>Ducks Going Their Own Way (DGTOW)
>
Donald Duck was evidently a Duck Going His Own Way. This Disney cartoon from 1954 pretty much sums up, in 7 short minutes, every single discussion on every MGTOW message board ever, right down to the little jokes about Daisy riding what we might call the “bad boy duck cock carousel.”
This is quite literally how MGTOWer’s see the world, except for the part about everyone being a duck. (Oh, and that Donald doesn’t blame modern feminism for Daisy’s behavior, as it didn’t actually exist in 1954.)
Thanks, I guess, to the fellows on MGTOWforums.com for finding this.
-
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Posted on March 30, 2011, in feminism, funny, hypergamy, MGTOW, misogyny, oppressed men, reactionary bullshit. Bookmark the permalink. 131 Comments.
>It's just been explained to us that misogynists have amazingly high IQs.Well, we supposed misogynists are smart enough not bitch to about prejudice, or any form of trend-analysis for that matter, while stereotyping anyone who disagrees with us. That is why we are worth more to society.
>Well, we supposed misogynists are smart enough not bitch to about prejudice, or any form of trend-analysis for that matter, while stereotyping anyone who disagrees with us. Yep, none of the misogynists on this blog have every simultaneously gone on about how disgusting and stupid feminists are while claiming men have been the slaves of women throughout history and never get custody of their children EVER. None of this has ever been said on this blog. Ever. At all. Not once. … why are you all looking at me like that??
>People who earn more tend to be more intelligent.Wow. The classism in that statement is fucking staggering. Sweatshop workers, minimum-wage service industry labourers, and unpaid caretakers rejoice: you aren't being exploited! You're just stupid!Thanks, e-string, for proving triplanetary's point about the MRM being steeped in class privilege.
>Wow. The classism in that statement is fucking staggering.Here, you can see for yourself when you're done being outraged. Also, "tends to" does not equate to "always." China, for example, has a lower average income but higher IQ average. Africa has a lower IQ average than most of the world. Tends to is no the same as "always is without exception." You might want to practice thinking rationally and logically, you can't bitchfest and "oooohhh, I'm so offended!" your way out of everything in life.
>Now, in a given population there is a definite correlation between scores on intelligence tests and performance on the job. I know you tend to fixate on the extremes, but many jobs will allow some degree of upward mobility. Hence, the most industrious and intelligent individuals tend to gravitate to the top.Did I say they always do? No, and only a feminist would be so stupid as to assume such a thing. I know that sometimes people get a bum deal and cannot advance economically and socially no matter how hard they work or how smart they are.However, the tendency is that smarter people pay more. I am smart enough to acknowledge that, you are not. That is probably why you have embraced your little pet theory while I have considered and rejected it.
>"Gentlemen, if you don't want the nightmare scenarios that you're always talking about to come true, there's a very simple solution: don't be an idiot. There are hundreds of websites and books dedicated to the signs that the person you're dating is abusive and will do you wrong. Just learn to be a good judge of character (it's not that hard)""Abusers are predatory people who often have an instinct for deceit and manipulation. Suggesting it's easy to scope them all out and avoid them is offensive and ignorant." Oh, look! A catfight!Erl Daschund said… "it's a reductio ad absurdum""No, it's not. It's a tu quoque.Please, please do not use latin unless you know what it means."Ur so smort and edumacatid!Tricommunist"Even those who managed to find work would almost never, prior to the 20th century, make anywhere near as much as a man."That's because they either wouldn't or couldn't do as much work. You think men are/were paid more just because their men? Moron! NO amount of sexism or misogyny is going to make a businessman loose profit by paying a dude more than a wimminz for the SAME quantity/quality of work! What planet you from?(EVEN I WOULDN'T DO THIS!)Try using your brain just once.
>Whilst women were digging turnips, we hunted the mammoth to feed you.
