feminism idiocy misogyny quote of the day the spearhead Uncategorized

>QuoteOTD: Wisdom from the superior sex


Wisdom from misterb, aka misterbastard, taken from a discussion on The Spearhead on “Academia and the Politics of Peer Review,” which quickly degenerated from an idiotic discussion about the evils of academia into an idiotic discussion about how women are stupid, selfish and evil. (Isn’t that how discussions on The Spearhead always go?)

Anyway, the wisdom:

I hate to say this. Feminism dumb down society.

Misterb make feminism mad! Feminism stomp misterb!

More wisdom:

In my opinion. Women should never be allowed to hold degrees in soft sciences. And there should be no degrees in regards to soft sciences.

Just because a woman holds a degree to some cheap laden science or bad science. It doesn’t make her smart, but in fact it has an opposite effect. it makes her downright stupid.

There’s different between knowledge and wisdom. And today’s lacks both of them. Only thing she’s good at is being worthless

In another comment he corrected what he evidently saw as his one and only mistake in this final paragraph: “today’s” should have been “today’s woman.” 

Yep, that oughtta fix it.

I’m sorry, but idiots going on about their intellectual superiority: always funny. Always.

40 replies on “>QuoteOTD: Wisdom from the superior sex”

>And when all else fails, blaming it on an external source, the browser in this case ("blasted firefox"), instead of taking a look inwards and admitting that you might not be the mental giant that you think you are."case in point. I had to set up my sister’s macbook for her. Wow, women are better than men. If women were better than men, how simple is it to set up your own computer. Even a twelve kid can set up his/her own computer."Perhaps he should have allowed his sister to proofread his rants before publishing them.

>Pot meet kettleIs that comment in reference to the polmic, misandric, ideological, political, pusedo research that is often comes from women in the soft sciences thats used to promote the idea that women are superiour and polemic leglislation for men?If that is the case its the equivilant of a jew saying that germans and american progressives shouldnt have been allowed to produce the pseudo science used to justify eugenics programs.Anyway, here are the google results for "feminist hate speech". They are quotes for the most prominent and influential feminists.

>As for feminism dumbing down society. Heres an article about the sacking and attempts to silence a female teacher who spoke out against the dumbing down of the UK education system feminist political ideology. UKs young children are now bottom of the education league in Europe."….left high and dry by the prevalent ‘all must have prizes’ Left-wing education ideology, which under the banner of ‘equality’ had produced a ‘culture of excuses’ which kept ‘poor children poor’.""Such home truths are practically unsayable in the state sector. Over the years, other educational whistle-blowers have been punished for saying them.Some two decades ago Martin Turner, a distinguished psychologist and expert on dyslexia, was forced out of his job and had his reputation blackened for suggesting that many diagnosed classroom disorders were actually caused by a systemic failure to teach children to read.And around the same time, two history teachers, Anthony Freeman and Chris McGovern, were driven out of their posts in state schools for attempting to ensure that children were taught a proper historical narrative as opposed to sociological, politically correct gobbets.Over the years, all attempts at education reform have foundered because of the refusal by the education establishment to acknowledge the damage being done by the shibboleth of ‘equality’ which has brought the system to its knees."Read more:

>It doesn't, nor did I make the claim that it does.There are, however, many awful studies that make up the cornerstone of common feminist arguments, which are plagued by similar problems. But I suppose the feminist would argue that statistical rigor is just part of the patriarchy that opposes them: "The guidelines elaborate on the attitude toward masculinist scholarship and methods by quoting the feminist theorist Elizabeth Fee: "Knowledge was created as an act of aggression—a passive nature had to be interrogated, unclothed, penetrated, and compelled by man to reveal her secrets." Fee's resentment and suspicion of male "ways of knowing" follows a path well trodden by such feminist thinkers as Mary Ellman, Catharine MacKinnon, and Sandra Harding, whose views of patriarchal knowledge and science have quickly become central gender feminist doctrine. Playing on the biblical double meaning of knowing to refer both to intercourse and to cognition, Ellman and MacKinnon claim that men approach natureas rapists approach a woman, taking joy in violating "her," in "penetrating" her secrets. Feminists, says MacKinnon, have finally realized that for men, "to know has meant to fuck." In a similar mood, Sandra Harding suggests that Newton's Principles of Mechanics could just as aptly be called "Newton's Rape Manual."

>Sommers (and Sraus among others) are whistle blowers at the credible end of feminist research.Daphes Patai is another that speaks out against the pseudo education and dumbing down that feminism is responsible for – "She is a leading critic of the politicization of education, in particular of the decline of free speech on college campuses as programs conform to pressures from feminists and other identity groups".Some of her books -Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies Professing Feminism: Education and indoctrination in Women's Studies Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism "Patai's thesis is that a failure to defend the integrity of education, and a habit of dismissing knowledge and research on political grounds, not only seriously hurts our students but also leaves feminists helpless in trying to defend education against other ideological incursions (such as intelligent design). Only positive knowledge, respect for logic, evidence, and scrupulous scholarship not held to political standards, Patai contends, can lead to a better future. Twentieth-century examples of contrary educational practices have a sordid history, one that has hardly promoted women's rights (or any other human rights)".

>Dave said:"I'm sorry, but idiots going on about their intellectual superiority: always funny. Always."Yes. This is why your posts in particular have such a high entertainment rating for the rest of us, love.But please continue to keep us in stitches with these examples of your mental prowess.

>@David Futrelle:"I'm not quite sure how one badly done study discredits all of feminism and/or social science."I'm not quite sure how one anti-feminist's badly expressed blog comment discredits all of the men's rights movement and/or its goals and values. But your post here does attempt to do exactly that.

>Not exactly. The comment amused me, so I posted it. It is interesting that no one in that thread, or in this one, actually challenged his idea that women should be banned from the "soft sciences," or his notion that women are basically worthless. I know not all of you actually agree with either of these propositions, but it is interesting how you guys react to posts of mine quoting nonsense from some MRA. When someone points out an example of a feminist spewing nonsense, I say: yes, that's nonsense. And if you look at my published writings you will see I've written harsh critiques of, for example, Dworkin and MacKinnon. You guys, on the other hand, circle the wagon. Even you, John, didn't challenge any of his actual ideas; you just called his comments "badly expressed."

>I dont think a catty blog is a good source,and anyway Koss's findings are replicated when men are asked the same questions, in fact men reported forced rape more often than women. "Approximately one in six boys is sexually abused before age 16.(Conservative estimate of incidents involving physical contact in U.S. and Canada. See below.)" even if the feminist claim of 1 in 4 is a reflection of reality, its yey again only telling half of the story.Daphne Patai makes similar claims as Sommers about wide spread education failure in feminism."Their research included personal interviews with feminist professors who had become disillusioned with feminist initiatives in education. Drawing on these interviews and on materials defining and defending women's studies programs, the book analyzed practices within women's studies that the authors felt were incompatible with serious education and scholarship — above all, the explicit subservience of educational to political aims.A recent enlarged edition of this book provided extensive documentation from current feminist writings of the continuation, and indeed exacerbation, of these practices. Routinely challenged by feminists who declare that "all education is political," Patai has responded with the claim that this view is simplistic. She argues that a significant difference exists between the reality that education may have political implications and the intentional use of education to indoctrinate. The latter, she argues, is no more acceptable when done by feminists than when done by fundamentalists".

>Once again I point to specific evidence on something and it's immediately dismissed — without you even looking at it — because the person presenting the evidence is — horrors! — a feminist. It's impossible to have an actual serious discussion if you do this.

