What Feminism Has Rot

Nope, Microsoft paper clip works.

You are committing a huge error here - assuming that correlation equals causation. Anyone with a slight grasp of methodology will tell you that this is invalid, because it leads to faulty conclusion like "Feminism exists, the Microsoft paper clip exists, therefore one is responsible for the other" or "One girl beat up another girl, feminism exists, therefore one is responsible for the other". While it could be true that the the variables can co-exist, we cannot make a strong argument on that data alone that one causes the other.

Your data is also incomplete by your own admission - you cite the beginning of feminism as the 1940s (although first wave is actually cited as starting with suffrage). Yet all your evidence about the violence it has brought about curiously only comes from the past two decades. You'd think we would have seen patterns of violence increase steadily since the onset of feminism - it would still just be a correlation, but it would be a much stronger one and could suggest a better experimental setup for more research, one that considers all the extraneous variables that you left out, such as employment and poverty, former abuse of the offenders, quality of life, age, and comparable rates for males in the same social-economical situation.

Interestingly enough, the past few decades have been cited as a period of a weakening of the feminism movement, largely in part from the backlash we saw in the 80s to the women's lib movement from the 70s.

And I suppose I'll just point this out as well - vagina /= feminist. So you are hard pressed to call a group like the Spice Girls, who's manager was male, and was produced by a largely male-controlled music industry, and had a message of "stripping as the only form of female empowerment", a feminist statement. So it appears that along with your weak grasp of statistics and empirical research, you don't even have a solid grasp on what feminism is.

So perhaps this will be better received by those that already share your assumed conclusion, like your audience on the American Women Suck website that this is also posted this on.*

*No, that's not hyperbole. It is a real site run by misogynists, and this article can be found on it. Something Awful skewered the site a while back. Being that it's a hate site, I won't link directly to it.

Then the violence of males must be "rot" by patriarchy.

men have murdered, raped, robbed for thousands of years - well before feminism. To what do you attribute that????

I'd say clearly MASCULISM.

As soon as the author starts defending his article based on just semantics, it proves that ether he is just a crappy writer and can't express his thoughts in a clear and precise manner that does not create ambiguity. He's trying to deceive the readers, or he doesn't know his subject matter well enough to be writing intelligently about it in the first place.
"rot" and "wrought" are two different words, are pronounced differently, and have totally different meanings and if he says both are correct then this is called being incoherent. He meant to use "rot" as it is commonly defined and now shows he is a coward and will not stand up and defend what he has said as a man. Proof, Stacy Malbonis is the better man here. That's what the center of this is all about, he just can not compete, he doesn't measure up, and wants to eliminate the competition from the field.

However, it seems that many newsvine posters, on many threads since I've been reading them for over two weeks now, seem to predicate theirs on emotion and ideology.

Stupid statement. This is not personal it is just an observation of fact. You just made a very stupid statement. I'm sure you don't think so, otherwise you would not have done it, and I'm also sure that, me, pointing this out to you "Feels" personal, and you will have a emotional reation to it, though you may not express it, but this can not be helped. That is a example of the first false premiss in you statement, the second is how do you express your own views or opinion on anything without stating an ideology? Your personal thoughts, your ideas and ideals, or those that you have adopted as true and call your own, impossible. Unless you always speak in the third person or never express your personal feelings or thoughts. You might as well just tell everyone to Shut up if you don't want to here their Idea's. And when you are challenged, based on your expressions of these idea's, again, how is this not personal? Sure, you don't always get mad, and loose control, but still. Unless you are a robot.

JPN.

Good morning. Pened!! Did your mom wake you and make you breakfast? Or is she out destroying the world this morning? Or is she jack slapping your daddy for coming home drunk and witnessing this abuse by a woman has made you want to spend money you don't have..thereby leaving you too indebted to tithe at church? I'm trying to think outside my usual box to discover how on earth any male child can have so much animosity towards the women's movement? For your larger mind consideration: Do you believe talent and skill may lie inside the brain of a homemaker? Do you believe that all the skill and talent should stay inside the home, cleaning it for you and your brothers? Do you have a sister?? Laying increased violence on women or pictures/films of women behaving badly is ludicrous! Maybe they got so mad at being required to temper their talents in their homes! Oh this is even boring trying to explain it to you. I' have got to go get the dishes done before I report to my multi million dollar business and get a mud wrestling match up between all the female employees! "willingfully naive"?? I'll say!! But you did get my blood boiling. Maybe I'll hit the dog with a pan!

To suggest that images of women and girls physically beating men and boys is not having an impact is to be willfully naive, much more so to suggest that the impact that feminism has had on the family unit ie. spirally divorce and single parent families has had no impact on a generation of children.

So, wait a minute, how is it not willfully naive for you to dismiss the violence and cruelty that patriarchal societies have inflicted upon women for more than a millennium and counting?

Wow, who knew that those on the political left could be as ignorant and closed minded as this?

Ha! You LIEbrals and your valid refutations. You're all brainwashed communists. Let's see you beat a great argument like that!

the suggestion that we should dismiss the author's arguments (mine) because of the mispelling in the title. To that I would reiterate, once again, that I am quite capable of spelling

You can tell by my misspelling of "misspelling".

All that said, does it really take away from the fact that worldwide feminist 'girl power' is translating into more violence?

But... but... the Spice Girls! THE SPICE GIRLS!

Then of course we get into the ad nauseum discussion of correlation versus causation... groan. You're right that correlation does not prove causation, but you're wrong to dismiss correlation as having NOTHING to do with causation.

If you start with the premise that bitches suck, it all becomes so clear! Who needs valid research?

However, since the 1960s, (the beginning of radical feminism - and no I do not include women's suffrage as a starting point), we have noticed dramatic changes in our society.

I'm just going to claim that feminism started 50 years it did. My only reason for doing so is that it would @!$%# up my already lame argument.

To suggest that images of women and girls physically beating men and boys is not having an impact is to be willfully naive

If anyone's going to be beat around here, it's going to bitches. By men. Because that's the way god intended it to be.

ie. spirally divorce and single parent families has had no impact on a generation of children.

It's really unfair that no-fault divorce allows bitches to leave me after they find out that I'm a misogynist douchebag.

You're inability to make the connection between our increasingly violent society and feminism is in all likelihood, part and parcel of the brainwashing that you experience starting at birth.

When you passed out of that uterus, you totally got cooties. THAT'S WHERE IT BEGINS!!!!

Every westernized university is rife with feminist indoctrination - hell it starts in primary school.

Like when they sing the song, "Steal a man's sperm and use a turkey baster to impregnant yourself so that you can @!$%# him over for child support forever and ever" in kindergarten.

Oh, and the remark that feminism made the western economies stronger almost sent me into histerics!

I misspelled it on purpose, because "hysterics" is totally girly.

You're right that correlation does not prove causation, but you're wrong to dismiss correlation as having NOTHING to do with causation.

Well, you're mostly wrong there. You're trying to get a point of leverage by observing a correlation and then working that lever inexpertly. The fact is, however, that you haven't come to your conclusion through analysis, and you clearly don't have a clear understanding of what the word "analysis" entails. You clearly began with the premise that:

Feminism the great society killer.

From there, you built an argument using a shoddy understanding economics, history, spelling, and contraction use. Why, then, do you ignore other factors blamed for the dislocations of the 1960s? Why not assert that the civil rights movement was a society killer (something I don't agree with). Or that putting lead in our gasoline was a society killer (something, actually, that I've seen persuasive arguments for). You could factor in how funds were diverted from domestic issues to fighting the Cold War (including the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam), or how the Baby Boomers were first coming of age and putting a strain on the workplace in the process. But you don't. You instead blame a handful of activists who, you feel, somehow bewitched the nation with their bra-less antics.

Oh, and the remark that feminism made the western economies stronger almost sent me into histerics! (Oh my God, did he misspell that intentionally, or is he just a really bad speller?) The U.S. economy, like other western economies, are into a downturn. Real debt in many western nations has exploded, manufacturing base has all but disappeared - your competitiveness, as it has been consumed with job and educational quotas, is likewise down.

This may come as a shock, but American wages have outpaced the cost of living by 20% since 1967. Our buying power has risen, which is part of the reason we, as a country, can afford to import so much of our manufactured goods. The standard of living, likewise, has risen considerably, despite the deficit spending of the Reagan and Bush years. The price shift in certain area (such as the housing market) is a reflection of how, even after adjusting for inflation, Americans have more money to spend. Especially after the explosive growth of the 90s, American life rests at a peak relative to the rest of American history. What you hear a lot of politicians publicly worried about is that this peak in the standard of living may be about to drop.

Debt is a problem, it's true, but nowhere as much as it is here in America. The UK has personal debt problems (in fact, it accounts for roughly 1/3 of personal debt in Europe), but France and Germany do not. If you had actually checked the data rather than pulling your numbers from some unmentionable place, you might have discovered that some problems aren't pandemic to the developed world.

In the end, however, I imagine you're working from a vantage point of having never actually examined data directly, nor do you seem to have an ability for judging the quality of data. You're doing "word-of-mouth statistics" and simply building an argument around the political buzzwords you commonly hear.

So let's turn the tables: you clearly think you're a visionary (and you may even have a friend or two), so let's hear what you think ought to be done. Maybe you feel women should shut up and cover up? Maybe you'd like the media to race back to a Leave-It-To-Beaver style of "wholesome" entertainment? Or maybe you'd like America to drift back to the era where domestic violence was more tolerated than divorce.

I admire your attempts at bringing data logic and reason to this debate, but it isn't being heard or analysed. Sharpened pen unfortunately isn't that sharp.

Don't get hysterical, SharpenedPen. We understand that you are having trouble with the fact that most American women are more successful than you are and your fragile ego is hurt.

Would you do me a favor? Would you click the edit button and fix your headline? It's been pointed out to you repeatedly it's incorrect, so just fix it.

I can't do anything about your misogyny, stupidity, or the fact that you apparently still fear communism. If I can at least get you to edit your headline, that would be an accomplishment.

OH MAN!!! YOU LADIES TOTALLY GOT PWNED!!!

Since when is misogyny not a totally defensible, legitimate positions. What was that? Since the 1920s.

It has already been said that correlation does not equal causation. What is your causal link, your warrant? You say that to not believe the asserted warrant is a practice in willful naiveté; but you haven't provided a warranted to that either. I can point to at least twelve other things that are to blame for the problems that you cite. I will say, for the purpose of this thread that late-modern capitalism is to blame.

I challenge anyone that finds truth in this article. I have no problem defending any flavor of feminism. Be first wave suffrage, second wave liberal, third wave ... hell even SMUG feminism (props to those that know), or even the sometimes called fourth wave (queer theory). BRING IT.

Now for alternate causality, we will start with two reasons capitalism is to blame:

1) Capitalism teaches that everyone must fend for themselves, in this sense it is capitalism that has put an existential strain on all members of society. It is not just female oriented violence that has increases, but all violence. It is the constant drive for competition, that not only requires, but necessitates that conflict among individuals happens and that the byproduct is some sort of profit.

2) I will call this the Crisis of the Spectacle. The alienation of the working class is tied to, among other things, the Spectacle (the phenomenon where an image or representation of experience is consumed in place of the experience its self. We watch TV and feel that we have lived those mediated experiences our selves. Well why is TV so violent? In a constant drive to out shock their competitors, TV networks have to constant raise the bar in order to SELL advertising on their networks. This raising of the bar in prime-time entertainment has been tied to increasing agitation and aggression.

Have at it.

Vince

Now you'll have to crucify me to your hammer and sickle

So we're communists too?

Not just communists: Crucifixion Communists! I guess that makes us Roman Reds?

