ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, March 10, 2013

The high discourse of Twitter

Captain Beagle: Which is worse, work or rape? I know 2 women who were raped. Go fuck yourself #sorrynicepplhadtohearthat

VD: Hey, talk to @johnscalzi not me. I certainly didn't rape them.

Captain Beagle: no your article suggested an increase in rapes was less harmful than women handing out resumes. Insensitive & absurd

VD: I didn't suggest it, I proved it. By what metric do you claim that rape is more harmful to society than women working?

Captain Beagle: I was unaware one needed statistical data to prove rape is harmful.

VD: You need something, at any rate. What is your basis for claiming rape is worse for society than female employment?

Captain Beagle: thanx for this fascinating study in hyperbolic misogyny. I'm thinking of using you as the template for my next villain.

Labels: ,

134 Comments:

Anonymous Steveo March 10, 2013 3:08 PM  

Sweet... let the evidence pour forth from the froth of feminist ire!
Evidence I say!

(she ain't got no chili!)

Anonymous VryeDenker March 10, 2013 3:09 PM  

Why do you insist in casting dialectic pearls before rhetoric-prone swine? Entertainment probably. Like a well-fed cat toying with a mouse (or a young rabbit).

Anonymous Oy March 10, 2013 3:28 PM  

Facts and logic versus insults and emotionalism... what's the point of debating Leftists, again?

Blogger Heuristics March 10, 2013 3:32 PM  

Ever since I entered into the internet (some 15-20 years ago) nearly every person I come across that has written something wrong that I try to be nice to by showing them their error has responded in this manner. But I never run into these people in real life, who are these people and why are there so many of them online? It's like the worlds basement dwellers have all gotten together in order to be clueless and insulting in order for them to never again have to better themselves. I find it very hard to get into the head of these people and see the world from their point of view.

Anonymous Noah B. March 10, 2013 3:37 PM  

"But I never run into these people in real life, who are these people and why are there so many of them online?"

I can assure you they're not just online. Fully half of my family is like this. They're perfectly nice people until something political comes up, at which point you can practically tell from the look in their eyes that the brain has shut down. And then: squeeee!

Anonymous VD March 10, 2013 3:38 PM  

Why do you insist in casting dialectic pearls before rhetoric-prone swine?

What part of Award-Winning Cruelty Artist do you find hard to understand? Besides, if someone has gone to the effort to take on my arguments, no matter how hapless the effort, it would be impolite for me to ignore them.

Anonymous Stingray March 10, 2013 3:49 PM  

I doubt if most people can even conceive of the question that you are asking. The emotion that it evokes is too much to fathom.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 10, 2013 3:50 PM  

I'm curious then, would you ignore this this? AG is linked in it. I vacillate on whether to address it or just let rabbits be rabbits. She completely misrepresents what has been said but I'm inclined to believe those who are interested enough to read the source material will realize that.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard March 10, 2013 3:51 PM  

Sigyn has insisted that I view some of your banal "television". This discussion reminds me of that animated show where the rabbit asks the duck, "Do you want him to shoot you now, or wait until he gets home?"

Anonymous Other Josh March 10, 2013 3:51 PM  

The beagle seems to to have trouble differentiating between the individual woman and society.

Anonymous alyn71 March 10, 2013 3:56 PM  

Feel the burn Vox, feel the burn.

The one footed dance has begun again.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard March 10, 2013 3:58 PM  

The beagle seems to to have trouble differentiating between the individual woman and society.

Most people do, else how do you think this notion of "equality" came about?

Anonymous Stickwick March 10, 2013 4:01 PM  

Insensitive & absurd

Who cares if it's insensitive? Prior to feminism infecting Western civilization, was there ever a man who claimed that certain ideas should never be presented, because they might hurt someone's feelings? Good grief, how women have infantilized society.

Anonymous Will Best March 10, 2013 4:02 PM  

Look it just *IS* Everybody KNOWS it, therefore its TRUE. Like global warming, and carbs better than fat, and government authority is better than voluntarily transacting with business and.. and... and ... SHUT UP

Anonymous VryeDenker March 10, 2013 4:10 PM  

The purpose of a debate is not to convince your opponent, but rather to sway the audience.

Anonymous dh March 10, 2013 4:13 PM  

What part of Award-Winning Cruelty Artist do you find hard to understand? Besides, if someone has gone to the effort to take on my arguments, no matter how hapless the effort, it would be impolite for me to ignore them.

Did I miss the part where it was suggested that it's an "either or" choice?

Anonymous bob k. mando March 10, 2013 4:20 PM  

Stickwick March 10, 2013 4:01 PM
Good grief, how women have infantilized society.




*facepalm*

good grief. Stickwick is practically agreeing that 'women ruin everything'. what will the rabbits think of us now?


oh, yes, 'Stickwick' is gender indeterminate.

perhaps they'll just think that 'he' is another run-of-the-mill misogynist.

*grins*




Loki of Asgard March 10, 2013 3:51 PM
Sigyn has insisted


are we adding to the harem?



Other Josh March 10, 2013 3:51 PM
The beagle seems to to have trouble differentiating between the individual woman and society.



exactly. Captain Beagle aspires to be the apotheosis of 'The Personal Is The Political' principle. he's incapable of discussing questions about 'society' qua society because he's incapable of drawing the intellectual boundary between the collective and the individual.

Anonymous James May March 10, 2013 4:20 PM  

Which is worse, two women getting raped or a woman who's been raped twice?

“I have been raped twice, so I think I can handle Mitch McConnell.”- Ashley Judd

What if the GOP puts a woman up against Judd who's been raped three times? Will it be like Capt. Quint and Richard Dreyfuss comparing scars in "Jaws?"

"Look at this stab wound: Malay sailor, Autumn '87. Of course I was raped too."

"Look at this: hair ripped out by roots. Guy wearing Burger King mask, Summer '01. Of course I was also raped."

"Look at this: no upper teeth left. Haiti, '98. Of course I was also raped."

"Look at this: no coccyx, telephone booth, '04. Of course I was also raped."

Look at this: toenails ripped out, same Malay sailor, 2 years later. Of course I was also raped. Checkmate."

"That doesn't count."

"Yes it does."

"No it doesn't"

"And ladies and gentlemen that concluded tonight's political debate..."

Anonymous selfreformingrabbit March 10, 2013 4:24 PM  

The problem is we live in a kind of twitter-verse where the explanation for why women working is worse for society in the long run than encouraging rape is simply too long and requires too much time and thought to be squeezed into 140 characters. So to most people Vox appears to be insane and Beagle looks like someone defending civilization, when in fact the opposite is true. Because who can 'support' rape, amiright? Sound bites, slogans, tweets...these tend to favor the rabbit people. No one has time to read a long essay anymore, much less research the facts behind that essay or compile in their minds the vast history of the world's civilizations and how they have changed or died out and why these things happened. So, though it may amuse Vox, I doubt that this Twitter exchange helps our side in the long run. Not saying it hurts it either, but, well...the medium is the message.

Blogger ray March 10, 2013 4:26 PM  

the matriarchy's Full Female Employment economy has directly led to FAR more horrible outcomes than the trumped-up "rape culture" and "rape crisis" that is not happening in america, and never did

maintaining rape-hysteria in the western nations is intrinsic to maintenance of the gynocratic governments, schools, workplaces, media, and legal systems -- the hysteria keeps females and manginas at high-heat of fear, rage, and vengeance towards males generally, over a phenomenon that doesnt exist . . . except in their weak and cowardly minds

the damage done to boys under the age of five, and to fatherless boys, by american femi-fascism and the Full Female Employment society cannot even be compared to the relatively trivial number of ACTUAL male-on-female rapes occurring in the west

the easiest way to pass, or to rationalize, anti-male legislation or cultural totalitarianism is to constantly tell women that some Male Stranger is about to rape them, and that they live in a Rape Culture

i'd estimate for every ACTUAL male-on-female rape occurring in america over the past two decades, there are 10 ACTUAL rapes of males in amerika's mancages

the lies never stop in this place . . . it's the only thing that keeps the Sistem going

Anonymous Godfrey March 10, 2013 4:27 PM  

Taxation and fiat currency devaluation is a form of rape.

Anonymous Sigyn (nee Signe) March 10, 2013 4:34 PM  

are we adding to the harem?

It's all very confusing, I know, but I come from a culture where a girl changes her last name when she gets married and he comes from one where they don't. So we compromised: I changed my first name to his liking.

Anonymous The other skeptic March 10, 2013 4:47 PM  

Twitter as philosophy for the retarded? Hmmm, I think you have something there.

Anonymous Daniel March 10, 2013 4:47 PM  

So, is Captain Beagle suggesting that his two friends ruined society by being raped? What an insensitive bastard.

Anonymous Vidad March 10, 2013 4:53 PM  

That guy called Vox "insensitive."

Hee.

Blogger David M Deane March 10, 2013 4:55 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger The Great and Powerful Oz March 10, 2013 4:56 PM  

I'm jealous, no one has ever offered to model their villain after me.

Anonymous Krul March 10, 2013 4:59 PM  

Captain Beagle: I'm thinking of using you as the template for my next villain.

What an honor. I'm sure the portrayal will be every bit as accurate as your Wikipedia entry.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard March 10, 2013 5:01 PM  

But not yet to be deified. Pity.

Anonymous Noah B. March 10, 2013 5:04 PM  

"What part of Award-Winning Cruelty Artist do you find hard to understand?"

Who gives these awards, and why don't I have one?

Anonymous JartStar March 10, 2013 5:19 PM  

Captain Beagle: I'm thinking of using you as the template for my next villain.

I guess it's a story in which the villain is shown to outwit the intrepid hero.

Blogger Duke of Earl March 10, 2013 5:22 PM  

Surely it's obvious that both are bad things, but while rape is damaging for the individual woman, female employment is damaging to society as a whole. The reaction to that statement is emotional, not reasonable.

Emotion is the enemy of reason. Always was, always will be.

Anonymous MendoScot March 10, 2013 5:25 PM  

Captain Beagle: Which is worse, work or rape? I know 2 women who were raped. Go fuck yourself #sorrynicepplhadtohearthat

So you got sloppy seconds?

Blogger Markku March 10, 2013 5:31 PM  

Surely it's obvious that both are bad things, but while rape is damaging for the individual woman, female employment is damaging to society as a whole. The reaction to that statement is emotional, not reasonable.

This is exactly the point. The claim is not that it's better that a woman be raped than that she work, but that the sum total of women working is worse for society than the sum total of rapes.

However, the claim is carefully crafted so that the reader goes blind with rage before she has time to consider what was being claimed, and will therefore provide entertainment.

Blogger El Borak March 10, 2013 5:31 PM  

I guess it's a story in which the villain is shown to outwit the intrepid hero.

"You Racist, sexist, homophobe Vox! I see that you have me chained to this stone cell wall, deep below ground, from which escape for a normal hero would seem impossible. Do you expect me to talk?"

"No, Ms. Beagle, I expect you to die."

Pulls out 9mm,* unloads on Beagle, dumps carcass into incinerator.

The End.

* apologies to Nate

Anonymous scoobius dubious March 10, 2013 5:37 PM  

The two things aren't at all comparable in their nature (rape and employment, that is) and they don't co-exist on any similar or connected or continuous plane or axis, they don't share common data trends or cause/effect trends, so I'm not sure what the point of comparing them is, other than to wave a red rag at a bull. Which I suppose has its own internal logic.

But I suggest you set a trap for this guy: tell him that you can at least agree that the idea of women entering the work force is far less destructive to society than the idea of white women being raped by negroes. You'll have him suddenly switching about and defending rape in about fifteen seconds. Because raaaaacism is the greatest rabbit sin of all, far far worse than mere raaaaape.

Anonymous Machoman March 10, 2013 5:41 PM  

I think I can prove rape is more destructive than women working outside the home.

Control for frequency and intensity.

Society A: At various locations and various business, the majority of women engage in continuous paid labor for 40 hours a week

Society B: At various locations by various persons, the majority of women are raped for 40 hours a week

Damage in Society A: Labor market becomes crowded, wages get depressed, families need two incomes to get by when they used to only need one, people work longer hours for less money, children spend less time with their parents, fewer children are born, both men and women have increased opportunities to cheat surrounded by the opposite sex at work all the time

Damage in Society B: Half of society (actually more since these women have families who care about them) lives in a constant state of terror, pain, and grief to the point of mental breakdown. Since these women are raped by various men there is no paternal certainty and no paternal investment in family formation. This leads to an economic death spiral with useless men and mentally/emotionally destroyed women.

Society A has fewer children. This cannot be denied. However, there are still families where the parents work and invest in their children. Even in Sweden this is the norm. Such a thing does not happen in the society of universal rape. Therefore, rape is worse than women working (for society, for maintaining civilization, and for the quality of life of the people).

Anonymous Salt March 10, 2013 5:47 PM  

Damn VD! Reminds me of Star Trek "The Voyage Home": It is difficult to answer, when one does not understand the question.

That guy is an MPAI member.

Anonymous MendoScot March 10, 2013 5:48 PM  

Control for frequency and intensity.

Control - I think that you don't quite understand what the term means.

Unless you meant of the frequency and intensity of her orgasms, in which case I tip my hat you, sir.

Blogger Foster March 10, 2013 5:50 PM  

@Machoman

You lost me and the rest of your audience at "raped for 40 hrs a week," which is absurd, and not what Vox was addressing in his article.

Anonymous James May March 10, 2013 5:53 PM  

The liberals that once produced vulgar and challenging underground comix today don't know the concept when they see one and would chain up R. Crumb as a pedophile.

That's because the cultural revolution was marketed and mainstreamed. Today, the Dem Party are in some ways worse than the GOP of the '60s. The Dem Party is certainly racist. The fact they are so certain they are not shows the extent of how brutally stupid they are today. Racism today in America is the Viet Nam War of the '60s.

At some point a new generation has to step up and tap the Dem Party on the shoulder and say, "A black congressional congress is racist, just like a white one would be."

White lightning's still the biggest thrill of all afterall. Stupid dumbass redneck liberals. Humorless too.

Anonymous Machoman March 10, 2013 5:54 PM  

If you want to prove "A is worse than B" it doesn't make sense to compare small doses of A with large doses of B.

Blogger Doom March 10, 2013 6:00 PM  

Male feminists, which Captain Howdy seems to me to be, are teh funniest. It's like they have their dick permanently stuck in their zipper and yet somehow still sit to pee. I wish there were more to the thread though, not enough for popcorn as is.

And, Vox? No worries, with Brutus, Socrates, and Christ as 'popular' bad guys by said's anachronistic, and to some extent through their notions current, contemporaries, you are in good company and would make a fine specimen of a villain. Just... don't drink teh wine!

Anonymous jack March 10, 2013 6:13 PM  

Captain Beagle: thanx for this fascinating study in hyperbolic misogyny. I'm thinking of using you as the template for my next villain.

If this person is serious I might just buy that book [at least the Kindle; which would probably be priced at .25 US]

Anonymous Vermont Guy March 10, 2013 6:14 PM  

Try using ALL CAPS, VD. I don't think the Beagel heard you.

Blogger IM2L844 March 10, 2013 6:19 PM  

If you want to prove "A is worse than B" it doesn't make sense to compare small doses of A with large doses of B.

You would rather compare the completely realistic observable facts with toally unrealistic hypothetical scenarios? Vox whistles a tune and you immidiately start dancing the buunny hop. Good gawd, man, get a grip on yourself and start using that lump on top of your shoulders for something other than a hat rack.

Anonymous Machoman March 10, 2013 6:26 PM  

@IM2L844

Using your brain to universalize a hypothetical scenario and draw conclusions, namely that universal rape erodes paternal certainty and all incentives for paternal investment, thus destroying the family more thoroughly than women working outside the home, is the antithesis of rabbit thinking.

Rabbit thinking is emotional posturing along the line of, "How dare you even suggest that? It sounds like you lack empathy and therefore you are wrong."

Disagreeing doesn't make you a rabbit, Jesus...

Blogger IM2L844 March 10, 2013 6:32 PM  

Disagreeing doesn't make you a rabbit, Jesus...

Yes but disagreeing with straw men of your own construction does.

Anonymous Machoman March 10, 2013 6:40 PM  

@IM2L844

No...even bad logic does not make a rabbit (my argument was sound by the way). Actually, rabbits are fundamentally alogical. They don't take opposing arguments into consideration or actually make arguments of their own. They just launch emotional attacks on anyone who offends the orthodoxy of the warren.

Blogger Justthisguy March 10, 2013 6:43 PM  

@Vox @3:38 pm: Twist the knife, brother, twist the knife. Oh, as I'm sure you know, when they're down is the best time to kick them.

Anonymous Freddles March 10, 2013 6:44 PM  

"Disagreeing doesn't make you a rabbit, Jesus..."

You are correct. And don't call me Jesus.

Anonymous Noah B. March 10, 2013 6:45 PM  

"...namely that universal rape erodes paternal certainty..."

With the invention of DNA profiling, this is not necessarily the case today.

Anonymous Salt March 10, 2013 6:47 PM  

Universal rape, so animal.

Anonymous Machoman March 10, 2013 6:53 PM  

@Noah B.

Granted, but even so, men will be extremely reluctant to invest in a woman in this scenario.

Anonymous Jemima March 10, 2013 6:53 PM  

Twitter as philosophy for the retarded? Hmmm, I think you have something there.

You might enjoy: "Against All Tweets" (http://www.proginosko.com/2009/06/against-all-tweets/)

Blogger Duke of Earl March 10, 2013 6:56 PM  

I suppose we could agree that universal rape is worse for society than universal female employment.

However that isn't really in view here is it?

We have large scale female employment, with a measurable detrimental effect on society, and low levels of rape, with a measurable detrimental effect on women (and obviously men too).

I can't see rape ever becoming popular enough that a majority of people could be convinced to vote to decriminalise it. Anti-discrimination laws do prevent women being discouraged from the workforce though.

Blogger Crude March 10, 2013 7:14 PM  

Captain Beagle: thanx for this fascinating study in hyperbolic misogyny. I'm thinking of using you as the template for my next villain.

You know, whatever someone thinks of what Vox is saying, I know she meant this as an insult but really, it comes across more as her saying 'I am a complete hack.'

She may as well have said "I'm going to write a fanfic where I beat you up!!!!"

Anonymous Anonymous March 10, 2013 7:15 PM  

I really enjoy watching bunches of middle aged white dudes whining about how unfair things are and how deplorable today's society is.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard March 10, 2013 7:31 PM  

I really enjoy watching bunches of middle aged white dudes whining about how unfair things are and how deplorable today's society is.

Thank you for sharing this. We are all enriched by this knowledge of your personal tastes.

This is because everyone in the world cares so much about the opinions of someone who cannot be arsed to pick a name. You cannot know the tremendous level of emotional investment you have inspired.

Anonymous Noah B. March 10, 2013 7:39 PM  

"I can't see rape ever becoming popular enough that a majority of people could be convinced to vote to decriminalise it."

It's basically already decriminalized in the Middle East, isn't it?

Anonymous James May March 10, 2013 7:57 PM  

We enjoy the fact that you don't know the difference between whining and the Bill of Rights.

Or the difference between principle and institutional, formal, and organized whining like the NAACP.

Blogger IM2L844 March 10, 2013 8:00 PM  

my argument was sound by the way

No, it wasn't. All other issues aside, it's not sound logic to create a universal hypothetical that doesn't actually exist, has never existed and can realistically never possibly exist in the future (a straw-man fallacy by definition) to use as a comparative against something that actually has existed for some time and is likely to continue to exist into the future (as long as the economy will support it).

Blogger Lud VanB March 10, 2013 8:05 PM  

"It's basically already decriminalized in the Middle East, isn't it?"


nut really but under islamic laws its view more as a property crime against the family of the rape victim

Anonymous kh123 March 10, 2013 8:08 PM  

There's a long history of captains getting incensed over rape.

Though, someone ought to point out to him that he's mixing up his roleplaying characters - knights: armor; captains: hat and tailed coat. Although both carry swords.

Anonymous zen0 March 10, 2013 8:09 PM  

nut really but under islamic laws its view more as a property crime against the family of the rape victim

I thought it was more like the victim has shamed the family and must be killed.

Anonymous Machoman March 10, 2013 8:17 PM  

@IM2L844

Yes it was sound. I will demonstrate how by recasting my argument as a syllogism

Premise 1: Paternal certainty (and things related to it that induce men to invest in family formation) is the foundation of the family and therefore civilization

Premise 2: A society of universal rape undermines paternal certainty (and the family) more than a society of universal female employment outside the home

Conclusion: Universal rape is more harmful to the family (and civilization) than universal female employment

The argument form is valid. The conclusion follows logically from the premises regardless of whether the premises are true or false.

The premises are true. That makes the conclusion true (assuming reality is always in conformity with logic). This is what is called a sound argument.

Anonymous bob k. mando March 10, 2013 8:21 PM  

Markku March 10, 2013 5:31 PM
This is exactly the point. The claim is not that it's better that a woman be raped than that she work, but that the sum total of women working is worse for society than the sum total of rapes.





no, it's even dumber than that.

Captain Beagle is making the 'intellectual' assertion that IF ONLY society were feminist enough and IF ONLY we would outlaw rapes and 'rape culture' ... THEN ... rapes wouldn't happen anymore.

i'm sure that making rape illegal AND socially unacceptable will be as successful in wiping out rape as, say, our efforts with murder, drugs, alcohol and fiduciary crimes.


even more amusing, the feminization of society seems to be inducing it's own blowback. this story, for instance, is hilarious once you view the video of her 'debate' presentation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290789/Glasgow-University-Union-debate-Cambridge-undergraduate-tells-shocking-abuse-male-students-elite-university.html

Anonymous Noah B. March 10, 2013 8:23 PM  

You state that the premises are true without proving that to be the case. Since I already pointed out that you're ignoring DNA profiling's ability to determine paternity -- a point which you acknowledged -- your repetition of your previous assertions rises to the level of dishonesty.

Blogger Lud VanB March 10, 2013 8:29 PM  

"I thought it was more like the victim has shamed the family and must be killed."

Honor killing only account for for a small fraction of murders and in the case of rape, the thinking is that once a female member of the family has been raped, she loses her worth because no one will want to marry her and therefore would become a permanent burden on her family. but even then, honor killings are the exceptions, not the rule. in many cases, the rapist will be forced to marry the victim.

Anonymous Machoman March 10, 2013 8:30 PM  

@Noah B.

The claim is comparative. I can't believe I have to spell this out.

"Premise 2: A society of universal rape undermines paternal certainty (and the family) more than a society of universal female employment outside the home"

Which erodes paternal certainty (and makes men generally less willing to invest in a woman) more?

1. A woman having a job outside the home (maybe she has an affair, maybe she doesn't)

2. A woman getting raped by multiple men on a daily basis (guaranteed 100% chance of other men penetrating her, not to mention the emotional damage to her, and to her man as well for his inability to protect her)

Anonymous Noah B. March 10, 2013 8:35 PM  

Do those premises sound remotely realistic to you? If so, I'd recommend some yoga or group art therapy.

Anonymous Noah B. March 10, 2013 8:37 PM  

Maybe get a small dog that shakes all the time and always needs to be held.

Anonymous Machoman March 10, 2013 8:52 PM  

@Noah B.

You are seeing emotion where there is none. While I am morally opposed to rape, my argument has nothing to do with that and is carefully formatted to not take my moral code (or any other) into account. The argument is purely functional (ie. societies with one set of values will crumble faster than societies with others).

Logic is about argument form. An argument can be good without being true.

"John is a man. All men are 10 feet tall. Therefore John is 10 feet tall."

That is a good argument, meaning correctly reasoned. It is called valid. If the premises are true it is called sound.

Premises are also true whether you want them to be or not. A society of universal rape and a society of universal female employment do not exist. However, this does not change the fact that one of these is demonstrably worse for civilization.

Anonymous zen0 March 10, 2013 8:53 PM  

in many cases, the rapist will be forced to marry the victim.

I can imagine the family dinners: " And this is Achmed my son-in-law, the rapist."

No wonder they came up with the "honor killing" scam. Who wants to put up with that every festival?

Anonymous Anonymous March 10, 2013 8:56 PM  

>good grief. Stickwick is practically agreeing that 'women ruin >everything'. what will the rabbits think of us now?

Maybe that the poor confused girl should stop playing male, get out of astrophysics, and into the kitchen where she belongs?

Anonymous bob k. mando March 10, 2013 8:59 PM  

Machoman March 10, 2013 8:30 PM



i misread your name as though you were Scots.

you know, as if pronounced Mac-Hoe-man. like yer pimp er somthin. i think it goes well with your argument.


anyways, speaking of coordinating things, compare and contrast these two stories currently being promoted at Ars Technica:

1 - women too dumb NOT to do private functions in front of a computer with a camera that they know is attached and turned on
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet-the-men-who-spy-on-women-through-their-webcams/

2 - a properly feminist 'sarcastic' story about tablets that are 'simple enough for a woman' to use
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/03/finally-a-tablet-simple-enough-for-a-woman-to-use-sarcasm/


the writer of the second story views it as 'sexist' to 'pinkify' things. maybe she should make it illegal for women and girls to buy things which are colored pink? you know, so that they then could NOT exercise their own desires and choices.

bein as how adult women are childlike and incapable of properly judging how best to satisfy their own wants and needs and are certainly incapable at raising female children on their own ...

Anonymous Noah B. March 10, 2013 8:59 PM  

"Premises are also true whether you want them to be or not."

Except when the premises are false. This is the simple point that seems to be eluding you.

You state above that a society of universal rape does not exist. By your own logic, then, your premise #2 is conditioned on a falsehood.

Anonymous zen0 March 10, 2013 9:12 PM  

Machoman says:

Premises are also true whether you want them to be or not. A society of universal rape and a society of universal female employment do not exist. However, this does not change the fact that one of these is demonstrably worse for civilization.

And also as relevant or useful to argument as any universal premise.

Thank you for demonstrating your grasp of Pseudo-Philosophy 100.

Anonymous Machoman March 10, 2013 9:35 PM  

Since real logic doesn't seem to be understood perhaps a "rabbit" style argument will be.

In essence, I am arguing a society where every woman has a job is preferable (and stronger/more socially stable/productive) to a society where every woman is raped. There are lots of reasons. Women won't have to suffer rape would be number one. There are others, families will be stronger (families probably couldn't exist at all under a universal rape society). I could go on.

If you disagree with me you are saying that a society where every woman is raped is preferable (and stronger/more socially stable/productive) to a society where every woman has a job. Really? Even your wife? Sister? Mother? Listen to yourself. I have a hard time believing you are serious.

A society where every woman is raped is a non society. There can be no family, no freedom, no prosperity, and no real social organization other than all male gangs.

Societies with widespread female employment exist and have existed throughout history in a stable state. In many agricultural societies of the past and present women work in the fields alongside the men. This is one example among many.

So, we can show that one has existed in a stable state, and one would almost certainly result in the dreaded war of all against all. This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Anonymous The other skeptic March 10, 2013 9:38 PM  

I can't see rape ever becoming popular enough that a majority of people could be convinced to vote to decriminalise it.

Hold on there, I thought that Feminists regarded all heterosexual sex as rape by men ...

Anonymous The other skeptic March 10, 2013 9:39 PM  

Since real logic doesn't seem to be understood perhaps a "rabbit" style argument will be.

They never let you off the short bus, did they?

Blogger tz March 10, 2013 9:42 PM  

Our society allows abortion, so ask any of the 50 million (so far) ghosts who have had their bodies destroyed because they were inconvenient.

Now Vox didn't say this, but I think he would have advocated that Rape be safe, legal, and rare. But once legal, the rest would just be ideals.

Or a rape exception for abortion - only allow rape of women who obtained abortions.

Anonymous Stickwick March 10, 2013 9:52 PM  

Maybe that the poor confused girl should stop playing male, get out of astrophysics, and into the kitchen where she belongs?

I came to that decision a long time ago. I do astrophysics for fun, part time, because a full time career would interfere with my marriage. And I love to cook. The problem is, I sometimes get my recipe books and textbooks mixed up. Lessee, it sez to combine two parts helium, bake at 100 million degrees until beryllium is produced, add another helium nucleus, return to oven and bake until carbon is formed ...

Blogger Doom March 10, 2013 10:16 PM  

And they say women aren't funny! Or... were you se-rus? *grins* I'd take two of those, by the way. Seriously hungry, even after dinner.

Anonymous OneWithChaos March 10, 2013 10:17 PM  

"Half of society (actually more since these women have families who care about them) lives in a constant state of terror, pain, and grief to the point of mental breakdown."

Mental breakdown is impossible to measure objectively. It is believed by some that even the vegetative have some level of cognition. I don't know whether this is true or not because I am not a doctor, but even a middle school dropout from ages past could tell you it's impossible to measure someone's mental and emotional state with 100% certainty. Since Vox referred to measurable things such as income and prosperity and you are referring to intangible things like a person's level of cognition (not aptitude for cognition,which is a different subject altogether),this argument fails.


"Since these women are raped by various men there is no paternal certainty and no paternal investment in family formation. This leads to an economic death spiral with useless men and mentally/emotionally destroyed women."

This argument is also provably false,since regardless of whether or not a rapist raises his child,EVERY man is invested in family formation through the tax and welfare system. It is simply the case that we now pay to subsidize UNHEALTHY family formation at the expense of natural and healthy family formation. This argument fails as well.

Anonymous Harsh March 10, 2013 10:41 PM  

Premise 1: Paternal certainty (and things related to it that induce men to invest in family formation) is the foundation of the family and therefore civilization

Premise 2: A society of universal rape undermines paternal certainty (and the family) more than a society of universal female employment outside the home

Conclusion: Universal rape is more harmful to the family (and civilization) than universal female employment


The syllogism is invalid because a society of universal rape has never existed and therefore premise #2 is false. You're ignoring existential import.

Anonymous Beau March 10, 2013 10:43 PM  

@ Stickwick

*chuckle* Great recipe.

Anonymous Stickwick March 10, 2013 10:53 PM  

*chuckle* Great recipe.

That's the triple alpha process for making carbon through nucleosynthesis. Kinda tricky, usually requires the core of a massive star. However, it's relatively easy to make carbon in your own oven, provided you forget to put something under the pizza and cheese drips onto the element.

Anonymous Ecology zen0 March 10, 2013 10:56 PM  

Stickwich says: return to oven and bake until carbon is formed ...

Al Gore says: Sorry, can't do that without buying some of my carbon offsets here. Saving the planet one recipe at a time, eh?

Anonymous The other skeptic March 10, 2013 11:00 PM  

The ironic, but logically inescapable fact is that encouraging men to rape would be considerably less damaging to a society than encouraging women to enter the workforce en masse. Widespread rape makes a society uncivilized. Widespread female employment makes a society demographically unsustainable.

Hmmm, it would appear that the short-bus rider does not understand the difference between widespread and universal.

OpenID Bob March 10, 2013 11:25 PM  

If your opponents word are just too inconvenient, just use your own in it's place. It makes it so much easier to be right.

VD: "...By what metric do you claim that rape is MORE harmful to society ..."

Captain Beagle: "...to prove rape is harmful."

Anonymous One-Eyed Willie March 10, 2013 11:25 PM  

Hmmm, it would appear that the short-bus rider does not understand the difference between widespread and universal.

Bitch do lotta niggaz be Widespread. Bitch be Universal gotta do all the niggaz.

You feel me?

Anonymous zen0 March 10, 2013 11:31 PM  

Bob.

Which person are you suggesting was disingenuous?

The transcript says Captain Beagle was.

What say you?

Anonymous bw March 10, 2013 11:38 PM  

Captain Beagle.

Heh. Beagles are RABBIT dogs.

Blogger tz March 11, 2013 12:12 AM  

bake until carbon is formed

That would require gravity and solar temperatures. unless you mean carbon is isolated.

Anonymous The other skeptic March 11, 2013 12:25 AM  

New frontiers in racism for the grievance mongers to tremble about.

