Talk:Feminism/Archive1

observation
I have no great thing about feminism - I just think that we should all be given the same rights & opportunities. In the UK there still exist men-only clubs - in fact if not in law. In commerce the "old boys" and "golf club" mentality, where business is conducted outside a business environment makes it harder for women to compete at upper levels. In my lifetime there were men only pubs - I was the first woman within living memory, apart from staff, in a small pub in Scotland in 1974 [on honeymoon (sic)]. When I was 18, the only women who would go into a pub unaccompanied by a man were on the game or said to be. No mention of Germaine Greer? The chance of University, especially science, in 1962 were minimal for females - lovely to see how it's changed. Susan Help I'm being haunted by TK  19:41, 8 January 2008 (EST)
 * Ah, a heading to add to my list of movement successes! Thanks! human  19:56, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Voting
Wasn't New Zealand first with women's suffrage (& Switzerland very late)? Irrelevantly, I've been trying to remember a SF book I read years ago wherein votes had to be accompanied by an essay supporting/explaining the vote - can't remember who by & it's annoying. Susan Help I'm being haunted by TK  20:16, 8 January 2008 (EST)
 * I dunno, but once we get more countries in there, we can put them in order. And some of these things might become sub-sections. human  20:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)

slut vs. stud
STILL: A man who has had many (female) lovers is not regarded unfavourably, he may even be lauded as a 'swordsman' or 'good old boy' whereas a woman with a number of (male) lovers is branded 'slag' or 'tart'. Susan Help I'm being haunted by TK  20:42, 8 January 2008 (EST)
 * So true. But in some corners of life things are improving.  Personally, I define "slut" as a person who has sex with whoever they want, whenever they want (or can...), and that's a good thing.  Making me & some of my favorite girlfriends happy sluts.  But you're right, what you say still holds generally in society.  To the point where people report statistics on average number of partners with a straight face (as it were), men at around 8 and women 6, I think.  Which can only mean either the men are all sleeping with each other, or people are lying to make themselves "feel better" - men up the # and women lower it. human  20:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)


 * Heh, I read your deleted comment. Statistically, given all "straight" sex, it doesn't matter how the couplings are distributed - the average has to be identical.  I'm sure such limberness would cause a lot of men to stay home, too.  It's a wonder dogs and cats breed at all! human  22:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)


 * I know this is old, but I just thought I'd say that I've known men that were unflatteringly refferred to as "manwhores".DSFARGEG 14:46, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Residual wealth
Because women, generally, outlive their spouses (both because of longer life span and because many men, especially the wealthy, marry younger women), there is now a great deal of the western world's wealth in the hands of women. User:SusanG 23:13, 8 January 2008 (EST)
 * Ya think? What about "power"? human  01:27, 9 January 2008 (EST)
 * Oh, and for the same reasons, a mojority of poor older people are women. human  10:49, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Balanced content about feminism
Wikipedia's article on feminism is written by and for feminists. The article also resembles the irrational rant one sees in Women's Studies as shown in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies by Patia and Koerge. There is no slander-free mention of the host of critics both from within and from outside the 'Movement' that have clearly shown the Empresses have no clothes. I hope we will do better here. 12.107.17.150 02:54, 16 February 2008 (EST)


 * Huh? Kirkburn 05:19, 16 February 2008 (EST)
 * I think it's a more scholarly version of "Waaah! The EVIL FEMINAZIS r oppressing me!" --Gulik 14:20, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Ok, I'm game. What criticisms ARE there of feminism.  "why the fuck do you people want your rights, anyhow?"  I've actually never heard any real criticsms of feminism, as it's a fairly "obvious" (yet never before stated) aspect of philosophy.  "male powered language reinforces the male dominance in society" (Simone DeBeauvoir).  "Women, either by genetics or socialization think differently from men, and approach the aspects of ethics from a more personal or intimate direction".  (whole school of philosophers). "I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never let you forget your a man" - don't knwo who.  "I am woman, hear me roar" (again, don't know who) "Mamma, I'm strange".  M. Ethridge.  what's to debate?--Waiting for Godot 14:29, 28 August 2008 (EDT)


 * You can consider the ideology-related chapters in Spreading Misandry or Legalizing Misandry for starters. They are full of ironic criticisms of this mean-spirited, moronic and evil ideology. These authors make a good case that feminism is merely recycled Marxism, Classism and Romanticism.


 * You might look at the cartoons in Camille Paglia's Vamps and Tramps. For heavier reading, try Chessler's The Death of Feminism where she says her Sisters have "become cowardly herd animals and grim totalitarian thinkers".  For real world consequences these evil goons have you can read Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameless Injustices of the the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.


 * For the more prurient, I suggest The Gentler Sex Offender on YOUTUBE. For those who like easy reads you can try Save the Males by Kathleen Parker or anything by Cathy Young in Reason on the topic. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 128.111.95.52 / talk / contribs
 * Bunchanumbers, you are so horribly misguided and ugly, but I reinstated your misogyny just so everyone can see how stupid you are. Cathy Young?  Come on, you insult her by dropping her name.  She's just a "struggling to make sense" libertarian.  You, however, are a "desperate to make sense of misogyny" loser.  No pointzes, no chonklit, go back to your corner.  ħ uman  00:57, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Cathy Young is also one of the finest critics of feminist nonsense in the nation. She is RATIONAL but that is hardly the point, I guess.  Looks like the editors here have swallowed the Koolade.   Guess we will all have to depend on the boys and girls at Conservapedia for some semblance of reason.

Dress
When I was young (50s - early 60s) I was jealous of the boys 'cause they could wear trousers (pants?). Now I look at the young women & wonder why more don't wear skirts. I've just returned from shopping in town & all I saw was denim covered legs. So much for equality - it doesn't (or shouldn't) mean uniformity. (mind - I do like a nice rear end in tight blue jeans) Susan  purrrrr  11:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)
 * doesnt mean uniformity any more than geans themselves do for men and women (ie., gots to follow fashun if iz wants to be hips). I generally dislike skirts unless they are long.  I dont like wind up my legs, dont like the feel of teh skirt around my knees, and especially dont like to have to worry how i sit.  much more "freedom" in pants, i think.  though when i go out, rare as that is, i do like to wear long skirts.  looks dumb on someoen my size, but i still like it.  :-)--Waiting for Godot 13:46, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I do like a long skirt, and dislike "pants" they're restrictive. I love the wind around my legs - short skirts are a bit of a no-no @ my age although my height (approx 5ft 1½in) allows me to get away with some fairly short ones. I've never done a Brittney, having learned at ayoung age how to get out of a car or sit down in an easy chair.  13:56, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I just moved this word to here.
simple - If this process were "simple" it would not have taken so long nor have been so difficult and disruptive. Carptrash 12:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't see how "the demand that women be allowed equal political footing with men" could be anything but simple, Carptrash. The prolonged struggle it took to reach that point doesn't imply any "difficulty" with the demand itself. (I've reverted you, but if you reverted me I probably wouldn't kick up much of a fuss...) 12:58, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * (I hate to agree with a Jellyfish but) The word applies to the demand, which is simple. The Fulfilling of the demand might not be. Demand: break the atom: simple, yes. Now carrying it out ... 13:03, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Can I ignore the part in brackets? (What's wrong with agreeing with a Jellyfish???) 13:21, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Jellyfishen are notorious for being beasts of little brain. (Yes - ignore everything inside prackets - including this) 13:34, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * * considers your accusation for several minutes... formulates devastating response...*
 * You're mean. 14:23, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * We're all mean here. Get used to it. -- 14:25, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * But some are average instead. Liar at RP(Ed at CP) 14:30, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Good point. Let's call a median about that sometime. -- 14:32, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Re: Ur Edit Comment: Well I like it. 14:37, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Will the median mediate while meditat(ing)? Lord i need to finish my painting. --Waiting for Godot 14:37, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Undressing Feminism: A Philosophical Expose by Ellen Klein
To those editors who can tolerate reason, I suggest Klein's funny take on feminism as an inane philosophy. 128.111.95.52 23:21, 22 November 2008 (EST)

An opinion
Sirimavo Bandaranaike was elected as Prime Minister of Ceylon in 1960. At that time there was no Sri Lanka. Hence I changed the name. You changed it back. Have it your way but be aware that this was not a capricious change on my part nor one done in ignorance. How about yours? Carptrash 12:46, 7 December 2008 (EST)
 * She was elected Prime Minister of Ceylon. And she left office as PM of Sri Lanka. I looked on my globe, in my atlas, in the list of countries sitting at the UN General Assembly and found no such a place as Ceylon. Shall we call Nyerere the President of Tanganyika, too? Given the overlap, if you want to put a (formerly Ceylon) in there, fine with me. Hells, I'll put it in myself if that's too much trouble. PFoster 13:17, 7 December 2008 (EST)

We are talking about the first woman elected. . . etc, NOT the date and place that she left office, but when she was elected. Right? She was not FISRT elected PM of Sri Lanka, she was elected PM of Ceylon. But I never change edits that get made to my work. I just carp about it, endlessly. But you do what you feel is rational. Carptrash 14:00, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Is this right?
I was wondering if people like Bitingbeaver and allecto are representative of feminism? They seem pretty nuts to me, but claim to be staunchly feminist. It's hard to find stuff on Bitingbeaver, but much of her rage-inducing quotes are available at encyclopedia dramatica. As for allecto, there's a few links to her various blogs, some of which she accuses Joss Whedon of, among other things, raping his wife (under, apparent, feminist definitions of the word)... 86.46.192.63 11:57, 8 December 2008 (EST)
 * Sounds like far out fringe stuff. Keep this in mind.  Joss Whedon is an icon of the feminist world.  Researcher 12:39, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Just throwing it out there.
Feminists irrtate me. AceMcWicked 00:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And me. 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I live in a country where at one stage we had a female prime minister, a female governer general and 4 of NZ's biggest companies had female CEO's so whats the problem? AceMcWicked 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I live in a country that had MAGGIE THATCHER. Nuff said! 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You know something Toasty, I always thought you may have been a feminist, not sure why I had figured that (no offence intended) but it is a pleasent surprise to be incorrect. AceMcWicked 00:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great ScoTTTT no! I hates 'em. I believe in everyone being treated equally: no favouritism on any grounds. 00:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn fucking straight! Now, would you like join me for a drink? I know its early but I haven't slept all night. AceMcWicked 00:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on my second glass of Merlot as I type. 00:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Don't tell MC though). 00:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehehehe he'll be monitoring this convo anyways......AceMcWicked 00:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He (in the gender-neutral sense) who can get a second-wave feminist to admit that she is not in favor of "everyone being treated equally" should get a large medal; it is all but impossible to do. 00:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I detect snark? 00:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Irritating feminists irritate me, but that's obvious; if you're going to cry "all sex is rape" and stuff like that, you'll get my scorn as much as any other asshole. But the guys who, when lecturing a class on some sociology BS or something, ask the audience "who here is feminist?" and then go on a massive bender after about 5 people put their hands up about how "everyone who wants women and men to have equal rights is a feminist" irritate the shit out of me even more. Here's why I don't get it; if you want to promote an attitude as a social norm, why put a separate term aside to make it different and to emphasize the difference? 01:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To me, "feminism" is pretty much the same as "equal rightsism". That said, feminist analysis is far more complicated and addresses power structures (sort of like Marxism addressed class structures). I've been cool, and I've been pwned, by the many delightful feminists I have had the pleasure to interact with on a long term basis. 01:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Sort of" is an understatement; radical feminism is in essence Marxism with "women" and "men" replacing "workers" and "capitalists" respectively. I have not met a radical feminist yet who was not also a Red. 04:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You REALLY believe that line, don't you? Sometimes I think you're just parodying Rob, but you really see the world that way, right? RaoulDuke 04:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong. It's not Marxism.  It is a different form of analysis.  05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Different in form and specifics, not in essence. 05:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have got to admit that the parallels are frightening. Most women I know are to busy getting on with their lives, studying, getting jobs, looking for long-term relationships, to bother with feminism. It is a redundant philosophy, it has served its purpose and it is no longer necessary as the radical change has occurred. Much like the way Marxism is redundant. Laissez faire economics died with the great depression. Today we have liberal free markets with limited regulation to help protect workers and consumers. The debate is how much regulation it should have, not whether the free-market should exist. 04:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pi, what Erewhon are you living in? Oh, I forgot, the wonderful antipodes.  Happy Spring!  05:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is hot early this year, which is kind of annoying; although it is cool in New Jersey so it can't be global warming. 06:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * RaoulDuke, to which line are you referring? 04:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Ideology Section...
At the time of this posting, there is, on the page, a section labeled "Ideology". It has this to say:

"While feminism is not one single ideology, there have been various movements with more-or-less well defined outlooks."

Perhaps it is just me, but this statement could easily be added to the introductory paragraph. What would be even better, though, would be to list and elaborate upon some of these specific movements for the purpose of clarity. - Gameboy (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: I am aware that there is an external link leading to a list of several different movements under the "External Links" header. If nothing else is done, perhaps it would be best to move the link beneath the "Ideology" header.

Let's collect References
After a most superficial (No time to wade through the lingo of Feminist research at the moment), I dug up the following:
 * Women's Rights in the workplace: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm
 * CynicalRyan 'sup? 11:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Education
I've noticed that women outnumbering men in certain areas of study is listed as a "success" in the article. Isn't this a bit worrying and misleading? (Most) feminism supports equality for women, not the success of women above men. This statement may offend those who support gender equality or give visitors a warped view of what feminism is about.
 * I think with something like this, it's less shooting for 50% in the classroom so much as taking down the barriers that have traditionally limited women to certain limited areas of study. If the imbalance was because men were being discouraged from going into those areas (i.e., "men shouldn't do women's work"), then it would be more of a concern, but if it's simply women being able to go into fields they were discouraged from before and doing so with gusto, I'd call it a success. --User:Kels@school
 * Perhaps, but there are more neutral and straightforward ways to state that "barriers that held back women in education have been taken down" than by pointing out that they're outnumbering men in many courses. Regardless of the reasons behind unequal outcome in favour of women, listing it as a "success" IS going to mislead the average reader.
 * Also, not to stir debate; but the reasons why women are the majority in most modern campuses aren't exactly universally agreed upon, either. While men may not be being discouraged from taking certain courses, that still doesn't rule out the possibility that there could be systematic or social bias against them which is causing the inequality. Personally, I think the mention should simply be replaced with something along the lines of "Higher technical education that was once only available to men is now available to women, due to the deconstruction of gender roles that discouraged them from doing "men's work"."--Someguy (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Needing Explanation how?
This page is currently listed as "needing explanation". For those of us interested in correcting this, how does it need explanation? - Gameboy (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Hollowworld
When 50% of the world's tenured professors, CEOs, millionaires, elected officials, judges, lawyers, engineers and doctors are women, and women make as much as men do across the board, and when state legislatures pass laws governing what medical procedures men may legally have in terms of their reproductive health, when as many men get raped by women as women do by men, and when my wife doesn't get accosted by loudmouth frat boys when she walks down the street, then I'll take your critiques of feminism seriously. Until that moment, just shut the fuck up, okay? P-FosterThe Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss. 13:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear P-Foster, we have a noted bias against the MRM because we are obviously not critical enough of the feminist article /sarcasm. It's like how RW didn't give Islam it's appropriate amount of snark before. Until the anons stop editing the men's rights movement article or complaining on its talk page of bias, shut up. HollowWorld (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We aren't critical enough of the feminism article? Are we critical enough of people who struggle against racism, or should we do something to mention how tough it is for white folks now that they might have to ride at the back of the bus? How the fuck do you want us to be critical of a movement that wants to rectify millenia of bias directed at half of the world's population? P-FosterThe Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss. 13:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for the fact you seem to think I'm against feminism. If you looked over at the talk page for Men's Right Movement you would see that is not the case. You need to stop frothing at the mouth though. Jesus Darwin fuck! I'm a single woman and I have to deal with what your wife deals with too! You don't think that makes me angry? You think I'm seriously against feminism? Mother of god! I'm not asking for you to be critical, I'm saying snark or sarcasm would be nice to get those OTHER people to shut up! "OH BOO FUCKING HOO U GAIZ RN'T GIVING ENUFF ATTENSHUN TO DE CRUELTY OF FEMINISM" well there! I put in some sarcasm so that they will feel less to complain about! HollowWorld (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realise that's pretty much exactly the same thing that Richard Dawkins sent to Rebbecca Watson, right? It's the "shut up and don't complain because at least it's not as bad as some others" argument. ADK ...I'll extrude your tuxedo! 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I know this is irrelevant but,
The part about "seeing rape everywhere" made me literally laugh. Does anyone want to continue working on the article?

Proof
Well obviously the men's rights movement article is the proof of the possible lopsidedness of feminism. HollowWorld (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. All the men's rights movement is proof of is that there are some disaffected men who have chosen feminism as their target. 2. see above. 3. Stop edit-warring. P-FosterThe Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss. 13:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, you're edit warring too. Just sayin' HollowWorld (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah, well, take me to the Chicken Coop...P-FosterThe Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss. 13:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm on a diet, can't eat chicken. HollowWorld (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? It's like watching two-year-olds battle it out over a piece of candy. Maybe you should both stop edit warring, and HollowWorld would do us the additional favor of fucking himself.--Talpidae (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well fuck you too and a double fuck you from my tits too! HollowWorld (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Generalize comment
I hadn't seen this article before, but there's a lot of stuff in it that is not really an accurate portrayal of "feminism", especially this history part, what feminism was first about (it was actually NOT about equality in politics, but basic rights to not be owned by a husband - the politics comes much later). You are missing, in my opinion, critical pathways, specifically of the French, who address the rights of women to even BE women as a role outside of our vagina. I guess my question is, how much are the articles here about "facts", vs the more RW aspect of "here's the stupid-ass anti-women arguments out there, that turn feminism into some kind of trite whining." I'm always torn at RW on that line, cause if people want lists of facts, they can go to WP -- here, we seem (and it's a good thing, i think) to focus on the opinion side. "what you aren't getting at WP". --En attendant Godot 18:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing rape everywhere
I think the author of this article misses the primary reason that some feminists (myself included at times, by the way) address society as a rapist society. The goal is not to really suggest that my husband rapes me every time he has sex, thought that is the unfortunate way Dworkin expressed the concept. The point is to show that for women, even today, but until the mid 70's the entire experience of being woman was in context to her sexuality, to mitigating her sexuality, and then at the "right time" demanded she pay her sexuality to someone (a husband, but society itself). The need to always look pretty, to wear heals, to wear make-up, and not age are part of that price paid to be women in the work force, by our sexuality. Just saying, if you don't know the theories, then saying it's "moonbattery" is like saying quantum physics is "nutso" (which i say daily).--En attendant Godot 19:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case, invoking the word "rape" to describe it, or use it anywhere near that concept, is as disingenuous as saying quantum physics is all fairies and magic gnomes. You can describe your theory as in deep as you like, but certain ideas are going to jump out at you and stick because they're like a slap on the face; I have little doubt that this is intentional, but doing so risks dipping your well-crafted reasoning in dog turd before you make said slap on the face. Even if you try to caveat it with "society in general" (a silly term, really, as society is still composed of individuals and individual actions), if you do so in an intentionally provocative way, it's like you're pointing a finger directly at whoever is reading your comment/blog/book/quote and saying "you, yes you, it's your fault and you're a rapist" - and then it's odd that feminists that do this wonder why the majority of men call them crazy, are hostile to them, or at least stand around asking "Me? What the fuck did I do?". Scarlet A.pnggnostic 08:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not all rosy
I take issue with the extreme whitewashing of feminism in this article. We ought to mention the racism, ableism and classism endemic to the history of the feminist movement. Many women are turned off from feminism because of this, especially women of color, disabled women, etc., and for perfectly understandable reasons: chiefly, that Western feminism has largely been a tool for the advancement of white, able, middle-class and upper-class [cisgender] women, often at the expense or marginalization of other women.

I'm a feminist myself, but I recognize that we need to draw a distinction between what feminism purports to do ("the radical notion that women are people") and a large part of its impression upon minority women ("the entirely ordinary notion that white, cis, able women can approach parity with white, cis able men"). We shouldn't denigrate those women who abandon feminism because their lives and/or identities were trivialized, ignored, marginalized or denied by feminists with tunnel vision. 05:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * De-whitewash away. I generally associate transphobia within feminism with the radical types, but I know "mainstream" feminism hasn't been great on that issue either. Something about should be included as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most radical feminists aren't really transphobic, only highly transmisogynistic. To transfeminists, they're actually enforcers of patriarchy themselves. Radical feminism is just really fucked up. 08:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think once you've elevated any identity to that sort of level things get really fucked up. Scarlet A.pngmoral 08:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is highly amusing when all the pinko splinter-sects squabble amongst themselves as to whose identity group deserves the pride of place that was formerly assigned to the proletariat before all the schisms happened. 06:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange, a patented post that I'm finding myself agreeing with in some ways... Scarlet A.pngpostate  07:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He's out of practise. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 07:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Osaka Sun (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Attention
Article in dire need of attention! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  01:28, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Biased tone
I have to take issue with the biased tone in this article, as it clearly appears to be sympathetic towards feminism. As a rationalist, and a user of "rational wiki", I do not think this is acceptable, as feminism has worked hard to establish itself as a movement opposed to rational thinking, on par with creationism and climate change denial. So-called "women's studies" faculties generate no useful scientific research, in the same way that creationist faculties also squander money, and thus they are useless.

The former Oxford University Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Richard Dawkins, has also spoken up against feminism as an anti-science movement. He has mentioned how "women's studies" faculties call science a "male tool of oppression", and that "women's ways of knowing" are far superior to science. The problem is so bad that some "women's studies" students do not even believe that DNA exists.

I am a science graduate myself, which is why I am not happy with rational websites taking the side of irrational ideologies. I believe the problem is the fact that rationalists tend to be left wing, and feminism is classically associated with the left wing, so rationalists automatically feel that they have to take the side of feminism. However, feminism is clearly an irrational, anti-science ideology and is thus incompatible with rational thinking. Therefore, I feel the biased tone on this page needs to be SERIOUSLY toned down.


 * And yet another BoN making criticisms which don't match the article. Whist there have been some pretty wild claims made under the feminist banner equating the movement with cretaionism or climate change denial is nonsense. So, same old misogynistic bollocks. Bad Faith (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is supposed to be RATIONAL wiki!!!! Asshole. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent?  I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 00:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Most aspects of feminism are concerned with women's role in society, which isn't really an area for the classical sciences. Literature, philosophy, art, film studies faculties also don't generate "useful scientific research"; this doesn't make them devoid of academic value.  If you're going to characterise the entire feminist movement as an "anti-science movement", you need to bring more than bare assertion & anecdotes.  Anyway, I don't think this article (or the "rational wiki" community) is going to stop being sympathetic towards feminism any time soon.  00:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) While I agree with the BoN that it is very difficult to find anything resembling scholarship in most "women's studies" departments (as in most departments with a name ending in "studies"), and that there is a distinct anti-"white-male"-science current among some postmodernists (as such figures as Noam Chomsky have remarked upon) it is a massive straw man to tar the whole of feminism with the antics of a few postmodernist shysters, or to draw comparison with the factual errors (as opposed to ideological disagreements) that characterize creationism/global warming denial. 00:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the line "I am a science graduate, myself". Why do people try so hard, when it's apparent they are just BS.  I've never, ever heard anyone with a "science degree" say they have a "science degree".  They tend to say "I am a graduate of Biology" or chemistry or whatever it be.  Oh well.  good to know women have ruined science.  at lest we are doing something right! :-)[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 00:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The part I take issue with is the "as rationalists we should" thing. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>pathetic 00:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * God how I love when men (like ListenerX) tell me that "women's studies do not produce anything worthy of academics". Bolluks.  some stuff might well be drivel, but the very field itself is a useful tool for both understanding what the nature of the role of women is, why it is that way, how you change it, and what you might change it into.  Writers of feminist philosophy, (the very people studied in women's studies classes) have made giant inroads into looking at exactly how the patriarchy has and does control both women and society at large.  Writers of feminist philosophy and writers in "women's studies" have pushed for changes in how departments dealt with women, how they looked at women's issues, and where their focus is, in topics as far reaching as biology, and education, and liberation theology, and physics.  The courses are becoming largely unnecessary as these topics are included in broader classes like "ethics", or "gender studies" (oh yes, another 'studies') but from the 1950s to the 1990s the courses were the only source to really say "fuck off, and listen".[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 00:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Women's studies" departments mainly serve as propaganda mills and coordinating nodes for radicals; the real feminist scholars are mostly in other departments, as they always have been. 00:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Feminists have been responsible for both great works of scholarship and rank quackery. In my own field, for example, the former has been in debunking junk evolutionary psychology/sociobiology and the latter was the recovered memory therapy craze. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You've taken women's studies classes? Read the syllabus for them?  Know the professors who teach in them?  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 00:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OP here. Wow, where do I begin? First of all, I resent people jumping to label me as a misogynist. Please don't make silly assumptions just because I don't agree with the bigoted world of feminism. In fact, one of the problems I have with feminism is that I regard it as a misogynist ideology because of the restrictions it tries to impose on a woman's right to her own body, but that's another story. Since this is rational wiki, I'm discussing the irrational side of feminism only.
 * And again, I'm hearing the same-old, tired, "don't tar everyone with the same brush" argument. Well, if "women's studies" departments aren't representative of feminism, then what is? Saying "don't tar everyone with the same brush" with regards to feminism reminds me of the religious people who claim that creationists aren't representative of their religion. Well, who gave them the authority to decide who represents their religion? And likewise, who gave anyone here the authority to decide that so-called "extreme feminists" don't represent feminism, especially when the extremeists are the most prominent and visible face of feminism? Richard Dawkins says that moderate religious folk "pave the way" for religious extremeists, and I would have to say the same thing about feminism- some form of moderate feminism pave the way for the crazy feminists who don't believe in DNA because they think science is a "male tool of oppression". As you can see, there are plenty of parallels to draw between the pseudoscience of creationism and feminism.
 * And in response to the people who are trying to claim that Women's Studies is useful- you can walk into any science/engineering department at any leading university, and you will see everyone at work on *economically* and *medically* useful technologies. Technologies which will, someday, improve the lives of people. This is the type of stuff that rationalists pride themselves on- the ability to make things better for people. "Women's Studies" has produced no such economically beneficial technologies or ideas, and thus, is a "junk ideology" which cannot be appreciated by true rationalists. NO ONE outside of a "Women's Studies" department ever reads a "Women's Studies" research paper, because they are useless and contain no useful ideas. If you think that calling science a "male tool of oppression" is a useful idea, then you should seriously reconsider being a part of a "rational" website.
 * Religion isn't one monolithic entity. Americans aren't all the same. Fruits have differences from each other. Feminism is a very broad term and encompasses a wide range of theories.
 * I only read your first one and-a-half paragraphs. Fucker talk to me :D 02:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait wait, dear troll. feminists put restrictions on women a woman's right to her own body?  teh mind just boggles.....  I sat for 15 years teaching religion course to kids.  how is that "useful" for anything but broadening the mind.  you're so cute.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 02:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because he disagrees with our article, doesn't necessarily mean the guy's troll. 02:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? the very nature of his language, his post and run style mean he's looking for responses exactly as we are giving them.  I am not good a "don't feed the troll" though. :-)  --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 02:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really easy to assume that someone who's trying to express a dissenting opinion is really a troll. I don't really want to get into a whole discussion over it here, but I just get a little concerned sometimes at the way we blow so many people off as trolls (granted, many of them are, but I like to assume good faith). 02:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

NO ONE outside of a "Women's Studies" department ever reads a "Women's Studies" research paper. Wrong. I am pursuing a PhD, not in women's studies, I have a giant stack of articles/books here by women's studies academics that I need to get through in the next couple of weeks. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the fact that the BoN hasn't provided any concrete examples to prove his claim. Show them or leave. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the fact that the only knowledge that he counts as valid are economics and medicine. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent?  I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 02:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not even that -- only economical and medical knowledges that will lead to better technology. Fucker talk to me :D 02:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * woment's studies don't produce anything -- maybe not for men, and maybe not for modern women, but try being a woman in academics just 30 years ago. women's studies helped us "fight the power" as it were, but better understanding our positions.  Same way deaf studies courses that study the community of the deaf as opposed to just teh medical conditions, helped push the recognition of ASL as not only a language, but a rich and vibrant one; helped the deaf community understand who they were and what issues they wanted to take up; helped the deaf community accept itself AS a community.  "studies" courses are generally NOT for the majority, they are for the minority to help them better grapple with their own positions. --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 02:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * BON is just spouting off and parroting some Dawkins soundbyte, nothing to see here folks. I find it funny, though, that the most vocal BONs seem the most prone to wall-of-text rants with no substance or evidence. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ummm... getting back on track, I suggest people take another look at how this page plays out. It starts off with some basic information about what feminism is, goes in to all the great stuff it's accomplished... then goes into some straw-man criticisms, and immediately goes into defense mode about how those already week criticisms are wrong. As an outside reader, this articles appears little more than a feminist circle-jerk. Additionally, when someone points this out, he's immediately called "misogynistic" for noticing how incredibly biased this article is. An ad-hominem retort. On RATIONALWiki. This article needs some serious revision. 03:51 December 29, 2011
 * You do know that all the scare quoting and captialising of the word rational makes you look like a moron, right? Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>sshole 08:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, specification. If you can't make an argument without even mentioning a single feminist/source that you disagree with, it doesn't look good on your part.  Just saying.  Osaka Sun (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article is biased in favour of feminism; we don't need that to be pointed out to us. We're not a NPOV site & don't pretend to be.  If a guy can't understand why the feminist movement was & is necessary, & that feminism is about "improving the lives of people" (albeit in different ways to medicine, economics or engineering), then yes, he probably is a misogynist, or not far off from one.  The criticisms refuted in the article are real ones which fairly regularly come up in anti-feminist arguments.  Maybe we should add the one about how women's studies departments fail to produce lucrative technologies, or that all feminists believe that science is a big fat tool of male oppression.  10:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could we add a criticism about how anyone who doesn't agree with feminist views is often immediately dismissed as being a "misogynist" as an attempt to silence any meaningful discussion about the subject? Could we cite all the times it has happened in this talk page as examples?  10:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We might if you would be a bit more specific about what you disagree with. Which particular mainstream feminist viewpoint do you feel is wrong. And by mainstream I'm saying that quoting some extremist and implying that all feminists think that way will not do. Oh, and please sign your posts. Bad Faith (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's getting clearer that we might have a troll.


