Discussion:
Why I could care less about feminism
(too old to reply)
pataphor
2015-08-15 13:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Some of you might wonder what I am still doing here, why don't I have a
blog, hang out on Facebook or Google, or tweet.

Part of it is falling back to ingrained routine after IRC seems to be
either silence because of too harsh moderation, or people not knowing
how to keep the pace of a channel user friendly.

Another part is I tend to convert the blog(s) I read to nntp first
(yeah I know freaky geeky programmer) and then used to read them with
thunderbird, but somehow the fast mozilla update sequence breaks
various of my scripts faster than I care to keep up with them.

So I am reading stuff with claws mail now and since that is also my mail
program I am more inclined to grab the pen, err the mouse err
the keyboard when someone on the net is Obviously Wrong.

Today my little black heart was stirred by a complaint from an old
feminist woman jereminating about their invisibility and lack of
recognition.

As it happens I have always had a kind of twofold relation to feminism,
on the one hand, respect for people fighting for their rights, and on
the other hand why the fuck attack me for things other people do, and
especially those people who fuck me over too.

Let's make a little computation here, since the previous one went over
the world like wildfire, leaving behind a transformed and charred
forest, ready to accept new growth. ("not" added for the people who
don't seem to get my sarcasm).

So, the complaint goes, women are passed over for the same jobs that
men have, and if they get the job they earn 30% less, or maybe 50%, it
doesn't really matter for my comparison.

Maybe all the women in the world combined have less than 50% of all the
wealth. Seems terrible doesn't it? You are right in your indignation.

But now let's have a look at how this wealth is structured. 1% of the
people own 50% of the wealth. Hmm, do we really care if that one
percent is a man or a woman? Also, for every woman earning only 50%
there is a man below her on the food chain who makes less. It's not
like all women form a single group at the bottom of the food chain, no,
it's more like they are spread evenly, be it at a disadvantaged half a
pace behind the men. When we're all in this together against a few big
mega parasites at the top.

I already told you how I unsuccessfully tried to climb the academic
ladder, but I didn't tell yet that it was social psychology that I
failed in, and that it was during that time that I met my first
feminist, a woman who at the same time was secretly in love with me (as
it turned out) and hated all men.

Now to complicate the situation a bit and at the same time simplify it,
I was rather popular so I noticed that women, even those hating men,
have a preference for top men. At the same time, the female strategy for
excluding unwanted group members (I didn't know this yet, I was still
way too stupid to even notice) is to try to look all the same, maybe
even use padding to equal out the bodily differences, and then shun the
ones they don't want to be in the group. Imagine some popular Korean
all girls band here if you like.

How different is this strategy from the guys' one (and you'll notice
that by kind of speaking for all the men I have made a capital offense
against manhood, whereas there are more women speaking for all woman
kind than there are grains of sand on a tropical beach), in that guys
all try to be different and to distinguish themselves from the other
guys by having some special quality that sets them apart in a good way.

And yes, I acknowledge that this is kind of the cause we've ended up
with having these billionaire parasites, but it is not like they're
doing it without reason since men hating women still secretly want to
have babies with the most successful psychopaths. I know, and you're
forgiven, it's just a stupid built in thing, like why are we constantly
looking at your ass.

But here's the thing, if you want to have us as allies you have to be
one of the boys and that means distinguishing yourself from your fellow
girls by being special in some way, even if it would go right against
the herd instinct of trying to all be the same supergirl.

Or, alternatively, have as much sex as possible with one of those men
who speak for all the men and turn themselves into women, to be
spurned by all their fellow special snowflakes.

P.

"but I guess it would be cool if among all men I would be the only one
who had this power"
j***@gmail.com
2015-08-18 21:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by pataphor
Today my little black heart was stirred by a complaint from an old
feminist woman jereminating about their invisibility and lack of
recognition.
I've had one of those too. A woman who published 43 fantasy novels in 25 years, who felt that she was becoming invisible and unpublishable.