>"Well, we supposed misogynists are smart enough not bitch to about prejudice, or any form of trend-analysis for that matter, while stereotyping anyone who disagrees with us. That is why we are worth more to society."Is this before or after you all go Galt and start living in your cars?
>Actually, Coryat, we earn more than you do. You are the ones who are more likely to leech off the welfare system and become homeless.I know you were trying to be snarky and cute, but try to be a little bit rational, hon.
>You are the ones who are more likely to leech off the welfare system and become homeless.We're dealing with 10% unemployment in the current economy. A lot of very diverse people are drawing welfare right now, and I guarantee you they don't conform to your stereotype of welfare leeches.NO amount of sexism or misogyny is going to make a businessman loose profit by paying a dude more than a wimminz for the SAME quantity/quality of work!You're right, prejudice and bias never, ever get in the way of rational economic thinking. Those great, rational, hyper-intelligent Galtian businessman are all calculating, profit-maximizing machines.Hang on, let me pull my head out of Ayn Rand's ass for a second. Wait, it turns out all that stuff I just said is horseshit.What planet you from?Earth, where cultures have values and customs beyond maximizing profit. I assume you're from the planet Randius Maximus or somesuch.
>You think men are/were paid more just because their men?Because their men what?
>A lot of very diverse people are drawing welfare right now, and I guarantee you they don't conform to your stereotype of welfare leeches.A lot of very diverse people are in the MRM right now, and I guarantee you they do not conform to your stereotype of misogynists.Do you see what I did there? Oh, wait, as a feminist you are incapable of admitting fault (as you did earlier with the whole engineering prejudice) so you'll just shoot off some bizarre long-winded horseshit rationalization about how taking other people's money is more noble than disagreeing with feminism.
>Here, you can see for yourself when you're done being outraged. Also, "tends to" does not equate to "always." China, for example, has a lower average income but higher IQ average. Africa has a lower IQ average than most of the world. Tends to is no the same as "always is without exception." You might want to practice thinking rationally and logically, you can't bitchfest and "oooohhh, I'm so offended!" your way out of everything in life.Ooh, I'm so offended… oh, wait, Im just acknowledging the fact that IQ is an imperialist social construct with little bearing on reality. Which you might have noticed, had you read that Wikipedia article in its entirety! For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_viewsGood luck sterilizing immigrants though.
>Because their men what?I think that is supposed to be "they're," as in "they are men." I'm sorry you missed that, but then that's what we antifeminists are around for. That is also why we antifeminists earn more.Or were you trying to be cute and snarky?
>Or were you trying to be cute and snarky?Yes, yes I was. I think I succeeded, too. Wait, you antifeminists are around to make obvious grammatical errors? No wonder that whole movement doesn't make sense to me!
>Im just acknowledging the fact that IQ is an imperialist social construct with little bearing on reality.Then why test people for anything, really? Why test intelligence, why test workplace competence, why test general knowledge? Fuck those imperialist social constructs, I keep failing because of them and their numbers and words! If someone wants to be an engineer or a journalist, let 'em! Forget those patriarchal tomes and thoughts and computers, who needs that shit anyway?I think I've seen similar cases put forth by degree mills.
>No wonder that whole movement doesn't make sense to me!Nor does IQ or standardized testing. You just write them off as "imperialist constructs" without further thought, which is one of the reasons you earn less. You know what they say, you get what you pay for.
>I think I've seen similar cases put forth by degree mills.Right, I forgot, Serious Universities ™ never devote courses or entire degree programs to questioning the enduring effects that imperialism has had on academia. That would be silly!brb loling forever
>@String:A lot of very diverse people are in the MRM right now, and I guarantee you they do not conform to your stereotype of misogynists.I like how you tried to make it seem like one's willful choice of ideology is the same as one's socioeconomic status. My stereotype of misogynists is that they all look down on women. That's sort of the definition of the word.Oh, wait, as a feminist you are incapable of admitting fault (as you did earlier with the whole engineering prejudice)Oh look, turns out you stereotype feminists. And for a second I might have thought all your moaning about my stereotypes of the MRM were intellectually honest. Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended by your stereotypes of feminism. They're more goofy than anything. But like I said, stereotyping a self-selected ideological group is not really overly offensive to me.As far as the engineering thing goes, do you think I'm ashamed of that? Yeah, I have an opinion about that that turned out to be unpopular here on Manboobz. Doesn't mean I automatically have to recant it. As we have to remind you constantly, feminists are not one big monolithic hive mind. We have differences of opinion. I'm open to arguments against my opinion, obviously, and I do change my opinions. But "disagreeing with the feminist hive mind" is not some crime among feminists.
