This week in the feminist insane-o-sphere: Oxford teacher worried Oxford will find coronavirus vaccine

[Metaphor]

In what they choose to be silent about, seriously?

Yes, seriously.

 

[Jokodo]

You aren't talking with feminists, you're talking with me, Jokodo. In response to me telling you to look at your persecution complex, you responded saying this was "Ironic from somebody who believes in the persecution complex writ large of patriarchy theory."

I'm not an English native speaker, but I'm pretty confident that the only obvious interpretation of that sentence is that Jokodo believes in patriarchy theory. Not that some or all feminists, who Jokodo may or may not consider himself a part of, do.

Well Jokodo: do you believe in patriarchy theory?

I accept, based on solid evidence, that women and men around the world tend to receive different reactions to the same actions, in ways that sometimes harm men more, and sometimes women, and always reduce either's freedom of choice. I believe that many, though not all, of those differences in people's reactions can be summarised as stemming from viewing women as weak, passive, caring, worthy of protection, and men as strong, active, aggressive, self-sufficient. This is true both for differences that harm men - e.g. receiving harsher sentences for the very same crimes, and for differences harming women - e.g. being overlooked for management positions, though some (many?) differences may not be straightforwardly reduced to this dichotomy. I believe that the world would be a better place for men and women if all people received the treatment they deserve based an what they do, not on who they are.

Does that mean I "believe in patriarchy theory"? I don't know. Does that make me a sufferer of a persecution complex anywhere near as intense as yours? I doubt it.

 

[Jokodo]

In what they choose to be silent about, seriously?

Yes, seriously.

So I can seriously assume that you support "corrective rape"? I haven't seen you rage against it...

 

[Metaphor]

In what they choose to be silent about, seriously?

Yes, seriously.

So I can seriously assume that you support "corrective rape"? I haven't seen you rage against it...

No, I don't.

 

[Metaphor]

You aren't talking with feminists, you're talking with me, Jokodo. In response to me telling you to look at your persecution complex, you responded saying this was "Ironic from somebody who believes in the persecution complex writ large of patriarchy theory."

I'm not an English native speaker, but I'm pretty confident that the only obvious interpretation of that sentence is that Jokodo believes in patriarchy theory. Not that some or all feminists, who Jokodo may or may not consider himself a part of, do.

Well Jokodo: do you believe in patriarchy theory?

I accept, based on solid evidence, that women and men around the world tend to receive different reactions to the same actions, in ways that sometimes harm men more, and sometimes women, and always reduce either's freedom of choice. I believe that many, though not all, of those differences in people's reactions can be summarised as stemming from viewing women as weak, passive, caring, worthy of protection, and men as strong, active, aggressive, self-sufficient. This is true both for differences that harm men - e.g. receiving harsher sentences for the very same crimes, and for differences harming women - e.g. being overlooked for management positions, though some (many?) differences may not be straightforwardly reduced to this dichotomy. I believe that the world would be a better place for men and women if all people received the treatment they deserve based an what they do, not on who they are.

Does that mean I "believe in patriarchy theory"? I don't know. Does that make me a sufferer of a persecution complex anywhere near as intense as yours? I doubt it.

You believe in patriarchy theory if you think that society - controlled by men - engages in a system of oppression against women, and this oppression benefitted men historically and currently.

 

[Jokodo]

So I can seriously assume that you support "corrective rape"? I haven't seen you rage against it...

No, I don't.

By your logic, we are allowed to conclude that you do. You literally just told me to look at what they remain silent about as evidence that feminists hate me. What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander. Or do you demand special treatment for yourself?

 

[Jokodo]

I accept, based on solid evidence, that women and men around the world tend to receive different reactions to the same actions, in ways that sometimes harm men more, and sometimes women, and always reduce either's freedom of choice. I believe that many, though not all, of those differences in people's reactions can be summarised as stemming from viewing women as weak, passive, caring, worthy of protection, and men as strong, active, aggressive, self-sufficient. This is true both for differences that harm men - e.g. receiving harsher sentences for the very same crimes, and for differences harming women - e.g. being overlooked for management positions, though some (many?) differences may not be straightforwardly reduced to this dichotomy. I believe that the world would be a better place for men and women if all people received the treatment they deserve based an what they do, not on who they are.

