It's a Man's World!

[American Dream]

I'm imagining the same sort of argument as directed against Slavery Abolitionism instead of Feminism. It would sort of "work" on the most biased and/or credulous and it would use the same sort of shoddy thinking to accomplish this.

OK- it's been a minute since I said that and here is an initial version of what anti-feminist argument might look like- in very stark form- if directed instead against Slavery Abolitionism in the U.S.:

All those slaves playing victim, when they've got it so good! Not only do they have a cradle to grave social service program providing all their human needs, do you have any idea how much they siphon off in stolen chickens, entrails and pilfered goods? I've got statistics here! It's costing their owners an arm and a leg!

Then they have a small army of brainwashed social justice warriors- working to undermine their own race! Have you ever heard of John Brown?

Oh, but it gets worse from there- these ungrateful people don't just want a little- they want the whole plantation! And if they can't have that they'll burn it all down! Not only that, but they hate their superiors- the European people. Their anti-White venom knows no bounds! Let me tell you the story on slave revolts- I've got facts and figures!

Why do they hate us so much? After all we've done for them!!!

Such ignorant rhetoric is easy- but lack of vision is still lack of vision.

That sort of reactionary shit basically serves to claim this place for dominance by a certain group of people- and to alienate and marginalize many, many other kinds of people.

That is why we have all the guidelines we do for this board.

[Searcher08]

I'm imagining the same sort of argument as directed against Slavery Abolitionism instead of Feminism. It would sort of "work" on the most biased and/or credulous and it would use the same sort of shoddy thinking to accomplish this.

OK- it's been a minute since I said that and here is an initial version of what anti-feminist argument might look like- in very stark form- if directed instead against Slavery Abolitionism in the U.S.:

All those slaves playing victim, when they've got it so good! Not only do they have a cradle to grave social service program providing all their human needs, do you have any idea how much they siphon off in stolen chickens, entrails and pilfered goods? I've got statistics here! It's costing their owners an arm and a leg!

Then they have a small army of brainwashed social justice warriors- working to undermine their own race! Have you ever heard of John Brown?

Oh, but it gets worse from there- these ungrateful people don't just want a little- they want the whole plantation! And if they can't have that they'll burn it all down! Not only that, but they hate their superiors- the European people. Their anti-White venom knows no bounds! Let me tell you the story on slave revolts- I've got facts and figures!

Why do they hate us so much? After all we've done for them!!!

Such ignorant rhetoric is easy- but lack of vision is still lack of vision.

That sort of reactionary shit basically serves to claim this place for dominance by a certain group of people- and to alienate and marginalize many, many other kinds of people.

That is why we have all the guidelines we do for this board.

The only "attempt" at establishing dominance on this board is from yourself, following
"Posting as Manure spreading, a raised fist Guide by Anton McLibCom and the Alabama Threeway"

Can you post the guidelines again, just so "we" can be sure of them? Which ones do you mean?

Certain people like to create division and badjacket others, while either engaging in an Asperger-level monomaniacal CopyPasta deluge (one that from what I can see goes mostly unread, except by Bots), while demonstrating that they are right and all others are wrong.

From Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy

Structure

The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property.[1][2][3] The structure or form may be generalized like so:[1][2][3]

P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
P has been observed to have further property x.
Therefore, Q probably has property x also.

Of course, the argument doesn't assert that the two things are identical, only that they are similar. The argument may provide us with good evidence for the conclusion, but the conclusion does not follow as a matter of logical necessity.[1][2][3] Determining the strength of the argument requires that we take into consideration more than just the form: the content must also come under scrutiny.
Analyzing arguments from analogy
Strength of an analogy

Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:

The relevance (positive or negative) of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.[2][3]
The degree of relevant similarity (or dissimilarity) between the two objects.[2]
The amount and variety of instances that form the basis of the analogy.[2]

Counterarguments

Arguments from analogy may be attacked by use of disanalogy, counteranalogy, and by pointing out unintended consequences of an analogy.[1] In order to understand how one might go about analyzing an argument from analogy, consider the teleological argument and the criticisms of this argument put forward by the philosopher David Hume.

