Monday, September 14, 2009

On children, angels, and women

Women will be treated as men's equals only when they voluntary dismount the pedestals and insist on being treated as free moral agents instead of the equivalent of either children or angels. When I say that women aren't presently being treated as men's equals, I mean that by virtually any objective measure, they are treated as better than men. Whether it be the notorious female sentencing discount in criminal court, or the assumption that mothers are by nature the primary parent in family law court, or the thousand double standards that attribute good will to women and a malignant heart to men for doing exactly the same thing -- women are treated as morally superior beings.

This, of course, is bullshit of the first magnitude, and it is ultimately limiting for women. As but one example, angels and children aren't expected to take the dirty, difficult jobs (that, incidentally, pay better than the jobs traditionally performed by angels and children). Those jobs, and the pay goes with them, are for the morally inferior men.

One of America's most coherent writers on these sorts of issues, Chad Hermann, isn't a men's rights advocate at all; in fact his political views are impossible to pin down. Maybe that's because he has the temerity, not to mention the balls, to look at every issue through the lens of common sense instead of ideology. But he frequently cuts through radical gender feminism's bullshit with the well-honed scalpel of a surgeon. You can find his stuff at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on line. Here's an excerpt from his latest:

"Last time, you’ll remember, we had to endure the patently absurd suggestions that drunken driving is a dangerous male habit, that women seem to lack both moral agency and intellectual capacity enough to resist picking up the habit, and that women may even be too stupid to understand that they are just as likely as dangerous and habitual men are to kill or injure someone when driving under the influence. This time, the logical and rhetorical contortions necessary to blame men, and so to excuse women, for this sudden change in behavior are even more fantastic.

"Consider:

"'For women, it’s one of the consequences of being encouraged to do the things that men do,” said Carnegie Mellon University criminologist Alfred Blumstein. “Some are good things, like becoming police officers, firefighters, and so on. Some are bad things, like becoming criminals or being arrested for drinking and driving.'"

Well, you need to read the entire thing here. Trust me, you will like it.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Although the continued coddling of women is infuriating, it is interesting how feminism seems to be turning women into criminals. They are still responsible for their actions, but social forces are at work here.

Norm said...

yes, I see the point of that example (the drunk driving). According to the jackass professor, when women do bad things it is because they are being "encouraged to do the things men do", but when women do good things, I can only assume it is due to the achievements they have made in becoming 'empowered' - never mind who it was who 'opened the door' for them...(guess who?)

Anonymous said...

Spot on Norm.

Pierce Harlan said...

Norm, excellent point. The male example is only valid for the bad things. For the bad things, women are either too weak or too stupid to act as morally free agents. For the good things women accomplish, those are done in spite of males.

Anonymous said...

Who is doing the encouraging? Our feminist-informed society, of course. "Patriarchy" isn't driving women to become liars and drunks.

jeana said...

Maybe I’m missing something, but how exactly are women being encouraged to be drunk drivers? And who really feels sorry for a drunk driving woman? I mean, that woman who was drunk & high and killed 8 people—who feels sorry for her? There’s no excuse. I didn’t hear of anyone excusing or feeling sorry for her. So what is Chad Hermann ranting about? Women have the same opportunity as men do when they choose to do things that aren’t right or legal, within certain boundaries. Men sometimes do stupid things; so do women. I don’t think feminism turns women into criminals, however. Although since I’ve been a feminist for years, maybe next week I’ll mug a guy.

Archivist said...

". . . since I’ve been a feminist for years, maybe next week I’ll mug a guy."

I understand.

I, personally, always worry about feminists raiding the men's room and chopping off my willy while I'm most vulnerable -- with my back to the room and while I'm exposing my organ at the urinal. I mean, considering how irrationally angry all of them are toward men, and how they blame our penises for all the world's ills, it's not so much of a stretch to think they'll try that some time. If you think that sort of conduct is beyond them, please note that they take those self-defense classes where they are expressly taught how to kick men in the balls to achieve the most pain. I mean, talk about a hate crime directed at one gender!

So, yes, I hear what you're saying, Jeana. It doesn't suprise me one bit.

Anonymous said...

The incarceration rate for women has been growing at roughly twice as the rate for men. For some reason more women are committing crimes that they wouldn't have committed in the past.

Why is this happening? What has changed? The answer to those questions is pretty obvious: feminism happened, and now that women have been "liberated" from "gender roles" more of them are getting wasted and getting into trouble.

What other explanation is there? That this is just happening for no reason? You see the same thing happening on college campuses: girls getting drunk and screwing so that they can be more like boys.

Anonymous said...

"So what is Chad Hermann ranting about?" It's right there in the post: he quotes it.

Archivist said...

"You see the same thing happening on college campuses: girls getting drunk and screwing so that they can be more like boys."

I am told that is exactly correct. I was recently informed this is the case by an attorney at a very large college campus. The problem is, as we've shown on our site, recent studies show that women experience much greater regret following one-night stands. Regret is a powerful emotion. It leads some women to think they were used, and some of them use that emotion to make false rape claims.

Anonymous said...

Archivist, 12:56: I always fear the feminists running up and punching me in the nuts. And then, of course, if I can manage to get to my feet to give chase to them, they'll make a false rape claim against me.

Archivist said...

Nut punching feminists are something to fear, Anon at 1:09. And, I mean, really -- is it so much of a stretch to fear that? Ever see a movie where a guy gets it in the nads? You'll hear a wave of female laughter in the theater. I have. And the penis slicing? Remember Loreena Bobbitt? She was hailed as a feminist icon. "You go, girlfriend!"

Feminism has taught women to view men and boys as something less than human. Only when you view a class of people as less than human can you laugh at a gender specific pain randomly inflicted on one of its members. Women aren't not laughing because the guy did something wrong. They're laughing because he's in pain that only guys can experience -- the hurt is directed at an entire gender.

Only when you view a class of people as than human can you applaud severing an organ that only one gender possesses for no reason other than the fact that he supposedly prematurely ejaculates (yes, that's what Mrs. Bobbitt initially told police). So guys, you have a disease? Watch out -- you might get your dicks cut off.

Our society is infused with misandry, of that there is no question. The persons doing the hating are irrational and angry. Yes, they need to be feared.

Anonymous said...

Archivist, 12:56: I always fear the feminists running up and punching me in the nuts. And then, of course, if I can manage to get to my feet to give chase to them, they'll make a false rape claim against me.

The fearmongers are nothing to be afraid of!

Anonymous said...

"Radical Lesbian Feminists"

A universal brand name for a legitimate hate group.

Misery always loves company.

Renee said...

I, personally, always worry about feminists raiding the men's room and chopping off my willy while I'm most vulnerable -- with my back to the room and while I'm exposing my organ at the urinal.

I always fear the feminists running up and punching me in the nuts.

Aren't these examples of hysteria? You're afriad of feminists randomly raiding the men's bathroom while you're doing your business and/or them punching you in the nuts out of the blue/cutting off your penis, yet you believe in the existence of "female hysteria" in regards to women's concerns for their safety.

Then again, these could be completely tongue-in-cheek.

I mean, considering how irrationally angry all of them are toward men, and how they blame our penises for all the world's ills, it's not so much of a stretch to think they'll try that some time.

Really now??? Uh oh, I'm sensing the dreaded "v" word.

With that being said, the article sounds pretty interesting.

Renee said...

For some reason more women are committing crimes that they wouldn't have committed in the past.

Really? I thought you all believe in the idea that men and women are morally equal (or something like that). I guess depending on the social norms, societal structure of that time period, and the amount of time on their hands, that comment may be true.

If you think that sort of conduct is beyond them, please note that they take those self-defense classes where they are expressly taught how to kick men in the balls to achieve the most pain. I mean, talk about a hate crime directed at one gender!

Ummmm...they're TAUGHT that by the self-defense teachers. I should know. There was a self-defense teacher at my church during a women's lock-in, and he taught that move. It's one of the easiest ways to slow down a mugger/abductor/etc. Feminism has nothing to do with that.

You see the same thing happening on college campuses: girls getting drunk and screwing so that they can be more like boys.

More like boys??? They do it because they want to (not that it's ok for either gender to do). What makes you think that drinking and screwing are exclusively male habits? Isn't that stereotyping?

Why is this happening? What has changed? The answer to those questions is pretty obvious: feminism happened, and now that women have been "liberated" from "gender roles" more of them are getting wasted and getting into trouble.

It's not feminism's fault. It's the fault of the people who do the crimes. Like you all said, women aren't morally superior than men.

jeana said...

"So what is Chad Hermann ranting about?" It's right there in the post: he quotes it.

I read the article and it still is unclear to me.

He starts out by talking about an article that said that women are going to more happy hours and as a consequence have more DUIs. And then ties this into the quote from the criminologist and went off on a rant. I believe he read too much into that quote. I don’t think the guy he quoted meant to say that women are encouraged to drink and drive or be police officers because they can’t think for themselves. He really went a little bonkers.

Are you sure he’s not an MRA? And it seems pretty clear to me where he stands politically.

Pierce Harlan said...

Politically, Hermann was merciless in attacking Bush and the Iraq war. Good luck pegging him. One thing about him, he doesn't like the kind of ideological bullshit radical feminists peddle, I know that.

Anonymous said...

Gentlemen, once again the bait has been set from those two trolls.

DON'T GO FOR IT!

Anonymous said...

I read the article and it still is unclear to me.

Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension, then. Everybody else who read it understands what he's saying.

Anonymous said...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-15th-Anniversary-of-the-Violence-Against-Women-Act/

Anonymous said...

http://news.mensactivism.org/node/13658

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The incarceration rate for women has been growing at roughly twice as the rate for men.

Cite your source(s) please.

Anonymous said...

No offense or rudeness intended. I simply suspect someone will ask for the same in ,perhapps,a worse manner.

gwallan said...

Renee said...
Aren't these examples of hysteria? You're afriad of feminists randomly raiding the men's bathroom while you're doing your business and/or them punching you in the nuts out of the blue/cutting off your penis, yet you believe in the existence of "female hysteria" in regards to women's concerns for their safety.

My concern is that millions upon millions of women applauded Lorena Bobbit. My concern is that women stand and applaud those women who rape young boys and, in my country, will even financially support the same.

I see a gender frequently oozing sadism and demonstating the hipocrisy of never ascribing responsibility to any of it's own. Feminists are merely the least honest of them.

jeana said...

Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension, then. Everybody else who read it understands what he's saying.

I understand that he’s ranting about a comment someone made with women as the subject. I don’t understand why he got his panties in a bunch. Seems to me to be over nothing, really.

And Pierce, there were conservatives who didn’t like Bush or want a war. By the tone of his article, he is no friend of women. Which would not make him even slightly liberal.

Chad said...

jeana:

I realize you are a troll, but at least make an effort to be a good one.

By the tone of his article, he is no friend of women.

I would ask you to defend that claim, but you can't. You could try, of course, but your defense would require evidence, and my post affords you none.

So I'lll stick with this: one of the two premises of that post is the patent absurdity of anyone who argues that women must necessarily be committing crimes because they are being "encouraged" to act more like men, or because some unseen force is making them do it.

(The other is the equally patent absurdity of suggesting that drunken driving is, among other criminal acts, primarily a "thing that men do.")

I believe that women are strong and free and self-determinant enough in their moral agency to make their own choices, both good and bad.

If you feel otherwise -- in other words, if you feel that women are so weak and frail that their actions are always determined by the encouragements of others -- then I would suggest that, whether or not you call yourself a feminist, you are the one who is no friend of women.

Oh, and one more thing -- nice line about "my panties in a bunch." Rather crude and demeaning, of course. And awfully close to a suggestion, or at least an intimation, about my sexuality. If I were an overly sensitive type, I might even suggest that your metaphor attempts to demean me by implying, if not that I'm a homosexual, at least that I like to cross-dress. Either way, it seems hardly a hallmark of enlightened thinking.

Do tell how you might reconcile the nature of that insult with your (alleged) liberal credentials.

Anonymous said...

Good luck to Jeana arguing with what Chad said. You're out of your league, Jeana. Don't even try, you'll start to wet yourself.

Chad, she's a nuisance troll. People like Pierce and Glen Sacks let her rant on theis blogs because it drives up their traffic. They won't admit that, but that's what I think.

Pierce Harlan said...

"And Pierce, there were conservatives who didn’t like Bush or want a war."

Like, Colin Powell? Oh, wait. That doesn't really help your argument, does it, since he backed Barack.

In any event, before you continue to libel a mainstream media writer, Jeana, you fucking damn well better offer some evidence. If anything, Mr. Hermann's piece takes to task the chivalrous men who think women need to be protected by the big strong menfolk.

I call those big strong menfolk the feminists' useful idiots. No wonder you support what they say.

Pierce Harlan said...

Anon at 4:45: I don't let Jeana rant to drive up traffic. Although now that you mention it, it's not a bad idea.

jeana said...

I was not going to respond anymore, but I feel I must respond to Chad.

1) With a name like “Chad”, I picture you with a sweater tied around your neck and perfect hair. But I digress.

2) Your whole post was slamming women. Very negative. It even hurt my feelings a little. Then I started thinking about what color sweater you were wearing to match your perfect hair, and I got lost in my thoughts.

3) You are absolutely right that women choose for themselves what they do and no one “makes” us be bad or be good. No disagreement there. I agree with you and sort of said that here: SEP 15, 2009 12:37:00 PM. I just don't understand why you got so hyper.

4) Technically, isn’t a “troll” an upstart? Someone who deliberately causes trouble? All I do is merely express an opinion. If I’m wrong, then tell me. MRAs are not shy about that.

5) I didn’t mean to imply that you were gay. I always say “panties in a bunch”. Is that extremely demeaning? If so, I won’t say it. I don’t want to majorly insult anyone. Just jab them a bit. Actually, it’s feminists who don’t like comparisons to females as a source of insults, so it’s really feminists who should have a gripe with me. I'm a proud member of the Human Rights Campaign. I personally love the gays. I mean, how can you not?

Pierce Harlan said...

"Your whole post was slamming women."

I need to call this out as a lie. Yes, a lie. It is a rank fabrication of the first order. A grade "A" prevarication. An untruth, disingenuous to its core.

The post in question slammed not women, but the feminists' useful idiots, the chivalrous males who treat women as infants. I would think the feminists would be allied with this position.

Now if you'd prefer to be an infant instead of self-empowered . . . well, that tells us a lot, doesn't it?

*P.S. You'd be better off over at Glenn's site -- he's too much of a gentlemen to say these things to you.

jeana said...

Pierce,

He seemed to be slamming women to me. Maybe he was slamming the idea that women are idiots who can’t think for themselves, but he seemed very bitter. It is entirely possible that I may have misread him.

And I am done with Glenn Sacks. Waste o’ time to post at a site that is delete-happy. (Robert Franklin, that is.)

Archivist said...

Robert Franklin is delete happy? Hmm, I didn't know that.

jeana said...

He is to me. And he won't tell me what I say that offends him. If I knew, I'd watch myself. But I have no idea. And so I inflict myself on you and Pierce. You have him to blame.

Pierce Harlan said...

That's odd. That's alright, Jeana, we hardly ever delete.

Norm said...

That's right jeana, we have no reason to delete you. You're already a non-entity.

randian said...

The incarceration rate for women has been growing at roughly twice as the rate for men.

The number of women being imprisoned is growing twice as fast. Is the actual percentage of women receiving custodial sentences going up?

Women are still much less likely to actually be imprisoned (let alone prosecuted) for their crimes.

Anonymous said...

"And so I inflict myself on you and Pierce. You have him to blame."

Oh dear jeana, showing yourself up in your true colours. So your conscious decision to stop posting on one site and switch to another, is not the freely-exercised choice of an intelligent, mature feminist woman, but a forced act of victimisation at the hands of those nasty men? They made you do it against your will, right? So the men are, once again, to blame?

Which is of course exactly what Chad's article is all about.

So that explains why you don't understand it. Your victim mindset, as solid as a concrete block, simply won't allow you to.

paul parmenter