Skip navigation

Tag Archives: feminism

On a recent (as of the end of 2013) Slashdot post, I saw a brilliant comment that I truly believe deserves wider recognition, so I have copied it here. I would encourage you to read the original post and its comment stream if you’ve found your way here.

I think it boils down to an extreme risk-aversion caused by a spike in artificial risk imposed by society on large percentages of interaction. This is done by people who have vested interests in either corralling behavior, or by people with axes to grind.

1. Every time feminists get some new law passed that lowers the legal bar for girls to make accusations that stick, it increases the social and legal risks for boys and men who have little or no legal recourse for false accusations, both deliberate and those based on bad definitions. With those huge generalizations rattling inside their heads, girls are treating all boys as ‘potential rapists.’ This causes feral like behavior in both genders as their natural biological imperatives collide with these newspeak mantras. The smarter ones are abandoning the game altogether because they see the risks which leave the not so average ones to mate and reproduce. Playing video games is increasingly being seen as almost as fun and a lot safer, socially. Cheaper too.

2. Schools’ social dynamics are becoming more and more like prisons, with ever more extreme punishments for the tiniest missteps in following increasingly chaotic and nonsensical rules. A wrong word, or out of context statement overheard by the wrong person used to get the student a dressing down or ‘demerit’ slip. Now it lands the student in front of the school psychologist, who then comes up with some ‘disease’ to label him with, ruining his future opportunities.. The fact that schools are now reaching outside their domains and into the home is quite scary.

3. Up through the 1990s, cruising around in cars was popular with teens until gas prices reached a point where few could afford to without parental gas allowance. There was a time in fact where a highschool teen could buy a shitbox car, fuel, and insure it, on the pittance earned at his part time job. This is not true anymore…or is becoming starkly less true as time goes on.

4. The usual zomg, terrorists, zomg, pedophiles, zomg rapists, zomg drugs stuff hasn’t gone away either. The only thing that has changed is the increasing ubiquity and homogeneity of its message. This reenforces its ‘truthiness’ and relative importance in people’s minds.

Obviously, this post overlaps what was said in the article. I agree with a lot of it. If anything, ‘social’ media is just the biggest convenient pothole for people to fall into when they see that taking IRL social risk has just become too risky.

Advertisements

Don’t get me wrong. I love a lot of the concise, reference-supported articles I find on RationalWiki, especially when it concerns pseudoscience such as the HHO/water-powered car. It’s a handy shortcut to refuting ridiculous things that aren’t scientifically accurate, and nothing makes me feel much more joy than when a bunch of Internet conspiracy theorists are told that they’re wrong and it really rustles their jimmies.

Sadly, rational thought and scientifically backed information dissemination are thrown out the window with a ferocity when you start looking up anything that touches the feminist agenda. Look up “feminism” on RationalWiki and you’ll immediately find weaselly, highly subjective statements that lean squarely in the favor of a radical feminist’s perverted perception of reality.  For example, the section entitled “Academic Criticism” begins the heading “Seeing rape everywhere” with these two sentences: “Feminists have in the past, and continue in the present to emphasize the importance of addressing modern rape culture. Something no one but the most aggressive MRA types think is a bad goal.” For one thing, there is no such thing as “rape culture,” as seen by the fact that I can drive for four hours and not only see no one being raped, but not even be exposed to anything that comes remotely close to mentioning rape….that is, unless we’re re-defining “rape” as feminists are constantly attempting to re-define it, where it effectively becomes “being a male near a female,” at which point the term “rape” would become irrelevant to most people and lose all of its power and importance. The other thing that’s quite ridiculous is the notion that “the most aggressive men’s rights activists think stopping (implied rape) is a bad idea” along with all of the notably absent supporting references attached to it. Hmm…

But wait! Let’s not jump to conclusions based solely on the fact that no substantive criticism of feminism exists in a criticism section of a feminism article on a “rational wiki!” Let’s see if the same treatment is given to articles that cover opposing viewpoints! Aha…we’ll look at the text for misandry, the antonym for the oft-used and heavily abused term “misogyny.” Uh-oh…it doesn’t look good at all, since there’s an entire SECTION of the article entitled “Concise explanation of why the concept is bullshit.” Let’s see what’s under this damning title…oh, here we are: “Sexism, like racism, is an institutional oppression on basis of sex.”

No, sexism isn’t institutional oppression on basis of sex; in fact, there’s nothing “institutional” about it. Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster agree: “sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s sex.” I don’t see anything institutional about that definition; do you? “Oh, but you’re ignoring OTHER DEFINITIONS!” the clever feminist might bleat, to which I respond with the other definition: “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.” Wait, that doesn’t support “institutional oppression” either, does it? D’awwww, call in the waaambulance because the astute feminist needs to fill out an Internet butthurt report form to squelch the horrible feeling of one’s religion being proven wrong in yet another increment.

brf

I could go on and on ad nauseam discussing why every facet of modern feminism is wrong, but that’s not the point of this post, and other people have said it far better than I have said it. I should also point out that while I’m disappointed at a lack thereof for the “Feminism” article, the “Men’s rights movement” article does make a valiant (and perhaps a little rational in some places) attempt at presenting some points and refuting them. Unfortunately, almost all of those points are misrepresented at least partially, and it’s quite clear that RationalWiki’s articles that involve any gender politics are effectively ruled by a feminist matriarchy; in other words: “no male-positive opinions allowed.”

The bottom line is that RationalWiki is mostly rational on most topics, but they’ve chugged the Feminazi™ Kool-Aid and you simply can’t trust them to be “rational” in any concept that might be “explained” by feminist pseudoscience. RationalWiki people, if you’re reading this, take the time to correct this egregious mistake. I’d rather not have people leaving the so-called “RationalWiki” and saying pure bullshit like this:

Breastfeed.+My+jimmies+are+rustled_f446b9_4909220

If you support gender equality, you’re a feminist. Oh, wait…

“Mothers who breastfeed boy babies need to stop. We need to empower more females in this world and by breastfeeding them we are giving them a good start in life which they deserve over a baby boy [sic] which are already physically stronger than baby girls. I have feminist views and I am not ashamed to admit that. No baby boy will ever be fed from my breasts if I am unfortunate enough to have a son. Formula for him and circumcision to take away sexual pleasure from him when he grows up.”

I wrote a lengthy comment in response to a Wired Opinion article [EDIT: It appears to have since been deleted; so much for “discussion” eh?] called Donglegate: Why the Tech Community Hates Feminists which has a totally different description in the URL that says “richards-affair-and-misogyny-in-tech” (a description which is a more genuine description of the article.) The article is largely a repetition of radical feminist doctrine which ignores the very simple core of what brought the Adria Richards PyCon disaster about: Adria bullied two men by shaming them in the court of public opinion and then hid under a cloak of feminism and social justice to avoid consequences for her bad behavior. There seems to be a total lack of understanding as to why people in tech culture are vehemently opposed to modern “third-wave” radical feminism working its way into a cubicle or message board near them, and I thought it would be good to shed some light on the subject. Tech culture doesn’t hate women and doesn’t hate traditional feminism in terms of equal opportunity and treatment, but it doesn’t tolerate radical feminism, and that’s where the line is drawn. The comment reads as follows:

The tech community is full of people who don’t like walking on eggshells just because someone is overly sensitive and gets offended at the drop of a hat. Gender has nothing to do with it. This situation would be no different if a white male took the exact same actions. Gender is irrelevant. Tech people generally don’t see the world through -ism colored glasses in the first place. What articles like this (and people like Adria) are trying to do is force us technical types to wear those glasses, and we outright refuse. Everyone is equal in my eyes at first. It’s when they start speaking that the criticisms start to mount, and while techies tend to pull no punches in an argument, we’re used to that style of debate, where it’s all thrown out there immediately with no editing or sugar-coating, we hash it out, find somewhere to agree, and it’s over with.

Adria bypassed this. Instead of saying “I have a problem with that,” she attempted to try them in the court of public opinion. Techies don’t like the court of public opinion because it ignores the merits of the core issues and immediately favors whoever tells the best story or has the most favored reputation. Adria Richards immediately loses on the fundamental problem with the situation. Feminists lose because techies don’t accept their premises in the first place, and knowing that brick walls are devoid of logic and cannot be argued with, instead tell them to toss off.

The truth is that the vast majority of people know modern radical feminist rhetoric and the cleverly crafted jargon that comes with it are, in a word, bullshit. Techies are particularly sensitive to this. Feminism, being a term that is gender-biased and therefore favoring some people over others for factors they cannot (easily) change, is viewed in the tech world as a radical religious belief of sorts, one not to dignify with any meaningful response.

Consider this: anyone who is in tech today and over 25 remembers a time when everyone had a handle or screen name, and you didn’t know if the other person on IRC, AIM, Yahoo chat, etc. was male or female, young or old, white or black, able or handicapped, across the street or across the ocean. We’ve spent a large amount of time talking to people who we only knew by cryptic pseudonyms. We didn’t know nor care about these things. We spent a lot of time in an environment where equality was the default.

The article is telling us, a generation or two that already see everyone as equals, that if we’re men, we’re treating women poorly by default. We call bullshit, because it’s bullshit. When that doesn’t shut down the argument, we ask “so what can I PERSONALLY DO as a solution to this problem?” and we get nothing usable in response. This article pounds out alleged problems in painstaking detail, and yet offers no real solutions that the average programmer in his cubicle can put to use. Until workable, reasonable solutions are offered, all of this radical feminist macroaggression towards the male gender will forever be of no real-world value and fall upon deaf ears.

I would also like to point out that while I disagree with the majority of what the article’s author has written, I have also defended her in at least one comment. Criticism of the article is potentially productive, but criticism (particularly name-calling and other immaturity) of the person just because the article is not in agreement with your opinions is bad for everyone. We all need to learn to respectfully disagree, with an emphasis on respect. Also, someone else’s bad behavior does not justify your own. Try to play nicely with others, and we won’t have so many Donglegates in the future.

%d bloggers like this: