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

[Metaphor]

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?

What you describe here:

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.

Is not feminist patriarchy theory. Feminist patriarchy theory, from wikipedia (first paragraph)

Feminist theorists have written extensively about patriarchy either as a primary cause of women's oppression, or as part of an interactive system. Shulamith Firestone, a radical-libertarian feminist, defines patriarchy as a system of oppression of women. Firestone believes that patriarchy is caused by the biological inequalities between women and men, e.g. that women bear children, while men do not. Firestone writes that patriarchal ideologies support the oppression of women and gives as an example the joy of giving birth, which she labels a patriarchal myth. For Firestone, women must gain control over reproduction in order to be free from oppression.^[24] Feminist historian Gerda Lerner believes that male control over women's sexuality and reproductive functions is a fundamental cause and result of patriarchy.^[28] Alison Jaggar also understands patriarchy as the primary cause of women's oppression. The system of patriarchy accomplishes this by alienating women from their bodies.

 

[Jokodo]

What you describe here:

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.

Is not feminist patriarchy theory. Feminist patriarchy theory, from wikipedia (first paragraph)

Feminist theorists have written extensively about patriarchy either as a primary cause of women's oppression, or as part of an interactive system. Shulamith Firestone, a radical-libertarian feminist, defines patriarchy as a system of oppression of women. Firestone believes that patriarchy is caused by the biological inequalities between women and men, e.g. that women bear children, while men do not. Firestone writes that patriarchal ideologies support the oppression of women and gives as an example the joy of giving birth, which she labels a patriarchal myth. For Firestone, women must gain control over reproduction in order to be free from oppression.^[24] Feminist historian Gerda Lerner believes that male control over women's sexuality and reproductive functions is a fundamental cause and result of patriarchy.^[28] Alison Jaggar also understands patriarchy as the primary cause of women's oppression. The system of patriarchy accomplishes this by alienating women from their bodies.

First, this doesn't talk of men oppressing women. It talks of women being oppressed by a system replicated by the actions of both men and women. So in support of your short summary, this doesn't even work.

Second, it's pretty obvious that this paragraph was written by a huge fan of Ms. Firestone - two thirds of the paragraph are about her, so it should be pretty obvious even to you, as it is to me without being any kind of expert on the subject that this might give a very slanted view of the brands of patriarchy theory out there.

And third, none of that explains why you literally accused me of pushing a pretty specific version of patriarchy theory. Do you understand that people who disagree with you can have a wide range of worldviews? Some of them might call themselves feminists, some don't; some might call themselves feminists yet reject patriarchy theory, probably for better reasons than you do (rejecting something for good reason requires understanding it). Some might never have bothered to understand it, because they have the same kneejerk reaction you have, or because it just never crossed their path in any significant manner.

Assuming that everyone who is not with you is with them is the mindset of a Stalinist - if you're not with us, you're Trotzkyist! or a fascist - us or the bolshevists!

 

[Jokodo]

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.

And this, dear folks, is sexism in action. It is safe to conclude that Metaphor's reaction to this article would have been very different, had it been from a man, or even an MRA, as it easily could be. If the author were talking about the Oxford-educated alpha-males who might try to hide their mistreatment of the proles by claiming Oxford's success as theirs, rather than about the white males doing the same, he might still disagree, but he wouldn't call the author deluded.

The main points of of the article are after all that international cooperation is crucial to fend off a global threat, and that the Tories shouldn't be trusted to openly admit their mistakes. Unless you want to claim MRAs are a paid front for the Tories, nothing in there is incompatible with MRA principles

 

[repoman]

Profit motives may be more of an issue.

Public private partnerships or other forms of soft corruption. A Trump or BoJo crony owned biotech firm makes key patentable breakthrough in a vaccine or killer treatment medicine. Then in addition to people paying for treatment there would be a massive subsidy ordered by Trump or BoJo to pay corp highly inflated prices. Then the corporations board and ceo will buy some Trump asset (even three steps removed) at massive inflated price.

VA had five million masks commandeered?!?
By the Feds, the VA is federal.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/04/trump-administration-hijacked-5-million-masks-from-veterans-hospitals-chief-physician/

That is halfway to supply the crooked Trump crony in this story. Firing squad worthy actions.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/04/trump-admin-awards-n95-contract-far-above-normal-price-to-bankrupt-company-with-no-employees-report/

The rah-rah patriotism shtick is what is done to hoodwink the rubes. Love of country is not the kleptocrats' motivation at all.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-vaccine-who-project-trump-us-covid-19-a9483421.html

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

In my opinion, jingoism should be a lot lower on the concern list than corruption, greed, callousness and the incompetence fostered by those three qualities. It is harder to incompetent with a modicum of compassion.
Incompetent and incompassionate.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

And this, dear folks, is sexism in action. It is safe to conclude that Metaphor's reaction to this article would have been very different, had it been from a man, or even an MRA, as it easily could be. If the author were talking about the Oxford-educated alpha-males who might try to hide their mistreatment of the proles by claiming Oxford's success as theirs, rather than about the white males doing the same, he might still disagree, but he wouldn't call the author deluded.

