A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

[Skip]

Skip, I am not aware that I am causing any harm. Please elaborate.

You are old enough to be aware. If you are not, it is because you do not wish to be.
I don't have enough years left to waste time preaching at the wilderness.

[Duncan Butlin]

Skip, I am not aware that I am causing any harm. Please elaborate.

You are old enough to be aware. If you are not, it is because you do not wish to be.
I don't have enough years left to waste time preaching at the wilderness.

I have shown how women have managed to tie up men’s brains in a knot of female logic -- hoping thus to unravel it. How can that be harmful? If I succeed, with men thinking clearly again, the whole world should improve -- including men’s treatment of women, and women's treatment of men.

[Skip]

Document the period of recorded history wherein men thought clearly and treated women as well as women treated men.
Just so we know the standard for which you are aiming.

[Duncan Butlin]

Just like the feminists, I believe there has been a struggle for power between men and women for a long time -- the sex war. Unlike the feminists, I focus on informal power within the family, rather than public power -- this war has been going on for a whole lot longer.

Sex wars have been waged many times around the world, as species have come and gone. Recently, in primate times, the pace has hotted up. Twenty five million years ago (our common ancestor with baboons), the male primate suffered a disastrous set back -- his mate learnt how to deny sex over night. In a trice his dominance became a mere sham, just to keep up appearances -- it was she who was calling the shots. Power in the primate relationship has become more and more lopsided ever since.

Hence, in the only hunter-gatherer family I have met (I gave them a lift in the jungle in Irian Jaya), the wife had far too much power. When her husband made a slight mistake (he let his knife come rather close to my neck) she gave him such a tongue lashing that eventually the children had to interfere to get her to stop. He had shrunk to half his size in fear.

So, contrary to the feminists’ characterisation of patriarchy as the male bullying the female for an unspecified period in the past, I believe the female has been bullying the male for 25 million years. I know my anecdotal documentation will not meet your usual standards, but human behaviour does not fossilise. I am working on some sociobiological theories to substantiate my claim.

This is not recorded history as you requested -- sorry -- but I believe similar logic applies. When there is a war men regain considerable influence because their greater propensity for killing becomes an asset to be admired, not vilified. But after say twenty years of peace women regain the upper hand.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

[snip]

Almost every sentence of the above is shot through with subtle, illogical bias against men, but few people notice. It is hard to believe, but this logic has all but taken over the Western world.

It's not just a bias, and it's certainly not subtle - the sentiments in that blatantly contradicts itself. At one point, this hypothetical person says not to differentiate between male and female logic, and then proceeds to do just that, by its own self-admittance.

I think that most people would be able to notice that.

As far as differentiating between male and female 'logic', I don't think that's right to do. While there are generally differences in the opinions of men and women based on gender - women are more likely to have religious beliefs, for example - I don't have a reason to believe it's due to some misapplication of logic; It's not based on a ground that high up. I think we have the exact same logical intuitions, but the differences in what men and women tend to believe are probably based on a lot of other factors, like culture or biological inclination. Mostly, I think it's because we're all exposed to different information. To go back to the religious belief thing, even though I consider that an irrational belief - maybe it's the most rational thing they could believe given the information they've been exposed to and considered? People can rationally believe irrational things. They can also irrationally believe rational things, so this is all to say that this still works within the most basic understanding of the laws of thought.

[Duncan Butlin]

Sir-Sister-of-Suck, I know it seems ridiculous that anyone would fall for such nonsense as my ‘fair treatment’ argument, but I’m trying to find some explanation for men getting the sack nowadays, when they point out female shortcomings, while women get promoted (in Women’s Studies, for example) when they point out male shortcomings. Nobody strings the false arguments together in such a tight knot as I have done, of course, but each statement standing on its own has popular support in other circumstances. It's just possible that this 'logic' is driving the defeat of men.

I think I agree that both men and women have the same understanding of logic, but when we decide to bend the rules I think men and women bend them in different ways. For a start I think women mainly cheat subconsciously, where as men consciously decide to apply pressure. I think women are more adept at changing levels of argument -- effortlessly involving sex, ad hominem, displacement activity, lying by omission, threatening to withdraw, etc. As the feminists say, men’s thought tends to phallocentric dogmatism, phallocrat, dickhead, and, as per Lacewing, ‘railroad over and attack everybody … brute force, nasty, demolishes all else’.

