rigorousintuition.ca

What?

Men don't listen.

Huh?

Men don't listen.

What?

Men don't listen.

Did you say something?

barracuda wrote:What?

Men don't listen.

Huh?

Men don't listen.

What?

Men don't listen.

Did you say something?

Oh good. Science that says that woman are superior. That should help move the conversation forward.

It actually sort of says that the sexes may process language differently, a hypothesis which might serve you at some point as an all-purpose excuse for being a dick.

[quote="Me in response to the ill-considered "Man up" 2010 topic by one Krysos"]Try again in a couple years, when you've completed RI 101.[/quote]When I wrote that, I didn't really MEAN it.

barracuda wrote:It actually sort of says that the sexes may process language differently, a hypothesis which might serve you at some point as an all-purpose excuse for being a dick.

Do you actually want to have a discussion or would you prefer to simply try to provoke me? If it's not ok to call someone a cunt, it's not ok to call someone a dick, right? Personally I'd rather people simply accept that men and women are different and leave it at that, but I suppose there's benefits (and jobs at shitty universities) to pushing an agenda that denies women the power they so obviously possess.

Krysos wrote: Personally I'd rather people simply accept that men and women are different and leave it at that, but I suppose there's benefits (and jobs at shitty universities) to pushing an agenda that denies women the power they so obviously possess.

That's a provocation, of this:

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 89#p388189

(Posting Guidelines)

This is an anti-sexist board. We correctly assume that women, as a group, have been and continue to be the object of oppression based upon their gender. It is expected that members will respect the rights of women to justice and equality in all spheres of life, and to a positive experience of RI. Contending that feminism is a "New World Order plot" will not be permitted.

Perelandra wrote:[quote="Me in response to the ill-considered "Man up" 2010 topic by one Krysos"]Try again in a couple years, when you've completed RI 101.

When I wrote that, I didn't really MEAN it.[/quote]

Seems that thread is missing as far as I can tell. It's odd that you're able to quote a thread that's been deleted. I have several posts on this board, all of which appear to have been scrubbed. If I recall, the thread was about how instead of posting things on this board (where presumably people have already been exposed to ideas about conspiracies), it would be better to try to infiltrate other boards that are about different topics, so that new people could be exposed to the ideas. The fact that the board elders focused on my oh-so-offensive sin of using a phrase that ascribed positive characteristics to masculinity was simply too much for people to allow though. Which of course, in no way proves my point that gender politics are incredibly divisive and distract from more important issues. I can see there's no tolerance whatsoever here for the idea that women are anything other than the weaker sex here, unfortunately. I mean they must be if they're so horribly used and oppressed, right? So the only way that they can become equal, is if us big strong burly men decide to generously behave like we should, and stop oppressing them. Then we'll be equal. What a mindfuck.

You're just being rude Perelandra. I'm sorry that you don't like my ideas, but I'd appreciate it if you could try to remain civil.

jlaw172364 wrote: BTW, I predict you'll ignore everything I've written because it doesn't fit into your reality tunnel.

You have no idea about my reality, or who I am, or what my actual views are on the various subjects you've interjected into this topic. In fact, the caricature you've made of me stands in such stark opposition to reality, it's insulting beyond belief. So yeah, I will be ignoring your posts.

brainpanhandler wrote:To deny the validity of women's experience of chauvinism by any and/or all of the convoluted methods available to the committed sexist (some of which are being brilliantly displayed in this thread) is dehumanizing and I imagine on the receiving end humiliating and infuriating. IRL I feel I've only got it when I can relate to those feelings. But when I do it it is difficult and painful to admit.

Thanks for that.

And to Nashvillebrook for her post.

Project Willow wrote:

Krysos wrote: Personally I'd rather people simply accept that men and women are different and leave it at that, but I suppose there's benefits (and jobs at shitty universities) to pushing an agenda that denies women the power they so obviously possess.

That's a provocation, of this:

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 89#p388189

(Posting Guidelines)

This is an anti-sexist board. We correctly assume that women, as a group, have been and continue to be the object of oppression based upon their gender. It is expected that members will respect the rights of women to justice and equality in all spheres of life, and to a positive experience of RI. Contending that feminism is a "New World Order plot" will not be permitted.