The main points of of the article are after all that international cooperation is crucial to fend off a global threat, and that the Tories shouldn't be trusted to openly admit their mistakes. Unless you want to claim MRAs are a paid front for the Tories, nothing in there is incompatible with MRA principles

If those are the main points of the article, Cousens is a fantastically inept author.

EDIT: Also, lol @ the idea that I would have refrained from calling deluded a man who had written the exact same article and taught gender studies at Oxford.

 

[Jokodo]

And this, dear folks, is sexism in action. It is safe to conclude that Metaphor's reaction to this article would have been very different, had it been from a man, or even an MRA, as it easily could be. If the author were talking about the Oxford-educated alpha-males who might try to hide their mistreatment of the proles by claiming Oxford's success as theirs, rather than about the white males doing the same, he might still disagree, but he wouldn't call the author deluded.

The main points of of the article are after all that international cooperation is crucial to fend off a global threat, and that the Tories shouldn't be trusted to openly admit their mistakes. Unless you want to claim MRAs are a paid front for the Tories, nothing in there is incompatible with MRA principles

If those are the main points of the article, Cousens is a fantastically inept author.

Either that, or you're a fantastically inept reader. Since we independently know you have a reading comprehension problem, as witnessed by almost every post of yours, and since everyone else involved in this thread understood her to say more or less just that, it seems the second explanation is more parsimoneous.

EDIT: Also, lol @ the idea that I would have refrained from calling deluded a man who had written the exact same article and taught gender studies at Oxford.

Since the article is not about gender studies but about the threat of the Tories using a success by Oxford to whitewash their response, whether the author teaches gender studies is neither here nor there.

The idea is consistent with your posting pattern. You taught us to judge people by what they don't speak about, forgot already?

 

[Metaphor]

Either that, or you're a fantastically inept reader. Since we independently know you have a reading comprehension problem, as witnessed by almost every post of yours, and since everyone else involved in this thread understood her to say more or less just that, it seems the second explanation is more parsimoneous.

No. You made arguments that Cousens did not make. It is you who has read past what Cousens wrote and adorned it.

Since the article is not about gender studies but about the threat of the Tories using a success by Oxford to whitewash their response,

Above you said the main point of the article was "international cooperation", and here you say its about the threat of the Tories.

whether the author teaches gender studies is neither here nor there.

The idea is consistent with your posting pattern. You taught us to judge people by what they don't speak about, forgot already?

No: I said what people choose to remain silent about, in the context of their usual output, could be as telling as what they do talk about. I provided examples.

You have gone to great lengths to defend Cousens' article - an article that makes assertions without evidence and indulges her white guilt.

You also have accused me of sexism without a scintilla of evidence. But I guess assertions without evidence is the kind of style you like, as can be seen for your fondness for Cousens' logic.

 

[ruby sparks]

Since the article is not about gender studies but about the threat of the Tories using a success by Oxford to whitewash their response, whether the author teaches gender studies is neither here nor there.

Hm.

"That being white, male and Oxford-educated may not be the only criteria for effective leadership (the countries whose responses have been most widely praised, Germany and New Zealand among others, are all led by women)".

The idea is consistent with your posting pattern.

Imo, yes. Metaphor overreacts and yes he has a certain persistent posting pattern.

But he's not necessarily seeing things which aren't there (imo he's just continually making too much of them). The writer in this case does (unsurprisingly given her background speciality) introduce gender (and skin colour) considerations.

 

[ronburgundy]

Boris is the UK Trump, and there is 100% certainty that if the US wins the vaccine race, Trump would take personal credit and use the success to whitewash all of his COVID failings and the general pathetic US response and exposing of the weaknesses of the US healthcare system. This author is quite rational to fear that Boris and other UK leaders would do similar. That's all she is saying and to deny that it's a rational concern for either country is to deny objective reality and everything those leaders have said in done in their political careers.

And in no way did the author imply that this concern is greater than her desire for their be a vaccine as quickly as possible, whoever develops it.

