Toxic Gender Philosophy

[Alexiev]

Once again, your whinging

There is none. Stop the nonsense.

We don't "believe all women", and never have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women

The statistics about fatherless homes prove nothing.

Really? Some of the best and most consistent sociological evidence we have "proves nothing"?

Not a fan of science, I'm guessing.

This is belied by my own son, who graduated from an Ivy League University phi beta kappa and summa cum laude, and has a successful career.

An anecdote is an exception. It is not data.

Don't major in gender studies.

It's not a real academic subject.

As your wiki article clearly points out (did you read it?) there's a difference between "believe women" and "believe all women". Also, you appear to be the one who does not understand science or statistics. Even when statistics are accurate, the inferences one draws from them may not be. If children reared by single parents are less successful than those reared in two parent homes, we cannot logically infer that the distinction in success is caused by married or unmarried parents. Anyone with a basic understanding of logic and science can see that.

Gender studies (at many universities) is an interdisciplinary major. Why it is not a "real academic subject" is unclear. Do you think it is not worthy of study, or that nobody actually studies it? If so, you are wrong (as usual).

Here's just one of Immanuel's many whining plaints:

For the removal of this "other," this counterpart, leaves about half of the human race on the outside of society. What is to be done with all this "masculine" energy, once we have denied it has any place to be useful or celebrated within our feminized society? What is to be done with our boys?

Yet -- all evidence to the contrary -- he complains that he is not whining. What is to be done with our boys? Whaaaa! Whaaaa! How horrible!

Arguing with the radical fringes of feminism is grasping for low hanging fruit. To suggest that we are about to "leave half the human race on the outside of society" is nonsensical. It is true that women are (and in the past have been) excluded from society. In some Moslem countries they cannot show their faces in public. Until 100 years ago, they could not vote, even in liberal democracies. To suggest that men face similar danger is silly, alarmist, unmanly whining.

[LuckyR]

Once again, your whinging

There is none. Stop the nonsense.

We don't "believe all women", and never have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women

The statistics about fatherless homes prove nothing.

Really? Some of the best and most consistent sociological evidence we have "proves nothing"?

Not a fan of science, I'm guessing.

This is belied by my own son, who graduated from an Ivy League University phi beta kappa and summa cum laude, and has a successful career.

An anecdote is an exception. It is not data.

Don't major in gender studies.

It's not a real academic subject.

As your wiki article clearly points out (did you read it?) there's a difference between "believe women" and "believe all women". Also, you appear to be the one who does not understand science or statistics. Even when statistics are accurate, the inferences one draws from them may not be. If children reared by single parents are less successful than those reared in two parent homes, we cannot logically infer that the distinction in success is caused by married or unmarried parents. Anyone with a basic understanding of logic and science can see that.

Gender studies (at many universities) is an interdisciplinary major. Why it is not a "real academic subject" is unclear. Do you think it is not worthy of study, or that nobody actually studies it? If so, you are wrong (as usual).

Here's just one of Immanuel's many whining plaints:

For the removal of this "other," this counterpart, leaves about half of the human race on the outside of society. What is to be done with all this "masculine" energy, once we have denied it has any place to be useful or celebrated within our feminized society? What is to be done with our boys?

Yet -- all evidence to the contrary -- he complains that he is not whining. What is to be done with our boys? Whaaaa! Whaaaa! How horrible!

Arguing with the radical fringes of feminism is grasping for low hanging fruit. To suggest that we are about to "leave half the human race on the outside of society" is nonsensical. It is true that women are (and in the past have been) excluded from society. In some Moslem countries they cannot show their faces in public. Until 100 years ago, they could not vote, even in liberal democracies. To suggest that men face similar danger is silly, alarmist, unmanly whining.

Alas, no one whines louder than those who have become accustomed to an advantage, fearing losing that advantage.

[Immanuel Can]

If children reared by single parents are less successful than those reared in two parent homes,...

Don't worry...they are. All the studies show that. The only question is how bad the damage will be.

Gender studies (at many universities) is an interdisciplinary major.

A phony one. It has no discipline.

Arguing with the radical fringes of feminism is grasping for low hanging fruit.

I'm not. I'm pointing out the fallacies of mainstream Feminism. The radical fringes are worse, it's true: but nobody takes them seriously any longer, because they've become too shrill and idiotic.

In some Moslem countries

Western Feminists care zero for Muslim women. If they did, they'd be targeting their objections on Islam and Sharia; because you're right -- that's where most of the truly horrendous anti-women policies are. But they don't. They target them at affluent, liberal, Westerners, because that's what's easy for them to do, and doesn't require them to take any risks, and doesn't present any serious difficulties to getting whatever they want. They're going to let sexism rage unchecked in the Islamic world, just as they always have; because they're so terrified of being called "Islamophobe" or "racist" that they give up every principle they pretend to stand for, the first minute a Muslim waves the flag.

That's evident. You can see it from everything they've already been doing and are doing right now.

[Alexiev]

If children reared by single parents are less successful than those reared in two parent homes,...

Don't worry...they are. All the studies show that. The only question is how bad the damage will be.

Gender studies (at many universities) is an interdisciplinary major.

A phony one. It has no discipline.

As I've pointed out (but you fail to understand) studies that show that children from single parent homes are less successful than those with two parents at home prove nothing about the impact of one vs. two parents. Such studies may suggest a causal impact, but they do not and cannot prove that impact. Are children from poor homes less successful than those from rich homes? Probably. Are single parents likely to be poorer than married parents? Probably. Are intelligent parents likely to have successful children? Probably. Are single parents (on average) likely to be less intelligent than married parents? I don't know, but maybe they are. Any one of dozens of other factors may be the causal influence.

I'm glad you feel qualified to criticize gender studies, though. I assume (from your thorough knowledge of the field) that you majored in gender studies, in which case your lack of knowledge about science and logic would support your case about the lack of discipline in your major field.

[Immanuel Can]

If children reared by single parents are less successful than those reared in two parent homes,...

Don't worry...they are. All the studies show that. The only question is how bad the damage will be.

As I've pointed out (but you fail to understand) studies that show that children from single parent homes are less successful than those with two parents at home prove nothing about the impact of one vs. two parents.

You're kidding yourself. It's true that correlation does not prove causality -- and it doesn't disprove it, either. But in situations in which the correlation is absurdly high, it cannot be ignored. There is no reasonable doubt any longer that single-parenting is harmful, in all but the most extreme cases.

For example:

Children from fatherless families are 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
They are 4 times more likely to be raised in poverty.
They are twice as likely to commit suicide.
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
Girls are 9 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in a home without a biological father.
70% of unwed pregnancies occur in homes without a father.
Stepfathers and boyfriends pose a much higher risk of sexual predation.
60 percent of accused rapists came from fatherless homes.
Those raised in fatherless homes are 11 times more likely to engage in violent behavior and 20 times more likely to be incarcerated at some point.

These sorts of statistics have been reproduced over and over in multiple samples across different countries, cultures, languages and backgrounds. Very few sets of studies have shown such high correlations, such reproducible results, such consistent symptoms, and such a large control group. It's just beyond the possibility of ignoring and sweeping under the rug: single-parent families harm children.

And even your common sense will tell you that's how it is. And the PC narrative will even tell you it is. Ask yourself this: is single-parenting especially hard, or not? Do these people deserve our sympathy and help, or are they the ones who are "just whining," and deserve to be treated exactly like two-parent families? But if single-parenting is hard, then how can it both be massively harder than two-parenting, and yet not harmful or detrimental in any way? So the advocates of single-parenting need to get their own story straight: if single-parenting is a perfectly normal and equal option, then they deserve no special help or concern from anybody; but if they deserve special help or concern, then it's only because single-parenting is much harder, more painful, more miserable, more lonely, more impoverished and ultimately more damaging on an average basis.

So make up your mind: which was is it?

A phony one. It has no discipline.

I'm glad you feel qualified to criticize gender studies, though.

I am, actually. More qualified than you can possibly imagine.

[Immanuel Can]

Alas, no one whines louder than those who have become accustomed to an advantage, fearing losing that advantage.

I'm very amused. This is the story, the "patriarchy" narrative, that the Feminists sell to the naive. They actually want us to think that men who worked in mines, or felled trees and laid bricks, or went to war and died in a trench were more "privileged" than their womenfolk who stayed home and kept house, did teaching or nursing, or worked in a local factory making the bombs that would later be used to kill men.

Hogwash.

The truth is that throughtout history, life has been hard -- and differently hard -- for both sexes. There was no miraculous "patriarchy" period, in which men had only good things, and women only "oppression."

[Alexiev]

If children reared by single parents are less successful than those reared in two parent homes,...

Don't worry...they are. All the studies show that. The only question is how bad the damage will be.

As I've pointed out (but you fail to understand) studies that show that children from single parent homes are less successful than those with two parents at home prove nothing about the impact of one vs. two parents.