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/where-have-all-the-women-gone.html
Post by pataphor
As it happens I have always had a kind of twofold relation to feminism,
on the one hand, respect for people fighting for their rights, and on
the other hand why the fuck attack me for things other people do, and
especially those people who fuck me over too.
I think it's a tribal thing. They want more stuff for the members of their tribe. They feel their tribe has less stuff than another tribe does, and they deserve more, so they want to take some from the other tribe. You are a member of the other tribe -- it doesn't matter to them if you get less than your share of your tribe's ill-gotten booty.
Post by pataphor
So, the complaint goes, women are passed over for the same jobs that
men have, and if they get the job they earn 30% less, or maybe 50%, it
doesn't really matter for my comparison.
Maybe all the women in the world combined have less than 50% of all the
wealth. Seems terrible doesn't it? You are right in your indignation.
But now let's have a look at how this wealth is structured. 1% of the
people own 50% of the wealth. Hmm, do we really care if that one
percent is a man or a woman? Also, for every woman earning only 50%
there is a man below her on the food chain who makes less. It's not
like all women form a single group at the bottom of the food chain, no,
it's more like they are spread evenly, be it at a disadvantaged half a
pace behind the men. When we're all in this together against a few big
mega parasites at the top.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/data-books-and-bias.html#comment-1978038

I tried making that argument. A moderator told me to stop it. Now. Members of the dominant class would not be allowed to argue that the oppressed class was not all women.

I didn't argue that if I was the dominant one, why was I being suppressed. That trick never works.
Post by pataphor
I already told you how I unsuccessfully tried to climb the academic
ladder, but I didn't tell yet that it was social psychology that I
failed in, and that it was during that time that I met my first
feminist, a woman who at the same time was secretly in love with me (as
it turned out) and hated all men.
Now to complicate the situation a bit and at the same time simplify it,
I was rather popular so I noticed that women, even those hating men,
have a preference for top men. At the same time, the female strategy for
excluding unwanted group members (I didn't know this yet, I was still
way too stupid to even notice) is to try to look all the same, maybe
even use padding to equal out the bodily differences, and then shun the
ones they don't want to be in the group. Imagine some popular Korean
all girls band here if you like.
It isn't always that overt, but yes. Women tend to take refuge among a group of people who all think alike. Men do it sometimes too.
Post by pataphor
How different is this strategy from the guys' one (and you'll notice
that by kind of speaking for all the men I have made a capital offense
against manhood, whereas there are more women speaking for all woman
kind than there are grains of sand on a tropical beach), in that guys
all try to be different and to distinguish themselves from the other
guys by having some special quality that sets them apart in a good way.
Guys tend to each have his own little hobby horse that he can trot out to show he doesn't go along with the crowd. Even the guys who are going along with the crowd. They want at least the illusion of being different. It's a difference in emphasis from the women.
Post by pataphor
And yes, I acknowledge that this is kind of the cause we've ended up
with having these billionaire parasites, but it is not like they're
doing it without reason since men hating women still secretly want to
have babies with the most successful psychopaths. I know, and you're
forgiven, it's just a stupid built in thing, like why are we constantly
looking at your ass.
But here's the thing, if you want to have us as allies you have to be
one of the boys and that means distinguishing yourself from your fellow
girls by being special in some way, even if it would go right against
the herd instinct of trying to all be the same supergirl.
Sure. A woman who wants a particular man will try to look special to him, even while she tries to be just one of the herd for everybody else.
Post by pataphor
Or, alternatively, have as much sex as possible with one of those men
who speak for all the men and turn themselves into women, to be
spurned by all their fellow special snowflakes.
So where are you going with this?
pataphor
2015-08-19 07:29:25 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by pataphor
Today my little black heart was stirred by a complaint from an old
feminist woman jereminating about their invisibility and lack of
recognition.
I've had one of those too. A woman who published 43 fantasy novels in
25 years, who felt that she was becoming invisible and unpublishable.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/where-have-all-the-women-gone.html
He's on my reading list too. I think I saw a few jthomases in the
comments.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by pataphor
But now let's have a look at how this wealth is structured. 1% of
the people own 50% of the wealth. Hmm, do we really care if that one
percent is a man or a woman? Also, for every woman earning only 50%
there is a man below her on the food chain who makes less. It's not
like all women form a single group at the bottom of the food chain,
no, it's more like they are spread evenly, be it at a disadvantaged
half a pace behind the men. When we're all in this together against
a few big mega parasites at the top.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/data-books-and-bias.html#comment-1978038
I tried making that argument. A moderator told me to stop it. Now.
It's one of the reasons I am still wary of moderated forums, even
though I also recognize that too much 'funny' one line replies can kill
a Usenet thread.

I hang out on IRC a lot nowadays even though that medium is totally
controlled by whoever owns the channel, often it's the so called
channel founder, the one who happened to open the channel by being
the first one to join, creating the channel in the process.

For some rationalist channel I was the one to found it but at that
point I forgot to go through the necessary steps to keep ownership and
later on I was just one of the joiners. But then things started to get
sour, I mean my relationship with the rationalists had always been less
than perfect, with me not being allowed to post articles on their
website until I had gained enough popularity points and me staying
firmly in the negative right from the beginning. But then I was kicked
from my 'own' channel.

I guess this happens to many entrepreneurs nowadays not just those
doing business.

The way I got around that was by seeing it as some mental blockade one
has to overcome. One can always find another channel, and, if one is
lucky, some of the people one can't see anymore because of being
forcefully evicted from the previous channel are there too and one can
continue exchanging ideas. The Internet interprets censorship as damage
and routes around it etc.

Bur after that things got weirder still. I think you have read Ted
Chiang's short story 'Understand' (it used to be online, but I
think someone tried to take all copies down, the fool), in there a
super intelligent person communicates with their adversaries by
manipulating the stock market to make the initials of the listed
companies spell out messages.

My case is not that far reaching but I think certain blogs I read start
to resonate with me, if only because I use the same phrases that are
used there. But then they use that phrase again, and I, now having used
that phrase too and thinking *I* am the owner and first producer of that
phrase (be it right or wrong) get the impression they are somehow
partially quoting me or referring to my ideas.

It used to be the case that paranoids and other people with overactive
imagination were clearly identifiable because they got their material
from sources that were obscure and very likely self produced, but now
there is the Internet where one can find almost anything if one tries
hard enough.

In fact, with all those pages like hacker news, reddit, or even just
plain search engines, and more sinister stuff like the NSA trying to
correlate and store everything to increase revenue for their
billionaire owners and corporations one is never quite anonymous and
things one says are rarely forgotten.

But one can turn that around too, you know, like answering a discussion
one reads in some (moderated) forum at whatever other venue one chooses,
be it in a Usenet post or some arbitrary IRC chat, by posting a tweet
or, what the hell, even typing in search queries or opening specific
pages. It may be 1984 but it allows one at least to choose the most
convenient answer format and venue, preferably one with the least
restrictions. It still sucks one cannot edit posts that one once posted
on Usenet though, but it beats moderation, and scorn by people with
up and down votes, for me.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by pataphor
I already told you how I unsuccessfully tried to climb the academic
ladder, but I didn't tell yet that it was social psychology that I
failed in, and that it was during that time that I met my first
feminist, a woman who at the same time was secretly in love with me
(as it turned out) and hated all men.
Now to complicate the situation a bit and at the same time simplify
it, I was rather popular so I noticed that women, even those hating
men, have a preference for top men. At the same time, the female
strategy for excluding unwanted group members (I didn't know this
yet, I was still way too stupid to even notice) is to try to look
all the same, maybe even use padding to equal out the bodily
differences, and then shun the ones they don't want to be in the
group. Imagine some popular Korean all girls band here if you like.
It isn't always that overt, but yes. Women tend to take refuge among
a group of people who all think alike. Men do it sometimes too.
Right, it's not an all or nothing thing, just a somewhat more or less
thing. And it matters in what phase a group or ideology is in, it
determines the need for coherence versus diversity.

The group of feminists I met was very different from the ones that
exist today in some respects. They were the 'first' real feminists
they believed there to be, even though they had to fight against an
earlier group of mostly older well established women that had claimed
the title but who they thought were just bored rich women.

These ones were young and radical. They even had girls thinking that
the consequent feminist had to be lesbian, and that lesbians had to
hate men. Others were still struggling with liking men they were
intellectually convinced of they should hate, and many different groups
existed in a more raw form than the few forms of feminism that have
survived nowadays by being less hostile to the host culture, if you'll
forgive me for once again linking memes to viruses.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by pataphor
Or, alternatively, have as much sex as possible with one of those
men who speak for all the men and turn themselves into women, to be
spurned by all their fellow special snowflakes.
So where are you going with this?
I was trying to appear less misogynistic but I'm afraid I might have
said something in the same vein as Alf claiming he likes cats.

P.

Loading...