The Caymans are Switzerland’s route to the sea

“There is no doubt that the Romney administration would be able to claim — in the event of a Romney presidency — a democratic mandate for torture.”

“The former head of Israel’s spy agency criticized Romney’s policy on Iran.”

“[T]he military’s support has shifted toward Obama. Romney has consistently received little financial backing from military donors.”

“She isn’t publicly associated with the U.S. in any other way but she’s now named in this cable. It’s a danger to her life.”

“Syria is Iran’s … route to the sea.” — Mitt Romney.

The Romney ran aground in November 1804 while sailing to join the fleet off Den Helder. She broke up after attempts to float her off failed.”

“It’s been tough finding someone electable who doesn’t make me feel like I’m selling out my own unique vision. Thank goodness for Mitt Romney!

Mitt Romney is running, truly, for a third Bush term.”

“It says, quite loudly, ‘I do not want my tax exemption any more and am also a terrible dinner companion.’”

“We’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent. Including the top one percent. … I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.”

“These rich guys have more at stake because Obama has helped make them richer, which means they have more money with which to try and elect someone who won’t raise their taxes.”

“I’m thankful GM is still making cars. What else would I write about? I’d have no job without that.”

“Really, truly, the last thing we need to worry about is whether the Chinese love our bonds.”

“Coming during a fiscal crisis, that larger political shift, so perfectly reflected in Romney’s lying, should be viewed as a promising development.”

“It’s actually very bad economics to enshrine the private sector as the place from which all good things flow and conversely, the public sector as the evil one incarnate.”

“There is shooting yourself in the foot. Then, there is shooting yourself in the foot, cutting off the foot, placing it upon your head, and then shooting yourself in the foot and in the head simultaneously.”

“While it’s certainly Patriarca’s right to say and write what he likes, the lack of vetting by the Scott Brown campaign, and allowing him to speak for Brown in a TV ad for re-election to the United States Senate is disturbing, as are what appear to be Patriarca’s apparent misogyny, racism, and homophobia.”

“Whatever the case, the obvious conclusion — that the American Right has always contained, and continues to contain, both racist and extremist elements that act out in violent and repugnant ways, and that the current campaign is bringing them back into the mainstream of politics — simply can’t be true.”

“Arizona’s largest county puts wrong date on voter cards. Only in Spanish though. Wonder how that happened?”

“Walsh and Akin start with wanting an absolute ban on abortion, and reason back from that commitment to a world in which rape victims never get pregnant and and mothers’ lives are never threatened by a pregnancy.”

“Mitt Romney is no stranger to shifting positions on reproductive rights, but even for him, his latest move is audacious.”

“Under Romney’s preferred agenda, employers can end contraception coverage for their women employees, and millions of Americans would no longer be able to afford birth control.”

Utah is the most inegalitarian state, with its women earning just 55 cents for every dollar earned by a male Utah resident.”

Bishop ≠ pastor. There’s some overlap, but it’s like saying that a president is a mayor.”

I’m Mormon, and I’m voting for Obama.”

Chronicling Mitt’s Mendacity, Vol. XXXIX

  • JustoneK

    What is drawing attention away from wife-beating as mostly lies fabricated within centuries of human culture except as an attempt to erase its existence in favor of husband-beating?

  • JustoneK

    Wait, he’s _not_ a Republican??

  • EllieMurasaki

    Justone:I don’t believe anyone here has said husbands don’t get beaten, only that it’s less statistically reported.

    Ellie just said exactly this ten minutes before you posted.

    Did I really? I remember no such thing.

  • EllieMurasaki

    What is calling husband-beating “mostly theoretical” supposed to mean if not an attempt to erase its importance and existence?

    If it actually exists and is anywhere near as prevalent as you claim, then yeah, it would be, but you have yet to back up your claims using studies that say what you say they say, so I stand by my statement. In which I’m pretty sure I used ‘hypothetical’, not ‘theoretical’, because I grew up in ScienceFairVille where the words have very different meanings.

  • Madhabmatics

    Nope, he actually believes that feminists are evil and second to the republicans in keeping men oppressed and that they are fake leftists (compared to him, the true leftist). He’s been very consistent (annoyingly so) about it for at least four years now.

    Part of this comes from the way he thinks that feminism and republicans are allies to destroy sexuality, but yeah, this is pretty boilerplate posting for him.

  • JustoneK

    Secret allies, surely.  And what a great secret is, I was convinced Republicans hated feminism in its entirety.

  • Tapetum

    Huh. I guess that major feminist site I hang out at, with several transgender moderators and/or commenters must be a figment of my imagination, because feminism hates trans*. As opposed to trans* hatred being part of a particular brand of feminist thought that a lot of us find repugnant.

    Dude – a lot of what your saying has the odor of “I hate trees! They all drop those pointy needles in the spring!” Ummm – no. Yes, there are trees that drop pointy needles in the spring. But you’re ignoring all the trees that don’t even have needles, let alone pointy ones that fall in the spring. Whole forests of them.

  • AnonymousSam

    For that matter, I’m pretty sure this thread has at least two feminists who don’t identity with binary gender labels…

  • JustoneK

    They must be lying, it’s a victim complex thing.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yes, because it is so brave to admit my gender identity only in Internet spaces where I am reasonably certain my mother will never come.

  • Paul Durant

    Feminists say things, and they say things to each other, and say things to all sorts of people, but “Feminism” is not a single mode of thinking, it is a whole bunch of modes of thinking. The mistake you make is that you see someone say something you think is dumb and rush out and say “Aha, you see, this is what Feminists…”

    Feminism has traits. There are certain ideas that are considered fait accompli among feminists, such that the ones that disagree are ostracized and called not true feminists. Unidirectional oppression and universal misogyny, and the existence of rape and domestic violence as crimes by mankind against womankind, are two of these. They are both factually wrong. Adherence to them impedes actual effort to dismantle patriarchy. Very few feminists dispute these ideas or combat them. Feminists have all sorts of internal schisms, yes, but they DO use the same models and theoretical constructs to view the world. They just disagree on what the proper way of acting according to those constructs is. But the problem is those models can’t give them an accurate view of the world and acting on them cannot dismantle patriarchy.

    And it isn’t just that Greer was transphobic, therefore feminists are bad. Greer and the rest of the architects of the second wave built feminism and feminism’s way of looking at the world (there wasn’t a lot of theoretical construction in the first wave, which they claimed after the fact). Greer and her ilk were awful, selfish, paranoid people who built feminist theory in accordance with their selfish paranoia, and transphobia and racism and misandry were the inevitable results of the structure they created. And modern third-wave feminism rejects the transphobia and racism but hasn’t actually changed the apparatus that caused second-wave feminism to arrive at those conclusions, it just fudges the answers when they come out too blatantly crazy. 

    I give you evidence, which most people are ignoring, of tangible harm being done to men and women by feminists working in the name of feminism to advance a false idea into cultural consciousness. You claim it doesn’t count as a bad thing feminism did, because not all feminists are like that. And no, not all feminists go out and falsify scientific evidence — but almost all of them DO believe the falsified evidence, advance the idea as truth, and when presented with proof of its falsehood, make accusations of misogyny. The fundamental way that feminism looks at the world is wrong and it causes actual, tangible harm to people

  • EllieMurasaki

    Unidirectional oppression and universal misogyny, and the existence of rape and domestic violence as crimes by mankind against womankind, are two of these. They are both factually wrong.

    Which is why most self-identified feminists don’t believe them. Bringing up rape and domestic violence with male victims is a really good way to infuriate people trying to discuss rape and domestic violence with female victims, because the former problems are so much smaller than the latter problems and because trying to take a women’s issues discussion and make it a men’s issues discussion is straight out of Derailing for Dummies (HEY WHAT ABOUT THAT GENDER WAGE GAP), but we do acknowledge that the problems exist.

  • JustoneK

    Now we’re getting somewhere.

  • Paul Durant

    Bringing up rape and domestic violence with male victims is a really good way to infuriate people trying to discuss rape and domestic violence with female victims, because the former problems are so much smaller than the latter problems 

    No they aren’t. They happen with equal frequency. You do not acknowledge the problem exists, because you continually insist they are women’s issues and not everyone’s issues. 

  • Madhabmatics

    That is silly, there is no one universal feminist mode of thinking. You are still at it, talking about how there is one feminist mode of thinking that “Greer and her ilk” built. That’s not the case, five minutes talking to three feminists would show that to be the case.

    All of the things you list about being *fundamental* to feminism are things that are disagreed about. The reason people ostracized you was not because you disagreed with a single thing, it was because you would proudly parade around how progressive you were but literally the only times you opened your mouth about any of those issues was to condemn people that were actually trying to do things about them.

    You never came in with any form of clever analysis, or a new problem, or a discussion about things. You came in to talk about how Feminists were wrong and bad because they disagreed with you about a thing, and you were the True Progressive who was persecuted for his beliefs.

    You are a one trick pony. You never post anything but snipes about how you think people that disagree with you are fake-leftists and conservatives in disguise. That’s why you were ostracized.

  • P J Evans

     Ah. I don’t buy syrup, so I tend to not ‘see’ it in the stores, but I suspect they’ve updated her the same as they did Betty Crocker.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah, so you’ve said. Have you presented any studies that show that other than the ones that Ross assures us don’t say what you say they say? And I notice you didn’t challenge the assertion that talking about men’s issues derails women’s-issues conversations. HEY WHAT ABOUT THE GENDER WAGE GAP.

  • Paul Durant

    Yeah, so you’ve said. Have you presented any studies that show that other than the ones that Ross assures us don’t say what you say they say?

    Ross is wrong. Ross didn’t even know what I was trying to say, apparently, as “domestic violence is equally perpetrated by men and women” was the explicit conclusion. I doubt he even read them. If he did, he assumed I was saying “women are evil and men keep them down” and said the studies don’ t say that, which they don’t, and I never claimed.
    Also, I kind of STARTED the conversation by disputing the wage gap, so it doesn’t make sense to claim I derailed it. It derailed into DV and your disgusting apologia because I was being attacked for disagreeing with feminism and holding the idea feminism could ever be wrong. The wage gap, as it is presented by feminism, is a lie. Period. Furthermore, feminism does not have the apparatus to look at the wage gap in a way that solves it, because it can only explain things with hatred of women. The difference in earnings between men and women is due to a multitude of factors that cannot be pinned on being clear hate for one gender or the other, and attempting to fix it by making people hate women less accomplishes nothing.

    That is silly, there is no one universal feminist mode of thinking. You are still at it, talking about how there is one feminist mode of thinking that “Greer and her ilk” built. That’s not the case, five minutes talking to three feminists would show that to be the case.

    Talking to feminists (which I do frequently, and remember, I used to be one!) would get may different ideas about how to interpret and respond to many things relating to gender patriarchy. However, the odds are overwhelmingly  likely that all the feminists you selected would agree that sexism is unidirectional, patriarchy is made to harm women and benefit men, and that rape and domestic violence are perpetrated almost exclusively by men against women. If on the off chance one of those three feminists disagreed, the other two would most likely call him or her anti-feminist.

    And if feminism really has no traits, no attributes, no way of looking at the world, how is it a thing at all? How is it that opposing feminism makes you a misogynist if feminism has no substance?

  • JustoneK

    The idea that spouse abuse is equal across gender lines strikes me as odd, as the genders aren’t even equal in proportion.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Wait, Durant here buys into the hive-mind theory of women?

    You know, the idea that any woman can be reduced to things like “If you’re wrong, you’re wrong. If you’re right, you’re still wrong”?

    That explains a lot.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    ISTR Canadian maple syrup doesn’t even have such depictions on their labels (O.o)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Be careful how you define that. Paul Durant would be within his rights to note that the male:female ratio worldwide is approximately 1:1 (i.e. 50% male 50% female within statistical fluctuations barring gender-selective infanticide/abortion/pregnancy)

  • EllieMurasaki

    I’m pretty sure JustoneK meant the thing where average height for a US woman is 5’4″ or 5’5″ and average height for a US man is 5’9″ or 5’10″.

  • Madhabmatics

    See, the thing with Durant is that he literally never interacts with the ideas of sexism unless it’s an opportunity for him to bash feminists. But it’s not just how he treated feminism, he does the same thing for other lefty positions. He’s totally against eminent domain, guys, but the only time he ever brings up eminent domain is when he is yelling at people that they are “Just like fox news” just because they didn’t like that eminent domain was used to seize a hotel where there were some drug deals.

    Like you’ll never see him post “Man it sucks that women are treated badly.” That doesn’t let him raaaaage about the feminists. The most you will ever see him say is, in parenthesis, (Yes, women are sometimes treated badly by society. But,”)

    He actually used to “embrace feminism” – which is what he is talking about when he says he “used to be one.” By “Embrace Feminism” I mean that he came into feminist discussions (like one about a woman who received rape threats) only to tell people that using the term “Rape Culture” to explain rape threats was the ~real bad thing~ and he was going to correct all the silly, evil feminists about it. The only time he actually said anything bad about the comic was after being pressed a bunch, and even then it was just a once sentence “Yes it is bad” before he went back to arguing that feminists were Rape Culturing it up.

  • Carstonio

     

    You have a warped image of feminism that is literally just a creation of
    people you argue with on the internet and has nothing to do with it.

    Even

    Even

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Fair enough. Durant just strikes me as the kind of person who tries to be a nitpicker in addition to blusteringly demanding that people “Right here. Right now.” tell him what exactly he said that was sexist.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Wait, what?

    only to tell people that using the term “Rape Culture” to explain rape
    threats was the ~real bad thing~ and he was going to correct all the
    silly, evil feminists about it.

    Look, I get that for men, it can be a little startling and maybe feels a bit outrageous to be classified as part of the problem by women, but the key here is realizing it’s not ~just about you~, it’s that regardless of your ~intentions~, they aren’t magic and a woman has no way of knowing, just by looking at you, whether or not you’re Creepy McCreepazoid or a genuinely decent person.

    And that things like rape jokes and failing to say “Hey, that isn’t right!” is also part of the problem.

    Somehow I don’t think Durant understands that.

  • EllieMurasaki

    He said upthread that Schrodinger’s Rapist is a vicious lie, or words to that effect, so.

  • JustoneK

    Ah, so the world owes him information, except when that information is obviously false then?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

     _(-_-)_

    *head on desk, sudden headache*

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Also, for the record:

    Tell me how I’m being sexist. Right now, tell me, how I am being sexist, in the actual words I said and arguments I used.

    Arrogant, demanding Internet Warrior douchebags rarely, if ever, get results using language like this. The fact that they fail to understand this is a source of some eyebrow-raising for me.

    I guess they really do buy into this idea that men just have to throw their weight around and they’ll get anything they want.

  • Madhabmatics

     I think he understands it, it just isn’t as exciting to talk about as condemning the feminists for the ~way~ they condemn the jokes. Don’t get me wrong, he doesn’t think they are good, but he also doesn’t think they are worth condemning – there’s no great narrative there.

    I’m trying to come up with a way to phrase this, but basically condemning rape jokes, or unequal treatment, doesn’t give the same exciting feeling as being The Only Person who is willing to stand up for integrity.

    That’s what it is about. The image of a lone person standing up to the “bad people” on their own side and trying to purify it is very romantic, and it’s much more romantic than just being another voice saying “Yeah, it’s bad when women are treated badly.” It’s got a sort of sexy thrill – like when Chesterton talked about how the police were romantic because they were standing up to the wolves at the gate.

    Only he is missing a piece – it’s only romantic when you are trying to build something better, when you are fighting for something instead of against something. If someone only ever attacks, it’s bitter. When you are against sexism (but only say that when you are condemning people for not fighting sexism in the way you think is right) and against eminent domain (but only say so when you are condemning people for being upset at a building you don’t like being seized) it is not romantic at all, it is silly.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Agreed with what you said, so will just quote a part I want to clarify:

    I think he understands it, it just isn’t as exciting to talk about as
    condemning the feminists for the ~way~ they condemn the jokes.

    Ah, so he’s just recycling the old tone argument with a side slice of the complementarian gender-essentialist notion that women just need to ask demurely and nicely (because of course women just naturally come factory-set this way) and the menz will all shut up and give them what they want.

  • Madhabmatics

    You’re a nerd, you’ll get this
    Huitzil is the Godwalker of Tone Arguing

    edit: or at least was when he claimed to be a feminist

  • JustoneK

    It also seems verifiably untrue, as asking him anything demurely and nicely hasn’t gotten a response.

  • Paul Durant

    actually I do talk about how it’s bad when women are treated badly. It’s just that  nobody decides that’s a great opportunity to jump on someone and lie and feel self-righteous about it and demand I defend myself and then lie some more and pretend I said a bunch of things I never did, so they generally go without a lot of notice. 

  • Paul Durant

    Ah, so he’s just recycling the old tone argument with a side slice of the complementarian gender-essentialist notion that women just need to ask demurely and nicely (because of course women just naturally come factory-set this way) and the menz will all shut up and give them what they want.

    Reminder: Every single time you attribute some argument on what “women need to do” to me, you are lying. Every single time you ascribe some support of gender essentialism to me, you are lying. Women aren’t feminism and feminism isn’t women.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    It is a big, complicated, interrelated relationship that cannot be
    accurately gauged without looking at the unfair expectations society
    puts on both genders, not pretending that there’s only one unfairly
    restrictive gender role in the universe.

    That’s entirely reasonable.

    Feminism is not capable of
    doing this, so it lies about what the pay gap is and represents and
    pretends the whole thing is about how much society hates women and loves
    men, because that is the only way feminism can explain anything.

    But what in the actual fuck is this? Talk about going from A to Z without going through B, C, D, etc. And Z isn’t even real, it’s more like Z times the square root of negative one.

    See, you do shit like this. You start off from a reasonable point A and do what’s now famously called the Gish Gallop. It’s like you go BADABOOMBADABOOMBADABOOMBADABOOM all the way across the football field when you shoulda stopped at the ten-yard line, and in doing so you inundate the reader with just such a slew of stuff that no-one can hope to respond to it all.

    Men are allowed to do things but also obligated to do them to provide
    for his family, and all but the very, very apex of them are considered
    disposable. Women are kept safe and cared for and not allowed to leave
    their little enclosures or improve themselves. Men are moral actors and
    women are moral victims — men are doers who are held responsible for
    their actions, women are victims who are never at fault. This isn’t a
    system created by men to hurt women, it is a system created by men and
    women to benefit and restrict both

    That’s gender essentialism and complementarianism, what you just said.

    Also? Anyone who uses the term “misandry/misandric”? Likely got that from an MRA forum somewhere.

  • Madhabmatics

     Dude, I have your SA post history. You have never went into a thread about women’s issues without disregarding them entirely to talk about how evil feminists were. Do you want me to start pulling the quotes or what?

    It’s really ironic that you are telling people that they are self-righteous when you are so desperate to portray yourself as a martyr. “People just like to lie about, and to, me” indeed. You are the one voice of truth, and the only reason people disagree is because they are “just like fox news” or “freepers” or “pat robertsons”

  • JustoneK

    You don’t want women to be treated badly, except when you’re treating women badly on the internets?

  • Paul Durant

    That’s gender essentialism and complementarianism, what you just said.

    No it isn’t.

    It isn’t even close. It’s not the same ballpark, it’s not even the same damn sport. It is a description of what roles patriarchy assigns to genders. I described what roles patriarchy assigns men and women, and you said “Clearly, he supports these things because he described their existence, therefore he believes all women are illogical and interchangeable.”

  • Madhabmatics

     See, the funny thing is while he rages that feminism never talks about the negative effects of gender expectations on men, he linked to the Good Men Project earlier – which hosts “What About Teh Menz?!” a blog started by a feminist (!!!!) woman (!!!!!!) specifically to talk about how gender expectations hurt men.

    It must be a very clever false flag website since we know that feminists want to cover up such things.

  • Paul Durant

    So which is it? Am I wrong and stupid for believing in misandry, or am I wrong and stupid for believing that feminism doesn’t believe in misandry? Because I’m getting both of those arguments and they are entirely incompatible and yet none of you seem to have realized this. 

  • JustoneK

    Because…they’re not incompatible at all?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2RAPF5V3YPOUWAZGAJ2VCQM76Q Alicia

     If you really don’t think that feminists acknowledge misandry, then you might be stupid and wrong just for that. Obviously misandry exists; I don’t think that anyone can seriously argue that no one in the world hates men (!) but the mistake that a lot of people make is ascribing this hatred to feminist groups, which to me is the same as ascribing racism to the NAACP.

    (If you don’t think that, of course I apologize).

  • Madhabmatics

    I just want to point out that itt this is Huitzil unable to distinguish between individual feminists and attributing a variety of different opinions (he is conflating here multiple posters) and then demanding each individual feminist be responsible for what he sees as the “opinions” of feminism itself instead of individual posters.

    Seriously look at that, he is taking arguments from multiple people and then turning around and going “Aha, look at feminism – it says two contradictory things!” Check out that smug last line as he considers that he has finally struck the killing blow against feminism, instead of just proving everyone elses point that there is no feminist hivemind.

  • JustoneK

    We’re also generally talking in the institutional sense, hence the pay gap that started this whole thing – systematic misandry is not responsible for men losing promotions/jobs/bonuses to women, by and large, but the reverse is being shown as true.

  • Paul Durant

    There’s not a feminist “hivemind” (there is, in fact, positions between “hivemind” and “has no attributes or values and nothing can ever be attributed to it”), but the point of pointing that out is, even though the positions of the various people in this thread are mutually incompatible, and mutually insulting, they aren’t in any conflict with each other and each considers their version self-evidently right. It was not the killing blow against feminism, it was pointing out that y’all, you, the individuals, are still being raging hypocrites. 

    When people are right next to each other saying “Only a misogynist believes in misandry” and “Only an idiot would think feminism doesn’t believe in misandry,” and neither objects to the other’s argument at all, that’s a real big sign that you’re just here to attack someone a social group has cued as a bad person who should be attacked.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2RAPF5V3YPOUWAZGAJ2VCQM76Q Alicia

     That makes a little more sense then. I’m wondering how someone could get that impression. That has to be the apotheosis of false equivalency, like the kind of person who thinks that affirmative action is basically the same as slavery.

    Seriously look at that, he is taking arguments from multiple people
    and then turning around and going “Aha, look at feminism – it says two
    contradictory things!” Check out that smug last line as he considers
    that he has finally struck the killing blow against feminism, instead of
    just proving everyone elses point that there is no feminist hivemind.

    I can see how that can happen though. Personally I don’t think I could have a 4 on 1 debate like this without getting arguments mixed together. Of course, the solution isn’t to use that as some kind of argument against your opponents in and of itself.

  • JustoneK

    You’re the only one here making those two claims.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X