Fuck Sexism

[ZeaLitY]

You're being hypocritical. So let's bring it out, one-by-one.

you felt that me presenting a worldview different from your own was dangerous and supported sexism.

You don't even attempt to back up your worldview with factual argument.

I disagree with your overall view of the sexism debate and the lopsidedness with which you present it.

You barely even considered sexism a problem in the past few weeks. Now, it seems you've given the problem a little validity in order to position yourself as a more reasonable person so you can speak from the center.

This vibe kept telling me that you and Z considered me, a conservative-leaning Libertarian, to be the same as Sean Hannity.

Lord J already covered this. You reference these right-wing talk show hosts to make yourself look more moderate, even though you hold  most of their positions. Already called out.

I don't consider feminism a blight. I consider extremists, man haters and people pushing for a gynocentric world a blight on feminism.

Your definition of extremism is what kneecaps you. You could probably consider Lord J or myself an extremist, and someone like ZaichikArky, who doesn't feel a real need to do anything about the situation, a regular feminist. Not true.

This Sodini guy was clearly off his rocker.

People who are off their rocker have to have a floor on which to fall off the rocker. Some people shoot abortion doctors. Others blow themselves up in the name of religion. Others kill because of social envy. And this guy was motivated by sexism. This issue cannot be separated.

perhaps you should look elsewhere than the misogynists for the root problem, simply because they don't speak for the majority of Americans.

The majority of Americans are misogynist. You've failed to grasp this, but Lord J said it clearly: sexism is present in every civilization, all of the time, and males have an innate privilege in this world. Any man who implicitly accepts the pay inequality between men and women, blindly accepts the convention of women taking the male surname in marriage, or accepts any of the other multitudinous things we've covered in this thread already is by complete, simple definition a sexist and part of the problem. The same goes for every woman who accepts these things or resigns herself to navigate through them. It's tough, because people are raised in this mindset and privilege, and have to come out of it, just like religious people have to overcome years of childhood mental conditioning from being raised in religious families.

Also, why is it that for many men sex is always the quintessential end goal?  Why is this singular act readily accepted as the division line between success and failure?  The men who share this point of view don't seem to want a happy marriage, or a family, or anything like that.  It's all a matter of guaranteed sex, which is such a juvenile fantasy.  I guess it's one of those things that can just "stick" in a person's head, like it's the most important thing in the world.  But it's a pity that people really can't see beyond it.  Like FW said, Sodini could have been a hero if he had wanted to be, with the resources and the diligence which he obviously had.  Instead he couldn't see beyond this one silly matter in life.  What a waste, what a shame.

It's important not to give shallow people more credit than they're due. A lot of people don't even consider their goals in a relationship or what defines a good relationship; they just go out and date, and suffer the consequences. There's ignorance on both sides, but I do tend to sympathize more with women because in my experience, they seem to desire long-term relationships more (I'd like to find some hard research on this, though). Stlil, it's been in my experience that for every man who's just out looking for a good fuck buddy, there's a woman looking to see past his obvious shallowness in hopes of changing him or that he'll stick with her for some reason. I can't blame them, considering how rare intelligent men must seem in a world filled with things like Spike TV.

~

As for the entire seduction community, it's a tried-and-true coping mechanism for cowardly, insecure men to blame their lack of sex or relationships on women, whether by demonizing them for being shallow, accusing them of having too high standards, etc. and it's also usually the case that these men are fixated upon the media's idea of supermodel beauty. They can all go fuck themselves. They're misogynists, ignorant pigs, and striped cowards who write off their responsibility to be good human beings to be able to enjoy the fruits of this world. Motherfuck those losers.

[Shee]

Stlil, it's been in my experience that for every man who's just out looking for a good fuck buddy, there's a woman looking to see past his obvious shallowness in hopes of changing him or that he'll stick with her for some reason. I can't blame them, considering how rare intelligent men must seem in a world filled with things like Spike TV.

And for every man looking for a fuck buddy there is A WOMAN looking for one as well!  And a man who hopes she won't be so wild and crazy all the time in a world filled with girls gone wild.

[ZeaLitY]

Yeah, exactly. It is not hard to have sex in this world. These guys need to get over themselves.

[Uboa]

Sodini may have simply felt lonely and distanced from others on an emotional level, but felt that his masculinity would be threatened if he confided in someone meaningfully about his feelings. So instead, he does the societally acceptable thing and tries to improve his chances of getting laid -- possibly with hopes of eliminating the emotional loneliness in a continuing romance. Again, all conjecture on my part. It's possible to take Sodini into more American-Psycho-friendly directions and say that his fixation on younger women specifically reflects some Freudian thing that happened to him in his teens or twenties. He becomes reminiscent of Humbert Humbert in Lolita when viewed in that light.

It's amazing how reliable an archetype Humbert is...

I haven't read the book American Psycho, but Sodini does seem somewhat reminiscent of the Bateman in the movie.  Does the book go more deeply into his psychology with respect to relationships?  (This is a book that I had forgotten I need to read!  Until now.)

Z, while I agree that these guys need to get over themselves, I wonder if it wouldn't be enough for them just to have a sex partner.  They seem so fixated on rejection that they might freak out at the thought of seeing any woman who was not guaranteed to be exclusively "theirs".  Well, at least Sodini did seem so fixated.  

On a side note, I find it entertaining that whenever I go to programming reference pages like w3c I see all of these ads for code cheat sheets that say "Recall like a man", "Get help remembering, stud", or "Steroids for your memory".  I feel like I've entered web programming's smelly locker room.

[Truthordeal]

Lord J already covered this. You reference these right-wing talk show hosts to make yourself look more moderate, even though you hold  most of their positions. Already called out.

...And once again, you fail to separate me. The only time I've ever quoted Sean Hannity was on healthcare, and that's because me and him found some common ground there. His is more based on a hatred of Obama rather than the good of the nation, but we agree on the basic concepts.

The fact of the matter is you're losing a valuable resource in your efforts when you're unable to separate Libertarians from the right-wing talk show hosts that you despise so much. You're kneecapping your own cause there.

You barely even considered sexism a problem in the past few weeks. Now, it seems you've given the problem a little validity in order to position yourself as a more reasonable person so you can speak from the center.

I've always considered sexism a problem, otherwise I wouldn't be posting in this thread. I stated before that I don't think that females are "oppressed," but I have acknowledged several inequalities. In fact, I'm one of the few that actually came up with a solution to the four biggest problems as I see them.

Your definition of extremism is what kneecaps you. You could probably consider Lord J or myself an extremist, and someone like ZaichikArky, who doesn't feel a real need to do anything about the situation, a regular feminist. Not true.

No, I consider all of you to be various strains of feminism. From what I've seen on the feminist front, it is just as splintered as any other political group, with extremes and moderates all around.

As for extremists, I consider:

1) People who set bombs off at men's clubs that don't allow women extremists.

2) People who hate every man because they feel he's a part of some central patriarchy extremists.

3) People who insist that women be allowed government seats simply because they are women without any base on merit extremists.

The majority of Americans are misogynist.

Bullshit. I would say that you're using an extremely broad sense of the word, but you're not; you're using the word misogynist because of all of the extremely negative connotations used with that word. People don't hate women simply because they accept cultural norms, but you seem extremely quick to label them as misogynists because they interfere with your worldview. Or if you honestly believe that most Americans hate women, then perhaps you are an extremist.

People who are off their rocker have to have a floor on which to fall off the rocker. Some people shoot abortion doctors. Others blow themselves up in the name of religion. Others kill because of social envy. And this guy was motivated by sexism. This issue cannot be separated.

I agree. The other three also don't show a problem with society in general, as much as a problem with a subculture of zealots that should probably be looked into.

[Lord J Esq]

I chose my words carefully, Truthordeal, telling you to silence yourself--because you're right: I'm not going to try and do it to you. I was in a bad mood yesterday afternoon and I didn't realize it until much later, so perhaps my post came out more harshly than it needed to, but the point stands: You do need to control yourself, however, because your comments on this subject reveal that: 1) you don't know what you're talking about; and 2) you are very much an enabler of sexism.

Sexism is a touchy subject for me; I hate to see people practicing it who are unaware of their problem, or who don't recognize it as a problem...not for their sake, but for the world they help to shape, in which others have to live. The more serious a problem is, and sexism is one of the most serious in history, the less inclined I am to stand by while people talk irresponsibly, or ignorantly advocate for the continuation or expansion of sexism, or against the sexual equality movement. I find your comments about the recent shooting to be dismayingly similar to those of a century ago, when racists dismissed lynchings by saying that they were the work of fanatics, when the truth is so obviously to the contrary.

You're doing harm, and you don't realize it. Perhaps it's not here, by influencing others on the Compendium, but I can only imagine what the rest of your life is like, and what kind of people look up to you or are persuaded by you. I don't care if you're a Republican or a Libertarian or whatever label you want to call yourself. Your views speak for themselves, and I find them chilling, and, like I said, extremely irresponsible. Just because you have the right to say almost anything doesn't mean you should. I think you should think before you speak (or type). Specifically, I want you to look at the fact how so much of what you say is geared toward rationalizing your existing views: That is the opposite of intellectual curiosity; it is ego-stroking and nothing more.

[Truthordeal]

My entire point of this particular argument was that the motivations of one subculture of despicable human beings did not reflect the motivations of society as a whole. Even if you're right in saying that sexism permeates every layer of society, I doubt regular people would or do condone this. It's not always society's fault that a madman is born.

You yourself are a feminist. You look at this problem and you see it as a sign of a sexist society. I'm a education guy. I look at this problem and see it as a sign of someone who wasn't properly educated about social matters, or was indoctrinated rather than educated. There are elements of both of these in this case, as a misogynist who had been brainwashed by a subculture committed the crimes. But it's not society's problem to make sure that everyone is normal. In fact, if we did do this, then there would be no free will at all.

You're comparing an isolated incident like this shooting to an acceptable and oft ignored practice in lynching. Sure, sexism is much more widespread that I care to imagine at this point, but how often does it end like this? If more shootings like this or a following of this subculture begins popping up, I'll be more inclined to agree with you. But unless that happens, I'm not going to blame society for the folly of a few idiots.

Now, if this seems chilling to you, then you can cozy up to the fact that a majority of Americans think the same way, to varying degrees. Yes, this includes misogynists and seduction community members, but it also includes Joe and Jane Everyman(or, if you prefer that Jane keeps her maiden name, Everywoman) and that is the type of people you have to convince.

The man was a jackass. A murderous psychopath who followed a subculture that became more like a cult, much like David Koresh, and just like Branch Davidian, the entire religious community shouldn't be blamed because a certain group is particularly violent.

Now, I've said my bit, and I know that I haven't changed your mind in the least, so let's agree to disagree on this particular point as nothing more can be said until the fallout of this event is felt.

Specifically, I want you to look at the fact how so much of what you say is geared toward rationalizing your existing views: That is the opposite of intellectual curiosity; it is ego-stroking and nothing more.

Uh-huh...except when your personal values are being stomped on in front of you, and you feel that as a Christian male surrounded mostly by atheists, you need to defend your values. The venom you and Z often spit on religion may be well founded in your mind, but in some cases it's utterly repugnant to everyone else. 

I suppose me chiming in with the occasional, "No, this is how I think it should be," followed by the obligatory accusation, condescension and defense on my part might be seen as "ego-stroking," but whatever. I'm simply providing dissent in an oftentimes one-sided debate.

I've been on the defensive since the flag incident. I stay because I like the Chrono series, and outside of religion and sexism debates you, Z and myself actually seem to get along. That, and I'm actually intrigued by a number of things that you, Z, FW, Zephira and everyone else on here have to say, whenever some vitriol about religion or isn't attached to the message.

[Uboa]

As for extremists, I consider:

1) People who set bombs off at men's clubs that don't allow women extremists. (?)

2) People who hate every man because they feel he's a part of some central patriarchy extremists.

3) People who insist that women be allowed government seats simply because they are women without any base on merit extremists.

Who are these people?

[Truthordeal]

Who are these people?

Do you mean a specific case? Bill Ayers and his group of wackos attempted this back in the 1960's, but their bombs exploded before they could get to the site.



Double facepalm. The first one for being stupid terrorists, and the second one for being stupid terrorists.

Then last year there was a case of a strip club bombing in...one of the central European countries. I'm trying to remember which one. It was like, Slovenia, or Austria, although I don't think it was a German speaking country. I want to say it was Bulgaria, but I'm not sure. I'll have to check that out later.

Now, there are far less of these than say, abortion clinic bombings or car bombings. One thing I am impressed with the feminism movement as a whole as compared to others is that it's fairly non-violent. But, there are still people like this, and they are extremists either way.


Whoa! Looks like our two favorite gamers over at PennyArcade have a few choice words on the subject:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/

If you're seeing this on or after Wednesday, be sure to look through the archives to find this page.

[Thought]

... I would more easily be persuaded that triangles have four sides.

Six, actually, or two, depending on how one wants to think about it. There is an inside and outside, so two. Or each line, of which there are three, has two sides, so six. If we combine the two we could say there are eight sides.

But yes, four is just right out.

If this is indeed what happened, it's possible that in a society less defined by gender norms, he might have sought help from a professional psychological counselor, friend, or family member rather than trying to "take it like a man."

I am often frustrated by this perception that a "man's man" is supposed to be some sort of untouchable thing; effected by nothing. Where did the idea that men aren't supposed to feel emotion, or get sick, or need help come from? I suspect at least part of it came from the old sexist idea that women are ruled by their emotions. It doesn't seem like a large leap from saying that women are ruled by emotions to saying that emotions are inherently feminine and thus unmanly. Which is one example of why sexism of any sort is harmful to both genders.

Motherfuck those losers.

Actually, in this case that literally might have helped the guy, if he did have such a significant maternal fixation.

As a side note:

The seduction community is a loose-knit subculture of men who strive for better sexual and romantic success with women through self-improvement and a greater understanding of social psychology.

It exists largely through Internet forums and groups, as well as over a hundred local clubs, called "lairs".

"Lairs?" Really? That's just... wow. It sounds like they're identifying a little too much with bad animal psychology.

[Mr Bekkler]

I'm a education guy.

ORLY?

... I would more easily be persuaded that triangles have four sides.

Six, actually, or two, depending on how one wants to think about it. There is an inside and outside, so two. Or each line, of which there are three, has two sides, so six. If we combine the two we could say there are eight sides.

But yes, four is just right out.

Don't forget the triangle may exhibit signs of disassociative identity disorder, or be otherwise just a two-faced meany sometimes, so there may be several sides you don't see. There could theoretically be an infinite number of sides in a triangle. But only six angles. Or else it's something other than a triangle. 

[Lord J Esq]

Changing gears slightly, I really do frown on hypocrites who get uppity because there are females out there, usually in the feminist movement (but by no means always), who resent males. The hypocrisy comes into play because their criticism of females stands in stark contrast to their attitude toward the much larger ranks of males who resent females. Compounding their hypocrisy, these people are also the last to notice that society doesn't have a male rights movement comparable to feminism, and doesn't need one: Male rights are secure, and the resentment of females is fully institutionalized.

Criticizing feminism, which fights for sexual equality, on the grounds that some of its individual members are sexist, while ignoring the fact that society as a whole does not fight for sexual equality and has an even higher proportion of sexists, takes some chutzpah. (That, or some profound naivete.)

Analogy time:

I suspect these same people are the ones who argued against Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court on the grounds that, in addition to being qualified, Sotomayor is a Latina--a female minority. In making that criticism, these folks conveniently ignored the fact that the current Supreme Court is packed with white males: and it didn't take no stinkin' affirmative action for them to get there, because, if you're an affluent white male, you don't need it: All of society is already set up for you to succeed. Sexist, yeah. Racist, yup. Classist, definitely. But hey...at least it's not social engineering, right? Right! Because if you're a rich white male in a society that favors rich white males, extending the franchise is exactly the kind of big government you're eager to avoid.

That is, unless you have a conscience. Unfortunately for us, bigots are seldom known for theirs.

[Truthordeal]

I can't stand the Supreme Court as it is. I'm hoping that the Wise Latina Woman might do some justice(pun intended). Then again, I'm a proponent of judicial restraint, so that might not be possible.

Anywho, back to sexism.

It's an interesting point you bring up, Lord J, about the image of the feminist movement. I mentioned an article a while ago that talks about the feminist movement's PR problem.

I think the statistics were something like, 90+% of women support "women's issues," like lifestyle choice and equal pay, but only a quarter or so define themselves as feminists.

Now, this might have something to do with the feminist movement's nasty habit of stopping after achieving a goal, or it might have to do with a very crippling image problem; that being, the Birkenstock wearing man hater.

[FaustWolf]

The feminist movement does have PR issues, at least among certain audiences, whether feminists have brought this upon themselves or not. I was in a college psychology class where the students were under the impression that lesbianism was a pre-requisite of membership in the feminist movement. What does that say about the cause, how it's being presented, and how it can better promote its goals?

[KebreI]

I felt compeled to link this thread to the latest  Blog post at PA [LINK]

Its an nice back and forth of Mike and Jerry concerning some course on dating or at least "pre-dateing".