Gabba gabba we accept you

We’ve got to get off the Exodus motif and get on the Jubilee motif. The Exodus motif tells us that God freed us from one nation so we can march into the promised land and throw out everybody who already lives there.”

“Every time I issue what I think is a thoughtfully-worded critique of the complementarian tendency to impose of modern, Western familial constructs onto Peter and Paul’s Greco-Roman household codes in the New Testament, I get called ‘shrill’ and asked if I’m on my period.”

Do NOT pick a fight with these kids. Just when you think you’re winning, you’ll realize that you’ve completely lost.

“Why don’t @goodmenproject just be honest & call themselves The Good Misogynist Project?”

The couple was openly gay, but secretly Christian — the opposite of today’s closeted Christians.”

“The Messianic Secret, the piece of wonderful news that the disciples were far too stupid to be told, was that blokes who fancy each other cannot be the person who stands at the front in church waving his hands around and introducing the hymns.”

“My fear, however, is that it’s simply another attempt to put so-called new wine in old wine skins, nuancing the same old arguments of intolerance and hate that have plagued our faith for far too long.”

“They argue that the gay lifestyle is sick and sinful and dangerous and they point to the suicide rate, and then they turn around and do everything in their power to make sure that suicide rate does not come down and to drive it up.”

“It really was a conscious declaration of war for various reasons, including fundraising, on a community for whom it caused this great suffering and death.”

“The pink elephant pirouetting around the room is: the fear-based religious hostility McLaren tells Christians not to be a part of is part of the Christian Bible. And there is no way of avoiding this problem.”

“It’s also something else too — part of the American character, if there is such a thing — and that is an eagerness to tell the experts, ‘Well, no. Screw you.'”

“From this side of the fence, things look very different than they used to on the other side of the fence.”

“I feel like a freak, and I want to know where the church for freaks is.”

“I have been in the revenge business so long, now that’s over, I do not know what to do with the rest of my life.”

“Joey Ramone was really nothing more than Buddy Holly turned up to 11.”

It’s (usually) more complicated than that.”

Church Sign Epic Fails, Vol. 30-something

Hardcore Christian” T-shirt

"So far, Gardner has supported everything that Trump has done. I doubt that conscience has ..."

Romans 13 and the Gettysburg Address
"The Photographer Who Took This Heart-Wrenching Photo Explains The Emotional Story Behind It."

Romans 13 and the Gettysburg Address

Romans 13 and the Gettysburg Address
"Re: the updateThe waiting list for asylum hearings at foreign embassies is *years* long, and ..."

Romans 13 and the Gettysburg Address

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Yes to the idea of moving toward a Jubilee motif.  I’ve become increasingly convinced  that mass incarceration is the most pressing moral issue of our time, and it now seems shocking to me that I didn’t even realize it existed until a few years ago.  If anybody hasn’t read Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, I cannot recommend it highly enough.

  • Tricksterson

    Dear Mr.Paeth:  Discordia welcomes you.

  • aunursa

    Thank you for the link to the Mandy Patinkin interview.

  • DarcyPennell

    One of us! One of us!

  • Noah Brand

    I have to say that really is a gross mischaracterization of the Good Men Project. Yes, it’s my job to say that because I’m the editor-in-chief there, but it’s also true. The very fact that the author cites articles by Ozy Frantz, of all people, as misogynist indicates how far off-base she is. Ozy’s as good a feminist and a person as I’ve met. Heck, even in her own comments, the author of that piece acknowledges that there are tons of great articles on our site, she just didn’t mention those.

  • Jessica_R

    I admit it, the Christian t-shirt one made me snort out loud. 

  • Jessica_R

    Oh, and some more Princess  Bride warm fuzzies,

  • Thanks for the link Fred.  There’s still the looming possibility that it’ll all end in abject failure, but that one link probably did more to get the word out than I ever could.

  • banancat

    Feminism isn’t a game where you score points. The linked article gave specific examples of misogyny. Being mostly feminist doesn’t negate or excuse those things.

  • vsm

    More Andre the Giant trivia: As a kid, he was already too big to ride on a schoolbus. Luckily, his father’s friend Samuel Beckett owned a truck and drove him to school every  day:

  • You know, the Promise Keepers claim they want to be good to women and encourage men to treat their wives properly, and so on.

    That doesn’t change the fact that the model they use for such marriages is inherently unequally weighted towards the men and as such proposes a social model for marriage that would not be optimal for women in general.

  • LL

    RE the Rachel Held Evans link (yes, I read most of these links, or at least scan, if I have time): Once again, as a female, I’m reminded (vis a vis her comments about criticisms she and other female bloggers receive, today, in the 21st century) that men don’t have emotions (it must be rough, being a male, no emotions whatsoever; how do you men do it?), nor should women have any ambition whatsoever, other than, of course, to marry and reproduce. 

    Yep. Men are unfeeling robots, and women do nothing but feel and should subsume all ambition, even the relatively modest ambition of wanting people to read their cute little blogs. 

    Again, this is the 21st century. We’re more than a decade into the 21st century. 


  • AnonymousSam


    I’ve always wondered how much truth was behind this. Possibly quite a bit…

  • Jessica_R

    And it goes back to how women can’t win, care about something?, you’re getting too emotional! Calmly going through the motions?, why you frigid bitch!

  • I figured this out, but *just* for a second I thought to myself “And so Dr. Beckett finds himself, leaping from life to life, struggling to get kids to school who once were unable to ride the bus, and hoping each time that his next leap would be the leap home.”


    I’m reminded (vis a vis her comments about criticisms she and other
    female bloggers receive, today, in the 21st century) that men don’t have
    emotions (it must be rough, being a male, no emotions whatsoever; how
    do you men do it?

    We have no feelings about it one way or another.

  • LL

    Sure, sure. Sorry, I must be premenstrual or post-menstrual, or something having to do with menstruation and hormones. It’s a good thing men are never influenced by hormones in any way. That’s why they should be in charge. 

  • Paul Durant

    Feminism is a specific ideology. It is not synonymous with all good things or being a good person or even wanting gender equality. It is a specific ideology with a specific worldview and specific model of explaining events. Opposing feminism means disagreeing with an ideology, not being a bad person who hates women.

    The linked articles given as “examples of misogyny” were examples of “disagreeing with some of feminism’s assertions”. They weren’t even close to misogynistic. It’s kind of frightening to see them claimed as such.

    Feminism is not synonymous with caring about equality. It is not synonymous with being a good person. It is an ideology with far, far more specific, defined, and falsifiable beliefs than “women are people”. It is an ideology that can be disagreed with. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    Quote from the Good Men Project posts linked from the Unchained Faith post:
    Remember that objectifying women isn’t bad or wrong. It just comes at a cost.

    Yes. The price is that the women being objectified are being treated as objects, not as people. That is what ‘objectified’ MEANS. How is this not misogynistic?

    The ‘female privilege’ article on Good Men Project has five instances in which it’s more advantageous to be female than male. Five. That’s kind of sadly low if the point of this game is to prove that it is in fact more advantageous to be female than male. And those five examples are, one, sexual harassment is less easily identified when coming from a woman than a man (unsurprising considering how much rarer that scenario is), two, domestic violence is less easily identified when coming from a woman than a man (unsurprising considering how much rarer that scenario is), three…okay, I’ll give them three. Four accepts the framing that career and family are, for women, an either-or, and for men, a both-and. Five sounds like bullshit.

  • Paul Durant

    He, uh… he wasn’t talking about treating other people like objects. He was talking about his own internal emotional state. Did you read the article or skim it for words you could disagree with? I don’t even agree with it — the concept of “objectification” used is incoherent and the article meanders enough it’s hard to tell what the point is — but to call it misogynistic is a lie.

    The “female privilege” article isn’t there to prove it is more advantageous to be female than male. MRA’s, the actual ones and not the ghosts inhabiting people’s heads that exhibit every behavior they enjoy hating, aren’t out to prove society is a matriarchy and women have it better in all ways. The thesis of MRAs is not “women have it better than men” but “patriarchy is a system of oppressive gender roles that harms both genders in different ways and trying to view it as a unidirectional thing where men are advantaged in every way and women are hated and every bad effect is only a side effect of misogyny cannot lead to an adequate understanding of the problems gender roles place on society.”
    Feminism says that patriarchy is a system where men hate and oppress women and enforce them as lessers, and any aspect of the system that harms men is a side effect of misogyny. 

    MRAs say patriarchy is a system where men and women are assigned different gender roles and punished for stepping outside them. Men are given freedom and power but denied safety and compassion. Women are given safety and compassion but denied freedom and power. 

    Modern feminism focuses way, way more on women’s safety than freedom, because feminism cannot accurately perceive the world and notice women are far, far more safe than men and have been so for almost all the history of civilization. Feminism requires women to be constant victims, which is why feminism constantly tells everyone women are constant victims, even though it’s provably false. (Men are raped as often as women when you count rape as “non-consensual sex.”, and the numbers cited for why women are overwhelmingly victimized by rape are using a definition of rape designed to exclude male victims. Men and women are equally likely to commit domestic abuse. For every other violent crime in existence, men are 2 to 5 times more likely than women to be victimized. There is no violent crime for which women are more victimized than men.) So men are given less support in every form when they are victimized, and women are living in needless fear because feminists constantly tell them they exist under omnipresent threat of rape and violence merely for being women, and everyone is worse off. That is why me and others oppose feminism. Not because we’re bad people who hate women or want to fit them in traditional gender roles. Because feminism gets most everything wrong, and attempting to effect change according to feminist models will just screw things up.


    “patriarchy is a system of oppressive gender roles that harms both
    genders in different ways and trying to view it as a unidirectional
    thing where men are advantaged in every way and women are hated and
    every bad effect is only a side effect of misogyny cannot lead to an
    adequate understanding of the problems gender roles place on society.”

    MRAs say patriarchy is a system where men and women are assigned
    different gender roles and punished for stepping outside them. Men are
    given freedom and power but denied safety and compassion. Women are
    given safety and compassion but denied freedom and power.

    See, there is a name for this set of beliefs. It’s called “feminism“.

    You’re confused because you believe in this mythical thing which has a name that’s spelled the same way but which means something bizarre and different which no one actually believes.

  • LL

    RE “women are far, far more safe than men and have been so for almost all the history of civilization”

    Really …

    I was gonna say I’d like to read the proof of that, but on second thought, I really don’t. It’s ridiculous on the face of it, in that it’s unprovable.  I don’t even know how you’d go about quantifying something like that. Rape statistics and murder statistics are inadequate. Not every rape is reported (esp. in countries were being raped is the crime, rather than being the rapist) and not every harm results in death. 

    Sounds like one of those “men’s rights” nutjobs.  

  • Mark Z.

    See, that’s much better than my thought, which involved an absurdist play about Andre waiting at the bus stop for a bus that never arrives.

  • Paul Durant

    …Which no one actually believes?


    You are seriously telling me that nobody puts for the idea that all gender bias is against women and men are only collaterally affected as an indrect result of misogyny? That feminism doesn’t believe women are victimized, and actually recognizes they are more safe than men?

    I can’t even come up with a witty rejoinder to that. It’s just completely, bafflingly wrong, and I have no idea how anyone who spoke English could come to such a conclusion. “Women are perpetually victimized” is one of the core beliefs of feminism. “Rape culture” is a constant talking point of feminism. Feminism tells women they must “take back the night”. The idea of rape and violence against women as being epidemic and proof of society’s latent misogyny has been constant in feminism for the past forty years. And you’re telling me NO ONE believes it. 

    Did that just happen? I don’t, I seriously don’t know what to tell you. To say that nobody believes the accurate-if-dismissive summary of feminist theory means I can’t tell you to “go read any feminist, ever,” because you clearly don’t care what they say.

    The name for that set of beliefs is not “feminism” because feminism is an ideology. Feminism is a defined thing. There are therefore things that are not feminism. There are ideologies that attempt the same goals as feminism that are still not feminism because feminism is an ideology. It is not a synonym for “good things”. It is not a flag pin. It is not an oblation to the general concept of equality that must be performed by all good-thinking people. It is a particular worldview that hinges on women being universally victimized and universally disadvantaged. The things I describe are not compatible with feminism. 

    LL: The fact that rapes are underreported doesn’t make them an utterly unknowable factor that probably means women are way more victimized. We have ways of analyzing and estimating rates of crime reporting. To believe that no meaningful data can be gathered requires you to believe that the rate of reporting wildly vary from year to year, and not be caused by any factor that would remain consistent (like, the consistent misogyny of society). To believe these unknown numbers indicate women are more likely to be raped would require you to believe that men are far more likely to report their victimization to the police.

  • EllieMurasaki

    [Feminism] is a particular worldview that hinges on women being universally victimized and universally disadvantaged.

    That’s peculiar, because I have never encountered a self-identified feminist who believes that women are universally victimized and universally disadvantaged. I have encountered a great many self-identified feminists who believe that gendered expectations hurt men as well as women, though those expectations generally hurt women more than men, and the institutionalized power imbalance favors men.

  • Paul Durant

    Who are the people responsible for shit like this, and this, the attacks on Erin Pizzey when she said women were just as violent as men, circulating shit like this to support the narrative of universal victimization?
    Because it isn’t the Republicans.

    And I don’t buy the “those are just bad feminists, they don’t count, you still have a moral obligation to call yourself a feminist or you’re a bad person” non-argument. Feminism is more unified in its ideology than Christianity. People like Pat Robertson and Dan Cathy and Billy Graham’s kid are bad, destructive Christians. And the good, non-destructive Christians realize the most important thing going on in Christian discourse is to disavow these people, strip them of power, respect, and legitimacy, and show them as hateful hypocrites who sully the name of Christianity. 

    There is nothing like this in feminism. Even the “good” feminists spend most of their time talking about the same things as the bad ones, arriving at less destructive conclusions. If you bring up the “bad” feminists, you will likely be called a misogynist liar. Feminists routinely defend Valerie Solanas as one of their own and he SCUM manifesto as biting satire, when it is literally the raving of an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I assume there’s links in that comment; I can’t see them at present, because Disqus strips links along with all other formatting when sending out email notifs, and work won’t let me at Patheos. If there are not links in that comment, there had better be either a new comment or an edited version of that one in half an hour when I’m home, because I am seeing a great many assertions that are citation fucking needed.

  • Uh, that city-journal article is by Heather MacDonald, who is about as hard-right as you can possibly get, to the point of defending torture. Trying to untangle the facts from the ugly rhetoric would not be a pleasant job.

  • Paul Durant

    …Not really? The facts are, like, early on and placed clearly, and not really entangled in a whole lot of “ugly rhetoric.” The tone of the article is acrimonious and dismissive, and I don’t know about anything else she’s written (the meat of this article does not rely on her credibility as a not-right-winger) but the information is pretty clearly presented about the source of the original myth, the flaws in the study, the dissonance between what feminists claim is constantly happening and what is observably happening, etc. 

    I suppose I could find other stuff citing the information from someone you don’t already dislike, but it’d be a much bigger pain in the ass than pointing to the article that summarizes everything.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I’m certain Pizzey’s right when she says that women are as capable of violence as men. The difficulty here is that Pizzey does not seem to acknowledge that men are socialized to be violent and women to be nonviolent, that a randomly selected man is likely to be larger and stronger than a randomly selected woman and therefore if it comes to blows she’s likely to end up worse off than he, and that institutionalized power favors men. Also, has anyone actually sourced the death threats Pizzey got? Did anyone claim to have made them, did anyone trace any of them back to the individual who made that threat, or are you taking her word for it when she says the threats came from feminists? Because in the apparent total absence of evidence in any direction, it seems rather more plausible that the threats came from the abusers of abuse survivors Pizzey was protecting or had in the past protected. I know for an absolute fact that people who run shelters for domestic violence survivors get death threats with some frequency. Or more accurately, my classmate who interviewed one such person for a project a few years back told us that that person had gotten multiple threats related to her position with the shelter, and I find it extremely difficult to believe that that is a problem localized to this particular shelter.

    Quoting from one of your cites:

    Further—though it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily
    have sex again with the fiend who attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s
    supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.

    Because it is unheard of that someone might not realize the very moment of the violation that it was in fact a violation, and clearly the several people I know who say it took them years to realize they were rape survivors were lying through their teeth. It is inconceivable that someone might think their significant other made a single mistake, not worth the emotional turmoil of breaking up with them. It is utterly impossible that a rape survivor whose rapist is their significant other might be raped by that person more than once.

    Re your Tumblr site: While I do not in any way want to defend infant male circumcision, the fact is that a circumcised man is still quite capable of a healthy sex life. Someone who’s gone through female genital mutilation? Not so much. The point of female genital mutilation is to ensure that she will not be capable of enjoying sex. If there were a common practice anywhere of whacking off the whole penis, that would be comparable to female genital mutilation. Infant male circumcision, though similar in kind, is vastly different in degree. Everything else on that tumbl I’d have to investigate, and I have other things to do tonight.

    Who the hell is Valerie Solanas? And have you seen her medical records that say she’s mentally ill and not on meds? If so, somebody’s violating patient confidentiality. If not, I sincerely doubt you are Solanas’s shrink, which means you have no basis on which to diagnose her and you need to shut the fuck up about any mental illness she may or may not have.

  • Paul Durant

    Last question first: Valerie Solanas was the author of the SCUM Manifesto that called for the extermination of males, which has stuck around in feminism as something radscum endorse and then claim not to when called on it and “moderates” claim was satire.  I did not diagnose her with paranoid schizophrenia; a court-appointed psychiatrist did so after she was taken into custody following her attempted murder of Andy Warhol. 

    It… it’s “more likely” that Pizzey is lying in order to discredit feminism and that the death threats came from the survivors of the women she rescued. That is what you consider more likely. You think that is the easy, logical inference to make. Even though Pizzey’s bullying by feminists was pretty public in England, you think that the death threats had to come from a totally different group, one that hadn’t done anything in public but was somehow massively motivated and organized in private.  That’s more likely. That’s more likely than feminists bullying her for saying things that contradicted their orthodoxy. And Pizzey, in the video you are responding to, is lying about it.

    I hope you realize how utterly ridiculous that thing you just said was. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    I did not say I think Pizzzey is lying; that requires her to know she is making a false statement. I said I think Pizzey is wrong. And anything that calls for the extermination of men is unfeminist by definition, though we cannot of course control whether someone self-identifies as feminist while expressing abhorrent opinions.

  • Paul Durant

    “Anything that calls for the extermination of men is unfeminist by definition” only if you have the definition that feminism is always right and good and therefore anything wrong or bad must not be feminism. Everyone else calls those people “radical feminists” because that is what they are. Their lunatic beliefs are the inevitable conclusion of feminism’s broken worldview of universal female victimization — put another way, you know how Fred will make posts about how people who claim to believe abortion is murder don’t act like they actually believe it? Radfems are the ones who actually do.

    Also, how can Pizzey not be lying, but mistaken when she says she was bullied and intimidated by feminists? You don’t think every threat was anonymous and contextless, and she never encountered mobs of feminists in public protesting everything she did and condemning her, again in public, in broad daylight, like out on the street with signs, like there was a photograph of in the video you responded to, for saying women were as violent as men?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Feminism. Noun. A social theory or political movementsupporting the equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private
    life; specifically, a theory or movement that argues that legal and social restrictions on females must be removed in order to bring about such equality

    I think I’d never heard of Pizzey before tonight, and one sign does not a pattern make.

  • Paul Durant

    conservatism (plural conservatisms)
    A political philosophy that advocates traditional values.
    A risk-averse attitude or approach.

    Now if I was a republican arguing with you, and you were trying to get me to address all the problems of modern conservatism, and I busted out the dictionary definition of conservatism to say “clearly there’s no problems with this”, I would hope you wouldn’t let me get away with that. So why are you trying to?

    Also, Pizzey is not one-off thing. Did you read the other links? Did you read the paper about how feminists consistently undermine and distort research into domestic violence because their ideology requires that certain things be true that just plain aren’t true?

  • EllieMurasaki

    The problems with modern conservativism boil down to one of two things. The values they advocate are jacked, or they are claiming the label of conservativism without its substance. It is entirely fair to point at someone who exemplifies the latter (people who think retirement income should be stock-market-dependent, looking at you) and say that that is not a true conservative, whatever that person may self-identify as. It is similarly entirely fair to point at someone who says exterminating men is a feminist act and say that that is not a true feminist. If your problem with feminism is that the values it advocates (namely, equality of the genders) are jacked, then we are not having the conversation I thought we were.
    I read it. To buy it, I’d have to have a look at the data and methodology the paper is criticizing, and sociology is not my field.

  • banancat

    I did not say the examples are anti-feminist; I said they are misogynist. Would you care to explain to me exactly how each example is not misogynist? I am really curious to see this feat of mental gymnastics.

  • Paul Durant

    They aren’t misogynist because they, uh, they clearly aren’t misogynist, and the only way you could accuse them of such is because they disagree with some of the conclusions of feminism, which is an ideology and not a synonym for everything good and just. I don’t know what “mental gymnastics” you want me to go through. There’s nothing to justify. There’s no hate of women there unless you are, literally, hallucinating. 

    Did you read the linked articles or take it on faith that since they disagree with conclusions of feminism they must be anti-women? ‘Cause it’s seriously like you just said to me “Would you care to explain to me how this jar of applesauce is not misogynist? I am curious to see this feat of mental gymnastics.” I can’t explain how a jar of applesauce is not misogynist other than to say “it’s not” and to ask you if you actually are aware what you’re talking about.

  • > I can’t explain how a jar of applesauce is not misogynist other than to say “it’s not”

    A jar of applesauce neither treats women worse than men,  nor benefits from a system that treats women worse than men. I’m pretty comfortable concluding from this that a jar of applesauce is not misogynist.

    It’s not a difficult thing to explain, really. I hope that helps.

  • EllieMurasaki

    They aren’t misogynist because they, uh, they clearly aren’t misogynist,

    Bzzt, assuming one’s conclusion. Try again.

    I am particularly interested in how the article about it not being wrong to objectify women is not misogynist. If they’d said they were trying to defend looking at women in a sexual manner, or admiring women’s appearance, I’d be thinking they’ve kind of got a point. But they did, quite clearly and several times, say ‘objectify’, in a context where the grammatical subject is ‘men’ and the grammatical object is ‘women’ and the rhetorical point is that that sentence describes a completely unproblematic state of affairs.

    The trouble is, men treating women as things instead of people–men objectifying women; that is what the word means, and if they meant anything else they should have used a different word–is misogynist. If it were equal-opportunity, it wouldn’t be, but it’s not equal-opportunity, and if it weren’t nearly so common, it wouldn’t necessarily be, but it is quite common.

  • Paul Durant

    Like most feminist terms, there actually isn’t a clear accepted single definition for “objectifcation”. It can refer to degrading treatment of women, presentation of women as only having value for sexuality, one’s own internal thoughts that appreciate any aspect of a human other than their personality, or depicting any woman as attractive in any context. You don’t make a very convincing case when you focus on “he used the word objectification and that word means it’s bad” rather than the intent and meaning conveyed by the words, especially when he lays out “for the purposes of this article this is the definition of objectification” at the beginning. Even if there was a clear accepted single definition, the best case you made was “this guy didn’t get the definition of the world ‘objectification’ before using it.”

    His definition of “objectification” is not very good because it encompasses both interactions with other people and one’s own completely private thoughts, but it’s pretty clear for the rest of it he is not talking about treating women badly, he is talking about thinking of them as sexy. Which is a ridiculous thing to have to apologize for or justify in the first place. At no point does he justify or even discuss actual treatment of other human beings good or bad, he is just under the impression he has to apologize for finding people sexually attractive.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Defining Objectification in the context of this blog post:

    Objectify:  To stare, gawk, or check out women and their bodies and body parts. To see them as objects (instead of real people) and to think of them in a sexual way.

    Strangely enough, that is exactly what I said the word means and it is exactly as problematic as I have been saying it is.

  • Paul Durant

    Does the content of the article describe any mistreatment of women, or is it entirely about one’s own internal mental state? You know, like the part right after the bolded text where it says “thinking of them in a sexual way” is objectification?

    Is there anything in the content of the article about DOING anything negative to other people? 

  • EllieMurasaki

    Is it even possible to think of some people as objects instead of as people and not end up treating those people as objects instead of as people? It’s the behavior I object to, not the mindset, but the mindset causes the behavior, and treating the symptoms and not the disease is never a good idea.

  • Paul Durant

    According to feminist theory, no. Feminist theory states that objectification of women in specific or general inevitably leads to mistreatment and abuse of women. But that’s feminist theory. It’s not incontrovertible fact. And feminist theory doesn’t have a good track record of being proven right.

    The fact that feminists only talk of objectification in a sexual context is silly and hypocritical — you treat people as objects when you consider what they can do for or offer you instead of as people in their own right. And that’s what you do to most people you encounter during the day or you’ll go completely insane. How much time do you spend appreciating the cashier at CVS as an independent person, instead of merely interacting with them as if they solely existed to provide the service to you? When you say to people “how’s it going,” are you put off if they launch into a detailed report of how awful their life is, even though appreciating them as a person means caring about their suffering? When someone starts making an embarrassing scene in a public place, do you immediately intervene and help them out, or do you avoid them because all they will provide you is discomfort? Most people you encounter are people you don’t know and you interact with the people you don’t know as if they were objects because it would be emotionally exhausting to try otherwise. 

    Remember the “objectification” this guy is talking about it finding women sexually attractive. I can’t stress this enough. He is under the impression he must apologize for looking at porn

    Is there any other assertion you have as to why the five articles linked are misogynist, because this one is pretty clearly “disagrees with feminism” (and “is a badly-written article”) rather than any harm or malice to women.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Last night I distracted a cashier and a manager at Walmart from their jobs for several minutes because the price I’d seen for the AAA batteries was not the price that they rang up as. Turned out I’d read the price sign below the batteries instead of the one above. If I treated retail employees the way you seem to think I do, I would not have apologized for wasting their time. I did apologize, because I do my damnedest to never treat people as objects. It is not actually a difficult thing to do. I am not in any way obligated to treat that cashier and that manager as if they are people I care about at all, but they do not exist for my convenience, not even when they are on the clock, and I am obligated to acknowledge that.

    And that exhausts my daily tolerance for dealing with bullshit and I refuse to waste any more time on ideas pulled from Paul Durant’s ass.

  •  Do you get that you are telling a room full of feminists that you know what they believe better than they do?

    Because you are.

    NB: I’m a feminist, and I don’t believe the strawman bullshit things you attribute to feminists. Neither does anyone else here. Neither do signifigant numbers of real people in the real world, and while there are undoubtedly a handful of people in the world who do believe those things, they are not the popes of feminism. They don’t get to decide what feminism means, and neither do you.

  • EllieMurasaki

    they are not the popes of feminism

    Now I’m trying to imagine the symbolism-laden ceremonial wear of feminism’s pontiff. That ought to keep me amused for a while.


    How much time do you spend appreciating the cashier at CVS as an
    independent person, instead of merely interacting with them as if they
    solely existed to provide the service to you?


    Hypothetically speaking… if there were a visibly distinct class of people who made up the majority of CVS cashiers (and similar service roles), and I got into the habit of treating people in those roles as though they existed solely to serve me, would you expect that to alter the way I treat people in that class when I encounter them socially?

    Or would you expect it to not make much difference at all?

  • EllieMurasaki

    It has just occurred to me that, were I still speaking to Paul Durant, I should ask him whether he thinks gender equality (and racial equality and sexual equality and etc etc) is in fact something to strive for. And if he agrees that it is, I should ask him whether he thinks any movement currently or historically extant is actually working towards that goal, and what that movement is (if it eixsts) or should be (if it does not exist) called, and if it exists, who a few prominent names in that movement are.