I'm sorry, but if the best you can do in the case of an alternate idea is suggest that the haver of said idea should be silenced...I don't think you're going to have much luck bringing people around to your point of view.

Krysos wrote: I'm sorry, but if the best you can do in the case of an alternate idea is suggest that the haver of said idea should be silenced...I don't think you're going to have much luck bringing people around to your point of view.

You don't have an idea, you have an emotional investment in the denial of reality, and you are off topic. Take it to the appropriate thread.

Krysos wrote:

barracuda wrote:It actually sort of says that the sexes may process language differently, a hypothesis which might serve you at some point as an all-purpose excuse for being a dick.

Do you actually want to have a discussion or would you prefer to simply try to provoke me? If it's not ok to call someone a cunt, it's not ok to call someone a dick, right?

I meant the word "you" in that sentence to refer to anyone (as a synonym for "one"), not a particular "you". But yes, it's fine to call someone a dick. In fact, if you're British it seems to be okay to call someone a cunt, particularly a male. Americans have a different take on it, I think, one that deems the word basically unacceptable in almost any setting. Some cultural nuance, I guess.

Krysos wrote:Seems that thread is missing as far as I can tell. It's odd that you're able to quote a thread that's been deleted. I have several posts on this board, all of which appear to have been scrubbed.

Your thread is here. None of your posts have been scrubbed, but there seems to have been an odd situation in which your username was deleted and then re-entered which makes it impossible to search for your earlier posts by using the "author" search function. Jeff might be able to fix this, maybe drop him a line.

Project Willow wrote:

Krysos wrote: I'm sorry, but if the best you can do in the case of an alternate idea is suggest that the haver of said idea should be silenced...I don't think you're going to have much luck bringing people around to your point of view.

You don't have an idea, you have an emotional investment in the denial of reality, and you are off topic. Take it to the appropriate thread.

Weird. That's just the kind of thing that people tend to say when you suggest that 9/11 was an inside job. Glad you're here to define my reality for me Willow. Lord knows it's burdensome to try to figure it out on my own. Do you deny that there are some instances where women have advantages over men? This makes twice you've been asked that now. Are you capable of engaging with people who don't share your worldview, because all I've seen you do so far is threaten, ignore, and insult those who don't agree with you. It's really not very fun to deal with.

To specifically address the article: Why should I give a shit about some wealthy woman who got offended because some even wealthier man was dismissive of her? She's a published author who can probably afford health insurance and vacations, two things that I cannot. I mean I get that women like you see patriarchy in a U.S. soldiers boot smashing into an Iraqi's face and whatnot, but to me that's just not the case. I'm scared as hell of that boot too, and there's plenty of women out there that like those sort of men. So why is it only men to blame? I honestly just don't get it.

Today on tumblr

highvoodoopussypope wrote:So between yesterday and today, two trans crackers, a man and a woman, have decided to bring *~*~*~intersectionality~*~*~* into a post.

Dear white trans crackers:

You cannot bring intersectionality into a post about PoC.

Why?

Because you are not PoC.

You do not experience that intersection of identities.

Only you are too stupid to realize that you cannot discuss intersectionality within identities YOU AREN’T.

YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT INTERSECTIONALITY IS.

What intersectionality is: Taking great care to pay attention to people who come at the crux of several marginalizations at once, and the magnified effect of oppression this will inflict on their lives, as well as remembering making sure you include people who come at several marginalizations by addressing every marginalization because they are all inexplicably tied together for people who have more than one.

What intersectionality is not: Seeing a post about Black people and then deciding that some white trans people also have that problem and derailing the post with your bullshit that no one cares about especially when there were ALREADY BLACK TRANS PEOPLE IN THE CONVERSATION AND WE DID NOT NEED YOU.

GET

IT

THROUGH

YOUR

THICK

SKULLS

And STOP FUCKING USING THE T-WORD IF YOU ARE A TRANS MAN YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES.

Kthx, go choke on some moldy cottage cheese,

http://highvoodoopussypope.tumblr.com/p ... crackers-a

Krysos wrote:

compared2what? wrote:

Krysos wrote:That article about Akin is incredibly hateful and presumptuous. And Vitter was cheating on a woman with a woman, no? It's not like the hooker was too concerned about his wife either.

