Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

[JackRiddler]

Well, if you haven't been to "my" thread (i.e. the one I started) and you are using my comments as "data" (you apparently don't know what "data" means in a quantitative, as opposed to qualitative or ethnographic study), then I guess you would be guilty of cherry-picking your data. Or at least a poor literature review.

Re: PW, I'm not going to get into a he-started-it/she-started-it argument because I'm not your errant child and I don't owe you any explanation. But a careful reading of that stupid gender thread would be illuminating as "data".

Earlier I got as far as that first graphic. I definitely don't have time to dissect it in all of its truthiness. Unfortunately I can't resist peeking in here occasionally. If that is your idea of "data," so be it. The data is in the cited studies, government reports, etc. The juxtaposition of bits of it so as to force-feed an actually undefined agenda of "men's lives suck" (for example, they don't live until 100 as often as women!), which therefore refutes that there is a patriarchy or sexism (or whatever you think these ill-fitting facts demonstrate) is not data, ethnography, qualitative or quantitative study. You may be a scientist in your field and specialty, but you seem to forget all that when a trigger word such as feminism is mentioned. Why don't you send your truthy mix in for some peer review? How stupid do you think all of the people here are?

[slomo]

Well, if you haven't been to "my" thread (i.e. the one I started) and you are using my comments as "data" (you apparently don't know what "data" means in a quantitative, as opposed to qualitative or ethnographic study), then I guess you would be guilty of cherry-picking your data. Or at least a poor literature review.

Re: PW, I'm not going to get into a he-started-it/she-started-it argument because I'm not your errant child and I don't owe you any explanation. But a careful reading of that stupid gender thread would be illuminating as "data".

Earlier I got as far as that first graphic. I definitely don't have time to dissect it in all of its truthiness. Unfortunately I can't resist peeking in here occasionally. If that is your idea of "data," so be it. The data is in the cited studies, government reports, etc. The juxtaposition of bits of it so as to force-feed an actually undefined agenda of "men's lives suck" (for example, they don't live until 100 as often as women!), which therefore refutes that there is a patriarchy or sexism (or whatever you think these ill-fitting facts demonstrate) is not data, ethnography, qualitative or quantitative study. You may be a scientist in your field and specialty, but you seem to forget all that when a trigger word such as feminism is mentioned. Why don't you send your truthy mix in for some peer review? How stupid do you think all of the people here are?

In some specific cases, pretty stupid.

The infographic is obviously a summary of individual papers and government reports. But if I link to those papers or reports (as I had done down-thread with other issues not covered in the infographic), you would inevitably say that you don't have time to read it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So I take it back: not stupid, dishonest.

[General Patton]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm actually way worse in real life. Just the other day I made the following joke to a redneck colleague:

"Do you know what pink Floyd and Dale Earnhardt Jr have in common?

Their last big hit was the wall."

This is a Canadian/lefty/socialist board so I tone it way down.

[slomo]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm actually way worse in real life. Just the other day I made the following joke to a redneck colleague:

"Do you know what pink Floyd and Dale Earnhardt Jr have in common?

Their last big hit was the wall."

This is a Canadian/lefty/socialist board so I tone it way down.

In real life, in person, I'm probably nicer. But mostly because I make a habit of associating with people I like (although, note that I don't always agree with their politics). That doesn't prevent me from making crude jokes like yours ( , BTW) with people I know well. The one exception is reviewing manuscripts. It takes a lot to piss me off, so I usually look for the positive even if I am criticizing something. But if I get pissed off, I can be extremely brutal. And I'm OK with that.

[guruilla]

Well, if you haven't been to "my" thread (i.e. the one I started) and you are using my comments as "data" (you apparently don't know what "data" means in a quantitative, as opposed to qualitative or ethnographic study), then I guess you would be guilty of cherry-picking your data. Or at least a poor literature review.

Re: PW, I'm not going to get into a he-started-it/she-started-it argument because I'm not your errant child and I don't owe you any explanation. But a careful reading of that stupid gender thread would be illuminating as "data".

Earlier I got as far as that first graphic. I definitely don't have time to dissect it in all of its truthiness. Unfortunately I can't resist peeking in here occasionally. If that is your idea of "data," so be it. The data is in the cited studies, government reports, etc. The juxtaposition of bits of it so as to force-feed an actually undefined agenda of "men's lives suck" (for example, they don't live until 100 as often as women!), which therefore refutes that there is a patriarchy or sexism (or whatever you think these ill-fitting facts demonstrate) is not data, ethnography, qualitative or quantitative study. You may be a scientist in your field and specialty, but you seem to forget all that when a trigger word such as feminism is mentioned. Why don't you send your truthy mix in for some peer review? How stupid do you think all of the people here are?

So any information about the systematic mistreatment and exploitation of men is part of a government force-feed agenda to whitewash the reality of the patriarchy and/or discredit feminism? And everything feminists (female or otherwise) claim is empirical and unbiased truth, and I am a misogynist who got triggered by the word "feminism" if I say otherwise? And I would have to be stupid not to believe that, because that is the only ideologically sound position to take?

Did I misread any of that? It seems only fair to check, it being such a fraught discussion and all.

[slomo]

So any information about the systematic mistreatment and exploitation of men is part of a government force-feed agenda to whitewash the reality of the patriarchy and/or discredit feminism? And everything feminists (female or otherwise) claim is empirical and unbiased truth, and I am a misogynist who got triggered by the word "feminism" if I say otherwise? And I would have to be stupid not to believe that, because that is the only ideologically sound position to take?

Did I misread any of that? It seems only fair to check, it being such a fraught discussion and all.

Nope, you got it about right.

Oh, who am I, who am I!!!?

I looked at the infographic, but it disagreed with my preconceived narrative, and so I decided it must be false. That gave me permission to ignore the rest of the thread, but I can still claim you don't have any peer-reviewed articles to back you up. No, I don't have any peer-reviewed counter-examples, because I don't need them. My 20th-Century Marxist postmodernism proves everything. How stupid do you think I am?

[backtoiam]

"Do you know what pink Floyd and Dale Earnhardt Jr have in common?

Their last big hit was the wall."

The irony of that cannot be understated. "slamming into the wall." Apparently RI must be a very women friendly forum because if it were not the oppressed women in the forum would tell the people that call this forum a woman hating forum to stop it. Instead men are telling them to stop it which is actually taking up for the women in the forum. And the ankle biting troll jackals that momentarily step in to keep the uproar going are laughing. Slomo sometimes we just can't people I guess. I'm starting to wonder. I suppose it is a useful exercise in watching ankle biting and its reactions though. Like a canary in a coal mine I guess.

[BrandonD]

I had to look up MRA, the first google result is "magnetic resonance angiogram" - I'm all for starting a Magnetic Resonance Angiogram movement.

"They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom for trying to change the system from within" - Leonard (the double agent) Cohen

[JackRiddler]

I can't see anything wrong with that joke.

By the way, this thread title originated in response to one called "Study: Everyone hates feminists and environmentalists." That's the kind of coverage out there, where even many who call themselves feminists (among the young) feel compelled first to apologize and protest that they aren't man-haters or horrible hags, etc.

slomo, there is no doubt the reports on prison populations and number of homeless, etc., cited actually say what your MRA attack graphic claims. And it doesn't matter. The inclusion of the longevity statistic is laughable, indicating a kitchen sink approach and an willingness to ignore a distinction between the social and biological if it has the appearance of supporting one's argument. The juxtaposition and spin of these data turns them into truthy factoids, with the intent of pushing a particular agenda and thesis that isn't supportable. It isn't even definable, since it relies on the MRA strawman version of patriarchy/sexism as some kind of monolith of male dominance in all spheres and all levels and better outcomes for all men always, rather than anything actually taken from gender theory. Thus no definition of what would be a "man's world" is or can be provided.

The disrespect for actually seeing what feminist or gender theory says (here shown by your shabby treatment of PW) and arguing with it as it presents itself, is also "data."

On specifics, "same crime" and "same crime" can definitely vary. What crimes are being included isn't specified so 3x the sentence might mean years or days of difference. On murder (i.e., presumably almost all of the capital crimes) and prison sentencing you're dealing with a huge pool of men and a much smaller one of women. In homicides the latter will have almost always acted within relationships, the former will have a higher rate of killing people they don't know. What are the relative recidivism rates? Do judges and juries see men as potentially more dangerous in the future than women? (That could even be a product of patriarchy!)

In any case, none of this "proves" your case. "Patriarchy" does not mean better outcomes in all things for men, or total lack of any privileges or total defenselessness for women.

ON EDIT: I see responses already. To correct slomo's version of me:

I looked at the infographic, and it incompetently pushes a preconceived narrative that it can barely even define, with an undercurrent of unjustified rage, and constitutes an embarrassment for anyone, especially a scientist, who claims to present it as "data." Since the premise already implodes from the start, no actual peer reviewed research has been advanced for the premise (although some peer reviewed research has been abused in the citation on behalf of the premise). All this does not give me permission to ignore the rest of the "data" thread. That is because I already have this "permission" as a natural right. I'd love to spend another twenty or two hundred minutes going further with the fine "data" to come, and learning that men get longer sentences for DUIs or are more often depicted in the media as raging stupid hulks with guns, or whatever else is supposed to prove that this is a woman's world. But nevertheless feel I must choose now to return to my boring paying work.

[guruilla]

X 3

[edit: not a response to JR's last, which got in b4 mine.]

[BrandonD]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm actually way worse in real life.

In real life, in person, I'm probably nicer..

That would be an interesting member survey: how different is your online "persona" from your regular life persona? And in what way does it differ?

(edit: apologies for the derailment)

[Elvis]

[Elvis]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm actually way worse in real life.

In real life, in person, I'm probably nicer..

That would be an interesting member survey: how different is your online "persona" from your regular life persona? And in what way does it differ?

(edit: apologies for the derailment)

In real life I'm even more brilliant and witty. I tone it down for RI.

[nashvillebrook]

JackRiddler wins all the Internet, upholding the winsomecowboy2 observations of RI cited below.

I tune out of the MRA bullshit, not because it creates a hostile environment for women, but because it pushes the signal to noise ratio into the moronic frequencies.

winsomecowboy2 wrote about rigorous intuition:

It's a self referential semi intelligent farce but as farces go it's one of the better I've seen. Full of serious actors and rigoruous thinkers and obvious tribal chest beaters. It's tribal but also viewed anthropologically by a greater weight of lurkers,[myself included] because it has a higher signal to noise ratio than most and the ability to police itself and define sociopolitical skepticism over and above it's hardcore constituants. It collates thought and I've been lurking since it's genisis and don't think I'm unique so it's tribal only in that status and conflict is tribal but it's more than that. It's critical and apart from the obvious relationships and obvious new provocateurs over the last 15 years, 10 years, 5 years . It's a unique form of digestion of the western human condition. So yes it is tribal but it's also meta tribal and there's various neutral anthropologists who's hearts and minds appreciate the self diagnosis that is the lifeblood of the place.

[slomo]

I can't see anything wrong with that joke.

By the way, this thread title originated in response to one called "Study: Everyone hates feminists and environmentalists." That's the kind of coverage out there, where even many who call themselves feminists (among the young) feel compelled first to apologize and protest that they aren't man-haters or horrible hags, etc.

slomo, there is no doubt the reports on prison populations and number of homeless, etc., cited actually say what your MRA attack graphic claims. And it doesn't matter. The inclusion of the longevity statistic is laughable, indicating a kitchen sink approach and an willingness to ignore a distinction between the social and biological if it has the appearance of supporting one's argument. The juxtaposition and spin of these data turns them into truthy factoids, with the intent of pushing a particular agenda and thesis that isn't supportable. It isn't even definable, since it relies on the MRA strawman version of patriarchy/sexism as some kind of monolith of male dominance in all spheres and all levels and better outcomes for all men always, rather than anything actually taken from gender theory. Thus no definition of what would be a "man's world" is or can be provided.

The disrespect for actually seeing what feminist or gender theory says (here shown by your shabby treatment of PW) and arguing with it as it presents itself, is also "data."

On specifics, "same crime" and "same crime" can definitely vary. What crimes are being included isn't specified so 3x the sentence might mean years or days of difference. On murder (i.e., presumably almost all of the capital crimes) and prison sentencing you're dealing with a huge pool of men and a much smaller one of women. In homicides the latter will have almost always acted within relationships, the former will have a higher rate of killing people they don't know. What are the relative recidivism rates? Do judges and juries see men as potentially more dangerous in the future than women? (That could even be a product of patriarchy!)

In any case, none of this "proves" your case. "Patriarchy" does not mean better outcomes in all things for men, or total lack of any privileges or total defenselessness for women.

ON EDIT: I see responses already. To correct guruilla's version of me:

I looked at the infographic, and it incompetently pushes a preconceived narrative that it can barely even define, with an undercurrent of unjustified rage, and constitutes an embarrassment for anyone, especially a scientist, who claims to present it as "data." Since the premise already implodes from the start, no actual peer reviewed research has been advanced for the premise (although some peer reviewed research has been abused in the citation on behalf of the premise). All this does not give me permission to ignore the rest of the "data" thread. That is because I already have this "permission" as a natural right. I'd love to spend another twenty or two hundred minutes going further with the fine "data" to come, and learning that men get longer sentences for DUIs or are more often depicted in the media as raging stupid hulks with guns, or whatever else is supposed to prove that this is a woman's world. But nevertheless feel I must choose now to return to my boring paying work.

You know, my position is quite a bit more nuanced than you would characterize. You'd know that if you actually perused the thread. First of all, there is a paper that looks at the mortality issue, and parses it on the basis of biology and choice (in addition to social factors that could legitimately be said to refute Patriarchy). Choice. The very same phenomenon that drives the wage gap (supported by a newspaper article that cites BLS figures). As far as the wage gap goes, I also cite an article that demonstrates a wage gap in nursing of about 10% after adjusting for various choice-related causal factors. It turns out to be consistent with other figures (see the article above it) as well as the figure Karen Straughan cites in the video guruilla embedded in another thread. (She goes on to suggest that this gap is explained by factors that are hard to measure, but I am comfortable with discounting that as non-evidence-based, even though I think it might be true.) So I even admit to a wage gap, but I disagree that it is as high as 22%.

See how easy that was? You're welcome to counter-argue on the same level, and I might even reconsider my position if the argument is convincing.

As for PW, well I don't know her as a person, but I am hostile to a position that she implies she holds (although she doesn't come out and say it): retroactive withdrawal of consent (this inference is based on her stating that she has been called a "useful idiot", a term I reserved for those who hold this position). That is a legal abomination that should scare anybody, particularly left-leaning members of this board. Of course, I could easily be mistaken that she holds this position. Moreover, PW is the one who characterized my position as "virulent", which is her right of course, but it isn't exactly friendly. And yes of course I took that as directed towards myself, because I am the initial author of the anti-feminist arguments appearing in the gender thread (a thread which, BTW, could never have been anything other than flame-bait now that I consider it). The "look in the mirror" comment refers to discussions earlier in the gender thread in which it is suggested that the inflexible, authoritarian positions of "progressives" are actually the most convincing argument for the opposite set of positions. Hence, the normalization of anti-feminism, which, yes, is a growing phenomenon, and I welcome it. BTW, it is a really cheap tactic to conflate anti-feminism with "woman-hating", because many women are anti-feminists, many men are feminists.

BTW, guruilla is innocent of the uncharitable characterization, I take full responsibility for it.