Dear the People,
Well, it seems some things never change.
The discussion – I hesitate to call it that given the lack of respectful and mature discourse present on the side of the Arbourist – has continued as my fellow blogger has now decided to write a reply to my original rebuttal [Identity Politics and Its Lack of Intellectual Credentials] to their post [Clueless Commentary I Find on WordPress].
Once again, the use of ad-hominem and immature language is more prevalent than actual logic and answers to my questions. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to respond in a respectful fashion due any human being, regardless of our idealogical differences (and, Arbourist, when you read this; please keep in mind this idea of civility when you respond. If you care to get outraged over things like “patriarchal” injustice, the least you could do is make things easier for yourself by not insulting the people you want to convince).
Before I begin breaking down the arguments presented by my fellow blogger, let me point out two things: Firstly, I have already replied to several of the points she attempts to make in this post. Internalized misogyny,the downsides of being a male (especially a white male), and the benefits of female privilege have already been addressed in the most recent of my rebuttals Repetition of Ideas ≠ Reason. Second, my original post [The War on Women] was addressing the idea of a patriarchy in the US and other civilized nations. No one is denying male dominance and abuse in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia where women are abused daily and are in fact treated as little more than cattle. All of my posts should be read within this context.
So, now to their post, which you can find and should read HERE:
“Cool. In the post in question, you sound like every other generic male who has ‘important wisdom’ to share with those darn irrational females. Whether by stylistic choice or the sententious content, that is exactly how you came across.”
Ad-hominem at its finest. Instead of addressing the fact that they made a demeaning error in assuming I could only be a white male (because all white males think alike according to the Leftist worldview), the Arbourist instead chooses to add further insult to injury by continuing to insist that my rhetoric consigns me to sounding like a male. Perhaps they simply cannot accept that a woman would be conservative and not believe in the patriarchy as a fact without evidence?
“Radical feminism threatens male privilege and status in our society. It (Radical Feminism) seeks to dismantle the patriarchal structures and norms of society the oppress women. So, if losing their ‘leg-up’ in society is toxic toward men, so be it.”
You have consistently failed to give proof of male privilege (beyond simply repeating that it exists). Again, you are simply reformatting your opinion that a patriarchy exists and that feminism is good on the basis that it destroys said patriarchy. Both statements cannot be proven; you have yet to provide evidence for a patriarchy or how radical third-wave feminism has actually benefited society.
“See also the burgeoning problem of reverse-racism… No, it doesn’t work that way. People in the subordinate classes may indeed demonstrate discrimination, or discriminatory practices toward the dominant classes, but do not have the backing of society and its set of normative values to classify their discrimination as reverse-sexism, reverse-racism et al.”
The same could be said for the sexism and racism you find so repugnant. There are no Jim Crow laws nor laws to keep women out of the workplace. However, there are laws that do a disservice to males and whites alike. Colleges and workplaces are required to fill a gender and race quota before considering a white and/or male applicant. This “affirmative action” only affirms that to be white and/or male in civilized countries means you must be punished for the flaws of historic figures who also happened to be white and/or male. Arguing that reverse bigotry is okay because it is not supported by a governmental system (which as I have proven, is demonstrably false) does not excuse the fact that it is in fact bigotry.
“In the Sciences – [evidence for sexism can be found]”
A study of the sources shows two things: For starters, the scientists conducting the experiment had every intention of proving sexism’s existence and therefore interpreted the data to mean that sexism is undeniable. However, let’s look at the data found. The researchers found that scientists were more willing to mentor men and pay them at a higher starting rate. Of course, there are rational reasons for this thinking. Women, on average, are more likely to leave the workforce to start a family. The study, however, disregards these reasons, and instead furiously states that these reasons are irrelevant and that the researchers knew the true reason was subconscious sexism. Never mind the fact that they are not the scientists or businesses who will lose valuable time and money if the worker they’ve trained go on indefinite leave to take care of children. The Arbourist may want to make the claim that this argument is refuted in a linked article by the author’s sister, but this second post is not even a study. It is a mere repetition of the fact that these reasons could not possibly explain away the gender wage gap. [On this note, I would recommend reading my post [Repetition ≠ Reason] where I cite sources showing women now out-earn men in many professions]. One last thing on the “sciences” thread: the author of the second article about states “I am disturbed by[…] the fact that the comments are fairly well thought-out and presented as logical, non-sexist perspectives.” Of course, this doesn’t change the fact that she then goes on to talk about how said “well thought-out and logical, non-sexist perspectives” are invalid to the explanation of the gender wage gap.
“From Birth, but specifically in this study kindergarten age – “
The study cited proves nothing. What children think is irrelevant to the reality of the world. Children may think they are unicorns, evil villains, and superheroes when they are young. The study itself proves that the researchers have no idea what causes the “stereotypes” they claim exist. Beyond the fact that counting a sampling of children’s opinions as standard “stereotypes” is more than a little far-reaching, the study does not prove that any patriarchy is to blame. They lay the blame at the feet of media, parents, and teachers – ironic when you consider the effort all forms of media put into reassuring females these days that they are empowered members of society who do not need men. Teachers, likewise, would come under severe attack if they were to tell a female child that she is less smart simply because of her gender.
“We can go on, if you’d like. The fact we live in a systemic patriarchy is evident, whether you choose to acknowledge facts and evidence is solely your decision.”
As shown previously, citing studies that agree with the Arbourist’s point of view without showing any evidence and willingness to even consider an opposing viewpoint is hardly proof that a patriarchy exists. Even if these studies did prove that a gender wage gap exists and women think men are smarter, that still does not give evidence for a governmental system in which men are the ruling class and women are subordinate pawns to their will.
“Better to insult people to than ignore readily available facts.”
Data is nothing without interpretation. And that does not excuse the author from using ad-hominem time and time again. As previously stated, such tactics are a sign that her position suffers for want of a rational argument.
“When you involve another autonomous human being, it is a question of rights.”
Interestingly, this is the argument a pro-lifer might use, but it is immediately squandered by the fact that the Arbourist then goes on to state that “the status of being alive or not is irrelevant. If you believe that females are autonomous human beings then indeed they have the right to decide what goes on in their bodies, including being pregnant or not.” Of course a woman has a right to decide whether she gets pregnant. At that point, it is her body she has autonomy over. However, the instant a baby has conception inside her, there is another body present, a body that is not her own and therefore one that she has no autonomy over. Let me repeat the Arbourist’s words just so you can see the irony here: “When you involve another autonomous human being, it is a question of rights.” The rights of a child are some of the most important, because an unborn child cannot fight for themselves.
“Your buddy jesus has killed quadruple if not quintuple that number. As this is a corollary, let’s not get into your hatred of women’s rights here. But see this paper on the murderous aspect that makes jesus the #1 abortion king.”
The study makes a false correlation on two accounts. Catholicism is not Jesus and therefore one cannot hold God responsible for the actions of a group of people, anymore so than I should be able to hold the Arbourist responsible for the actions of God-denying terrorists. Secondly, God is not responsible for the loss of a human embryo and whether an embryo is lost does not refute the fact that a baby still has rights to safety and life from the moment of conception.
“Ahhahahaha. Erm.. pardon me. Your pronouncements have more weight than mine because of a magic book written by scared, ignorant shepherds? Riiiiiight. Can we please keep the risible religious nonsense out of fact based discussions? The two do not mix.”
There are several things to be drawn from this statement, but I’m going to narrow my focus down to a few points. The Arbourist wants to turn her nose up at my standard of morality while making lofty moral pronouncements that have no standard. If there is no God, why should anyone listen to her? Where does she get the authority to tell me what is and isn’t moral? And insulting the Bible does not disprove the historical weight it carries as a document that has time and time again provided freedom for society. If the author wants to keep to fact-based discussions, I will be happy to, as soon as she provides evidence for moral standards from which to judge the evils of a patriarchy and noble values of radical feminism. None have been evident on her side of the discourse from the start.