Does that mean I "believe in patriarchy theory"? I don't know. Does that make me a sufferer of a persecution complex anywhere near as intense as yours? I doubt it.

You believe in patriarchy theory if you think that society - controlled by men - engages in a system of oppression against women, and this oppression benefitted men historically and currently.

I don't think anyone would deny that women - mothers - are at least as instrumental to instilling gender norms in kids as are men. By that definition taken strictly, no one really believes in patriarchy theory, adding to the long list of problems only created by your persecution complex.

 

[Jokodo]

Quite ironic, coming from someone who, with religious fervor, opposes an article that actually makes a valid point that has nothing to do with feminism because it comes from a satanistfeminist.

No, I didn't oppose the ideas in the article "because feminist".

I opposed the stupid ideas in the article because they were idiotic. It's possible somebody who isn't a feminist could imagine similar deranged fantasies about the negative consequences of Oxford discovering a coronavirus vaccine, but this particular article was definitely written by a feminist.

So pointing out that a world with a vaccine and a lession learnt that will help us better cope with the next pandemic is a better place than a world with a vaccine and no lesson learnt where governments grey to pretend thay they did everything right, is "deluded"? Generally or only when uttered by a feminist? Because I think it's quite a reasonable observation and I haven't seen you make a single counter argument beyond blatantly attacking the messenger.

 

[Metaphor]

So I can seriously assume that you support "corrective rape"? I haven't seen you rage against it...

No, I don't.

By your logic, we are allowed to conclude that you do. You literally just told me to look at what they remain silent about as evidence that feminists hate me. Or do you demand special treatment for yourself?

No, I do not demand special treatment. What feminists remain silent about with the context of their usual output is telling of feminist tactics and values.

For example, feminists treat white men and men of colour differently. When the news of the 2015-16 new year's eve mass sexual assaults in Germany broke, the usual suspects were noticeably silent. This is because the assaults were largely by men of non-European background, and feminists needed to get a purchase on it compatible with their intersectional credentials.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...sts-aren-t-scared-write-about-cologne-attacks

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-feminists-refusing-to-discuss-the-cologne-sex-attacks-

That is one example, but there are others. Whenever white men can be shown to a numerical majority in some issue, feminists are quick to (sometimes parenthetically) point out that it's "mostly White" men. They say this even when individual white men are less likely to perpetrate a crime than an individual person of colour.

Lesbians and bisexual women are more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence than heterosexual women. I've never seen a feminist address this. I suspect if a feminist does address it, it will be re-cast as the fault of the patriarchy.

 

[Metaphor]

Quite ironic, coming from someone who, with religious fervor, opposes an article that actually makes a valid point that has nothing to do with feminism because it comes from a satanistfeminist.

No, I didn't oppose the ideas in the article "because feminist".

I opposed the stupid ideas in the article because they were idiotic. It's possible somebody who isn't a feminist could imagine similar deranged fantasies about the negative consequences of Oxford discovering a coronavirus vaccine, but this particular article was definitely written by a feminist.

So pointing out that a world with a vaccine and a lession learnt that will help us better cope with the next pandemic is a better place than a world with a vaccine and no lesson learnt where governments grey to pretend thay they did everything right, is "deluded"? Generally or only when uttered by a feminist? Because I think it's quite a reasonable observation and I haven't seen you make a single counter argument beyond blatantly attacking the messenger.

It's deluded because she has no evidence that lessons will "be forgotten" nor does she do anything to evidence this "increasing patriotism" which she even likens to "war-time rhetoric" ffs. She makes errors of fact about the availability of a vaccine and asserts connections without evidence.