Anonymous bob k. mando March 11, 2013 12:43 AM  

Stickwick March 10, 2013 9:52 PM
Lessee, it sez to combine two parts helium, bake at 100 million degrees until beryllium is produced, add another helium nucleus, return to oven and bake until carbon is formed ...




welp, women are commonly characterized as the bringers of Life. add water to your carbon and allow to simmer for a couple of hundred million years ....

Anonymous Matthew March 11, 2013 12:46 AM  

You had me at "decriminalize".

Blogger Longstreet March 11, 2013 1:04 AM  

"However, it's relatively easy to make carbon in your own oven, provided you forget to put something under the pizza and cheese drips onto the element."

So the next time my wife complains about the mess I made in the oven, I can point and say "It is SCIENCE!"

Blogger IM2L844 March 11, 2013 3:08 AM  

If you disagree with me you are saying that a society where every woman is raped is preferable (and stronger/more socially stable/productive) to a society where every woman has a job.

Show me where anyone, including Vox, has made such a fantastically preposterous assertion. Are you really unable to recognize that you have created a straw-man fallacy in order to present a false dichotomy as an argument against a circumstance that was never postulated by anyone but you. Yet, I'm the one who has trouble with logic?

Would you agree that allowing chidren to eat junk food is preferable to force feeding them hormone enhanced Soylent Green? I'm guessing you would.

Anonymous Toby Temple March 11, 2013 3:56 AM  

In essence, I am arguing a society where every woman has a job is preferable (and stronger/more socially stable/productive) to a society where every woman is raped.

Nice strawman, bro!!

Anonymous VD March 11, 2013 4:21 AM  

The argument form is valid. The conclusion follows logically from the premises regardless of whether the premises are true or false. The premises are true. That makes the conclusion true (assuming reality is always in conformity with logic). This is what is called a sound argument.

Your logic fails because premise one is not true. Premise one relies on the false assumption that paternal certainty is more vital to civilization than bearing children in the first place. This is not possible. Therefore the conclusion is false.

Anonymous VD March 11, 2013 4:26 AM  

If you disagree with me you are saying that a society where every woman is raped is preferable (and stronger/more socially stable/productive) to a society where every woman has a job.

Yes, this is true. That is how devastating the effects of female employment are; we see sub-replacement birth rates of around 1.5 percent with female employment where it is now. Universal female employment would completely end a society within 30 years. Universal rape would not; one could even reasonably argue that such societies have been very successful in the past depending upon whether one regards mandatory temple prostitution as rape.

I note you're also attempting to cheat with regards to the term "job".

Blogger Jamie-R March 11, 2013 4:41 AM  

Twitter's awesome. Facebook has some creepy 'we're connected' crap going on. Twitter is just: follow, unfollow.

"Maybe I'll follow you, nah now I'll unfollow you. Maybe I'll see you again. Depends what I give a crap about at any given time."

Anonymous Anonymous March 11, 2013 6:05 AM  

>Lessee, it sez to combine two parts helium, bake at 100 million degrees until beryllium is produced, add another helium nucleus, >return to oven and bake until carbon is formed ...

OK, that made me laugh, astro-gal! Well done. And good on you for making your marriage a priority.

Anonymous Koanic March 11, 2013 7:58 AM  

One could argue that rape tends to get women off the carousel and into beta Catholic-style procreation-only relationships, and is therefore would actually be a net positive move for our society.

Anonymous Sigyn March 11, 2013 8:09 AM  

One could argue that rape tends to get women off the carousel and into beta Catholic-style procreation-only relationships, and is therefore would actually be a net positive move for our society.

On the other hand, a lot more young men die, dropping the number of productive citizens.

Anonymous CaptDMO March 11, 2013 8:16 AM  

The high discourse of Twitter...?
Doh!
Examining "the rules",
The only way to win is to not play the game.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza March 11, 2013 9:18 AM  

Haha.Carry on gentlemen! Love this twitter stuff.

Anonymous CynicAle March 11, 2013 10:09 AM  

heh, Captain Beagle is a real influencer of all 100 ish followers.

Anonymous Machoman March 11, 2013 10:42 AM  

@VD

In the society of universal rape the men go Galt, produce nothing beyond what they personally need, and the children go feral with most dying.

In the society of universal female employment outside the home, there are shades of men dropping out, but not nearly to the same degree. Most men are still invested in their children. That is true today with most women working.

Also, believing in constant population growth forever is about as ridiculous as constant GDP growth forever. Sub replacement level fertility can be positive for a society provided their fewer children aren't being displaced by some other group. In the case of the west they are, but that doesn't change the fact that more open space per person would be good for the individual person. That is essentially the reason the US had a higher standard of living than Europe for most of its history. If constraints on the labor market that prevent it being flooded with cheap workers is good for the average worker, then fewer people in the next generation would be good for the same reason.

Anonymous MInTheGap (@MInTheGap) March 11, 2013 10:52 AM  

SarahsDaugher wrote:

"I'm curious then, would you ignore this this? AG is linked in it. I vacillate on whether to address it or just let rabbits be rabbits. She completely misrepresents what has been said but I'm inclined to believe those who are interested enough to read the source material will realize that."

I'm curious about this as well. This particular individual seems to play loose with the facts very often. Back in Jan 10 I got a full assault on my blogs by her and many of the others in the former fundamentalist movement because of my posts on marriage and modesty. The author didn't bother to make sure to quote things in context, and didn't have any issue with doing the whole "here's the real name of the pseudonym" while understanding that people use pseduonyms for different reasons, including wanting to have ideas be out there without linking ones family and friends in the mess.

Should someone confront the ramblings of someone that refuses to quote in context, ignore them, or what?

Anonymous Lemmenkainen March 11, 2013 11:07 AM  

Machoman, what kind of prophylactic do you have to use to keep fornicating with your strawman? Your universal rape society doesn't exist, and never has existed. Even in periods of civil disorder, at some point decent people finally have enough of it and bad men end up in shallow graves. Men who have mothers and sisters aren't going to live in a society like your fevered creation.

You're one of those special little snowflakes who were always told you were clever, aren't you.

Anonymous Machoman March 11, 2013 11:40 AM  

It is not a straw man...Jesus Christ, seems strawman is the only fallacy the internet knows other than ad hominem. "Some women work" vs. "Some women get raped" is a ridiculously argument that reduces down to quibbling over degree. Would a million women worked to the bone in coal mines be worse than one woman getting raped? ETC. The only thing that makes sense is to universalize both possibilities.

Think of a hypothetical society where everybody lies all the time. No such society has ever existed. But, you can use your mind to understand what would be wrong with that society and why it wouldn't work.

Anonymous pdimov March 11, 2013 11:49 AM  

In essence, I am arguing a society where every woman has a job is preferable (and stronger/more socially stable/productive) to a society where every woman is raped.

Of what practical significance is this observation? You can always crank up the amount of raping to make it "win".

Anonymous VanDerMerwe March 11, 2013 12:19 PM  

http://www.latimes.com/features/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-sheryl-sandberg-20130310,0,818617.story

Comments?

OpenID baduin March 11, 2013 1:59 PM  

I must say that Machoman is right: the society in which "the majority of women are raped for 40 hours a week" would rapidly collapse due to sheer exhaustion of men. In fact, I would guess that there would be massive die off of men after a week or so.

On the other hand, Machoman- you must understand that not everyone is so macho a man as you. I know that YOU can rape women for 40 hours a week - but the rest of us simply cannot. You cannot generalize from a single outlier to the whole population.

Because, since you are an HONEST man, we can be sure that you personally tested your hypothesis in the only way possible - by raping woman or multiple women for 40 hours in a single week.

OpenID baduin March 11, 2013 2:08 PM  

On the other hand, if the requirement to rape women 40 hours per week is removed, there are some interesting speculations about a society in which the only intercourse between sexes is rape.

Jack Vance wrote a quite good book called "Marune: Alastor 933"

http://www.amazon.com/Marune-Alastor-933-Bk/dp/0879975911

The society described there is remarkably prudish, so much so in fact that it is assumed that nobody in their right mind would engage in sex.

On the other hand periodically, at night, the whole society is supposed do go mad. Any woman caught outside or with unbarred door at such times can - and should - be raped by anyone who catches her.

Blogger tz March 11, 2013 4:17 PM  

Of course employment and rape aren't mutually exclusive. Or perhaps the brothel is an option.

I mentioned abortion before, having it legal in either case (rape or employment) will tend to lower the population.

Anonymous Anonymous March 11, 2013 6:27 PM  

In the long run the universal rape scenario in America would be solved quickly society would heal, concluding: that was a terrible chapter. The universal female employment scenario would beer more likely to destroy a society, without resistance, with everyone scratching their heads wondering, "what went wrong?" and a higher likelihood that society would not be able to correct its mistake.

At least you admit in/by your own premises that universal female employment is at least catastrophic. Their, I can take the more likely situation (employment) to consideration, and safely ignore your preposterous situation (rape).

~E

Anonymous Anonagain March 11, 2013 6:39 PM  

Think of a hypothetical society where everybody lies all the time. No such society has ever existed. But, you can use your mind to understand what would be wrong with that society and why it wouldn't work.

With Leftists having taken over every one of our institutions, that is precisely the kind of society we have today. And, no, it doesn't work - society is failing, and feminism is just one of the big Leftist lies that is responsible.

Leftists know human nature. Going along with the consensus and thus being accepted by the collective is far more important to weak, corrupt, idiotic humans than truth, logic, common sense, consequences, even reality.

Your comments belie your moniker, Machoman. When it comes to Leftist lies, it's obvious you've swallowed more than Elton John and George Michael put together. LeftistCocksucker is more appropriate for you.

Anonymous Anonymous March 11, 2013 6:44 PM  

Also, the universal rape scenario should be more seriously considered if you're going to use it against the realistic scenario of universal female employment.

Who's doing the raping? Invaders or the society itself? If it is invaders, then the premises are apples to oranges; invaders do not work in a scenario where we are measuring the effects of various social mandates/laws. If a society itself is exhibiting such widespread rape, then I would argue that such a society is doing rather well-- as rape is one of their civic virtues. Without anyone fighting widespread rape, it could go on indefinitely. Plenty of societies persist in this state- consider India. It could even be argued that the rapist Indians will outlast the Brahmin, should feminism continue in the urban areas. Your rape society might just out-compete a feminist employment society.

~E

Blogger Remo March 11, 2013 6:47 PM  

As Yoda would say: "Much is the cognitive dissonance here". I don't recall anyone ever saying rape is good - just that large scale female employment is *worse* for a society overall. He doesn't think women working is a bad thing and won't bother defending it as he has stuck himself in the "YOU SAID RAPE!!!" mode of rabbitness.

Obviously rape is NOT good for a woman and can and does leave severe emotional scars that last a life time. Women working however also leads to severe things, like mass divorce and socialism therefore the rape line was simply to draw attention to how very bad women working is. Now how come I, with an IQ of maybe 120 on a good day and MENSA membership about as realistic a possibility as me be elected Fed chairman tomorrow, can figure this out and this fluffy bunny can't?

Anonymous Anonymous March 11, 2013 6:57 PM  

No Remo, Vox meant it literally and realistically. If you discount personal emotions and individual suffering and track only continuing existence as as society then it is reasonably argued that our current trajectory will take us into oblivion, like so many before us, while the current rape-states observed around the world today have persisted and will persist much longer. Especially, perhaps, once our Western values have gone extinct in the world.

~E

Anonymous CLK March 11, 2013 7:04 PM  

Sorry...Machoman is right, he has proven his point and there is no error in his logic .. you must concede the argument .... that's the rules here ... :)

Anonymous Anonymous March 12, 2013 12:12 AM  

Greencarman here...

"Your logic fails because premise one is not true. Premise one relies on the false assumption that paternal certainty is more vital to civilization than bearing children in the first place. This is not possible. Therefore the conclusion is false."

Without paternal certainty, the population cannot sustain itself. Without women to bear children, the population cannot sustain itself. It's a classic "chicken or the egg" dilemma. VD's viewpoint insisting universal female employment would completely end a society within 30 years is a one trick pony. This phenomenon will singularly and undoubtedly lead to "mass divorce". "socialism", and "population decline"? Where are the studies regarding this matter? Where are the social scientists and mathematicians indulging in this pubescent fantasy? I'm all ears...

Regardless, this thread is an exercise in mental masturbation. Women will work, and continue to work, in our society. Fact. Women will choose to have children should they decide to work. It is well within their right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Fact.

Increased labor participation of women is driven by supply and demand factors, and their epochal rise is one of the most profound market transformations in the past century. Men, in particular, have recognized their inclusion as the means to carve out financial empires. This trend is NOT going to slow down because some Mensa acolytes insist that it will lead America to "population catastrophe".

In essence, whether the American population will significantly decline because women are refusing to acknowledge their primary role--since they ruin everything (eyes rolling)--of popping out kids like a Pez dispenser is a matter of low-brow intellectual discourse. Who f----- cares!

Anonymous Loki of Asgard March 12, 2013 7:11 AM  

In essence, whether the American population will significantly decline because women are refusing to acknowledge their primary role--since they ruin everything (eyes rolling)--of popping out kids like a Pez dispenser is a matter of low-brow intellectual discourse. Who f----- cares!

Clearly, nobody cares whether your population ages beyond sustainability.

...Nobody, save someone with plans to overthrow your civilisation and rule over it. The fewer healthy young people you have to defend you, the better.

Blogger Markku March 12, 2013 8:18 AM  

We simply HAVE to get John to say "universal rape" on the radio.

Anonymous Jabari March 12, 2013 12:35 PM  

Clearly, nobody cares whether your population ages beyond sustainability.

...Nobody, save someone with plans to overthrow your civilisation and rule over it. The fewer healthy young people you have to defend you, the better.


But there has to be something left to actually rule over, correct? Seems like a waste of effort to overthrow a civilization with no children (or chili)...

Blogger Remo March 13, 2013 7:22 AM  

An interesting experiment - I decided to test Vox's idea that women working was bad for society and gender relations in general. I can get away with little sociological experiments occasionally as I am a Math/Computer teacher in China. I teach high school boys and girls. The sample size here was about 12 girls and 9 boys. Recently we had "womens day" here in the PRC and on this day at about 10am I brought in a bunch of snacks and drinks for the class. Teenagers are always hungry so when I busted these out I got their full attention. Since it was womens day I assembled the snacks and drinks out on the main table and let the girls choose first. The foodstuffs here were packs of spiced meat, chicken feet (a favorite here), and various and sundry other things. Girls picked first - one bag each and one drink. They naturally took the best stuff on the first cut and the boys got what was left. An interesting thing happened.

The girls refused to share anything *except* with the two most popular boys in the class. Those two were pretty much free to travel between the desks eating as they wanted from whatever bag the girls had on their desks. The less popular boys either didn't try or were flatly refused in a not very nice way. The best food here went to the 2 boys (and one in particular) who dominated the social scene while the remaining seven sat with their bag of lesser desirable foodstuffs.

Two days later with the same class I declared a boys day and broke out snacks again, approximately the same mix as before. This time however I allowed the boys to choose first and same as before, they first crew took the best things leaving the dregs for the rest. However, after everything was distributed the girls, all of them, visited and stuck near the boys with the best snacks. As the boys coming first were random, it wasn't the 2 most popular that got to pick first. Overall though there was a far greater amount of mixing, the social scene was much more evenly distributed boys and girls, and moreover everyone got to eat some of the best food. Even the gamma/delta/omega boys got female attention and begun to act a little more confident. They had something the girls *wanted* which inverted the power structure and made the girls nicer as compared to the observed harpy bitchiness encountered 2 days prior. There was a lot less snapping (which the girls engaged in on womens day when they had the food and a less popular boy wanted something) and what snapping existed was playful rather than malicious. Even the ugly girls got a share of the good stuff, exactly the reverse of the boys experience. I can easily state the overall happiness of the class was greater on this day then when the girls had first pick. In other words when the girls have the power - they don't use it well and the whole class suffered. Nothing was even close to fair, and a super majority of the boys are left out doing nothing productive unless you consider sitting alone being resentful productive.

While I realize this is hardly on par with a real actual experiment with controls, white lab coats, etc. it was quite interesting to watch this play out on a micro basis. I don't think it is a stretch to imagine that something akin to this is occurring in the outside world continuously. Let the boys pick first and they naturally and happily provide for the girls. This requires no coaxing or incentives. Let the girls have the power and they naturally shut out all but the most popular boys, leaving the rest to solitude. Everyone was a lot less happy also.

Anonymous Dillon March 14, 2013 11:17 AM  

He proved that women entering the workforce is harmful, sure. But equating that harm to the violent, invasive crime of rape isn't necessary and detracts from the strength of the argument.

I have to wonder if he understands how crazy that comparison is, given his responses when people rightfully call him out on it. I would hope it's satire but the seriousness of his response suggests otherwise. After this I'll find it hard to give his arguments much credibility.

Blogger black michael March 14, 2013 11:28 AM  

All of the above makes the same error: It assumes that there is some fundamental difference between men and women. This is extremely questionable. One can debate to what extent an individual's behaviour is innate or encultered, but the consensus seems to be that the majority of a person's behaviour is conditioned by cultural context, with some small influence, maybe 5%, which is inherent and influenced by biological imperatives.
Thus women's behaviour becomes clearer; women don't act qua woman, but as women in a specific cultural and economic context, that is, late capitalism.
As usual, the analysis here lacks what is vital to any understanding of these issues, an economic dimension. Why are women encouraged to work? Because they can be employed profitably, that is, their employment creates profit for someone. That's because here in the West there has been a deliberate shift away from manufacturing and industry and toward services and retail. Shopgirls and waitresses and secretaries are in demand. That is hardly the fault of the women. Rather, it's an imperative of our particular phase of late capitalism.
Stripped of the cultural accretions of gender, divested of these gender roles, the question above (and I realise it's frivolous and provocative, and not meant to be a serious question) can be reduced to this parsimonious formula: Would you, as a person, prefer to be raped or to go out to work? What would cause you more harm, as an individual?
If your contention is that women working causes more net harm to society (which is a very dubious assertion, as opposed the assertion that it might cause harm to male self-esteem, which might well be the case), then you know who, or rather what, to blame: Our economic system, which, for cheap labour purposes, has farmed out industry and production abroad and refocused the western country's economies into finance, marketing, retail, administration, and services, and encouraged women to enter into these careers to maximise profit, and, not incidentally, to sow discord between men and women. By indulging in misogyny, rape jokes, and rationalizations, you are simply disempowering yourselves, and alienating at least one half or mankind.

Anonymous Anonymous March 15, 2013 4:33 PM  

"What is your basis for claiming rape is worse for society than female employment?"

Holy Christ in Heaven, and you claim to be a man of God? A conservative man, blessed in the eyes of the Lord? The only standard you need is the Bible. Rape is one of the worst of sins, as bad as murder, an unholy violation. To claim that female employment is worse for society than rape is to show yourself as liberal and Satanic.

Are you a liberal and Satanic? Are you a worshiper of the Antichrist Obama, to claim such?

- H. Castaigne

Anonymous Anonymous March 16, 2013 12:36 AM  

Good point. Why *does* Vox continue arguing against facts and logic?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts