You Feminists still think like this?

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

You Feminists still think like this?

Post by Fyyr » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:09 am

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/the- ... ution.html

That is NewsWeek. If you watch porn you are a rapist. That's what NewsWeek says.



For the Conservative point of view...
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/ ... index.html




In the end, we will know that all of this 'human trafficking thing' is like the White Slavery scare of the 20-30s. White women scared about their blond haired daughters are having sex with Black men. That's what is fueling this.

Melissa Farley sounds like such a nice name. I bet she is some old, ugly, white, dyke, who hates men. Didn't get asked to the prom by the cute guy in high school. And is now inflicting her hatred of men through NewsWeek onto the world. If this story were written by a man about women, men and women both would agree that he was fucking misogynist asshole. If the so called statistics were collected by a man about women, he would be called a quack and a sham.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: You Feminists still think like this?

Post by Tudamorf » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:09 pm

Farley’s study found that johns themselves viewed jail as a far more powerful deterrent to recidivism, and the strongest deterrent of all was the threat of being registered as a sex offender.
So, her solution to men following their instincts (instincts she clearly fails to grasp) is to ostracize them from society for the rest of their life, wearing a tracking device so that everyone can steer clear of them.

What a lunatic.

Imagine if that logic were applied every time a woman followed her sexual instincts to harm a man (something that probably happens far more than the reverse, despite what feminists claim).

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: You Feminists still think like this?

Post by Fyyr » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:31 pm

If Newsweek chose the Grand Wizard of the KKK to do a study of Blacks, it would be written this way.

Statistics is used to study the normals in sample populations to gather or deduce information about the general population.
She cites the fliers comments as if they are the norm.
Her control group is n=100?, that in and of itself is not large enough a group for a scientific study.

It is slanted from the start in the language, if you pay for a service then you are buying a person. If I pay a woman to cut my hair, I must then own her because I bought and paid for her.
It already comes with the conclusion made that women don't like sex, especially oral and anal sex. That sex with men is innately revolting from the start.
It comes preloaded with the conclusion that the norm is for men to be abusive to women.
It comes preloaded with the conclusion that many women do not like rough sex themselves.


I think the only thing that this study and article proves is that ALL feminists are ugly man-hating lesbians.
If one example in the sample population proves the normal in the general population, this must be true.

I have skimmed Farley's other work, she is the last person any rational editor would rely on for objective science.

erianaiel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:33 am

Re: You Feminists still think like this?

Post by erianaiel » Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:17 pm

Yes, NewsWeek clearly needs to improve its standards and article vetting.

But what has gotten you (*) so upset?


Eri
(* you being the plural you)

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: You Feminists still think like this?

Post by Fyyr » Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:27 am

I'm upset at the extreme drop in standards introduced by the forces of the Internet on editing and journalism. They dont even use spell check. Filled with grammatical errors.

I'm upset that a mainstream publication would publish this trash. It's not even op Ed. It's sold as fact.

Farley et al and the NW writer state that it was nearly impossible to find men for the study who did not "buy women". It was even "shocking" to them. Then categorize these men as abusers and probable rapists of women as the norm. Conclusion, most men are abusers and rapists of women. Is it fair to take umbrage when NW calls you a rapist because of your gender, or not?

It's not like I can cancel my subscription to the magazine or anything, so I'll rant here. Thank you.
I'm tempted to even set up my own survey, actually.

erianaiel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:33 am

Re: You Feminists still think like this?

Post by erianaiel » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:05 am

Fyyr wrote:I'm upset at the extreme drop in standards introduced by the forces of the Internet on editing and journalism. They dont even use spell check. Filled with grammatical errors.

I'm upset that a mainstream publication would publish this trash. It's not even op Ed. It's sold as fact.

Farley et al and the NW writer state that it was nearly impossible to find men for the study who did not "buy women". It was even "shocking" to them. Then categorize these men as abusers and probable rapists of women as the norm. Conclusion, most men are abusers and rapists of women. Is it fair to take umbrage when NW calls you a rapist because of your gender, or not?

It's not like I can cancel my subscription to the magazine or anything, so I'll rant here. Thank you.
I'm tempted to even set up my own survey, actually.
Yes, well, we already agreed that this was neither science nor journalism. You would be hard pressed (about as hard as Farley was to find subject that matched her preconceived notions) to find somebody who believes otherwise.
It would also be hard, and probably unreasonable, to expect NewsWeek to buck the trend and produce more indepth stories and report on actual science. It would help I suspect if we had more journalists who completed their secondary education. And even more if we had owners and publishers who cared about reporting facts instead of regurgitating what their audience wants to hear or read or see.
I guess you could say that things like this is what we all can expect if we resort to 'faith based science'.

And no 'we' feminists not only do not still think like this, we never did to begin with. Contrary to popular belief even if women are generally frequently exasperated by men, they are as a whole quite fond of the breed. I would appreciated it if in the future you would refrain posing your questions so that answering them either way would condemn myself (or to put it in other terms: Did you stop beating your wife/girlfriend/so recently? Answer yes or no please...)
Please understand that feminism is not a monolythic political group, nor a universal philosophy, but a myriad of ideas and beliefs that if they have anything in common it is along the lines of 'there are many social, economical and cultural rights assigned to men as a matter of course that are denied women also as a matter of coarse and without conscious thought, and we should strive to give every human being regardless of gender the same rights, freedoms and obligations'. Yes, we have been making progress, but the fundamental millenia old inequality has not gone away, it has merely hidden itself deeper. The abolishment of slavery did not end the practice (slaves were simply called prisoners and forced to work in their 'prison'), the repeal of discrimination laws did not put an end to the discrimination of blacks. And the equal opportunity laws passed did not end the discrimination of women as they did not adress the unconscious belief (as expressed in language and culture and the entire body of law) that women were inferior and less capable.


Eri

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: You Feminists still think like this?

Post by Fyyr » Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:50 pm

economical and cultural rights assigned to men as a matter of course that are denied women also as a matter of coarse and without conscious thought
The converse is also true.

Those rights that you assign are actually responsibilities and duties. And they are what men still are judged upon for mating and breeding, by women, feminist or not. And the more independent the woman, to the higher degree that the man must fulfill those to be attractive to her.

Example, you will frequently see male doctors with female nurse wives. You will never, to the point of absurd statistical anomaly, a female doctor married to a male nurse. Strong independent women(feminists), who are completely free in every economic means, will not choose a male who makes much less than them. There are exceptions, as noted, but statistically marginally insignificant.

The drive is so innate in women, that even when they can comfortably raise dozens of children by themselves, they still choose a mate based on his ability to provide for her children. And even if they do choose a man with less means than she, I would guarantee that that woman would have the nagging 'feeling' that she should be doing better.


And no 'we' feminists not only do not still think like this, we never did to begin with.
Well, I was intentionally, and sarcastically, using the type of license or logic that Farley is using. When one man out of 101 Bostonians, is now the poster child for, and speaks for and represents all other men. That one example out of 101, represents us all. Then one ugly man-hating lesbian feminist must represent all feminists, they ALL must be and have always been ugly man-hating lesbians. Imagine if NewsWeek or Time categorized you in this way, as a matter of mundane course.

Would you be upset? Take any other mainstream media outlet of choice, if like me you don't subscribe to Time or NewsWeek.

User avatar
Zute
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: You Feminists still think like this?

Post by Zute » Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:16 pm

Some men prefer looks over brains. They don't care if their wife can hold up her end of an intellectual conversation. Perhaps some women prefer brains over looks, so they marry well-educated men. Well-educated men tend to make more money than their less well-educated counterparts. That could be another explanation of why female doctors tend to not marry nurses. Then again, I think men tend to be a bit intimidated by women who are "more successful" than they are, so they might not pursue such possibilities.

Then again, women sometimes want to quit working when they start having a family and they'd like to make sure that their kids, and themselves, are well-cared for. I don't necessarily fault women, or men, for doing that. That sounds like planning for a successful life to me.
Formerly known as Panamah

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: You Feminists still think like this?

Post by Tudamorf » Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:03 pm

Zute wrote:Perhaps some women prefer brains over looks, so they marry well-educated men. Well-educated men tend to make more money than their less well-educated counterparts. That could be another explanation of why female doctors tend to not marry nurses. Then again, I think men tend to be a bit intimidated by women who are "more successful" than they are, so they might not pursue such possibilities.

Then again, women sometimes want to quit working when they start having a family and they'd like to make sure that their kids, and themselves, are well-cared for. I don't necessarily fault women, or men, for doing that. That sounds like planning for a successful life to me.
You're missing the point. No matter how successful they are, women instinctively look for men who are even more successful. Men don't.

Women follow one set of instincts, and men follow another. Although those instincts have a rational evolutionary basis, on an individual level there is no intellectual decision making involved.

Today, women's instincts are accepted and encouraged, whereas men's instincts are politically incorrect or even vilified. Why is that?

erianaiel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:33 am

Re: You Feminists still think like this?

Post by erianaiel » Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:15 am

Tudamorf wrote:
Zute wrote:Perhaps some women prefer brains over looks, so they marry well-educated men. Well-educated men tend to make more money than their less well-educated counterparts. That could be another explanation of why female doctors tend to not marry nurses. Then again, I think men tend to be a bit intimidated by women who are "more successful" than they are, so they might not pursue such possibilities.

Then again, women sometimes want to quit working when they start having a family and they'd like to make sure that their kids, and themselves, are well-cared for. I don't necessarily fault women, or men, for doing that. That sounds like planning for a successful life to me.
You're missing the point. No matter how successful they are, women instinctively look for men who are even more successful. Men don't.

Women follow one set of instincts, and men follow another. Although those instincts have a rational evolutionary basis, on an individual level there is no intellectual decision making involved.

Today, women's instincts are accepted and encouraged, whereas men's instincts are politically incorrect or even vilified. Why is that?
Allways with the simplifications.
But, to encourage your preconceived notions: Because after 2 millenia and more of women being under permanent death threat for daring to act like a human being maybe it is clear that men's instincts -are- vile?

In truth, as much as women look for a man who earns well, men look for a woman who earns less or preferably nothing. You claim that women 'instinctively' look for men who are successful, you do not seem to realise that for successful women have a very hard time to even find a man who is not intimidated or resentful by her success?

Besides, this discussion was not about partner selection criteria, but about a raging fanatic given free reign to present her non-science. The publication should have used a better screening process, but let us be honest, they probably have nobody able to do the screening (nor much interest since contoversy sells). And news (and other) media everywhere are publishing conjecture, outright lies and even statistics as fact and people only get upset when it conflicts with their views on a subject.
The 'science' of the article was of the same quality and style as the 'negotiations' in Washington these past weeks. Starting with a conclusion and then refusing to budge and misrepresenting facts so they seem to support it.

Which leads me to the question, again: We all agree that this research does not deserve to be called science and you will be hard pressed to find somebody who thinks it does. So why bring it up, and why here?


Eri

Post Reply