Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

[Mykeru]

Those who can:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _photo.jpg

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BM ... 4,314_.jpg

http://www.apetogentleman.com/wp-conten ... stache.jpg

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LR ... e-1938.jpg

Those who can't:

http://i.imgur.com/auLsyM0.jpg

[justinvacula]

I have an objection to women being pressured into wearing high heels. I have an objection to the idea that you have to wear high heels to be beautiful or sexy or feminine. I have an objection to the fashion trends that make it almost impossible for a woman to be really dressy without high heels. I have a powerful objection to any expectation or demand whatsoever that women wear high heels in the workplace. I have a powerful objection to any social or economic pressures that make wearing high heels necessary for women to advance in their careers, or that give women who do wear high heels a career advantage over women who don’t. (As is the same case in some careers. And not just fashion.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... -feminism/

What the actual fuck?

[cunt]

Anti-feminism says that if you’re fat, you should spend your time, money, and energy on getting thin. Otherwise it’s acceptable to discriminate against you.

This one describes me.

[Another Lurker Mk II]

Apples wrote:

Well, we're in luck, because Miri - Professional-Fun-Ruiner at FTB also had a post up today at Brute Reason, all about the 'Pit -- well, actually, she didn't mention the 'Pit, but it's a list of things that make you an "anti-feminist," and since that's you, with your cargo cult "equity feminism," I thought you should know what you believe. If Lousy Cunt disagrees, I'm sure he will speak up:

Miri wrote:Anti-feminism says that women must act “feminine” and men must act “masculine,” no matter how they personally feel like acting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-feminism says that sex and romance must follow certain scripts, and if you don’t like those scripts, too bad. If your desires fall outside of those scripts, again, too bad.

Anti-feminism says that all-male (or mostly-male) legislative bodies can make laws telling women whether or not and on what conditions they may obtain an abortion and how they may acquire birth control. If women don’t like that, well, they can just run for elected office themselves because this is a democracy after all. How they’ll do that while popping out all those babies they didn’t want? You tell me.

Anti-feminism says that men can’t control their sexual urges and refrain from raping women that they find attractive. It says that women do have the power to prevent their own rapes, but only by not having consensual sex, not drinking, not going out alone, not flirting–pretty must just staying home where it’s safe.

Anti-feminism says that if a dude keeps making inappropriate comments to you at work, you should suck it up and learn how to take a joke. Guys will be guys.

Anti-feminism says that if you’re a woman who wants to have children, you’ll have to accept the fact that caring for your children will reduce your career opportunities while the man you had those children with continues advancing through the ranks. If you wanted a more successful career, you shouldn’t have had children.

Anti-feminism says you should spend hours of your day putting on makeup, removing your body hair, fitting yourself into uncomfortable clothes, and tottering around on high heels–in fact, many of these things are often required of women in the workplace. It says that appearance is a reasonable factor to judge people by, because if you’re ugly, you can just choose to take better care of yourself.

Anti-feminism says that if you’re fat, you should spend your time, money, and energy on getting thin. Otherwise it’s acceptable to discriminate against you.

Anti-feminism says that you’ll be happier, a better woman if you marry a man and have kids. Even if you think you won’t. Do it anyway.

Anti-feminism says that if that man abuses you, you should make an effort to be a better wife.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You assholes believe all of these things? No wonder Lousy Cunt's panties are in such a bunch.

Not one of those 'anti-feminist' things describes anyone I have met on the pit, or any of the so-called "MRA's" who have posted on FTB.

Because they lurk on the secret forum. But let's not speak about this too loud.

[Al Stefanelli]

Haters, they gon' hate :p

http://i.imgur.com/auLsyM0.jpg

If you're gonna grow some facial hair, then grow some facial hair...

http://www.alstefanelli.com/AB8.jpg

Muahahhhahhaaaa!!!

Justin, it looks like you shaved it this morning, but this is the result at 5 in the afternoon.
Al, you have it on the face, but that's not where you need it.

Clearly you are both testosterone damaged.

My lack of hair on my head is only indicative of the extensive amount of energy given off my high levels of brain activity. Or, it could be all those drugs I did in the 1970's...

[Metalogic42]

I have an objection to women being pressured into wearing high heels. I have an objection to the idea that you have to wear high heels to be beautiful or sexy or feminine. I have an objection to the fashion trends that make it almost impossible for a woman to be really dressy without high heels. I have a powerful objection to any expectation or demand whatsoever that women wear high heels in the workplace. I have a powerful objection to any social or economic pressures that make wearing high heels necessary for women to advance in their careers, or that give women who do wear high heels a career advantage over women who don’t. (As is the same case in some careers. And not just fashion.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... -feminism/

What the actual fuck?

This took about 10 seconds to find on google: http://www.aerosoles.com/eng/categories ... ts-loafers

The idea that women are pressured to wear high heels is fucking stupid. But even if they were, what's so hard about saying "fuck off, I'll wear what I want"?

[Al Stefanelli]

I have an objection to women being pressured into wearing high heels. I have an objection to the idea that you have to wear high heels to be beautiful or sexy or feminine. I have an objection to the fashion trends that make it almost impossible for a woman to be really dressy without high heels. I have a powerful objection to any expectation or demand whatsoever that women wear high heels in the workplace. I have a powerful objection to any social or economic pressures that make wearing high heels necessary for women to advance in their careers, or that give women who do wear high heels a career advantage over women who don’t. (As is the same case in some careers. And not just fashion.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... -feminism/

What the actual fuck?

And I have an objection to women telling other women what the fuck they can wear, and even more of an objection to telling them why. Most women don't dress for men. They dress for competition.

[Metalogic42]

even better: Gretas for Greta. http://www.healthyfeetstore.com/spring- ... shoes.html

[Mykeru]

It is military. I used one during my time stationed in Alaska. It'll keep you warm up to -40F or so, and the modular system allows you to bring only the liners you need to meet weather conditions. Good choice.

A lot of my gear is military surplus. My rule of thumb is go military unless it's excessively heavy. I've got a "best of both worlds" approach to gear. I think the bag and the Nemo bivy would work nicely.

The modular system is damn heavy when you have the cold weather insert in, but the whole kit is rugged in a way consumer grade stuff isn't. The zippers are bomb-proof. You wouldn't think it in the camping store, but if the zippers on a bag are the least bit fiddly, you're basically screwed at the worst moments.

The sleeping bag is the last line of defense against hypothermia. With the Gore-Tex shell you can literally lay it out in the freezing rain and crawl in and you'll be nice and snug.

Trial and error, especially with simply freezing my ass off, is a great teacher.

[Corylus]

patriarchy (A nation or group whose leaders are a majority male, or ?)

[/quote]

Thank you. You have just made me realise the "root" of one of the problems here. You are absolutely right to imply that words must be clearly defined before any progress is to be made. Patriarchy is rule by fathers not rule by males. (Root word geddit? :) )
</pedant>

Actually, when you bear this in mind then the (academic) discussion about this make way sense. Patriarchy (proper) relates to the consolidation of power in the hands of fathers as 'heads of families' and/or custodians of property and/or controllers of offspring. A good modern, western, example of a patriarchy in this model is the Fundamentalist Mormons (FLDS) whereby all power is based in the hands of a few males. With this you actually get:

a) a pushing down (to the extent of exclusion) of young males as potential rivals
b) a resultant premium on females - leading to their being seen only, or nearly exclusively, as a reproductive/heterosexual resource
c) a risk of the premium on females leading to their being forced into reproductive roles earlier than they would personally choose
d) a segregation of the unmarried into separate gender groups (protection of a resource)
e) economic stagnation, insofar as the female half of the workforce tends to be undereducated, underemployed and lacking access to monetary resources.

Patriarchy sucks therefore not just for women, but for women and a signification proportion of males. To see simply see patriarchy as a rule by males - as seems the norm by those professing feminist "learning" at the moment - is thus missing several of the reasons why it is a problem. In these systems we have a generalised oppression and lack of flourishing opportunities for the entire populace; along with heteronormative assumptions; lowered production of resources; sexual repression as standard, and general misery for all but a few.

So, as with all extreme inequality, there is a lowered standard of education; increased oppression of the majority, and lack of aspiration. With genuine patriarchal systems though, it especially grotty in that the sexual repression leads to fear, suspicion, unwanted pregnancies and the young having trouble finding any fun at all.

Of course, this is less common in Western countries than was ever the case, but we can see some relics of it in general discourse. For example, any Roman Catholic priest expecting me to call him 'father' and give him an automatic acknowledgment as a holder of power by the simple use of the term will have to wait some considerable time. Oh, and don't get me started on the vile phenomenon of 'purity balls'. Shudder.

Apologies for the divert! As I said, </pedant>

[justinvacula]

11

Jadehawk
February 1, 2013 at 12:34 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I reject the notion that in order to accept and support a woman’s choices in navigating patriarchy, I can’t criticize the choices patriarchy gives us. I’m not going to criticize a woman for wearing heels (or makeup, for that matter); and if she finds pleasure or empowerment in this, that’s great. But that doesn’t mean I won’t criticize patriarchal aspects of high-heels (and make-up). That includes the extreme pressure to wear them, but it also includes the cultural construction of sexy = constricting/unhealthy, sexy=expensive, etc. which work by other means than peer pressure, but have similar results, nonetheless.

And I say that as someone who does on occasion enjoy both heels and make-up (I am of this culture, too, after all)

Ahoy mateys!

[Pitchguest]

In other words, none of us at the 'Pit qualify as anti-feminists. What else is new?

Then again, not sure from what authority Miriam speaks to think she can deem who is a feminist and who is not. Awfully entitled, isn't she?

[Apples]

http://www.alstefanelli.com/AB8.jpg
http://www.topnews.in/light/files/James-Gandolfini2.jpg

[Mykeru]

Apples wrote:

Well, we're in luck, because Miri - Professional-Fun-Ruiner at FTB also had a post up today at Brute Reason, all about the 'Pit -- well, actually, she didn't mention the 'Pit, but it's a list of things that make you an "anti-feminist," and since that's you, with your cargo cult "equity feminism," I thought you should know what you believe. If Lousy Cunt disagrees, I'm sure he will speak up:

Miri wrote:Anti-feminism says that women must act “feminine” and men must act “masculine,” no matter how they personally feel like acting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-feminism says that sex and romance must follow certain scripts, and if you don’t like those scripts, too bad. If your desires fall outside of those scripts, again, too bad.

Anti-feminism says that all-male (or mostly-male) legislative bodies can make laws telling women whether or not and on what conditions they may obtain an abortion and how they may acquire birth control. If women don’t like that, well, they can just run for elected office themselves because this is a democracy after all. How they’ll do that while popping out all those babies they didn’t want? You tell me.

Anti-feminism says that men can’t control their sexual urges and refrain from raping women that they find attractive. It says that women do have the power to prevent their own rapes, but only by not having consensual sex, not drinking, not going out alone, not flirting–pretty must just staying home where it’s safe.

Anti-feminism says that if a dude keeps making inappropriate comments to you at work, you should suck it up and learn how to take a joke. Guys will be guys.

Anti-feminism says that if you’re a woman who wants to have children, you’ll have to accept the fact that caring for your children will reduce your career opportunities while the man you had those children with continues advancing through the ranks. If you wanted a more successful career, you shouldn’t have had children.

Anti-feminism says you should spend hours of your day putting on makeup, removing your body hair, fitting yourself into uncomfortable clothes, and tottering around on high heels–in fact, many of these things are often required of women in the workplace. It says that appearance is a reasonable factor to judge people by, because if you’re ugly, you can just choose to take better care of yourself.

Anti-feminism says that if you’re fat, you should spend your time, money, and energy on getting thin. Otherwise it’s acceptable to discriminate against you.

Anti-feminism says that you’ll be happier, a better woman if you marry a man and have kids. Even if you think you won’t. Do it anyway.

Anti-feminism says that if that man abuses you, you should make an effort to be a better wife.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You assholes believe all of these things? No wonder Lousy Cunt's panties are in such a bunch.

Not one of those 'anti-feminist' things describes anyone I have met on the pit, or any of the so-called "MRA's" who have posted on FTB.

Because they lurk on the secret forum. But let's not speak about this too loud.

According to that list I'm not an "anti-feminist" (a stupid term anyway) as I don't agree with a single one of those statements.

Just goes to show that a lot of radical feminists really should sit down and talk to actual people, both men and women, rather than imagining what they think.

[Parge]

Fuck you, assbag.

What the fuck is an "assbag" anyway? Is it something you wear to hide your a/ss/rse out of shame, or to utilize your a/ss/rse for its intended purpose on the go. Or more horribly, is it something that painfully protrudes from your a/ss/rse after an ill-advised clean-and-jerk (I'm talking weightlifting here. Don't even go there). I'm at a loss.

Mykeru has a picture he can show you, that cunt. Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it.

I trigger on un-unseeable images. I get a debilitating case of the heebie-jeebies (is that antisemetic? if so, accept my oops!).

I fell off my chair from my first goatse.

I could only experience "Two Girls One Cup" by descirptive video for the blind (this exists, and the dude describing is audibly either holding back laughter or nausea).

My first lemonparty was strangely calming, though.

[another lurker]

I have an objection to women being pressured into wearing high heels. I have an objection to the idea that you have to wear high heels to be beautiful or sexy or feminine. I have an objection to the fashion trends that make it almost impossible for a woman to be really dressy without high heels. I have a powerful objection to any expectation or demand whatsoever that women wear high heels in the workplace. I have a powerful objection to any social or economic pressures that make wearing high heels necessary for women to advance in their careers, or that give women who do wear high heels a career advantage over women who don’t. (As is the same case in some careers. And not just fashion.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... -feminism/

What the actual fuck?

And I have an objection to women telling other women what the fuck they can wear, and even more of an objection to telling them why. Most women don't dress for men. They dress for competition.

Yep. And, from every.single.fucking.guy that I have ever spoken to, most are not too fond of makeup either. Your average guy probably likes to see real skin, right?

But yet, the blame MEN for makeup and fashion. pfft.

[LMU]

-snipped-

Not one of those 'anti-feminist' things describes anyone I have met on the pit, or any of the so-called "MRA's" who have posted
on FTB.

Because they lurk on the secret forum. But let's not speak about this too loud.

I like how even unregistered lurkers know about our secret forum :lol:

[justinvacula]

Can we please have a feminism that acknowledges that other women make different choices about managing the tricky-to-impossible questions of how to participate in a sexist culture, and that other women experience empowerment in a sexist culture differently than you do? Can we please have a feminism that recognizes how difficult these choices are, and that supports other women in their right to make those choices however they damn well see fit? Can we please have a feminism where feminists aren’t the ones parsing and scolding other women about what they choose to do with their bodies?

I'll tell you what, selecting shoes is one of life's most difficult tasks... Must be the reGreta kicking in.

[another lurker]

-snipped-

Not one of those 'anti-feminist' things describes anyone I have met on the pit, or any of the so-called "MRA's" who have posted
on FTB.

Because they lurk on the secret forum. But let's not speak about this too loud.

I like how even unregistered lurkers know about our secret forum :lol:

There is a secret forum for lurkers only!

[Al Stefanelli]

http://www.alstefanelli.com/AB8.jpg
http://www.topnews.in/light/files/James-Gandolfini2.jpg

http://www.alstefanelli.com/aljean.jpg

[birdterrifier]

I'll take a picture of my upper lip after a few days of not shaving and you can laugh at the 5 hairs that grow a couple millimeters from my face.

[Tigzy]

I have an objection to women being pressured into wearing high heels. I have an objection to the idea that you have to wear high heels to be beautiful or sexy or feminine. I have an objection to the fashion trends that make it almost impossible for a woman to be really dressy without high heels. I have a powerful objection to any expectation or demand whatsoever that women wear high heels in the workplace. I have a powerful objection to any social or economic pressures that make wearing high heels necessary for women to advance in their careers, or that give women who do wear high heels a career advantage over women who don’t. (As is the same case in some careers. And not just fashion.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... -feminism/

What the actual fuck?

And I have an objection to women telling other women what the fuck they can wear, and even more of an objection to telling them why. Most women don't dress for men. They dress for competition.

Yep. And, from every.single.fucking.guy that I have ever spoken to, most are not too fond of makeup either. Your average guy probably likes to see real skin, right?

But yet, the blame MEN for makeup and fashion. pfft.

Imelda Marcos. Total victim of the patriarchy, that one.

[incognito]

Then again, not sure from what authority Miriam speaks to think she can deem who is a feminist and who is not.

She HAS A BLOG. Duh!

[Scented Nectar]

Preach it Sister!

ummm-hmmm

*pausing for air*

Ranting is exhilarating. :)

Thanks for the reminder that the second half of Elmer Gantry is on TV this evening; “gimme that ol’ time religion” …. ;-)

You're welcome. And thank you for visiting my church or temple or whateverthefuck I called it earlier. :)

[welch]

And thats even ignoring the fact that it's pointless to try to debate with these dishonest leeches in the first place. Expose their greedy scheming to the world, don't legitimize it by sitting at their feet.

It seems you and Cromwell are making roughly same argument against the utility of debate, and I disagree with both of you. Debating in a neutral forum forces both parties to do a number of things that online forums generally do not:

- Specify propositions upon which they disagree
- Marshal evidence and arguments on point
- Listen attentively and rebut their opponent

In a properly structured and reasonably moderated debate, there is no banning or dog-piling dissenting views, no retreating into name-calling and invective, no excuses for failing to address your opponent's arguments.

Maybe Justin isn't the right guy to go on the show, but someone definitely should. The entryist insurgency of ‘social justice’ callout-culture is wholly incompatible with true skepticism and freethought, and must be exposed for what it is to those who are not already lurking here.

Ideally, sure, that's how it works. However, this is anything but ideal.

Your points also assume that both sides are going into the debate in an honest, open fashion, and that the point is not to win, but to exchange ideas and come away with a better understanding of the other side, even if agreement doesn't happen.

None of that, not a scintilla, applies to the FTB/A+ crowd. They have no interest in either honesty, nor openness, they only care about winning, and the idea they will even begin to accept any opposing ideas as anything but evil is laughable.

This idea is a nice one, but ultimately, at least one half of whom you wish to involve have no interest in resolving this and even less interest in hearing opposing ideas.

[incognito]

-snipped-

Not one of those 'anti-feminist' things describes anyone I have met on the pit, or any of the so-called "MRA's" who have posted
on FTB.

Because they lurk on the secret forum. But let's not speak about this too loud.

I like how even unregistered lurkers know about our secret forum :lol:

There is a secret forum for lurkers only!

You're the MOLE!

The admin here should change your avatar to a scarlet M.
:snooty: :eusa-hand:

[welch]

I'm dealing with my doxing video and it's like being Sisyphus. I realized that the 12 version of the video layout file I saved inexplicably reverted to the one little clip. That one clip apparently over-wrote the whole thing. The same is true of all revisions going back several days, so I've basically, once again, lost hours of work.

That's a bitch, because now I have to sort of remember what I did, what I have to redo, and none of it is as much fun the second or third time around.

I know this is little good to you now, but backups man! At the very least get a Dropbox account and keep a rolling handful of backups in there of your current work. Mine currently has ThesisCurrent, ThesisOld4 and ThesisOld5. That way if I find out I deleted a load of stuff I shouldn't have there are old versions to look at. All of that is on top of already having the built-in OS X back-up stuff going on (Time Machine etc).

Dropbox handles versioning automatically.

[welch]

I'm dealing with my doxing video and it's like being Sisyphus. I realized that the 12 version of the video layout file I saved inexplicably reverted to the one little clip. That one clip apparently over-wrote the whole thing. The same is true of all revisions going back several days, so I've basically, once again, lost hours of work.

That's a bitch, because now I have to sort of remember what I did, what I have to redo, and none of it is as much fun the second or third time around.

I know this is little good to you now, but backups man! At the very least get a Dropbox account and keep a rolling handful of backups in there of your current work. Mine currently has ThesisCurrent, ThesisOld4 and ThesisOld5. That way if I find out I deleted a load of stuff I shouldn't have there are old versions to look at. All of that is on top of already having the built-in OS X back-up stuff going on (Time Machine etc).

Dropbox handles versioning automatically.

Sorry, brain is ded. Not Dropbox. Get a cheap Crashplan account. THAT does versioning automatically, and is quite awesome.

[justinvacula]

#BraveHero Karla Porter comments on Greta's fashion Friday post:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... ent-100956

http://i.imgur.com/H5rvq0S.jpg

[another lurker]

Then again, not sure from what authority Miriam speaks to think she can deem who is a feminist and who is not.

She HAS A BLOG. Duh!

:clap:

[ERV]

I have an objection to women being pressured into wearing high heels. I have an objection to the idea that you have to wear high heels to be beautiful or sexy or feminine. I have an objection to the fashion trends that make it almost impossible for a woman to be really dressy without high heels. I have a powerful objection to any expectation or demand whatsoever that women wear high heels in the workplace. I have a powerful objection to any social or economic pressures that make wearing high heels necessary for women to advance in their careers, or that give women who do wear high heels a career advantage over women who don’t. (As is the same case in some careers. And not just fashion.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... -feminism/

What the actual fuck?

... Then why did she just pay a man $250 for cancer treatment 1.25" heels?

[youtube]wCF3ywukQYA[/youtube]

[windy]

I'm not saying there isn't an association (correlation). I'm saying atheists have been disavowing causation, for some time due to the obvious ethical problem that would raise in debates and that creationists would then have an "in" to schools because science is commenting on existential claims not of the natural world. In effect saying " Science claims there is no god, therefore it is claiming things which cannot be demonstrated, so how is it different than religious beliefs?"

Yes, that's a good point, I agree it's better not to make overreaching claims like "science has shown there is no god". But some scientists like Victor Stenger argue that science rules out basically any god worthy of the name- one that plays any role in human affairs (since that is a claim about the natural world.) And most religious beliefs probably involve a god (or some other force) that's not entirely separate from human affairs.

I am searching for something to show to incognito, and I came across this in the process, so, I will share it:
...

217
strange gods before me ॐ
31 December 2012 at 2:33 pm (UTC -6)

Yeah, I don’t really know why. My gut impression was that the reason was “people at Pharyngula are too mean, and this thread at ERV’s is a convenient place to complain about that.” But I don’t remember any particularly explicit this is why I left Pharyngula comment.

"too mean"? LOL!

221
ChasCPeterson
31 December 2012 at 6:05 pm (UTC -6)

windy ws a direct casualty of the Elevator Wars of 2011. She joined the ‘pit early, when it represented (to her, I think) Team Dawkins vs. Team Radfem. I believe she rejects what she sees as the local brand of feminisms’s emphasis on victimization and she’s offended by the perceived infantilization of women inherent in what considers Schrodinger’s-rapist paranoia. (I say this because at the time she expressed specific unhappiness with some comments I made (over there) about crossing the street to pre-empt a potentially anxious situation for somebody else. It pissed her off.)

Thanks lurker- I'm aware that there's been some bafflement at my posting here, that's fine. Chas's comment has the gist of it, although I don't agree with some details (I didn't have a problem with the street-crossing, only with the suggestion that as a woman I should prefer that outcome.) And I didn't leave Pharyngula because of the Elevator wars, it was some time before that (partly over analogous differences of opinion, though; also b/c the way certain other commenters got treated there *cough cough*).

Thank you, thank you, there will now be a collection for all the rat's asses that will no doubt be given for this fascinating bit of internet drama. *passes racist hat around*

[another lurker]

patriarchy (A nation or group whose leaders are a majority male, or ?)

Thank you. You have just made me realise the "root" of one of the problems here. You are absolutely right to imply that words must be clearly defined before any progress is to be made. Patriarchy is rule by fathers not rule by males. (Root word geddit? :) )
</pedant>

Actually, when you bear this in mind then the (academic) discussion about this make way sense. Patriarchy (proper) relates to the consolidation of power in the hands of fathers as 'heads of families' and/or custodians of property and/or controllers of offspring. A good modern, western, example of a patriarchy in this model is the Fundamentalist Mormons (FLDS) whereby all power is based in the hands of a few males. With this you actually get:

a) a pushing down (to the extent of exclusion) of young males as potential rivals
b) a resultant premium on females - leading to their being seen only, or nearly exclusively, as a reproductive/heterosexual resource
c) a risk of the premium on females leading to their being forced into reproductive roles earlier than they would personally choose
d) a segregation of the unmarried into separate gender groups (protection of a resource)
e) economic stagnation, insofar as the female half of the workforce tends to be undereducated, underemployed and lacking access to monetary resources.

Patriarchy sucks therefore not just for women, but for women and a signification proportion of males. To see simply see patriarchy as a rule by males - as seems the norm by those professing feminist "learning" at the moment - is thus missing several of the reasons why it is a problem. In these systems we have a generalised oppression and lack of flourishing opportunities for the entire populace; along with heteronormative assumptions; lowered production of resources; sexual repression as standard, and general misery for all but a few.

So, as with all extreme inequality, there is a lowered standard of education; increased oppression of the majority, and lack of aspiration. With genuine patriarchal systems though, it especially grotty in that the sexual repression leads to fear, suspicion, unwanted pregnancies and the young having trouble finding any fun at all.

Of course, this is less common in Western countries than was ever the case, but we can see some relics of it in general discourse. For example, any Roman Catholic priest expecting me to call him 'father' and give him an automatic acknowledgment as a holder of power by the simple use of the term will have to wait some considerable time. Oh, and don't get me started on the vile phenomenon of 'purity balls'. Shudder.

Apologies for the divert! As I said, </pedant>[/quote]

Great post!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

To anyone concerned. I have made it clear to Lee Moore that no one person is qualified to speak for the slymepit. His lack of a better term referring to opposition of FTB was probably why there was some confusion. I wasn't aware that was the way it was being presented. I only speak for me and I have never claimed otherwise. I understand that some idiots are probably going to make the mistake of assuming anyone who is a member of this forum and speaks in public is speaking for the entire forum there isn't much can be done about that except make it clear that isn't the case.

How could anyone speak for the slymepit? We are so diverse that we can't talk about friggin' bread without having a fight.

Exactly.

Fuck you, assbag.

Eat a bowl of vaginas!*


*No offensive words were hurt in this demonstration of polite banter.

[Scented Nectar]

Stop objectifying me!! :violin:

Ok. You're not going to report me to WIS, are you? :D

"Would you like to come to my room and have sex?" (No is an acceptable answer.)

https://soundcloud.com/elevatorgate/sur ... -interview

Well, not if the Surly Amy interview is playing as ambience. Mood killer, you know? Mind you, I'm not going to the conference so it has to be a "no" anyways. Life's not fair. I'll bet I could have even talked you into having some coffee with me in the elevator after the sex. Why can't I have conference fun like everyone else? Oh yeah, because I don't go to them. :)

[another lurker]

I'm not saying there isn't an association (correlation). I'm saying atheists have been disavowing causation, for some time due to the obvious ethical problem that would raise in debates and that creationists would then have an "in" to schools because science is commenting on existential claims not of the natural world. In effect saying " Science claims there is no god, therefore it is claiming things which cannot be demonstrated, so how is it different than religious beliefs?"

Yes, that's a good point, I agree it's better not to make overreaching claims like "science has shown there is no god". But some scientists like Victor Stenger argue that science rules out basically any god worthy of the name- one that plays any role in human affairs (since that is a claim about the natural world.) And most religious beliefs probably involve a god (or some other force) that's not entirely separate from human affairs.

I am searching for something to show to incognito, and I came across this in the process, so, I will share it:
...

217
strange gods before me ॐ
31 December 2012 at 2:33 pm (UTC -6)

Yeah, I don’t really know why. My gut impression was that the reason was “people at Pharyngula are too mean, and this thread at ERV’s is a convenient place to complain about that.” But I don’t remember any particularly explicit this is why I left Pharyngula comment.

"too mean"? LOL!

221
ChasCPeterson
31 December 2012 at 6:05 pm (UTC -6)

windy ws a direct casualty of the Elevator Wars of 2011. She joined the ‘pit early, when it represented (to her, I think) Team Dawkins vs. Team Radfem. I believe she rejects what she sees as the local brand of feminisms’s emphasis on victimization and she’s offended by the perceived infantilization of women inherent in what considers Schrodinger’s-rapist paranoia. (I say this because at the time she expressed specific unhappiness with some comments I made (over there) about crossing the street to pre-empt a potentially anxious situation for somebody else. It pissed her off.)

Thanks lurker- I'm aware that there's been some bafflement at my posting here, that's fine. Chas's comment has the gist of it, although I don't agree with some details (I didn't have a problem with the street-crossing, only with the suggestion that as a woman I should prefer that outcome.) And I didn't leave Pharyngula because of the Elevator wars, it was some time before that (partly over analogous differences of opinion, though; also b/c the way certain other commenters got treated there *cough cough*).

Thank you, thank you, there will now be a collection for all the rat's asses that will no doubt be given for this fascinating bit of internet drama. *passes racist hat around*

I apologize if I appeared to be prying into your personal matters in regards to FTB.

I saw them whinging about you on the *very* day that I left - so in a way it gave me some comfort to read that others had left too:P (and that they are too fucking dense to figure out why people get tired of their bs)

[Mykeru]

To anyone concerned. I have made it clear to Lee Moore that no one person is qualified to speak for the slymepit. His lack of a better term referring to opposition of FTB was probably why there was some confusion. I wasn't aware that was the way it was being presented. I only speak for me and I have never claimed otherwise. I understand that some idiots are probably going to make the mistake of assuming anyone who is a member of this forum and speaks in public is speaking for the entire forum there isn't much can be done about that except make it clear that isn't the case.

How could anyone speak for the slymepit? We are so diverse that we can't talk about friggin' bread without having a fight.

Exactly.

Fuck you, assbag.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff29 ... hTaunt.gif

Eat a bowl of vaginas!*


*No offensive words were hurt in this demonstration of polite banter.

[Visual of rude Frenchman added]

[Corylus]

Thank you, Another Lurker.

I reckon at least a little bit of the current problem can be tracked down to people who keep using words that "don't mean what they think they mean."

I am not immune of course. Sigh, I spent most of my formative years thinking that 'Anon' was some foreign guy that wrote a lot.

Honest. :oops:

[another lurker]

OH MY GOD

Speaking of crazy shit that women do:

http://shine.yahoo.com/beauty/japanese- ... 00258.html

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/6dyxx ... 577215.jpg

Americans regularly fork over $5,000 to fix a crooked smile with braces. But in Japan, women are spending about $400 for just the opposite. On the other side of the planet, imperfect teeth are becoming a thing of beauty.

Japan's beauty trend, dubbed "tseuke-yaeba," has reached a fever pitch, with young women paying hundreds for snaggleteeth.

[Scented Nectar]

My lack of hair on my head is only indicative of the extensive amount of energy given off my high levels of brain activity. Or, it could be all those drugs I did in the 1970's...

[takes on Homer Simpson voice] Mmmm, drugs I did in the 1970's...

[welch]

If Mickey Mouse cornered Minnie Mouse in an elevator and asked out for coffee, would that be mouseginy?

:rimshot:

Mousinminnie

[d4m10n]

I used to have a friend, who, when she wanted to turn off someone who was turned on by her, would fake having a bag with grabbing her side and saying something like "uh oh, I think my colostomy bag just broke off. I'd better go to the bathroom to check". Trouble was it only worked on people who knew what colostomy bags were. :lol:

And no doubt it positively turned on those few guys who positively fetishise the idea of getting a little action "on the side" as it were.

(Just vomited a bit in mouth while typing that, but it was worth it.)

[Barael]

You have to go all the way:

http://i.imgur.com/UFqrxM2.jpg

[Al Stefanelli]

You have to go all the way:

http://i.imgur.com/UFqrxM2.jpg

That's what she said...

[Barael]

Seriously though I think there's like one to three females on the planet who would turn down either Gerard Depardieu or Sean Connery (quite crusty old-timers as they are).

[another lurker]

Seriously though I think there's like one to three females on the planet who would turn down either Gerard Depardieu or Sean Connery (quite crusty old-timers as they are).

Gerard is just fugly, sorry.

He grosses me out.

Connery was attractive in his old age but now he's a little bit *too old*.

[AndrewV69]

You assholes believe all of these things? No wonder Lousy Cunt's panties are in such a bunch.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... ictimhood/

Ummm... apparently you are unaware that said same Lousy's panties are permanently bunched. Also, a second set is apparently twisted around his neck, cutting the circulation of blood around both heads and balls.

A side trip down memory lane through the archives hosted by Scented Nectar should suffice to persuade you:

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit-a ... v-pg81.htm

AndrewV69
June 23, 12:42 am

@Notung June 22, 4:55 pm

Well I tried to submit a comment on that article that Jason posted on his blog, several times throughout the day, with the same result each time. Nada, Zilch, Nope.

OK, So I send him some email titled “MRA at the Gate, Let me in by the hair on my chinny chin chin” because something is going on, logged in to wordpress or not, comments from me, accepting is not.

So, while I am there I peruse some argybargy he put up about a chat he had on Google+ with a MRA and my jaw dropped.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... on-google/

Erm, that term Gish Gallop, it does not mean what you appear to think it means.

Scented Nectar that notorious Gynofacist directly responsible for the lack of sex all the MRAs are not experiencing, femsplains it to him. He responds by correctly quoting the definition, and then …

Nothing.

I look for some sort of amendment or edit to his post and zip.

Umm… WTH?

I am notorious for at times missing the point, but this guy makes me look like a genius. This is not a good thing. This is most certainly the one achievement in your life you want to avoid at all costs.

Ever hear the expression TAC (Tight Arsed Canadian Canukistan)? Look it up in any online dictionary. See picture.

Q.E.D.

(If it pleases M'Lord, the prosecution rests.)

[Barael]

Seriously though I think there's like one to three females on the planet who would turn down either Gerard Depardieu or Sean Connery (quite crusty old-timers as they are).

Gerard is just fugly, sorry.

I KNOW! But there's just no telling with you people!

But yeah on Connery I can sort of imagine it. He is 83 this year,but I bet he wouldn't be if he took on all the offers he got a decade or two ago.

[welch]

If Mickey Mouse cornered Minnie Mouse in an elevator and asked out for coffee, would that be mouseginy?

:rimshot:

Mickey and Minnie are in a marriage counselor's office.

Minnie says, "I don't know why Mickey insisted we come here."

The counselor says, "Mickey told me that he was concerned about your behavior. He said you've been acting strangely lately."

"No." Mickey replies. "I said she was fucking Goofy."

"This is kermit, can I help you?

No, Miss Piggy cannot come to the phone right now, she has a frog in her throat"

[Scented Nectar]

I used to have a friend, who, when she wanted to turn off someone who was turned on by her, would fake having a bag with grabbing her side and saying something like "uh oh, I think my colostomy bag just broke off. I'd better go to the bathroom to check". Trouble was it only worked on people who knew what colostomy bags were. :lol:

And no doubt it positively turned on those few guys who positively fetishise the idea of getting a little action "on the side" as it were.

(Just vomited a bit in mouth while typing that, but it was worth it.)

Somewhere out there, there's probably someone into just that. And if so, I'll take a pass on hearing the details. :shock: :lol:

[d4m10n]

None of that, not a scintilla, applies to the FTB/A+ crowd. They have no interest in either honesty, nor openness, they only care about winning, and the idea they will even begin to accept any opposing ideas as anything but evil is laughable.

You could rightly say the same thing about creationists pretty much of the time, but I still think open debates are worthwhile when the following conditions obtain:

1) The rules are fair and the moderation firm, preventing the event from turning into a shit-fest.

2) The debaters will live up to their commitment to support a specific proposition, preventing them from wandering off-topic.

3) The event will be (re)broadcast to an audience likely to consist (at least somewhat) of open-minded people who have yet to be brought up to speed on the relevant arguments and factual background.

Hence, the need for this sort of thing:
[youtube]_R7BIgSV0pY[/youtube]

The live audience consisted almost entirely of local partisans strongly supporting either faith or science, but with any luck many of the online viewers were open to rethinking their views based on empirical evidence, thereby opening their minds to the possibility of a scientific worldview.

[BarnOwl]

... Then why did she just pay a man $250 for cancer treatment 1.25" heels?

Nothing says "trendy middle-aged hipster chick with a $4000+/month mortgage*" like a new pair Fluegogmagogs.

* I have no idea what her mortgage is. I just assumed it is much more than mine.

[BarnOwl]

If you just build it, what's the sanction?

Essentially none. As a friend pointed out, that's the main problem with HOAs: if you do what you want and build without obtaining approval, there's very little they can do. However, if you go through the proper procedures to obtain approval, they make your life miserable.

That being said, we've submitted all the necessary documents, photos, etc.

[EdwardGemmer]

Wow, I read that Adam Lee tweet and really saw red. I'm tired of racists like Adam Lee pulling this shit. Stop touching and harassing women? Let me guess, black people touch women all the time, right? It is so great that we went through the civil rights movement so this guy can sit and talk about how important it is to judge people based on their physical appearance.

[sKepptiksowat]

I used to have a friend, who, when she wanted to turn off someone who was turned on by her, would fake having a bag with grabbing her side and saying something like "uh oh, I think my colostomy bag just broke off. I'd better go to the bathroom to check". Trouble was it only worked on people who knew what colostomy bags were. :lol:

And no doubt it positively turned on those few guys who positively fetishise the idea of getting a little action "on the side" as it were.

(Just vomited a bit in mouth while typing that, but it was worth it.)

Somewhere out there, there's probably someone into just that. And if so, I'll take a pass on hearing the details. :shock: :lol:

I would start with Germany.

[welch]

Btw, that whole blog post was like the 2nd non-tf00t FTB post I ever read, and it so smock full of crazy that it needs a trigger warning for anyone suffering from nut allergy. It's also to only thing I've ever read by Taslima, so when posters here were talking about Taslima not being as crazy as the rest of the FC(n) shortly after I had signed up here, I was literally scratching my head.

My fave picture from her post about "men hate woman's bodies" -
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/fil ... having.jpg
OMG men make women bleeeeeed by forcing them to shave their legs!!!!

Learn how to use a fucking razor for shit's sake.

[another lurker]

Btw, that whole blog post was like the 2nd non-tf00t FTB post I ever read, and it so smock full of crazy that it needs a trigger warning for anyone suffering from nut allergy. It's also to only thing I've ever read by Taslima, so when posters here were talking about Taslima not being as crazy as the rest of the FC(n) shortly after I had signed up here, I was literally scratching my head.

My fave picture from her post about "men hate woman's bodies" -
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/fil ... having.jpg
OMG men make women bleeeeeed by forcing them to shave their legs!!!!

Learn how to use a fucking razor for shit's sake.

I shave *everything* with a men's razor.

I am quite good with it, btw :P

And I do it for myself, not for women, and not for the patriarchy.

[Al Stefanelli]

Wow, I read that Adam Lee tweet and really saw red. I'm tired of racists like Adam Lee pulling this shit. Stop touching and harassing women? Let me guess, black people touch women all the time, right? It is so great that we went through the civil rights movement so this guy can sit and talk about how important it is to judge people based on their physical appearance.

The whole lot of 'em are crazier than a shithouse rat...

[welch]

Imagine this, but with a white background and a gumby figure in the background.

I suppose for some, it is, just as some skeptics base their position on a desire to feel superior to stupid people.

I was just thinking about this. I was 'arguing' with idiots on yahoo comments, and feeling all 'superior' to people who cannot manage to type without contradicting their own stances. Ok, to be honest, I don't reallly feel 'superior'. I don't even feel superior when I call them 'fools'. I'm not very good at being mean, or hateful. I *try* really hard, to hit them with incisive, biting commentary, but I feel that I fall short. My heart just isn't in it.

And then I thought about all of the mean, hateful comments on FTB and A+. These people are *pros* at the put-down.

Take cunt's sig for example "You are a bad person. You say horrible things and you should feel bad about yourself."

The entire point is to shame and upset the target of the insult. To make them fucking *hate* themselves. These people are in it b/c they love to draw blood. And then they love to skull-fuck their adversary into oblivion. Their egos are so fragile that they must constantly fluff 'em up by being mean on the internet.

This is probably one of the many reasons why they were so nasty to me over 'grammar gate'. Any chance to make someone squirm...they just cannot resist!

No, they actually suck at putting people down. What they have are numbers. But individually, they're about as witty as a dead sloth.

[AbsurdWalls]

I'm dealing with my doxing video and it's like being Sisyphus. I realized that the 12 version of the video layout file I saved inexplicably reverted to the one little clip. That one clip apparently over-wrote the whole thing. The same is true of all revisions going back several days, so I've basically, once again, lost hours of work.

That's a bitch, because now I have to sort of remember what I did, what I have to redo, and none of it is as much fun the second or third time around.

I know this is little good to you now, but backups man! At the very least get a Dropbox account and keep a rolling handful of backups in there of your current work. Mine currently has ThesisCurrent, ThesisOld4 and ThesisOld5. That way if I find out I deleted a load of stuff I shouldn't have there are old versions to look at. All of that is on top of already having the built-in OS X back-up stuff going on (Time Machine etc).

Dropbox handles versioning automatically.

Sorry, brain is ded. Not Dropbox. Get a cheap Crashplan account. THAT does versioning automatically, and is quite awesome.

I think Dropbox does do some sort of versioning (or at least persistence of old files) but not in any way I'd want to rely on. The backing up I count on Dropbox for is not into the cloud, but onto my other devices.