Yes, I've seen that on the TV. Accurate insofar as anything in the League of Gentlemen can be.
OP ED:
There isn't much a middle class left around here. perhaps you haven't noticed.I've always thought of class as something you're born into. It might be possible to change from one to another, but most people are born and raised in one class and maintain those attitudes for the rest of their lives. How much money you make is hardly a factor.
The overwhelming majority of self identifying feminists i'm aware of, primarily through university, are ladies [and men] who live at, below or really damned close to the poverty line.You see I wouldn't think of university graduates as likely to be anything other than middle class. Or above, of course. Neil Kinnock, maybe. Obviously there are exceptions, but University is a largely middle-class enclave.
Perhaps you should leave your bubble occassionally and meet people in the world. Frankly, for that matter, i know more than a couple former third world feminists, while admittedly most of the third world is too busy trying to survive to have time for branding themselves.Third worlders who choose gender as their primary mode of self-identification are misguided. As is the case with Westerners, in deed, but less obviously so.
i don't doubt [my good relations with women] whatsoever, and indeed i'd venture that this is probably one of the largest blocks preventing you from considering that your opinions/"data" might be inherently flawed.I didn't carry out those studies, you know. My favourable relations with the opposite sex have no impact on me evaluation of empirical research.
and if we call it "feminism" the enemy is women who want a fair shake.And if we call it "whiteism" it's white people who don't want to be enslaved by the niggerJews, yes?
But this isn't an entirely fair comparison because white people are less privileged by race than women are by sex.
patriarchy refers to an abstract set of institutions which promote male-centric values and aggression also the marketing of women as objects for sale. Which means it interacts with, and is often allied to, capitalism, but is distinct and seperate insomuch as it exists at all, being an abstract term.Quite a vague and wooly-headed definition, but still one that I consider to make it uite clear that patriarchy doesn't exist.
"an equal distribution of money would not change its status as the root of all evil"Money isn't the root of all evil, the love of money is. Like fafnir who killed his brother to possess the nibelungen horde and then became a dragon to protect it.
i am aware of both issues, non-reports of rapes and false claims, both of which i've personally seen, btw. i do not consider these problems as being in some sort of hierarchy wherein one should receive greater public attention than another, except perhaps in terms of sheer numbers. in which terms you'd lose, i'm sure you must know.I'm not entirely sure of exact numbers, but I wouldn't be confident of "losing". Nonetheless I consider flase accusations to be victimising the victim of the false accusation, rather than making genuine cases harder to report for two reasons:
1) false rape claims are hardly ever punished, meaning the deterrent effect against false claims is near non-existent and against true claims one would presume even smaller and;
2) it is, in fact, not a victimless crime or a crime with only the theoretical victims embodied by rape victims scared to report their abuse, it is a direct attack on an innocent man who faces potential long-term incarceration.
So when a man has been victimised it would be nice if that could be acknowledged rather than only accepting that harm has been done if it can be spun as harmful to women.
feminism as i encounter it, in the ghetto and at the university is one of the best hopes for formation of a mass movement. there are lots of women, after all, and they're underrepresented among the powerful. Women, however, have a very poor track record of revolutionary movements. Their underrepresentation amongst the powerful, overhyped as it is, is balanced by their majority status amongst the privileged, including university students.
Besides, a mass movement would need to be a MASS movement, not one of and for women.
see: equal distribution, above.So housing, for example, is evil along with all worldly goods, even if equitably distributed and developed for the common good?
i'm opposed to warfare based on vaguely defined subcategorizations of humanity, regardless of what one calls them. Always.I wasn't aware that wealth redistribution had been elevated from "social policy" to "act of war". That's what happens when you don't read the Daily Mail, I suppose.
women are a birth group.Yeah, but feminists aren't.
no one would tolerate you if you only insulted the "bad jews", would they?No-one would insult me if I insulted only the Zionists. Other than the Zionists, of course.
but as to the point c2w brought up {again} if we were to replace an instance of your word "feminist" with, say, "zionist" we'd have orz and AD here giving you fifteen pages worth of scorched underpants...Zionism is less offensive to me than feminism only because it is less ever-present in the part of the world I inhabit. Nonetheless Zionism is one of the greatest evils in the world today, Israel is built on theft and murder, the Palestinians should get their land back and the Jews can have a homeland in Ohio or somewhere.
Oops, I "slipped" and said Jews. Am I an anti-semite?
orz and AD are welcome to disagree too.
i wonder why. must be the evil feminists have brainwashed us all.It's more likely people don't agree with me, but that's the point, it was claimed I was part of some big anti-female backlash on the board where women where laughed at, patted on the head and pushed aside while my rampant misogyny went unchallenged. Big shock, not true.
Feminism is largely a variant on the worst kind of paranoia, the kind where they really
aren't out to get you.
Also, for the record, I am not merely evil, verminous scum.
I decline to make value judgements about fellow forum members, pal.
no. you did already. that was the point.
No I didn't, unless she works in a Jobcentre. Now JobecentrePlus, of course. In that case, I think she probably is evil verminous scum, but as I say I doubt she does.
move to usa. but be careful, our women might return fire.
i didn't actually mean for that to be interpreted as an objection to strict gun control laws, rather a celebration thereof.
talk about a broad brush.
And how would you paint a big wall, my friend?
Canadian_watcher:
if the quote above were a sandwich, I'd agree with the meat. The breadstuff on the outside is old, worn out, and green.
That's how I like my sandwiches, although I don't like meat.
what i DO want to point out to you, is that I hear your rage, and I feel many of the same things you do - the main difference is that I've recognized that this is NOT about gender (or race, or religion.)
What you are really railing against is caused by CLASS differences. it's a war between classes, not men and women that has caused your ire.
Give the man a medal. That's why the gender-based movement called feminism, womanism as Kola Boof calls her wing of it in a unique burst of feminist honesty, is bad. Feminism spreads agitprop and hatred, is notoriously dishonest even for a modern political movement and has spawned a cottage industry of hate literature and fake science, but that's not why it's bad, those are just the fuctions of a sick movement.
The reason it is bad is because it was created as a movement by the CIA and the corporatocracy to put sex-identity and female sex-solidarity at the head of the list of issues in society, at the very least for women, which "coincidentally" happened at just the same time the unions started falling apart and the gap between rich and poor started increasing for the first time since the war, and the average (inflation adjusted) income rose for the last time in history (for the working class, at least).
I happen to work at a place where I can observe the behaviours you loathe - but men do the clucking as much as the women. not to mention that although the staff in my my workplace is very largely female - almost all of the managers - and ALL of the Directors - Are men.
Very illustrative. This is my hypothesis, a few men at the top, most men at the bottom, women in between. Exactly the social structure posited for the neolithic world in Bachofen's Myth and Mother-Right. Women are to be idolised, put on a Victorian pedastal like the American "mom" with her now legendary apple-pie. (EJ Dingwall, psychic researcher, wrote an entire book about the poisonous relations of American's to their mothers.) Men go out to slave away to maintain them in the style to which they have become accustomed while the real masters, in Bachofen's theory the chief and Shaman, rule everything through the sex-based psychological manipulation of women. What Levenda seems to be saying Nazism was about, although he misses the gendered subtexts.
c2w:
If by "question" you mean "the subject under discussion" I suggest you review the long post you wrote in reply to my remarks wrt the prevalence of female office workers, which you had attributed to their control of personnel departments and by implication to their natural inclination to use that control to gain power for themselves at the expense of men.
You're conflating two of my viewpoints:
1) office workers, personified by personnel types, preserve their own jobs while happy to cut other jobs;
2) the ruling class of society, now and for hundreds of years past, prefers to see women doing as many jobs as possible because they are less likely to organise and cause trouble.
HR types are mostly female, but they cut others jobs because they are told to and obviously save themselves whenever possible out of self-interest, this isn't a sex-conspiracy against men. Not by women, anyway, you could interpret it as being one by rich men against poor men.
I also offered an explanation that was not only congruent with the data but also compatible with -- indeed of potential practical utility to -- the socialist cause, in that I accurately stated that private ownership interests hire women because as a class, social and cultural factors maximize their exploitability for the purposes of perpetuating the part of the inegalitarian distribution of capital that requires a large pool of workers who have been too thoroughly conditioned by both the reality of their limited employment options and the lifelong social training that reinforces their acceptance of those limits either to have or feel entitled to have economic expectations that are high enough to include fair wages and working conditions.
Three points:
1) women are not paid less for equal work;
2) I consider women to be less naturally belligerent, in this case meaning they are less inclined to fight management, I don't think this is socialisation;
3) I'm not sure this is of practical utility, unless you're suggesting... well, I don't know. Some sort of law to ensure jobs go those of proven democratic backgrounds, perhaps, with a history of campaigning for worker's control.
Or, of course, we could get rid of the private ownership interests. Might be something to think about. I think about while masturbating. Works like a dream
The false and one-hundred-percent imaginary characterization of female office workers as spoiled, pampered, and favored pets of the ruling class does not advance but rather obstructs the socialist agenda.
OK, look, the dog was a metaphor.
The point is women are treated more leniently by the courts when accused of the same crime, routinely win family courts cases by default, are the majority in higher education, unmarried women (therefore without having taken time out of work for children and so forth) make more money then unmarried men. Women get the Bobbitt jokes and the adverts that don't make them look stupid. They get to give out the white feathers (a good example of the woman-as-catspaw, incidentally), rather than the forced selective service enrollment (don't have that here, but they still have national service in Norway, I'm not aware of any nation, of than perhaps Israel, which would even consider the mass enslavement and martyrdom of the nation's young women). Oviously, they get the "women and children first", not a natural reflection of the female's reproductive scarcity (as some say) but a nineteenth century introduction.
I dare say the term "whine" is flashing through a dozen heads as this is read, but if these were conditions apply to whites rather than women, would there be such a gaggle of people refusing to acknowledge the privilege? The sentencing discount for females is greater than for whites. Among black people the sex disparities are far greater.
Of course women rarely progress to the top of the tree, that could be argued to be the point. The entire idea of the female privileges is to keep the top a closed shop. The privilege and mysticallisation of women, commensurate with the demoralisation of men, keeps the rich safe. Men are made to feel helpless, and therefore helpless to overthrow the rich. Women, with what seems to be a naturally greater sex-consciousness and sex-solidarity, emphasised by socialisation, take their position in society and mediators, because if you notice you're better off than the man standing next to you you don't feel inclined the overthrow the overarching social order of oppression.
To be honest, I think women are probably more naturally passive and inclined to fall into line, so it's not just the more easily invoked sex-solidarity which makes them the sex of choice for such schemes.
Women don't even play a very large role in this, as it's a largely male elite plot, only the feminist movement could be seen as active collaborators, hence my abhorrence for them, especially their male members who take the role of CIA men on detachment to a latin kleptocracy, on secondment as it were.
Most men and women are therefore asleep, falling into the roles and rhythms prepared for them by Hollywood propagandists and CIA backed politicos.
Obviously Bachofen focused more on polygamy than bread-and-sitcoms, but I'm not him.
men have always had and still do have somewhat more access to power, prosperity, and choice than women do
I disagree. Of course more men have power and prosperity than women do, in their own right, but they're all married. Not the gay ones, but you get the picture. Most men, on the other hand, that's a different matter. Power is in the hand of the few. Prosperity, of dubious value, is a more complicated matter, not to mention choice. Women have are more likely to have a university education, more likely to have a spouse willing to support them if they want to become stay-at-homes, more likely to earn more if they never marry or to get support payments if they divorce.
SO on choice, I would say the average women has more, on prosperity I would say those who will sacrifice their happiness for it will have it, and for power I would say those who have it will continue to have it, and we aren't them. They are mostly men, if that makes you feel any better, but they are not most men.
Anyhow. Whether they know it or not, men therefore represent a more formidable and more varied threat to real power than women do. Which power therefore counters with a more diversified program of tactical response.
The only real threat to THEM is organisation of the working classes for the specific purpose of reordering society along the lines of Clause IV of the old Labour Party constitution:
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
Which is to say: Quit fucking around, comrade. The question was not absolute cushyness but "what is more or less cushy than what else." It was whether female office-workers while away their hours being petted and tickled and showered with small treats and luxuries in an environment of exceptionally deluxe comfort and personal privilege.
I never said women spend their lives being tickled under the chin, only the various things I've said further up.
No rational person would maintain that's less cushy than ditch-digging, or that it's as bad as it gets by a long fucking shot. But neither would any rational person maintain that it's cushy.
My original point wasn't that office jobs are cushy, or that the holding of office jobs makes you the ruller of society, but rather that the female dominance of administrative jobs: firstly, gives a largely female class power over a largely male class, and comparative privilege over a largely male class; and, secondly, that the soft jobs women dominate are a small part of the larger social state of women as a comparatively privileged class. This, in fact, is how the dog metaphor came about: the lap dog is still treated like a dog, but at least he gets to sit by the fire. Well, jobs are shit and only normally done for necessary financial recompence. We're all dogs. Some of us are poodles, some of us are dangerous dobermanns which need to be put down, and some of us are guard dogs like the ones in Orwell's Animal Farm. And, of course, some of us are strays. But we aren't the humans.
c2w, other post
I'd just like pause for a moment to note that your omission of the two words that followed the above-quoted comment ("As usual.") simply in order to level that accusation against me is a low and dishonest rhetorical device. Moving right along.
Accusation? I was agreeing with you.
There is no such conclusive evidence. There are slap-dash analyses of cherry-picked, incomplete, and off-point data that are designed to mislead those whose hot-buttons they push into a state from which they'll safely spend their time throwing blind punches at something they've misidentified as an arch-enemy and don't understand well enough to injure. It's a massive act against stated self-interest on your part that you continue to subscribe to it.
There are empirical studies, largely conducted by those who began believing the feminist orthodoxy, as did the more famous Strauss and Gelles in the field of intimate abuse. Kanin, for example, whose study can be criticised on two main ground, firstly a small sample size of only a few dozen cases and secondly that the only cases he counted as fake were those where the accuser recanted her testimony, confessed to lying AND took a lie detector test showing that she had originally been lying. It showed over forty percent of cases were false. There was also McDowell, who found a figure of over 60%, although this is doubtful in its application to larger society as it was conducted entirely on military personnel, active duty.
Of course any such study can't take into account "false" rape claims which are false in the identity of the supposed perp, but where a rape took place. And I agree with your quote that rape is probably under-reported to a significant extent, although I doubt that anything can be done about it. It would be nice to see justice done on the guilty, but for a crime such as this no amount of rape shield laws (which I hold to be unjust in themselves anyway) will make reporting it a pleasant experience.
You're probably also right about the relatively small number of intentionally false rape claims which make it to conviction, as most false accusers ort a malicious bent (such as those in the Kanin study) recant earlier after enough mud has been flung at their victim and before they cause so much trouble for the prosecuting authorities that they feel the need to press charges, quite a rarity. Mental illness can also lead to false accusations (and in some cases, where one woman, for example, cut her leg open and claimed two black men raped her as an excuse because she was late for work), mental illness and normal stupidity are hard to disentangle. In the now imfamous Duke Rape Case, the villain wasn't just Crystal Mangum, the stripper who made the rape allegation allegedly because she was looking to extort some money from them, but the electioneering DA Nifong who may have won the case, and the election, and evaded his own imprisonment if he hadn't picked on such well-known, wealthy, individuals.
Wittingly false accusations of murder, on the other hand, are a huge problem. I believe that they're either the leading cause of wrongful murder convictions or very close to it. I have no clue as to what wicked scheme feminist employed to bring that one about, personally. But I'm relying on you, Stephen.
Well of course it's the same global conspiracy of the rich which gave us feminism, but feminist itself didn't do that. Feminism has allowed a number of women to escape murder wraps through the batty and discredited Battered Women's Syndrome (the idea that battered women are too psychologically subdued to leave their partners, but not to murder them, so murdering them is okay). You'll notice the number of wrongly convicted female murderers is somewhat smaller than the number of wrongly convicted male murderers.
Is that a fact. Well, I'm sorry to hear it. I don't. However, I myself authentically, naturally and spontaneously don't regard any human being (or for that matter, any species of vermin) as merely evil, verminous scum. So I [i]would say that I wouldn't have to go to the trouble of declining to make that one, if it were in fact a value judgment. Which it's not. Because I'm not. In objective terms, either literally or figuratively speaking. Neither is any person. Or any group of persons. And needless to say, that does include you. [/i]
I must disagree. Not with the bit about me, and actual vermin are of course lacking in our human neo-cortexes and free will, so I wouldn't call them evil as they don't have the heart for it. Amoral, probably. Humans, on the other hand, can very well be evil, indeed with a human level of comprehension I would argue that indifference can sometimes count as evil. They can be verminous if their actions show they are pestilential to society. And, of course, scum is just a random insult. I could have said Nazi, but that would have the baggage of added meaning. And of course, I also don't naturally and spontaneously regard people as evil and verminous. They have to give me a reason first, another reason you should have realised that wasn't aimed at you. Jobcentre employees are a wholly different matter. They are verminous, and at least a significant number if not all are evil. True, some of those who are evil and verminous may do other virtuous things to redeem themselves, but even these are corrupted by their evil natures, as demonstrated by their other life choices. I mean, a serial killer might also be a blood donor, that doesn't make him a good person.
In any event. Earning my personal animosity is a pretty fucking high bar to clear, and you haven't even approached the starting line yet. My judgment of your value as a political or practical ally is a separate question.
My value as a practical ally would be negligible. My value as a political ally would be strictly limited to any insights you may glean from the various arguments I have become engaged in, and as we both seem intransigent on these matters, I probably don't offer much on that front either.
I know that wasn't an actual question, just thought I'd offer my assessment anyway.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
