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.

[Searcher08]

I absolutely welcome opposing views -- as long as they are provided with evidence. Here, "evidence" means academic papers or well-research white papers by reasonably well-known sources, or else news articles or blogs that use them as principal sources. These should be reasonably quantitative papers, i.e. not literary criticism or anything else that leans heavily on critical theory, deconstruction, Marxist theory, etc. (or if they do, theoretical statements are backed up by actual data).

To which American Dreams's "response" was

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.

A fact-free, evidence-free, vague, unclear, weasel-worded argument by (imagined) analogy, with a money shot of adding the phrase "shoddy thinking".

Fabulous.

[slomo]

I absolutely welcome opposing views -- as long as they are provided with evidence. Here, "evidence" means academic papers or well-research white papers by reasonably well-known sources, or else news articles or blogs that use them as principal sources. These should be reasonably quantitative papers, i.e. not literary criticism or anything else that leans heavily on critical theory, deconstruction, Marxist theory, etc. (or if they do, theoretical statements are backed up by actual data).

To which American Dreams's "response" was

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.

A fact-free, evidence-free, vague, unclear, weasel-worded argument by (imagined) analogy, with a money shot of adding the phrase "shoddy thinking".

Fabulous.

Actually, AD makes a fair point (as shoddy as its delivery was): the main question being examined is not value-neutral. If I've made one major error here, it's emphasizing methodology from a discipline whose questions are largely value-neutral (at least in a direct sense, i.e. there are no value judgments inherent in a statement about a hormonal interaction, although there may be downstream medical or public health implications). I'm pretty sure it can easily be shown that men experience systematic disadvantages in some important spheres of life, and not all of them are choice-related or the result of non-modifiable biological processes. However, it may be more difficult to argue that men face unjust outcomes in a way that mirrors unjust outcomes faced by women. I'm hesitant to go there, because the idea of what is "just" is linked to a particular set of values, and there is no universal set of values. For example, a large segment of American society adheres to a set of values that might be called "Christian", and I'm pretty sure those values would not generally be accepted among members of this forum. So, to me, it makes the questions murkier, but that may be unavoidable.

[guruilla]

If I've made one major error here, it's emphasizing methodology from a discipline whose questions are largely value-neutral (at least in a direct sense, i.e. there are no value judgments inherent in a statement about a hormonal interaction, although there may be downstream medical or public health implications). I'm pretty sure it can easily be shown that men experience systematic disadvantages in some important spheres of life, and not all of them are choice-related or the result of non-modifiable biological processes. However, it may be more difficult to argue that men face unjust outcomes in a way that mirrors unjust outcomes faced by women. I'm hesitant to go there, because the idea of what is "just" is linked to a particular set of values, and there is no universal set of values. For example, a large segment of American society adheres to a set of values that might be called "Christian", and I'm pretty sure those values would not generally be accepted among members of this forum.

The thing with there being no universal set of values is very interesting to me, because, while I certainly agree (what's ideology but a set of values that aspires to universality by becoming socially "normalized"?), I do think there is such thing as a universal set of principles (at least for human beings). I am guessing this is what you mean by "emphasizing methodology from a discipline whose questions are largely value-neutral," and that any such methodology stems from close observation of principles, whether of biology or psychology. While your interest seems to be more biological, you've stated that your main focus currently is psychology, which is my main interest. My view is that psychology is potentially as value-neutral as biology can be, hence my questioning of "feminist psychology."

The question then arises as to what degree both biological and psychological methodologies truly stem from a close observation of principles, and the degree to which they either ignore or distort those principles or simply misinterpret them, creating disciplines that are far from "value-neutral." This is the question, simply stated, of the degree to which ideology influences methodology, beginning with our ability to perceive and think about stuff, at a conscious or, most commonly and I think perniciously, at an unconscious level.

Just throwing this out there to consider, if and as this thread continues to explore the arguments around men & women, etc. Possible this belongs more that at Question of Consciousness thread, but anyway.

[tapitsbo]

I think context could have an effect that's not ignorance or distortion but still affects neutrality. This inevitably leaves its mark on any discussion like this, and I at least believe that the presence of these factors is distinct from open-ended relativist sophistry...

I'm enjoying everyone's contributions to these gender threads - but when these subjects are under the microscope things like history are important, as always

[American Dream]

Excerpted from: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/faq/

Mammoth FAQ





We Hunted the Mammoth: The FAQ-ening

Q) A mammoth, huh? What’s this blog about?

A) Misogyny, not mammoths.

Specifically, this blog focuses on what I call the “New Misogyny,” an angry antifeminist backlash that has emerged like a boil on the ass of the internet over the last decade or so. These aren’t your traditional misogynists – the social conservatives and religious fundamentalists who make up much of the far right.

These are guys, mostly, who range in age from their teens to their fifties, who have embraced misogyny as an ideology, as a sort of symbolic solution to the frustrations in their lives – whether financial, social, or sexual.

Some of them identify as Men’s Rights Activists, trying to cast their peculiar struggle against what they see as the excess of feminism and the advantages of women as a civil rights issue of sorts. Alongside those who explicitly label themselves MRAs we find a great number of antifeminist and antiwomen activists we might call Men’s Rights-adjacent – like those in the Skeptic and Atheist subcultures who still haven’t gotten over an offhand remark Skepchick founder Rebecca Watson made about a dude in an elevator a couple of years ago.

Others proclaim themselves Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), declaring a sort of independence from women – while spending much of their time on message boards talking endlessly about them.

Still others see themselves as Pickup Artists (PUA), or masters of “Game,” espousing elaborate “scientific” theories of male superiority while trading tips on how best to pressure or manipulate drunk women into bed. This misogynistic wing of the PUA subculture has a considerable overlap with a subset of traditionalist and far-right blogs. Many of those in what has come to be called “the manosphere” — hey, don’t blame me, I didn’t come up with that name — don’t simply embrace misogyny; they also proudly embrace “scientific” racism and other bigotries.

Still, while some of the New Misogynists see themselves as conservatives, even “neo-reactionaries,” many identify themselves as libertarians or even as liberals. Theirs is a backlash that frames itself as a step forward.

That said, there are numerous posts here that don’t have anything to do with MRAs or MGTOWers or PUAs or any of their ilk. Sometimes I like to post cat pics.

Q) Ok, but you still haven’t explained the mammoth thing.

A) This is a reference to a quote I once posted from a dude who felt women weren’t sufficiently appreciative of what men had supposedly done for them over the ages. Here’s the quote, in all of its weird glory:

We men built a nice safe world for you all the the coal-mines of death, roads, railroads, bridges and tall office buildings. Its $1,000,000 spent per death of a man on a large dangerous project on average now you can just 9-5 it and call it a day in air-conditioned and heated safety. Forget about the wars we died in and the sacrifices made just ignore history or is it now hersorty? You are accruing the benefits without ever having to pay the price you still don’t have to sign up for the draft and who will protect you? The Sex and the City girls will fight off the North Koreans with their Manolo Blahniks?

Men gave you this modern world now you take it for granted we hunted the mammoth to feed you we died in burning buildings and were gassed in the trenches but that was just for fun right?

How quick and conveniently you forget who made this possible.

We gave you Leonardo da Vinci, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy not to mention countless others, Jonas Salk saved half the world from death and you just piss on it all.

This quote is such an amazing clusterfuck of misogyny, entitlement and unwarranted self-importance – not to mention historical ignorance – that the bit about mammoths became a catchphrase around here, neatly conveying pretty much everything this blog is against. And so I decided to make it the name of the blog.


Q) Do you hate men?

A) Nope.

Q) You’re against the Men’s Rights movement. Are you against men having rights?

A) Of course not. As hundreds of posts on this site show pretty clearly, the so-called Men’s Rights Movement is a hateful, reactionary movement driven largely by misogyny and hatred of feminism. It doesn’t help men. It encourages them to scapegoat women and stew in their own bitterness.

Q) Are you a feminist?

A) Well, yeah. Somehow this wasn’t really a big deal to anyone until I started making fun of misogynists online.

[American Dream]

Are these MGTOW* graphics literally the most misogynistic things ever made by human hands?

OCTOBER 4, 2015



And what exactly do MGTOWs have to offer? Certainly not charm or wit, or the ability to make a poster.


Inspired by a post on GamerGhazi highlighting some terrible MGTOW graphics, I went and took a look in the archives of MGTOW.com, and found a bunch that were even more terrible, including the one above.

Let me ease you into the terribleness, starting with some whiny, self-pitying fat-shaming:





Then let’s watch these guys attempt to reduce women to their sexuality:

Continues at: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/ ... man-hands/






*MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether.
--WTF is a MGTOW? A Glossary

[tapitsbo]

A lot of people feel the MGTOW movement was deliberately engineered in think tanks as part of a wider spectrum of psychological warfare against young people. It seems like the sort of program that could actually play into the sort of "results" you are looking for, AD...

[American Dream]

You've got some good evidence for that besides casually proffering that "a lot of people feel" so?

[tapitsbo]

I'm sure you have a lot of good evidence for it given your wide-spectrum sleuthing/surveillance gig.

This could be fun for me to research, for my own purposes, actually.

For now suffice to say that things like the 4chan, etc. /r9k boards bear many hallmarks of a phenomenon that's anything but organically grown, and in fact appears quite psy-op like.

What with the San Bernardino thread active right now, how useful is it to be able to retroactively post a "some of you guys are alright - don't show up to X" message every time you'd like to frame a patsy somewhere?

While we're talking about men's groups, do you feel that male-only Freemason lodges are at all relevant to the discussion of reactionary mens' only groups?

[American Dream]

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.

Posts advocating violence, or espousing hatred of a people based upon race, religion, gender or sexuality, are not permitted.

The charge or insinuation of "disinfo agent" can almost never be proven, and poisons and often ends meaningful discussion. Therefore suggesting a poster is purposefully spreading disinformation is not permitted.

Please refrain from personal attacks, and keep arguments issue-based.

I'm sure you have a lot of good evidence for it given your wide-spectrum sleuthing/surveillance gig.

This could be fun for me to research, for my own purposes, actually.

For now suffice to say that things like the 4chan, etc. /r9k boards bear many hallmarks of a phenomenon that's anything but organically grown, and in fact appears quite psy-op like.

What with the San Bernardino thread active right now, how useful is it to be able to retroactively post a "some of you guys are alright - don't show up to X" message every time you'd like to frame a patsy somewhere?

While we're talking about men's groups, do you feel that male-only Freemason lodges are at all relevant to the discussion of reactionary mens' only groups?

[tapitsbo]

I don't understand what you're getting at, AD. My emphasis/bold type was not meant as a personal attack, and I'm curious about your opinion on the matter. The rest of my post was meant as praise.

[Wombaticus Rex]

AD, next time you post the rules it's a one week suspension. Every time going forward.

90% of your posting here has been monitoring right wing / fascist movements, I don't think you're being accused of being a secret agent, just a guy who spends a lot of time doing, you know, what we all do here every fucking day. It's not an accusation to observe that you spend a great deal of time on sleuthing and surveillance -- as do we all. ("Wide-spectrum" is a couple bridges further than I'm willing to go, however.)

"YOU ARE ALL INTELLIGENCE AGENTS." -- Leary

[American Dream]

That's really much less the point than some other elements of what this place is- and is not- supposed to be.

[Sounder]

Apparently what RI is 'supposed to be' is a catalog of loser depravity porn, a la Jerry Springer.