A misogynist rant in relationship_advice (+77)
reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/adg...Posted Dec 11, 2009, 11:30 PM UTC
032
reddit.com
But everything he says is true, or at least makes sense. And this isn't misogynist - the definition of misogynism is disliking women. This isn't anything close to that - it's just defining the difference in our sexual behavior. At worst, his theory is wrong, and we can have a discussion about why it's incorrect.
One of the complaints about the women of LadyBashing is how they throw around the words sexist and misogynist without really thinking through if those words apply. Also, being offended by something that isn't even close to offensive. This is a perfect example of both, and it doesn't really help the gender overcome its negative stereotypes. In fact, if anything I'd say LadyBashing contributes to the classic "women freak out, don't use logic" stereotype.
4
Misogyny is a powerful, infalmmatory word - it implies that the person who engages in misogyny is a misogynist, and thus hates women.
Ladybashing is about documenting the anti-female sentiment on reddit. Sometimes submissions here can be described as misogyny, but the criteria for submission only states that the post contains "anti-female sentiment".
6
Says the douchebag who thinks women on Reddit are here for his pleasure and relationships work best when women are submissive.
I'm not kidding, look at this asshole's profile.
-1
ad hominen attack
8
The first statement is incorrect, but the second isn't. I did indeed say this, and if you're interested in my reasoning, here's the original thread. If you're not interested in reading it through, and I don't blame you, here's a good summary of my opinion through a conversation with myself and a female redditor.
However, Saydrah, you didn't address any of my points. Instead of telling me how my specific viewpoint was wrong, you chose to hurl thinly veiled cries of sexism and gender bias. This is exactly what I was talking about, and thank you for strengthening my argument with your squirrelly tactics.
3
[deleted]
1
As a mod of Relationship Advice, fuck that shit. I've modified the sidebar to discourage such rants.
-8
[deleted]
-1
Hi tobin.
I just wanted the opportunity to defend myself once again - I didn't even know that this was cross-posted here.
Basically: check my posting history. Read my post. I'm not a misogynist. Nothing I say makes a value judgment. Anyone who thinks differently needs to understand the difference between explaining the biological basis of behavior and morally condoning said behavior.
If I said "trolls exist because they want attention, because attention is a universal human impulse", I certainly would not be condoning trolling.
Similarly, if I said "some people take offense where there isn't any, because emotions are biologically useful ways to distinguish friend from foe", I wouldn't be condoning people taking offense to my very benign posts.
As for myself, I don't really care who has sex with whom. But I do take offense to people calling me misogynistic.
[deleted]
I want to believe you have good intentions, so I'm going to tell you why what you think is entirely reasonable is offensive to me:
If you said this, and only this, to someone who has been harassed by stalker-trolls for a long time - hounded everywhere on the internet, followed to his work-related websites, etc - then it is legitimate to conclude you condone trolling.
I know you prefaced your comments by saying you don't attach any value judgements to the term "slut". But the world does! And why are you addressing your comment to the very people who complain about the oppression that occurs in the name of these evolutionary principles? Because by addressing these comments to us, you're telling us, "stop making such a big stink, your oppression does not matter because the excuse your oppressors are using is somewhat accurate according to evolutionary psychology."
See, women don't object to the word "slut", they object to the oppression that comes to all women when some women are called "sluts".
We object to this stud-slut "evolutionary" theory being used to justify every manner of oppression the world over: this is the same explanation given to women forced to wear burqas, to women forced to jump into their husband's funeral pyre, to women who are stopped from going to school once they hit puberty, to women who are pressured into wearing promise rings and attending father-daughter dances, to women who are denied the right to work or vote or participate in life. Really. Ask my dad why women shouldn't act on stage, and he'll say: because women shouldn't be putting themselves out there for men to see. Why? Because men might lust after them, and try to have sex with them. Why is that bad? Because women shouldn't be having sex with just anyone. Why? Because that's evolution!
You understand?
Please, now that you are out of defensive mode, consider that evolutionary psychology is indeed bullshit.
Google results!? Shit!
I guess feminism is out the window?
And both creationism and evolution? Bullshit!
Of course! If only I'd stopped to consider that people on the internet disagree with me!
The problem with the whole "this behavior was selected for prospective" is that humans are not slaves to their instincts. We have a high degree of flexibility in our behavior, and make many more conscious decisions than other animals. This too was evolutionarily selected for, and it overrides all those rigid behaviors we previously acquired.