>@String:Then why test people for anything, really? Why test intelligence, why test workplace competence, why test general knowledge? Fuck those imperialist social constructs, I keep failing because of them and their numbers and words!You're really going for the low-hanging fruit here, String. Those of us who critique the concept of IQ do so because we don't like our IQ test results? That's laughable. You'll have to take my word for this, but my IQ is high enough that I could be one of those douches who parades it around in everyone's face. But I don't, because I don't think it means shit.Nor does IQ or standardized testing. You just write them off as "imperialist constructs" without further thought, which is one of the reasons you earn less. You know what they say, you get what you pay for.Gosh, it's almost adorable how convinced you are that we dismiss ideas just because they don't work out for us personally. You know, there's a whole body of sociological literature written over the preceding century that talks in great depth - and with a great deal of thought - about things like "imperialist constructs."Meanwhile you can't seem to get past this kneejerk reflex of measuring a person's value by how much money they make.
>My IQ is high enough that I could be one of those douches who parades it around in everyone's face.I was in an advanced placement program. The determined I would benefit there because of that "imperialistic construct." You see, you are thinking in absolutes, which is synonymous with a low intelligence. Of course, there are always anomalies, such as savants who cannot tie their own shoes. When you pan out the scores to a set demographic of people, however, the trends are unquestionable. White males of the same social background who have high IQ scores at age 10 are more likely to get into college at age 20 - longitudinal studies have proven this.
>Meanwhile you can't seem to get past this kneejerk reflex of measuring a person's value by how much money they make.You seem to have confused trends with absolutes again. Many great artists and writers lived in poverty most or all their lives, as did a number of great political and social leaders. I simply acknowledge that the most intelligent people tend to be richest in their population group, and tend to score the highest on tests of standardized intelligence.
>Standardized intelligence tests tend to have some of the same flaws as standardized achievement tests. Who, in general, tends to score higher on these tests? Why, those whose gender, race, culture, socio-economic background, etc., are most similar to those who design the tests.
>I was in an advanced placement program. The determined I would benefit there because of that "imperialistic construct."So was I. Was there a point to this non-sequitur or have you just been waiting all night for an opportunity to drop this fact?I simply acknowledge that the most intelligent people tend to be richest in their population group, and tend to score the highest on tests of standardized intelligence.Whether or not the people who score highest on standardized IQ tests are the most intelligent is arguable. The already privileged groups - white, male, upper-class - tend to do the best on IQ tests. Naturally defenders of privilege paint this as proof that the privileged are a superior breed and deserve their privilege. It's not like Stanford and Benet deliberately biased their design in favor of non-working-class white men, but unconsciously they certainly did.This comic sums it up. It's old as hell so you may have seen it.But I do find it endlessly amusing that you keep trying to imply that we're opposed to these constructs simply because we're on the losing end of them. You're thinking in absolutes there, buddy.
>I don't know if you have blind spots or something, but you missed the part where I said, "in a demographic" and "in a population."But hey, feminists aren't the most observant lot. They see or claim to see an organized conspiracy everywhere to either rationalize their flaws or get a sense of belonging, and yet they overlook three words.Oh, and one more thing - Asians do better on IQ tests than Whites do. This is why we get paid more, buddy.