According to the analogical reasoning in the teleological argument, it would be ridiculous to assume that a complex object such as a watch came about through some random process. Since we have no problem at all inferring that such objects must have had an intelligent designer who created it for some purpose, we ought to draw the same conclusion for another complex and apparently designed object: the universe.[1]

Hume argued that the universe and a watch have many relevant dissimilarities; for instance, the universe is often very disorderly and random. This is the strategy of "disanalogy": just as the amount and variety of relevant similarities between two objects strengthens an analogical conclusion, so do the amount and variety of relevant dissimilarities weaken it.[1] Creating a "counteranalogy," Hume argued that some natural objects seem to have order and complexity --- snowflakes for example --- but are not the result of intelligent direction.[1] Finally, Hume provides many possible "unintended consequences" of the argument; for instance, given that objects such as watches are often the result of the labor of groups of individuals, the reasoning employed by the teleological argument would seem to lend support to polytheism.[1]
False analogy

A false analogy is a faulty instance of the argument from analogy.

An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning.[2] One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not all that relevant to the property of laziness.[2]

I predict, American Dream, that you will NEVER, EVER, EVER respond yourself to ANY Karen Straughan video.

25 beta male buttplugs bullshitting about male privilege

[tapitsbo]

Why would American Dream respond or care about your "argument from false analogy". "They" are armoured against discussing something like that, it seems.

We can see way bigger problems with what "they" are saying through "their" consistently inconsistent, wildly hypocritical message.

I see no reason why American Dream should kowtow all of sudden to your colonialist cisheteropatriarchal "logical fallacy" copypasta.

[Elvis]

I'm always up for some cultural comparison, and these notes from our exalted Greek heritage may give us heart, just knowing how far we've already come—

[guruilla]

This might account for the literally seminal male-to male-child bonding rituals practiced by the Greeks? Thought to be the very glue that bound community together.

[zangtang]

extracting sunlight from cucumber

[Elvis]

This might account for the literally seminal male-to male-child bonding rituals practiced by the Greeks? Thought to be the very glue that bound community together.

The connection didn't occur to me, but I'll think about that.

[Project Willow]

A lone female raises her hand against her better judgement...

Yes, it is a man's world.

... a thread in which slomo dumps men's rights copypasta, AD-style. I'll flesh this out over the next few days, but I'm going to start with this graphic:

Okay, let's look at this info graphic.

Diseases:
Cancer funding is lopsided based on a number of axes, not just sex. Conversely, a multitude of studies have shown gender bias (against women) in all areas of medicine, from research to education, in access to and quality of care. This is not the fault of feminism.

Cancer (Deaths) N.C.I. Funding per Death
Lung (162,460) $1,630
Colon (55,170) $4,566
Breast (41,430) $13,452
Pancreas (32,300 ) $2,297
Prostate (27,350) $11,298

Cancer (New cases) N.C.I. Funding per New Case
Prostate (234,460) $1,318
Breast (214,640) $2,596
Lung (174,470) $1,518
Colon (106,680) $2,361
Pancreas (33,730) $2,200

Life expectancy:
Throughout the animal kingdom, females tend to outlive males. Testosterone is very hard on the body. Male violence, and masculine dominance/prowess displays and activities are very hard on the body. This is not the fault of feminism. https://www.cmu.edu/CSR/case_studies/women_live_longer.html http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/02/is-testosterone-deadly.html

Suicide rates:
Practically everyone saw a figmentive "male" in front of "white" in the NYT headline about the Deaton study on rising white, middle age suicides. "The Urban Institute’s analysis of the same data showed that the average increase in age-specific mortality rates for whites ages 45 to 54 was more than three times higher for women than men."
Generally, "Research suggests that women are especially prone to psychological problems such as depression, which almost always precede suicide. In western societies, overall rates of mental health disorders tend to be around 20-40% higher for women than for men." Women attempt suicide at much higher rates than men, they just have lower success rates, mainly due to choice of methods, for example, men in the US are more likely to use guns. This is not the fault of feminism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9560163

Dangerous jobs:
Yes, patriarchal sex roles, as well as impulsiveness, risk taking, and differences in physical strength mean that men dominate certain job sectors, including the most dangerous. Men oppressing other men in a male invented and male run neo-liberal capitalist system is not the fault of feminism.