 * I will say this one more time. Reference a feminist scholar that, in your opinion, needs more criticism.  A specific sub-theory.  Anything. Osaka Sun (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Judith Butler can't write for shit, but that's more personal opinion than legit criticism. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>bomination 11:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the two BoNs are necessarily the same person or that either of them is necessarily a troll as such, although 81.156.56.48 is an idiot if he believes the things he says about feminism, academia, etc. 75.38.185.50 seems to have a point to make, but it's not clear what it is.  He says the article needs some serious revision.  Like what?  Make suggestions.  Or hell, why not make a user account & start editing it yourself?  As for 81.156.etc. being dismissed as a misogynist, it was hardly to silence meaningful discussion; it was because he dismissed the entirety of the feminist movement as a movement opposed to rational thinking, which is tantamount to saying that it's pointless for women to seek equality.  12:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello IP editor (s). If you think there is some problem with the article you need to specifically identify it quote it and say "Look this is wrong and this is why it is wrong". I don't seem to be seeing that at the moment.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My issue is primarily with the criticisms section. For example, the first section begins with what seems like a common criticism, that it's a reactionary movement... and then quickly devolves into a straw-man about "what those retarded conservatives believe". This is actually a problem that occurs in the next two sections... namely, that the section dedicated to "criticisms" are primarily dedicated towards counter-points of those criticisms. The titles of each of these sections could also be changed to at least give the illusion that they are less biased.
 * The "Another asinine myth spun sideways" is just terrible. It starts out with "For some reason, there are plenty of women who hate feminism.", implying that there aren't a multitude of reasons for females to disagree with feminism, such as how it tends to promote misandry, how it tends to be either dismissive or hostile towards women choosing traditional gender roles, or how "gender studies" programs are often little more than feminist propaganda machines. Finally, in the last sentence, it says, "However, even in these academic cases, it is a simple case of women who are upset with a particular sub-theory of feminism, rather than the notion of feminism as a whole." This also isn't true, as authors such as Ellen R. Klein critique different forms of feminism in works such as "Feminism under Fire" and "Undressing Feminism".
 * The "Seeing Rape Everywhere" section is alright, save for the criticisms I gave before that apply to this section... except with the addition that half of it relies on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Basically, it's saying, "Yeah, some of the women who write these things are retarded, but they're not TRUE feminists." I'm fairly certain, given the responses in this talk page so far, that this fallacy will come up again... with any examples of angry feminists being labeled as "fringe extremists" and "not representative of the movement", regardless of how many examples of similar behavior can be provided.
 * As for other common and harder to dismiss criticisms, it could include sections on the propagation of statistics that have proven to be false (often to get more funding for women's groups) like the whole 1:4 women get raped one, or the lack of attention given to male inequality for a group that professes to be for "gender equality", or any number of major problems facing many "gender studies" programs, which are closely linked with feminism. And, finally and seriously, the fact that "sexist" and "misogynist" is constantly used to silence any sort of rational debate against feminism.
 * http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/10/03/research-dismisses-the-validity-of-feminist-gender-studies/
 * http://antimisandry.com/articles/when-gender-students-attack-177.html
 * http://www.datehookup.com/content-critiques-on-feminism.htm
 * http://deltabravo.net/custody/tenmyths.php
 * http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/feminism/criticisms-of-feminism.html
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350128/Tory-MP-Dominic-Raab-Feminists-obnoxious-bigots-men-raw-deal.html
 * 75.38.185.50 (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what you're saying is that
 * Feminists are either dismissive or hostile towards women choosing traditional gender roles
 * gender studies" programs are often little more than feminist propaganda machines
 * Anybody dismissing hard line radical feminists as hard line and radical is guilty of "no true Scotsman"
 * Feminists invent statistics to get more funding for women's groups.
 * There is no attention given to male equality
 * misogynist is not the opposite of feminist
 * And, to support this, you link to a variety of sources including a dating site, anitmisandry.com and The Daily Fail quoting a Tory MP. Well, that's persuaded me. Bad Faith (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail isn't convincing? But how would we protect ourselves from cancer without the daily mail?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where would we be without the Mail to tell us that feminism is all a big conspiracy against the menfolk, & remind us of the proper role of women with their bikini beach photos of celebritis' crotches.  18:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's save everyone a huge hastle and pin down what you are dancing around. Please DEFINE feminism, or "a feminist".  thank you.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 21:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with offering a single definition of feminism is, as the article points out, that there are many different forms of feminism, whose aims change over periods of time. To define "antifeminism" is pretty easy... simply "Opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms." To define all feminism as simply "equality between men and women", implies that everything that a self-professed feminist does is above criticism, or else that person is a "misogynist".
 * Additionally, those were some of the first pages that popped up on the subject. The aim was not to get you to drop your personal views on the subject, merely to point out that there are many criticisms against feminism by both men and women, besides the "women belong in the kitchen" argument. It makes sense that the first search hits for criticisms against feminism come from antifeminist or antimisandry websites. I'm not sure what source it must come from in order to be a "valid" criticisms", but available online, there are also journal articles http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf Addresses to the APA http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm Articles by university professors http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/RapeCultureSummers.pdf
 * I'm not sure what exactly who has to make a criticism, or where it has to appear, before it becomes a "real" criticism. 75.38.185.50 (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously there are many forms of feminism. I think that everyone who isn't a misogynist can agree that they want equality between both sexes/perceived genders, which makes them in a feminist in that sense -- which is why people who label themselves 'anti-feminist' are frequently called misogynists. Flitzer talk to me :D 01:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Defining" feminism is pointless, I've said before it's almost lost all use because of the different views taken on it. "Ah, you're for gender equality so you MUST be a feminist!" or is it only when you focus on women-specific issues to make sure they're heard - because those aren't really the same things as one is a goal goal of equality and one is a pure female-centric methodology. People will just continue to argue and claim ownership of the term rather than say what they mean by it, it will get us nowhere. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>narchist 01:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, I'm not trying to get into the semetics of defining feminism. I'm asking this idiot (troll, anti-women) what HE means by feminist, when he says such things as "feminists have harmed a woman's right to her own body".  If he is saying it, then it's his obligation to say exactly what he means.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 14:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not the person who made that claim. And for all the trollphobia here, you're getting upset that you received a rational response to your question?
 * More importantly, if I edit the "criticisms" section to at least make it appear less biased, will it simply be instantly be reverted back, like the feminists do on Wikipedia articles? Because I think it takes a large deal of willful ignorance to look at this article, and think that it's anything other than completely one-sided. 75.38.185.50 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just and FYI, it takes like 10 seconds to make an account, if you don't want to be confused with other BON. If what you edit really is *rational*, fine.  But my guess is, since the criticism you offer are rather weak, very generalized, and hook this strange sense of what a "feminsit" is, into your own views of what a feminist is, odds are, yes they will be reverted.  Or another way to put it - if you think the "feminists" at wiki P, where there is "neutral POV" are bad, i'm betting we are worse.  we (or, *i*, since i should not attempt to speak for others), don't take to women baiting.  But hey, try and see...[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 22:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here ya go BON, our latest article is a criticism of the ebil feminazis. Happy now? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The BoN's articles appear to be PRATTs. The agreed upon maximum on false accusations tend to be in the 8% range, higher than 2% but still pretty low. Christina Hoff Summers is an associate of the American Enterprise Institute and constantly complains about liberal bias at universities, so take that from what you will, and Roy F. Baumeister's piece seems to be him circle-jerking the more risqué elements of masculinity rather than actually critiquing feminism. Again, only a very limited number of women's activists will make the bullshit claim that men haven't made positive contributions in the advancement of human civilization; Baumeister's doing the straw. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, in an average year in a largeish country, let's say the US, there are like 200,000 rape reports. So if 2% of those are false, that means there are 4000 false rape reports a year. Assuming every report has a distinct alleged perpetrator (probably close to true), that means that every year there are something like 4000 innocent victims of false rape allegation, every year, in the US alone. Does anyone care about these people? Are there any programs to help them? Or are they left to fend for themselves? Do any feminists care about these people or try to do anything for them? You might say 4000 is a lot smaller than 200,000, but when its happening to YOU, you really could not care whether there is one other person in the same boat or one million, or what other bigger or smaller boats there might be out there besides yours. 121.209.187.190 (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where have we said that we wouldn't care about those who have been wrongfully accused of rape? If you want us to make an article about ie. the crap  Nafissatou Diallo pulled, in no way would we mind.  Multiple anti-feminists tend to stretch the false report number to a majority of cases while leaving little to no evidence for it, which very much suggests misogyny. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OP here.

''“Wait wait, dear troll. feminists put restrictions on women a woman's right to her own body?”''Feminists are the most vocal opponents of harmless activities such as pornography, lap-dancing, and other sex work. I believe in the right of women (and indeed, men) to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to engage in these activities, for the purpose of earning money. Wagging your finger in a woman’s face, and telling her that you do not approve of her lap-dancing and she shouldn’t be allowed to decide for herself whether or not she wishes to lap-dance, is incredibly misogynist. Of course, some feminists believe in the garbage-idea that NO woman really wants to be a lap-dancer, and they just THINK that they want to be because of the “patriarchy” which has convinced them otherwise- but to believe in this idea, you have to believe that woman have no sex-drive and wouldn’t gain any sexual gratification from lap-dancing, and you also have to believe that women are incapable of making their own decisions- both of these beliefs are, again, deeply misogynist. As a social-liberal, I believe that everyone has full control over their own body, and that includes the right to engage in sex-work.

“I love the fact that the only knowledge that he counts as valid are economics and medicine.” “Not even that -- only economical and medical knowledges that will lead to better technology.” I’m sorry, but can you people not read? I didn’t say that only medical or economic knowledge is valid. I said that certain university/research departments have medical or economic BENEFITS. I will speak in broad terms here, but anyway- many science and engineering departments work on researching new technologies to be used in the medical field- this is an example of “medical benefit.” But on top of that, there is “economic benefit” because the department of health has to purchase such new technologies to meet patient demands, and likewise, it can be sold to other countries. So obviously, science and engineering contributes to human society, because they actually have a POSITIVE economic output- science does not cost money, it GENERATES money through breakthroughs and discoveries. This all results in an IMPROVED standard of living, and this is the very reason why the government tends to invest more in science/technology/engineering/mathematics/medicine over other disciplines. Women’s studies does not achieve any such economic output- it does not improve the standard of living in any country. It is just a big sinkhole for money.

But anyway, let’s get back on track. The site is called “RationalWiki”, so I am supposed to be explaining how feminism is irrational and unscientific, and thus, the tone in the article should not be so sympathetic to this garbage-ideology. ''“BON is just spouting off and parroting some Dawkins soundbyte, nothing to see here folks. I find it funny, though, that the most vocal BONs seem the most prone to wall-of-text rants with no substance or evidence.”''

In “The Female Eunuch”, Greer tries to imply that the Y chromosome is linked to stupidity and criminal activity, just because men with an extra Y chromosome are more likely to be in prison. Sorry, but genetics is not as simplistic as that, and anyone who has studied biology at any level knows that. Trying to imply that the Y chromosome is responsible for mental deficiencies, just because people with an extra Y chromosome have mental deficiencies, is every bit as ridiculous as trying to imply that chromosome 21 is responsible for mental deficiencies because having an extra chromosome 21 causes Down’s syndrome. I think this is a pretty firm example of how feminists such as Greer lack any ability to think objectively and scientifically, and instead, twist the facts and data to suit their own agenda (ie. Her belief that the Y chromosome causes stupidity). This is a perfect parallel with creationists, as creationists are notorious for twisting facts and data to support their own pre-determined agenda, rather than following the data to its logical conclusion. (On a small side-note, humans have 22 pairs of autosomes, not 23 as Greer thinks).

I have actually seen feminists deny the benefits of breast-feeding, so they can justify their belief that men should stay at home with babies so that the woman can work. One feminist told me that breast-feeding is only beneficial if the mother is in “perfect health”, which is wrong of course because breast-feeding was recommended by the WHO in 3rd world countries (although that advice was changed once AIDS became a problem). Once again, this is an example of how feminists deny the facts to suit their own pre-determined agenda (just as creationists do) instead of changing their own thinking based on the facts. The scientific literature is rife with papers on the immense benefits of breast-feeding, but feminists refuse to acknowledge it.

The feminist belief that gender is cultural, and not biological, is another form of pseudoscience. It has been known for a very long time that there are vast hormonal and biochemical differences between men and women, which largely account for the differences in behaviour. Men and women even have different brain structures, with men having larger brains, but women having a higher proportion of gray matter. Once again, the feminists are conjecturing nonsensical ideas, such as gender-linked behaviour being entirely cultural, to support their own opinion that the so-called “patriarchy” is forcing women to behave in a certain way.

Feminism is rife with pseudoscientific beliefs, and I find it astounding that users of a “RationalWiki” website are not familiar with these.
 * Well, I don't know where to start with your walla text. So, I'll say this. I don't support mainstream feminism, as it is too radical these days. I support individualist feminism or libertarian feminism. I agree with you on the fact that if a woman willingly does pornographic films, and an adult purchases said films (they're called "adult" films for a reason), it should be perfectly legal and no one should be able to do anything about it. And radical feminism, and female superiority, is pure bullshit. I agree there. However, women should be able to do what they want, and should have every right a man has. But yes, some feminists essentially want to create a matriarchy where women are superior to men. They should be equal, not superior.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Colnel - since you have a brain, and i do respect you, I'd love to get into this with you. Please name one thing mainstream feminists say that is too radical.  Cause i find that statement to be borderline insanity, or just out right ignorance or perhaps too much media telling you what mainstream feminists think, but I gotta say, I don't know any feminists who are radical about *feminism* though we may or may not be radical about our other issues like atheism, socialism, Christianity, republicanism (are there republican feminist, j/k).  As pointed out in the article, main stream feminism is basically the idea that women are equal to men, should have equal rights as men, and have a few issues left to be addressed in our still male dominated society.  (10% of politicians, 10% of business owners are female; still glass ceilings and some money disparity issues and HUGE WORLD WIDE issues that need addressed).
 * OP - almost no feminists are against lap dances, strippers, porn, erotica, or other sex worker issues. They are concerned about prostitution, cause save Las Vegas, it's something that is more often than not, dangerous and more often than not, exploitative of women.  Again, I know of no mainstream feminist who actually thinks breast feeding is bad.  they think a woman should not be chastized for ANY CHOICE SHE MAKES from beast feeding in public, to bottle feeding, to not having kids.  I don't know what feminism you have found, but it's not teh mainstream feminism covered in this article.   "their belief that men should stay at home"... rotf.  WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR SHIT!   Gender IS cultural, by and large.  we know this from real actual science.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 17:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One major thing that is too radical is the thing this new guy brought up: the exploitation issue. Mainstream feminism is anti-pornography; it's a respectable opinion (I'd never use the product myself). But, when feminists want to say men are evil for consuming a product women made willingly, that's going a bit too far. If they are adults, and this is what they want to do, we don't need people regulating or demonizing.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in the article, main stream feminism is basically the idea that women are equal to men, should have equal rights as men, and have a few issues left to be addressed in our still male dominated society. (10% of politicians, 10% of business owners are female; still glass ceilings and some money disparity issues and HUGE WORLD WIDE issues that need addressed).
 * That definition is nonsense. If that IS the definition of feminism, then everyone in the civilised western world is a feminist. And also, if it IS solely about gender equality, why is it called "feminism" and not "peopleism"? Society is not male-dominated. The majority of the US workforce is female and most people in managerial positions are women. Men do earn more than women, but only because they work more hours- so perhaps women just need to be more competitive so they can take on more overtime, rather than letting men have all the overtime? Have you ever worked in a job in which a woman earns less than a man? Certainly in all of the jobs I've worked in, women have earned the same as I do (and I am talking about professional roles here).
 * DUH, i think you got it! [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot   En live 19:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * almost no feminists are against lap dances, strippers, porn, erotica, or other sex worker issues.
 * Again, this is simply untrue. The most vocal opposition to sex work comes from feminists. Indeed, the feminist society at my old university made it very clear that they were opposed to lap-dancing.
 * Some feminists do not like porn. those that are very vocal about it are generally labeled as "radical feminists", cause their views are not shared by the majority of feminist.  At the heart of feminism lies the idea that women must be free and equal to peruse anything they desire.  I'm not going to encourage my child to be a sex worker, but i'm not going to encourage her to be a solider or a garbage man, either.  That I find those jobs to be "low or undesirable" is in no way the same as saying "but women should not be free to choose them".  I find sex work for men, equally undesirable and would be soundly disappointed if my son decided to be an escort instead of an intellectual. If you go to facebook, there are several groups devoted to the legalization of prostitution, for the very sense of protecting women and their bodies.  WE don't want to be used by society.  Right now, with the rare few exceptions, there is no real autonomy for sex wokers.  They are not the ones saying "this is my price", they are not the ones saying "these are my sexual limits" and the are not the ones saying how many men (or women) a night, they will do.  By and large, prostitution in the US (much less world wide) is about exploitation.  legalize it, and that changes.  EMPOWER women, and that changes.  most women USE porn, to a greater or lesser degree.  we get that it's one good way to make a buck if you have the right body parts.  Most women get that stripping is a legitimate way to make lots of cash when you are young, though we do hope these women are using that cash to plan for a future.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 19:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Gender IS cultural, by and large. we know this from real actual science.)
 * Again, false. Men and women have differences which mostly stem from the fact that women have a limited reproductive capacity, whereas men have an unlimited reproductive capacity and thus have to compete with each other for women. These differences in biology cause fundamental differences in behaviour. Oh but wait, are you going to spout the old feminist garbage that evolution is a "sexist science"?
 * Actually, science again and again proves your simplistic understanding wrong. 1) the range of actual gender identity is so far beyond polar, it's not even funny. There are XX, XY, YY, XXY XXX, XXYY, YYX just to name the 6 most common.  The brain can be one gender, the sexual organs another, or both, or neither.  Modern science suggests that nearly 20% of humans have some level of gender disphoria.  2) almost no studies about the actual functioning of the brain, including human desires, their choices, their needs, are grounded in their biological gender.  Study after study has shown that men and women's brains simply are not all that different.  The fact that "you can have many children, and I can't" doesn't really make that much of a difference, since evolution pushed humans to desire one-to-one mating practices for hunter gathering societies.  This is not "sexist" science, it is actual real studies.  If you go to my page and read the posts of Neb, you'll see the studies he suggests I read, cause he and I both have an interst in this feild, though he's far more educated in it.  the studies are there, the discussions at length are there. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 19:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You've tried to assert that gender is determined by culture and society, and then went on to say that "the brain can be one gender". I don't understand your thinking- If you are saying that "gender" is something wired into the brain from birth, then you're agreeing with me that gender roles, and the differences in the ways that people behave (ie. men and women) is something that's determined by biology and not cultural influence.
 * I know this is only one individual case study, but anyway- there was a case of a male named David Reimer whose penis was destroyed during circumcision (or genital mutilation, if you will) so he underwent sex reassignment and was raised as female. However, during his teenage years, he wasn't comfortable being female and started to live as a male. This would suggest that gender-identity is something that's wired into the brain from birth, and the failure in attempting to raise a male as a female suggests that gender is not something that's learned through culture and society.
 * Our brains our not the same. The fact that I want to have sex all of the time, and you don't, is due to the fact that I have an unlimited reproductive capacity. So it was in my ancestor's favour to have an overclocked sex drive. Women, on the other hand, need to be "picky" when it comes to sex, because of the huge costs associated with having a child and the fact that they can only have a limited number. This is why modern women force long, extended dating rituals whereas men are perfectly content to have intercourse with a complete stranger, such as a prostitute.
 * I'll read the studies at some point.

Edit point
Main stream feminism is not against porn, or some kinds of sex working. That is radical feminists. Most feminists are into choice -- again, with the exception of prostitution, cause right now it is exploitative. Most of my friends, myself included are fine with the CONCEPT of prostitution, but not the way it is right now. If you legalized it, you would remove the exploitative part. And since most women (feminststs) USE porn, we aren't really the ones saying "men are evil". I do think you are confusing radical feminism with mainstream feminism. <font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot   En live 18:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I do hear a lot more about that form of feminism, so mistaking it as "mainstream" may be an error on my part.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gloria Steinem opposes it, and she is fairly mainstream. Sex-negative feminists are still out there. 21:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think we are so "advanced" (for want of a word that really works there) in so-called "feminism", that we are just women who all have different opinions. I'm not convinced you can actually draw a  picture of what a "feminist" believes, any more than you can draw a picture of what a "liberal" believes, or a "Frenchmen" believes or whatever.  But like i said, most of my friends, acquaintances, and colleagues would be feminists, and they are fine with porn, never say men are evil, don't want to make an all woman society, and dislike prostitution only because right now, as it's run in most places in the world, it's not something where women are actually controlling their bodies, other people are.  That could change (see Las Vagas, again, as an example - where it's safe, where you have medical insurance, where you set your own costs, limits to what you will do, and how often you want to perform).  if it were like that, then it's not an issue.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 18:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Though what you're describing is often under the banner of "sex positivity", which I think is use to try and distance it from that sort of anti-sexual radical feminism. There are some that really do seem to be outright against free choice - I did see someone write on Facebook that someone "shouldn't wear high heels because they oppress women", as if telling someone what they can and can't do with free choice isn't the very definition of oppression! If it doesn't violate informed consent, then it's fine - and that should go as much for prostitution as it does for wearing ridiculous shoes. I suppose the key objection to "mainstream feminism" would be that we shouldn't need to label the idea that "informed consent is sacred" specifically as feminist, because there's no need; it should be a far wider reaching and more powerful idea than using that word implies. It should simply be "the right thing to do". Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>bomination 18:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think make up and heals are part of society's push on women to still be sexual toys. but that's a view, and one generally doesn't run around saying "so therefore, you should not do X".  I think that is part of the problem with labels.  modern society says "you are labeled as X, and she is labeled as X, so you two are the same".  I know gays who think marriage is great, and gays who think it's exploitative, or buying into "the man", i guess - but all think it should be a legal option.  Charles long, writing in the 80s, as a reflection upon what had transpired in the 50's though his present to blacks, talked about the "ghetto black" vs "assimilated black" and how each side tended to see the other side as "not really being liberated".  but when it comes down to it, what liberated must mean is the choice to make any choice.  I am dubious if our terms really matter any more.  the BON above says "but if that is the definition of feminist, than I'm a feminist".  I think by and large, most western men are actually feminists, yes.  Cause we do think equality matters.   --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 19:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is where you can kind of get stuck between saying "that person has the free choice to use make-up and stilettos and miniskirts" and "they're only choosing that because society is forced it on them". Which is why your radical feminist types will get a very bad rep because (for example) when female porn stars say they honestly love the work and want to be there they retort that they're just brainwashed. But this "you're just brainwashed" retort can always apply no matter what because people who say it just can't conceive of it not being true. Tell a particular friend of mine who dreams of being a domesticate housewife - due to, well, you know - that she's just brainwashed or under social pressure from society and you might lose a tooth or two when she punches you in the face! We could even turn it around and saying that someone who actively rejects *cough* "traditional" femininity like high heels and make-up is similarly brainwashed to be contrary to society. This is the simple absurdity of applying your own standards to other people who have their own brains and their own experiences to influence their ideas.
 * As for "if that's the definition of a feminist then I'm a feminist", I don't personally like that definition, because, well, why have it?. Why, if it's about gender equality specifically use a term that is a) gender specific b) stems from gender specific civil rights movements and c) associated with many connotations of not being about gender equality. It would simply not make sense using it to mean that. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>bomination 20:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand you don't like it, and may find it un-useful, but it is nevertheless, the way most women I know (yes, listenerX, I do think is it by and large a woman's issue to think about, simply cause we do think about it) define themselves as feminists. we support women's equality, we see that the world at large, and US/UK/Europe in general (depending on where you live) are not equal, and we have a way to go to become equal.  I am not a masculinist, even though i think equality for men is a good idea, cause that is not seen as an active need right now - they are, by and large, equal with a few exceptions like access to being the primary care giver.  So I appriciate that in the world of "intellecualism" it's not that useful a term, it's the real term that lives in the real world.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 20:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, but because you're for equality for men you MUST be a Masculinist, by DEFINITION! Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>narchist 14:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So women are "not equal," but men are "equal." What are they not equal/equal to, exactly? 21:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The standards of power, access, money - based on gender. Any individual man's chance of being in power, having money, or being in politics is greater than any individual woman's chance.  Laws are not enacted against men's bodies, and how they can reporduce, and when they can reproduce - only women's bodies.  75% of the political leadership in the US (and similar in France and UK, don't know the rest of the world) is male - so they are a bit MORE equally represented there.  Granted, women now make up more than 55% of graduates in colleges, so ground has well been made and will continue to be made.  but on the whole, there is no need for a "men's equality" movement.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    En live 23:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question. Equality is a binary relation, and your statement made it clear that you were not comparing men and women to each other when saying "equal," so to what were you comparing them? 06:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Men are not necessarily more likely to have money. In every job I have worked, women have earned the same as me. Times have changed. If you stop reading studies and books from the 1970s, you would know that.
 * Laws are not enacted against men's bodies, and how they can reporduce, and when they can reproduce - only women's bodies. No, it's not like that at all. When a woman is made pregnant by a man, from that point on, the man has no choice in whether or not he becomes a father. If he expresses any regret about his actions, he is simply told that he should have kept it in his pants. Women, on the other hand, are free to decide whether or not they become mothers, regardless of what the man thinks. When it comes to reproduction, men are expected to simply abstain and become metaphorical eunuchs, whereas women are free to do as they please sexually because they have access to abortion clinics and contraception. Oh, and that's another thing- real contraception doesn't exist for men.
 * ? Well I guess "real" could mean just about anything here, but since "contraception" means "something to prevent conception", I guess "contraception for men" doesn't exist in a literal sense since men can't get pregnant.  That isn't an issue of gender equality; it's basic biology.  As for men being expected to abstain and be metaphorical eunuchs: what?  That's not what anybody's saying.  12:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just get some condoms, jeez. Osaka Sun (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see from this endless wall of text is that we're going to have to expand much into the different sub-theories, and make sure we separate mainstream feminism from its radical counterpart. Simple? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the taxonomy is much more complicated than that. Most major political and religious schools-of-thought have their own branch of feminism; the mainstream now includes some "progressive," socialist, and third-wave currents. "Radical feminism" does not refer to doctrinaire feminism in general, but to a very specific school-of-thought that reduces almost every evil in the world to gender oppression. 21:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I supposed this means I have to stop considering myself a radical feminist then.  22:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the ultimate quote to prove this point:

When Gloria Steinem was asked in an interview last year about her thoughts on the latest research on male and female brains, which shows an undeniable distinction between the sexes, Steinem’s response was, “Well, you know, every time there is a step forward, there’s a backlash. So now we’re seeing another backlash about brains, brain differences, gender differences centered in the brain. Even if they’re right, it doesn’t have to continue to be so. What makes human beings the species that has survived all this time is our adaptability.”

When the interviewer pressed further and asked, “But aren’t there inherent differences we can’t ignore?” Steinem replied, “Society can certainly intervene at a cultural level to change that behavior.”

If that's not blood-chilling dogma, I don't know what is. According to many feminists, there are no biological differences between the races or sexes. According to them, every single attribute a human can have is 100% nurture, except sexual orientation, which is 100% nature. Why do they believe it? Because they want to, and if you don't agree (because you've read a biology book), then you're a bigot. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 75.74.240.11 / talk / contribs
 * If you read actual studies, and look at them with an open eye, you'll find that most qualified neurobiologists find little to no difference in the brains, and in how women think. But even if it were the case, I'm not sure why GS's comments are "chilling".  why shouldn't we use society to better our human selves?  we are, biologically, programed to rape, to be violent at times, to pack in small clusters and to eat for survival not pleasure.  society gives us tools to work out our anger, channel our sex drive into acceptable mutual behaviors, etc.  If it is really true that men and women somehow "think" differently, why shoudln't we also use society to change that?  (but ps., it's really not likely that it's true.) [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot L'important c'est d'aimer  01:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Steinem seems to be agreeing that there are inherent differences. In any case, she's describing the recent trend of "neurosexism." Can you find me someone who does deny biological differences? All you have to do is look down your pants to see them, so I have to doubt that anyone could actually believe that (though I'm sure you can always dredge up some crackpot if you try hard enough). What is being denied by feminists is the naturalization and rationalization of the glass ceiling with pseudoscience, of which crap popularizations of neuroscience seem to be today's trend. Also, you might want to read some actual biology sometime if you think race is still a biologically valid concept or method of categorization. It's been dead for quite some time. Ah right, you're just one of those people who thinks he knows something about biology (maybe he's read a little bit of Rushton or Herrnstein and Murray to confirm his biases, if that), but is really just using it as a club to beat minorities over the head with. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Godot: I'm sorry, I just quoted Gloria Steinem, one of the most passionate and unwavering feminists on this planet, conceding that the differences were there in the face of unimpeachable evidence. What motivation could she possibly have for such a concession? There have been so many studies on white and grey matter, testosterone and estrogen production, etc, which fly in the face of everything you're saying. Here is one such example: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm That's from a, you know, science magazine, where they talk about science, as opposed to what's inoffensive. You keep insisting throughout this entire talk page that the real scientists find no difference, but I just gave you examples of areas of research to the contrary. You've provided no links at all, and to make matters worse for you, the feminist movement has been known to use intimidation and keep scientists with agendas on their payroll, similar to the corporations who sponsor global warming denial. To quote feminist activist Barbara Gittings on the APA overturn of their stance on homosexuality: "It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move…That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared." Now even if you're for full equal legal rights for gay men and women (which I am), you need to read the quote in context and see that there is a precedent there. Like the conservatives, the liberals have powerful strongarming tactics which often circumvent and even seek to replace science. Whether it's for a good cause or not, that's scary. You've fallen for some pseudo-scientific propaganda that survives because the third wave movement has already invested so much into it (emotionally and financially), that to give up even in the face of science itself would be a crushing blow to the movement.

Neb: You don't deserve to be addressed with your ridiculous accusations of racism. What are you, four years old? I'm Nicaraguan/ Mexican and a Democrat, and because you're a bigot who grew up under the wing of third wave feminism, I know that will somehow make my opinion worth more to you than if I were a white republican male. Oh, if only I were a black bicurious female with one leg. Then argument would be over before it started, because you'd be terrified of being labeled a bigot instead of just debating the issues themselves. How about this? Sack up, educate yourself, and if you're gonna make assumptions, make some that don't suck. I'm not gonna get into a biological dick-waving contest with you, but I promise that my biology credentials are as solid as anyone that you've ever met. If they're not, then I wasted a whole lot of time and money in school. That's kind of beside the point however, because neither my credentials nor your silly propensity for ad hominems have anything to do with biological fact. Thankfully, scientific truth exists independently of any one persons' intelligence, and it's certainly not contingent on the feelings of the politically correct crowd. Regarding race, I'm not going to spend too much time on it, because this post is about feminism. Your patronizing comments about race classifications being passe are charming, let me assure you, but are themselves uninformed. No, the scientific world (especially in public for PR reasons) doesn't deal in broad racial taxonomies as much as in olden days, and indeed it's hard to divide 7 billion people into 5 distinctive groups and call it a day, given all of the sub-racial attribute pools which have evolved over time.

To jump straight to the dumbest argument to set up a strawman would be a sneaky tactic, akin to me believing everyone on this talk page to be in league with Gloria Steinem. So I'll give you enough credit to assume that you knew I was referring to intraspecific variation on a narrower scale. so me ask you, do you deny this phenomenon? Do you honestly have the ability to sit there with a straight face and tell me that natural selection has produced a couple dozen different groups of people who generally share a broad pool of attributes, ranging from average facial shapes and features, texture/thickness/color of hair, color of skin, average heights over 6 inches apart (between the equally well-fed people of Japan and The Netherlands for example), ability to produce various enzymes, ability to metabolize certain foods, average (huge) weight differences, average amounts of hair (look at a Taiwanese and a Russian man), etc, but it's unable to produce a single attribute that might offend anybody? Do you think that nature just cared that much that millions of years down the line, a species might evolve with such delicate sensibilities that it had better just keep them athletically and intellectually identical across the board while changing everything else? Do you think that it's a coincidence that basically every marathon in every city is won by a resident of one particular country (you know which country I mean, and you know that they aren't getting better training or nutrition than other world class runners). Do you think that it's a coincidence that a hugely disproportionate number of strongman competitions are won by people of Eastern European descent? Do you think that other races don't train just as hard and want just as badly to be known as the strongest or fastest in the world? Look at dogs.. all of them are not just the same species, but the same subspecies.. Canis lupus familiaris. But because peoples' feelings aren't on the line, even the most crazed PCer is willing to admit that Greyhounds are built for different activities than Pitbulls, not to mention Great Danes and Chihuahuas. It's the same exact thing, though the process was sped up incredibly due to their shorter maturity cycles and selective breeding. Humans in nature have been doing the same thing for thousands of years. Now hopefully I just typed all that for naught, because none of this should be controversial to someone who actually thinks scientifically.

And yes, Gloria acknowledges the facts, although if you've never met a feminist who denies biological differences besides the ones that they absolutely cannot deny for obvious reasons (penises, vaginas), then you just haven't met very many. I'm not talking about just feminists who won't admit to brain differences. They can at least be partially excused thanks to the psuedo-science that's being funded by the leaders of their flock. I'm talking about plain as day physiological distinctions that are chalked up to patriarchal propaganda. Go on Jezebel and ask them why there aren't women playing in the NFL. It's because the patriarchy is colluding to keep them out! I'm serious. Go ask them. But the chilling part of that particular Steinem quote is the blatant hint at societal programming that she'd like to undertake to undo the way we naturally are. For as hard as the left pushes the "don't let society tell you who to be" line, it's incredible how quickly an about-face can be done when it turns out that nature doesn't demand perfect, symmetrical, inoffensive androgyny between the sexes. She's willing to "correct" people who weren't born within the parameters that reflect her politics. And that is frightening and hypocritical.
 * Was there a point... anywhere in that mass you just shat onto this talkpage? — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk Do You Believe That? 20:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "That's from a, you know, science magazine, where they talk about science, as opposed to what's inoffensive." No, ScienceDaily is just an aggregator of press releases. If you're familiar with neuroscience, you would know that reverse inference can be very unreliable. See Poldrack 2005. That's from a, you know, peer-reviewed journal, where they talk about science, as opposed to parroting press releases. I also like the "girls suck at math" meme thrown in there. More fail. See Kane and Mertz 2011. If you're going to start going on about testosterone, come back after you've read Jordan-Young's Brain Storm.
 * "You don't deserve to be addressed with your ridiculous accusations of racism." The people who usually get their panties in a bunch over the "denial" of human races tend to be the racists. Just sayin'.
 * "I'm Nicaraguan/ Mexican and a Democrat, and because you're a bigot who grew up under the wing of third wave feminism, I know that will somehow make my opinion worth more to you than if I were a white republican male." LMFAO. Anyone can spout racialist garbage, blacks included.
 * "...do you deny this phenomenon?" Geographic ancestry is different than "race."
 * "Do you think that it's a coincidence that basically every marathon in every city is won by a resident of one particular country..." The Entine hypothesis? Surely you can do better than that, BON.
 * "Look at dogs..." False analogy. Artificial selection was heavily involved in creating dog breeds.
 * "...then you just haven't met very many." Backpedal aside, then it should be easy to find some and link them, right?
 * "...to undo the way we naturally are." We're naturally violent, therefore laws against murder are unnatural and need to be repealed!
 * I believe my original comments still stand. Have a nice, hate-filled day, BON! [[File:Wave.gif]] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, from the Poldrack article, the conclusion begins like so: "There is substantial excitement about the ability of functional neuroimaging to help researchers to discover the organization of cognitive functions. The analysis presented here suggests that caution should be exercised in the use of reverse inference, particularly in cases where the prior belief in the engagement of a cognitive process and selectivity of activation in the region of interest are low." Your killing blow is that they advise caution in such inferences? Elsewhere, he is sure to note that such a methodology is not "deductively valid". You could insert that into any article regarding any phenomenon for which we have means to observe but not to reverse engineer. As he later observed, he sees them as "another tool (albeit an imperfect one) with which to advance our understanding of the mind and brain", which can provide hypotheses "that can then be tested in subsequent experiments". Bravo. We've just gained a second grade understanding of how science works. Now class, on to page 292, independent variables. Of course, this particular hypothesis is not endemic to the brain function studies themselves. Hundreds of cultures have evolved across continents and eras, spanning every climate and situation, and there are a number of attributes besides the physical that the majority of men share. We see animals of every different species with incredible sexual dimorphism and unmistakably defined roles, including the great apes themselves. And furthermore, we have the same logical issue with sex as with race (excuse me, geographic ancestry).. given all the other differences between men and women, why would only the non-offensive ones be true? I'm not saying all sex differences which hurt feminists' feelings are real. I'm merely stating that nature has no obligation to any person's feelings or what they would "like to believe" when it comes to which groups exhibit which traits on average.

Not sure where you got the "girls suck at math thing", because I sure didn't make that point. If you're harping on the distinctions made in the U Cal Irvine release (it didn't say that, and you know it), then I have to question the scientific facade you're fighting so hard to keep up. I notice your open jeering of a particular conclusion from a distinguished (not to mention highly liberal) institution, as well as your injection of an emotionally loaded phrases like "girls suck at.." even though the article makes no reference to any *degree* of difference, such that using "suck" to describe whatever gap they might allude to is completely unwarranted. You've read a couple journals and you're feeling pretty sturdy over there.. good for you. But you're rarely gonna come out on top if the conclusion comes before the premises, which is what I'm gathering from your emotional responses to these basic points.

You get on my case with the geographic ancestry/race distinction, which is a stupid semantical game. Race, according to the definition 2 of Merriam-Webster (definition 1 deals with animals) is said to be a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics What in that definition is not reconcilable with geographic ancestry? I already headed off your attack on the overly simplified typographical distinctions in my previous post. You didn't even try to argue the point that I made, so I can only assume that you're not dumb enough to claim that the average Kenyan is physically similar to the average Russian. You just cherry picked little quotes to contend with and didn't even argue any points. I even addressed the dog thing, pointing out that the process was artificially accelerated. Nothing about that changes the fact that they're as closely related as humans, are all able to breed with each other, and all are vastly different (even more diverse than groups of people). The point is that it is absolutely possible from a biological perspective, not that we have a subgroup that is 40 times larger than another, like between certain dogs. Natural selection can work way faster than the millenia that humans have been around.. you left this particular point quickly, because I think you know how silly it is. I'm not sure why you're even trying to argue this point, because you seem to concede the intraspecific variation within geographical regions, so it seems like you just enjoy being a pain in the butt. And you also argue based on emotion, even making some cases petito principi, as with the girl/math thing. Logical fallacies.. not a good look, buddy.

Let's see here.. ah, well it looks like you are really hedging your bets with the ancestry thing, because you made the distinction between that and race, but then dismissed my point on Kenyans Prima Facie by giving me - literally - a book review from a sociology (AKA Patriarchy Fighters) department at UNCC (lol). First of all, if I wanted to know how an argument made someone *feel*, I would've put it on HuffPo. I thought this was a site for rational people who start with the information first. I'm well aware of the fact that plenty of people don't like the idea that a given attribute can be bundled up more frequently within one gene pool than another. I'm also well aware of the fact that nobody has ever given me an explanation as to why 70 black men broke the 10 second 100m dash over half a century before a white guy did it 3 years ago. I've seen explanations attempted, but they all ended with some red-faced oversized child stomping off with snot in her nose, screaming cries of racism. But I have a feeling that I know where you're going to go.. you've already given me links to books on cognitive science written by womens' studies professors, which is similar to me submitting a North Korean text on World History to back up a point. Please. I won't link you anything written by conservatives who made their mind up before seeing a shred of data (though I don't believe this should be a political issue, since I'm a democrat, I know that it is), so don't expect me to take seriously your recommendations from their leftist corollaries who are just as happy to skew and play with numbers. I have a feeling you're tempted to link me another big long case study on the real, but vastly overstated effect of stereotype threat. I'm sure you're well aware of the criticisms of the theory, given that there is just so much to go around. Is it because all of those white guys were intimidated? They were discouraged and they just didn't believe in themselves enough? Those world class athletes who have the stamina to literally screw their way through London on a week long binge, who train against black guys every day in practice, have the best training and nutrition on the planet, and who've done nothing else with the entirety of their young lives.. the pressure is just too much for them?

Yeah, that's it! They've imposed a glass ceiling on themselves, otherwise, the 100m times of every single sub-race of people (male and female) would match up to the thousandth of a second, given a large enough sample size, because there are ZERO athletic differences on average between any of them. Why are these differences impossible? I don't know, but it sure feels good to say! The same is true for the average vertical leap difference between such groups in the NBA/NFL combines, the Kenyan and Ethiopian long distance dominance, etc. The womens' glass ceiling is a little lower, of course, and in the bench press, they only need to add 500 lbs to their record, but if they start believing in themselves, they can pull it out, you know?
 * "Bravo. We've just gained a second grade understanding of how science works." I fear we haven't even gotten to kindergarten yet. Reverse inference is a fallacy endemic to neuroscience reporting. You can even write your own! Just fill in this template:

1. Consider the hypothesis that <Stereotypical-Observation-X-About-People>. 2. Brain Researcher Y used fMRI to show that (some experimental proxy for) X is (somewhat) true. Now we know! 3a. Optional bonus #1: Now we know why! It happens (somewhere) in the brain! 3b: Optional bonus #2: This shows that X is hard-wired and biological, not all soft and socially constructed.
 * You can't just do a one-off scan and claim these differences are innate or "hard-wired." You need to do a longitudinal study to even start teasing apart the effects of various biological and environmental factors. This is because of neuroplasticity. I'm sure you're aware of these things, though, Mr. Science Expert. Also, if you didn't just skip straight to the conclusion of Poldrack, you would have noticed this: "If a region is activated by a large number of cognitive processes, then activation in that region provides relatively weak evidence of the engagement of the cognitive process; conversely, if the region is activated relatively selectively by the speciﬁc process of interest, then one can infer with substantial conﬁdence that the process is engaged given activation in the region." That gray and white matter are activated by a large number of processes is an understatement.
 * "We see animals of every different species with incredible sexual dimorphism and unmistakably defined roles, including the great apes themselves." And humans happen not to be incredibly dimorphic (Larsen 2003).
 * "If you're harping on the distinctions made in the U Cal Irvine release (it didn't say that, and you know it)..." Ahem: "This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such as required for language facility." BTW, this piece of speculative wank is not included in the original paper (Haier et al 2005). You might also notice it says: "Men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions, suggesting that there is no singular underlying neuroanatomical structure to general intelligence and that different types of brain designs may manifest equivalent intellectual performance." So even if we grant that these differences are innate, it's a difference without a "difference." If the meat underlying the cognitive processes is different but the end result qua cognitive processes is the same, what "difference" does it make to anyone but neuroscientists?
 * You've read a couple journals and you're feeling pretty sturdy over there.. good for you. But you're rarely gonna come out on top if the conclusion comes before the premises, which is what I'm gathering from your emotional responses to these basic points." Reading a couple of journals is better than just making wild assertions with abandon. And as you probably know, O Rational One, the literature on emotion and reason in cognitive science shows it to be a false dichotomy. But that's a separate issue, one I'm sure you've read up on Mr. Scientific Expert.
 * "You get on my case with the geographic ancestry/race distinction, which is a stupid semantical game." It's because of rhetorical bullshitting tactics like the ones you're using we have to play these semantic games. Notice how you disclaim the "traditional" racial divisions and then go about making loaded declarations based on assumptions pulled right out of the playbook of the people who cooked them up in the first place? It's called connotation, my friend.
 * "You just cherry picked little quotes to contend with and didn't even argue any points. I even addressed the dog thing, pointing out that the process was artificially accelerated." It would help if you didn't write walls-o-text loaded up with red herrings and non-sequiturs. And that artificial selection played a role there makes it a false analogy. Why bring it up other than to prop up racialist bullshit?
 * "...dismissed my point on Kenyans Prima Facie by giving me - literally - a book review from a sociology (AKA Patriarchy Fighters) department at UNCC (lol)." Yeah, it's the same point made by Entine, you're not the first one to come up with the "Look how many Kenyans are good runners. Must be genetic, hurr" hypothesis. BTW, O Rational One, it would be just as valid if it were written by a sociologist, but Marks is a physical anthropologist, not a sociologist. I'm sure you're familiar with the name, because you've read all about biology and race, right? And you backed up your (i.e., Entine's) assertion about Kenyans with...nada. Come on, I'm making this easy for ya, BON, I'm even giving you your "side's" citations. No Murray, no Rushton, no Lynn, not even an Itzkoff? I'm really disappointed here. Also, that review was published in a journal called Human Biology. I thought you could figure that out based on the HUGE FUCKING BLOCK LETTERS the title is printed in on the first page. Nope, we're not even up to pre-school yet. Now class, tell me the first letter of the alphabet...
 * "I've seen explanations attempted, but they all ended with some red-faced oversized child stomping off with snot in her nose, screaming cries of racism." This article gives a snot-free explanation, scroll down to Q10.
 * "The womens' glass ceiling is a little lower, of course, and in the bench press, they only need to add 500 lbs to their record, but if they start believing in themselves, they can pull it out, you know?" Right, so because women will have less muscle mass on average, their brains must be different? As you might say, "Logical fallacies...not a good look, buddy."
 * As far as your claims to being a learned and valiant Defender of Science(TM) rather than some dude just trying to rationalize bigotry with sciencey language, you can blow it out your ass. Oh and almost forgot: Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And finally, give me an example of my being "hateful". If the idea that perhaps not all groups of people are identical on average freaks you out, maybe your bigotry is showing. Can you only appreciate people who have the same likelihood of developing any given attribute as you do? See, race and gender are beautiful topics to me, because I find it so fascinating to learn about why things the way they are. I'm interested in plants and animals, including humans. The similarities and differences within subgroups and the similarities and differences between different subgroups are endlessly fascinating. Why are you so intimidated by that concept? Is your bigotry showing?

Oh yeah, and the murder thing is an awful example. I'm kinda surprised you put that in there. I'm obviously speaking within the parameters of the "two consenting adults" "there are no victimless crimes" mentality of modern feminism. Do I really need to spell it out for you? Anything goes as long as you don't harm others or take away their rights. Making sure people don't kill each other works just fine within this paradigm. Turning humans into lab rats onto which your gender-free reality can be artificially imposed quite obviously doesn't. Stop playing dumb. If you spend one more minute defending that Steinem quote, you've really lost your right to post on a rational forum.
 * It's much easier to have conversations if you register an account here. You don't need to worry: we don't block people for ideological reasons or for disagreeing.  Failing that, you might sign your posts with four tildes (~).--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 23:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well I appreciate that. I've had disagreements on conservative/liberal/atheist/theist/and every other kind of forum, so I'm grateful for your policies. RationalDeminMA (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)