“Awesome. Just a start for you, from Robert Jensen: “Complex systems produce complicated results, and still there are identifiable patterns: Patriarchy is a system that delivers material benefits to men—unequally depending on men’s other attributes (such as race, class, sexual orientation, nationality, immigration status) and on men’s willingness to adapt to patriarchal values—but patriarchy constrains all women. The physical, psychological, and spiritual suffering endured by women varies widely, again depending on other attributes and sometimes just on the luck of the draw, but no woman escapes some level of that suffering. And at the core of that system is men’s control of women’s sexuality and reproduction […]” –“
Robert Jensen does not prove that a patriarchy exists. All he does is confirm what constitutes a patriarchy. If we were to measure several countries (the US, Canada, and the UK) by just the standards listed here, would they fulfill the requirements to be classified as a patriarchy? Lets see. Does the system deliver material benefits to men? Yes, but so does it benefit women. Does the system deliver these benefits unequally based on said criteria? Yes, to the detriment of white, straight, Christian men. The more categories one falls into, the more one can claim victimhood and this principle applies to women as well. Intersectionalism – a fundamental principle of third-wave feminism – defies this idea that only men can gain status based on minority criteria. Last on this list of patriarchal warning signs, does the country in question have control over women’s sexuality and reproduction? No. Women have the right to not only do whatever they want with their own bodies, but also with the bodies of their unborn (and in some extreme cases born) child. Before I go any further, I’d like to point out that those who would defend the slaughter of a child who is out of the mother’s womb and capable of living immediately loses some of their credibility.
“Another great source to learn about patriarchy is by bell hooks called Understanding Patriarchy: ” Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence.”
Again, all you’re doing is providing an explanation of what patriarchy is, not how it in fact exists in the US, Canada, UK, and other assorted countries with civilized systems.
“Many unique aspects of human sociality such as language, theory of mind and cultural norms have been proposed to provide the framework for human cooperative behaviour1,2,3,4, which stands alone in its scale and ubiquity between unrelated individuals5. Cooperation has been fundamental to the demographic success of our species – resource exchange, collective action and specialisation have increased our efficiency at surmounting a vast array of environmental pressures6,7.” – Nature: Competition for Cooperation: Variability, benefits and heritability of reations wealth in hunter-gatherers. Sci. Rep.6, 29120; doi:10.1038/srep29120 (2016).
Most of human history has been spent in a cooperative societal structure: – “Hunting and gathering was humanity’s first and most successful adaptation, occupying at least 90 percent of human history.”
If cooperation in your mind extends merely to survival, you are still incorrect. In communist, socialist, monarchial, and totalitarianism governments, the people in charge thrive while those under their rule suffer. If you do not like the example of Venezuela (as is shown later in the post), look at countries like Cuba, Russia, China, Korea, and more. Citizens of these “cooperation-based” societies fled their own countries because they were in such poor living conditions and could barely survive, let alone survive with freedom. So no, historically speaking societies have not been based on cooperation.
“People in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and even to a lesser extent Canada and the UK, all demonstrate a social democratic model of governance that foregrounds cooperation and the belief that society should work for the benefit of all the individuals with in it.”
Ironically, these countries cited are not only not as socialist nor as successful as modern Leftists would like to think. See THIS video to see the truth that the Arbourist is likely not aware of.
“Males account for the majority of violence in society.”
Granted, males are naturally more aggressive and therefore are more often the perpetrators of violence. But they are also more likely to be the victims of crime as well, much more so than women, as proven by the statistics you have shown. Furthermore, showing that men are more aggressive does not prove the existence of a patriarchy; it merely proves that men are aggressive.
“The focus of Radical Feminism is to name the problem, and that problem is male violence and male socialization.”
If the problem were merely male violence, feminists would put their minds towards reducing violence, but that is not what we’re arguing over, is it? Instead the author is calling for the dissolution of a governmental system that doesn’t exist while crime is still perpetrated. The Arbourist points out male violence only to ignore it in the face of what she thinks is the real threat: the patriarchy.
