Family Security Matters staffers researching the issues.stabby, feminism, misogyny, curie,science, family, security, matters, asshat
So, fresh off of burying the local FBI office under a mountain of paperwork, I ran into something else to make me stabby.
Family Security Matters published a "study" comprised entirely of misogyny and anecdotal evidence on why teh wimminz getin' teh edumacashun will lead to the downfall of Western society. (Shorter me: fuck it, let it burn.)
Less visible is how this influx of women has shaped what might be called the “style” of knowledge creation and dissemination, and here the news may be less welcome. To be blunt, burgeoning feminization typically emasculates males and their resulting flight from education is a huge though almost invisible national loss. This is an awkward to discuss phenomenon and statistical evidence sketchy, so explication must be largely anecdotal. Still, the appalling potential consequences of feminization warrant discussion.
"While statistical evidence of the recent upswing in child molestations commited by Family Security Matter's employees is sketchy, and explanation will therefore be entirely lies, the appalling potential consequences of the child molestations commited by Family Security Matter's warrents further discussion."
File that under games you don't want to play with me today.
Next up, we get a description of a classroom run by a sociopathic football coach:
Let’s begin by distinguishing two educational “styles” – masculine and feminine – as they might emerge in classrooms, conversations or a meeting. The masculine style (and many women certainly embrace this approach to knowledge) exhibits the following general characteristics.
First, finding the objectively correct answer drives inquiry and that truth exists is axiomatic.
Second, social niceties – being tactful, not interrupting – are subordinate to the quest for truth. Bruised egos, put-downs and the like are just tolerable collateral damage.
Third, forceful give-and-take is not to be viewed personally. The model is the friendly pick-up basketball game – roughness washed away by post-game beers.
Fourth, not all views are equal, demonstrable expertise is central, and some comments are not worth hearing. “You’re ignorant of the facts, so stop talking,” is a legitimate rejoinder in a masculine-style debate.
One can certainly imagine a group of physicists arguing about an experiment – a heated debate, snide rejoinders, claims and counter-claims of special expertise, even some table pounding, all followed by a clear outcome on how to proceed. Then a friendly lunch. This style, obviously, hardly guarantees The Truth but few can deny it has proven remarkably effective in advancing knowledge, especially in technical fields.
Actually, if that's what's really going on when physicists get together, I think we could argue that advancing knowledge has occurred despite the table pounding and general nastiness. Really, this asshat is arguing that men are incapable of comporting themselves with a modicum of decorum- and that's a good thing.
Then we have the "feminine style" of education, in which apparently everybody discusses whether or not 2 + 2 = 5, and there's hugs all around no matter what your answer is.
Now consider what we shall deem the feminine approach (and certainly many men embrace it).
First, the quest for some hard-edge objective truth, while outwardly affirmed, is subordinated to social etiquette. It is impermissible to cut off speakers, belittle their facts, roll eyes, or otherwise demean participants.
Second, knowledge emerges from consensus building not strong arguments demolishing the weak via sharp confrontations. Masculine discourse is authoritarian; the female version democratically flavored. In the latter one “shares” information (and is always thanked for sharing) while speakers eschew making incisive points to destroy opponents.
Third, arguments must be subdued lest they undermine personal relationships far beyond the immediate agenda. Ongoing friendships cannot be checked at the door so proper diligence must be exercised. While combative men may wash away ill-feeling immediately afterwards, women may use perceived slights to build new long-term alliances while junking old ones.
Finally, the feminine style subordinates time constraints to satisfying social needs. Discussions, no matter how seemingly pointless, may ramble to collective exhaustion. Everybody gets their say. The parallel is shopping – men want to get in, buy and get out as quickly as possible; women see shopping as a total “experience” to be extended, if possible, to socializing with friends,
That's right: women can't determine truth or make scientific discoveries because we like to shop. Notice also his apparent love of violent interplay: "destroying opponents . . . demolishing the weak." Why on earth would anyone think that "destroying" and "demolishing" are words that should ever come up in connection with education?
To repeat, the feminine styles, merits aside, emasculates men, pushes them out of the classroom and thus deprives Western Civilization of the very brains and energy that made it all possible.
First of all, I don't believe for a second that consensus building is why there are fewer men in college these days. Secondly, what do you suppose Western Civilization could have accomplished if women had been allowed to participate from the start? Madame Curie, anyone?
Ugh, well that's enough volunteer stabbiness for one day- I need to get back to getting paid to be stabby.