A sickle wouldn't be particularly useful in a crucifixion, you uneducated buffoon.

I challenge anyone that finds truth in this article. I have no problem defending any flavor of feminism. Be first wave suffrage, second wave liberal, third wave ... hell even SMUG feminism (props to those that know), or even the sometimes called fourth wave (queer theory). BRING IT.

excuse me I meant SCUM feminism (the props remain the same). And the challenge remains.

SCUM is not feminism, it's misandry. Feminism is about equality. SCUM is about hate.

Sounds like SharpenedPen is an admirer of Philip Wylie.

Does the term Momism resonate at all with you, ShPen?

I'll dispense with a critique of your premise, ShPen. Others have provided eloquent and cogent arguments on that score. As for your left-wing characterizations? Silly stuff. The right-wing has made an art of attacking the "poster" while ignoring the message. Um . . .
Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, FOXNews to name a few . . .

Apparently, finding yourself defeated on the feminist issue, you frantically looked around for another group to bash.

It seems you're only really interested in rating a standing on the leadership board by writing empty-headed, incendiary articles with titles that scream for attention. You've succeeded there.

Maybe your next article should be "The 10 Things I Love Most About Adolph Hitler."

Heh.

Masculists are the "communists" b/c they want to force others (women) to live under their rule.

Hmmm?

LOL! You are funny.

btb:

:-]

I refer to you as communists because that is how you approach your arguments - villify the poster, rather than constructively criticize the content.

You are a misogynist, a bigot, and quite frankly a moron. Your deductions in this article are so laughably, absurdly off-base that all one needs to do is point to a list of logical fallacies and it collapses. It is nothing but a thinly veiled hate piece with selectively edited "evidence" cited as a poor attempt at intellectual validation. (In this respect it reminds me a lot of the way Fred Phelps attempts (and fails) to defend his beliefs with Scripture on godhatesfags.com.) You come across to me as one of those @!$%#s who's had one too many girlfriends dump him—or one too many wives divorce him—once they realize what a raging dick he is, and you're so bitter that you've chosen to dedicate the rest of your life to railing against women. This drivel is not even worthy of a coherent response. It is worthy of ridicule and vilification, and that is exactly what we are giving it.

Ah Eric, there are so few historical materialists left. Where did you all go?

I have my own concerns and disagreements with this methodology; but I won't air them here. I know smarts when I see them.

Now here is where it becomes increasingly difficult to compare ideologies: some ideologies, like Sharpenedpen's (why does a pen need to be sharp?) lack any integrity (as in logical, morally, whatever gauge of integrity you want to use) that comparing an ideology such as Marxism (which has a long history) to an ideology of misogyny is functionally impossible. The comparison already cedes too much argumentative ground at the onset.

Keep up the good work Eric, I am growing more and more fond of your contributions. Now I get to draw on my background in Gender Theory to respond to a comment that claims there are only two genders. Yay.

I said "femininity" was a construct. You cannot spell or read? Don't blame yourself, you can always blame your mother.

Gender is very much a social construct. You claim that women are feminine because they have a vagina (you say to look at Anatomy books), this is wrong. I could get you to list all of the traits that are considered feminine and all the traits that are masculine, and you will see a lot of overlap (as a matter of fact all could be overlapped). After this you would go back to the vagina/penis as the ultimate arbiter of sex. This is also wrong. Intersexed people would disagree with you.

The only think that determines sex is what the doctor marks on a birth certificate. That is the only thing, look at the story of David Reimer for a good example. Many people are born intersexed, and the way that the doctor determines what sex to mark on the birth certificate is this: if what is supposed to be the penis is long enough, the doctor marks "male"; if it is not the doctor cuts it of and marks 'female."

Be careful not to conflate sex and gender. Both are socially constructed in different ways.

SP, name two people on earth who do not benefit from their differences? No two people can work or live together without their differences being a significant part of the relationship. That argument doesn't prove anything.

I'm sure you will continue to develop your idealism, but perhaps you might also consider the benefit from being enlightened with some reality.