 

[Toni]

I accept, based on solid evidence, that women and men around the world tend to receive different reactions to the same actions, in ways that sometimes harm men more, and sometimes women, and always reduce either's freedom of choice. I believe that many, though not all, of those differences in people's reactions can be summarised as stemming from viewing women as weak, passive, caring, worthy of protection, and men as strong, active, aggressive, self-sufficient. This is true both for differences that harm men - e.g. receiving harsher sentences for the very same crimes, and for differences harming women - e.g. being overlooked for management positions, though some (many?) differences may not be straightforwardly reduced to this dichotomy. I believe that the world would be a better place for men and women if all people received the treatment they deserve based an what they do, not on who they are.

Does that mean I "believe in patriarchy theory"? I don't know. Does that make me a sufferer of a persecution complex anywhere near as intense as yours? I doubt it.

You believe in patriarchy theory if you think that society - controlled by men - engages in a system of oppression against women, and this oppression benefitted men historically and currently.

I don't think anyone would deny that women - mothers - are at least as instrumental to instilling gender norms in kids as are men. By that definition taken strictly, no one really believes in patriarchy theory, adding to the long list of problems only created by your persecution complex.

Parents of both genders are primary instillers and reinforcers of gender norms of children. These are reinforced by other family members, friends, school structure and schoolmates and so on, to include society as a whole.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't think anyone would deny that women - mothers - are at least as instrumental to instilling gender norms in kids as are men. By that definition taken strictly, no one really believes in patriarchy theory, adding to the long list of problems only created by your persecution complex.

You are partly right. The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.

For patriarchy theory to be true, women would have to have been massively incompetent or masochists in raising their children over the centuries, raising sons who will oppress them and daughters who will become co-conspirators in this oppression.

But you are quite wrong about nobody really believing in patriarchy theory. They believe in it, it's just wrong. There are people who really believe in God, and they're just wrong.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ah. Ok. Yes, She didn't make that point, I did.

I would still say her speculative worries should not prevent us from welcoming a breakthrough from Oxford.

And she didn't say otherwise. She didn't say that she wouldn't welcome a breakthrough from Oxford. She said that she is also worried about how that might be used.

Well, it’s in the title, and imo also quite strongly implied in the article itself, with phrases like, 'surely I should be proud...'

And her saying that the UK government is not, "motivating the UK to take a proud role at the global stage" doesn't seem to stack up.

 

[Jokodo]

By your logic, we are allowed to conclude that you do. You literally just told me to look at what they remain silent about as evidence that feminists hate me. Or do you demand special treatment for yourself?

No, I do not demand special treatment. What feminists remain silent about with the context of their usual output is telling of feminist tactics and values.

For example, feminists treat white men and men of colour differently. When the news of the 2015-16 new year's eve mass sexual assaults in Germany broke, the usual suspects were noticeably silent. This is because the assaults were largely by men of non-European background, and feminists needed to get a purchase on it compatible with their intersectional credentials.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...sts-aren-t-scared-write-about-cologne-attacks

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-feminists-refusing-to-discuss-the-cologne-sex-attacks-

That is one example, but there are others. Whenever white men can be shown to a numerical majority in some issue, feminists are quick to (sometimes parenthetically) point out that it's "mostly White" men. They say this even when individual white men are less likely to perpetrate a crime than an individual person of colour.

Lesbians and bisexual women are more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence than heterosexual women. I've never seen a feminist address this. I suspect if a feminist does address it, it will be re-cast as the fault of the patriarchy.

That's a lot of words to say you can't back up your claim thay feminists hate me for who I am with anything thay would actually indicate feminists hate me for who I am. The closest you get is pointing our they remain silent on thingsyou feel they should have said something. Like you remaining silent on "corrective rape".

Special treatment it is.

 

[Metaphor]

By your logic, we are allowed to conclude that you do. You literally just told me to look at what they remain silent about as evidence that feminists hate me. Or do you demand special treatment for yourself?

No, I do not demand special treatment. What feminists remain silent about with the context of their usual output is telling of feminist tactics and values.

For example, feminists treat white men and men of colour differently. When the news of the 2015-16 new year's eve mass sexual assaults in Germany broke, the usual suspects were noticeably silent. This is because the assaults were largely by men of non-European background, and feminists needed to get a purchase on it compatible with their intersectional credentials.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...sts-aren-t-scared-write-about-cologne-attacks

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-feminists-refusing-to-discuss-the-cologne-sex-attacks-

That is one example, but there are others. Whenever white men can be shown to a numerical majority in some issue, feminists are quick to (sometimes parenthetically) point out that it's "mostly White" men. They say this even when individual white men are less likely to perpetrate a crime than an individual person of colour.

Lesbians and bisexual women are more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence than heterosexual women. I've never seen a feminist address this. I suspect if a feminist does address it, it will be re-cast as the fault of the patriarchy.

That's a lot of words to say you can't back up your claim thay feminists hate me for who I am with anything thay would actually indicate feminists hate me for who I am. The closest you get is pointing our they remain silent on thingsyou feel they should have said something. Like you remaining silent on "corrective rape".

Special treatment it is.

Sure Jan.

 

[Jokodo]

That's a lot of words to say you can't back up your claim thay feminists hate me for who I am with anything thay would actually indicate feminists hate me for who I am. The closest you get is pointing our they remain silent on thingsyou feel they should have said something. Like you remaining silent on "corrective rape".

Special treatment it is.

Sure Jan.

It would have been so easy. You were so sure influential feminists hate you for being a white man (and me presumably even more for being a straight white man and the family's main breadwinner), I merely asked you to show examples of that, and you failed without even trying instead running a marathon with those goalposts.

 

[Jokodo]

I don't think anyone would deny that women - mothers - are at least as instrumental to instilling gender norms in kids as are men. By that definition taken strictly, no one really believes in patriarchy theory, adding to the long list of problems only created by your persecution complex.

You are partly right. The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.

For patriarchy theory to be true, women would have to have been massively incompetent or masochists in raising their children over the centuries, raising sons who will oppress them and daughters who will become co-conspirators in this oppression.

But you are quite wrong about nobody really believing in patriarchy theory. They believe in it, it's just wrong. There are people who really believe in God, and they're just wrong.

And there are people who believe that everyone that isn't exactly of their opinion must believe their strawman version of patriarchy theory. They're wrong too.

 

[Metaphor]

That's a lot of words to say you can't back up your claim thay feminists hate me for who I am with anything thay would actually indicate feminists hate me for who I am. The closest you get is pointing our they remain silent on thingsyou feel they should have said something. Like you remaining silent on "corrective rape".

Special treatment it is.

Sure Jan.

It would have been so easy. You were so sure influential feminists hate you for being a white man (and me presumably even more for being a straight white man and the family's main breadwinner), I merely asked you to show examples of that, and you failed without even trying instead running a marathon with those goalposts.

Sure Jan.

 

[Metaphor]

But you are quite wrong about nobody really believing in patriarchy theory. They believe in it, it's just wrong. There are people who really believe in God, and they're just wrong.

And there are people who believe that everyone that isn't exactly of their opinion must believe their strawman version of patriarchy theory. They're wrong too.

Patriarchy theory - that men oppress women - is not a strawman. Look up patriarchy theory on wikipedia and go to the 'feminism' section. It's all there.

Of course, there are more-batshit-insane versions of it (that men's oppression of women is ineluctably tied in with capitalism, etc) but it doesn't need extra adornments to be called out as false.

 

[Jokodo]

But you are quite wrong about nobody really believing in patriarchy theory. They believe in it, it's just wrong. There are people who really believe in God, and they're just wrong.

And there are people who believe that everyone that isn't exactly of their opinion must believe their strawman version of patriarchy theory. They're wrong too.

Patriarchy theory - that men oppress women - is not a strawman. Look up patriarchy theory on wikipedia and go to the 'feminism' section. It's all there.

Of course, there are more-batshit-insane versions of it (that men's oppression of women is ineluctably tied in with capitalism, etc) but it doesn't need extra adornments to be called out as false.

Some versions if patriarchy theory say essentially what I says above. There maybe other versions that are nearly as batshit crazy as your posts, but I've yet to meet anyone advocating for them.

So, which part of my description above do your disagree with? Which party do you consider batshit crazy?