This week in feminism: The Hottest Thing a Man Can Do Is Not Be a Jerk About Astrology

[Arctish]

Perhaps it indicates something about your posting style.

This isn't the first time you posted something that you thought would be easily discerned as sarcasm but others read as sincere. It's not the second or third time, either. That sort of miscommunication can happen to anyone; it's hard to 'hear' a tone of voice in a text format. But it seems to happen pretty often with your posts. You might consider using emojis or [/sarcasm] more often.

 

[Toni]

Perhaps it indicates something about your posting style.

This isn't the first time you posted something that you thought would be easily discerned as sarcasm but others read as sincere. It's not the second or third time, either. That sort of miscommunication can happen to anyone; it's hard to 'hear' a tone of voice in a text format. But it seems to happen pretty often with your posts. You might consider using emojis or [/sarcasm] more often.

Great suggestion.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

If you think that the devotion of some women to discussions about astrology is absurd and beyond the pale, please consider the on radio discussions of play by play Packers games by Packers fans.

Unlike astrology, Packers are real.

And they're 3-0.

A particular individual's lack of interest in the details of football is perfectly normal. However, the actions, reactions, and outcomes being discussed are all real and explainable, unlike the fantasy world of astrology. I wouldn't be interested in a conversation about an orchestra's interpretation of a piece of music, but I know that what's being discussed is of this world.

 

[Toni]

If you think that the devotion of some women to discussions about astrology is absurd and beyond the pale, please consider the on radio discussions of play by play Packers games by Packers fans.

Unlike astrology, Packers are real.

And they're 3-0.

A particular individual's lack of interest in the details of football is perfectly normal. However, the actions, reactions, and outcomes being discussed are all real and explainable, unlike the fantasy world of astrology. I wouldn't be interested in a conversation about an orchestra's interpretation of a piece of music, but I know that what's being discussed is of this world.

Again: not the point of the article.

There is nothing wrong with using a belief in astrology to be a screening tool when you select potential romantic or sexual partners.

And there is nothing wrong and probably a lot of wisdom in using kindness and tolerance for those with different viewpoints and interests in screening potential romantic or sexual partners.

 

[thebeave]

Maybe a man could write an article titled, "The Hottest Thing a Woman Could Do is Investigate Astrology and Conclude It's Bullshit." I can safely assure all the single women out there that the available pool of men would increase dramatically. And you would not come across as totally coo coo for Coco Puffs.

 

[ruby sparks]

Okay, I'm acutely aware that this thread isn't about me...but seriously?

When ZiprHead dishonestly quoted that snippet, I thought he was just being a douchebag and pretending my sarcastic words were an actual admission of serial-killer behaviour in my childhood. But now I find out he genuinely thought I was confessing to killing and torturing small animals.

Obviously, not all men who hate astrology are killers, but Reynolds’ argument seeks to highlight the insidious through line that unites seemingly casual displays of sexism and machismo to their horrific extremes — and it doesn’t just begin with the modern masculinity crisis as we know it today.

Then, to express how utterly and insanely stupid feminist thought trains are decoupled from reality, I mocked the implication that astrology hatred was associated with being a serial killer:

I know when I was a kid, I tortured and killed small animals, and then I read the astrology column so I could scoff at it.

And you are telling me it wasn't clear that I was mocking the article, but rather it seemed I was sincerely confessing to serial-killer behaviours as a child?

Perhaps it indicates something about the psychology of ZiprHead, and anyone else who thought serial-killing behaviour in childhood was totally something that a 'right winger' would do, and then also casually confess to doing, on a message board.

Yes, initially I thought you were being serious, but then when you explained that you were being sarcastic, I believed you. I never mentioned anything about serial-killer behaviour. I myself once tortured and in so doing 'accidentally' killed a kitten about 50 years ago and I have felt really bad about it ever since (it was my mother's kitten and she had just sent me away to boarding school, and later in life my therapist said I was very, very angry about that, how dare my mother replace me with a kitten?). But, I had friends in 1st form at secondary school who played cricket with baby starlings (I mean using the baby starlings as 'balls' not playing cricket against a team of baby starlings) and I would not take part in that, so I can console myself with that at least, as regards the extent of my childhood dysfunctionality.

And as far as I'm concerned, none of the above has anything whatsoever to do with my later activities as a serial-killer anyway.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

And they're 3-0.

A particular individual's lack of interest in the details of football is perfectly normal. However, the actions, reactions, and outcomes being discussed are all real and explainable, unlike the fantasy world of astrology. I wouldn't be interested in a conversation about an orchestra's interpretation of a piece of music, but I know that what's being discussed is of this world.

Again: not the point of the article.

There is nothing wrong with using a belief in astrology to be a screening tool when you select potential romantic or sexual partners.

And there is nothing wrong and probably a lot of wisdom in using kindness and tolerance for those with different viewpoints and interests in screening potential romantic or sexual partners.

The point of the article was (as it clearly stated):

1) Men feel entitled to belittle and denigrate astrology for the same reason they feel entitled to belittle and denigrate anything else society has coded as “feminine” or otherwise related to women

2) Men believe that womanhood itself is inherently bad.