>But hey, feminists aren't the most observant lot. They see or claim to see an organized conspiracy everywhere to either rationalize their flaws or get a sense of belonging, and yet they overlook three words.There you are thinking in absolutes again. Your IQ must be low as shit, dude.
>I have to concede, I tend to think in absolutes. For example, "e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73" is absolutely cretinous.
>@tri, yes we have known about cultural bias from the beginning of IQ tests. Many of the first IQ tests were developed for children in France. When only language translation was done, American children consistently tested extremely low. Why? Because the games, objects, etc. familiar to the French kids were unfamiliar to the American ones. A similar pattern occurs when you move across social and economic classes. I grew up rural poor and I was given an IQ test at twelve. There were objects on that test that I had never seen in my life. The man testing me actually responded in shock when I was asked the "what is wrong with this picture" question and responded with "I have no idea what that thing is." He was also surprised that, on the verbal section, there were many words that I knew the meaning of but had no real idea of how to pronounce. A large portion of my vocabulary came from my reading and so I had only seen them written, but never heard them spoken. I was also made to write down some or rephrase some of the things I was speaking naturally, because my dialect differed too much for him to understand at times (which I could do, because my father was not a local and talked with a midwestern accent). And I was born and raised in the US and spoke English alone as my first language. Poor people and other isolated communites have different survival habits, ways of living, possessions, skills, and sometimes even different dialects than privileged groups have."Asians do better on IQ tests than Whites do" Not when you control for income class. You see, many recent Asian immigrants to the US are economic immigrants, rather than refuges, and hence often have rather high economic class status. As each generation after you institute IQ testing improves its scores by an average of about ten points, we know very well that one can be trained, at least to some degree, to do better by the education system as well."White males of the same social background who have high IQ scores at age 10 are more likely to get into college at age 20 - longitudinal studies have proven this." Ever heard of "self fullfilling prophecy"? There actually were studies done in response to studies like the one you cite. They found that the children who were told themselves, or who had teachers or parents told, that they had the higher IQ tests did better than children who had the exact same IQ results in fact but were informed (or had teachers or parents informed) that they were lower. One study only told teachers and not parents or children and still found a significant difference where the children who were claimed to be high IQ did better than those claimed to be low IQ, though in fact, they had equivalent scores. How people perceive and respond to these results appears to matter far more than the results themselves.
>"I wisely foresaw such claims and hence invited you to visit the sources directly."You haven't yet pointed to where in The Bell Curve they say that men who have more conservative views about sex roles are smarter.You may think you're appropriately deriving that from adding together "men who make more money are smarter" and "men who have conservative views about sex roles make more money."This is not a valid conclusion. For example:Women who are taller tend to make more money. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15161403Women who are Black tend to be taller than women who are White. http://www.halls.md/chart/women-height-w.htmhttp://www.halls.md/on/women-height-b.htmIt does not follow that women who are Black tend to make more money than women who are White.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_inequity_US.png"However, the tendency is that smarter people pay more. I am smart enough to acknowledge that, you are not. That is probably why you have embraced your little pet theory while I have considered and rejected it. "Dang, now you've made me think about Mad Magazine's "horrifying cliches."
>@rachel-swirsky:I'm not trying to blame anyone who gets abused by their partner. But if they get into an abusive relationship, it's because they're not aware of the warning signs that they're dealing with an abuser (like these) or they're vulnerable enough to ignore them. It's not their fault, and just because they're ignorant about the dangers of relationships doesn't mean they deserve to be abused, just like someone who has never been told anything about sexual consent doesn't deserve to be raped. The MWGTOW, however, assume that if they ever get into a relationship, it will be abusive because they believe that every woman is an abuser. They're utterly paranoid and they blame the whole world for the fact that they're making themselves miserable because they can't be bothered to look out for a few warning signs and get out before it's too late. In short, abuse victims and MWGTOW approach the problem of detecting potential abusers from completely different angles. If you know that you might get abused, it's easy to look up and apply some safety precautions. If you don't know that you might get abused or nobody has taken the time to teach you that you have boundaries and you have the right to enforce them, it's very difficult to figure out how to avoid abusers.I hope that this clarifies my position.And by the way, MWGTOW? Once you claim Donald Duck as one of your own, it's way past time to start thinking about what you're doing wrong with your life. Are you so desperate to get rid of David Futrelle that you've started mocking yourself?
