Defining our terms

First, I don’t often link to Dusk In Autumn, partly because occasionally he says really whacked out things, but he sometimes has interesting Roissy-ish things to say. Like today:

The reasons that females police promiscuity are self-interested, not patriarchal

Also, I happened to think about this post I made a few months ago. The post began, “I just came across some idiot male feminist saying on a blog that Superman rescuing Lois Lane all the time is “misogynist”. Got that, boys? If you save a woman from murder or abduction or whatever, it’s because you hate her!”

The poor man was clearly confused, but not only about the proper relationship between the sexes. He also had his feminist keywords confused.

What the mangina doubtless meant was that it was “male chauvinist” for Superman to rescue Lois Lane. Let’s define our terms.

An antifeminist is simply someone who opposes the excesses of feminism. Default female custody, for instance, or the wild increase in false rape accusations. (As an aside: recently I googled “false rape accusation”, and to my amazement, the first ten results Google gave me weren’t feminists expressing fury that anyone admits that such exist, but articles denouncing such accusations [which in addition to destroying men’s lives, also cast doubt on genuine accusations] and sites telling falsely accused men how they can defend themselves and rebuild their lives. That was one of the most pleasant surprises I’ve had in a while.)

I think some of my readers aren’t misogynists like me, just antifeminists who think the women’s movement has gone too far and want to hear something different for a change.

A male chauvinist is a person who recognizes the fact that men are basically superior to women. It’s male chauvinist for Superman to rescue Lois Lane because this implies, correctly, that she can’t do it herself and needs a man to do it for her.

A misogynist is someone who hates women. Not every single woman, but women in general.

A misandrist is someone who hates men. In one of her novels, Marilyn French fretted that there wasn’t even a word for this. There is.

A misanthropist or misanthrope is someone who hates humans. Of either sex.

And as long as I’m defining terms: a feminist is a person who subscribes to the myth that women are intellectually and morally equal to men, and that they can be, not merely allowed, but encouraged to engage in traditionally male pursuits and freed from traditional obligations (such as chastity and child care) without harm to society.

Advertisements

15 Responses to “Defining our terms”

  1. Derek Says:

    I would probally define myself as Male chauvinist.

    However, it's very clear there are women equal to most men and better than some men. So excluding all women and including all men on the basis of sex would be fundamentally unfair (just as feminism had a good point about some deserving women being unfairly excluded).

    Instead I purpose that the right to vote, hold public office, ect be earned via some kind of public service (at least 4 years without pay, something very difficult) and a strong history, human nature, and ethics exam. The granting of such rights would also require all such people to serve in the military during times of war (you have to be willing to die for the rights) and perform other public services as required.

    A system like this should cause the best of both sexes to rise to the top politically. I don't have much hope for universal voting rights and democracy. Republics where people have proven themselves worthy of leadership and responsibility is the way to go.

    Well that's my idea. How do you think our society should be structured with regards to rights and voting?

  2. Derek Says:

    I would probally define myself as Male chauvinist.

    However, it's very clear there are women equal to most men and better than some men. So excluding all women and including all men on the basis of sex would be fundamentally unfair (just as feminism had a good point about some deserving women being unfairly excluded).

    Instead I purpose that the right to vote, hold public office, ect be earned via some kind of public service (at least 4 years without pay, something very difficult) and a strong history, human nature, and ethics exam. The granting of such rights would also require all such people to serve in the military during times of war (you have to be willing to die for the rights) and perform other public services as required.

    A system like this should cause the best of both sexes to rise to the top politically. I don't have much hope for universal voting rights and democracy. Republics where people have proven themselves worthy of leadership and responsibility is the way to go.

    Well that's my idea. How do you think our society should be structured with regards to rights and voting?

  3. Derek Says:

    I would probally define myself as Male chauvinist.

    However, it's very clear there are women equal to most men and better than some men. So excluding all women and including all men on the basis of sex would be fundamentally unfair (just as feminism had a good point about some deserving women being unfairly excluded).

    Instead I purpose that the right to vote, hold public office, ect be earned via some kind of public service (at least 4 years without pay, something very difficult) and a strong history, human nature, and ethics exam. The granting of such rights would also require all such people to serve in the military during times of war (you have to be willing to die for the rights) and perform other public services as required.

    A system like this should cause the best of both sexes to rise to the top politically. I don't have much hope for universal voting rights and democracy. Republics where people have proven themselves worthy of leadership and responsibility is the way to go.

    Well that's my idea. How do you think our society should be structured with regards to rights and voting?

  4. Female Misogynist Says:

    Derek,

    That sounds like a good, quite reasonable idea. And any system based on merit will automatically keep most of the women out.

    Basically, I think that if women, or any "minority" group, want to get into any field, they should expect to conform to the existing standards, rather than lower standards so that people who aren't white men can get in. Affirmative action means that nonwhite people can get jobs or into colleges with lower test scores than are expected of whites. (For a horrifying expose of this, read The Affirmative Action Hoax.) Feminists also keep demanding that physical standards be lowered so that more women can be firefighters, police officers, and soldiers.

    Workplaces have been forced to accept all kinds of childish behavior because they aren't allowed to fire badly behaved women. It would have been better for everyone if instead, women who wanted to join traditionally male professions had been held to male standards of behavior and ability. Colleges have had to lower their general standards so that people who got in via politics rather than ability can do the work. Here's one example.

    And if we homosexuals want our orientation to be tolerated, we should be expected to behave by the same rules heterosexuals have always lived by: waiting for a commitment before having sex, committing for life unless something very very serious happens, and no bath house orgies. Instead, heterosexuals have started behaving like us, only when they do it, because there's so many more of them, the social fabric collapses, and unwanted pregnancy happens, with all its attendant problems.

    Nobody has a "right" to enter into the institutions built by straight white men who were willing to work hard and conform to a strict code of ethics.

  5. Female Misogynist Says:

    Derek,

    That sounds like a good, quite reasonable idea. And any system based on merit will automatically keep most of the women out.

    Basically, I think that if women, or any "minority" group, want to get into any field, they should expect to conform to the existing standards, rather than lower standards so that people who aren't white men can get in. Affirmative action means that nonwhite people can get jobs or into colleges with lower test scores than are expected of whites. (For a horrifying expose of this, read The Affirmative Action Hoax.) Feminists also keep demanding that physical standards be lowered so that more women can be firefighters, police officers, and soldiers.

    Workplaces have been forced to accept all kinds of childish behavior because they aren't allowed to fire badly behaved women. It would have been better for everyone if instead, women who wanted to join traditionally male professions had been held to male standards of behavior and ability. Colleges have had to lower their general standards so that people who got in via politics rather than ability can do the work. Here's one example.

    And if we homosexuals want our orientation to be tolerated, we should be expected to behave by the same rules heterosexuals have always lived by: waiting for a commitment before having sex, committing for life unless something very very serious happens, and no bath house orgies. Instead, heterosexuals have started behaving like us, only when they do it, because there's so many more of them, the social fabric collapses, and unwanted pregnancy happens, with all its attendant problems.

    Nobody has a "right" to enter into the institutions built by straight white men who were willing to work hard and conform to a strict code of ethics.

  6. Female Misogynist Says:

    Derek,

    That sounds like a good, quite reasonable idea. And any system based on merit will automatically keep most of the women out.

    Basically, I think that if women, or any "minority" group, want to get into any field, they should expect to conform to the existing standards, rather than lower standards so that people who aren't white men can get in. Affirmative action means that nonwhite people can get jobs or into colleges with lower test scores than are expected of whites. (For a horrifying expose of this, read The Affirmative Action Hoax.) Feminists also keep demanding that physical standards be lowered so that more women can be firefighters, police officers, and soldiers.

    Workplaces have been forced to accept all kinds of childish behavior because they aren't allowed to fire badly behaved women. It would have been better for everyone if instead, women who wanted to join traditionally male professions had been held to male standards of behavior and ability. Colleges have had to lower their general standards so that people who got in via politics rather than ability can do the work. Here's one example.

    And if we homosexuals want our orientation to be tolerated, we should be expected to behave by the same rules heterosexuals have always lived by: waiting for a commitment before having sex, committing for life unless something very very serious happens, and no bath house orgies. Instead, heterosexuals have started behaving like us, only when they do it, because there's so many more of them, the social fabric collapses, and unwanted pregnancy happens, with all its attendant problems.

    Nobody has a "right" to enter into the institutions built by straight white men who were willing to work hard and conform to a strict code of ethics.

  7. Mr. Krishan Says:

    Actually, if anything Superman is superhero-chauvinist, not male chauvinist. Lois is rescued time and again because Superman has super powers, not a penis. She's incapable and needs rescuing by a superhero, not a man. Superman's gender is irrelevant.

  8. Mr. Krishan Says:

    Actually, if anything Superman is superhero-chauvinist, not male chauvinist. Lois is rescued time and again because Superman has super powers, not a penis. She's incapable and needs rescuing by a superhero, not a man. Superman's gender is irrelevant.

  9. Mr. Krishan Says:

    Actually, if anything Superman is superhero-chauvinist, not male chauvinist. Lois is rescued time and again because Superman has super powers, not a penis. She's incapable and needs rescuing by a superhero, not a man. Superman's gender is irrelevant.

  10. silly girl Says:

    "That sounds like a good, quite reasonable idea. And any system based on merit will automatically keep most of the women out."

    I suggest Kohlberg's test of Moral Development.

    Ain't I a stinker.

  11. silly girl Says:

    "That sounds like a good, quite reasonable idea. And any system based on merit will automatically keep most of the women out."

    I suggest Kohlberg's test of Moral Development.

    Ain't I a stinker.

  12. silly girl Says:

    "That sounds like a good, quite reasonable idea. And any system based on merit will automatically keep most of the women out."

    I suggest Kohlberg's test of Moral Development.

    Ain't I a stinker.

  13. Female Misogynist Says:

    Mr. Krishan,

    Excellent point.

    Silly girl,

    You are indeed! 😉

  14. Female Misogynist Says:

    Mr. Krishan,

    Excellent point.

    Silly girl,

    You are indeed! 😉

  15. Female Misogynist Says:

    Mr. Krishan,

    Excellent point.

    Silly girl,

    You are indeed! 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: