?

Log in

Feminist Rage Page
Equality never looked so pissed.
More INTJ sexism that will make you puke 
9th-Jun-2009 04:58 pm

To be honest, I'm feeling a little-- a lot, actually-- queasy after having read this but I need to know that this poster-- BostonIan-- will not get away with having posted one of the most disgusting arguments in favour of the subjugation of women I have ever read in a forum that's made up of mostly intelligent people. It's a long post and there are many pages following it, so I'll just give you guys the link and then post a few choice excerpts here.

From BostonIan:
"Now, reality, according to me: The role and function of women in a population is to build the human, the flesh, the animal. They birth every the population, raise it, feed it, tend to its needs, install the feelings, and bind it together. That is the purpose of their emotions, the oxytocin, the estrogen, the endless chatting and empathetic problem resolution. Neither sex can exist without the other, but we are not equal.
    In their natural environment, men are the leaders of society. In history, we are the kings, lawmakers, shamans, chiefs, judges, politicians, generals, lieutenants, captains, religious leaders, cult-leaders, business owners, scientists, God Himself. We've built every building, fought every war, explored every land, written every rule. What we consider a civilization is us. "


Later on, in response to an argument about historical perspective by a poster called eternaltriangle:

"You're arguing at the margins, with the tactic of adding up a lot of margins to fill a paragraph.

An ancient Chinese tribe had woman leaders, while the majority of all tribes and civilizations had male leaders.
Viking women fought in battle, what gender did most of the fighting in most tribes?
Some British women wrote books, what gender wrote most of the books? Define a "great amount", give a percentage."

Notice how BostonIan conveniently forgets to mention that most women (including wealthy, privileged ones) were illiterate, uneducated and confined to the home because they were forced into prepubescent and pubescent marriages where they were raped by older men and became pregnant and confined to the home at young ages? Does that sound like an ideal environment for inspiring excellence? When many other posters challenge his ideas, he defends them with what "smells," (to use his own words) like bullshit and denial of reality.

"Firstly, the "less encouraged to do well in say, the sciences" smells like propaganda, along with the idea that encouragement supersedes inherent qualities. Prove that women are systematically less encouraged to succeed in science, and that the encouragement itself could dramatically affect academic performance and self-selection." 

View the entire thread here: http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?t=16833
Comments 
(Deleted comment)
10th-Jun-2009 02:51 am (UTC)
IAWTC. He's a brick wall.* Anything anyone says to him to try to change his view is just going to bounce right back.


*Which I'm sure he'd be very quick to point out was most likely built by a MAN.

10th-Jun-2009 12:00 am (UTC)
Why is the onus always on us to prove it? Where're his academic sources?
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
10th-Jun-2009 04:29 am (UTC)
Wow, he really has a problem with the dropping levels of testosterone there.

Don't they have a name for that? I mean, for species changing over time? Like, getting taller, fatter, maybe differing levels of testosterone?

Oh yeah...EVOLUTION. Which I'm sure he worships as his One and Only True (Male) God.
10th-Jun-2009 06:11 am (UTC)
Omgggg, oldest BS explanation in the book, JHC you'd think people'd be over that argument by now. "In every generation, a slayer is born", and in every generation(or every ten minutes), we have to rehash the same old BS and re-prove that it's BS.
10th-Jun-2009 10:56 am (UTC)
"Firstly, the "less encouraged to do well in say, the sciences" smells like propaganda, along with the idea that encouragement supersedes inherent qualities. Prove that women are systematically less encouraged to succeed in science, and that the encouragement itself could dramatically affect academic performance and self-selection."

I hatehatehate this crap. Making people waste their time 'proving' the bleeding obvious is a classic derailing tactic. So which planet did this asshat grow up on?!
10th-Jun-2009 01:53 pm (UTC)
God, what a moron. So many lovely tokens of pure, untarnished sexism and self-righteous denial, but this one really stood out, when someone asked him wouldn't he respect a (female) leader more for striving for it, rather than a male leader who was just handed it:

In the moment, I would respect the man, since he is naturally respectable, so long as he is worthy of that respect.

LMAO. This doesn't make a lick of sense. "Man is naturally respectable by virtue of being male... even though he's not, and would need to be worthy of my respect." Dumbass. The guy can't even keep his own cock-worship ideals straight.

Basically, his entire argument boils down to: I respect men for having physical strength. I resent the fact that physical resent doesn't so much mean jack shit anymore. But I am still clinging to it in hopes that one day people will see how wrong it is that I'm not automatically respected more than women because I can bench-press more than (some of) them.
27th-Jun-2009 02:36 am (UTC)
this kid's a raving nutcase.

did you ever see his posts on how orgasm denial should make your face look better? he's completely batshit and I put him (and alphaloser) on my ignore list on that forum.
This page was loaded Apr 27th 2017, 5:07 pm GMT.