>e-string:I think you're mistaken, you seem to think that things are the way they are for a reason and that someone sometime in the past sat down and figured out how things would work best, and that we should trust that imagined person and not change what they decided.Really, people in the past were just stumbling along and trying to do the best they could, just like we are now. There is no reason to believe they had any special knowledge, and if you survey the results of the system that their ideas has evolved into, there is every reason to think that we could build something just as good or better. We could build a system that harms fewer people, and does not choose who is harmed by random things like skin color or gender or sexual orientation or even by how much money they have or their parents had. My point is this: If enough people decide to live differently, who knows what the future could look like.
>David, you should write a post about relatively high-profile MRA, Roy Den Hollander's appearance on the Colbert Report last night. Hollander didn't disappoint in bringing the delusional misogyny, pettiness and face-palm worthy rhetoric we've come to know and laugh our arses off at: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/379605/march-31-2011/difference-makers—roy-den-hollander
>e-string wrote:This just in - your BFF Jill who associates with feminists and is "into statistical methodology" thinks "The Bell Curve is crap." Actually, I met him in graduate school. He's a policy analyst now, I believe. Also, implying that I'm some sort of Big Girly Man isn't really that effective an insult. Since I don't regard women as inferior, comparing me to them doesn't really sting in quite the way you apparently hoped it would. Better luck next time.In any event, the methodological problems in the The Bell Curve are old, old news. In fact, the Wikipedia article that you suggested I go read has a link at the bottom to an article critiquing those very methods. You may want to check it our sometime-if you're not too busy posting links to the "You Will Not Shame Me" blog post. Seriously, how many times have you posted that one here? 5? 6? And don't get me started on the YouTube link to that smirking douchebag reading from Steven Pinker. Gah, that's several minutes of my life I'll never get back. I'm still trying to recover from the psychological trauma. Never Again, I say.Are you sure you're in a Ph. D. program? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands…
>Trip wrote:So was I. Was there a point to this non-sequitur or have you just been waiting all night for an opportunity to drop this fact?Some us were in those programs back when they were called "MGM"-mentally gifted minors. The other kids called us the "giftees" as if it were some sort of insult. Good times, good times…And you know what? That and a buck fifty will get me a cup of coffee (though not at Starbucks, apparently). I long ago realized that what I do with my brains is a lot more important than the fact that I have them. Sure, IQ matters-but so do people skills, compassion, and morality. I like what I do, and I like myself for doing it, which is far, far more important to me than earning a few thousand more a year (though that definitely has its appeal, especially now that I have kids). I also like that I'm in a relationship that places a premium on equal roles and equal work. Is it perfect? Hell, no-but I wouldn't have it any other way.
>I'm disappointed that this entire IQ pissing contest has gone on so long without anoyone dropping numbers. Bathrobe, e-l0ng2t3dname, lay down those scores so I know whose arguments to believe!
>I'm disappointed that this entire IQ pissing contest has gone on so long without anoyone dropping numbers. Bathrobe, e-l0ng2t3dname, lay down those scores so I know whose arguments to believe! Ha ha! You should believe mine, but only because I am morally superior in every way. String may make more money (eventually), but I'm goddam Mother Teresa compared to him-and don't you forget it!
Actually, I kind of wish I hadn't gone there, as the whole thing is puerile in the extreme. I pre-emptively concede the IQ contest to String and Trip (and whoever else)-they are free to slug it out however they see fit. May I suggest Wechslers at ten paces?
>Mine tested at 165, but I always do very well on exams so I have no idea if that is a true reflection or not.
