About Us

Misandry Review is a forum for talented bloggers who write from a pro-male perspective. Our content spans a variety of viewpoints, including MRA, MGTOW, conservative and libertarian (more info). To request inclusion into the system, please contact John Dias.

Videos About Misandry

Add to my Web site
Loading...

Comments Invited!

To post a comment on any article, just click on the article's title, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and begin typing in the space provided. You may also register for a comments account, which will make commenting even easier. We look forward to reading your opinions!

Books We Recommend

Search

Recent Posts

ArgusEyes

« Previous Entries

15 sexy scientists? Prepare to wring hands

Sunday, July 18th, 2010
By ArgusEyes   [source]

One of the most things about male feminists is what and-wringing, cringing pussies they can be sometimes.

Here is a list, with photos, of 15 sexy scientists. It has a little excuse for some obvious bias in the choices:

…

The worst possible way to handle this is to search the internet for photos of women scientists and make superficial decisions about who the male eye would find sexy. There's a process of judgment that went on behind the scenes, where many women scientists had to have been rejected because they were insufficiently 'hot', and then many of the women dragged into the spotlight had their "scientist" qualifications completely ignored for their literally biological qualifications. It's a reiteration of the same inappropriate judgmental attitude that pretty much every woman scientist suffers through.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/i_have_been_objectified.php

Good grief. He’s complaining that not enough shrift is given to scientific qualifications for a list  called “15 sexy scientists”. Read that title slowly again Myers.

Then there’s the usual yammering about “turning these women into objects” on the comment thread of the post he is referring to (and a lot of good rebuttals too). I can’t help but think that a lot of what these people don’t like about lists like this, is what amounts to a basic railing about the basic fact that looks are more important to women then they are to men. That’s like, get over it and stop being so offended by reality.

Topics: ArgusEyes | View Comments

Does truth matter?

Friday, July 16th, 2010
By ArgusEyes   [source]

In the ongoing tradition of replies that deserve their own blog post. This one is a follow-up to the “Ada Lovelace was not the first computer programmer” thread.

Emotion, to me, is my starting point; it is also an important element of the way I communicate.

..

I also think that truth is just about anything anybody else wants it to be. ‘Truth’ is a word that is available to me in sea of many other words.

This reminds me of when, discussing God with religious people, if a person says that god is a faith issue for them then there is no point arguing anymore because you have boiled it down the fundamental difference between that person’s view of the world and yours. This is similar to you and I.

Truth is subjective.. Your emotions are your guide.. That is a view I can neither understand nor condone.

Truth is not whatever we want it to be. I believe there is a standard of truth that transcends our emotions and perceptions. That is why I go through efforts to clarify what I am talking about, in this instance that the claims that Ada Lovelace was “the first programmer” are false. You don’t get to answer “yes” or “no” depending on whatever you feel you want to, there is only one answer. Whatever you want to define as a program, if you make the statement that Ada was the first to write it, then the fact that Babbage wrote it for her nullifies the idea that she was the first making the answer a “no”. Plain and simple. The question of whether Babbage was the first is separate, and “giving her the benefit of the doubt” is wishful delusion.

Living on emotions is a bad idea. Should the anti-Semite live on his or her hate? Does the racial lies they tell about Jews, which are truly believed by themselves, be the “starting point” for them? Do my protestations over the claim that that Jews slaughter non-Jews in order to use their blood for knead matzes for Passover [1] get legitimately pushed aside against claims that “emotions are my starting point” or does the truth matter?

The world is full of untruths; these are worse than lies because they are normally believed sincerely and thus are much more dangerous, the architect of untruth is emotion. Our societies are filled with victim ideologies like feminism and blackism which keep people in enshrined in a miasma of hateful emotion about how abused they are. This enables them to rationalise the evil their abuse of others. Emotional thinking is perhaps the cause of most of the evil in the world. Lesser versions of this effect cause people to raise other people like Ada Lovelace on a pedestal, the reason is to make themselves feel better, to satiate their own self worth by raising it for another person of the same group as they are, therefore raising themselves with it. It is not something that secure people do.

Your worldview is wrong. Truth is important and it is not whatever you want it to be.

 

Sources

[1] http://missingpeace.eu/en/articles/132-articles/11-salah-soltan-repeats-blood-libel-while-attending-a-conference-about-interfaith-and-coexistence

Topics: ArgusEyes | View Comments

This is Iran: Iranian Woman Sentenced To Stoning After Being Lashed

Saturday, July 10th, 2010
By ArgusEyes   [source]

This is Iran:

Amnesty said she received flogging of 99 lashes as per her sentence but was subsequently accused of "adultery while being married" in September 2006 during the trial of a man accused of murdering her husband.

Mostafai said his client knew the man who "killed her husband and because she was at home when the murder took place, she was accused as accomplice."

"But after her kids pardoned her in the case of murder, she now stands accused of adultery with that man."

Mostafai added that such cases involving women in Iran arise due to difficulties in getting divorces with husbands despite "having troubled marriages."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hsH_Nwq_L045KhDsWEhGeDExJ6_A

 

This is the UN:

Iran Wins Membership to the U.N Commission on the Status of Women

Women arrested and imprisoned for having suntans? Check. Women stoned to death for adultery? Check. Random persecution, detainment, violent arrest, and imprisonment of women's rights activists and mourning mothers? Check. Women blamed for causing earthquakes? Check. Use of makeup illegal because it makes women dishonorable? Check!

Sounds like the Islamic Republic of Iran is all set for membership to the U.N Commission on the Status of Women! Welcome, Iran, and thank you for helping to set the bar for the status of women around the world. It's exhilarating that the U.N and its member states have so clearly sent the message that women belong under the control of authoritarian governments, under the cover of dress codes and the watch of morality police, and in prison or the grave if they don't obey their male controllers.

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/iran_wins_membership_to_the_un_commission_on_the_status_of_women

 

This is stoning:

Stoning is typically a punishment for adultery, although it can also be use for cases of incest and other sexual or “moral” crimes. Typically, a stoning victim is first wrapped in cloth and buried up to the waist for men, or up to the chest for females. Then the crowd is to throw stones at the victim. However, it is very important that, “… no stone should be thrown that should kill with the first or second blow, or so small as a pebble to do no injury to the condemned.” (Hulagu's Web, 64) Stoning is a unique form of punishment in that there is no single executioner. The simplistic act of gathering the victim’s peers around him creates killers out of everyone.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Fact-to-Fiction:-The-Brutal-Truth-about-the-Practice-of-Stoning&id=11574

 

Any questions?

 

Topics: ArgusEyes | View Comments

You can help with an exciting new personal project

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010
By ArgusEyes   [source]

Hi all. I’ve not made a video in ages, that is pretty obvious. Apart from life disruptions, I have been working on a project that has been absorbing a lot of my time. I want my first return video to be about this project so please be patient.

You can help me with it. What issues would you include under the rubric of MRA / Anti-feminist? Obviously there would be paternity fraud, false rape allegations, circumcision, parental alienation, etc. The current list I have is listed below. If you can think of some other obvious issues that I’ve missed then please let me know. Also, of you have a different idea about the master-child categorisation then let me know about that too. I’ve been saying this for ages but I should be back soon.

LAW AND POLITICS

SOCIALISATION & RELIGION

EDUCATION

WORK

VIOLENCE AND HEALTH

SEXUALITY

FEMINISM AND FEMINIST ISSUES

RELATIONSHIPS AND FAMILY

SCIENCE

Topics: ArgusEyes | View Comments

Ada Lovelace was not the first computer programmer

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010
By ArgusEyes   [source]

I have received a response to my argument about Ada Lovelace being the “The most overrated figure in the history of computing” (first video result for Google searches of “ada lovelace” – booh yeah!"). This blog post is a counter-response.