The hooker presumably didn't take an oath that obligated her to Mrs. Vitter, though. So she and Vitter can;t really be said to bear the same responsibility to her as one another.

Honestly, the complete disregard for all male suffering in this thread is systematic, disingenuous, and positively vicious.

This thread, like all threads here, is not about the topic it's not about. The gender-based experience of women is distinct from the gender-based experience of men. If you want to talk about the latter -- which Willow and other women here have done, extensively, elsewhere here -- you're free to start a thread about it.

And if you want to see any number of versions of the above statement -- heartfelt, affectionate, annoyed, wordy, they come in all styles! -- complete with repeated, detailed demonstrations of sympathy for the gender-based burdens borne by men (as written many times by me and others), please check out any and/or every thread women on this board have ever started that was about female gender-based stuff.

Because some men on this board have flooded every one of them with unsourced quoteless laments about how badly they're being beaten up on JUST LIKE YOURS. Including when they hadn't even been mentioned AS A GENDER AT ALL.

The Misogyny Thread is probably a pretty comprehensive example. It was mad long. So just try searching for "Misogyny."

Why is it that people aren't allowed to have a reaction to what the thread is about?

They are. Your reaction -- for which you're still apparently unable to offer any support in the way of quotes -- was that it showed a vicious disregard for all male suffering.

There having been no such disregard expressed, I assumed that you were getting that from the thread topic not being "all male suffering." So.

(a) Not wanting your need (if any)for such a discussion to go unmet, I encouraged you to address it by starting a thread along those lines; and

(b) Not wanting you to feel that there were women on the board viciously disregarding all male suffering unnecessarily when there was not only nothing to support such a feeling but also something to disarm it, I directed you to one of the many, many threads on which you could find numerous voluntary and uncoerced statements of sympathy for same being made by the very same women participating in this one.

I'd call that a considered response to your reaction.

It's completely laughable to suggest that people reacting to the OP is somehow not relevant to the thread. You're saying that unless people are nodding their heads in agreement they're going off-topic? Come ON.

Sorry. I must have missed the part that was a reaction to the OP.

Where was it?

Men (myself included) have a hard time with feminists because they tend to completely ignore any advantages their gender might confer, from either society or biology, as well as ignoring any disadvantages men might have because of their gender.

I'm sorry you've had that experience. However, feminists, like both men and women, are not actully a vague, undifferentiated mass of in-group all-alikeness. So reacting to your past experience with them as if it were still going on here -- ie, by attributing their deeds and words to women on this thread -- is OFF TOPIC.

Telling a story about your experience that didn't implicate people on this thread for stuff they've never done might be an option, though. If it's important to you.

Gender issues are simply dead end, divisive issues and the people that push them, while (perhaps) well meaning, do more harm than good, imo. They're just too hard to resist though. I can't help but put in my two cents about they hypocrisy of a feminist that will condemn a man for cheating but not the husband banging ho's they go to. I mean, surely not every hooker is a single mother with a heart of gold who only does it because the patriarchy won't pay her what she's worth, right?

I didn't condemn or condone anybody for doing anything. I simply pointed out that a person who took a holy and legally binding vow to love, honor, cherish and be true to Mrs. Vitter had a more serious obligation to her than a random stranger did. If you'd been talking about a married woman and the man she was running around with, I would have said the exact same thing.

But if you have a case to make to the contrary, feel free to disagree.

C2W. Vitters a sleaze for breaking his vow, but the hooker participates in the breaking of many sacred vows with many different men. Arguably Vitter is only betraying ONE person, the hooker makes it possible for dozens of men (or more) to betray their vows. Either both Vitter and the hooker are bad, bad people or neither one of them is. I'd tend to think a dude that went around having sex with other guys wives was kind of a douche too, by the way. I think you're perfectly capable of looking back on this thread and seeing where the hostility and bullying went on towards which point of view. Jlaw got a lot more heat than for being far less insulting and and confrontational than me. And I was threatened with suggestion of tos violations, called a dick, that I don't have an idea etc, etc.