So I went back and checked the comments on the link in my last post, and found an interesting discussion. A commenter by the name of ‘Josh’ posted this:
Jesus….What a bunch of hypocritical feminist garbage. It seems like I can’t go a day without seeing some post about how women/gender roles are marginalized in some way under the banner of equality. As a male, I’d get absolutely torn apart if I raged about how people said insensitive things to me in my life, but the amount of white knighting in these types of blogs is absurd. Perhaps people just don’t want to confront the antagonists because it isn’t worth it to them.
What you’re calling for here is not equality, it’s to be put in a special class, protected from all wrongdoing; to be praised for being awesome, but not in any way that can be associated with a “traditional” female gender role. It’s the whole I’m special, and unique, and strong, and independent,blah blah blah blah.
The reason that the term “Wife Aggro” exists, is because it happens; it happens a lot, or at least enough that any gamer can know precisely what it references even if they never heard the term before. The fact that some women rage about this stuff all day long, is exactly why women have the stereotype of being irrational, hyper-emotional people. Do you understand that if you just carried it as a banner, then no one would have ammunition against you?
I get it if the term doesn’t apply to you, and I guess you have the “right” to be offended by it, but I also have the right not to care about your feelings. Throughout life people will slam you with insults, trying to see if they can get under your skin and make you crack. Apparently, they’ve won because this sob-story is exactly what people want.
I’m in 100% favor of equality for women & other gender groups. In fact it’s my number 1 social issue these days. If we ever get to that point, I’ll be very very happy.
However, all of the “advances” women have made towards equality will probably start to go away.
Those amazing women athletes in the Olympics, will now be competing co-ed with their male counterparts – let’s see how many get in.
Those awesome tech-jobs you get when a company isn’t “diverse” enough to qualify for corporate incentives may be reduced. Take a look at a comp sci program and tell me how many were women. In my case, it was exactly 1%. That means that on average there should be 1 female from my school employed in the tech sector for every hundred men. You might call that an atrocity; I call it math.
Additionally, we can stop parading PMS Gaming Clan around MLG like they are something special, When I used to play with them in the Xbox days, our clan would routinely destroy them, so maybe we should get sponsorship deals to be “pro” gamers too.
If what you really want is to be treated fairly, the answer is simple.: Be good at what you do, grow a tougher skin, and stop expecting handouts (socially, & economically). Once you agree to bear the same burdens, you’ll get the same respect, but not any extra.
Now IMO, Josh has some good points, although his tone could use a lot of work. But instead of a response, Aro posts this:
Yeah, what a non-response. So after this, Josh posts again. Except he doesn’t, because this is how it reads:
[ I am an idiot with deficient reading comprehension skills who is nevertheless grateful for the opportunity to win fabulous prizes for being a sexist asshole. Thanks, Aro! ]
- Mod-Edited for clarity. Have a nice day!
How rude. How condescending. How trivial. But despite all this, I’m going to respond seriously to Aro, because an intellectual smackdown is just so…fun. So I responded with this:
Ok Aro, I’m back. Remember me? Hi. You probably won’t let this comment go through, but I’m going to try anyway. I don’t really care if anyone else sees it, as long as *you* see it.
So two things. First, I see you (or one of your mods) have edited Josh’s comment below. Now, you do have a right to decide which comments to allow on your site and which to reject, but that isn’t what you’ve done here. Instead, you’ve edited Josh’s comment to make it insulting towards him (for ‘clarity’, apparently). How would you feel if you posted a comment somewhere, and a mod edited it to read, “I am a bitch who needs to get back in the kitchen”? Probably wouldn’t be too amused, I’m guessing. The point is that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you don’t like what Josh said, why not just delete it? Sure, Josh’s previous comment was antagonistic, but stooping to his level doesn’t solve anything.
Second point, and the main reason I’m back here with another comment. I’m going to be critiquing this “derailment bingo” thing on my blog, on the premise that most if not all of these don’t actually count as a derailment, and may be valid points. I challenge you, for the sake of intellectual honesty, to check out my blog in a few days when I’m done writing it, and at the very least acknowledge that such a disagreement exists. Whether you want to spend time responding to what I write is up to you. But you owe it to your readers to let them know that your side isn’t the only one, and to let them make up their own minds about who’s right.
It got through alright, but just like Josh’s post, it was, erm, heavily edited:
[ I am the MOST DISAPPOINTED dudebro, because if there's anything living at the top of the rape culture food chain has taught me, it's that I have a RIGHT!!!1 to a woman's attention, even in her own personal space, even when she has explicitly said that I am unwelcome. ]
- Mod-edited for length and clarity.
She then responded to her own retcon of my post with this:
Your creepy concern-trolling sexist bullshit is not fucking welcome. This is MY SPACE, and you were already disinvited a week ago. Pushing my personal boundaries is not edgy or cool; it’s fucking gross.
I owe you nothing, and this is the last time I will allow you to engage. My readers already know there’s “disagreement,” because what you call “disagreement” IS FUCKING SEXISM.
And now my comments aren’t even going into the mod queue, they’re just being automatically deleted. I’m going to destroy that ignorant bingo card.
So before I write anything new, here’s a conversation I just had with an online feminist. The article:
“Wife aggro” is meant to be a joke, you all need to chill out, seriously. No one thinks wives actually “aggro” on their husbands. Complain about something worth complaining about.
Can you prove conclusively that no one thinks wives actually aggro on their husbands? Because I can prove conclusively that there are people who do, because otherwise this phrase would not exist.
But that doesn’t matter, because whether it’s a joke or not doesn’t change the fact that the term is sexist and exclusionary.
No, I can’t prove that, because it wasn’t meant to be taken literally. It’s like if I said “no one like chocolate milk mixed with pickle juice”. Obviously, there’s bound to be a few people who do, but the point of the statement is to point out an overwhelming majority.
And by the way, it does matter whether it’s a joke or not. Humor is sometimes offensive, that’s what makes it funny. I laugh hardest at jokes about groups I belong to (white, male, lower middle class, overweight, atheist). So does anyone else who has a normal sense of humor. Routinely, black people laugh at jokes about black people, old people laugh at jokes about old people, poor people laugh at jokes about poor people. They’re funny *because* they’re offensive. Making light of injustices committed against oneself is fine, there’s nothing wrong with it.
So this is some 101-level stuff, but it’s a beautiful day and the kid’s asleep so I’m feeling magnanimous.
The reason why “offensive” jokes about straight white men can be funny is because that group enjoys the privilege of power. Those jokes are not used to oppress or harass because by definition in this country they do not suffer systematic and institutionalized oppression.
Additionally your examples all miss a very important point: context matters. A black joke told by a black person to other black people is very different than that same joke told by a white person.
In this the context of this particular panel in this particular place, the phrase/joke/whatever “wife aggro” tells women that they aren’t invited because they are the cause and need to be fixed.
Words matter. They mean things. These words mean that I and other women like me don’t matter, and that’s wrong.
1) I, a white guy, tell black jokes to my black friends all the time. And they laugh. Know why? Because they know it’s a joke. They also make white jokes, and I laugh. Because they’re jokes. I also tell jokes about women to my female friends, and vice versa, and we all have a good laugh. Maybe I’m just lucky to have friends that aren’t constantly looking for something to be offended by. As for me personally, I don’t enjoy any privilege of power at all. I’m just a regular everyday normal guy. So are millions and millions of other straight white men in the world.
2) You’re right – words do matter, and they do mean things. But you’re wrong about *what* they mean. Jokes aren’t meant to oppress, they’re meant to make people laugh. If someone (somehow) is using a wife aggro joke out of context to oppress women, yeah he’s doing something wrong. But the guy telling the wife aggro joke isn’t at fault, the guy doing the oppressing is. Jokes are just jokes. It’s ok to laugh at them.
As I said: CONTEXT MATTERS. You’re talking to your friends, about your friends. You have assumedly a long history together. You know the nuances and the mannerisms that create context. You don’t, I bet, go seek out a group of black strangers and tell them racist jokes that you might be comfortable sharing with your black friends. CONTEXT. Likewise, this is a group of strangers in a male-dominated, notoriously female-unfriendly space. Maybe it’s a joke to their friends; I don’t know these men, they don’t know me, I don’t think it’s fucking funny.
I’m not searching out things to be offended about. It’s right there. Right there in the title. WIFE. AGGRO. Right there. This isn’t a scavenger hunt.
Like I said, this was 101-level stuff, and I’m sorry that you’ve misunderstood. Here’s the thing: yes, you do enjoy the privilege of power because you are a white man. This isn’t a bad thing. It’s not your fault. There’s nothing you can do to change it, because it’s the way the world works. But it’s THERE. It will always be there. Check out John Scalzi’s The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is to break this down more for you.
I just read the article you linked, and it’s a bad analogy – because “straight”, “white”, and “male” are far from the only factors which influence how easy one’s life is. For example, I’m also genetically cursed with looks on the the low side of average, I’m genetically predisposed to both alcoholism and heart disease, and contrary to the article, I’m actually bisexual. A healthy, good looking black woman born into an affluent family is going to have far more privilege than me, despite our respective skin colors. Privilege comes from the totality of what we are, not from a few basic traits. But you know what? I don’t complain about my disadvantages, because I don’t care. Me, you, and everyone else has things that grant them advantages and things that grant them disadvantages. The distribution isn’t always perfectly equal, but since it’s genetic, there’s no point in complaining about it. Instead of pointing out how everyone besides you has all these privileges, why don’t you tell them all it doesn’t matter, and do whatever the fuck you want in life anyway? Maybe it will be a little harder for you, but life isn’t all roses, and in the long run overcoming disadvantages will make you a better person anyway. Think about it – right now, instead of writing posts about white male privilege, you could be practicing programming, or training for the olympics, or something like that. Do you want to succeed, or do you want everyone else to fail?
Anyway, no, I don’t walk up to random people on the street and tell racist jokes, but I don’t walk up to random people on the street and tell *any* kind of jokes. I leave random strangers alone. But white comedians tell black jokes to audiences with black members (and vice versa). If someone doesn’t enjoy the jokes that are being told, fine, they’re free to leave. But have you ever seen what comedians do to hecklers? You stand up and complain about something as innocuous as a lame joke, and you get *destroyed*, because no one, especially the person telling the joke, likes people with strong senses of entitlement bitching that things aren’t going their way when they could just move on.
If you actually read all of Scalzi’s article and THAT was your takeaway, then I’m afraid we have nothing further to discuss.
It’s fine if you think I’ve misinterpreted the article, but refusing to explain my mistake, and refusing to address what I’ve said, just reflects poorly on you. Shutting down the discussion is never a good idea.
Sorry, but that’s not gonna fly. I’m not some little beta “please educate me so I can better learn to respect you” loser. I was arguing my case, and *you* declined to respond to my points. To quote Monty Python, “Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.”
So once again, you’re free to respond to what I’ve said, but refusing to do so means that you forfeit the right to claim an intellectual victory here. If you’re ok with that, then so be it. Also, to everyone else: I noticed that my posts are getting minus ratings, while Aro’s posts are getting plus ratings. Perhaps some of you comment raters would like to speak up and explain *your* thoughts on the matter?
Look, friend. Your future comments can just sit in the moderation queue until you learn some reading comprehension skills. It is not anyone’s job to ~~~educate you~~~ on your ~~~mistake~~~ and I am not your dancing monkey. I don’t give a shit that you think my failure to continue trying to beat it through your thick white man head that your perspective is perhaps slightly different than that of mine and other commenters here is some kind of moral victory for you; if what you need in order to sleep better on your big fluffy manpain pillows is to tell yourself that you’re ~~~intellectually superior~~~ because some woman on the internet isn’t willing to give up her free time to hold your hand and say the same thing over and over and over and over and over to jump through your tautological hoops, then feel free!
And just so your precious feefees stop hurting, I’ll let you know that all of my comments get a default +1 through IntenseDebate so I don’t have to sit in my own mod queue. Nothing personal.
So, a few thoughts about that last comment. First, ok, Aro’s comments get a default +1. But that doesn’t explain the many +/-2′s on these posts. And while I wasn’t aware that I had “feefees” (whatever those are), they’re certainly not hurting. My last comment was a challenge to lurkers to share their thoughts, nothing more.
Anyway, it seems rather obvious to me that Aro has some sort of problem with both men and with disagreement (for reals, check out all the vitriol there). What Aro needs to come to terms with is that when something is posted online, no matter what it is, it’s going to be critiqued. While it’s not her job to educate me, it *is* her job to defend what she’s written. Maybe my point about privilege being the result of many complex factors is wrong, but until she (or someone else) responds to it, there it stands.
Now it’s time for me to go lay my head down on my big fluffy manpain pillows, and try not to have a nightmare about Aro’s bizarre tilde fetish (See that? That was a joke!)
Lots of people tend to dislike ‘gimmicky’ music, but I think it can really add something, provided that the gimmick fits the music. After all, music isn’t just entertainment, its goal is to set a mood that the listener will enjoy. If the gimmick fits, it will add to the listening experience; but if its out of place, then it will only hurt. Here I’ll be looking at several bands which feature gimmicks, and commenting on their effectiveness at setting the mood.
Back in their heydey, listening to White Zombie was like was like turning on a lava lamp and a strobe light to watch a horror b-movie after dropping acid, while waiting for your moonshine to ferment in your bathtub. The image they portrayed not only in the themes of the music itself but also how they presented themselves was creepy, and even a little scary. But it was fun nonetheless, because it was so different. Lead singer Rob Zombie’s first solo venture applies here too, but he’s since gone a bit more “mainstream”.
Fozzy is now a “serious” band, but when they started out they were a cover band with a hilarious backstory. WWE wrestler and lead singer Chris Jericho, under the stage name “Moongoose McQueen”, claims that Fozzy took a record deal in Japan 20 years ago, however the record company soon went out of business, leaving them stranded in Japan. When they finally made it back to the U.S., they found that famous artists such as Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, and Iron Maiden had stolen their demos and re-recorded them as their own work. McQueen also maintains that he is completely unaware of who Chris Jericho is, despite Jericho being the biggest Fozzy fan in the world. Notable quotes: “The Black album? Look at me, I’m dressed in the black album”; “basically I play all the instruments: guitar, bass, drums, keyboards, the piccolo, the flute, uh, timbalis, they’re good. Goat bones, goat bones from Brazil, I’m very fluent in goat bones. So basically, the only reason I carry the other members of Fozzy with me is just so we can play live.”
“Axe” is common slang for a guitar, but only one band will show up on stage with an actual axe. That band is Battlelore, and in addition to the axe, they’ll be dressed in full armor, wearing pointy ear prosthetics, and with their faces painted like uruk-hai. Why? Because all their songs are about Lord of the Rings. And contrary to making them look like pathetic LARPers, the costumes just make them rock even harder.
Black Metal (Almost all of it)
Most black metal bands tend to portray themselves as evil or demonic, and to help accomplish this, they use “corpse paint” – black and white makeup applied to make the wearer appear dead or otherwise evil. Unfortunately for these bands, it just ends up making them look comical. Some of them even go further, and perform with ridiculously spiky weapons or clothing. And since so many bands do this, even if it once added to the music, it’s become incredibly stale.
Ugh, those masks. The only point to them is “hey look, we’re wearing masks! Aren’t we edgy?” There’s not even any congruence between them, no unifying theme. They’re just…wearing masks. And their singer looks like John Travolta in Battlefield Earth. And don’t even get me started on Pinocchio nose.
Eminem is, quite frankly, a genius. He’s flipped the entire hip-hop world on his head by drawing attention to the fact that he’s white. While white rappers before him have traditionally tried to ignore the “white people can’t rap” stereotype, he’s effectively eliminated it by being a stereotype himself, in a comedic manner. He mentioned it over and over, until it wasn’t even a thing anymore. And it worked.
So I haven’t posted anything here in quite awhile. The reason for that is because my interests wax and wane pretty frequently, and I just haven’t been “feeling” philosophy for awhile. So I’ll be blogging about other topics, at least for awhile, so stay tuned. If you don’t like it, the DX army has two words for you :P
Suffering is having to watch John Cena win over and over again.
No one has ever argued that *all* same-sex couples make good parents; just that *some* do. Of course some gay parents do a bad job, just like some straight parents do a bad job. We shouldn’t be saying that children should be raised by straight rather than gay parents, but that they should be raised by good rather than bad parents.
It should also be noted that Mark Regnerus is very explicit to note that his study does not show causation between parents being gay and children having problems; but merely correlation. He says: “The NFSS is not a longitudinal study, and therefore cannot attempt to broach questions of causation.” and “This study cannot answer political questions about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy.“
As for this: “Although there is much speculation that today there are large numbers of same-sex couples in the U.S. who are providing a stable, long-term parenting relationship for their children, no studies based upon large, random samples of the U.S. population have been published that show this to be true” – here’s what Regnerus himself has to say on the subject: “Today’s children of gay men and lesbian women are more apt to be “planned” (that is, by using adoption, IVF, or surrogacy) than as little as 15–20 years ago, when such children were more typically the products of heterosexual unions.“
How large a part of the total of same-sex families are planned, long-term, and stable remains to be seen. But that part is getting bigger.
This comment was automatically deleted. I didn’t even see “your comment is awaiting moderation”. I can only assume that Wintery Knight is automatically discarding all my comments. How disappointing.
Over on the NOM website, I tried to post a comment on an article here. My comment was a response to another comment made by Randy E King (comment #13). His comment was this:
As my college Statistics Professor pointed out:
“Mathematics is a theory; not a fact”
So by insisting that the governing component of marriage be changed from (1) man and (1) woman to (2) consenting adults you have changed the basis for marriage from a scientific fact into a scientific theory.
Society should never build its foundational supports on theories – you might as well build them on quicksand.
I responded with this:
Randy E King said: “Society should never build its foundational supports on theories – you might as well build them on quicksand.”
the concept that all infectious and contagious diseases are caused by living microorganisms. The science of bacteriology developed after establishment of this theory. Also called pathogenic theory of medicine.
the concept that all matter is composed of submicroscopic atoms that are in turn composed of protons, electrons, and neutrons. A chemical element is identified by the number of protons in its atoms.
Kinetic Theory of Gases:
a theory that gases consist of small particles in random motion.
I could go on and on and on. Are these all quicksand as well?
This time, I did see the “your comment is awaiting moderation” message. However, shortly after that, my comment was gone. This can only mean that someone intentionally disapproved the comment – but why? I don’t understand why people don’t allow these types of comments. If anyone is in contact with either Wintery Knight or NOM, please ask them why my comments are not allowed. Thanks.
I’m going to be periodically writing about various articles available here. My plan is to pick one article that looks interesting every few days to a week and post my thoughts, aiming for about 500-1000 words. If there is any article on this list that you would like me to do (or if you have a link to an article elsewhere), let me know which one and I’ll move it to the top of the list.
In this post, I’m going to attempt to prove a negative:
1) P → Q
3) ∴ ¬P
Wow…that was easy. I wonder if I can take it one step further, and prove a universal negative? Hang on to your hats, cause this one is tricky:
1) ∀xPx → ∀xQx
3) ∴ ¬∀xPx
Quod Erat Demonstratum.
The feature image of this post is pretty iconic; but the idea it expresses is wrong. It’s commonly said that “we are not descended from apes, we ARE apes”. This is wrong too. The image is wrong not because it shows humans evolving from apes, but because it shows humans evolving from extant apes. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I’ve created one to explain what an ape is, and why we are both apes and descended from ape: