Monday, October 12, 2009

Some Things Make Me Stabby

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.


  1. "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)"

    That makes no sense. If many women embrace a "masculine" style, and many men a "feminine" style, on what basis is the style masculine or feminine? Isn't it just two different styles of teaching? Labeling the presumed inferior style as feminine is just misogyny, as you pointed out.

  2. Wow, this guy wouldn't last a minute in a discussion with me and my girlfriends. A few beers wouldn't wash away the sting of the ego bruising he would receive. Silly man, we don't play like little girls.

  3. Statistical evidence to prove that I got laid this weekend is sketchy, however there is plenty of anecdotal evidence. For one, I talked to several members of the female gender, several of whom I would have slept with given the chance. Other people who talked to desirable people of their preferred sexual partner type claim that they had sex this weekend. Therefore, since I talked to women and other people who talked to women had sex, I got laid this weekend.

    And I did it in a very manly way, too, missionary style, me on top, because the feminine approach to having sex is to lie on her back and wait for things to happen while the masculine approach is to dominate the situation, engage in sexual behavior when and as he sees fit, then fall asleep. Since relations were engaged by both parties according to their preferred approach, an enjoyable time was had by all.

    In this experience, too, we can know that women are not capable of follow-through. For my partner this weekend, like so many before her, only remembered to leave six digits of her phone number. We can also assume that all women have to work early on Sunday mornings, since in my experience my partners are usually gone before I wake up in the morning.

  4. Straw Man----5
    Straw Woman--4

    but I left before the game was over.

  5. FUCK.

    Fuck fuckety fucked up fucking fuckers of a fuck. PF, don't stab all of them, I'm coming around with a fucking mini-gun.

    There are quite a few numbers of words I find horribly offensive, and will not say under any conditions, but the inhumane amounts of irony in this particular case is just enough to make me do it.

    Family Security Matters are a bunch of fucking CUNTS!!!!!

    - Quasar

  6. [feathers settling back into place, minigun barrel spinning to a stop]

    Okay, so apparently I have a beserk button. Who knew?

    Having recovered a little bit of sanity...

    I'd like to share what I know about about the Yin/Yang, the most well known Taoist symbol. The dark side represents Yin, the 'feminine', which can be described as the passive power of the universe, the light side Yang, which is 'masculine', the agressive power. (Note that darkness and light in chinese philosophy don't have the bad/good baggage that having an omnipowerful "God of Light" for most of our history has forced on westerners. Or maybe it was George Lucas that did that, who knows?).

    The whole point of the symbol is that the two are equal, but different. Martial arts are a good analogy: Judo is representative of Yin: in Judo you use your opponents energy against them, throwing and dodging instead of punching and kicking. Intelligence and technique are more valuble than strength and speed in a judo bout. Karate, on the other hand, is the opposite: strikes and kicks. Strength and speed are an advantage.

    Yin, even though it is more passive and quieter, is no less powerful than Yang. It's been described as a river, quietly flowing along it's course, not trying to change anything, but nevertheless carving out a massive canyon (yep, the ancient chinese knew more about geology than YEC's ;) ).

    I get pissed when someone starts attacking the Yin, which is exactly what these bastards are doing, or trying to do. They describe two extremes, and try to pretend that one is better than the other, when in reality you need the balance. Western philosophy has too much Yang and not enough Yin as it is: our treatment of the earth is proof of that. Yang is destructive, Yin is creative: too much of either and nothing can survive, but I think we'd be better erring on the side of Yin.

    And yeah, I don't actually believe in 'universal powers,' but I like the description of balance. You need to create before you can destroy, after all.

    PS: I realise this argument from balance has one or two similarities with the "Why teh ghayz shouldn't raze teh kiddies" argument, but I'm male, straight, and about 80% Yin, so the hell with those 'phobes. Although that other 20% can get a bit vocal at times, see above...

    PPS: Apologies to anyone who was offended by the previous outburst, I can't believe I used that word, but it just seemed so... appropriate.

  7. are their dear, pwecious, masculine manly men going to start teaching kindergarten?

    one hopes, that by the time a student has entered college, that their learning techniques are engrained (i don't know how better to say it right now). at which point, doesn't matter whose teaching, the *STUDENTS* are the ones participating, and most of their formative years will have been taught by...


    because most male teachers WON'T "stoop" to teaching the lower levels.


  8. Speaking as a male, their description of the "masculine" style of debate would have driven me right out of the classroom - and, in fact, was the primary reason why I never played team sports.

    “You’re ignorant of the facts, so stop talking,” is a legitimate rejoinder in a masculine-style debate.

    Two things: first of all, I only ever hear this kind of "rejoinder" from people who lack a persuasive argument. In fact, it's a pretty good marker for spotting someone who doesn't know what he (or, more rarely, she) is talking about. Second, the sort of people who think this is a "legitimate rejoinder" never seem to think it should be applied to them, which is quite ironic in light of my first point.

    Also, I love the false dichotomy they set up for this - as if these two extremes are the only possible way to hold a debate, resolve an argument, or have a discussion.

    I'd join you for the stabbiness, but everything I have to hand is too sharp. If I'm going to be stabby at these people, it needs to last...

  9. And then we have the Family Security Matters/Robert Weissberg "style" of "teaching":

    First, present one's own commonsensical idea of what men and women are as though it is universal truth about what all men and women are actually like. Do so while hailing masculine objectivity and ridiculing feminine wishy-washiness while, ironically, citing no data supporting one's claims. THEN, based on nothing more than one dood's common sense anecdotes, make a ginormous prediction about the DoWnFaLl oF wEsTeRn CiViLiZaTiOn.

    Shorter them: Wimmin should go back to the kitchen where they belongs.

  10. This made me angry. WTF?

    Kinda related: This last weekend - the Ironman world championships took place in Kona. There is an English chick who won female overall. She is so strong, she makes a lot of men run for their money. So, this d-bag announcer is about to interview her after she finished the race, and as the men are trickling in, he addresses this one guy and then another one as they were crossing the finish line with "haha, ***SHE*** passed you". I was kinda beside myself - this woman set a world record in IRONMAN, her third time winning this prestigious race in a row - and that somehow diminishes the accomplishments of all the men who finished behind her? Is being a woman that dirty and that inferior?

    Also, I notice it about myself - if I read something well written and good, I automatically assume it's a guy writing. And vice versa. It's annoying, to say the least.

  11. Ulyana - i heard about that, the reporter and the Ironman winner. couple of guys in one of my Journalism classes had to do a write-up of it... because they said, essentially, "women don't belong it sports-casting; only men are good at sports and only men want to hear about sports". hehe.


Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at