Above all, women call men sexist an awful lot more than we call them sexist (in fact in some dictionaries sexism is defined only as men being nasty to women). The word ‘misogynist’ predates ‘misandrist’ by 250 years, and outnumbers misandrist fifty to one in common usage. That is a measure of how abusive women have been of men, compared with the other way round, in historical times.

To summarise, men need quick ways of putting women in their place (women are much better at putting men in their place, as the ‘sexist’ analysis above illustrates), and the term ‘female logic’ works quite well. Like ‘misogynist’ shouted at a man, it not only puts down the woman at hand, but castes aspersions on the whole of womankind. Just the sort of weapon men need to start fighting their side in the sex war again.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Sir-Sister-of-Suck, I know it seems ridiculous that anyone would fall for such nonsense as my ‘fair treatment’ argument, but I’m trying to find some explanation for men getting the sack nowadays, when they point out female shortcomings,

I'm sure there are men who 'get the sack' for doing that, and I'm sure there are men who don't. I'm sure there are scenarios where the men are even 'applauded' for making fun of women.

This is the problem that I have with the sort of culture criticism that tries to find general patterns based on anecdotes, specifically because it leads to an argument where two people are incessantly trying to juxtapose each other with 'who actually has it worse?' The conversation ends up in this very messy place that isn't at all objective.

When I say that women are more likely to be religious, that is a very well documented thing with a lot of studies supporting it; When someone says something along the line of 'Why is Buck praised for fucking tons of women, whereas becky is called a 'slut'?" that is something which is very dependent on your own personal experiences. If you think I'm saying that using your own anecdotes is always the wrong thing to do - then you're missing my point, because in general I would agree the sentiment that promiscuous women are seen as 'whorish' seems more popular than it is with men. The reason why it's a problem for discussion is because there's no actual data to start arguing about; You are either asking the other person to assume what you're saying, or your basis is so flimsy that anything that anyone has ever said they've experienced, goes.

And asking someone to assume something for the sake of discussion, is generally fine, but not in a question phrased as "Why are women chastised more often for being promiscuous?", because there is no answer to that question if you're wrong.

Above all, women call men sexist an awful lot more than we call them sexist (in fact in some dictionaries sexism is defined only as men being nasty to women). The word ‘misogynist’ predates ‘misandrist’ by 250 years, and outnumbers misandrist fifty to one in common usage. That is a measure of how abusive women have been of men, compared with the other way round, in historical times.

I think they do it a lot less than you might imagine. I mean there's a reason why few women identify as feminist in fear of being perceived as man-hating.

To summarise, men need quick ways of putting women in their place (women are much better at putting men in their place, as the ‘sexist’ analysis above illustrates), and the term ‘female logic’ works quite well. Like ‘misogynist’ shouted at a man, it not only puts down the woman at hand, but castes aspersions on the whole of womankind. Just the sort of weapon men need to start fighting their side in the sex war again.

Why would you want to do what you disagree with?

[Skip]

This is not recorded history as you requested -- sorry -- but I believe similar logic applies.

So, the state you wish to return to prevailed 26 million years ago?
I don't think anyone living at that time would question your logic.

Above all, women call men sexist an awful lot more than we call them sexist (in fact in some dictionaries sexism is defined only as men being nasty to women). The word ‘misogynist’ predates ‘misandrist’ by 250 years, and outnumbers misandrist fifty to one in common usage. That is a measure of how abusive women have been of men, compared with the other way round, in historical times.

So... the fact that there is a word for it, and the concept has been in common knowledge for a long time, is proof that the exact opposite is true?
If that's the only "male logic" on tap, I'll take Hypatia's.

[Duncan Butlin]

Sir-Sister-of-Suck, I agree that one can often amass evidence on both sides of an argument, leading to an impasse, but I don’t think that is the case here. I give you high profile cases of men recently getting into serious trouble for pointing out some female inferiority: Edward Wilson, Larry Summers, Tim Hunt, James Damore, BA Systems manager in the UK. I challenge you to identify one high profile example of a man getting ‘applauded’ for identifying female inferiorities. Similarly, I challenge you to identify one instance of a woman getting into trouble for identifying a male inferiority (such as our patriarchal behaviour).

I agree that female greater religiosity is well founded in fact -- also their greater gullibility when it comes to the paranormal, alternative medicine, etc. -- but I think there are many more sex differences that are also as well founded. True, books like “The Mismeasure of Man” (Stephen Jay Gould), “Not in our Genes” (Rose, Lewontin and Kamin), and “Delusions of Gender” (Cordelia Fine), attempt to pile on the evidence saying there are no sex differences, but all three can be dismissed as dishonest diatribes, using all sorts of cheating tricks to present their opinions.

When dealing with social phenomenon, anecdotal data is often all you have to go on. I am writing an essay entirely based on anecdotes. Here’s how I justify such a seemingly crazy enterprise:

* *
I rely on my own experiences and intuition to supply me with data, plus information related to me by others. Rather than presenting and referencing evidence, I leave it to the reader to establish his own, by trying out the phenomena I describe. This is easy to do because the behaviour is common to all cultures. In this way the reader can prove my propositions for himself (if they are right) -- far better than any scientific evidence. He can adopt my ideas as his own. The whole world is my peer reviewer and critical colleague.
* *

In other words, when it comes to social behaviour I am far more tolerant than you of personal stories and ‘self-discovery’.

You say ‘few women identify as feminist’, which is true, but how many are actually organising to give up the gains feminists have made? Even those valiant ladies in the Men’s Rights Movement don’t, in general, want to give up female advantages. The truth is that the feminist activists have the backing of the vast majority of women, if they were honest about it.

You ask me why I would want to attack women, presuming that I disapprove of women attacking men. But that is wrong. I only disapprove of women attacking men when they use false logic and other trickery. I am a true believer in the sex war, and so I am quite happy to lock swords with feminists forevermore. In fact I’ve had some wonderful times in the past attending their conferences and quite often getting positive feedback for my radical views. It is men I am dissatisfied with: they have given up the sex war and fallen silent, for all intents and purposes.

[Duncan Butlin]

Skip, I know that 25 million years is a long time ago, and yes, conscious brains did not exist, then. But these sex wars are serious at very primitive levels. Look at the fig wasp: the male has been reduced to a simple worm, spending all his life within the fig and with only one mission: impregnation. The female, on the other hand, is a fully-fledged wasp. Things can get seriously out-of-balance at a very early stage.

There is no question that women call men sexist and misogynist far, far more often than men call women sexist and misandrist. The only question is, do men deserve it? Have men really been much more hateful of women than women have been of men, since the 1600s? On the face of it the idea is ludicrous: men’s greater preoccupation with sex, and their indiscriminate way of choosing partners suggest men are far more generous to women than selective women are to men. Feminists claim that men’s greater preoccupation with sex ‘objectifies’ women, and equate this to a form of hatred, but that goes far too far. Disrespect, maybe, but hatred? That is nonsense.

A good way to judge whose interpretation fits the facts best is to look at what has happened over time. If your belief is true (men have been very misogynist in the past, and women needed the term to call them out) then as men and women have become more equal over the last 200 years there will be less and less need for women to use the term. If, however, I am right (women invented the term to bully men), then the stronger women get, relative to men, the more they will use the term.

History bears me out: women are using the term more and more, as men weaken, and have commandeered the new term ‘sexism’ almost exclusively to put men down. Even the well-established word ‘patriarchy’ has become a word of abuse. Accordingly, and contrary to popular belief, the existence and usage of these words (misogynist, sexist, patriarchy) is not evidence for the phenomena they describe -- men bullying women -- they all show that women are bullying men on an ever-increasing scale.

[Lacewing]

In my own experience as a female...

Of all the women I have known, I can only think of a couple who bullied others -- men and women, alike -- they had no discernment.

Of all the men I have known and encountered, I have thousands of memories of men bullying or oppressing me (even if only subtly). Many of those experiences were of them automatically/immediately dismissing me -- perhaps even snorting with their superiority -- yet I was totally justified and correct! Is it any wonder that I now enjoy denouncing and challenging their idiocy here on this forum?

I've had a lot of female friends in my life, and we all have been very supportive of men; we want the best for men, just as we want the best for all.

And I love men. Most of my closest friends have been men. I appreciate their perspectives when they are being wise, respectful, honest, and caring -- and when they are not ruled mindlessly by their ego and body appendages. Seriously... we can be more than that... and it's much more interesting! My male friends express disgust, too, in low-level male standards of behavior and thinking. One friend refers to oppressive and competitive behaviors as: Peeing higher on the tree. This is not an issue that women have made up about men, and women should not be blamed if awareness of it is rising and evolving.

Think about it... if a certain group of people are defining and controlling the majority of the world, built on the limitations of their qualities, while they oppress others who might expand the world beyond those definitions and controls, then that group of people can greatly stagnate awareness and potential.

My outspoken nature on this website about men is no different than my outspoken nature about religion or any people (male or female) who are being dishonest or acting stupid. It's fun and liberating to confront such things (here) in provocative and entertaining ways. A lot of people are numb to absurdities they believe or say. This forum is a place to be very vocal in challenging such things in a way (and using methods) we might not do in person -- because here, people can choose to enter the "truth arena" and have the floodlights turned on. Whereas in a one-on-one situation in person, a much softer and measured approach will likely be more effective when dealing with absurdities.

I have never denied sex to a man as some sort of tool. My female friends have never told me that they do that either. I know of women who have "not been in the mood" when they were upset about something, and I think that is completely reasonable. If that makes the man feel like a controlled, sniveling worm, that sounds like his problem.

The conclusions made by Duncan sound like distortions based on limited awareness and information -- and based on that, he has put it together the best way he knows how to preserve his ego. In doing so, he demonstrates the same limited and rigid male patterns that many people are eager to evolve beyond: archaic notions such as exalting men as being superior for control... putting women in their place... and blaming women for being "evil". Surely there are many, much better possibilities to experience.

[Eodnhoj7]

In my own experience as a female...

Of all the women I have known, I can only think of a couple who bullied others -- men and women, alike -- they had no discernment.

Of all the men I have known and encountered, I have thousands of memories of men bullying or oppressing me (even if only subtly). Many of those experiences were of them automatically/immediately dismissing me -- perhaps even snorting with their superiority -- yet I was totally justified and correct! Is it any wonder that I now enjoy denouncing and challenging their idiocy here on this forum?

I've had a lot of female friends in my life, and we all have been very supportive of men; we want the best for men, just as we want the best for all.

And I love men. Most of my closest friends have been men. I appreciate their perspectives when they are being wise, respectful, honest, and caring -- and when they are not ruled mindlessly by their ego and body appendages. Seriously... we can be more than that... and it's much more interesting! My male friends express disgust, too, in low-level male standards of behavior and thinking. One friend refers to oppressive and competitive behaviors as: Peeing higher on the tree. This is not an issue that women have made up about men, and women should not be blamed if awareness of it is rising and evolving.

Think about it... if a certain group of people are defining and controlling the majority of the world, built on the limitations of their qualities, while they oppress others who might expand the world beyond those definitions and controls, then that group of people can greatly stagnate awareness and potential.

My outspoken nature on this website about men is no different than my outspoken nature about religion or any people (male or female) who are being dishonest or acting stupid. It's fun and liberating to confront such things (here) in provocative and entertaining ways. A lot of people are numb to absurdities they believe or say. This forum is a place to be very vocal in challenging such things in a way (and using methods) we might not do in person -- because here, people can choose to enter the "truth arena" and have the floodlights turned on. Whereas in a one-on-one situation in person, a much softer and measured approach will likely be more effective when dealing with absurdities.

I have never denied sex to a man as some sort of tool. My female friends have never told me that they do that either. I know of women who have "not been in the mood" when they were upset about something, and I think that is completely reasonable. If that makes the man feel like a controlled, sniveling worm, that sounds like his problem.