“However, for the rest of us, who have not internalized patriarchal norms, it is quite evident, and most definitely exists.”
Once again, I recommend checking out my post [Repetition ≠ Reason] discussing internalized misogyny and the logical flaws of arguing for it.
“I have a positive claim – patriarchy exists and is fundamental to how society operates. Your argument is anecdotal – I don’t see it or experience it therefore it doesn’t exist… Well bully for you. Please cite the evidence that contradicts my claim.”
The burden of proof does not lie with me, but instead rests squarely on the shoulders of the Arbourist who made the universal claim that “Feminists realize though that each woman must strike her own patriarchal bargain within society and do what she must to survive.” My argument is not anecdotal. If each woman must make a bargain and I am a woman, why is it that I don’t have to strike a bargain?
“Till the 1970’s it was legal for a husband to rape his wife.”
This does nothing to prove that women are or have been treated as sub-human in American society. Furthermore, this is not rape. While it may be abuse, it is not rape because by definition rape has to do with forced intercourse on a woman who is not one’s legal spouse. While it may not be an ideal situation for a man to abuse his wife, this does not show that a woman is viewed as anything less than human by society; merely that she chose the wrong spouse.
“Irrelevant. Clutch your pearls on your own time. The fact of the matter is that rate of which males perpetuate violence against females and other males in society. It is the root of the problem, and what Radical Feminism aspires to change in society.”
The Arbourist clearly does not care to regard the argument I presented (“If women are viewed as so sub-human, why is it that crimes against females are considered much more horrifying than those committed against men?”) and answer the questions asked of her. This unwillingness to answer questions and instead demand proof from me shows her lack of any ideological grounding.
“You repeat patriarchal talking points, make baseless arguments, and don’t back up your points with evidence.”
Beyond the fact that I cite many examples, I do in fact cite studies and show evidence. All of this was done in my post Repetition of Ideas ≠ Reason, which one could speculate was intentionally avoided by the author for the simple fact that it provides evidence (some from prominently Leftist publications) for my arguments. And secondly, I can play the same game as she can: all the Arbourist is doing is repeating feminist talking points while continuing to make baseless arguments that amount to “the patriarchy exists and if you disagree then you’re ignorant.” These statements are, of course, not backed up by solid evidence as all of the data offered is simply more studies repeating that a patriarchy must exist and that the opposing viewpoint is obviously incorrect. Her arguments are entirely reversible.
“Sorry for the reproduction folks, but DtP isn’t really big on answering direct assertions.”
Clearly, the numerous rebuttals I have written are not directly quoting and answering her assertions. This post is also quite clearly not answering direct assertions.
“Not gonna go further until this is addressed, because educating the demonstrably ignorant pro bono isn’t my cup of tea. :>”
If it wasn’t the author’s “cup of tea”, then why bother writing a post at all? The Arbourist might like to assume a lofty position of moral and intellectual superiority, but she still has yet to provide evidence and moral grounding for the idea of a patriarchy and its numerous evils. Citing studies which merely serve as an echo chamber is not providing evidence. Statistics, historical samples, etc. would serve the author better, if she can find them.
Now that I’ve finished going over her “rebuttal”, I’d like to add a few things. It can be somewhat tiring to do these articles. While I enjoy a good civil and rational discourse, these exchanges have been anything but. There is something rather intellectually draining about having to ask questions over and over and provide proof without ever seeing the same thing rescinded. One of my first posts was titled Agree to Disagree and I made the point that it seemed illogical and immoral to ostracize and treat others indecently because they hold views that differ from one’s own. Unfortunately, the Arbourist and her readers do not seem to hold this view.
While I will not hesitate to give a rational response to her reply (should she provide one), I will more than likely end this conversation in the near future. The evidence and arguments are there for my readers (and hers) to see. A logical and rational mind – if one possesses such a mind – should suffice to draw one’s own conclusions.
P. S. For those who would like to enjoy a condensed and somewhat humorous version of this argument: