User talk:BiscuitCat

Welcome

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, BiscuitCat! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Heh...good luck...

I read what you have written on your user-page. I don't have an opinion on the topic but get ready to be flamed and abused by some of the more...strident of RWians. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, lol. I am going to incorporate a lot more things like The Case Against Creationism, The Case Against Nazism, The Case Against Communism and a few others. BiscuitCat (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of the people here are truly miserable pricks. You'll enjoy it. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright :D BiscuitCat (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap. I see what you mean. Not even 10 hours in and my talk page is longer than a black guy's penis. Is that a bad analogy? IDGAF BiscuitCat^{flame me} 22:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Race does not correlate with penis size; the origins of this myth are Southern US racists, who wanted blacks to be seen as rapists. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 00:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That said: If you printed this page out, it probably would be longer than a black (or any race) penis. So... that's something. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Misandry Is Perpetuated By Feminists

Right. Ask someone on the street if they're a feminist. If yes, ask them if they hate men. I guarantee, the views you present here are in the extreme minority. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 01:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to flesh out that piece yet. It's yet uncompleted. BiscuitCat (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

and here we go.... Aceⁱ⁹ 02:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1. #KillAllMen is a joke.
2. Hillary Clinton is barely a feminist; it'd be hard for her to be so radical that she hates men.
3. That's a stupid way to think about war. Further, it's not clear how it proves feminists hate men.
4. Ultimately, every actual example of misandry in this section amounts to "Look, a single crazy feminist!" and not to the broader feminist movement

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the collision of galaxies isn't likely going to destroy life or anything -- very few planets or stars would "hit". More likely is that gas clouds slam into each other and form new stars. So calling it unintelligent design might be a bit overmuch. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by that piece was a lot of creationists say "This beautiful spiral is proof of intelligent design" and I wanted to show it won't be a perfect spiral forever. But I can see how you came to the conclusion that you did. BiscuitCat^{flame me} 19:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but when you say "I'm a feminist" it makes people like me think about man-hatred perpetuated by some of the most radical of the group. I call myself a "woman's suffragist" because it doesn't have any of the negative connotations to it. BiscuitCat^{flame me} 19:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So the fact that people like you don't know what "feminist" means indicates that the term should be abandoned? Suffragist is more specific in meaning -- and goals. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I DO know what "feminist" means, but when you have people who SAY they are working for women's equal rights to men, even though they already have it, and are actually going for female SUPERIORITY, that's when problems start to arise. BiscuitCat^{flame me} 20:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I tend to spend very little time worrying about imaginary problems. I have a question for you: do you accept that there can be widespread, systemic racial inequality without having explicitly racist laws? If so, you can clearly understand the difference between equality on paper and in practice.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So, as a woman's suffragist, you're fighting for rights of women to vote in elections. Well....well done, considering you achieved that here in the USA by using a time machine to get an Amendment passed?

I meant in third world countries where they still don't have the right to vote. BiscuitCat^{flame me} 21:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You are doing that how? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Better than you're doing trying to take down a nonexistant patriarchy. BiscuitCat^{flame me} 21:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I never said I was taking down anything which is clearly written above. Having a conversation with someone perfectly willing to make up fiction is a great sign the conversation will be useless. They are addressing what the idea in their head says...not what the other person actually says. Thank you, that was enlightening. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And how's that working out for you? --Castaigne (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Better than you're doing trying to take down a nonexistant patriarchy. BiscuitCat^{flame me} 21:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1. I'm not a social justice warrior, dude.
2. I'm a dude, dude.
3. I'm not trying to take down a nonexistent patriarchy. I'm PART OF the very existing patriarchy, thanks much. Yes, I am that guy that is helping to keep you down. --Castaigne (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy, do I have to do a section on how the patriarchy doesn't exist? Sigh, I guess I will. BiscuitCat^{flame me} 22:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You're going to say I don't exist? Dude, I'm talking to you right here. Trust me, I'm not a figment of your imagination. --Castaigne (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I said the PATRIARCHY. Not the existence of males. BiscuitCat^{flame me} 22:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In feminist theory, patriarchy is defined as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women. It often includes any social mechanism that evokes male dominance over women. Previous to the term patriarchy being adopted for this use, "male chauvinism" and "sexism" were usually used; however, these prior terms do not have the systemic implications that the current use of patriarchy in feminist theory has.

By using the anthropological and historical definition of patriachy, as I see you do on your userpage, I can see that you're not really educated on the feminist theories that you're railing against. (Well, the whole screed you put shows that, frankly.) That's one of the biggest problem I have with people like you; I've actually studied what all this means and how it fits and so on. People like you...you've only skimmed the surface. You don't really know what you're talking about.

So yes, I am a member of an unjust social system and I recognize that I act to maintain inequality in order to ensure my economic and power primacy. I freely admit it. --Castaigne (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So, the feminist definition of patriarchy is different from everyone else's definition of patriarchy? Geez, you wonder why people get so confused. BiscuitCat^{flame me} 22:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the sociological definition of patriarchy is different from the vernacular, just like the same words in law have different definitions from the vernacular, or medicine, or so on. It is professional jargon, a type of language used by people within a particular profession or trade.

Yes, plebes like you generally get confused because you didn't go to college and get a degree, like professionals do. Get out of the trades; become an executive or a doctor or a programmer or something. If you have the intelligence to do that. If you don't, then don't attempt to understand what the adults at the table are talking about. --Castaigne (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Castaigne, harsh. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, definitely, especially after having to deal with Free Republic today on the Charleston shooter. My already-thin patience is now the merest gossamer. ;) --Castaigne (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Pretend you have just explained the scientific meaning of "theory" to a creatonist and they replied with, "so the evolutionist definition of 'theory' is different from everyone else's"? That's how you sound. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The patriarchy isn't some sketchy conspiracy, it's just a hierarchical feature in many human cultures. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Words have meaning, dude. A suffragist is a participant in the women's movement to win voting rights in the United States. --Castaigne (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Words do have meanings, I agree. One of my favorites is "metonymy." SmartFeller (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Metonymy is a fun word indeed, but does require a cultural assent to the change of the meaning to take place. --Castaigne (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, our Biscuit friend meant suffragist literally. --Castaigne (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

On the "patriarchy": Don't let the archy confuse you, it means nothing about formal power. It's the same as privilege or institutional bias, which unquestionably exist. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No Wage Gap

• On hours worked, we already have a section.
• On overwork: See the above.
• On children, we already have a section.
• On public sector: How does this prove your point? Did the women choose to go into government, and choose lower pay? Or are they more likely to be pushed into social work because of societal forces.

And now to incorporate these ideas into the article... The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No Patriarchy

• You start with an argumentum ad dictionarium. When feminists speak of the patriarchy, they really mean "male privilege" that is (often unconsciously) caused by bias in people and in institutions.
• "Marriage is on the decline" is relevant to patriarchy how?
• "There are more single parent households now then ever before" is relevant to patriarchy how?
• "Women hold 20% of seats in congress" and make up about 50% of the population. They're 60% underrepresented.
• "Women control the majority of household shopping, and by extension finances" might be relevant if (a) that wasn't a byproduct of women doing more chores (about 4 hours/week (32%) more) and childcare (about about 34 minutes/day (131%) more) and (b) if household spending was a useful proxy for power.

FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 22:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Marriage being on the decline is partially to do with women choosing not to get married. BiscuitCat^{flame me} 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

A minor part. More relevant is the flattening of the wage, the increased costs of marriage and children, the rising level of technology obviating the need for immediate reproduction (increased longevity, less need for "replacement children", increased base health), technology removing the need for specific gender roles....etc, so on, so forth. It's quite obvious that your view on socioeconomics is...lacking. --Castaigne (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Certainly nothing to do with men.... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)