Why aren’t more women world leaders? Some Reddit dude has a theory. (SPOILER ALERT: It’s really dopey.)
NOTE: It’s the final day of the Man Boobz Pledge Week! It’s gone quite well. Once again, serious thanks to everyone who has donated! I appreciate it a great deal.
If you haven’t yet donated, and want to, here’s the button you’re looking for:
Men’s Rights activists spend more time discussing women than most women’s studies majors. Heck, they might even qualify for honorary degrees in women’s studies, if we expand the term “study” to mean “make shit up.”
Here a couple of dudes on the Men’s Rights subreddit offer their new but not-exactly-improved version of “difference feminism.”
Seems legit.
Like this:
Posted on October 3, 2012, in antifeminism, evil women, it's science!, misogyny, MRA, reddit and tagged anti-feminism, antifeminism, feminism, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 70 Comments.
“Perhaps there’s additional confounding factors I also haven’t thought up.”
Unintentional insight.
Foolish women, your tight-fisted matriarchy is no match for your LAZINESS!
I’m actually amazed that the natural superiority of man-brainz isn’t on there anywhere.
At least they’ve noticed the inherent contradiction between their assertion that feminists control everything and the demonstrable fact that men still occupy the majority of positions of power. Baby steps, right?
This is a funny one. It’s in the 12 year olds trying out big words category, no?
Oh hey, he was almost channeling an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess there! “It’s a man’s world, Gabrielle. Not because it should be, but because we let them have it.”
I must say, that’s not much of a spoiler.
SPOILER ALERT: The megalomaniacal villain dies a victim of his own infernal machine.
SPOILER ALERT: Batman wins.
SPOILER ALERT: Kirk, Spock and McCoy will all be alive when the credits roll.
SPOILER ALERT: Sherlock solves crimes, is a dick (may not apply to all interpretations).
SPOILER ALERT: Do you think I’m a Republic serial villain? I did it thirty-five minutes ago.It’s been a long two days.
FTFY.
At least he didn’t use the old misogynist standby: “Women do not hold significant positions of power because they are dainty feminine flowers and have no brains or abilities to speak of. This is why no woman ever is suited to any sort of work beyond simplistic drudgery in the home and that icky cootie-filled “love” thing.”
Who wants to bet that is exactly the next “arguement” he comes up with?
The sexist assumption in all the “if women ran the world” scenarios is steeped in bullshit stereotypes. The reason we have war is less due to the genitals in your pants and more to do with greed, imperialism, dominance and megalomania. All of these behaviors are HUMAN brhaviors- they are not tied to men alone. Of course, there may be more tendencies for female leaders to take different strategies to various problems in part due to gender role socialization, but actual powerful women tend to play the system exactly the same as their male counterparts, often even more ruthless and attacking towards all other women because they are perceived as weak otherwise.
I really wish the idea that “all feminists think that if women ran the world we’d be able to use rainbows as renewable resources and it would rain ice cream cones” would die already. The “if women ran the world” things may have started out as feminist, or might be radfem (I don’t spend my time on radfem hubs) but the feminism I know isn’t about replacing a patriarchy with a matriarchy. And it most certainly isn’t about pretending the sun shines out of every orifice of every woman. There have been plenty of women, both in the public sphere and in my personal life, who I’ve been no big fan of at all, and there are plenty of men I’ve been no big fan of either. People in general can be pretty detestable.
Maggie Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meier.
Nope, they never fought a war.
Which incarnation of Sherlock Holmes isn’t at least kind of a dick? I figured it was an innate characteristic.
There may be less war if women ran the world because women tend to be less aggressive. Of course that’s a moot point since women will never run the world. I just don’t see women ever hoarding power like men tend to do. Can you imagine women taking men’s voting rights away, not allowing them property rights, or forcing them to wear burkas?
All versions of Sherlock Holmes are dicks, but the extent of his dickishness is dependent on the interpretation.
For ex: Elementary Holmes is dickish until the point where someone kicks him down for being dumb. BBC Holmes will push past that point with a flippant comment about emotions. Grenada Holmes will push the line to test a theory, but doesn’t usually step too close to it unless there’s an active need.
When I saw that Ruby’s comment in the other thread was actually reasonable, I should have known that meant her comment over here would be complete bullshit.
@ Asshole Sherlock discussion-And people wonder why I am a much bigger Poirot fan.
Plus, ya gotta love Ms. Lemon.
Oh, Ruby. Got a sciency type article to back that hot mess up with? I’m sure you’ve totally considered the deeper implications of why it may be that women seem less aggressive.
@dualityheart: I wonder if she ever did perfect that filing system to end all filing systems. (yes, I did read way too much Agatha Christie.)