---

A lot of your argument seems to revolve around making the case that Ada Lovelace (also known as Augusta Ada King) was a talented and intelligent woman. I agree on this, especially when you consider the limitations of her time.

However, none of this matters. All that matters is whether the massive accreditation that is given to her as the “first programmer” is true, and I contend that it is not. Your argument was essentially one of admiration, an admiration that a woman in a society that did not offer women the opportunities that ours does. I understand the sentiment but such emotion can also cloud one’s own judgement. When people become emotionally invested in an idea then they lose objectivity on it. Ada has been described as a “prophet” [1]. You can buy T-shirts entitled “Heroine: Ada Lovelace” [2]. One does not have to search very far to find articles describing with glee that the first programmer was a woman [3][4][5]. Frankly, I feel that the promotion of Ada Lovelace has more to do with political correctness that objective fact.

Some of the descriptions of Ada pass from “creative” to “egregious” take for example the following paragraph:

Computers have had a massive influence our lives over the last 60 years, but they were actually first invented nearly 200 years ago. And one of the pioneers was a female mathematician called Ada Lovelace, who created one of the first computer programs and understood something of the enormous potential of computers.

[6] http://plus.maths.org/issue34/features/ada/index.html

Ada Lovelace was in no way a pioneer. She made no great contributions to mathematics that I know of, her noteworthy accomplishment was a translation of a paper by Menabrea which included a program that she did not wrote, she did not participate in any way to the design of Charles Babbage’s computational machines and I would be sceptical as to whether Charles Babbage himself could be described as a pioneer. Charles Darwin was ahead of his time and his story is a heartbreaking tale of ambition against the mechanical limitations of the time. Babbage didn’t complete either of his machines (prototypes of the analytical engine exist), and it wasn’t until the twentieth century until the techniques of the time could create computers as we know them. We can admire Babbage’s achievements but he didn’t kick-start a revolution.

The main piece of evidence behind the “prophet” claim is her writings that computers may be used for things such as composing music and graphics in the future. This is indeed prescient and impressive when compared to Babbage’s own small minded vision of his machines being used for mathematics only. Ada Lovelace provided encouragement to Babbage and realised the potential of his machines right away, but what of the main claim?

Lord Byron's daughter, Augusta Ada Byron, (Countess of Lovelace) was Charles Babbage's collaborator on the 'difference engine'. She wrote the first computer program to calculate Bernoulli numbers. The programming language ADA is named for her. She was a longtime collaborator after 1833.

[7] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_collaborated_with_Ch...

Charles Babbage wrote the program for her.

In a series of letters between 1842 and 1843, the pair collaborated on seven notes, the combined length of which was three times longer than the actual paper. In one note Ada prepared a table of execution for a program that Babbage wrote to calculate the Bernoulli numbers. In another, she wrote about a generalized algebra engine that could perform operations on symbols as well as numbers. Lovelace was perhaps the first to grasp the more general goals of Babbage’s machine, and some consider her the world's first computer programmer.

[8] http://www.charlesbabbage.net/

Also.

I then suggested that she add some notes to Menabrea's memoir, an idea which was immediately adopted. We discussed together the various illustrations that might be introduced: I suggested several but the selection was entirely her own. So also was the algebraic working out of the different problems, except, indeed, that relating to the numbers of Bernoulli, which I had offered to do to save Lady Lovelace the trouble. This she sent back to me for an amendment, having detected a grave mistake which I had made in the process.

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace

Let’s all grow up for one minute. Are we to believe that Babbage, who had conceived of the difference engine years before Ada got involved, had not written programs for it? That doesn’t pass the smell test.

In researching this piece, I found a brilliant video of Doron Swade. For those not turned on by the subject matter, fast-forward to 36:25 to see a brilliant summary of Ada Lovelace that I agree with completely.

The Ada Lovelace affair is a case of facts not mattering in the face of an agenda. If you care about the truth, then you should correct those who misrepresent history for their personal emotional gains.

 

Sources

[1] http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Ada_and_the_First_Computer.pdf. pp81

[2] http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/itdepartment/e390/

[3] http://inventors.suite101.com/article.cfm/who_invented_the_worlds_first_computer_program

[4] http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/03/ada-lovelace-day/

[5] http://hubpages.com/hub/Historiography-of-Ada-Augusta-Lovelace

[6] http://plus.maths.org/issue34/features/ada/index.html

[7] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_collaborated_with_Charles_Babbage_and_wrote_the_first_computer_program

[8] http://www.charlesbabbage.net/

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace

Topics: ArgusEyes | View Comments

African-American women struggle to overcome wealth gap

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010
By ArgusEyes   [source]

When I saw a story on the BBCs website entitled “African-American women struggle to overcome wealth gap”, I must admit I was sceptical. I thought that I would get an article about how western society tramples all over blacks who can’t get ahead of insurmountable obstacles thrown in their path, etc.

What I got, in part, was a surprisingly practical article about how some black women in America (I don’t say African-American.. doh!) are tackling their poverty with good approaches and good results.

The prospects, you'd think, are bleak. But Kenya Williams is far from downhearted. With the help of Allendale County ALIVE, a community development corporation, she's learning how to manage her finances.

"They show me how to budget my money," she says.

Treyonde Allen runs ALIVE's classes in basic book-keeping. She's on a mission to break a cycle of ingrained and inherited poverty.

"I'm trying to instil a culture of saving and budgeting for the entire household," she says.

Ms Allen also warns students of the dangers posed by predatory lenders and lives lived on credit.

"Don't sign up for a credit card just because they're going to give you a piece of pizza and a T-shirt," she tells them. "That stops something right there."

Right at the start of the piece, is an interesting fact.

A recent academic study found that the gap in wealth between white and black Americans had more than quadrupled between 1984 and 2007.

Are we to assume that the treatment of blacks has worsened by a factor of four from 1984 to 2007. Has the station of blacks decreased to account for that gap? No. Look at America now and as I have heard many leftists revealingly admit that they never would have thought that they would see a black man in the Whitehouse in their lifetime, but there he is.

By the way BBC, references please. Anyway. So far so good. Now on to the victimology.

"In this country we call America, for more than 250 years, African-Americans were property," says Anton Gunn, an African-American member of South Carolina's House of Representatives.

...

"African-Americans have just started... to be able to obtain and own anything," he says.

Mr. Gunn. The 60s were fifty years ago. What part of the sentence “African-Americans have just started... to be able to obtain and own anything” is even remotely true? Seriously. How can he say that? Bold faced lie? Or delusional distortion of reality brought on by a deep victim mentality. Probably the latter.

But Bernie Mazyck, president of the South Carolina Association of Community Development Corporations, says narrowing the wealth gap in America needs to start with a more honest conversation about how we got here.

"There are reasons why blacks are still behind the ball when it comes to accumulating wealth," he says. "It's a conversation of basic economics."

Yes it is basic. You live sensibly and take personal responsibility and you will accumulate wealth. If you work hard and live by some sensible rules (like don’t leave your current job until you have another, etc) then you will likely do well, you don’t live in the gulag. Over time, you will have more and your mentality will be passed onto your children who will likely grow up with more opportunity than you had and will succeed even more. Thus you have lifted yourself out of poverty.

The most acidic thing to destroy the potential of this happening is attitudes like Bernie Mazyck’s. Dwelling on the past is a road to the ruin of many black people’s lives. Does anyone here think Mr. Mazyck’s call for “a more honest conversation” is itself honest? I don’t think so. I think that at the first sign of arguments like the ones contained in this blog post will generate cries of “racist” and “bigot”.

Topics: ArgusEyes | View Comments

A summary of modern gender-psychoanalysis

Thursday, June 24th, 2010
By ArgusEyes   [source]

Topics: ArgusEyes | View Comments

How do feminist oppress men? Plus other questions

Thursday, June 17th, 2010
By ArgusEyes   [source]

From my previous answering questions post comes yet more questions from “bob”. So here they are:

“How do feminist oppress men, or how do they take away men's rights?”

Two ways:

One way is by pushing ideas into the zeitgeist that are anti-male, a good example of this is the Norwegian board of women law (where 40% of the boards of companies must be female) and any quota based law. These laws are not necessarily passed by feminists but are the result of feminist/leftist memes that hold that equal outcomes are necessarily the product of systemic sexism against women and therefore laws must be passed to pass power from the privileged (men) to the underprivileged (women). That unequal outcomes point absolutely to sexism is a though based upon the meme that men and women are the same. After all, if they’re not the same then that difference might explain the differences in outcomes in certain professions – an idea that feminist do not entertain.

The second way is direct action my feminists be it male only university courses (May Daly) or by self-professed feminists who are usually in the government. A good example of this is Harriett Harman who would actually pack the board of a bank with women. Which is direct sexism.

“What rights don''t[sic] men have?”

I make videos for a reason. If I may quote a section from my “Men are more oppressed than women” video.

First unlike the example above this pension tale is genuine oppression. Men in the UK have to work until 65 to qualify for a full pension, women have to work until 60 and generally make less and have more paternity leave. Laws that impose different standards on us based on our sex. Sounds like oppression to me.

How about the fact that discrimination against men is governmentally mandated. Forget about the companies and the universities. The most solid example of this is the new leader of the conservative party in the UK proposed quotas to get the shortlist of political candidates to be half women [2]. Where you see quotas read discrimination.

How about the right to reproductive control. When a woman becomes pregnant then she can abort, give up for adoption and in America shortly after the birth she can abandon the baby and resolve herself of parentage of that baby, this is called safe haven abandonment. When a man gets a woman pregnant then he is screwed, his entire life now becomes a script that the woman will write. If he wants the baby and she doesn’t tough for him, if he doesn’t want the baby and she does then tough for him also.

How about the right to equal protection? Our fascist police state will oppressively arrest a man for a woman’s violence because only men can abuse. A message that is spread by our system and our politicians.

How about the denial of parentage for men? When a split happens the man is treated as sub-human, completely controlled by the government who tell him when he can see his children and when he can’t like he is some sort of criminal.

How about divorce? Where a woman is entitled to her husbands assets and men are made to pay out large sums of money to their wives from businesses that they made succeed. A recent case involved a large payout and continual payouts every year for the rest of the woman’s life!

A man is more likely to be convicted and convicted for longer periods of time than a woman for a similar crime, like murder. We need only look at the attitudes surrounding the Clara Harris case and we see the sympathy that is poured on a woman murderer.

Health spending, for every £1 spend on men’s health care, £8 is spent on women’s health care [3]. Government and charity spending for breast cancer is 37 millions, it’s 10 million for prostate cancer, both diseases kill as many. So the government is spending more to protect a certain segment of the population, how about that?

http://www.true-equality.net/archive/2008/05/10/men-are-more-oppressed-than-women.aspx

“What power do the feminist have to do so if their only power is their voice?”

Ideas are powerful things. The mass murderers of history got into power, in part, by appealing to the masses with ideas. Theories on repressed memory syndrome were used to implant memories of abuse into the minds of patients, by psychologists, and led to convictions of completely innocent day-care workers (many of whom were women) and fathers.

Feminists are an advocacy group who have the current position, of representing women and being equated with what is good for women. I don’t believe this is so but nonetheless, they can influence policy, craft laws and last but not least they can indoctrinate young women and men with their ideas through the apparatus of university.

Never. Ever. Underestimate the power of ideas.

“What's wrong with protesting,[sic] isn't being active part of activism?”

I believe they are protesting on behalf of bad values. That is what I object to in feminism. Are you talking about physical protests? I expect it. Any protest that gets to obnoxious and loud will irritate me, even if I support the cause (tea parties for example).

“Also, are you anti any other movements?”

I am anti any movement that stands against liberty or/and on the side of political correctness.

I am against antiquated and corrupted victimist movements such as feminist and “blackism” or minority racist movements such as the modern black movements or any that is based upon race.

I am against pure racist movements such as the black panthers, K.K.K or white supremacists in general.

I am against the general milieu of anti-freedom movements such as socialism, Nazism, communism, Maoism, Islamism, etc.

I am against radical animal rights movements which are based on the idea of equating humans and animals (like P.E.T.A.), not the ones which want decent treatment for animals.

I am against movements based upon magic, which want the consequences of that magic to be influenced upon others. Such as creationism pseudoscience and religious movements.

I am against anti-science movements such as creationism and anti-vaccination and feminism (yes, many victimist movements have strong anti-science components).

I think I covered most of the bases. In short, I am against most movements as well as the idea of movements. Because at heart, movements are made up of people who represent a certain mindset, the mindset that the world revolves around their particular issue and they tend to view it in the extreme. Movements inevitably tend towards degradation such as feminist fighting for genuine equal rights for women to become the twisted movement it is today. They get invested in perpetuating the movement, and do so, normally by shifting the goalposts of what they oppose and manufacturing new controversies to fight.

Topics: ArgusEyes | View Comments

Answering Questions

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010
By ArgusEyes   [source]

A young man emailed me asking me a bunch of questions. Here are my replies which were made hastily, given the broadness of the questions (answered late at night so excuse the occasional misplaced word I am sure is in there).

---

"Do you think the feminist movement is doing more harm or good to our society?"

At the moment, the feminist movement is doing more harm to society. When feminism was in the ascendancy there is no question that it did good things, as a libertarian/classical liberal, all peoples of society must face no systemic governmental discrimination based upon skin colour or sex. However, in our modern times, in the western world, feminism has become a vanguard of the radical left and political correctness and thus poses a number of problems.
They stand in opposition to reality and science. As the David Reimer case demonstrated. There have been number of abandoned (or played down) feminist anti-science positions. From men and women being the same, to gender being socially constructed (taken to the physical extremes in the David Reimer case). To the denial of male/female differences today in the equal outcome view of professions (leading to the support of quotas) and the equating of male and female physical attributes as being the same.

(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001737-504083.html)

 

This is merely the tip of the iceberg. This is going to turn into an essay if I were to list the problems in even short detail. In short, I find that they lessen the political discourse, reclassify words, support anti-freedom laws, indoctrinate young women and men into nonsense, make woman less happy, oppress men, make men less happy, and on and on and on.. For more just consult the blogs and my videos.

"what are some things that lead you to believe this?"

My evolution was gradual. I grew up in a leftist household where no hint of anti-feminist spirit existed. I moved away from my family as regards politics because I so fundamentally differed. In short, the less left you are the more likely you are to be anti-feminist.
I never liked feminists as a child, they seemed to have a chip on their shoulders and to be genuinely hate filled and angry. As I grey up and went to university I found that the young women I was going to university with had chips on their shoulders that were completely at odds with their status in society. In short, never had women had so much opportunity but never had they seemed to be be so aggrieved. I tied the behaviour of these young women with victimist movements (I also observed other victims movements) and feminism.

"and finally what do you think might be a solution against feminism?"

The solution is not restricted to feminism. In short, feminism thrives when leftist ideas thrive. Feminism grew out of a cultural attitude of PC. Many other problems stem from this. The solution is for western democracies to turn back the tide of politically correct thinking that they have slid into. Call me a pessimist, but this I think they cannot do. We shall see.

Topics: ArgusEyes | View Comments

Rape is equality? What?! These are not the MRA’s you’re looking for.

Saturday, May 29th, 2010
By ArgusEyes   [source]

From P.Z. Myers blog, pharyngula. I get this article by some guy called Eivind Berge (case in point, this is why anonymity might be a good idea on the internet), called “Rape is equality”.

Maybe it’s a clever title, right? I have planned many videos with risqué titles that explained what they mean later on. Not here though, he is literally proposing that “feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong.”. Lovely.

When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force. It's called affirmative action and feminists believe it's right. I am not going to argue against that. I accept that as a lost cause. So instead I am going to embrace forced equality and demand it for men as well.

…

So let us give women equality if that's what they really want. Remember that due to the hypergamous nature of women, men get less sex as women get more money and power. Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are, and soon men are no better than equal. So it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong.

I don’t know who this guy is, and anyone can blog, but I don’t know how anyone claiming to be a libertarian can hold such views. Also, it seems that Berge is using feminist-inspired thinking here, as opposed to libertarian thinking. The idea that we force, through the apparatus of law, the equality of groups who have perceived "”slights” above or below another, is leftist. The fact that this is not a libertarian position in any way is not going to be mentioned by Myers who has a rather fairytale image of what libertarianism actually is. This from a man who doesn’t like the subtleties of atheism passing the religious nuts by. Oh the irony!

That said, he just appears to be some berk on the internet, any reason to take thus guy seriously? Nope.

Despite this, such a juicy bit of material isn’t going to slip by Myers as he makes this statement:

What do women have that men don't? Vaginas. So poor pathetic Eivend Berge is asserting his right to rape. He's quite open about it: "it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong" and "Rape is equality." You'll find his type is fairly common among a group who call themselves "Men's Rights" proponents, where Men's Right seems to be to maintain economic and social inequities that benefit them.

“You'll find his type is fairly common among a group who call themselves "Men's Rights" proponents”. If by “his type” you mean people who advocate rape then no, this is the first time I can remember seeing something like this. I can't hope to be as big an expert on the M.R.M. as P.Z. Myers is so I just hope that the next time he makes a calumny like that, he provides some evidence to back it up.

However, if by “his type” you mean the general misogynist woman hater label that leftists utter as commonly as the word “the”, then you will find a lot of those in the Men’s Rights Movement; if your principle source of information is blogs.

P.Z. Do you want me to trawl the feminists blogs and bring up some of the things they say? I don’t fancy the proposition very much and since we know what you would say, it would be a fruitless exercise. How about the feminist nuts who want the extermination of men? How about those who make biologically ignorant statements about men being parasites (literally) or about men being “an accident”. Do those positions say much about the broader movement of feminism? It depends. If the broader movement also has leaders who parrot those views or teach them in universities or use them to pass legislation then yes, otherwise no.

How many times do I have to keeps saying this? It matters not what kinds of nuts you can find and link to a movement. Unless the normative movement they stand behind can be show to support those views, then you cannot parlay the views of the nuts into anything larger unless you’re a demagogue who doesn’t care about the laws of logic being applied in unpartisan ways.

About this claim:

I'm afraid he needs to learn that legal corrections to a long and ongoing history of economic oppression of women are fair and just,

I’m sorry. Am I allowed to disagree? Or is it just a case of me being not being learned enough? (can you say gulag?). Yes there is one and only once acceptable view, and that is that coercive fiddling and quotas by the apparatus of coercion, government, is fair and just. Disagree, and expect the standard name-shower by the left. Racist, Sexist, Homophone, Xenophobe, etc.

What I love about “legal corrections” is that it is never suggested when these legal correction must stop. At what point do we stop “correcting” for women? When they’ve achieved equality perhaps? What kind? Literal or opportunity? Also, how about the boys falling behind at university? Do we roll back female privilege in university programs and admissions? They’d rather die.

Also, how about the philosophical point that a “legal correction” is sexism by the very definition of the word. In that, it requires the recognition of a candidate’s sex and the hard-coded rule of the land to dole out benefits according to that sex. Sexism pure and simple.

Would people who hate sexism so much actually use it so freely? Leftists don’t have sexism, but instead love victim theology and the politically correct Marx-based view of a society of battling oppressed groups who need the re-distribution of power amongst them.

In a battle for who disgusts me the most. Berge wins hands-down.

Topics: ArgusEyes | View Comments

« Previous Entries