Edit: Also, you seem to argue that the social approval of the behavior is wired in, as opposed to just the behavior itself. There is no evidence for this. And it still does not make the double standard right.
You are making the same mistake that every other person who argues against it makes.
"We can't have evolutionary pressure for anything, we have freewill!"
Firstly, his post was about aggregate and statistical effects, not individual. Sure, the individual can vary, but evolutionary pressure would explain why the majority or a large fraction of a populace does certain things. Evolutionary psychology perfectly explains why the majority of people are straight. Sure, there are variations, but heterosexuals were more likely to reproduce. Again, this doesn't mean that everybody is born heterosexual, or that we don't have free will, or that heterosexuality is "right", it's just where the common preference comes from. Evolutionary psychology makes predictions, not instructions. It "predicts" that most people will end up heterosexual, and it ends up being true.
It's odd that "we have free will" argument is used on Reddit all the time to say that we aren't controlled by our genes, but then as soon as we discuss homosexuality, everybody in unison says, "They didn't choose to be gay, they were born that way!" Odd.
Furthermore, where do our preferences come from? Did I "choose" to like pizza? Choose to be heterosexual? Choose to like puzzles? No, I experienced these things and they made me happy, I didn't choose that they made me happy, they were from predetermined preferences that you can't possibly choose. If you could choose your preferences, what preferences do you use to choose those preferences? It's an infinite regress. There must be some a priori preferences that we are born with. These preferences are somewhat random, but greatly influenced by the selective pressures of evolution.
"Preferences" are the key. Throway was defending preferences, not actions. You can use evolutionary reasons to defend your preferences, as long as you don't use them to defend your actions.
Example:
Acceptable: I prefer chaste women because of evolution.
Unacceptable: I attack promiscuous women because of evolution.
Throway was clearly defending the former, not the latter. He was arguing as a matter of explanation. Don't confuse explanation with advocating. You can use whatever defense or explanation of your preferences that you want, because, you never have to defend your preferences anyway. It's a "matter of taste", and you can't really argue about matters of taste. There's nothing "wrong" or "sexist" about having preferences for your relationships. If somebody prefers blondes, fat girls, skinny girls, girls with no arms, or girls that have sex with thousands of guys, they are free to make those preferences. If the majority preference makes some people less preferred, that doesn't give the less preferred group the right to tell everybody to change their preferences.
The major problem here is that most of you are arguing with a Feminist perspective. That is, "sexist attitudes" cause sexist behavior. Even if the post was promoting "sexist attitudes" (which it isn't), nobody has any right to tell anybody what to feel, prefer, or which attitude to hold simply because you think that bad behavior comes from it. You can disagree with my attitudes, but to declare my attitudes, feelings, and preferences as morally wrong because you think that they somehow lead to subtle aggregate actions that systematically hurt women goes against our principles of freedom. Fight for women's rights all you want, but quit telling people how to think.
I guess you're still in defensive mode. Nevermind!
[deleted]
Just off the top of my head, isn't how we react to certain situations defined by the way our brain is constructed? For example, our reaction to being set aflame is all the same. Our natural instinct is to freak out and scream and run about, and we do. However, as humans, we can overcome our programmed reactions and "stop, drop, and roll".
Isn't how we react to the opposite sex as programmed as our reaction to fire? A pride of lions in one area has the same dynamic as a pride in another because the species is programmed to organize in that way. Aren't humans the same, unless we forcefully try to disengage from our programming (as with the stop and drop)?
Different behaviors are driven by older, innate behaviors to different degrees. As humans we have a tremendous capacity to overcome our innate behaviors through higher order thinking. Those who practice can over come just about any behavior that is ordered by anything above the lower brainstem.
Our social interactions are extremely complex. The more complex the behavior, the more likely it is governed by our higher order, flexible thinking, rather than lower order, innate reaction.
Human experience tells us that our social behavior is so flexible. We can organize ourselves into everything from fascism to anarchy. We can enslave each other or we can all be equal. We can keep women covered from head to toe and in a submissive position or we can treat both sexes equally or we can treat the men as inferior. This is not innate, rigid behavior.
Right, but the only thing we're discussing here is "Men have evolved to be promiscuous. Women have evolved to be selective. Men have evolved to prefer women who are selective. Women have evolved to dislike women who are promiscuous." I'm just defending that this behavior and these reactions are programmed, not learned.
All I'm arguing is that evolutionary psychology is not bullshit.