Prison sentences:
Yes, patriarchal sexist attitudes prevail in sentencing producing a gender gap. The prison industrial complex also exploits people based on race and economic status. This is not the fault of feminism. http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/MagazinesDetailsPage/MagazinesDetailsWindow?zid=6e6d91f083a56e8218907c56dd4475a3&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE|A258445995&userGroupName=lnoca_chuh&jsid=75bea499fd317d0a043ccc417195f32f

Homelessness:
Poverty is definitely gendered, and it is women who make up the majority of the world's poor.



Work hours,
This stat obviously does not account for unpaid work, aka the "second shift". https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/08/06/the-second-shift-at-25-q-a-with-arlie-hochschild/

I could post data on femicide, forced marriage, FGM, sex slavery, number of women in congress, parliament and/or heads of state, reproductive rights struggles in the US (Planned Parenthood anyone?), etc., etc., etc. The question of patriarchy is not a question, if data is the requisite, I mean c'mon, it's silly.

...

Yes, men suffer, they are subjected to acts of violence and class and race based oppression. However, they are not oppressed by state and cultural institutions invented and run by women or feminists with the intent to rob them of power solely based upon their sex. The fact that individual men also suffer under patriarchy does not negate its status as a materially demonstrable system of power, or constitute a legitimate challenge to feminism. Rather this presentation of grievances is the product of an individualistic, post-modernist approach, an attempt to create an alternate reality wherein women and feminists are made into scapegoats for the oppressive acts of other men. It is shameful to see this type of thinking posted on RI without significant challenge from a broad range of members.

[Pele'sDaughter]

Well done, ProjectWillow.

[Luther Blissett]

It's a man's world.

The Institute for Women's Policy Research released a report Wednesday noting the U.S. states in which women are more likely than men to live in poverty and less likely to own a business. Those states are marked below in pink:

[zangtang]

How much exactly? Well, that's the trouble. Determining the current and future number of wealthy women in the U.S.—and their wealth—has become a wild guessing game.
(Read More: What Slowdown? Rich Europeans Only Getting Richer)
The most commonly cited numbers come from the Internal Revenue Service, which said that in 2005 about half of the Americans with assets of more than $675,000 were women and they had a total fortune of $5.8 trillion.
But a 2009 study in the Harvard Business Review said women controlled 51.3 percent of wealth in America, which amounts to about $14 trillion in personal wealth. It projected their assets to grow to $22 trillion by 2019.
The World Bank said women control only 1 percent of the world's wealth. But the Boston Consulting Group put the number at 27 percent.
A study from Mary Quist-Newins of the American College of Financial

[Wombaticus Rex]

This makes me want to compile all these facts into a single headfuck that makes it impossible to form an easily stated, single sentence opinion on a subject that is so complex even defining it would take paragraphs.

Nouns are dangerous like that, yeah?

Korzbyski's elegant concept of time binding is both a blessing and a curse. There's so much packed into "gender" that it fairly tugs at the contours of any sentence you put it into, collapsing under the burden of so many separate threads of coagulated Meaning.

[guruilla]

The fact that individual men also suffer under patriarchy does not negate its status as a materially demonstrable system of power, or constitute a legitimate challenge to feminism. Rather this presentation of grievances is the product of an individualistic, post-modernist approach, an attempt to create an alternate reality wherein women and feminists are made into scapegoats for the oppressive acts of other men. It is shameful to see this type of thinking posted on RI without significant challenge from a broad range of members.

There are several assumptions here that don’t hold up to examination. Firstly, there is the use of the word “feminism” as if it were one set of values; if there’s one thing I have learned in the last month at this board, this simply isn’t the case. There are types of feminism which seem reasonable to me (such as equal rights), and there are types that seem insane and destructive (such as those pointed out by Dines in the video). Also, it’s been clearly demonstrated at this board that many of the assumptions of even the most basic sort of feminist rhetoric are simply wrong (such as the idea that men are more domestically violent than women. Newsflash: they aren’t).

“this presentation of grievances is the product of an individualistic, post-modernist approach, an attempt to create an alternate reality wherein women and feminists are made into scapegoats for the oppressive acts of other men.”

I don’t see anything post-modern or individualistic about slomo’s arguments, nor do I see any attempt to create “an alternate reality,” much less to scapegoat feminists. I think people at this board will agree with this viewpoint, however, because of a deeply embedded ideological brainwash about “Patriarchy,” which “feminism” (in its various forms) is at least partially responsible for. Holding someone to account is not the same as scapegoating, and if any sex is being scapegoated in today’s neoliberal-totalitarian world, it is not women.