I see no advantage to being a jerk about astrology or anything else; after all, the astrology believer may have non-believing friends who will be turned off by that behavior. But attributing the opinion about this particular load of manure to "the patriarchy" and "a belief in the inherent badness of womanhood" is as absurd as astrology itself.

 

[Toni]

Maybe a man could write an article titled, "The Hottest Thing a Woman Could Do is Investigate Astrology and Conclude It's Bullshit." I can safely assure all the single women out there that the available pool of men would increase dramatically. And you would not come across as totally coo coo for Coco Puffs.

I dunno. According to Derec, women are able to pick and choose as it is. I'm not sure women should change a darn thing about how they present themselves, if Derec is to be believed.

 

[Toni]

And they're 3-0.

A particular individual's lack of interest in the details of football is perfectly normal. However, the actions, reactions, and outcomes being discussed are all real and explainable, unlike the fantasy world of astrology. I wouldn't be interested in a conversation about an orchestra's interpretation of a piece of music, but I know that what's being discussed is of this world.

Again: not the point of the article.

There is nothing wrong with using a belief in astrology to be a screening tool when you select potential romantic or sexual partners.

And there is nothing wrong and probably a lot of wisdom in using kindness and tolerance for those with different viewpoints and interests in screening potential romantic or sexual partners.

The point of the article was (as it clearly stated):

1) Men feel entitled to belittle and denigrate astrology for the same reason they feel entitled to belittle and denigrate anything else society has coded as “feminine” or otherwise related to women

2) Men believe that womanhood itself is inherently bad.

I see no advantage to being a jerk about astrology or anything else; after all, the astrology believer may have non-believing friends who will be turned off by that behavior. But attributing the opinion about this particular load of manure to "the patriarchy" and "a belief in the inherent badness of womanhood" is as absurd as astrology itself.

I don't know if I completely agree with your last satement.

If one believes that womanhood itself is inherently bad (I would say: less competent) then that directly points to patriarchy is responsible for the inherent badness of women and what they like. We have thousands of years of evidence that this is largely true. One of the worst things a boy or man can be called is girl or woman. Women were relegated to home life, forbidden education, the right to self determination, to own property, to hold office or to vote for most of human history. Women are still treated as spoils of war, to be kidnapped, raped, held against their will as slaves of various sorts. Their medical decisions are subject to various laws in a way that men's are not. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the FIRST woman EVER to lie in state in the US. For the most part, men still run things and run things according to their world view, which includes to serve their particular best interests, even if it does not serve all of humanity's best interests. Patriarchy is alive.

 

[ruby sparks]

But attributing the opinion about this particular load of manure to "the patriarchy" and "a belief in the inherent badness of womanhood" is as absurd as astrology itself.

There's a litmus test. Ask yourself, honestly, if, when meeting someone in similar circumstances (ie having a drink for example, any new potential friend in other words) would you react differently according to whether it's a man or a woman? If not, then it's probably not sexism.

 

[ruby sparks]

Patriarchy is alive.

You're just as bad as metaphor, but in the opposite direction. He always understates the existence of such things and you always overstate them!

 

[KeepTalking]

I wish I could say that I’m surprised that (some) men do not understand the difference between not sharing an interest in astrology (or knitting or gardening or (fill in the blank) and ridiculing women who are interested, but I can’t.

If I were dating (I have been married for 30 years, so I'm not exactly in the game), I think a woman bringing up any kind of serious religious belief on a first date, including a devotion to astrology, would also make it the last date. Of course, I would certainly be polite about it. I would also hope that it wouldn't get so far as that first date before I eliminated a prospective partner due to incompatible views on the nature of reality.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

The point of the article was (as it clearly stated):

1) Men feel entitled to belittle and denigrate astrology for the same reason they feel entitled to belittle and denigrate anything else society has coded as “feminine” or otherwise related to women

2) Men believe that womanhood itself is inherently bad.

I see no advantage to being a jerk about astrology or anything else; after all, the astrology believer may have non-believing friends who will be turned off by that behavior. But attributing the opinion about this particular load of manure to "the patriarchy" and "a belief in the inherent badness of womanhood" is as absurd as astrology itself.

I don't know if I completely agree with your last satement.

If one believes that womanhood itself is inherently bad (I would say: less competent) then that directly points to patriarchy is responsible for the inherent badness of women and what they like. We have thousands of years of evidence that this is largely true. One of the worst things a boy or man can be called is girl or woman. Women were relegated to home life, forbidden education, the right to self determination, to own property, to hold office or to vote for most of human history. Women are still treated as spoils of war, to be kidnapped, raped, held against their will as slaves of various sorts. Their medical decisions are subject to various laws in a way that men's are not. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the FIRST woman EVER to lie in state in the US. For the most part, men still run things and run things according to their world view, which includes to serve their particular best interests, even if it does not serve all of humanity's best interests. Patriarchy is alive.

Contempt for astrology is not evidence of what the authors claim.

