- 55,942
- 138,356
the definition of science had to be broadened to accommodate those schools.Social science IS a science, not hard one, no. That's a discussion for another day!
the definition of science had to be broadened to accommodate those schools.Social science IS a science, not hard one, no. That's a discussion for another day!
You can't lump random tumblr accounts into feminism either to prove your strawman.No, it's not. You do not get to sit here and claim that the social movement of feminism is actually a component of sociology and thus give it some sort of automatic scientific credibility. There is certainly feminist theory that enters those waters but it is not the same thing as the big blanket term "feminism."
ICE BURN .gif(And I can already tell you the answer: because you want to.)
yeah it's so much better with academicsYou can't lump random tumblr accounts into feminism either to prove your strawman.
Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, in their book critiquing postmodern thought (Fashionable Nonsense, 1997), criticize Luce Irigaray on several grounds. In their view, she wrongly regards E=mc2 as a "sexed equation" because she argues that "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us". They also take issue with the assertion that fluid mechanics is unfairly neglected because it deals with "feminine" fluids in contrast to "masculine" rigid mechanics.
The whole point of postmodern theory is to criticize and tear down ALL ideologies. However, it mostly goes after the low-hanging fruit, as shown in your quote.yeah it's so much better with academics
"Men have no idea how much women hate them"--Absolutely true. Most men have no idea how much women hate them, but after reading a bunch of rad fem sites advocating the gender genocide of men, I'm starting to get a pretty good idea!"Women have very little idea how much men hate them." -Absolutely true, and has nothing to do with misandry. Most women don't have any idea how much men hate women. After reading redpill nonsense, I'm starting to get a pretty good idea.
.
I know, I'm the one who illustrated it's sexism earlier. I was talking about using the evidence of a radical community to justify a statement. (Also, kind of proves the MRA's should be fed up with being called misogynistic, no? When it's obvious that even their more outlandish rhetoric is just sexist. Rarely do they display open hatred of women, but rather just attribute negative social effects on them.)I'm just saying it's not an example of misandry to say that women don't know how much men hate them.
Your inversion isn't an example of misogyny.
Yeah because your average man is so fucking complicated. How about a new axiom: if you can sip a coke with a straw you can do well with men.Because womenwantto be objects/manipulated. You don't blame men because it's something women want and something that works, and trust me, that works a bazillion times better empirically than any rational gender equalism attitude (unfortunately - we don't want to be this way).
There's a famous axiom that if you can keep a 2nd grader entertained, you'll do well with women. That's not a coincidence.
I'm pretty sure most MRA rhetoric paints women as nothing more than objects/children to be manipulated, which is pretty damn misogynistic.
You clearly misunderstand the amount of reverence women have for ice cream, especially early/mid menopausal women.
"So now that women don't need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is, 'You know we need you in the way we need ice cream - you'll be more ornamental.'--Dowd.
So, feminism IS misandric overall? But just not those quotes. Okay, I get it now. Glad we cleared that up.
Men would be ecstatic if all relationships were completely transactional in nature, so long as they always felt they were coming out on the winning side of the transaction.Do you not think many men would be ecstatic to approach relationships with a higher-order rationality to them, one with the equalism feminism advocates? Absolutely, we'd jump at the chance. The problem is, it never works because it's not what women find attractive as evidenced in behavior. They want the alpha jerkboy, so RP/MRA designs its ideology to make men aware of that fact. First part of that is discarding of society's narratives regarding relationships.
If women actually behaved as they speak, then gender equalism might work for society. Until women grow up or nature selects for different genes rather than jerkboy attractors, we'll constantly be dancing this dance of manipulative bullshit.
lol.You clearly misunderstand the amount of reverence women have for ice cream, especially early/mid menopausal women.
That's a compliment goddamnit.
The True RomanticsMen would be ecstatic if all relationships were completely transactional in nature, so long as they always felt they were coming out on the winning side of the transaction.
The problem is that transactional relationships are demonstrably horrible environments for both the mental health of the participants and for any unfortunate children that might accidentally spawn from them.
Think about it: when is a woman ever romantic? It's always men facilitating romance in an effort for women to experience it, never the other way around. Flowers, proposals, candlelight dinners, picnics, a walk on the beach, all men. Women are the transactional ones, not men. Ever see those articles about how sexy it is for guy to 'help out around the house' (so to give him sex in exchange for doing laundry)? Even Sandberg's quote says it. That's transactional.Tomassi_sl said:It is men who are the real romantics. It's men who are the imaginative ones when it comes to romance, and all in an effort to provide a woman with the romantic experiences she says she wants. Romance is what men perceive it to be for women.