My god, but the stupid is past burning...
May. 26th, 2010 09:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI am going to assume you are all sitting down for this.
I am going to assume you have neither liquids in your mouth, nor delicate objects near to hand.
Because I have, I think, encountered one of the most incomprehensible arguments of Libertarian MRA... nonsense is too generous. Words fail me.
First... realise that Roissy thinks this thing was a good observation on male female relationships.
Second, and this is the part which is hard to fathom... this guy is arguing that... no, I can't sum up; it would take too long. I'll have to quote him.
Rape is equality
It's not hyperbole. It's not poorly phrased (thought, expressed, whatever rationalisation you might like to get around the bald-faced horror of that concept) he defends it in comments.
His thesis is that men have money, power, social leverage, etc, and women are taking it away from them, so; to balance the books, and establish a truly equal footing men need to take something from women. That would be sex. If you take away men's resources and status in the interest of "equality" then we need to introduce sexual coercion to reestablish sexual fairness, if not equality, and, "Rape is making the best of a bad job and men know this instinctively. And it does not take an awful lot of men with my mindset to make life as unpleasant for women as it is for men. Think about it -- do you women really want equality? If you you aren't willing to put up with men demanding the equal right to have sex anytime we want just as women can, then doing things such as forcibly dissolving Norwegian companies who don't have at least 40% women in the boardrooms and other affirmative action is probably a bad move.
The buried ideas in that are croggling. When you read further, in the comment you see that women have gotten what equality they have not because it is just, but because they have stolen it (by force... he's a Libertarian, so the gov't passing a law which prevents discrimination is a taking, a la Rand Paul. There is a whole lot of evil in that.
When you parse out his thoughts, they boil down to women aren't really people.
For every female beneficiary of affirmative action there is, by definition, a male victim. I am not just speaking for myself. , I think he's trying to say women aren't actually capable of being competent at anything, esp. when I see, "still you are saying that it is more OK for a man to be forcibly stripped of his money, status and power in the name of "equality," because he doesn't really "own" it, while a woman's assets -- her body -- is inviolable because she owns it. So you are saying that a man cannot even in principle own anything valuable and inviolable that the opposite sex wants. I am arguing that those assets are morally equal and that if it is OK use affirmative action to redistribute male assets to women, even if men have earned these assets though superior motivation and harder work because we desperately need them to attract a mate, and probably because of superior ability on average in many profitable fields, then it is also OK for men to forcibly take what we want from women, which is sex. ."
Note the weasel words, "probably because of superior ability on average." The mind boggles. The thing in there which is so sad is the idea that the only thing women want is material goods.
Hogwash. I have never been rich. I have never been more than tolerably comfortable. This has not kept me from having a fair number of women find me interesting, and sexually desirable. I have even (shock of shocks) been able to have a moderate amount of romantic, and some purely libidinous, success with women I was interested in. Not having to put up with, "some Alpha's cast-offs" as Roissy and Berge seem to think ought to be my light (I'm no Cary Grant, no Brad Pitt and no Donald Trump. I am not an asshole to other men, nor a jerk to women. By the model they have I am supposed to be teaching myself to enjoy enforced abstinence as a way of life, so I can stop suffering the, "pangs of dispris'd love. If this my life has been so abstinent as all that, I'll be happy to live in the monastery).
What really irritates me (the equality = men are losing out so women need to be raped thing doesn't irritate me. It makes me both angry, and pitiful. Angry that this little twit can be seriously arguing it [even as a gedanken experiment and pitiful that he is so pathetic in his failures) is that he can believe this would somehow make things equal. He doesn't really seem to think it would make things better.
Which means he doesn't think women should be equal. Since he is a libertarian, and so thinks all people should be allowed to do what they will, and holds that women aren't entitled to equality (at least not in a world worth living in) it must therefore follow that he doesn't really think women are people.
Which is, actually, so blindingly obvious from the get go that I wonder at my being upset enough to waste all your time pointing it out.
But, to close, lets posit a little thought experiment of our own... would Eivind Berge be willing to have been born a women, in the present age where they are, by his lights, in the catbird seat; they have "forced" equality economically, and situational superiority sexually/emotionally.
Anyone want to take the bet he wants to be a woman? I'd even be willing to offer odds.
I am going to assume you have neither liquids in your mouth, nor delicate objects near to hand.
Because I have, I think, encountered one of the most incomprehensible arguments of Libertarian MRA... nonsense is too generous. Words fail me.
First... realise that Roissy thinks this thing was a good observation on male female relationships.
Second, and this is the part which is hard to fathom... this guy is arguing that... no, I can't sum up; it would take too long. I'll have to quote him.
Rape is equality
It's not hyperbole. It's not poorly phrased (thought, expressed, whatever rationalisation you might like to get around the bald-faced horror of that concept) he defends it in comments.
His thesis is that men have money, power, social leverage, etc, and women are taking it away from them, so; to balance the books, and establish a truly equal footing men need to take something from women. That would be sex. If you take away men's resources and status in the interest of "equality" then we need to introduce sexual coercion to reestablish sexual fairness, if not equality, and, "Rape is making the best of a bad job and men know this instinctively. And it does not take an awful lot of men with my mindset to make life as unpleasant for women as it is for men. Think about it -- do you women really want equality? If you you aren't willing to put up with men demanding the equal right to have sex anytime we want just as women can, then doing things such as forcibly dissolving Norwegian companies who don't have at least 40% women in the boardrooms and other affirmative action is probably a bad move.
The buried ideas in that are croggling. When you read further, in the comment you see that women have gotten what equality they have not because it is just, but because they have stolen it (by force... he's a Libertarian, so the gov't passing a law which prevents discrimination is a taking, a la Rand Paul. There is a whole lot of evil in that.
When you parse out his thoughts, they boil down to women aren't really people.
For every female beneficiary of affirmative action there is, by definition, a male victim. I am not just speaking for myself. , I think he's trying to say women aren't actually capable of being competent at anything, esp. when I see, "still you are saying that it is more OK for a man to be forcibly stripped of his money, status and power in the name of "equality," because he doesn't really "own" it, while a woman's assets -- her body -- is inviolable because she owns it. So you are saying that a man cannot even in principle own anything valuable and inviolable that the opposite sex wants. I am arguing that those assets are morally equal and that if it is OK use affirmative action to redistribute male assets to women, even if men have earned these assets though superior motivation and harder work because we desperately need them to attract a mate, and probably because of superior ability on average in many profitable fields, then it is also OK for men to forcibly take what we want from women, which is sex. ."
Note the weasel words, "probably because of superior ability on average." The mind boggles. The thing in there which is so sad is the idea that the only thing women want is material goods.
Hogwash. I have never been rich. I have never been more than tolerably comfortable. This has not kept me from having a fair number of women find me interesting, and sexually desirable. I have even (shock of shocks) been able to have a moderate amount of romantic, and some purely libidinous, success with women I was interested in. Not having to put up with, "some Alpha's cast-offs" as Roissy and Berge seem to think ought to be my light (I'm no Cary Grant, no Brad Pitt and no Donald Trump. I am not an asshole to other men, nor a jerk to women. By the model they have I am supposed to be teaching myself to enjoy enforced abstinence as a way of life, so I can stop suffering the, "pangs of dispris'd love. If this my life has been so abstinent as all that, I'll be happy to live in the monastery).
What really irritates me (the equality = men are losing out so women need to be raped thing doesn't irritate me. It makes me both angry, and pitiful. Angry that this little twit can be seriously arguing it [even as a gedanken experiment and pitiful that he is so pathetic in his failures) is that he can believe this would somehow make things equal. He doesn't really seem to think it would make things better.
Which means he doesn't think women should be equal. Since he is a libertarian, and so thinks all people should be allowed to do what they will, and holds that women aren't entitled to equality (at least not in a world worth living in) it must therefore follow that he doesn't really think women are people.
Which is, actually, so blindingly obvious from the get go that I wonder at my being upset enough to waste all your time pointing it out.
But, to close, lets posit a little thought experiment of our own... would Eivind Berge be willing to have been born a women, in the present age where they are, by his lights, in the catbird seat; they have "forced" equality economically, and situational superiority sexually/emotionally.
Anyone want to take the bet he wants to be a woman? I'd even be willing to offer odds.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-29 08:56 pm (UTC)I also think he has some serious values problems if he thinks money or possessions are as important as bodily integrity. The thought experiment there is where he's given all he wants of the former two, robbed of the last one, and asked if it's all OK.
Speaking personally, I would not be attracted to a man who was not (a) my superior in some areas, and at the same time (b) able to acknowledge, respect and delight in my superiority over him in others. I don't think Berge has that definition of equality. I think he dreads that it would mean that he would not be respected, rather than that he would both give and get respect. Sadly, with his attitude, he's not likely to be attractive to a woman who could teach him the delights of an equal relationship.
Poor lad. He's like a writer who, upon being rejected, prefers to rage against the publishing industry rather than go back and improve his writing.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-29 11:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-30 03:42 am (UTC)That would be ME!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-30 05:02 am (UTC)I also can't imagine being attracted to anyone who didn't think the same of me.
Because people are not equally capable.
Berge doesn't really believe that women can be capable. He doesn't admit that there are women equal to men. Any woman who has a job of merit stole it. It's not possible to mandate that a company find the capable women; and hire them. No, rather any attempt to redress systemic grievance is false.
First there is no such grievance, second it can't be done without creating an equal injustice, and so the status quo is to be preferred; because to change it would be a "taking", and so against the principles of Libertarian thought.
This problem (that the status quo is to be revered; even if it's unjust, because to repair it is to harm the presently preferred) is the evil core of Libertarianism.