 

[laughing dog]

Patriarchy is alive.

You're just as bad as metaphor, but in the opposite direction. He always understates the existence of such things and you always overstate them!

I think it is not an overstatement that Patriarchy is still alive. The question is to what extent and degree. For example, I think it is not an overstatement that Patriarchy is alive and going strong in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. I think to it is alive in North America but to much lesser degree than 20 years ago.

I find your observation about "always" rather ironic.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

But attributing the opinion about this particular load of manure to "the patriarchy" and "a belief in the inherent badness of womanhood" is as absurd as astrology itself.

There's a litmus test. Ask yourself, honestly, if, when meeting someone in similar circumstances (ie having a drink for example, any new potential friend in other words) would you react differently according to whether it's a man or a woman? If not, then it's probably not sexism.

I would react differently only if I felt the man or woman could be a physical threat. No sexism, just self-preservation.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, you should not feign interest in something that doesn't interest you. You can be polite about it, though.

That's pretty much what I was thinking when I read your thread title. It's two words too long:

This week in feminism: The Hottest Thing a Man Can Do Is Not Be a Jerk About Astrology

That's a pretty low bar for "Hottest Thing", I think it is should be more like "Minimum Thing to Continue the Date", but I unfortunately realize even that bar is too high for some in this thread.

 

[Toni]

Patriarchy is alive.

You're just as bad as metaphor, but in the opposite direction. He always understates the existence of such things and you always overstate them!

What did I state that is not true?

 

[Toni]

The point of the article was (as it clearly stated):

1) Men feel entitled to belittle and denigrate astrology for the same reason they feel entitled to belittle and denigrate anything else society has coded as “feminine” or otherwise related to women

2) Men believe that womanhood itself is inherently bad.

I see no advantage to being a jerk about astrology or anything else; after all, the astrology believer may have non-believing friends who will be turned off by that behavior. But attributing the opinion about this particular load of manure to "the patriarchy" and "a belief in the inherent badness of womanhood" is as absurd as astrology itself.

I don't know if I completely agree with your last satement.

If one believes that womanhood itself is inherently bad (I would say: less competent) then that directly points to patriarchy is responsible for the inherent badness of women and what they like. We have thousands of years of evidence that this is largely true. One of the worst things a boy or man can be called is girl or woman. Women were relegated to home life, forbidden education, the right to self determination, to own property, to hold office or to vote for most of human history. Women are still treated as spoils of war, to be kidnapped, raped, held against their will as slaves of various sorts. Their medical decisions are subject to various laws in a way that men's are not. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the FIRST woman EVER to lie in state in the US. For the most part, men still run things and run things according to their world view, which includes to serve their particular best interests, even if it does not serve all of humanity's best interests. Patriarchy is alive.

Contempt for astrology is not evidence of what the authors claim.

But the authors are claiming that it is not contempt for astrology itself but contempt for the women (and presumably men) who believe in astrology.

Personally, I don't agree with much of their argument but I do agree with the portion I quoted upthread a while ago: men tend to discount/do not have respect for what they consider to be 'women's interests.' I've found this to be very generally true--as in, of course there are exceptions.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Contempt for astrology is not evidence of what the authors claim.

But the authors are claiming that it is not contempt for astrology itself but contempt for the women (and presumably men) who believe in astrology.

Personally, I don't agree with much of their argument but I do agree with the portion I quoted upthread a while ago: men tend to discount/do not have respect for what they consider to be 'women's interests.' I've found this to be very generally true--as in, of course there are exceptions.

I find that women tend to discount many things that are considered "men's interests", but I don't need to blame it on the "matriarchy". Maybe if the authors had picked an "interest" that wasn't so worthy of disrespect by anyone who's reasonably intelligent, they could have made a decent argument.

 

[Toni]

Contempt for astrology is not evidence of what the authors claim.

But the authors are claiming that it is not contempt for astrology itself but contempt for the women (and presumably men) who believe in astrology.

Personally, I don't agree with much of their argument but I do agree with the portion I quoted upthread a while ago: men tend to discount/do not have respect for what they consider to be 'women's interests.' I've found this to be very generally true--as in, of course there are exceptions.

I find that women tend to discount many things that are considered "men's interests", but I don't need to blame it on the "matriarchy". Maybe if the authors had picked an "interest" that wasn't so worthy of disrespect by anyone who's reasonably intelligent, they could have made a decent argument.

And here you are with your scare quotes helping to make the author’s point: something that tends to be of interest to women can be held in contempt/deemed worthy of disrespect by men.

A LOT of men are very superstitious about all sorts of signs and rituals surrounding their favorite sports. I find this ridiculous myself and I would wager so do most women. Men may also find it ridiculous but aren’t likely to stop hanging out with their friend who insists on wearing a particular pair of socks and having a particular set of snacks because it brings good luck to their team or player or whatever. Women are more likely to be worried about whether the man’s favorite team loses and how that will affect his mood. See this: https://healthland.time.com/2011/03...-team-losses-contribute-to-domestic-violence/

I’m on my phone and on the fly so I can’t post more links or quotes now.