions -- thus, inviting the harshest of punitive discipline from
the patriarchal authorities.
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/menalhealthandillness/womanandpsychiatry.aspx
>
>
>>
>She also describes how she went from someone who could "freely make rape
>jokes without fear of hurting someone who had been raped" and who "didn't
>mind getting hit on" to feeling offended that she was "being sexually
>objectified" by an invitation from a man in a lift at 4am in the morning.
>
>
She gives an example of how she is capable of learning from experience.
This might be termed, in other words, "taking responsibility" for one's
self development.
>
>
I
>can't help wondering how she would have reacted if the same invitation
>had
>been made by a woman. She seems to have real issues with her own
>sexuality.
>>
>
Pure fantasy. What about if the same invitation has been made by a unicorn? What would
she have "problems" with in that instance?
>
>
>>
>Well, I'll stop there. I have read enough of this rubbish. I believe that
>Richard Dawkins got it right. The invitation was made. She said no. End
>of
>story. Move on.
>>
>
:)
>
>
>
>>
>I acknowledge that it is crucial that we treat each other with dignity
>and
>respect, but that is a two-way street. To Ms Watson and her fanatical
>feminist flock, I say this. "Hello. like all successful life forms on
>this
>planet, humans are sexual beings. Get used to it"
>>
>
I'm sure with your careful tutelage and with the "help" of those like you,
she will, at last "get used to it". After all, what other choice could
she have?
>
>>
>Regards to all,
>>
>Dooby
>Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 08:51:49 +1000
>From: "Dooby"
>Hi MC,
>>
>>
>You ask for comments about Rebecca Watson's "
>
>motivated
>by any minority group bias, so I looked at this post with an open mind.
>>
Could your opinion be motivated by a majority group (rather than a
minority group) bias? Actually, there is no neutral position in this
world. Minds are only ever partly open, because it simply isn't possible
to operate within an ideological vacuum. At the very least, you bring
with you certain biases based upon your life's experiences (particularly
in terms of what are common or uncommon experiences for you). Education
or the lack of it and numerous other factors all work to give us "bias".
A completely open mind would be like a Zen state of nothingness -- good
for meditation, but not likely to produce any grist for your mill,
particularly in terms of stating strong opinions one way or another.
>>
>Firstly, I should add that I identified very strongly with the early
>feminist movement until it was infiltrated and over-run by the lunatic
>fringe - the fanatical misandrists. (This observation was shared by
>numerous
>female acquaintances of mine at the time).
>>
>
We'll take your word for it that there are women who busy themselves with
fanatical hatred of men. Your statement, of course, begs the question as
to what would motivate them. The hobby of hating men seems odd enough on
the surface of it.
>
>
>
>>
>Secondly, the entire post seems to be devoted to blatant male hatred and
>aimed at her radical feminist supporters. I didn't read ALL the posts,
>but
>there seems to be a clear lack of contrary or balanced views.
>>
>
I wonder if stating that many women feel uncomfortable with men is the
same a "blatant male hatred". I guess it might be, in some instances,
but those are not the instances Rebecca Watson mentioned in her article.
Rather, she speaks of how she has received: "More and more threats of
rape from those who don't agree with me, even from those who consider
themselves skeptics and atheists."
Okay -- so it seems that the threats of rape were not made by Rebecca
Watson herself (which would indicate "blatant male hatred" on her part),
but rather on the part of males against Rebecca Watson.
>
>>
>This recent post "I thought I detected the stench of the MRM in your
>posts.
>Good to know my nose for jerks is still infallible - nullifidian" is
>quite
>typical.
>
>
Men's Right's Movement? Men's Rights Magazine?
>
>
Another describes all the locations where she considers that it is
>not acceptable for males to approach a woman - "That includes places
>like:
>work, home, parking garages, elevators, shopping malls, gas stations,
>etc".
>This reminds me of an occasion, where a woman told me that I don't have
>the
>right to pat her cat which was rubbing its nose against my leg in a
>public
>park. These people are clearly control freaks in need of professional
>help.
>
>
The use of ad hoc psychiatric insinuations to put women down has a history
in the systematic discriminatory practices against women, through
patriarchal ideologies and institutions. It is as old (and unoriginal)
as can be: Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria
>
>
>>
>Ms Watson claims to be a skeptic and that she was pushed into feminism -
>"I
>am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one". It seems to me
>that she has real issues with taking responsibility. "Skeptic" and
>"feminist" in the same sentence? Surely that's an oxymoron.
>>
>>
>
The idea that women have difficulty "taking responsibility" is directly
linked to the traditional hysteria accusation made against women who did
not conform to patriarchal mores of quietitude and subservience to males.
Indeed, they were thought to be incapable of "taking responsibility" for
their emotions -- thus, inviting the harshest of punitive discipline from
the patriarchal authorities.
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/menalhealthandillness/womanandpsychiatry.aspx
>
>
>>
>She also describes how she went from someone who could "freely make rape
>jokes without fear of hurting someone who had been raped" and who "didn't
>mind getting hit on" to feeling offended that she was "being sexually
>objectified" by an invitation from a man in a lift at 4am in the morning.
>
>
She gives an example of how she is capable of learning from experience.
This might be termed, in other words, "taking responsibility" for one's
self development.
>
>
I
>can't help wondering how she would have reacted if the same invitation
>had
>been made by a woman. She seems to have real issues with her own
>sexuality.
>>
>
Pure fantasy. What about if the same invitation has been made by a unicorn? What would
she have "problems" with in that instance?
>
>
>>
>Well, I'll stop there. I have read enough of this rubbish. I believe that
>Richard Dawkins got it right. The invitation was made. She said no. End
>of
>story. Move on.
>>
>
:)
>
>
>
>>
>I acknowledge that it is crucial that we treat each other with dignity
>and
>respect, but that is a two-way street. To Ms Watson and her fanatical
>feminist flock, I say this. "Hello. like all successful life forms on
>this
>planet, humans are sexual beings. Get used to it"
>>
>
I'm sure with your careful tutelage and with the "help" of those like you,
she will, at last "get used to it". After all, what other choice could
she have?
>
>>
>Regards to all,
>>
>Dooby
1 comment:
There is a pattern I keep detecting in the way that Western men understand women -- especially outspoken women like feminists. Some common tropes are the reversal of cause and effect in terms of determining which party (eg. male or female) is "to blame"; the attribution of psychological disturbances to the female party; the attribution to the female party of having a gender identity disturbance, the defence of the male party as being reasonable and sincere, despite appearances to the contrary and various levels of sexual threats made against the female party.
Post a Comment