 

[laughing dog]

Since the article is not about gender studies but about the threat of the Tories using a success by Oxford to whitewash their response, whether the author teaches gender studies is neither here nor there.

Hm.

"That being white, male and Oxford-educated may not be the only criteria for effective leadership (the countries whose responses have been most widely praised, Germany and New Zealand among others, are all led by women)".

The idea is consistent with your posting pattern.

Imo, yes. Metaphor overreacts and yes he has a certain posting pattern.

But he's not necessarily seeing things which aren't there. The writer in this case introduces a gender (and skin colour) issue.

What Ms. Cousens teaches is irrelevant to the content of her statement and argument. And that statement is peripheral to her arguments. So, there really is no need to harp on it unless someone has an obsessive need to attack "gender studies".

Neither "feminism" nor "gender studies" is relevant to the actual content of the OP. Yet Metaphor injected those irrelevancies into his OP and responses while criticizing irrelevancies in Ms. Cousen's argument. His posting history provides ample evidence for a conclusion of irrationally driven animus.

 

[ruby sparks]

And in no way did the author imply that this concern is greater than her desire for their be a vaccine as quickly as possible, whoever develops it.

With all due respect ron, I might argue that the title says exactly that.

"I Teach At Oxford, But I Don’t Want It To Win The Coronavirus Vaccine Race".

Granted, she might not have come up with the article title. It does have a whiff of clickbait about it, as articles and headlines often do. The words in the article are not repeated in the article itself.

Also, Boris is a bit like Trump, but he's no Trump in this respect.

And finally, yes, I think her concerns are valid, albeit speculative. Even her points about gender and skin colour are valid, imo.

 

[Jokodo]

No. You made arguments that Cousens did not make. It is you who has read past what Cousens wrote and adorned it.




Above you said the main point of the article was "international cooperation",

I said the main points, plural, are, one being international cooperation.

and here you say its about the threat of the Tories.

that's not what I'm saying here either, instead I say "the threat of (the Tories using a success by Oxford to whitewash their response)". That's a complex sentence alright, but I don't thing it's actually ambiguous. I added bracketing for more clarity above.

And with this, we're have another pretty clear demonstration of your inability (or is it unwillingness?) to make a good faith attempt of understanding what the other side is actually saying. Or in short: reading comprehension failed.

whether the author teaches gender studies is neither here nor there.

The idea is consistent with your posting pattern. You taught us to judge people by what they don't speak about, forgot already?

No: I said what people choose to remain silent about, in the context of their usual output, could be as telling as what they do talk about. I provided examples.

And by the very same logic, in the context of your usual output what you choose to remain silent about is quite telling.

You have gone to great lengths to defend Cousens' article - an article that makes assertions without evidence and indulges her white guilt.

Which part of thay article is indulging in white guilt? The actual one she wrote, not the one in your head?

You also have accused me of sexism without a scintilla of evidence. But I guess assertions without evidence is the kind of style you like, as can be seen for your fondness for Cousens' logic.

You are the last person who gets to get annoyed about assertions without evidence - they're your bread and butter. Remember claiming that significant figures in the feminist movement who have non-negligible influence in the wider public hate you for who you are? Not a scintilla of evidence provided.

 

[ruby sparks]

Misandry exists, especially in (but not necessarily as part of) Feminism.

“Misandry is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys in general”.

“In Feminism is For Everybody, Hooks laments the fact that feminists who critiqued anti-male bias in the early women's movement never gained mainstream media attention and that "our theoretical work critiquing the demonization of men as the enemy did not change the perspective of women who were anti-male." hooks has theorized previously that this demonization led to an unnecessary rift between the men's movement and the women's movement.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

As regards significant figures, see Valerie Solanas for example.

As for non-negligible influence in the wider public, that is a bit vague, but I believe Solanas for example is still taught in most women’s studies courses and from memory I think at least one university faculty has a Valerie Solanas Day.

I also very much doubt if misandry is or was confined to Valerie Solanas.

In other words, being a Feminist does not necessarily entail misandry, but it sometimes is a component, and probably exists (where it does) on a spectrum.

Again, IMO, metaphor is not necessarily seeing things which are not there, he is merely overstating them. He may however be seeing them in the opinions of a particular person when they are not necessarily part of that particular person’s views.

I see no evidence of man-hating in the views of Dr Emily Cousens for example.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh no! Dr Emily Cousens fears are realised!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...id-19-vaccine-is-the-coronavirus-front-runner

 

[ruby sparks]

It’s ok. It’s a potential vaccine developed by a woman.

So it’s all good. Phew.

As long as she’s cis.