Sunday, June 15, 2008

A Basic Feminist Hypocrisy.

One of the basic ideas behind affirmative action was that there is "systemic bias", or a(n) (un)concious effort to both discourage and actively bar women from participation. As evidence, the lack of female participation in such areas as engineering, medicine and the like were used.

When it was pointed out that women chose to not enter these professions the argument was made that society did not encourage it, as well as other social/structural reasons, and that "awareness campaigns" must be mounted to encourage women to seek these professions. This was in addition to millions of dollars and man-hours "tailoring" these professions to be more woman-friendly. This was all in the name of "equality" since it was meant to establish equality of outcome, not opportunity. This is the entire underpinning of such concepts as "affirmative action".

Shift the focus a tad to the Family Court system though, and such glaring deficiencies such as markedly fewer men getting custody of their children is glossed over by redefining "Joint Custody" to also cover what used to be called "Sole Custody with Visitation". This was done to counter initial arguments that fathers see too little of their children, and to APPEAR more equal.

Now that the evidence is mounting of severe inequalities in outcome in the Family Court system, these same feminist voices are pooh-poohing the whole thing saying "Men just don't go for custody as often as women", or "Men are fine with walking away".

See the hypocrisy?

In one instance, equality of outcome is paramount. So paramount in fact that even if people don't want to do it, we must work to convince them to, and make it as easy as possible for them to do so. But in the other, we should ignore everything because it's not really a big deal. Men don't care all that much anyway. "Awareness Campaigns"? For fatherhood? I suppose, as long as we blame men. "Systemic Bias"? What's that?


  1. Something from Glenn's:

    In any case, the mere fact that people can come here and totally 100% disagree with the basic premise of our movement and yet STILL participate fully (hey, no one is guaranteed a warm reception, but you won't be banned unless you're a REAL freak....I know this because I'm still here after...what...5 years?).

    Apparently, you can't seek solutions that Glenn doesn't like, which is why I'm banned from his site.

    Glenn wants a "Glenn Sacks Echo chamber" rather than his belief of a misogynistic one... but by what he bans and what he doesn't (anything even close to 'insulting' of women) we see what Glenn thinks...

    Here's a few things I've attempted to post that Glenn has removed, just so you can get an idea of his censorship:

    Let me share my "parting shot" on Glen's blog (which he cowardly removed) which I posted after he banned me for suggesting we remove women's suffrage:

    Honestly Glenn, I'd like to hear your solutions.

    Raise awareness? What would that do?
    Get men to vote? Women outnumber men.
    Bring these points up to politicians? Why, so they can laugh and say "I'd rather get reelected" ?

    We aren't going to change the "female first" program until we do something radical:
    Make it in the government's best interests to treat men equally with women.

    How can we do that?
    1) get rid of the women's vote (you won't allow us to discuss this)
    2) threaten our government with revolt (you won't allow us to discuss this)
    3) get enough votes such that it is in the politician's best interests to consider men

    I know you like 3, but there's a few problems:
    A) chivalry that treats women's issues as more important than men's issues
    B) women themselves which like to be catered towards
    C) there are more female voters than male voters

    So we will never get enough male votes (limited by A) to outweigh the female votes (B and C) to cause politicians to fear losing (re)election by not addressing men's issues.

    Later I snuck past to add a comment as "The other right poster" which was allowed, but my followup was denied:

    ...what's really amazing is the complete and total submission by the politicians and the media to whatever the feminists want.

    Women make up 52% of the voting population. They vote in a block much more than men do (female solidarity, i.e. groupthink herd mentality, exists while men are trained to compete against each other for success... success often defined as "that which attracts women" power and money).

    The media even suppresses its own First Amendment rights, printing the names of men falsely accused while withholdiing names of the accusers, rather than do anything whatsover to upset the feminists they serve....

    Considering that most forms of media are advertisement supported, you must realize that which will drive advertisers away will not be broadcast or printed. What class of people watches more TV in every time block? Women. What class of people controls 85% of consumer spending? Women. What class of people are advertisers attempting to sway the opinions of? Women. What class must not be upset for any reason lest advertisers withdraw support and your newspaper/TV station goes belly-up? Women.

    It all kinda makes sense now, doesn't it?

    We can't "change" these things. We can only learn to live with them.

    I bolded that for a reason, guys. There's a lot of "starry-eyed idealism" (including the blog owner) here that we can set up equal rules for men and women and everything will be just dandy because men and women are equal and will behave the same. Men and women aren't the same. Society manipulates women (more vulnerable to herd mentality) who manipulate men (who sell their souls for sex) into personal slavery to a woman, serving society as a whole. It's the world order, nothing new about it.

    The belief that this can be "fixed" by making men and women "equal" is simply selling yourself down a river. Do you honestly think that even if the laws were equal, that men and women would be treated equally under the law? Do you honestly think women are going to start paying for dates 50% of the time? Do you honestly think women are going to start entering the "death jobs" at equal rates? Do you honestly think women are going to support stay-at-home spouses in equal numbers? Do you honestly think women are going to become high earners to attract men? That men will become pretty to attract women?

    Because if you think all that, to quote another poster, describe what is around you and we'll try to determine what planet you are on.


    My conclusion? Glenn doesn't want to solve the problem, he just wants to make money off of it. If he wanted a solution, he'd allow me and others to demonstrate why his "solutions" are only red herrings.

  2. I don't know, he seems to take a fair amount of issue with what I say, but still lets it stand. Most of that doesn't get said over the posts though, since he seems to prefer to try and smooth things over with an email first. There are times I agree with him, and times I don't....

    For instance, he has a major problem (it seems) with comparing the feminist movement with the NAZI party. I recognize this as one of those areas that serve as Glenn's "sacred cow", and respect his wishes in the matter primarily because one must pick one's battles.

    It seems he has noted the respect given to those who stand up for themselves without apology.... Even now though, the men's rights movement is riddled with people who are afraid to "go too far", or appear in a negative light.

    As for me, I know that I advocate fairness, it has nothing to do with "equality". I desire equality of outcome as much as I desire a bullet hole in my head. Boring boring world that would be, and heavily regimented in every way. Kind of like Gattaca, or even worse, Demolition Man. :)

    I am quite literally only concerned with equal know, the real kind, not the made up ones like the "right" to the same pay as my cowerker, or the "right" to be hired based on my skin colour, or sex....

    Once there is functionally no difference in mens and womens actual legal rights, I'm done.

    Been at it way too long already.....

  3. I have heard others complain about alleged censorship on Glenn's site. But I can't say I've seen much evidence of it myself.

    The worst that happens is that occasionally he starts moderating my comments when I have become a bit too aggressive or confrontational. I think I have hardly ever had comments deleted.

    Normally Glenn only ever emails me to agree with something I've said. And I certainly don't go out of my way to agree with him.

    No blog is going to be perfect. And I don't agree with the way he handles everything. But on the whole I think he is quite fair in the way he manages things.

    BTW: I think Glenn was probably wrong on the banning of Nazi analogies. But I guess it's a sensitivity for him.

  4. BTW: There are a couple of posters like Kevin Merc and Jay R that I haven't seen on Glenn's site for a while.

    I was wondering if they have been banned. I couldn't really care about Kevin. But I liked Jay R's posts.

  5. I'm not sure....there have been a fw "rebellions" where people go off on their own, or to other boards every once in a while. I find I'm spending less and less time there...but frankly it's mostly because work is taking up my life. :)

    I enjoy the range of opinion and debating styles over there, although the people who stepped right out of Monty Python's "The Argument" skit sorta bug me (Jeana, GG, et al.) at times.

  6. Some of those people bug me too. Although I find Georgia Girl to be more acceptable than Jeana. At least with GG, she doesn't seem to take herself too seriously and is willing to even send herself up.

    Jeana, on the other hand, takes herself wayyyy too seriously. She seems to think that she is a lot more intelligent than she is, and is somehow there to set us all straight. She strikes me as someone who has been doted on and spoiled most of her life and doesn't really have much idea about reality. She probably has some kind of degree in politically-correct nonsense that she thinks puts her "in the know" about everything in the world.

    A lot of the feminist sympathisers who frequent Glenn's site are little more than trolls. They don't really have any arguments or counter-evidence regarding what we are saying. They are solely there to soak up time and attention, and create distractions. Or else they take cheap shots and try to wind us up.

  7. True. That is where the value of the "Feminist Dissident" lies. One can educate themselves quite nicely on the twists of logic usually applied in feminist argument, and then watch an effective counter.

    More importantly you can see these things over and over, thereby internalizing better the logic and confidence of position. Which makes a person more effective when countering these things in real life.

    I get tired of the posters like Jeana on occasion, I can only say the same thing to her so many times before I get bored. But there's her value too...she's tireless and unflinching in her resolve to be right...reality be damned. She provides untold value in frustrating the hell out of the casual observer too.

    You ever watch two people argue and anyone can see that one of the two is wrong, even though that person refuses to admit it, even to the point of misdirection and outright lying?

    Ever think how pathetic they looked?

    Jeana and her ilk are much the same...

  8. I agree that they sometimes provide some value in creating opportunities to hone our debating skills and demolish counterarguments. Jeana provides us with a regular supply of talking points about feminist stupidity and hypocrisy.

    The only problem is that these people often soak up too much time and attention that could be spent discussing what to do among ourselves or trying to convince the fence-sitters.

    Jeana often goes out of her way to throw up every silly red herring she can possibly come up with. And it does become tiresome after a while.

  9. On the contrary, I think repeated defenses of a position solidify that position in the mind, be it of the reader or of the poster, or both. I know for a fact that debate has sharpened my arguments, and focused my viewpoints on many issues.

    Repeatedly being unapologetic of holding "extreme" views also has the tendency to make room for others to fill in the "space between".

    Jeana will never be convinced, for example, but she (and others like her) serves as a great "sounding board" for the lurkers too...saying a lot of feminist mantras that others are thinking, but won't post, and therefore can hold onto those arguments (since they've never been brought up, they can't be challenged either).