>Mine tested at 165, but I always do very well on exams so I have no idea if that is a true reflection or not.Then I kneel before you. Of course, I would anyway, if only for the bacon.
>It is fresh and crispy today.
>Fresh, crispy bacon from a smart woman is just the way I like it.
Hmmm…that looks a bit creepier than I meant it to be. Oh well. 
>E-string's comment about Asians and IQ scores reminded me of a horrid book that came out recently, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother whose author smugly recounts how a strict regimen of concentration camp-style discipline, emotional abuse and complete isolation has helped her daughters achieve high grades and to master musical instruments. The author, Amy Chua, states that she herself was raised in a similar atmosphere, and that this kind of upbringing helped her get into the best schools and eventually become a law professor at Yale. But there is a comment somewhere in that book that's very telling: she muses how, when she was a student at an Ivy League law school, she didn't care about analysis or pro's and con's or the rights of individuals the way everyone else seemed to; she just wanted to memorize everything in the book.So here's the thing: It's possible to achieve vast improvements in one's test scores, including IQ scores, through ruthless training, but the authoritarian environment necessary to accomplish this stifles creativity and makes the subject less capable of thinking outside the given parameters. Quite often, unfortunately, high IQ scores and test grades mean that the individual is highly capable at learning a specific set of complex tasks, but he may lack the gift for innovation, which is what's really important. I think a fairly accurate definition of intelligence is ability to solve novel problems, that don't fit a known formula. The IQ test doesn't evaluate that.
>@Sam "I'm disappointed that this entire IQ pissing contest has gone on so long without anoyone dropping numbers" Well, as I am arguing for the side that opposes the proposition that IQ tests are good objective measurements, essentially saying that the score is a relatively bullshit number, giving said number actually undermines my point regardless of my score.
>JFP, your wish is granted! Thanks for the url.
>The Tiger Mother really needs to hook up with Charlie ("tiger blood") Sheen, so they can breed some Tiger Children. Winning!
>Are you sure you're in a Ph. D. program? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands… I combine my writing time with my exercise time using an exercise bike and a desk, and I exercise a lot. So yes, in a manner of speaking, I do have a lot of time on my hands to write.
>Rather than supplying a number, I'll only repeat what I've said before: I'm a privileged-ass motherfucker. The reason I want to tear down existing cultural norms isn't because I'm on the losing end of them.That being said, those who are on the losing end of them have every right to want to tear them down for that reason, and accusing them of simply envy is idiotic.
>e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73 said… Are you sure you're in a Ph. D. program? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands… I combine my writing time with my exercise time using an exercise bike and a desk, and I exercise a lot. So yes, in a manner of speaking, I do have a lot of time on my hands to write.Hmmm…actually, that sounds like a pretty good set up.
>Brett K"Ooh, I'm so offended… oh, wait, Im just acknowledging the fact that IQ is an imperialist social construct with little bearing on reality."So just how badly did you score?Elizabeth "Mine tested at 165, but I always do very well on exams so I have no idea if that is a true reflection or not."Tell me another joke. Captain Flasher"I like what I do, and I like myself for doing it, which is far, far more important to me than earning a few thousand more a year (though that definitely has its appeal, especially now that I have kids)."Heh. It'll appeal to you a lot more if she ever decides to take you to the cleaners pal. tricommunist "I'll only repeat what I've said before: I'm a privileged-ass motherfucker. The reason I want to tear down existing cultural norms isn't because I'm on the losing end of them."It's because you think that by tearing them down there will be unisex bathrooms and thus a chance for you to loose your virginity."You're right, prejudice and bias never, ever get in the way of rational economic thinking. Those great, rational, hyper-intelligent Galtian businessman are all calculating, profit-maximizing machines."Nice try. We've all had bosses, supervisors, etc. and we all know the drill here. Business leaders ARE greedy ass mother fuckers who only care about one thing and it ain't oppressing females.e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73 "Because their men what?I think that is supposed to be "they're," as in "they are men." "You might as well get used to this.Feminists are quite skilled at refuting the content of arguments by pointing out spelling, punctuation errors, etc. Same way they use the movies to prove that women can beat us up.
>Nice try. We've all had bosses, supervisors, etc. and we all know the drill here. Business leaders ARE greedy ass mother fuckers who only care about one thing and it ain't oppressing females.Of course they're greedy. But that's never a person's sole motivation - people are more complicated than that. And trust me, if there's one group in this society that's 100%, unfailingly rational, it's not businessmen.But you must be right. After all, if I were right, there would be examples in the past of business owners turning away potential profit by banning customers of a certain race or something. But that would be crazy.
>I usually just skip and ignore EWMs comments at this point, but I must say that, tri, should you ever in fact host a unisex bathroom orgy, count me in.Related sidenote: I always use the unisex bathroom on my campus, but the only bathroom sex I have had was in a women's bathroom. Must be doing something wrong…
>Unisex bathrooms -> Tri loses virginity uh??I mean, what's the connection? "I hear you pissing in there, you have NO IDEA how HOT you're making me!" Leads to some disturbing questions about EWM's ideas concerning getting laid…
>Business leaders ARE greedy ass mother fuckers who only care about one thing and it ain't oppressing females.In a sexist society, all you have to do to oppress women is not care or not pay attention. It takes effort to avoid being sexist. Just like it takes effort to avoid being racist, classist, ablist, etc. Equality runs against the grain of this society.
>girlscientist:I really hope you never have the opportunity to see your theory proved incorrect.
>Captain Flasher"I like what I do, and I like myself for doing it, which is far, far more important to me than earning a few thousand more a year (though that definitely has its appeal, especially now that I have kids)."Heh. It'll appeal to you a lot more if she ever decides to take you to the cleaners pal.Considering that she makes more money than I, it seems unlikely.
>Considering that she makes more money than I, it seems unlikely.You must be mistaken. Women don't work for their money, they marry up and take half their husband's money.Are you sure she isn't whiting out one of the digits on your paycheck in an attempt to subjugate her? Women are tricky like that.
>subjugate you*
>triplanetary said… Considering that she makes more money than I, it seems unlikely. You must be mistaken. Women don't work for their money, they marry up and take half their husband's money. Are you sure she isn't whiting out one of the digits on your paycheck in an attempt to subjugate her? Women are tricky like that.No, it's because I'm a great big mangina, don't you know? Feminism has impoverished me and muddled up my brain. Mark my words, before long I'll be tearing my hair and gnashing my teeth, wondering why o why did I not listen to EWME and his ilk…Oh, wait, no I won't.
>Re: unisex bathrooms, my university had them in the dorms, and it was the opposite of sexy. Somehow seeing my bleary-eyed hall mates brushing their teeth in the morning was not as boner-inducing as EWME would imagine.
>@Rachel Swirsky:I worked for a sexually/morally harassing paranoid narcissist for over three years. I did see the warning signs and I felt something was off from the beginning, but I chose to ignore it. I also have friends who have been in abusive relationships and the feeling from the start that something if wrong and that the relationship is too good to be true is very common. Once you come out of the relationship you start thinking things over and you realise you should have listened to your instincts. I'm no big fan of de Becker's, but he is absolutely right on that one. Again, it's not the abused person's fault that nobody has taken the time to tell them that, and there is no way you can defend yourself against an abuser's blitzkrieg if you're not armed with a strong sense of self and of your boundaries. Naiveté should never be considered as an invitation for cruelty. But once you've been made aware of the necessity of the lesson, it's not so difficult to learn.
>@Rachel Swirsky:P.S.: Before an idea is proven or disproven, it's called a hypothesis, not a theory. If you don't know the meaning of a word, don't use it.
>That's right, girlscientist. Language is probably absent of all contextual slippage, and it is definitely more offensive to use culturally acceptable connotations in casual conversation than it is to opine randomly without any recourse to, I dunno, the academic scholarship on the subject.