You're kidding yourself. It's true that correlation does not prove causality -- and it doesn't disprove it, either. But in situations in which the correlation is absurdly high, it cannot be ignored. There is no reasonable doubt any longer that single-parenting is harmful, in all but the most extreme cases.

For example:

Children from fatherless families are 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
They are 4 times more likely to be raised in poverty.
They are twice as likely to commit suicide.
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
Girls are 9 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in a home without a biological father.
70% of unwed pregnancies occur in homes without a father.
Stepfathers and boyfriends pose a much higher risk of sexual predation.
60 percent of accused rapists came from fatherless homes.
Those raised in fatherless homes are 11 times more likely to engage in violent behavior and 20 times more likely to be incarcerated at some point.

These sorts of statistics have been reproduced over and over in multiple samples across different countries, cultures, languages and backgrounds. Very few sets of studies have shown such high correlations, such reproducible results, such consistent symptoms, and such a large control group. It's just beyond the possibility of ignoring and sweeping under the rug: single-parent families harm children.

And even your common sense will tell you that's how it is. And the PC narrative will even tell you it is. Ask yourself this: is single-parenting especially hard, or not? Do these people deserve our sympathy and help, or are they the ones who are "just whining," and deserve to be treated exactly like two-parent families? But if single-parenting is hard, then how can it both be massively harder than two-parenting, and yet not harmful or detrimental in any way? So the advocates of single-parenting need to get their own story straight: if single-parenting is a perfectly normal and equal option, then they deserve no special help or concern from anybody; but if they deserve special help or concern, then it's only because single-parenting is much harder, more painful, more miserable, more lonely, more impoverished and ultimately more damaging on an average basis.

So make up your mind: which was is it?

A phony one. It has no discipline.

I'm glad you feel qualified to criticize gender studies, though.

I am, actually. More qualified than you can possibly imagine.

Your statistics are incredible. How does anyone know which children "abuse chemical substances"? Maybe rich suburban two-parent kids take lots of drugs, but don't get in trouble with the police. Isn't that a possibility? "70% of unwed pregnancies occur in homes without a father"? Gee, if unwed pregnancy is an accepted cultural norm it is more likely to occur. Surprise, surprise! Also, as with the drug abuse statistic you cite, how does anyone know? Maybe rich suburban girls get abortions if they get pregnant. If more girls from two parent homes get abortions, would that prove that marriage and the nuclear family is a horrid institution, promoting murder? Isn't it a possibility that rich, well educated girls have better access to both abortion and birth control?

As a single parent, I can assure you that single parenting is not hard. Joint custody is a great way to rear children. The parents get all the fun of rearing a child, and all the fun (every other week) of being single. Of course parents should be responsible. Many single parent homes have at least one parent (often the father) who is irresponsible. Nobody denies that this is far from ideal. If traits are inherited (either genetically, or because we learn behavior from our parents) it is hardly surprising that the children of irresponsible parents will be more likely to be irresponsible themselves. If you grow up with a single mother and an absent father, that seems like a normal way to run your life.

I'll bet bad students are likely to drop out of high school. I'll further bet that the children of bad students are likely to be bad students themselves. Maybe bad students are also likely to be single parents, uneducated about birth control as well as (unlike Immanuel) gender studies. Isn't that a possibility?

One more guess: I'll bet that the children of polygamous fathers are more likely to be successful than those of monogamous fathers (in countries where polygamy is legal). Can I assume from this that polygamy is somehow superior to monogamy? Or is it more likely that only rich men can afford to have several wives, and children from wealthy families are more likely to be successful?

[Immanuel Can]

Your statistics are incredible.

Not "incredible." Just nothing you are willing to believe. That's quite different.

As a single parent,...

Gotcha! You're the last person who has an impartial opinion, obviously. You're premising everything on your nervousness about your own situation.

But let me reassure you. You might be one of the statistical exceptions. You might be like one of the two ladies involved in my upbringing, whose husband died and was a totally warrior to do the best for her four children that she ever could. Maybe that's you.

But SHE would have told you what I'm going to tell you: firstly, that that is bloody hard to do, and secondly, that she would have paid anything to get her husband back, and NOT to have to be a single parent. She'd also tell you that the loss of their father was the biggest blow her four children ever faced. That's truth.

Joint custody is a great way to rear children.

Well, no, it's not. The split parents always tell themselves that -- and, of course, what else would they do but justify what they've already done? But I've seen so many cases that demonstrate what a bad arrangement it is for children.