>The article you have linked to begins by mostly agreeing with what Christina Hoff Sommers has said:"Sommers cites a second recent textbook, The Penguin Atlas Of Women In The World, which repeats the same error. And she’s right — it is an error. (Although, as I’ll show in a future post, Sommers’ counter-claims are just as false.)I think this is the strongest of Sommers’ claims. Sommers is right to say that “false assertions, hyperbole and crying wolf undermine the credibility and effectiveness of feminism in general.” And many errors could easily be avoided if authors just checked primary sources — something that professional writers and academics should do routinely.Within feminism, there’s sometimes too little skepticism regarding statistics and news stories which emphasize harms against women. We’ve created a culture which does a rotten job of self-correction."Keep in mind that I brought Christina Hoff Sommers into the discussion not to cite any of her "counter-claims," which the blog author asserts are false without analysis or refutation, but rather to demonstrate the poor quality of feminist research. The centerpiece of the author's disgareement concerns the Koss study. Absent in this discussion is any analysis of a very strange caveat about the findings of Koss' work:"Only about a quarter of the women Koss calls rape victims labeled what happened to them as rape. According to Koss, the answers to the follow-up questions revealed that "only 27 percent" of the women she counted as having been raped labeled themselves as rape victims. Of the remainder, 49 percent said it was "miscommunication," 14 percent said it was a "crime but not rape," and 11 percent said they "don't feel victimized."Am I to believe that approximately 3000 college aged students chosen for the survey were deemed too stupid to realize whether they had been raped or not? Am I to believe that only feminist researchers with a political agenda can ferret out the truth?The blog author goes on to state that the Koss research is sound because it is cited much. This does not defend the research on its own merits whatsoever. It's like saying the racist research supporting the conclusion that black people were a lesser species was sound because it was academically popular at the time. Good arguments/studies/analyses stand on their own merits and should be analyzed based on their indivdual merit; this sort of argument is like an ad populum – well of course the Back Street boys are excellent musicians, just look at how many albums they have sold!

>Moreover, the blog author unwittingly buffs Christina Hoff Sommer's arguments regarding how feminists have largely corrupted the academic institution (and at times government agencies) by bringing up the fact that the Koss study has been a cornerstone of two "major studies conducted by the Federal government." If you think academics or the federal government are immune to bias, well, as the blog author says, I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. Here's mine, based on a substantial review of scholarship in linguistics and language ideologies.More towards the end of the article, the blog author states:"This is the central dishonesty of Sommers’ thesis: She claims her work shows that feminists “as a rule” have “reckless disregard for the truth,” but most of her book concerns matters that an honest person could easily disagree with Christina Hoff Sommers about.5"Am I to believe that one (poor) objection to the small bit on Koss demonstrates sufficiently that the "book concerns matters that an honest person could easily disagree with Christina Hoff Sommers about?" The author doesn't even go on to LIST any such matters, merely stating as a matter of fact that they exist. Her conclusion is based on a strawman: "Sommers has to frame all her disagreements with mainstream feminism as feminist lying, because that is the basis of her case against feminism. If she admits that reasonable, honest feminists can disagree with Christina Hoff Sommers, she loses her claim that modern feminism consists of “a large body of blatantly false information… at best, misleading –- at worst, completely inaccurate."The basis of her case against feminism is a thorough review of feminist literature and the effects of millions of dollars of feminist advocacy; the weight of her analysis does not depend upon calling "mainstream feminism" a bunch of lies (hell, she readily admits from the get go that she is talking about a small minority of "feminists" who have seized power of the movement FROM the mainstream and taken it to the fringes!). Sorry, but I am not yet convinced that Sommers is full of shit.

>Clarification: There were some difficulties posting my comments (my internet connection is horrible and times out sometimes) and I had to rewrite it like three or four times (which also explains why the racism thing comes up twice – I only meant to mention it once but due to having to rewrite the comments etc I lost track of myself). I forgot to mention that I selected the "Truth and Lies" article to examine because it seemed to be the one most pertinent to our conversation. In the future it would be polite if you linked directly to the specific articles you would like examined.

>@David Futrelle:How do you reconcile this statement of yours…"The comment amused me, so I posted it."…with your blog's statement of purpose?"This blog offers a critique of the Men's Rights Movement and anti-Feminism generally…"Based on your blog's stated purpose, pretty much anything that you post on this blog can plausibly be interpreted as a broad swipe at the validity of the entire men's rights movement. Otherwise, to remain consistent, you would need to modify your blog's statement of purpose so that it's clear that not everything you say is a broad brush attack on the MRM.As far as whether I agree with or must challenge every oddball commenter out there, how is this my responsibility? But for the record, since you seem concerned about my opinion, I'll give it. I disagree with the statements made by the commenter named "misterb":"Women should never be allowed to hold degrees in soft sciences."Women should have every right to obtain worthless degrees if they insist on it. No one should stop them from attaining such… ahem, "achievements." They should be free to pursue whatever educational dreams they have, so long as they take personal responsibility for the eventual consequences. Personally, I believe that our society emphasizes credentials way too much, foolishly assuming that educational credentials necessarily imply competence."And there should be no degrees in regards to soft sciences."Since I don't believe in restricting free speech, I wouldn't use the law to prohibit any privately-funded institutions from crafting whatever curriculum they prefer. But I do agree with the sentiment that many so-called "soft sciences" are of dubious worth.Try to remember that the Internet as a whole is a cesspool of opinionated keyboard warriors, and this is the case no matter what issue is being debated. Whether it's Microsoft vs. Apple vs. Linux, or Wii vs. PS3 vs. XBox, or sports nuts advocating for their various teams, or feminists or anti-feminists, somewhere, somehow, there will always be a minority of people who hold unconventional or politically incorrect views (including those who express such views poorly). It's foolish to insinuate that pandemonium and anarchy will result if each and every offensive comment is not systematically run down and challenged. Moreover, it's hubris for you to expect the people who you are attacking to take on such a task on your behalf or for your benefit. It isn't their job.Now on a moral basis, in my opinion it's reasonable to hold the owner of a blog or Web site accountable for tolerating incendiary rhetoric. But at the same time, it's unfair to conflate a blog owner's respect for open discussion into some kind of endorsement of each and every commenter's views.

>So the poster who is the subject of David's article, while expounding on the oh-so-obvious superior intellect of men over women, remains blissfully ignorant of his own far-less-than-superior command of basic English (one of the basic skills he further states that the education system should be focusing on) and, in true MRA form, the irony of it is ignored in favour of reactionary tactics designed to deflect rather than introspect. But by golly those nasty feminists better be introspective and circumspect rather than taking a defensive stance! And obviously, feminists DO take pause for introspection and circumspection, as Eoghan points out in his posts referring to feminists criticizing the methodology of other feminists. So Eoghan doesn't simply dismiss specific evidence when it is presented by feminists…..well, so long as the feminists who are being critical of other feminists are toeing the MRA line. Feminist criticisms of self-identifying feminists such as Christina Hoff Sommers, however, are not to be taken seriously, even though quite a few of Sommers' conclusions have since been proven to be flawed.I've seen other (wish I had saved the links!) knee-jerk reactionary responses to the supposed feminisation of the education system, researched and written by academics, that although devised to be pro-masculine, in actuality make an excellent case for why men should not be leaders of industry never mind entire nations. For instance, the supposedly feminised education system has the audacity to expect males to be 'naturally passive like females' (just one of many long-held self-serving male myths about the nature of females) and be able to sit and focus on something like reading for more than five minutes, rather than letting "boys be boys" and exercise their "natural activeness" expressed by acting out. Men can't focus on a task for more than five minutes, and yet we trust them to be leaders of our countries? I'm sorry, but some of the proposed antidotes to the education system failing boys, based on the paranoia of boys becoming feminised (which itself is rooted in misconceptions and myths about the innate natures of males and females), will only result in doing a further disservice to boys, especially those who ARE studious and may prefer to quietly read versus partake in more boisterous activities.

>Yes, David, you said "sometimes I mock." You didn't explain that when you mock, you aren't necessarily mocking the whole MRM. You just said that sometimes you mock.

>You know, when I write about an individual MRM, my critique/mocking doesn't necessarily apply to every single person in the MRM. This should not be a difficult concept. Sometimes it applies to lots of MRMs, other times to only a few, or even one. It should generally be fairly clear which.

>Pam, The feminisation of educatation is well documented and real, in the UK boys recently out preformed girls for the first time in 15 years. Why? Because the old method of testing, competition based testing was used rather than course work and conformity making a basis for sucess. You argument up there is the standard one for feminist, the bottom line is that boys are inferiour but if I point to women of the past not doing as well as boys you will say that was down to systemic bias. The truth is the education system played to boys strengths then and now its based around playing to the strengths of girls. We have piles of studies ans articles about this. You dismiss it out of had as paranoia bscause it doesnt fit your world view.And I do believe that the whistle blowers and feminist researchers with a commitment to real research as opposed to ideology comfirming pusedo research and polmics are the more credible of the two groups, for obvious reasons. Its flat eathers v's scientists.

>Ive posted this comment in response to Davids source's piece called "The intellectual space to be anti male is necessary and desirable" because of the likely hood that it wont get past the mod. the same logic, “the intellectual space to be anti female is neseccary and desirable”.I’ll cite the female dominance in child abuse and how that inflates the number of abusive and dysfunctional adults later in life. I'll also point to female relational violence amongst themselves, female domestic violence particularly where its most common, in lesbian relationships and the fact that female consumerism is creating the market for most of our waste, pollution and overseas exploitation.As you see, that same logic can be used to justify space and hate for polmics against any group, its been done before, most notably in Nazi Germany. That entire post, is just a weak justification for the prejudice and bigotry that feminism runs on.

>@David Futrelle:"You know, when I write about an individual MRM, my critique/mocking doesn't necessarily apply to every single person in the MRM. This should not be a difficult concept. Sometimes it applies to lots of MRMs, other times to only a few, or even one. It should generally be fairly clear which."Ouch, the prose hurts! Make it stop!MRM = Men's Rights MovementMRA = Men's Rights Advocate

>Way to read conclusions into what I said that do NOT coincide with my worldview! Maybe you oughta take off those biased "feminist=anti-male" reading glasses. I absolutely DID NOT say that boys are inferior, nor do I believe that boys are inferior. But by the same token, I don't hold a strictly dichotomous worldview that says "boys are not inferior, and therefore, boys are superior" or the same view about girls.What I DID say was that there are some proposed "antidotes" to the notion that the education system is feminised that, if you follow the "logic", make a good case for why males shouldn't hold such high positions if the truth about males is that they can't sit still and focus or concentrate for more than five minutes. I'M not the one saying that boys are inferior, what I'm saying is that some remedies proposed by pro-male researchers and academics are actually quite anti-male and make boys appear inferior if you follow the logic."The truth is the education system played to boys strengths then and now its based around playing to the strengths of girls." You say that immediately after saying that I will say that women not doing so well in the past was due to systemic bias. You've so much as admitted that it WAS due to systemic bias, the education system having played to boys strengths then. What I would say, according to my worldview, is why does the education system have to play more to boys strengths than girls or vice versa. And why must we hierarchialize various strengths or disciplines as being superior/inferior and hold that these hierarchies of strengths are a truism throughout everything in all situations.I wish I had more time to discuss my worldview with you, Eoghan, but it will have to wait for another time, as I have other obligations that I have to attend to right now.

>PamBoys in general being boisterous, needing competition and physical play is not inferiority but, and you've as good as said that you think that it is. Heres an article about a study, the findings are that female teachers and attitudes much like yours are holding boys back…"Women teachers are holding back boys by reprimanding them for typically male behaviour, according to a study out today.They are reinforcing stereotypes that boys are ‘silly’ in class, refuse to ‘sit nicely like the girls’ and are more likely to indulge in ‘schoolboy pranks’.Women teachers may also unwittingly perpetuate low expectations of boys’ academic achievement and encourage girls to work harder by letting them think they are cleverer".Read more:

>@OPThe funniest part, besides the author's lack of English comprehension (which is more sad than funny, imo), is that women are assumed to be in the "soft" sciences. I got this stereotype over at Paul's site – that I must be a social worker or something – um, no. I have a B.Sc. And I've heard more than my fair share of these stereotypes that women can't be in the "real" sciences or be engineers. Not to mention sexist jokes about the women's inferiority in math, science, etc.Such BS. At least we've come far enough (Or at least some members of society have) to be a bit more civilized – I've heard too many older women engineers/scientists' stories of constant blatant sexism and "jokes" by their own professors! At least I had women to look up to in my field. 🙂

>TecMaths and science at the highest levels are generally dominated by Aisan and Jewish males. Generally, most men and women hover around the intelligence mean, but the extremes, high and low are dominated by men, also men and women generally make different choices. Thats why men dominate certain areas and women others. Its just politically correct heresy to say so, the commandments dictate that we pretend that there are no real differences.

>@EoghanUm, no? Nice generalizations about Asians and Jewish persons though. It depends on population demographics and the general access to education. It's similar to saying black people inherently dumber because they don't dominate academia when in reality they simply aren't given the same opportunities. Women don't dominate the Maths and Sciences because women are pushed out by the boy's club. It's well documented that women do not do as well on math tests as men. Neither do blacks do worse than their white counterparts. And it only seems men dominant. Judith Polgar has a higher IQ than Bobby Fischer. You're just trying to justify your own beliefs that women are inferior to men but they're based on straw man arguments.

>No, Eoghan, what I said is that there are articles researched and written by academics, intended to help provide solutions to an educational system that is said to be failing where boys are concerned, that ACTUALLY SAY that males are not capable of concentrating or focusing on anything for more than five minutes at a time. What I am saying is that that is a very narrow view of males, and could probably be detrimental if you follow that to its logical conclusion.Believe it or not, girls are ALSO naturally boisterous, need physical play and are competetive. It's called "being a young, energetic child". And if you think that boys are discouraged from being their natural selves, it's probably more greatly discouraged in girls, from an age long before they enter school. Conformity is not something that only boys must contend with, girls must learn how to be "proper young ladies" from an early age, whereas with boys, there's just a lot of tongue-clucking and headshaking, but "boys will be boys". When a girl is being what people call "a tomboy" (and hoping like hell that she'll grow out of that "stage" and learn to be a lady), she's being in her most natural state as a young person. And if she grows up more inclined to choose math or sciences over homemaking skills, so be it. And if a boy grows up more inclined towards cooking or baking over math and science, so be it. But no, we can't have that, because then she will grow up masculinized and he'll be effeminate. I say "let kids be kids" or "let people be who they are" instead of putting people in boxes of who they are supposed to be, which limits many from reaching the potential of who they COULD be."Women teachers may also unwittingly perpetuate low expectations of boys’ academic achievement and encourage girls to work harder by letting them think they are cleverer."Perhaps the girls ARE more clever than they think they are (which is NOT saying that they are or are not more clever than the boys). An interesting study was performed using IQ tests and male and female subjects' predictions of how they would rate on the IQ tests and how they predicted members of the other sex would rate. Females consistently underestimated how they thought they would score, and overestimated how they thought the males would score. The males consistently underestimated how they thought the females would score and overestimated how they thought that they would score.

>PamThey are not saying that boys are incapable of concentrating, thats just your intrepetation and slant "boys are incapable".What they are actually saying is that if male physical play and comeptition is demonoised and conformity and obedience are rewarded, boys will have excess energy, lose interest and feel like they are the "bad ones". PC attitudes dont allow for differences and so repress them. Another important point I think is that boys have a longer maturation period than girls, so they will be at different stages of development than girls of the same age. I'd like to see your source on the IQ as the results seem to conform to feminist type thinking and as IQ is another area which has been used to promote the feminist agenda. Im talking about jusifing a female bias in education through dishonesty/patriarchy comspiracy theory (eg. Susan Faludi's fictional Backlash), as well as that, the outcome and the recent independent study I posted seems to fly in the face of the results you mention. If anything, society, education and media has been awash with girls are better than boys memes and "research" for decades now. I take a psychology class for my own pleasure, only the other day our professor said, "we wont get into putting men down, because we have men in the class". Feminist misandry is very present in education, aside that personal story of mine, it has been well documented as you say by academics. Of course, feminists dismiss and repress the work, on political grounds." I say "let kids be kids" or "let people be who they are" instead of putting people in boxes of who they are supposed to be, which limits many from reaching the potential of who they COULD be."I agree with you there, giving people the freedom to chose rather that measuring outcomes generated by differeing choices and labeling them as something that needs to be fixed through coercion is more of an anti-feminist, mens movment or real/liberal feminist position than it is that of a modern/faux feminist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.