@dualityheart I like them both! Poirot’s a bit of a jerk too, he’s just more subtly sarcastic about it. I mean, look at the difference in treatment between Watson and Hastings. Most of the time, at least, Sherlock respects Watson’s intelligence while Poirot doesn’t seem to respect Hasting at all.
It would be pretty nice to have an ice cream cone instead of the heat and I like rainbows.
But if we ran the world on rainbows, that would mean we’re sucking all the color out of everything!
Feminists are the villains from Rainbow Brite.
I thought rainbows were like love-the more you have the more you make?
No, you make rainbows by breaking white light into a spectrum… so if we were ‘mining’ rainbows there would be more colours.
Doyle’s Holmes isn’t so much the dick. He’s a bit obsessive, and more than a tad compulsive, but it’s more a case of sure of himself to the point of being a tad blinkered to the rest of the world.
I think the Jeremy Brett version captured it pretty well.
@Linds- to br fair, Hastings is a sexist, womanizing ass a lot of the time. And while Poirit can be full of himself, he is generally speaking the truth.
I guess I am just a bit tired of the “he is an insufferable asshole but it’s ok because he’s a SMART insufferable asshole!” schtick.
@Pecunium: Jeremy Brett is the man.
@dualityheart: Oh, god, stay away from House, M.D. if you don’t like insufferable assholes. At least the show usually seems to acknowledge that House is a dick.
Speaking as a manly man, I think that coal is the only appropriate power source.
I also bitterly resent the fact that manly men have to mine for it.
Thank you for your time.
Also Jeremy Brett rocks the house.
What, that old thing? No way. r/MensRights is hard at work introducing new misogynist standbys, like “society is already about everybody giving things to women and feminism is merely the highest form of rampant female entitlement and selfishness.”
Get with the times!
Jeremy Brett forever!
Speaking of dicks… I’m going to be one and agree with Ruby, sorta; can anyone actually envision women turning the tables on men and rehashing history?
I don’t think it’s because we are ‘innately’ less aggresive or more advanced or whatever- I just can’t imagine that we would ever do anything like that
@Falconer - and David Burke was THE Watson!
rjjspesh: Because of the ways girls are raised and socialized, there tend to be differences in how they act when they end up in positions of power. But if we’re hypothetically postulating that women are in charge of everything, that would presuppose differences in socialization (since that’s a large part of what keeps women out of those roles), and therefore I’d expect the results to be pretty similar.
This is not a good reason to believe something.
Part of the reason is because women are not big fans of what famous women go through. If you wear a pants suit, you are not a woman. If you get misty eyed, it is proof that women are too weak to handle power (meanwhile John Boehner cries and it is no big deal.) If you are over a certain age and are showing cleavage, you are gross! Better not gain any weight, cuz then you are a Bad Person.
On and on and on ad nauseum until you just want to scream (but if you do, that proves you are too emotional and therefore unsuited to power.)
Add in things like Faux News that deliberately create a culture that makes it hard for a woman to be anything less than young, blonde, pretty and vacuous (I found out from a style consultant to politicians that they actually put glitter on their chests to make them more noticeable) and you have a strong reason why no woman would ever put herself through that.
I would rule you all with an iron fist given half a chance.
WTF, seriously? Wow. Just, wow.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Dude wrote that about the Catholic church, but I think it tends to hold true in general.
Speaking of female leaders - did you hear about what happened with Alan Jones (radio guy) and his comments about Julia Gillard (prime minister)?
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillards-father-died-of-shame-alan-jones-20120929-26soa.html
What he said was partly just regular (if very personal) repulsive political posturing (her father died of shame) and partly “women get everything handed to them” meme. I heard somewhere that he said she got a big jump in the polls because she was crying in public (because her father had just died). Which is a classic MRM thing. I can’t find a written article that mentions that bit though. I think I heard it on tv.
There has been a huge lashback at him though, with lots of sponsors pulling their ads from his show.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/alan-jones-apologises-as-sponsors-pull-ads/story-e6frf7jo-1226484904553
I haven’t found what he actually said in his ‘apology’ but several references to it being a notpology.
Excellent point, Katz
Yep, I was shocked to find out that they do that Cloudiah but I cannot say I was very much surprised if that makes sense. It was an enlightening hour long class to say the least.
David, you could have chosen to speak to what the thread was about, a family law judge seemingly placing a gag order on a third party website. There is lots to discuss there, how this ex parte order came about, whether the gag during the duration of a trial really is in the best interest of everyone, how free speech rights are implicated by this order.
Instead you focus on a comment that is currently voted up two, down one and was probably seen by almost no one and is of absolutely zero importance.
What you choose to write about and what you ignore speaks volumes as to who or what you are.
Someguy, we keep telling you. Start your own fucking blog. We are here to mock misogyny.
Yes, someone who likes to point out that lots of places on the internet have misogyny.
Someone who reads this garbage so we do not have to (although he links it so we can if we want.)
Someone who loves kittens.
Someone who has created a blog for you so go fucking post on that asshole.
Bored Stick, what you choose to harp on endlessly speaks volumes about you. Get a life and your own blog.
Kim, yeah, I get the feeling Jones fancies himself as our version of Rush Limbaugh. This is the man who says “women are wrecking the country” and has called for the PM to be drowned or guillotined.
Slimy Tony seems to think he’s okay, though. ::gag::
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Dude wrote that about the Catholic church, but I think it tends to hold true in general.
Not exactly. Origin of the phrase, “Power tends to corrupt”.
Even with Lord Acton the letter wasn’t about the church, per se, but about absolute power, in general
I’m gonna change my user name to ‘some girl bored with someguy bored with your schtick’s schtick’
LOL! He’ll be in a flat spin trying to keep up.
someguy is very concerned.
he is concerned.
we are not being very good journalists.
This is troubling, since he really gives even the slightest shit about our motives and goals.
someguy is concerned.
@Pecunium
Look Pecunium, I’m not going to argue with you about the American jurisdiction and the legal meaning of specific terms which might be different from the casual meaning. Quite frankly, I know shit about the American law and I don’t really care. I’m not even a native speaker. So yes, maybe you are right, though I remain skeptical. Because I’m smart enough to realize that this shit is complicated and you are layperson as well. If you’re interested in that discussion you should debate with a lawyer.
Just one thing:
Characteristically repetititve. He did it twice, in two different fora. Did he remove it when he apologised? This one is against you.
As far as I know, he posted the address in one forum and later asked the admin to remove the post when he realized he made a mistake.
Sorry, wrong thread.
ahahahaha, the guy constantly going on about journalistic integrity thinks we can’t scroll up and see the one that got 43 upvotes. The guy constantly going on about journalistic integrity thinks we can’t scroll up and read that David’s 4 sentences did not, in fact, focus on either comment. Good lord!
On top of all of that, he thinks we don’t know that r/mensrights doesn’t know who to downvote, that it’s all just random fluctuations and the sexist/anti-feminist crap doesn’t get consistently upvoted while feminist voices are consistently downvoted.
Schticky is just the greatest.
Someguy is dripping entitlement all over this thread (come on, get a tissue or a towel or something, it’s gross!)- not only does he demand to be spoonfed information (because we here at Manboobz OWE him whatever he wants to know on a silver platter), but he seems to be obsessed with acting as though this is his private little chat with David.
I can imagine him now, sitting on a park bench, having an invisible debate with the strawfeminists and asking them to do his research for him and then concluding that he is right when no one responds.
At least they got Alan Jones about inciting the Cronulla riots.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-02/tribunal-rules-alan-jones-incited-hatred/4292052
There once was a man named Someguy
Who it seemed couldn’t help but drop by
Because he was concerned
That Manboobz had not learned
Which bad comments were worth a reply.
Isn’t House at least partially based on Holmes with Wilson/the team as his Watsons and Cuddy as some sort of Lestrade?
Also: Iron fist, constant surveillance. You lot are sneaky.
@pecunium
It was written in the context of his campaign against the doctrine of papal infallibility in the First Vatican Council. Obviously it’s applicable to humanity at large, but it was definitely about the Catholic Church.
Speaking of female leaders, archaeologists have recently discovered the tomb of Lady K’abel, a Mayan queen who was known as “Supreme Warrior,” putting her above her husband in authority.
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/03/14206783-tiny-jar-identifies-mighty-maya-queen?lite
“(I found out from a style consultant to politicians that they actually put glitter on their chests to make them more noticeable)”
I may or may not spend my afternoon looking at reruns of 2008 to see if Sarah Palin’s boobs were bedazzled.
Some guy bored with your schtick
Has invaded your boards with his dick
“Objectivity’s lacking”
He cried, quickly whacking,
At a crazy straw man with a stick.
@The Kittehs’ Unpaid Help:
I’m going to have to respectfully disagree, I prefer Edward Hardwicke.
But I think Burke did a fine job nevertheless.
When they turn being ignorant into a science
Blitzgal: I’d say it was to the Catholic Church, about humanity at large, in the context of a specific question.
He was saying “this is a human problem, you don’t want to make it an institutional one.”
Falconer - I knew I should have mentioned Edward Hardwicke as well!
I liked him too, but Burke had an extra dose of eyecandyosity. Either way, the fact that the series didn’t try to show Watson as a ninny was a winner for me.
Though I still can’t get my head round Jeremy Brett in this being the selfsame bloke who played Freddy Eynsford-Hill in My Fair Lady!
Yup, he’s quite explicitly based on Holmes. The show never made a secret of it - he even lives at 221B Baker Street.