The conclusions made by Duncan sound like distortions based on limited awareness and information -- and based on that, he has put it together the best way he knows how to preserve his ego. In doing so, he demonstrates the same limited and rigid male patterns that many people are eager to evolve beyond: archaic notions such as exalting men as being superior for control... putting women in their place... and blaming women for being "evil". Surely there are many more possibilities to experience.

So you sleep with whatever man is present and expect to not be abused and disrespected?

Wait...let me insert the "fuck you John" and save you the trouble.

If you want the "truth" from a man's perspective you can be treat a woman right, be strong both physically and mentally, financially sound, etc. and the truth is the women will move on to the next man...it is in their nature.

Don't play the "I am innocent" card.

It is easier to get a blow job than find a loyal woman. I don't know how many stories I have dealt with or heard where the woman had multiple men she would jump to as a "back up" that she just strings along. I know of one story where the girl was done blowing her friend outside of her boyfriends house, walked up to the door, with the boyfriend welcoming her...and then she kissed him on the lips.

Are you correct about the "bad men out their"? Yes, you will get no disagreement from me...but the behavior I have both seen and experienced is cruel on a whole different level.

Women are numbers...nothing more or less...they chose this path.


You love the universe, it guides your path, don't differentiate the different "viewpoints" it offers you.

[Lacewing]

I have never denied sex to a man as some sort of tool.

So you sleep with whatever man is present and expect to not be abused and disrespected?

See how twisted you are? You can't even comprehend things straight. Slowly read what I said. Of course I have denied sex to men that I don't want to have sex with. But I have not used sex as some sort of tool. Are you able to see the distinction, or are you a total tool yourself?

Wait...let me insert the "fuck you John" and save you the trouble.

Damn... you even take the fun out of it for me.

If you want the "truth" from a man's perspective you can treat a woman right, be strong both physically and mentally, financially sound, etc. and the truth is the women will move on to the next man...it is in their nature.

Maybe that's your experience/perspective... but that's not how I am, nor is it the way I've known women to be. I don't know what kind of people you hang around with. And I don't know to what extent you're delusional or ignorant about yourself.

Don't play the "I am innocent" card.

What are you talking about and projecting now? Nevermind... it's all stupid.

It is easier to get a blow job than find a loyal woman.

Maybe you're not deserving of more than that. Be glad you get that.

I don't know how many stories I have dealt with or heard where the woman had multiple men she would jump to as a "back up" that she just strings along.

Well, it's not nice for anyone to string anyone along, but there ARE a lot of stupid and lying men who are on a single dull channel of getting what they want, and it's only reasonable for a woman to "move on" if that's the low-level mentality she's being faced with. Too many men seem to think that their dick is something every woman should worship as the man does himself. So if men are going to be that shallow (which, yes, you appear to be) then some women might jerk you around with it like a pull-toy.

I know of one story where the girl was done blowing her friend outside of her boyfriends house, walked up to the door, with the boyfriend welcoming her...and then she kissed him on the lips.

I know of the exact opposite story. So, what's the conclusion???

Are you correct about the "bad men out their"? Yes, you will get no disagreement from me...but the behavior I have both seen and experienced is cruel on a whole different level.

Because it affects YOU! That's the "whole different level" that matters. Right? Fuck off! There, I got to say it.

[Duncan Butlin]

Lacewing and Eodnhoj7, we seem to be straying from the point, however exciting the repartee. Does my knot of female logic explain the silencing of men criticising women in public in the Western world or not? Just listen to one of the leading feminists in the the US (published recently in the Washington Post)
* * *
If you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this … Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy.
* * *
Just imagine if a man had said this about women. This is an indicator of just how out-of-control women are these days.

[Lacewing]

That's hilarious Duncan.

Just imagine if a man had said this about women.

You've got to be kidding. Men have said far worse for so long. Are you really so oblivious?

No, your knot of female logic doesn't explain anything -- it just points to the fanciful delusions you're spinning.

As I've said before, I think it's a natural reckoning. Males are not the ultimate wisdom in the universe, and I think we'd all be better off if they stop acting like it.