Whether you're afraid of "him" or simply think he has a problem — after all, it's winter — and needs help, you're drawn into a real emotional response before you realize it is art. You're out there, living your life, in the public space — here, at a college that has drawn you in through gestures of welcoming and has taken your money — and suddenly you see a problem that you must respond to. But — ha ha — it's only a statue. You're silly. You were afraid of a statue. So it's an unsettling prank. Why? Is that good art? It has appropriated your peace of mind, your comfort in a public space, for what? To challenge and intrigue you, perhaps. The art people on campus would like to reach out — like this fake man groping forward nakedly sleepwalking — because the youngsters need to be contacted, against their will, and if they don't like it, they're to be publicly derided for their lack of sophistication.
(Originally posted as an update here.)
ADDED: Now, I'm not saying the petition was the best response. I think the kids should fight back in various ways. Here's a young woman doing a selfie with the guy. If you can get someone else to take the picture, the arms are in a good position for pretending to be dancing with him. He could be dressed up. It's possible that the art people imagined that the students would just laugh and play, but if so, they were unsophisticated. They were unable to see things through the eyes of others.
AND: Let's realize that throughout history statuary has been used to intimidate people. What's all that ancient Egyptian sculpture about if not to cow people into abject submission?
_(Room_4).jpg/450px-BM,_AES_Egyptian_Sulpture_~_Colossal_bust_of_Ramesses_II,_the_%27Younger_Memnon%27_(1250_BC)_(Room_4).jpg)
Think of all the Lenin and Stalin statues. And how about Saddam Hussein's despicable "Victory Arch"?
Is the Wellesley "Sleepwalker" in this tradition? Yes, the idea of a mighty oppressor seems like a dream to us now. Perhaps it's a joke bouncing off the tradition of the intimidating colossus.
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Who can be afraid anymore? We've been tweaking Ozymandias for centuries. We've laughed at the imposing males and their sculptural representations for so long that it should be the men — not the women, putting the "tit" in petition — who cry out at the long-running, long-stumbling humiliation of the puny fake man in saggy panties.
Posts
225 comments:
1 – 200 of 225 Newer› Newest»1. But they are handling it like children, with their bullshit PC talk of feeling "unsafe".
That makes them a target for mocking.
Put that thing on a campus with guys in it, and watch what happens. It would become a focus of mockery, if not simply destroyed.
They are women, hear them mew.
2. Agree on the question of 'art', but again, the left is all about transgression as art. And this definitely transgresses those terrible patriarchal bourgeois values: safety and protection from violence.
So they're hypocrites, that's all.
(I)t's an unsettling prank. Why? Is that good art?
I talk about this in the earlier thread. I think it's bad art. And yet the response of many of the women at Wellesley has convinced me that it's brilliant art. I applaud it.
It has appropriated your peace of mind, your comfort in a public space, for what? To challenge and intrigue you, perhaps. The art people on campus would like to reach out — like this fake man groping forward nakedly sleepwalking — because the youngsters need to be contacted, against their will, and if they don't like it, they're to be publicly derided for their lack of sophistication.
No, I think they should be derided for their feminism, for their hatred and fear of men, and for their bigotry.
The discussion here is very interesting. This art is waking people up to all the misandry on their campus.
Women have a one-note response.
Just put a sign on it that says "Obamacare."
So if students at another college were upset by a Mapplethorpe exhibit and organized a petition, how much sympathy would those students receive?
Maybe stick the guy in a jar of urine. Then the entire art world will unite behind it.
"What's all that ancient Egyptian sculpture about if not to cow people into object submission?"
Are you making a pun or did you mean abject submission?
My God, it's a statue for the Althouse Commentariat! If the bloggers are in their pajamas, the commenters are in their tighty-whiteys just after another round of meth cooking....bitch!
First time I looked at the pic of the statue, I thought of an Alzheimer's victim.
During his decade long bout with Alzheimer's, my dad would take off into the Illinois winter night in his undies, walk down the street and sometimes walk right into his neighbor's house.
Since the county sheriff lived next door, this presented some tough issues. Because the sheriff might well have unloaded his revolver into an intruder.
Put that thing on a campus with guys in it, and watch what happens. It would become a focus of mockery, if not simply destroyed.
Imagine a male campus with no women. And the university puts up a life-like statue with a woman sleep-walking in her underwear.
All the men would like the statue. They would have affection for the statue. They would go out of their way, not to avoid the statue, but to see it again. Woo-hoo, almost naked woman on the public square, all right!
Would there be hate or misogyny? Yes. But it would showcase itself in vulgarity. Men would fondle the statue in public. There might be attacks on the statue. The reactions of (some) men might get us thinking about misogyny, and how sex affects us and upset us.
It's hard to imagine a culture where women are demonized for their hatred and fear of the opposite sex. But maybe we need a little of that, or at least a public recognition of this pathology.
"Are you making a pun or did you mean abject submission?"
It was just a typo. I'd fixed it by the time I read this. Glad it amused somebody first.
Whether you're afraid of "him" or simply think he has a problem — after all, it's winter — and needs help, you're drawn into a real emotional response before you realize it is art.
A bit like the Jackass stunt of driving around with a baby seat glued to the roof of a car. I guess the jackass crew didn't realize they should have been applying for NEH conceptual art grants.
So that's a fair point, but that's not the objection the women were raising -- their reaction is still ridiculous.
Note that the haters at Wellesley are not at all afraid to be public with their hatred of men. They are quite willing to talk to the authorities about their fears and pathologies. They are assuming their fears are valid and their concerns will be acted upon.
When the women at Wellesley go off campus, they must use one of those daycare walking ropes and clip themselves to it like 3 year olds.
And they never watch TV because it's scary and makes them feel unsafe.
The statue guy is pathetic. Deliberately so. He's reaching out for . . . . what? He's blind, exposed, lost. He's quite unmanly and hardly intimidating, though a little shocking simply because of his pathetic pasty near nakedness.
The statute is a commentary on contemporary men. That supposedly highly intelligent young women are intimidated by him is quite sad.
In view of the misandry expressed by many of the women, it should not be any surprise that the birth rates in Western countries are below replacement levels. The matriarchy is destroying itself.
On the other hand, in countries in which women really are repressed the birth rates are still relatively high. In evolutionary terms at this point with the help of feminists misogyny is winning the fight for survival.
I'll preface my remarks by saying that I went through some horrifying experiences years ago, and from time to time, I will come across something that "triggers" emotional responses that far outpace any realistic threat posed by whatever triggered them. I've learned to manage those responses so that I can function in daily life. Before coming to terms with this kind of thing, I thought that talk of "triggers" was total bullshit. It's not total bullshit - it's a very real, nearly debilitating thing for some people. At the same time, it's pretty clear that talk of triggers often is used as a tool to enforce political correctness. The accusation of being insensitive to triggers is used similarly to accusations of racism or sexism. My sense is that a large part of the discussion at Wellesley is purely an exercise in displaying tribal affiliation, with no small dose of cynicism to spice things up. For those who truly are triggered, however, I hope that they get the true support they need to overcome their fears. There are a lot of intelligent, capable people who struggle daily with demons, both self-imposed and externally inflicted.
But, yeah, Saint Croix nailed it: " I think it's bad art. And yet the response of many of the women at Wellesley has convinced me that it's brilliant art. I applaud it." By the standard of judgment used whenever some bit of amateurishly offensive "art" metaphorically is shoved down mainstream throats, the sleep walker turns out to be magnificent. Aside from the legitimately triggered, this is only an issue because the people who usually do the shoving are the ones who are getting shoved.
Another way of putting it: life is triggering. The question is: how to cope?
Its Pajama Boy without his pajamas.
No Lincoln Memorial in the pantheon of intimidating statutes?
It's quite intimidating in its grand yet subtle way, especially to all subsequent presidents.
Maybe that is why you rarely see a president in a photo op with the Lincoln Memorial.
Even Obama had the good sense to keep his (now discontinued) comparisons to Lincoln to suggestions not a tangible presence at the shrine.
It's excellent art. Realistic. Ought to satisfy those who are tired of trite abstractions.
Do you suppose his name is David?
But these same women will go out into the world with their "tampon art" designed to provoke a response. Funny how they wilt when its done to them.
"Feeling unsafe" the first time they see it makes sense. It's really, really hard for me to get into the head of people who are more vulnerable than me. But, one day, I sat down with a 5 foot nothing-ish petite woman and asked her to explain.
It's not an irrational, complete, overwhelming fear of Every Man is a Rapist[TM]. It is just that the level of uncomfortable to dangerous can sky rocket quickly. I'm a big guy, so seeing a strange man stumbling around at night is not immediately cause for an assessment: "How dangerous is this to me?"
For someone more vulnerable [an older person, someone with kids in tow, smaller people], it could quickly jump to that, because they have less of a window for response if the seemingly out of it guy IS dangerous.
I can see why they don't like the statue out there. It's disconcerting. I don't know how to go about fixing it, maybe make it clearer it is a statue [put some stuff around it, etc.]?
Hey, why aren't there crowds of heterosexual men at the big art museums that are full of sculptures and paintings of naked and almost naked women?
Because the tittie bar is closer.
"All the men would like the statue. They would have affection for the statue. They would go out of their way, not to avoid the statue, but to see it again. Woo-hoo, almost naked woman on the public square, all right!"
...trying to see what here struck a nerve with althouse... is it anger that the men would be immune to whatever is causing the females to clutch their pearls?
"All the men would like the statue. They would have affection for the statue. They would go out of their way, not to avoid the statue, but to see it again. Woo-hoo, almost naked woman on the public square, all right!"
Hey, why aren't there crowds of heterosexual men at the big art museums that are full of sculptures and paintings of naked and almost naked women?
You act like the history of art isn't replete with female nudity.
I'm not seeing this male response to art.
Women go to museums and appreciate the art.
Meanwhile, men also fail to be offended by the Wellesley representation of the male that is actually quite disparaging to masculinity.
Perhaps you eagerness to disparage the women here is a displacement of the humiliation of the male you are too pusillanimous to see.
The women's petition could be read as another guerrilla tactic in the feminist war on men.
You are so defeated you can't even lift your head to see it.
You're crumpled over there in the corner tittering at the ladies as if they are weak. But these weaklings defeated you long ago.
Will you ever wake up and notice? You ARE sleepwalkers! In your saggy panties.
campy quotes me, but I reposted after him to correct a typo.
Sorry for the chronology issue.
" is it anger that the men would be immune to whatever is causing the females to clutch their pearls?"
Wow, that gave me an insight into why males mocking females keep using the image of pearl clutching!
Thanks. Wow. Displacement baby. Clutch those jewels, guys. The women are coming for you, knives ablaze.
Oddly, I look at the statue and see a sympathetic portrait of a man.
Sleep walking, in literature and tradition, is a time when a person observes and comprehends a reality that he cannot access in his waking hours. This is a major aspect of Tony Hillerman's work. Not to mention Shakespeare.
We are all weak, in that we are mortal.
I am strong now. That won't last much longer.
When I change my granddaughter's diaper, I often chuckle to myself because I know that in the not too distant future somebody will be changing my diaper.
Why does everything have to be run through the feminism filter? Perhaps what's really scaring the college kids is a reminder within their midst that age and death await them, too.
The guy may look flabby, but he's been shivering. Its all brown fat.
David said...
The statue guy is pathetic. Deliberately so. . . . . He's blind, exposed, lost. He's quite unmanly and hardly intimidating, though a little shocking simply because of his pathetic pasty near nakedness.
The statute is a commentary on contemporary men.
Ann said: "Meanwhile, men also fail to be offended by the Wellesley representation of the male that is actually quite disparaging to masculinity."
Credit where credit is due please Althouse. Though I was not offended at the disparagement. I do notice it and regret it, but I don't take it personally.
What kids of every generation are actually rebelling against is mortality.
They don't want to be like their parents in the most dramatic way. They don't want to get old and die.
Hahaha Althouse! To the men, boo!
Althouse: Wow, that gave me an insight into why males mocking females keep using the image of pearl clutching!
Its not gender specific. I've used to image to describe males too.
Thanks. Wow. Displacement baby. Clutch those jewels, guys. The women are coming for you, knives ablaze.
What is wrong with you?
Fen doesn't hear himself.
Men "fail" to be offended.
Interesting choice of words.
Clothes make the man. This guy is either a bad dresser or high on drugs or an escaped mental patient. So yes he/it is a disturbing event.
The interesting part of the incident is the knee jerk appeal to authority that is actually one upmanship on the college's authority. Why not dump a can of paint on it or steal it. Those sound like the college student responses that I remember.
Illuminati: In view of the misandry expressed by many of the women, it should not be any surprise that the birth rates in Western countries are below replacement levels.
The birth rates in advanced non-Western places are below replacement level. Guess Singapore and Hong Kong and Japan, etc., must be full of man-haters, too. For that matter, countries with the nuttiest feminists (say, Sweden) have higher TFR among the natives than countries with fewer nutty feminists (say, Spain or Italy).
Crackpot feminism (like the rest of the crackpot -isms clogging up the public square these days) is a symptom, not a cause.
"The statute is a commentary on contemporary men."
Welcome to our world. You're just figuring this out now? We've been dealing with it for so long that it now elicits a yawn. Yes, Wellesley put up a statue that likens men to Homer Simpson. And in other news, water is wet.
Oh I'm getting it. This is about your blind spot with men. The same blind spot that caused you to go nuts, rail against your male commentators, and shut down your comments section.
Meanwhile, men also fail to be offended by the Wellesley representation of the male that is actually quite disparaging to masculinity.
That's cause most of us men have a sense of humor. It's just that women don't understand why we men think certain things are funny.
The three stooges-the originals with Curly. Some other guy getting hit in the nuts. And just about anything involving monkeys.
Perhaps you eagerness to disparage the women here is a displacement of the humiliation of the male you are too pusillanimous to see.
Hmm. Nope. The fems are being dramatic.
You're crumpled over there in the corner tittering at the ladies as if they are weak. But these weaklings defeated you long ago.
Just strong in different ways.
Will you ever wake up and notice? You ARE sleepwalkers! In your saggy panties.
Actually we men kinda see the humor in all of it.
Guys-except, like Titus- don't wear "panties". We wear briefs, boxers, skivvies , shorts or nothing at all.
Now. For the important question.
But is it art?
All the men would like the statue. They would have affection for the statue. They would go out of their way, not to avoid the statue, but to see it again. Woo-hoo, almost naked woman on the public square, all right!
This is the comment that set Althouse off.
"No Lincoln Memorial in the pantheon of intimidating statutes?"
I wasn't making a comprehensive list, obviously, but I thought about what would be on the list, and the Statue of Liberty crossed my mind. Lincoln Memorial is the same kind of thing: the state speaking to its people through a colossus. It's intended to transcend our reason and to awe and quell us in one way or another.
I also thought of Mt. Rushmore.
What is all this government statuary? It is intended to intimidate, some in a more justifiably uplifting way than others, but when we're inside the propaganda, it's hard to be critical of it.
That's the point!
Shouting Thomas: comment @7:43 AM ending with "Why does everything have to be run through the feminism filter? Perhaps what's really scaring the college kids is a reminder within their midst that age and death await them, too."
Good comment.
At least our government is separated from religion or imagine the sculpture we'd have on American mountaintops and city squares.
Ann Althouse said, "men also fail to be offended by the Wellesley representation of the male that is actually quite disparaging to masculinity."
Men are so used to being disparaged as lazy, stupid, out-of-shape schlubs by popular media -- c.f. many sitcoms, tv commercials, etc. -- that a subtly contextualized, photorealistic statute of an average or below average looking guy sleepwalking in rumpled underwear seems a comedic piece as much as anything else.
Also, why isn't the statue seen as supportive of men with un-sculpted abs? Depictions of "imperfect" female bodies are often interpreted as embodying feminist values, as empowering to women who do not conform to typically commercial interpretations of beauty. Maybe the statue depicts the average man's struggle through a life of failing to attain the standard of a Michaelangelic David or of a Calvin Klein underwear model.
Schlubs of the world, unite!
Re Homer Simpson.
Homer, for all his faults, has to be one of the most beloved comic characters in American history.
One of the constant themes of the Simpsons is that the kids are better off with their doofus father than anywhere else.
Norman Lear was said to have been astonished and angry when he discovered that the audience loved Archie Bunker and identified with him.
When I hear that stuff about how terrible we old white dudes are, I hear envy.
Fen to Saint Crois: "All the men would like the statue. They would have affection for the statue. They would go out of their way, not to avoid the statue, but to see it again. Woo-hoo, almost naked woman on the public square, all right!"
This is the comment that set Althouse off.
It was a silly comment.
Lol, can't believe I'm siding with Althouse in her "I want you to think..." mode, but, yeah, Fen, think about for two seconds. Without the kneejerk "anti-feminist" filter. Like the feminist filter, it makes you stupid.
PS. via the OED: "When a man..doesn't know the facts and nobody will tell him..and people keep throwing apples and unkind remarks at him, he has no choice but to look like a shlub." D. E. Westlake Up your Banners
Perhaps there are far more than the 100 or so women that signed the petition to have it removed, that actually get a kick out of the sleepwalking man. Just like in real life, to see a middle aged man in his tighty whities is actually quite funny.
Anglelyne said...
"The birth rates in advanced non-Western places are below replacement level. Guess Singapore and Hong Kong and Japan, etc., must be full of man-haters, too. For that matter, countries with the nuttiest feminists (say, Sweden) have higher TFR among the natives than countries with fewer nutty feminists (say, Spain or Italy)."
In using the tern West, I did not intend to exclude other countries such as Japan which are highly Westernized in their culture and government in which women are emancipated. Because women are the majority of the population, democracies with universal suffrage are de facto matriarchies.
The highest birth rates are in countries in which men rule -- real patriarchies.
I am curious about your reference to Sweden. Do you have any breakdown about who is having the babies? My understanding is that the birth rates in Europe are much higher among unassimilated immigrants than among the native population. In Sweden the high birth rate would probably be the result of massive immigration.
England has a state religion. But somehow I've missed the Anglican colossus in Canterbury.
Illuninati thinks misogyny will save humanity. Better yet, Grok knew how to do it right, just bonk woman over her head and drag her to the cave for a night of caveman love.
Inga said:
"Illuninati thinks misogyny will save humanity. Better yet, Grok knew how to do it right, just bonk woman over her head and drag her to the cave for a night of caveman love"
I hope you are joking.
David said...
"Do you suppose his name is David?"
2/6/14, 7:34 AM
Dave.
@Illuminati
I think the Ingster is actually hoping to find that caveman love.
Women almost never have a clue about what really turns them on.
Never pay attention to what they say in that regard.
'And how about Saddam Hussein's despicable "Victory Arch"?'
The art and it's implication is missed by those who analyze the 'disaster' of the Iraq war, cf. the recent McCardle post, and the importance of the colossus not being left to stand in the Arab world.
"In view of the misandry expressed by many of the women, it should not be any surprise that the birth rates in Western countries are below replacement levels. The matriarchy is destroying itself.
On the other hand, in countries in which women really are repressed the birth rates are still relatively high. In evolutionary terms at this point with the help of feminists misogyny is winning the fight for survival."
2/6/14, 7:26 AM
Illuninati, my 8:18 AM comment reflects what your comment here sounded like to me.
Could people please use quotes when you are quoting someone else?
It can get really confusing. Plus, I don't like seeing something I've written positioned as if, say, Rusty had written it.
And I don't think Rusty does either. He may assume that everyone reads the posts in order and remembers everything and there's no need to bother with quotation marks.
He's wrong. There is.
Maybe the Wellesley Man is a tribute to the frozen Winter we have had. He was caught out unprepared.
Inga said:
"Illuninati, my 8:18 AM comment reflects what your comment here sounded like to me"
I'm not sure why you took my comments that way. I love Western civilization. That is why I am so eager to preserve it.
Shouldn't the statue be used instead as an admissions test?
As in, if you over-react to it, you may not be ready for college.
Good post and comment thread touching several more angles than usual. The Althouse line that grabbed me was -
"...you're drawn into a real emotional response before you realize it is art."
I wanted to shout of course you have an emotional response. It's what separates art from mere objects or decoration.
I guess the key word in the quote is "before." So exactly why is that a problem? Must art be announced before it's experienced?
FleetUSA referred to the statue as "Wellesley Man." That got a laugh out of me. Made me think of "Piltdown Man."
"Women almost never have a clue about what really turns them on.
Never pay attention to what they say in that regard."
2/6/14, 8:24 AM
Shouting Thomas, that's how you feel about women, you actually think this way while babysitting for your granddaughter.
"It was a silly comment."
Thanks, Angelyne.
To me, it was whistling in the dark. Masculinity is in deep decline, and the answer is to cry "woo-hoo" and say "we love naked ladies."
That's how you keep your spirits up, so okay. Yeah, you've got that. You still love sex. But it comes across as very beta.
Sad.
Really freak those maidens out. Take his underwear off.
Shouting Thomas, that's how you feel about women, you actually think this way while babysitting for your granddaughter.
It has become a common, and vile, practice of liberals to accuse anybody who disagrees with their feminist doctrines of being "abusive."
It's a knucklehead, cruel thing to do.
Par for the course for our ever so compassionate Inga.
I forgive you, Inga, because you are stupid. You can't help yourself.
It's a beautiful morning here in Woodstock. I'd like to satisfy your bloodlust, but I've got a rehearsal tonight. Gotta get ready.
Althouse said:
"To me, it was whistling in the dark. Masculinity is in deep decline, and the answer is to cry "woo-hoo" and say "we love naked ladies.""
Unfortunately this decline in males is verified by science. Male sperm counts are dropping although they may finally be bottoming out:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/out-for-the-count-why-levels-of-sperm-in-men-are-falling-1954149.html
The art and artist isn't exploiting anyone.
The girls at Wellesley are behaving like they belong in a PC convent, where only Girl Things are allowed. No Boi's.
Childish response on their part.
Of all the intimidating statuary in the world, the Wellesley schlub statue isn't one of them.
'And how about Saddam Hussein's despicable "Victory Arch"?'
That art, sculpture, and it's implication seems missed by those who analyze the 'disaster' of the Iraq war, cf. the recent McCardle post, and the importance of the colossus not being left to stand in the Arab world.
Nope Shouting Thomas, I'm not accusing you of being abusive, except in that you appear to hold great disdain for western women in general and the fact that you have a daughter and granddaughter makes it even stranger that you represent yourself in such a way.
And I forgive you Shouting Thomas for being a jerk, you probably can't help yourself. Have a nice rehearsal, don't kick any women.
I'd go to Goodwill and buy him a nice old sweater. Better yet, a trenchcoat.
Inga said to Shouting Thomas:
"the fact that you have a daughter and granddaughter makes it even stranger that you represent yourself in such a way."
Inga, I don't know what is in Shouting Thomas' heart and certainly don't want to be his apologist. There is another way to interpret his posts. Perhaps he talks the way he does because he is concerned for the future of his daughter and granddaughter.
Meanwhile, men also fail to be offended by the Wellesley representation of the male that is actually quite disparaging to masculinity.
Because we're not hothouse flowers that make every little thing about how it makes us feel, and then demand that other bend themselves to our will so that we don't have any bad feelings, ever.
I see s very realistic statue of a doughy schlub sleepwalking in his tighty whiteys.
There are men that are built like that, just like their are women who aren't built like curvy hotties. It doesn't represent me in the slightest. It doesn't represent masculinity in the slightest either.
That's YOUR hang up. :)
The problem with the Wellesley girls is that they still thinks it's 1897 and that they have no obligation to toughen up in order to realize and participate in a truly equal society.
They want to still operate under the old Patriarchal female privilege that forces the general society to cater to their tender sensibilities and they desire to not be subject to what they think are unpleasant, or improper things, because they are girls.
They want deference to their demands, because they are girls and girls are sensitive and fragile flowers, not like icky, smelly MEN.
They are quite the retrograde sexists at Wellesley.
Wheeewwww, at least he was not wearing shorts.
In addition to men he creates women, chimps, other .
Artist Responds to Wellesley College Students’ Concerns With Sculpture
Hey, why aren't there crowds of heterosexual men at the big art museums that are full of sculptures and paintings of naked and almost naked women?.
Because men would not be interested, unless they were history/art buffs or artists/sculpters.
And
Porn is free and convenient and hotter than the old art.
Illuninati, wow, what a way to show he is worried about his female offspring. Speak of females in degrading way, that'll win hearts and minds of women all over the US and surely it will make them see the error of their ways.
Wellesley (and Smith) have large lezzie populations who hate men. Probably explains quite a bit.
100 Wellesley women out of how many that attend college there. So because100 women signed this petition it reflects the views of the rest of women there, or everywhere?
Inga said:
" Speak of females in degrading way, that'll win hearts and minds of women all over the US and surely it will make them see the error of their ways."
I'm old enough to remember when feminists used to go around calling men "male chauvinist pigs." They didn't seem to care who they hurt with their hateful speech. Perhaps Shouting Thomas is old enough to have experienced that treatment.
Wow, that gave me an insight into why males mocking females keep using the image of pearl clutching!
Thanks. Wow. Displacement baby. Clutch those jewels, guys. The women are coming for you, knives ablaze.
Your "insight" isn't much of one, at all. Way off base.
When we talk about "pearl clutching females", especially when it comes from what are purported to be Strong, Independent, I-Don't-Need-No-MAN campus radical feminists, we are mocking them for being the weak sisters they actually are, trying to use the "frail, fragile female" emotional manipulations that are associated with old school patriarchal female privilege that assumes they are lesser beings in need of coddling.
What we are NOT talking about is our balls. Try again, Althouse.
Illuninati, I remember when men called women sluts an whores, when they advocated free birth control. Rush Limbaugh for one.
"Credit where credit is due please Althouse. Though I was not offended at the disparagement."
What credit are you asking for?
I said men fail to be offended, and you do fail to be offended.
Why seek credit from me? Don't you think when the subject is beta manhood that seeking credit from the woman is kind of incoherent?
Careful. It's a trap. Answering that question is inherently attempting to get credit.
You cannot win.
You are surrounded.
The women won the gender war long ago. Surrender. Deny. It doesn't matter. We've moved on.
We've laughed at the imposing males and their sculptural representations for so long that it should be the men — not the women, putting the "tit" in petition — who cry out at the long-running, long-stumbling humiliation of the puny fake man in saggy panties.
I can't tell if you've almost had a real insight about the nature of men here, or you have and you're just commenting sarcastically.
Inga said:
"Illuninati, I remember when men called women sluts an whores, when they advocated free birth control. Rush Limbaugh for one."
My recollection of that statement is that Rush called her a slut but did not use the word whore. He later apologized.
When someone politicizes their personal sex lives like Sandra Fluke did she has no reason to complain when people mock her. I am positive that she was not hurt in the least by Rush's comment. That is entirely different from attacking ordinary people and trying to hurt other people by hate speech.
The women's petition could be read as another guerrilla tactic in the feminist war on men.
You are so defeated you can't even lift your head to see it.
You're crumpled over there in the corner tittering at the ladies as if they are weak. But these weaklings defeated you long ago.
Will you ever wake up and notice? You ARE sleepwalkers! In your saggy panties.
Are you stoned, Althouse? Those silly Wellesley girls and the feminist screechers don't inform my life one bit.
What you are refusing to see is that men have a sense of humor and laugh at ourselves quite a bit. We can take being mocked, as that is part and parcel of growing up a male, even within just male culture. We know that some of us are schlubs.
We don't go out of our way to call the schlubs Small Sensuous Guys, to make them feel better about their DNA, like how the women fatties demand that others call them Big Beautiful Women: We make fun of the man schlubs. Just like we are mocking the feminists.
Yes, we have a sense of humor, unlike campus feminist supremacists.
Try again, Althouse.
To me, it was whistling in the dark. Masculinity is in deep decline, and the answer is to cry "woo-hoo" and say "we love naked ladies."
That's how you keep your spirits up, so okay. Yeah, you've got that. You still love sex. But it comes across as very beta.
Sad.
I just have to shake my head at this sexist ignorance of what men are.
Inga said:
"Illuninati, she wasn't politicizing her sex life. That is precisely is what you and Rush Limbaugh got wrong."
She wasn't? Didn't she play a marquis role at the Democrat national convention?
Illuninati, she wasn't politicizing her sex life. That is precisely what you and Rush Limbaugh got wrong.
I was taught it is important to get extra credit from professors.
I'm not sure how my response ended up above the post I was responding to.
ARRRRGGGG! You quoted me too quickly Illuninati, LOL.
Illuninati, she wasn't politicizing her sex life. That is precisely is what you and Rush Limbaugh got wrong.
Advocating public subsidy for birth control inherently politicizes one's sex life. The same would be true, by the way, if men were advocating subsidy for Viagra. There may indeed be good arguments for such public subsides, but it doesn't change the fact that those seeking them are the ones who politicized it by the seeking.
Some people don't know when they're being baited.
Inga, I have to go get some tires for my son's car. We'll have to continue this interesting conversation later. Like I said, I don't really know what is in Shouting Thomas' heart.
I talk about this in the earlier thread. I think it's bad art. And yet the response of many of the women at Wellesley has convinced me that it's brilliant art. I applaud it.
It can be a good prank without being art. Personally, I think that art ought to be, ultimately, elevating. Challenging art can break down, shock, and appall, but it has to pay off in the end somehow. What's the upside of this display? The janitor statue has some of that shock and derangement of expectations element, but it's in a museum, and, if it's working properly, acts like a zen koan - it elevates by making the viewer realize the continuity or equivalence of the audience and the art, by making the art part of the audience. Stuck out in an open quad, all you're doing is shocking and confusing passers-by.
(I don't blame you if you scroll right past my comment. The rest of the thread seems to be caught up in foolish gender trolling, and I ended up skimming the last thirty or so comments myself. What the hell, people?)
So because100 women signed this petition it reflects the views of the rest of women there, or everywhere?
No, just the ones that call themselves "feminists". They've been acting like this for quite some time and need to be called out on it and not be portrayed as any sort of champions for equality, when what they want is supremacy.
Rocketeer, birth control is not on par with Viagra. Why must this be explained to you? Don't you realize that when women use birth control they prevent unwanted children, then those unwanted children don't get aborted. That should be self explanatory. It should be worth it to every Christian and anti abortion advocate to provide subsidized birth control for women who may be the kind who get abortions.
And Rocketeer, if all American men can't have sex without Viagra, our population decline is even more dire than Illuninati says.
What the hell, people?
Good grief, the post itself was predicated on gender trolling, Mitch! Which is not to say I'm not amused by it: That was the intent. What the hell, indeed?
"Are you stoned, Althouse? Those silly Wellesley girls and the feminist screechers don't inform my life one bit."
Who are the warriors? You're looking at some women and not others. You're using a defensive method of pointing to some weak components of the forces massed against you and laughing at them, but I'm saying you are missing the big picture and not taking your losses seriously.
Rocketeer, birth control is not on par with Viagra. Why must this be explained to you? Don't you realize that when women use birth control they prevent unwanted children, then those unwanted children don't get aborted.
It doesn't need to be, Inga - Viagra was simply an example. by the way, do you know what else prevents pregnancy, far more effectively than birth control? Added bonus: it's free. Which, again, is why by asking me to help foot the bill for birth control, is politicizing your sex life. You want it, you pay for it, entire, yourself. Then I've got no beef.
Well Rocketeer, then you must not be against public funding for abortion? What is more expensive to American's pocket book and morality? Abortion or subsidized birth control?
Illuninati, she wasn't politicizing her sex life. That is precisely what you and Rush Limbaugh got wrong.
Essentially, Sandra Fluke was telling us that, since she was banging so many guys, she needed a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM using tax money to pay for her Birth Control.
That is the very essence of politicizing her sexuality.
If Sandra Fluke had just paid for her own BC, like most normal people, no one would know what her sex life was like.
Instead, she went on National TV and said how awful it was that strangers weren't paying for her BC pills. So that she could fuck worry-free. Because women are superior beings who's every demand for Government money must be met, unquestioningly. Otherwise, you are a sexist pig who hates women. That was the entire subtext, trying to use guilt and female supremacy to make men comply.
If a guy were to demand that there be a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM to pay for his condoms, because he couldn't keep it in his pants, he'd be a slut too, just like Sandra Fluke.
Why are you defending her? Oh that's right, because she is a feminist girl.
"Rocketeer, birth control is not on par with Viagra. Why must this be explained to you? Don't you realize that when women use birth control they prevent unwanted children, then those unwanted children don't get aborted. That should be self explanatory. It should be worth it to every Christian and anti abortion advocate to provide subsidized birth control for women who may be the kind who get abortions.
Inga gets one right. The societal benefits of free, easily available birth control are so obvious that they outweigh any concerns about creeping socialism or declining morality.
If anyone thinks that race relations have deteriorated under Obama, just imagine what would happen to social intercourse between the sexes under Hillary.
Oh yes, SGT Ted, that attitude will certainly win elections. I suggest you conservative men keep it up.
Yes, think about Hillary as POTUS, SGT Ted.
When I went to MIT back in the '70's I spent some time on the Wellesley campus and knew some Wellesley women. Strong bunch, self-confident and not the type to shy away from challenges. What the hell happened?
Of course, when I first heard about the Lewinsky scandal, one of the first things I thought was about Hillary - "I didn't think a Wellesley girl would put up with that kind of shit!"
Woody Allen sans hair?
Twits twittering
So, why is it that race relations declined under a black President and why would gender relations decline under a female President? White men ask yourselves why this might be. The answer is very clear.
Who are the warriors? You're looking at some women and not others. You're using a defensive method of pointing to some weak components of the forces massed against you and laughing at them, but I'm saying you are missing the big picture and not taking your losses seriously.
Because, when the feminists have "won", they actually will have lost.
The big picture is that the younger generation of men and boys sees women as fuck toys, to be discarded for a new one, as needed.
What was it that the womyn
"won" again.
They are also very aware of the double standard of feminism and are now starting to fight back against the misandry culture of the feminists, that only sustains itself by making sure that men stay silent.
Men aren't shutting up anymore about it. The lawsuits from men against the feminist supremacists in the Universities have begun. The EO harassment complaints against the overt anti-white and anti-male bigotry in the Academy are starting.
The fact that the best the fems can come up with is to boohoo over statuary shows how weak and fragile their construct actually is.
It only sustains itself through suppression of dissent.
@Inga: Obama's most trusted advisors -- the ones shaping the nation's future -- are all women. Perhaps when Hillary got in office, the ones advising her would be men. Would this wring the panties of feminists?
I'm not here to win elections, Inga. I'm here to tell the ugly truth about feminist sexism to your face. That you dismiss it shows what you are.
Well Rocketeer, then you must not be against public funding for abortion? What is more expensive to American's pocket book and morality? Abortion or subsidized birth control?
Why must I be? I don't want to pay for either. I'm not concerned about your morality, and nation's don't have morality, only policy. When policy causes one to act against their own morality, well then I have a problem. (See, I'm funny in that I actually believe in separation of church and state). Only by forcing me to foot the bill through the public fisc is my own morality impinged. Your morality is your own, until you - get this - politicize it by seeking subsidy for it.
SGT Ted, you are ranting, lol. Feel threatened, feel the need to "clutch your jewels"?
The only reason Hillary will be president is the sexist supremacist notions of leftist feminist women and their beta male adjuncts.
Hillary used being some mans WIFE to get where she is. She's an incompetent as far as government work goes and a social climber of the old school patriarchal system, where the wife of an important man is thus important, too.
No one "deserves" to be President, simply because they have a vajay.
Far too many "feminists" think her vajay is the perfect qualification. Which is the definition of sexism.
And SGT Ted, Democratic women everywhere thank you for not being concerned with winning elections.
No ranting here, just some truth telling. Inga needs it to be a rant, so she can dismiss me as being "angry". Whatever, honey.
I'm not angry, I just demand that those claiming to want equality to actually live under equality and not sexist special snowflake rules that benefit them over men.
You know what makes me, as a man, sad? The ease with which some men allow themselves to be trolled by Inga.
Perhaps it is the men who are the Trolls on this thread.
You know what makes me, as a man, sad? The ease with which some men allow themselves to be trolled by Inga.
I never felt trolled by Inga. Historically, she's just a reaction to other trolls who dominated threads on Althouse. I used to enjoy "voicing" her comments in chirbits for fun. Perhaps I should look into doing that again.
I didn't think I was being trolled, or trolling. I was - for once, admittedly - actually trying to have a substantive conversation with Inga. Oh well.
Ingas responses show that she isn't really thinking, just emoting against uncomfortable ideas.
Under patriarchy, an unmarried woman's "virtue", her virginity, was a closely guarded thing, and men would fight if a woman's virtue was impugned by another man.
Feminists fought the cultural battle to be free of men guarding their virtue and to be free to be have ex with whoever, whenever. Thus, we see the feminist Slut Walks, where they lay claim to the title, as a badge of sexual freedom.
Sandra Fluke desired to have me and other men she isn't sleeping with, to pay for her BC pills on national TV. She should be proud of her badge of sexual freedom.
I am not against sexual freedom and we men have our sluts as well. So, why all the angst over a word that feminists claim as a badge of honor?
The fact of the matter is that the only reason that the womyn have gotten to the silly place they are in is because too many men kept their mouths shut about it. That is changing.
I am curious about your reference to Sweden. Do you have any breakdown about who is having the babies? My understanding is that the birth rates in Europe are much higher among unassimilated immigrants than among the native population. In Sweden the high birth rate would probably be the result of massive immigration.
Immigrants do have higher birthrates, and Swedish native rates are below replacement (~1.9, iirc), but they are higher than native Spanish rates, which in turn are higher than some East Asian rates. (And Spain also has a very high level of immigration.)
In using the tern West, I did not intend to exclude other countries such as Japan which are highly Westernized in their culture and government in which women are emancipated.
The part of your comment to which I was responding here specifically blamed low birth rates in the West on "misandry". The relation of fertility to emancipation and suffrage is a different point. Again, do the ladies in Singapore or Japan hate men more than crazy Swedish feminists, or American women in some lower cost-of-living flyover areas? (I'll understand if you'd just like to quietly drop this line of inquiry.)
Because women are the majority of the population, democracies with universal suffrage are de facto matriarchies.
When you have to start defining East Asian nations with rock-bottom fertility rates as "de facto matriarchies" to fit your theory, that's a pretty good sign that your nice neat mono-causal explanatory model may need a bit of rethinking.
Anyway, most of the places you'd define as patriarchies also have universal suffrage. Some of them are also experiencing declines in TFR. Go look up which ones. The correlation between "represses women the most" and TFR is better than your purported causal relation between misandry and low fertility, but doesn't really wash as a satisfactory global explanation for why people stop having babies. (Here's a nice table. At the top of the chart you can click on periods from 1980 to 2013.)
The highest birth rates are in countries in which men rule -- real patriarchies.
To some degree, sure. (Though I'd quibble over whether some sub-Saharan African countries, with their sky-high fertility, are actually "patriarchal" in structure as would be understood in the rest of the world.) And? Do you glance at that table and think, "If we Westerners and East Asians weren't so stupid, we'd remake our societies to resemble Somalia!" (I mean, geez, look at those stats over time - those Somalis just don't quit!)
One of the unmentioned things about those "patriarchal" nations is that they are also mostly third world culturally and financially. So, they breed to offset child mortality, much like our ancestors.
Inga makes the mistake that most progressive provincials make: That all women agree with the progressive feminist take on the Sandra Fluke "slut" flap.
More birth control means fewer government-dependent people and consequently, fewer Democrats. There is no downside to blanketing the nation in free birth control.
There is no downside to blanketing the nation in free birth control.
Except for wastewater contamination.
SGT Ted, I do not think for one minute that most conservative women are concerned that Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut.
Except for wastewater contamination.
That is conveniently NEVER brought up by the progressive enviros, who are always quick to point out every other dangerous chemical that may or may not be in the water supply that goes downstream into the environment.
It's almost like the concern for the environment is entirely political.
"Obama's most trusted advisors -- the ones shaping the nation's future -- are all women. "
-- Except for Valerie Jarrett, I can't think of any [unless we're counting the First Lady.]
[Now that Clinton is out, of course.]
RonF said...
When I went to MIT back in the '70's I spent some time on the Wellesley campus and knew some Wellesley women. Strong bunch, self-confident and not the type to shy away from challenges. What the hell happened?
I graduated from Wellesley in 1970. Women at that time had fewer choices if they wanted to attend an elite liberal arts college. MIT had a few female students. Harvard and Radcliffe were separate institutions. There were no female students at Yale or Princeton until 1969. That year the cream of the Class of 1972 at Wellesley transferred to the newly coeducational Ivies. In subsequent years Wellesley no longer attracted the most competitive women. Wellesley proudly remains an all female liberal arts college despite the changing times. So now an all female liberal arts college attracts women who choose Wellesley not primarily because it offers a top education for women but because it is a male free institution.
I recently visited the campus and remarked that Wellesley was an anachronism. My husband laughed. "It was always an anachronism, " he said.
I forgot Sebelius, but then again, seeing how the ACA has been mismanaged, I don't think she's particularly close.
SGT Ted, I do not think for one minute that most conservative women are concerned that Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut
Which is why claims of political damage to those who are pointing out Flukes sluttiness and the intellectual contradictions of the feminists are suspect and most likely designed to shut down the discussion as some sort of breech of civility, rather than address the issue of subsidizing the sex lives of privileged white women attending law school.
I suggest that conservative men and Republicans continue to discourage women from using birth control pills. That's a huge winner for you.
Sandra Fluke was concerned with all women who couldn't afford birth control, not just those in her circle. The continued bashing of her reveals much about conservatives, especially conservative men. I know you don't care if you win elections, but we Democratic women thank you for being so verbal about her and birth control.
[Inga], you ignorant slut.
"Sandra Fluke was concerned with all women who couldn't afford birth control, not just those in her circle."
-- Every study, done by every body, says this is not a real problem, with cheap/free birth control readily available to all people who care to get it. Her concern for it is irrational.
Inga, you are deliberately misrepresenting the truth. Which you must do, to make your argument.
American Conservative men, except for maybe the Catholic ones, don't care if any woman uses BC. Many pro-lifers enjoy and use BC.
They just don't want to be stuck with the bill. Especially the bill from privileged white women with law degrees.
I appreciate anyone that takes responsibility for their sexy parts and doesn't become a public burden.
What I don't appreciate is someone trying to pick my pocket to pay for something they should purchase themselves and then telling me my refusal to give them money is sexist and anti-woman. It's really just sexist bullshit.
Well thanks Meade, you pompous ass! ;)
That's because you were "triggered," Inga.
I understood what he said.
SGT Ted, so your and Chickenlitle's concern for our drinking water was just hot air?
Not just hot air. They are genuinely worried about their shrinking testicles.
FEminism was supposed to be about responsibility.
Now it's I want free stuff because I have a vagina.
The mere existence of low income adult women doesn't obligate anybody to pay for their BC from the treasury, simply because they are women and allegedly don't have enough money.
That's that feminist sexist supremacist attitude I am talking about.
Planned parenthood gives out free condoms and you can buy 10 condoms for about $14.00. You can get a pack of 3 for $2.00-3.00 at the store.
There is no crisis demanding the rest of us buy any woman BC pills.
Adults are generally expected to pay for their sex lives.
You and people that think like you need to grow up and accept real responsibility for your own person, and not seek to force others to give you money for every little thing, as if they were an adjunct spouse.
Demanding that others pay for your wants is what "kept" women of the last century did, but at least they only demanded it of their husbands. Feminists seem to want to be "kept" by the rest of us, in perpetuity.
I know it might be devastating to men's fertility rate, which as Illuninati or someone upstream indicated, is already low. Between that and estrogenic use of soy by men, it doesn't look good for the continuation of the human race. Maybe some brilliant men can develop a special filter of some sort.
Masculinity is in deep decline where?
Have you taken a look lately at a world map and where our puzz...fied USA fits in?
Oh, well, the robots will do the heavy lifting.
"Maybe some brilliant men can develop a special filter of some sort."
Too late - we've all developed vaginas instead. Silver lining: we're now all bipartisan bi.
SGT Ted, but think about all those aborted babies. Would it not be better to prevent their existence so their mother's don't kill them? I don't hear much concern for the babies.
Someone was trying to work on the filter last year.
50 years of trace female hormonal elements, but, hey, gotta break a few eggs.....
Well, Inga, when you can come up with something that makes sense to those 30 & 40 year olds who should have had a clue by those ages, let us know.
"Thanks. Wow. Displacement baby. Clutch those jewels, guys. The women are coming for you, knives ablaze."
Revenge of the Boomer women.
More like breaking a few balls.
Meade said...
Not just hot air. They are genuinely worried about their shrinking testicles.
No. Already having had kids took a load off that worry. I'm worried about the next generation.
Althouse said: "The women won the gender war long ago. Surrender. Deny. It doesn't matter. We've moved on."
I'm here in Stockholm, enjoying every minute of it.
Inga said...
So, why is it that race relations declined under a black President and why would gender relations decline under a female President? White men ask yourselves why this might be. The answer is very clear.
Inga, you have achieved perfection. You will never surpass this comment.
I used to visit my daughter at Wellesley (true story) and wonder out loud, "Where are the men? How can they lose with this chick ratio?" She should have gone to UW ('twas on her list of possible schools) where they would have known immediately how to "take care" of this sleepwalker.
I'm here in Stockholm, enjoying every minute of it.
In a worst case senario, the women can always just submit, but the men...they have to die.
"scenario" not "senario" Didn't mean to inject age into things.
Inga said...
"So, why is it that race relations declined under a black President and why would gender relations decline under a female President? White men ask yourselves why this might be. The answer is very clear."
Inga, you have achieved perfection. You will never surpass this comment.
2/6/14, 11:57 AM
----------------------------
David, don't forget the comment that prompted this comment of mine.
---------------------------
"If anyone thinks that race relations have deteriorated under Obama, just imagine what would happen to social intercourse between the sexes under Hillary."
2/6/14, 10:01 AM
---------------------------
Now try to figure it out, hint it has to do with white men and their insecurities.
The women are right, but for the wrong reason. "Sleepwalking Man in Underwear" and "Passive Man in Pajamas" are role models. Celebrate the dysfunction.
"Now try to figure it out, hint it has to do with white men and their insecurities."
That they're not white enough?
SGT Ted, but think about all those aborted babies. Would it not be better to prevent their existence so their mother's don't kill them? I don't hear much concern for the babies.
I am pro-choice. Not my concern, except when people think that single motherhood is "empowering" when other people are paying the bills that the single mom foisted onto the rest of us.
I think that if single women knew that no one but a spouse was going to fund their baby, there'd be fewer on purpose single moms, which would reduce the out of wedlock birth rate.
Comments galore...but all missing a real question which is how many batteries does Wellesley Man need per session? That size dildo has a really big carbon footprint.
And a second question is does Amazon Prime deliver it in a plain brown wrapper?
Meade, it's their belief that their whiteness and maleness is under relentless attack by feminists and minorities. Women and minorities have claimed equal footing, white men ( not all thankfully) see this as a threat of some sort and react to this perception irrationally.
Could people please use quotes when you are quoting someone else?
No.
Just fuckin with ya.
OK
Meade, it's their belief that their whiteness and maleness is under relentless attack by feminists and minorities. Women and minorities have calmed equal footing, white men ( not all thankfully) see this as a threat of some sort and read to this perception irrationally..
And thus feminist sexism and racism is maintained by blaming white men. The fact is all you have to do is listen to the feminists own sexist and racist comments to know what is what.
SGT Ted, If white men quit saying misogynistic and racist things, white men won't be called out for it. It's that easy.
Now I must go and babysit for my grandson. A couple of birthdays ago I bought him a wooden rubber band machine gun. How's that for being a rabid feminist grandma?
How is "Pay for your own vajays recreational calendar yourself." sexist and misogynistic?
Calling a slutty woman a slut may be nasty, but it isn't misogyny. Its an accurate depiction of a loose woman.
Neither is making fun of hothouse flower sexist feminists that demand the world revolve around their desires and sensitivities.
Sexually free Feminists call themselves sluts, for empowerment. I am merely going along with it. So whatever.
Your framing has fallen apart and isn't intellectually sustainable. The fact is, you NEED the truth to be delegitimized in order to justify your sexism against men that disagree with your redistributionist politics.
Women aren't sacred. Get a job and quit looking to other people to pay your bills. It is really that simple.
A couple of birthdays ago I bought him a wooden rubber band machine gun. How's that for being a rabid feminist grandma?
That was your reaction to a photo of one that I posted, IIRC.
LOL -- white man's burden.
Anyways, I applaud your choice!
Now I must go and babysit for my grandson. A couple of birthdays ago I bought him a wooden rubber band machine gun. How's that for being a rabid feminist grandma?
Those things are so cool. At least you understand boys. :)
Inga: "SGT Ted, If white men quit saying misogynistic and racist things, white men won't be called out for it. It's that easy."
LOL
Sure Inga.
It's not like anyone on the left will invent new "dog whistles" and generic "privilege" arguments to extend the "calling out of those horrible racist, misogynistic, sexist, homophobic christian dominionist business-type military warrior white males.
Nope.
That would never happen.
At all.
Ever.
LOL
@Inga
You are such a depraved and vindictive woman. How is it you see yourself otherwise? Amazes me.
I am surrounded by women who love me, never speak the word "feminism," and would serve you a nice cup of coffee, talk nice to you and ask me when you left why you've got that huge burr up your ass.
They are women. I don't hate women. I love the women I'm with. I hate women like you.
It's a selective process... see? Try to get your little pea brain around this idea. I don't have to put up with women like you. There is no obligation to put up with depraved, confused assholes. Not even if they're women.
I guess art that creates an emotional response but isn't "obvious" isn't real art. Should have made a statue of a heroic law professor, I suppose.
Anglelyne said...
"The part of your comment to which I was responding here specifically blamed low birth rates in the West on "misandry". "The relation of fertility to emancipation and suffrage is a different point. Again, do the ladies in Singapore or Japan hate men more than crazy Swedish feminists, or American women in some lower cost-of-living flyover areas? (I'll understand if you'd just like to quietly drop this line of inquiry.)"
I hope it is not too late to pick this thread back up. I have an appointment in about 30 minutes but will check this site when I get back.
I believe the decreased birth rates in Western and Westernized countries are multifactorial. The misandry is a major factor but not the only factor. As I have stated earlier, male sperm counts have been decreasing over time, presumably caused by environmental factors, and may well contribute to lower birth rates. Abortion on demand is a major factor in decreasing birth rates. In China the government has instituted a one child policy. Female education also contributes to lower birth rates. Most of these factors which depress birth rates are exacerbated by the misandry. Women in two parent traditional families tend to have larger families.
The patriarchal society in which women are really repressed, particularly Islam, tends to have higher birth rates because there are less abortions and women have less power to determine family size.
I have to go, but hope we can pick up the conversation later this afternoon.
Inga is the new 'J' and Andy Hat Boy rolled into one. A generator of toxicity and comments.
I can't believe Rusty agreeing with me and committing the format offense discussed just yesterday.
The sculptor is giving a speech at Wellesley tonight.
He was interviewed by the Globe:
http://www.boston.com/yourcampus/news/wellesley/2014/02/qa_with_tony_matelli_artist_behind_wellesley_colleges_scantily-clad_sleepwalking_statue.html
I think i would probably do him-love the glasses.
tits.
Women and minorities have claimed equal footing, white men ( not all thankfully) see this as a threat of some sort and react to this perception irrationally.
I suppose the '( not all thankfully)' white men are democrats.
This is such self-serving BS. It implies that every woman voting for whatever democrat is on the ballot does so primarily for the right to sport fuck without cost or consequence. I have to believe that there are a lot of democrat woman voters who make their decision to vote their party candidate for reasons more responsible than that.
The 'war on woman' appeals to a very small subset. It's worth the democrats touting it to lock those fools' votes up but fighting that battle that is not where conservatives should concentrate their efforts. Those woman are not worth the effort.
It implies that every woman voting for whatever democrat is on the ballot does so primarily for the right to sport fuck without cost or consequence.
What is the threshold when sport fucking becomes slutting?
What is the threshold when sport fucking becomes slutting?
Dunno. Are they the same thing? Doesn't matter. The issues are who's responsible to support either definition whether its cost - BC - or consequence - abortion and whether a third party not wanting to support it is misogynistic and/or warring against woman's rights.
I suggest that the idea of insisting that a third party supports the cost and consequences or be considered misogynistic is insulting to both camps. Its insulting to women (and men) who do take personal responsibility for their sex lives because it suggests that they are dupes. And its insulting to women (and men) who don't take personal responsibility for their sex lives because it suggests that they are children.
A woman has the right to pursue her own happiness and if sport fucking, or slutting, defines that, sobeit. What she does not have is the right to force anyone else, except arguably and morally her partners, the underwrite the cost and consequences of that pursuit. I do not ask any feminist to support my pursuit of happiness which is large part defined by my marriage and where along with every other aspect of marriage we take all responsibility for the cost and consequences of our sex lives.
It appears as the discussion with Anglelyne is dead. Perhaps we can take up the discussion in the future.
I do want to make one or two more points.
Anglelyne said:
"The birth rates in advanced non-Western places are below replacement level. Guess Singapore and Hong Kong and Japan, etc., must be full of man-haters, too. For that matter, countries with the nuttiest feminists (say, Sweden) have higher TFR among the natives than countries with fewer nutty feminists (say, Spain or Italy)."
Any group that has a below replacement level of reproduction is in danger unless they reverse the trend. Debating the exact numbers between Sweden and Italy is difficult. For instance, how do we know that Sweden has more man hating feminists than Spain or Italy? Your point about Singapore and Hong Kong and Japan that their women are less hostile to men may be correct. For that reason, I suspect they will stabilize instead of undergoing demographic collapse like we are seeing in Europe.
"When you have to start defining East Asian nations with rock-bottom fertility rates as "de facto matriarchies" to fit your theory, that's a pretty good sign that your nice neat mono-causal explanatory model may need a bit of rethinking."
I meant my statement about the fact that in many societies universal suffrage results in de facto matriarchies as a statement of fact, not as an argument about your point about demographics. There are a few democracies in which males predominate because families prefer male babies. Many couples practice sex selection by ultrasound and abortion. Power in those societies would remain in male hands even with universal suffrage.
Pogo,
Amazing! How can you possibly be that brilliant at 7:00am???
Saint Croix,
"Men would fondle the statue in public. "
In-con-ceivable!!!
"All the men would like the statue. They would have affection for the statue. They would go out of their way, not to avoid the statue, but to see it again. Woo-hoo, almost naked woman on the public square, all right!"
This is the comment that set Althouse off.
Anglelyne said: It was a silly comment....think about for two seconds. Without the kneejerk "anti-feminist" filter.
Of course its silly. Thats not my point. I just found it curious that Althouse would overreact with such contempt to such a benign remark. Makes me wonder if she needs therapy. Althouse seems pissed off that men would not take the statue seriously - that means she's the one with a problem, not us.
Unfortunately, her reaction does make more sense when placed in context with her recent meltdown over men going Galt (I think she referred to them as "pussies").
Post a Comment