Even when the arrangements between the separated parties remain superficially "civil," what we call "joint" parenting is usually serial parenting -- a succession of events in which the child has only one parent or the other, never both, and when both often try to make the time as "pleasant" as they can for their child...with the effect that they have two different "homes," two different sets of rules, neither parent willing to be the one that has to take on the hard tasks like discipline and tracking, and nobody at all aware of all that is happening to them at any given time. The step parents in both places have a dubious relationship to the children, especially when new half-brothers and half-sisters are produced. They become a kind of half-orphan, drifting between two places in which they are half-resented and half-spoiled.

And they all wish they had one home and two parents.

Maybe bad students are also likely to be single parents, uneducated about birth control as well as (unlike Immanuel) gender studies. Isn't that a possibility?

The statistics show that the children of single parents are more likely to end up single parents as well. As for education about birth control, all constitutents of the studies and the control groups in any proper studies have gotten relatively the same schooling.

And as for gender studies, there could be nothing more useless to anyone's intellectual integrity or personal happiness than that. All they are is a hub of Neo-Marxist ressentiment. And that makes nobody happy.

[iambiguous]

More to the point [mine], it's Judgment Day. Then it all comes down to your own gender philosophy and the gender philosophy of God.

Now [as always] IC is here to encompass gender not as a reflection of his own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices, but as that which he believes a True Christian must embrace if they want to go up instead of down.

[Alexiev]

Your statistics are incredible.

Not "incredible." Just nothing you are willing to believe. That's quite different.

As a single parent,...

Gotcha! You're the last person who has an impartial opinion, obviously. You're premising everything on your nervousness about your own situation.

But let me reassure you. You might be one of the statistical exceptions. You might be like one of the two ladies involved in my upbringing, whose husband died and was a totally warrior to do the best for her four children that she ever could. Maybe that's you.

But SHE would have told you what I'm going to tell you: firstly, that that is bloody hard to do, and secondly, that she would have paid anything to get her husband back, and NOT to have to be a single parent. She'd also tell you that the loss of their father was the biggest blow her four children ever faced. That's truth.

Joint custody is a great way to rear children.

Well, no, it's not. The split parents always tell themselves that -- and, of course, what else would they do but justify what they've already done? But I've seen so many cases that demonstrate what a bad arrangement it is for children.

Even when the arrangements between the separated parties remain superficially "civil," what we call "joint" parenting is usually serial parenting -- a succession of events in which the child has only one parent or the other, never both, and when both often try to make the time as "pleasant" as they can for their child...with the effect that they have two different "homes," two different sets of rules, neither parent willing to be the one that has to take on the hard tasks like discipline and tracking, and nobody at all aware of all that is happening to them at any given time. The step parents in both places have a dubious relationship to the children, especially when new half-brothers and half-sisters are produced. They become a kind of half-orphan, drifting between two places in which they are half-resented and half-spoiled.

And they all wish they had one home and two parents.

Maybe bad students are also likely to be single parents, uneducated about birth control as well as (unlike Immanuel) gender studies. Isn't that a possibility?

The statistics show that the children of single parents are more likely to end up single parents as well. As for education about birth control, all constitutents of the studies and the control groups in any proper studies have gotten relatively the same schooling.

And as for gender studies, there could be nothing more useless to anyone's intellectual integrity or personal happiness than that. All they are is a hub of Neo-Marxist ressentiment. And that makes nobody happy.

How noble of you to explain my motives to me. Also, how stupid. Why would I possibly be "nervous" about my situation, which is having a grown, successful son who has won award after award as a journalist. It seems more than a little presumptuous of you.

I'm sure the lady involved in your upbringing did have a difficult time. It must have been tough rearing an obnoxious, holier-than-thou child, like you. I would have hated it, too.

You are right that I didn't have to tackle the hard tasks like discipline, because my son never did anything wrong. I do pity anyone who had to parent you. It must have been horrible.

I doubt you even know what Neo-Marxism comprises. To you, it's just a general insult. Of course we know from other conversations that you consider members of motorcycle gangs the epitome of manliness. I'll bet many are deadbeat dads.

[Immanuel Can]

How noble of you to explain my motives to me.

Hey, you started out with that from the get-go. I'm just returning the favour.

Why would I possibly be "nervous" about my situation, which is having a grown, successful son who has won award after award as a journalist.

Well, perhaps because, like all people who make the choices you did, you have a sneaking suspicion that you just might have made his life harder than it ought to have been? Let's go with that.

In any case, it's clear that you have a creeping suspicion I might be telling you the truth about what serial-parenting is really like. But if you doubt, you could have checked: I wonder if you ever had the courage to ask your son what he would have preferred...or whether you just made the choice for him, and blithely assumed that because it seemed "good" to you, it was just bound to be good for him, as well. That's what most serial-parents seem to do.

You are right that I didn't have to tackle the hard tasks like discipline, because my son never did anything wrong.

Are you sure you had a "son"?

Truth be told, if you think a son, particularly a teenager, who "never did anything wrong," then you just didn't know what he was doing. And for serial-parents, that's quite ordinary. They just don't know. The kid leaves, and goes to the other parent, and they know nothing until the kid returns. So he's able to keep secrets from both sets of "parents."

I doubt you even know what Neo-Marxism comprises.

Try me.

[LuckyR]

Alas, no one whines louder than those who have become accustomed to an advantage, fearing losing that advantage.

I'm very amused. This is the story, the "patriarchy" narrative, that the Feminists sell to the naive. They actually want us to think that men who worked in mines, or felled trees and laid bricks, or went to war and died in a trench were more "privileged" than their womenfolk who stayed home and kept house, did teaching or nursing, or worked in a local factory making the bombs that would later be used to kill men.

Hogwash.

The truth is that throughtout history, life has been hard -- and differently hard -- for both sexes. There was no miraculous "patriarchy" period, in which men had only good things, and women only "oppression."

Nice try focusing solely on the working class. Why don't you give the same historical summary for the ruling class?

[Gary Childress]

Alas, no one whines louder than those who have become accustomed to an advantage, fearing losing that advantage.

I'm very amused. This is the story, the "patriarchy" narrative, that the Feminists sell to the naive. They actually want us to think that men who worked in mines, or felled trees and laid bricks, or went to war and died in a trench were more "privileged" than their womenfolk who stayed home and kept house, did teaching or nursing, or worked in a local factory making the bombs that would later be used to kill men.

Hogwash.

The truth is that throughtout history, life has been hard -- and differently hard -- for both sexes. There was no miraculous "patriarchy" period, in which men had only good things, and women only "oppression."

Chomsky has been critical of some strains of feminism as well. I think he would probably describe the past as having injustice pretty much across the whole spectrum of social groups, except for the "power elite" of course. In some sense, both ordinary men and ordinary women have always been subjected to unfair treatment by their political institutions. Pretty much everyone has, I think.

[Immanuel Can]

Alas, no one whines louder than those who have become accustomed to an advantage, fearing losing that advantage.

I'm very amused. This is the story, the "patriarchy" narrative, that the Feminists sell to the naive. They actually want us to think that men who worked in mines, or felled trees and laid bricks, or went to war and died in a trench were more "privileged" than their womenfolk who stayed home and kept house, did teaching or nursing, or worked in a local factory making the bombs that would later be used to kill men.

Hogwash.

The truth is that throughtout history, life has been hard -- and differently hard -- for both sexes. There was no miraculous "patriarchy" period, in which men had only good things, and women only "oppression."

Nice try focusing solely on the working class. Why don't you give the same historical summary for the ruling class?

The "working class," if that term even applies, has always been the vast majority of the population. The "ruling class" is a rarified minority, and always has been. But their women and men both always did much better in terms of lifestyle than the grubbers and serfs down below them.

[Alexiev]

In any case, it's clear that you have a creeping suspicion I might be telling you the truth about what serial-parenting is really like. But if you doubt, you could have checked: I wonder if you ever had the courage to ask your son what he would have preferred...or whether you just made the choice for him, and blithely assumed that because it seemed "good" to you, it was just bound to be good for him, as well. That's what most serial-parents seem to do.

Are you sure you had a "son"?

Truth be told, if you think a son, particularly a teenager, who "never did anything wrong," then you just didn't know what he was doing. And for serial-parents, that's quite ordinary. They just don't know. The kid leaves, and goes to the other parent, and they know nothing until the kid returns. So he's able to keep secrets from both sets of "parents."

I doubt you even know what Neo-Marxism comprises.

Try me.

Perhaps I wasn't quite as judgmental as you about what is right and what is wrong. My "son" may not have been manly enough to suit your tastes, since he never joined the Hell's Angels. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Or did you forget to read that part of the Bible, concentrating instead on all the sections prohibiting abortion (if there are any)?

As an expert on Neo-Marxism perhaps you can expound upon famous anthropologist Marvin Harris's theories about sacred cows, sacred pigs, and primitive warfare. No looking it up on Wikipedia allowed.