I posted a quoted from a popular book called The Descent of Men at the gender thread, here, calling men “vermin.” Not only did this description apparently not hinder the book’s success, no one at RI remarked on it. It is as if referring to men as vermin is no big deal, either because it’s already agreed that men are vermin, or because it doesn’t really matter what you call them, because they are in charge anyway. I find this sort of doublethink baffling and depressing.

The last comment, “It is shameful to see this type of thinking posted on RI without significant challenge from a broad range of members,” is a combination of shaming with a demand for those members being shamed (for their inaction) to step up and challenge— what one person sees as wrong-thinking. If anything is shameful here, it is this sort of ideological rabble-rousing.

The question of patriarchy is not a question, if data is the requisite, I mean c'mon, it's silly.

Only if you base your criteria for what’s real on social statistics and purely material phenomena. Many marriages, if looked at through a telescope from Mars, might seem as though the male was in the dominant role. Move in close enough and it becomes pretty obvious that in (literally, statistically) nine times out of ten, the woman is in the dominant role in all the ways that count. This is so well recognized at a personal level that it’s even a trope on TV shows and movies. Yet somehow the notion we live in a man’s world/patriarchy remains unchallenged. The woman is almost always “boss” in modern relationships, and as above, so below. This world may look like a Patriarchy, but how much do men really run the show if they are psychically enmeshed with their mothers, and by extension, their wives, girlfriends, etc., and if everything they do is an attempt either to please/placate women (their mothers), or to defy, challenge and get free from their influence?

“In Margaret Mahler’s theory of the mother/child relationship, the symbiotic relation is a very early phase of development that . . . precedes the separation/individualization phase. The symbiotic relation is characterized by an omnipotent sense of the total enmeshing of mother and child, who thus form a ‘unity of two.’ . . . . In her view, failure in the development of the processes of individuation makes the child regress to the stage of symbiotic relation with the mother, thus running the risk of shutting it off in a psychotic disorganization, a ‘symbiotic psychosis’ characterized by a delirious state of undifferentiation between the ego and the object. Leaving the symbiotic phase entails the risk of depression. . . . Donald Winnicott also comes close to the description of the mother-baby symbiosis with his concept of ‘primary maternal preoccupation,’ in which the state of maternal hypersensitivity leads the primitive mother-baby couple to live in a particular environment, a prolongation of the uterine environment in which communication between mother and child is immediate and not subject to the vagaries of separation.”
“Symbiosis/Symbiotic Relation,” http://www.enotes.com/symbiosis-symbiot ... c-relation

Apparently this type of deep analysis is too subtle (“woo”) for the gender discussion and dismissed as irrelevant, or at best a side issue. At the same time, any statistics that challenge the dominant narrative about Patriarchy are ignored and quickly forgotten. And meanwhile, when someone takes the time to challenge the dominant narrative (which is what RI is supposed to be about) out of a genuine desire to get to the truth, the suggestion is thrown about that they have some sort of devious intent and,if they can't be "corrected," must be shamed into silence.

[zangtang]

before i get into trouble, cos i'm getting things wrong today - my previous should have been in quotes,
and citing the bottom -level info-poor bilge of a site i cant recall.

I was trying to say something about statistics & perspectif...which, on balance, now seems to be a wholly fruitless exercise

I'm too far away (& a dollar short) to contribute meaningfully on the San Berdino thing, but i think some recognize it as a........watershed.

[Heaven Swan]

Project Willow wrote:

Yes, men suffer, they are subjected to acts of violence and class and race based oppression. However, they are not oppressed by state and cultural institutions invented and run by women or feminists with the intent to rob them of power solely based upon their sex. The fact that individual men also suffer under patriarchy does not negate its status as a materially demonstrable system of power, or constitute a legitimate challenge to feminism. Rather this presentation of grievances is the product of an individualistic, post-modernist approach, an attempt to create an alternate reality wherein women and feminists are made into scapegoats for the oppressive acts of other men. It is shameful to see this type of thinking posted on RI without significant challenge from a broad range of members.

Fascinating to see the Bro Code at work.