jump to navigation

The Bernie Sanders Issues Poll October 23, 2015

Posted by angryscientist in About Me, Bad Science, Feminism.
3 comments

Bernie 2016 Official Supporter Survey
Tell Us What Matters To You

A presidential campaign is about the issues. We want to know what matters to you. Submit this survey today to tell our campaign what you care about.

What is the #1 issue for you for this election?

What other issues do you care about the most?

Ending Citizens United and Reforming Campaign Finance
Fixing our Broken Criminal Justice System
Combatting the Effects of Climate Change
Reducing Income and Wealth Inequality
Immigration Reform that Helps Undocumented Workers
Fighting Institutional Racism
Ending Failed Wars and Reforming Our Foreign Policy
Enacting Paid Family Leave
Ensuring Equal Rights for LGBT Americans
Expanding Medicare for All
Make Public College Tuition-Free
Protecting and Expanding Social Security
Stopping Unfair Trade Deals
Taking on Wall Street and Breaking Up Banks
Defending Women’s Rights to Choose
Protecting Workers’ Rights

Why do the issues you chose inspire your support for Bernie?

This was my response:

None of those are among the top issues for me. How about the causes of climate change? Is combating its effects the only environmental issue you deem important enough to mention here? Nuclear power? Fracking? Genetic engineering? The pesticide and herbicide treadmill? What about equal rights for women? Or creeping fascism, national security going way overboard? Isn’t failed wars redundant, at least since World War II? Oh I forgot, Bernie wants to continue the drone strikes. I think Bernie is on the right side of some of these issues, but maybe they don’t seem important enough to put on this list. These are just some of the reasons I will never support a Democrat for President.

Advertisements

Men’s Rights and Trans Activists Attempt to Torpedo London Radical Feminist Conference May 2, 2013

Posted by angryscientist in Feminism, Uncategorized.
1 comment so far

The trans activists have stooped to a low I wouldn’t have believed possible. They appear to have worked with a group of men’s rights activists in London to intimidate the venue for RadFem2013 into cancelling the booking. With all the claims and counter-claims, it’s difficult to decipher what really happened, with both the MRA and trans activists claiming responsibility for getting the booking cancelled, and the trans activists attempting to distance themselves from the MRA group. The booking agency, Off to Work, says,

The booking with Off to Work, based at London Irish Centre, was going ahead with the Radfem2013 organising committee, who are professionally organising a successful event for the Radical Feminist Community. The organisers were completely transparent about their conference and we have no criticisms to make of them and we have no opinion at all about their political analysis.

Allegations that some media sources and bloggers are putting forward about the reason for the decision having anything to do with their political analysis, opinions, “hate speech” or the conference being in breach of legislation are completely false. Our partner, The London Irish Centre, is in agreement with us that these allegations are not the reason for this suspension. The reason, as outlined to the organisers, are specifically around the safety of staff, the overall ability of the centre to logistically manage the booking, and the level of disruption that a small group of protesters have caused. We support the conference going ahead and we are working with the organising collective to find a way forward to ensure that this happens.

The venue, the London Irish Centre, was quoted in the Sunday Times

We did some research into RadFem and discovered certain language was used and some statements were made about transgender people that would go against our equalities and diversity policy.

This is one blog post from a conference organizer attempting to sort out this fiasco.

COLLABORATION BETWEEN TRANS/QUEER/ALLIES AND MRES

As I watch the tweets and the bog posts mushrooming, both this year, and last, I observe collaboration between those who are uncritical about gender and MREs and similarities in approach between the 2. Here are some of them:

* Presenting the political views of radfems in an inaccurate, unfair and ludicrous light
* Once they have established the false presentation of what radical feminism is, arguing with that false presentation as if it’s fact
* Singling out individual women who call themselves radical feminist and claiming that they represent radical feminism or all radical feminist views (In fact, the movement is diverse and many claim to be radical feminist but, of course, as a movement for social change, we’d wish to discuss those differences internally)
* Shutting down debate, or opposing presentations of radical feminism, by calling an individual names (e.g. “bigot” in the case of queer allies and “man-hater” in the case of MREs)
* Using a range of intimidation tactics to prevent us from meeting such as writing emotive but untrue emails to anyone who‘ll listen, doxxing, claiming they know that what we do is unlawful or contravenes policies etc

In an incredible reversal relating to just who is aligning themselves with MRES, stavvers’ bog states: I hope RadFem2013 giving MRAs the credit for something they didn’t do isn’t the beginning of an alliance forming. Allying with those who seek to intimidate you. Yes, that makes sense.

In the interest of showing why I find that account far more credible than the account of this Stavvers or the MRAs, I’ll take apart an incredible comparison a transwoman linked by Stavvers for further reading made between radical feminists and MRAs.

Your Handy Guide to the differences between TERFs* and MRAs**;
TERFs
Make evidence-free claims
MRAs
Make evidence-free claims

Such as, transwomen aren’t female?

TERFs
Misrepresent trans people
MRAs
Misrepresent trans people

So, saying transwomen aren’t female is a misrepresentation? What part of biology doesn’t this Natacha get? Natacha’s blog is littered with vicious misrepresentations of what she calls TERFs, and from what I’ve seen, those misrepresentations are common beliefs among at least a large group of transwomen and their supporters, and sound like hate speech to me. If any man said those kinds of things about women, wouldn’t he be accused of hate speech? Don’t men who yell about feminists being man-haters hate feminists? Don’t trans activists who yell about radical feminists being trans-haters hate radical feminists? Yet they have the nerve to accuse radical feminists of hate speech, because those evil radical feminists don’t accept trans ideology. They’ve accused me of hate speech for taking their ideology to task, so I have some personal experience in the matter.

TERFs
Use threats and bullying as a matter of course
MRAs
Use threats and bullying as a matter of course

Oh, that’s rich. See my blog posts about Camp Trans Waging War on Michfest and how trans activists torpedoed a film by lesbian filmmaker Catherine Crouch about transmen.

TERFs
Try to present their own oppressive actions as a struggle against oppression
MRAs
Try to present their own oppressive actions as a struggle against oppression

So, refusing to accept trans ideology is oppressive? Guess what, maybe radical feminists don’t believe trans activists are on their side, so that makes them oppressive toward trans people? Are radical feminists, feminists in general, or women in general not oppressed? When somebody attacks you and you defend your position, does that constitute an oppressive action?

TERFs
Try to manufacture aggression to claim credibility for an ideology which has none
MRAs
Try to manufacture aggression to claim credibility for an ideology which has none

Radical feminism has no credibility with most people, that’s a given. Does that mean it should have none? By that logic, trans ideology shouldn’t have any credibility either. And since when was the aggression manufactured? The MRAs at least make no bones about aggressively harassing the venue, and claimed victory when the booking was cancelled. Also, men’s rights activists, unfortunately, seem to have way more credibility in society at large than either radical feminists or trans people. Hell, it seems to me MRAs have more credibility in society at large than mainstream feminists!

TERFs
Lie a lot
MRAs
Lie a lot

What was that about evidence free claims? I’m sure the trans activists think they have plenty of evidence of radical feminist lies about them, but I’ve yet to see one that was actually a lie. Some radical feminists like to exaggerate, but they seem to like to exaggerate about all of their enemies, not just trans people who hate radical feminists.

TERFs
Attribute the actions of one trans person, to the entire trans community
MRAs
Attribute the actions of one trans person, to the entire trans community

Who exactly is this one trans person? From what I’ve seen, radical feminists generally recognize that trans people are a diverse group. On the other hand, I’ve seen plenty of examples of trans activists denouncing radical feminism as monolithic, dogmatic, even fascistic, as if they are all alike. What a joke that is. I’m sure radical feminists agree on some basic principles, but on specific issues they have as many, and as heated, disagreements as any group.

TERFs
Consider trans women to be men
MRAs
Consider trans women to be men

This is maybe the most obvious lie in the usual trans activist portrayal of radical feminists, who generally consider trans women to be male, or at least, not female like biological females. The distinction between men and male is important, the distinction between gender and sex, which is a crucial point of radical feminist thought as I understand it; sex is a matter of biology, but gender is a matter of culture, created for the express purpose of oppressing women. It seems one of the major transphobic sins attributed to radical feminists is to insist on that distinction. This is what Cathy Brennan, who trans activists love to accuse of hateful transphobia, had to say in her blog post about when she was bullied during a Dyke March last year:

bugbrennan Says:
June 27, 2012 at 7:16 am

So this is a bigoted statement? “I accept trans women as women, but they are not female.”

Ok. Got it.

This, according to some, is so bigoted, it invalidates the existence of transwomen!

TERFs
Have an interest portraying the cancellation as the result of MRA threats and intimidation
MRAs
Have an interest portraying the cancellation as the result of MRA threats and intimidation

*Trans Exclusionary “Radical Feminists”
**Men’s “Rights” Activists

Maybe the conference organizers have an interest in telling the truth, since others want to claim the cancellation was in response to radical feminist transphobia? Could it be some trans activists and their supporters have a phobia of radical feminism? What is the point of alleging some kind of alliance between radical feminists and MRAs? It seems the trans activists and the MRAs had the common goal in this case, despite how the trans activists may despise MRAs, or vice versa. But if Natacha really despises MRAs so much, why did she let this comment on a previous tirade about the conference go unanswered?

MRA London
18 April 2013 17:33

MRALondon held at protest at the London Irish Centre a few days ago in order to let the Irish Centre management know what they are taking on. The purpose of our protest was to let people know, in a firm voice, is that Radfem pro-violence bigotry is no longer go without a response.

If these were just a bunch a “crazies”, I would personly agree that they should be left to it. However, they are not, and there members include academics and influental women in highly responsible positions.

Ultimately, we cannot shut down the event. Personally, I would prefer to attend the bloody thing and video it, and put it on Youtube, so that everyone can see. Nevertheless, we won’t give up on this and, instead, will use the event to get our message out.

MRALondon is the UK part of “A Voice for Men” – search to find us. We are non-violent, inclusive, and our membership includes women, mixed races and gay people. We stand up for men and boys, and we oppose cultural hypocrasy. Ultimately, we seek a better relationship between men and women. All are welcome to support us.

There was no response to this comment. I hardly think that if a radical feminist attempted to respond to Natacha’s diatribe against the conference, it would have gone unanswered. More likely, it would’ve been censored. Does Natacha protest too much about her disdain for MRAs?

Conversations with the President, Part 1: Gropergate December 16, 2008

Posted by angryscientist in About Me, Bad Science, Feminism, Uncategorized.
2 comments

Disclaimer: Any resemblance to the actual President-elect is strictly intentional, but the statements I’m attributing to him are pure guesswork on my part.

Me: Now look here, Mr. President, I’ve kept my peace while you assemble your team of hawks,  corporate friendly free traders, and pro-nuclear pro-agrofuel pollution-marketer scientists and environmentalists for hire. You’re not in office yet, and you’re supposed to get a honeymoon. Sorry, you have a scandal to deal with already.

Obama: I was stunned and dismayed by the actions of Governor Blagojevich, but neither I nor any of my staff are implicated in his corrupt dealings.

Me: I meant your speechwriter Jon Favreau, immortalized in a Facebook photo fondling a lifesize cardboard model of a famous woman while a buddy poses as if he’s trying to force beer down her throat, pulling her head back by her hair. I’m sure you know the story. Do you think an apology is enough?

Obama: Senator Clinton accepted the apology. That’s the end of the matter.

Me: So, that’s supposed to be the end of it? Wow, are you naive. Women aren’t about to put this aside just like that. You better believe they are pissed. Clinton has to make light of it. She wants that job. She’s in a bad position, hostile work environment I believe is the legal term?

Obama: Nothing could be further from the truth. Jon was naive and disrespectful, but he has learned from his mistake. He is sorry and will show proper respect to members of the Cabinet in the future.

Me: At least on camera. Do you expect anybody to believe that?

Obama: Why shouldn’t they? The apology was sincere. I believe Jon thought that was an innocent joke, but a lesson learned the hard way will stick.

Me: You are a hopeless optimist. You should fire him. He’s all fine words and you have to provide the substance. Why don’t you write your own speeches?

Obama: As if I have the time or the talent for that. I’m a communicator. That’s one of my talents.

Me: It’s called charisma. You don’t snow me. I think you’re stuck with Mr. Favreau because you think he writes great lines. Lines are only great if the speaker puts real feeling into them. Guys with charisma can put great feeling into lines, but it’s not quite the same as real feeling.

Obama: And they call me a parser!

Me: You’re a politician. You know the difference between acting and speaking your own words with your own feelings.

Obama: You know what happens to people who try that. The media is merciless, sharks pouncing at the first sign of vulnerability.

Me: I think the women in this race can attest to that. Do you think it’s wise to have a shark writing your speeches?

Obama: He’s a young man who didn’t realize the implications of his drunken actions. Senator Clinton has forgiven him. She has been gracious about the entire affair. What’s your problem?

Me: The implications of those actions.

Obama: The matter is closed.

Me: You wish! Fire the guy quick, or you risk women getting really riled up!

Obama: (Snorts) I think I’m a better judge of American women than you. I’ll take my chances. Senator Clinton has accepted the apology. She is satisfied Jon won’t be causing any more trouble making embarrassing spectacles of himself.

Me: You have great faith in this guy. Why? Is it if it’s not broken, don’t fix it? He is broken, so his apology isn’t worth much.

Obama: Jon Favreau is a fine upstanding young man. I’m certain he will grow and learn from this experience.

Me: Hard to argue with blind faith. You don’t need this kind of baggage. Bad enough you gave Larry Summers a high post. He’ll never live down that crack about women not being able to compete in hard sciences because of genetics. This is a great mind? Some people think Sigmund Freud was a great scientist, but his understanding of women was atrocious. He was a great one to pathologize female psychology, since he wanted to stuff it into his own framework. It didn’t fit, just like Summers and Favreau don’t fit in a government I could believe in, though they do seem to fit right in with the rest of your crew. That’s my problem. These are party hacks and scientists for hire. What is this, a kinder gentler version of corporate empire you’re promising?

Obama: I surround myself with the best minds, regardless of political affiliation, so I can hear different sides of each issue to inform my decisions. I reject your insinuations. These are people of the highest integrity. Your suspicions are baseless and cynical. America needs its people to hope for the best, so we can all contribute our best to make America a beacon of hope and liberty for the world again.

Me: All right, enough of you for now! You really ought to fire that speechwriter! I’m sure Obama isn’t listening to silly fools like me, or outraged feminists in the blogosphere. I had to say something, regardless. This is really callous and disrespectful to women. I don’t much like Senator Clinton, but she almost won, could have been VP, and Secretary of State is a top Cabinet post, if not the top. She deserves some respect from a speechwriter for the President. He sure has no business groping a mockup of her, grinning as though he was proud as could be. This was no joke or laughing matter, despite the yuck it up attitude of such luminaries as James Carville (It’s a piece of cardboard, stupid!). This is typical of the blatant abuse of the women running for President and VP in this campaign. Obama ought to put a stop to it here and now. This is his golden opportunity to show respect for women means something in this country, at least for this President. But he’ll pass. Political expediency rules the day. This is the change I need?

ETA: I decided to trackback to one of those outraged feminists who wants to keep this scandal front and center, and whose call to protest inspired this entry.

Gary Null Blows Lid off Sexual Harassment at Pacifica November 2, 2007

Posted by angryscientist in Feminism, Whistleblower Corner.
12 comments

This past Tuesday night Roy of Hollywood asked Gary Null for his opinions about the trouble KPFK, and Pacifica in general, is having raising funds. Gary has lots of opinions about that, having been kicked off the New York Pacifica station WBAI, despite being their top fund-raiser. One fact Gary revealed that I didn’t know, one of the network’s biggest expenses is paying off sexual harassment judgments and the associated legal fees! He said Pacifica has been trying to sweep this under the carpet, denying everything, promoting instead of firing the perpetrators! I did a little research and found this press release published at Indymedia from July this year. If you think Pacifica deserves its billing as free speech radio, you might want to read the whole thing, and weep.

Pacifica Radio Network – Rocked by Discrimination
by Its about time for change
Friday Jul 13th, 2007 5:00 PM

Progressive Radio Network Rocked
By Violence, Discrimination, and Sexual Harassment

Five women in legal actions against radio stations in the progressive Pacifica Radio Network have encountered stunningly “un-progressive” practices in the network’s handling of women’s complaints of sexual harassment and discrimination.

Women at all five of Pacifica’s major market stations have fought to compel Pacifica Radio Foundation and its member stations, including Berkeley’s KPFA, to immediately end physical threats, harassment, discrimination, and sexual assaults against women, as well as their retaliation against the women who report the misconduct.

Recurring allegations are that Pacifica refused to investigate the women’s complaints, refused to discipline the perpetrators, fostered an environment of impunity, refused to prevent further harassment, hampered the women’s ability to perform their jobs, and subjected them to retaliation and, in some cases, termination.

Among those who claim they have been victimized are senior managers, investigative reporters, hosts, a station news director, and administrative employees. And these women all claim that they have found the disconnect between the network’s progressive rhetoric and its handling of discrimination within its own ranks to be startling.

For shame, Pacifica. For shame. No wonder many feminists are so suspicious of the male left.

My Troll Invasion August 14, 2007

Posted by angryscientist in Feminism, Uncategorized.
48 comments

This entry is for the trolls to sound off, explain what makes them tick, why they do what they do, if they can write something with actual content possible to discuss. I’m including a couple of examples from hostile commenters. From my limited understanding, the trolls call themselves the Legion, the followers of lulz, who choose to attack certain web sites and blogs for reasons I wish to explore, since in my eyes these guys have a real problem with radfems, and a minor one with me. I got lots of subtle hate porn story spam, but no threats like what these raeped women are getting. The Obvious Troll sent me lots of crap in the initial invasion, but the level of threat of his “Eat shit and die traitor” doesn’t come close to what they throw at women. Most of my new visitors come from a Wikipedia spoof site with particular venom toward feminazis like Heart and her friends.

Note, if you find or know of that site, it mentions sites shut down by this lulz crew. It had precise instructions on how to shut down each target, since deleted. A publicly hosted blog is a harder nut to crack, though they could still make a blog exceed its traffic limit, unless the blog host is protected. I’ll miss reading the womensspace board, though I have to say, that was a space where what men would think didn’t seem to stop those women from saying anything. I have no idea what they were saying in private, though I did read a few allusions to forums not open to the public. It’s all closed down now, and I doubt it will come back as a board the public, or I, can read. Great victory? What was that about freedom of speech? My part in this is peripheral. Evidently a mother’s post about frustration with her teenage son’s propensities got taken way out of proportion and context, as an excuse to locate her and torture her with threats, in an epic battle with feminazis. One issue they seem to think works only in their favor is freedom of speech, deliberately suppressed by lulz. I’d be interested in any explanation of why a self-respecting man would stoop to such tactics preventing women from having their say in a safe space. For this particular blog entry, I’m suspending most of my rules. What is the harm in women talking freely? Do they shut you down? What is wrong with this picture, guys? The truth you can play fast and loose, laughing all the way, but it’s not on your side here!

You must think I’m totally off my rocker, huh? If a man had a teenage son who told him to fuck off and die, is there any man who might not think, I wish I hadn’t fathered this boy? That mother loves her son, despite major issues with the father. Humans have this faculty called better judgment that can prevent them from acting on harsh feelings. She is alarmed at her son’s behavior. Maybe you think it’s no big deal that young teens get to view what is supposed to be adult material. If she didn’t intervene, she might be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, in some states. Am I mistaken? A mother can’t win, as usual. Whether she lets her adolescent son view adult material or tries to stop him, she is a bad mother in the eyes of the law or this strange gang, if not both. I don’t get why this gang isn’t trying to change the law if they care so much about a mother trying to stop her son from breaking it. Where is the beef? The beef seems to be with the law defining adult material off limits for children, but the mother gets death threats. This doesn’t compute to me. Explain. I’m dead serious. I want to know why a gang of men is picking on this particular mother. Tell me how what she said is worse than how you would react if your son told you to fuck off and die. Maybe this son didn’t use those exact words, but think about it. What would be going through your mind?

She didn’t specify what kind of porn she caught her son viewing, or if he got his hands on a credit card. We all know there is wide variety in what is called porn. Some of what is called porn is just plain nudity, which if portrayed artistically might not bother a feminist. On the other end of the spectrum is sexualizing women getting hurt, more or less. Rape, snuff, S/M, lots of variety, but the principle is not about sex, it’s about men dominating and/or hurting women. That may seem harmless to men, but I’m old enough to remember before Hustler came on the scene and busted all the rules, so men could take desperate women on a sleigh ride, paying them money to submit to torture. I don’t know what was on the black market, but Hustler broke the ground for normalizing sexualizing men’s vicious feelings towards women. I know, most guys think this is harmless, but I have to disagree. Women are raped, battered, harassed, terrorized, or worse on a routine basis. This society is in big trouble for lots of reasons, but one is its acceptance of such vicious feelings as normal for males. I’ve got nothing against male lust for women expressed appropriately, though it isn’t a casual thing for me. Humans also have this faculty called imagination. A normal straight male libido is not dependent on degrading women. Guys who try harder find out, sex can be be fun for women too.

Before my minor slice of troll invasion, I got this comment buried in Akismet from Anonymous at ebaums world. I decided to rescue it, because it raises a point I’m curious about.

Heart is a moron who blames problems on arbitrary stuff, just like any racist or bigot.

I don’t see why somebody like you supports her.

Somebody like me, meaning what? A man? A scientist, perhaps, who specializes in a branch of logic? I disagree heartily with this characterization. What men do to women is not arbitrary stuff. Heart knows not all men are like the lulz legion or get off on hurting women. Heart lets me comment on her blog, sometimes. One comment got me deigned a challenger to lulz, thus fair game. I recognized one troll from lurking at another board long defunct. Sorry, guys, to get on my blog you have to raise some issue, like the above, calling Heart moronic. Is that a reason to crash her site? What is the reason? I’m asking for an explanation, if you are reading here still thinking how to torpedo me for sticking up for her right to get her ideas out. She may make you mad as hell, but that’s no excuse for this dishonorable gangpile behavior. Is this done to everyone who expresses views that piss you guys off, or only if they appear to lack power to retaliate? High tech gang rape, no? Yes, the lulz gang openly recommends rape or raep of its declared enemies.

Why? What does it benefit you, to shut down discourse? Or is all a big joke, temporary amusement? I’d like to know, because I don’t get the joke. Is threatening rape and murder funny? It is criminal, by the way, anonymous or not. What’s so horrible about a mother regretting a child, when her feelings for him clearly outweighed her frustration? Her son is not in any danger because of her frustration. Can she say the same? What’s the reason for torturing her? Laughs? Why is this funny? I don’t get it. Why is she fair game for torture, because she fears her son will learn women are fair game to rape, batter, humiliate? Is that not what most porn is all about these days?

Is this an epic witch hunt, or a warning? I understand why men might want to satirize Heart, since she is running for President, but why these foul threats? And why pick on her friends? I understand this is part of a long-running campaign against women bloggers. Correct me if I am wrong. Most movements have factions, hangers-on, rogues, intrigues perturbing their common purposes. I don’t get what the gang is after with this rescuing the brother business. Her son should learn the truth about his mother being so distraught over his defiance of her that she wrote about it, and how he was conceived, and that she sometimes has wished he hadn’t been born? Why is it anybody’s business? That’d be hard on her and her son, but not as hard as if some anonymous guy pops up and tells him lies or wild exaggerations about it. He can rebel against his mother without any help. Where is the need or right to intervene? Nonexistent, but somehow that doesn’t matter, the lost brother must be rescued. You expect me to be on the side of that? Illogical mania based on deliberate distortion? Give it up guys, you’re making all men look really bad. If you want a fight, fight with me, with actual content, not wasting bandwidth with silly stories or poetry by someone calling himself Stalin. I believe in free speech. I have to object when I see it getting squashed. I object to any kind of thought police. I also object to the views of the inventor of that word, feminazi. I disagree with Rush Limbaugh just about 100%, but you don’t see me trying to shut him down.

This comment was posted on womensspace:

on 10 Aug 2007 at 6:19 am

91 Neuromancer

I can scarecly believe it. You’ve been given everything. EVERYTHING. And you still think that this is about feminism. Open your eyes for fuck’s sake, just close your mouth and pay attention. It’s not that hard. It’s like you willfully ignore information that contradicts your preconceptions. You can’t be that obtuse, noone is.

Yes, heart, I know you’re not going to post this, I wrote it in the off chance that you would let a differing opinion in. This isn’t about you, and it never really was, you should know that. Just lie low and it’ll blow over in a couple of days. Bring your website back up and start where you left off. Noone’s going to come after you, we don’t care. Radical opinion is necessary in any society, as it keeps it fresh and healthy, and the world knows that the american empire needs that now more than ever. I don’t agree with a thing you say, but that doesn’t mean that I want to stop you from saying it.

Is this true of more than Neuromancer? Is the lulz gang just sending a message, blowing off steam until it gets bored? Or is it determined to pursue a war to silence radfems? I know a bunch of you lulz guys have visited here. Sound off! What’s motivating you? Why are you picking on these women, really? Isn’t your real beef with the law, or the empire? What do you intend to do to them? Where do you draw the line? What does freedom of speech mean to you? How is it compatible with threats?

ETA: Follow the links of the commenters at your own risk.

Trans Activists Torpedo Film by Lesbian May 25, 2007

Posted by angryscientist in Bad Science, Feminism, Uncategorized.
25 comments

Oh, those poor transgender folks, feeling oppressed by a film created by acclaimed lesbian filmmaker Catherine Crouch, because her film makes a point they don’t want to hear. This article from the Bay Area Reporter I found linked at Womensspace. Heart said she would be blogging about it shortly. Crouch says:

Things are getting very strange for women these days. More and more often we see young heterosexual women carving their bodies into porno Barbie dolls and lesbian women altering themselves into transmen. Our distorted cultural norms are making women feel compelled to use medical advances to change themselves, instead of working to change the world. This is one story, showing one possible scary future. I am hopeful that this story will foster discussion about female body modification and medical ethics.

Not if the transgender activists have their way! They say Crouch and her film are peddling transphobic stereotypes! That’s news to her. At least one of the outraged transmen is torn about the idea of censoring her, but such qualms didn’t stop more than 130 people from signing a petition denouncing her film and Frameline’s decision to screen it. I have to ask, who is oppressing whom here? She is worried about this trend of women who don’t fit the female stereotype feeling they have to change into men. Who sold them that bill of goods, I’d like to know. I’ve had more than a few women friends. None of them fit the female stereotype. What the hell does taking testosterone and going through such drastic surgery have to do with being a gender outlaw? Nothing. That’s just trading one stereotype for another, not to mention probable cancer or other major health problems to look forward to. I think it’s important to discuss the compromised medical ethics involved, but to these outraged transpeople, that’s just more of the same old transphobia!

Why would women do this to themselves? I think it has everything to do with the way culture indoctrinates everyone to see women as inferior to men. One would think women rebelling against stereotyping wouldn’t fall for this deceptive solution to their issues with how females are supposed to be. What does it buy them, a ticket to validate female inferiority from the other side? I don’t know, but it sounds like a hell of a way to rebel, becoming a man to prove to oneself one is not like a typical woman? There is no such thing as a typical woman anyway, at least not from my point of view.

Men are different in that respect, because we men are highly rewarded for conforming, and most men don’t have the balls to defy how men are supposed to be. In a sense, women are also rewarded for conforming, but that reward is more like hollow societal approval for accepting their place as inferior beings, which offers no protection from being harassed, raped, or battered. Typical men don’t have to deal with such threats. Transmen do, especially when discovered.

I’m not going to claim to understand why women do this to themselves. I have my suspicions, but no way of knowing. I can sort of comprehend the MTF phenomenon, because the male stereotype makes me want to distance myself, at least psychologically. As a man who respects and cares about women, I find it abhorrent and incredibly sad that women would feel this is a viable way to escape oppression. Maybe they feel changing the world is hopeless. I could certainly understand that pessimism, though I don’t share it. I’m not in their shoes, though I’m a gender outlaw myself, considering myself a straight androgynous man. I’m fascinated by women, but I have no desire to alter my biochemistry. I’m weird, and like it that way, despite the flak I catch for it.

O.J. Simpson, First Class Brazen Ass Murderer November 18, 2006

Posted by angryscientist in Feminism, Uncategorized.
8 comments

It’s one thing for a convicted murderer to confess while doing hard time, another for OJ who got away with murder virtually scot-free. A Boston Globe editorial says a couple thousand was seized so far against the 33 million judgment, expecting he would find some sleazy way to keep the money he makes off this book. This is first-class brazen effrontery marketed as a tell-all book. Anyone who believed he was innocent, OJ sure had you fooled. Now he is laughing all the way to the bank. If I did it, this is how it would go? Who are you kidding, OJ? Safe from criminal prosecution, you might as well revel in your infamy?

He hasn’t had enough of his power trip, which led him to batter, terrorize, then murder his ex-wife. The criminal jury somehow managed to find him innocent. He never admitted guilt, maintaining he was put through hell for nothing. It’s hardly unusual for a batterer to kill a woman who leaves him. Such a jealous fit of violent rage, unless determined to be premeditated, is called a crime of passion, the least severely punished type of intentional murder. OJ was rich enough to get sharp lawyers to make the most of evidence rules and prosecution mistakes. He may be less rich now, after paying off his lawyers, though who knows where he stashed his money. His book will probably make him plenty more. There will be efforts to seize the profits, but good luck.

What a sick ego trip, describing his take on the deed, knowing it would torture everyone else involved. Hasn’t he caused enough anguish? Apparently not, he wants to rub salt in the wound. Could he be any more the brazen ass murderer who got away with it? He scoffs at the civil lawsuit he lost, which seems not worth the paper it’s written on.

Men Who Claim Feminism, But October 23, 2006

Posted by angryscientist in Feminism, Uncategorized.
6 comments

I posted the following over at Alas, a Blog. The thread had apparently died out, after the pro-Alas clique seemed to chase away the protestors. 

http://amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/10/11/i-sold-amptoonscom-comments-are-now-open/

Maybe as a virtually unknown new blogger I shouldn’t care about this odd bailout, since I don’t depend on writing for my living, would’ve starved long ago if I dared, almost did just that when young and reckless, but that’s another story. What makes me care is what transpired concerning this allegedly representative of feminist blogs behind the backs of several really pissed off women who posted here. Ampersand, it makes me think your idea of feminism makes you feel independent of what women feel about your actions, as I observed on my blog about Hugh Hefner, also a man claiming feminist leanings while profiting on this peculiarity of our culture, using women sexually for money.

I found some odd reversals reading this thread, particularly in responses to radfems and to John. If this is porn funding feminist discussion, why are many of the feminist posters jumping ship, breaking longstanding blog links? Offended is putting it mildly. They are furious, and in my view, rightly so. My view may not count for anything, as a male outsider, but I have to agree with John that this makes men who fight sexism look bad, or at least less credible. It reflects badly on men who make an effort to support the cause. It puts in question whether any man can be trusted as a reliable ally of feminism. This makes it my business, so I am here to register my protest. If you censor me, it will be on my blog, with a protest of that tactic tacked on. I’d hope you aren’t heavily censoring this thread, though I’m sure you hoped it’d die off already.

Why did you do it, really? None of anybody’s business, seems to have been your attitude, though you profess regret now. Kinda late, better late than never? Yeah, well, maybe you are sincere, maybe not. Obviously you have to maintain that you are. It just strains credulity, if you look at it from my point of view. Here you are in money trouble. Who bails you out? Would you accept a bailout from a child pornographer? Oh wait, I guess you did. What goes on here? Does informed consent mean anything to you, or your loyal defenders? You didn’t think women posting here deserved to know until how long after it was a done deal, then were busted, then buried a cursory announcement by disallowing comments, then finally a man convinced you to open a thread for comments. Did I get the timetable wrong? Maybe you think women in the industry know what they’re getting into. My info says, most want to get out, feel trapped. Sounds like they didn’t know. Do you care, Amp? I don’t get it. People say this is a feminist blog being supported by porn? Fun feminist blog, maybe, the kind that think women in sex work gave consent, so no problem, right? Did they understand what they were getting into? I think that is a big issue you ought to face. Sounds like, this is a blog discussing feminism while supporting porn. You may have a legal right to sell your blog to anyone you wish, but hardly a moral high ground. No, I wouldn’t go so far as it say such a blog is a complete oxymoron, not really for me to judge, but that depends on how far it degenerates. This thread is a bad sign.

Maybe the porn merchant hosting this blog is not hocking (sic) the worst of porn, but where do you draw the line? This is not rocket science. This is not erotic art this guy is selling. I don’t know what he is selling, because I’m not buying, but I can tell that much. If this is some kind of speech, it’s hate speech, saying women are sex objects for sale to gratify male lust. I think you could get out of this deal if you really want to. That might go a long way to convince your old friends you regret the mistake. I get the impression some are unconvinced, and likely to remain so, since you want to drop the subject as settled, over, nothing anyone can do about it now. If so, that may well be true, but the boycott may spread until it chokes you. The fate of one who gets a reputation as phony is rarely pretty. I got the impression some women feel scammed, while others expected you sooner or later to betray your real colors. You didn’t do yourself any favor by accepting this deal or by being devious about it, unless you really don’t care that women feel betrayed. Then, hey, no skin off your back, but you don’t want women to think you are that indifferent to the issues they are raising. What a trap you dug for yourself. I almost feel sorry for you, guy, but I’d never trust you, so I don’t. Another man betrays feminism for whatever reason, yawn, what else is new? Maybe this shouldn’t be a big deal for feminists, just like when the antiwar group Not in Our Name welcomed support from Mr. Progressive Larry Flynt? Thanks a lot, alleged ally. You are no ally of mine. I’ll answer if someone responds, but otherwise I’m an outsider, so I’ll leave you alone, except perhaps to raise some more hell on my blog. 

 Note: There has been one comment so far since my post yesterday afternoon, very sarcastic and evasive. I tried to respond, but I think amptoons is still having technical difficulties with responses. I had to correct her implications of my implications, also my misuse of the word hocking, meaning to say not hawking the worst of porn. If my response is caught in the vortex of tech failure I’ll try posting it later.

 Another note: The tech problem is apparently history. It appears I may have misconstrued the meaning of teen sensation. The review doesn’t say, but it may be this young woman is of age. I thought I remembered reading she was 17, but don’t recall where. So the new owner of Amptoons may not be promoting child porn. Does anyone who knows porn lingo know if teenage sensation is equivalent to barely legal? I had to acknowledge the probable error at Amp’s blog, but also said this has little bearing on my argument, as a matter of principle.

When Misogynist Violence Makes Headlines, Part 2 October 9, 2006

Posted by angryscientist in Feminism, Uncategorized.
13 comments

Part 2, Raw Feelings

I can analyze stuff that makes me feel angry beyond my own capacity to imagine, but expressing that kind of anger is so treacherous. Some occasions call for it, and this is one. These incidents are the tip of an iceberg, making the news because schoolgirls were targeted instead of individual women. Men assault women all the time, in virtually every circumstance sick minds can imagine. This is a stain on the honor of all men, though the desensitization enforced by our culture makes many men oblivious, except when something spectacular happens. So oblivious that men pay to see women getting roughed up sexually, calling it free speech. Incitements to violence are hate speech. Why is it legal to incite violence against women, but not minority groups? John Lennon wrote a song, after Yoko Ono got him to see some things. Woman is the (N word) of the World, he sings, better scream about it.

What the hell is up with the media calling these attacks school shootings, when girls were clearly targeted? Count on the media to obfuscate what matters. These guys wanted to send a message to women. Angry at God, my ass. I could think of unlimited reasons to be angry at God, if I could believe in a perfect being. No, I blame the mess the world is in on the powers that be, and last I looked, they have virtually all been power-hungry violent women-hating men for thousands of years.

Yes, men have terrorized women for thousands of years. Mostly it happens in private, or in war, so it’s kind of an open secret. Women are a conquered people with no obvious means to fight back. Men generally see this state of affairs as natural, so don’t understand why feminists are so angry about it. After all, some laws were passed, that should be the end of the issue, as many men see it. No, those laws were politically motivated, half-assed attempts to buy women off without really changing anything. Women have made the best of those laws and broken down barriers all over. In that respect, society has progressed, but not without fierce resistance. Many men hate the idea of having to compete fairly with women. Those guys need to grow up.

Yeah, I mean grow up! Boys learn how to deal with losing to other boys. Why should the respect of competitive rivalry boys learn in sports not apply to women at work? Men call that respect sportsmanship, taking it like a man, learning from mistakes. The obsession with winning undercuts those qualities, and supports the myth that superiors deserve to wield power over subordinates, which in its most basic form is men feeling they deserve to wield power over women.

This is the foundation of hierarchical culture, this wholly undeserved power men wield over women, because they can, and they like the feeling. This is how degenerate our culture is, that men can like the feeling of owning and controlling a lover, and react violently when she looks out for herself. It doesn’t matter that not all men are violent. It only takes a few suicide attackers to terrorize USA, so why should it take omnipresent violence to terrorize women? The threat is omnipresent, but women have been dealing with this for at least thousands of years, only recently gaining some legal standing. Nowadays virtually all feminism has accomplished is threatened by reactionary stacking of courts. This is feminism wrecking the culture, so men must fight back? This culture is too corrupted to survive. Maybe it needs wrecking, but not in the ways of Bush.

Some men yell feminism has weakened the moral fiber of the culture, or male character. Any character requiring preeminent status in a relationship is weakened beyond repair. This is such a fundamental contradiction in terms, it stands logic on its head. A decent relationship requires mutual respect and caring to make a partnership work. It can be much more, but without those I think any relationship is doomed, at least poisoned. So, bitter men, was yours doomed? Maybe you need to learn some lessons from your errors! Blaming women will get you nowhere. Venting is not a problem if it doesn’t become obsessive. Then it’s no big jump to rape or murder. You can be reasonably angry at a woman who hurt your feelings, but blaming women for that is just plain dumb. You had no part in her deciding to hurt you? Give me a break. She was probably reacting to you hurting her, but that dynamic is irrelevant to you? Why? If you cared, you should care about that, and if you didn’t, did you deserve her time of day? If you escaped from a devil, does that make all women like her? Hey, one con artist scammed me, another woman maybe used me, but I couldn’t generalize from that to women I’ve known personally, forget about all women! Women are so different from the ideas men hold about women, it’s not even funny.

When Misogynist Violence Makes Headlines, Part 1 October 9, 2006

Posted by angryscientist in Feminism, Uncategorized.
2 comments

Part 1, Connections

This was posted on a popular feminist blog, cited from Wikipedia for analogy to these recent incidents of suicidal attacks on female students. Look up Marc Lepine or Ecole Polytechnique Massacre for more info. If you are here to make trouble, you have no cause to hound feminist blogs about what I say. Though I cite one here and another elsewhere, I am solely responsible for the opinions I express here on this blog, and elsewhere. If your post doesn’t show up right away, it means you triggered a moderation alarm, so after I look it over, it may go through. Since I am actively inviting hostile attack on this and the next post, it probably will go through unless you are so far outside the rules I must censor you anyway. On other posts not inviting hostile attack ( Rape, Camp Trans, Sadism Unmasked are also open) the rules stand; violators will be yanked or banned without notice.

He first went into a mechanical engineering class, forced the men out at gunpoint, began to scream about how he hated feminists, and then opened fire. Lépine continued his rampage in other parts of the building, opening fire on other women he encountered. He killed 14 women (12 engineering students, one nursing student and one employee of the university) and injured 13 others (including at least 4 men) before committing suicide.

Born Gamil Gharibi, Lépine had a very troubled childhood, including an abusive father. During his parents’ divorce, his mother told the court at their divorce hearing that her husband, an Algerian immigrant, “had a total disdain for women and believed they were intended only to serve men.” After the divorce, Gharibi legally changed his name to Marc Lépine. He developed a lasting hatred toward women and had left a note blaming feminism for all the failures in his life, including his aforementioned rejection from the engineering school. (Note: The article explains his coursework didn’t meet requirements.)

There are obvious differences, on the level of age difference, since a child molester is not quite on the same page as a humiliated peer, but I say, the spirit of Marc Lepine lives again. This was a man blaming his misfortunes on feminism, sacrificing his life for revenge. One can argue about whether this was aberrant mental illness, or these latest suicide attacks on girls in school. Mental illness is way too vague for me. Those guys knew what they intended to do, carried out elaborate plans. This was not just out of control suicidal mania. Lepine focused on murdering his female peers, while these latest men consumed by hatred of women wanted to rape, kill, torture girls, because this represented dying to get the worst revenge on women.

What would drive a man to this? What drives men to batter women? What about rape? What about all the relatively mild insults, harassment, condescension, discrimination, not giving women credit as due? I think the answer is clear, though multifaceted in its expression. Men like to think women are somehow beneath men, not as capable in ways that matter, therefore men should make important decisions, while women should support men. Some believe this kind of malarkey more openly than others. Some men flaunt this on web sites anyone can read, where all the ills of society are blamed on women, or feminism, as if women drive men to irrational explosions of violence. In that case, men who commit suicide attacks on girls would be martyrs in this war men as a group wage against women as a group. Many men support this war blindly, though they shrink from such blatant manifestations, not realizing the attitude culture fosters toward women, in men and women both, is so poisonous, so biased in favor of men that without challenging it up front, it is bound to twist male perspective and behavior into familiar realms, cultural norms oppressive to women.

Women who go along with this are not unscathed, though in business and politics, they are more likely to get favorable attention from men in power than rebellious women. That offer to collude, at least in the political arena, is a tempting trap, dangling a taste of power at the cost of selling out her principles. Examples of powerful women going along, not challenging enough to rock the boat, would be Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton. Probably the only rebellious woman of the past most men would recognize by name is Susan B. Anthony. Some modern activists have considerable notoriety, such as Jane Fonda and Cindy Sheehan. So the idea that feminists have ruined society is a sick joke. Feminists have made a lasting impact, but more on the barriers to women’s participation in man’s system than on how the system itself operates. If feminists are so powerful, why is abortion a choice men think is their business to strip from women? Women were legally male property in this country not so long ago. On that sort of thing, feminism has made a big impact, but what really bothers average men about feminism, I think, is women looking out for each other. That could snowball, so men do their worst to divide and conquer women. I think that’s a good thing, women rebelling, working together, looking out for each other, but I’m weird that way.

(more…)

Sadism Unmasked September 24, 2006

Posted by angryscientist in Feminism, Uncategorized.
147 comments

Well, well, some sadists were suckered into responding to a lure, and now scream bloody murder about their fantasies seeing the light of day. I have no sympathy for men who take pleasure in hurting women, but perhaps it would be worthwhile to hear, in this one thread, why a man feels that way. Bear in mind in this court of public opinion, what you say will be used against you. I am angry that a brave woman would receive combative comments for blogging about this. It is not news to me, nor to women, that many men feel this way, but usually it is expressed in private or pornography, personal fantasies not exposed to harsh light. I have a different point of view on women, in general, and also as related to my lust. There is nothing better for a man than the passion of a woman in love, in my book. This appears not to be anywhere in the book of such men. How common sadistic ideas on male lust are as opposed to mine, I could not say, but such attitudes are accepted as a normal part of male sexuality. Some men prefer to get women wildly passionate, as opposed to linking their sexuality to subordination in any sense, not merely extremes such as submission to cruelty. Other men may not know about the wild side of women, but just want sex, not to hurt a woman physically. Psychically is another story; few men have unlearned enough of their cultural conditioning to see women as inferiors to avoid hurting a woman in that sense.

The twisting of consent in the S/M scene is a huge can of worms. This helps men justify their lust for cruelly abusing women. This is what I would like to discuss. How do you justify this form of lust, men? I would also like to discuss why a woman would seek such abuse. I think such women need help, not abuse. This blog is loosely protected by snagging certain words or phrases for moderation, also a spam filter, so no need to try again if you don’t see your post.

Camp Trans Waging War on Michfest September 12, 2006

Posted by angryscientist in About Me, Feminism, Uncategorized.
53 comments

And now for something completely different.

I think Camp Trans, an organization set up to harass and infiltrate the woman-only music festival held every August in Michigan, is way out of line. It seems not to understand the concept of a boundary, since it insists people once male but now identifying as female should be allowed to crash this festival. This has been going on to some extent all along, but now they dare laugh at the request to honor festival intent, openly demanding a ticket as transwoman. This looks to me like blatant malicious violation of the boundary of a free assembly, motivated by misogyny and perhaps envy. People can identify however they please, but I think it is deception, of oneself and others, for men to claim womanhood through a sex change operation. Sex change is not what is happening. I am no expert on trans matters, identifying as straight androgynous male, but I see loads of hot air, incivility, disrespect, tricky liberties taken with language and truth by trans and sympathizers in this long battle caused by trans determination to invade woman only space.

Consider this thought experiment. If I shaved, maybe with my long hair, I could pass. If I crashed this festival, as these ex-males think is their right, I would be around all these women in various states of dress. Would I be tempted to feast my eyes, or pretend to be a lesbian? I think in this context, trans are spies, intruders, guilty of gratifying male ego and lust at the expense of women paying to attend an exclusive festival away from males, violating the privacy boundary just like any Average Joe harassing a woman. The purpose of this festival is to provide a woman only space for a week of concerts. Maybe transwomen should think about, why is this unreasonable, or too much to ask? How is it you think you have a right to be there? Through surgical and hormonal intervention you may look and sound more like a woman than a man, but technology cannot alter biological sex, previous lived experience, attitude, behavior, depth of understanding and respect for women. You may experience life treated more like a woman than a man, after awhile read women with some recognition of experience, but always from a male perspective you cannot toss aside entirely. That can be balanced or repressed, but not escaped. What about drag queens? Why not, if any guy who feels like saying he is a woman has a right to crash woman only space? I sure would enjoy this festival blindfolded, just for the music, but I find the motives of these minted females questionable at best. I think male understanding and respect for women can only be learned, no high tech shortcuts.

Something on this misuse of science and language called transsexuality will probably get on my blog soon. Camp Trans Waging War on Michfest. Maybe you transwomen who think woman only space is unfair to you can tangle with me there, if you have the nerve to answer pointed questions. I think you have caused enough trouble for women. Their definition of woman is not for males, or once-males, to cast aside, negotiate, or usurp. If you have respect for women, show it, leave woman only space alone!

I posted the above over at the trackback, (if I can figure out how to trackback) which has much more information about what is really going on with all this. I have a correction, and also something to say about male androgyny. I used the phrase exclusive festival away from males. This is imprecise, easily misconstrued. The festival is music by women for women. It is not for male or once male entertainment. Exclusive can have connotations such as rich hideout, snobbish,or by invitation only. Michfest is far from any of that. I meant it to say, exclusively for women. Exclusive is logic jargon, vague, misplaced, superfluous, and liable to be deliberately misunderstood in this context. I should know better than to use loaded scientific terms. I actually wish I could excise it from the post, but that I could only do on this blog. It is too late now, just another lesson in the limits of my understanding. I have learned much from my mistakes, but I know I still have limits, blind spots, things hard for me to learn.

Androgyny is often considered the province of other than straight guys, but some are intrigued, and a few reject outright the idea of some cultural straitjacket of what men can and cannot be. If the assignation of traits to male and female is arbitrary, as is plain to me as a scientist by observing my generation of females, what is the point of going through all the trouble of operations and hormones? Sure it would make a man feel different; the hormones alone would suffice for that. I cannot believe there is no long-term risk of taking sex hormones. Menopausal women learned that the hard way, trusting doctors peddling the miracle treatment.

The point being, men do not have to mutilate themselves to experiment with traits our culture has gendered female, or to learn something about how women think. A man can read a book, or ask a woman he thinks he knows. He can experiment with his concept of himself. Men can be caring, affectionate, open about their feelings. It is such BS that real men must suppress their feelings. Easy way out, lots easier than facing feelings and dealing with them honestly. A man can learn ways to appreciate a woman for who she is, without having to be in control. That has nothing to do with manhood, in my view; being a decent man is a matter of personal honor, integrity, character, civility, dealing fairly and honestly with others. By those standards, I know there are not many good men around. For me, being androgynous means I do not believe in gendered roles except as determined by biology. Motherhood is the primary example, since biological males are incapable by definition. Some biological females do not develop this capacity, but this is not the norm. But women can choose not to be mothers, and mothers can be tomboys too. I have known too many tomboys in my life to believe stereotypes about women, so why should I subscribe to stereotypes about men? The benefits those confer on men are shallow temptations, undeserved power, not worth sacrificing my sense of integrity. I am weird, not like other men, by choice and love for rebellious women.

Another role determined by biology is belonging or not in woman only space. It really does not matter what gender one thinks one is, since gender is intrinsically mostly arbitrary, but not in this culture. Transwomen have pulled other outrageous stunts. One sued a Vancouver shelter for protecting its safe space for women. Nice going, Kimberly Nixon, if I recall. Sure got them back for rejecting you. That was the feminist thing to do? Sounds more like typical spite to me.

I know transsexuals will say, it has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Educate me, why you had to go through all that trouble to reject the constraints our culture puts on men. I will not pretend to understand anything about women trying to become men. My tomboy friends seemed reasonably stable and functional to me. It felt natural, their rebellion against the constraints our culture puts on females, expected to be properly subordinated to male superior wisdom. Such poppycock. Our culture has neither wise leaders nor philosophy, so the world careens wildly toward utter ruin, perhaps the loss of ability to sustain intelligent life. We ought to listen to all the dying canaries, these species going extinct, then take a long hard look at what passes for wise leadership in this culture. It is still mostly male, but those guys sure as hell do not represent me. I am a rebel, an angry scientific heretic, a man fascinated by feminists, but I digress. I cannot say I could reasonably expect anyone to represent me anyway. Maybe I cannot understand, what is the big deal about passing as a woman, unless it is to conquer lesbians. It is easy for me to relate to rejecting the popular concept of manhood. I have my own ideas about that, requiring no surgery or hormones, only hard lessons to unlearn preconceptions about gender omnipresent in our culture. A male trying to take a shortcut to that unlearning has unlearned nothing, in my estimation.

I would never say androgyny is easy for a male, but it would be easier if our culture did not link it with being gay. It may be true that most guys claiming androgyny are gay, but not all. Other linkages do not make it any easier, such as weird, wimpy, pussy, you get the picture. I am weird, but not in those ways. My longish hair is far enough for me on the outside; otherwise I look male. I really could not imagine trying to pass as a woman, except as a thought experiment. I could never recommend being like me, because my life has been no piece of cake, and my weirdness cannot be followed. I will be developing my theory of androgyny considerably over time in the My Theories section.

Rape August 2, 2006

Posted by angryscientist in Feminism, Uncategorized.
4 comments

All right guys, what is it with this rape fascination? Is it really that hard to believe you are a man that you would think rape is acceptable under sufficient provocation? You know there are guys who make excuses for rape, she was too provocative, or she really wanted it, but would not say so, and when she realized what had transpired, she turned to crying rape to spite the guy. We all know humans know how to lie, even to oneself, but guys who think rape is warranted under any circumstances, how can you justify treating a woman as a sex slave? Oh I know, the way you justify paying for some time with a sex slave. Soon there will be responsive robots, you will have no excuse, boys! Slavery was abolished during the Civil War. Women are still not recognized as equals legally. The constitutional amendment was effectively vetoed by a few recalcitrant states, so face it, women still have a long way to go before the imbalance of power is erased. If women were to organize, that distance could narrow down in no time. Women have no power to avoid or stop rape, unless the woman has learned how to defend herself. Is that more why a rapist does it, because he can, the feeling of naked power evoking horror? Life is not a porn flick, boys!

I imagine not many guys will defend rapist or batterer attitudes up front, but guys need to think about what goes on over in Iraq in our name. One entire checkpoint gang probably knew about that plan to rape that young woman and murder the witnesses. Did anyone think to protest, this is a WAR CRIME, what the hell were you thinking? Everything is fair in love and war, so rape is fair game, boys will be boys? Whatever chance America had left to win over moderate Muslims is no more. America would rather rape the women, and cow enemies into submission. I hope to hell these boys are brought down hard. I hope they are a fluke, but somehow I doubt it. Maybe not typical, but not a fluke either, somewhere in between. In war, not even a pretense of consent matters? Did our army learn no lessons from Abu Ghraib?

I believe rape is always a vicious violent crime, though how badly the woman is hurt may vary all over the map. What motivates sexual assault? What drives a man to violate a woman? It is not lust. I can tell that much. I have trouble understanding this because I thought most people were raised to believe males should not threaten females, period; that was more cowardly than mere bullying.  I have learned this is naive, that a sizeable proportion of men batter or rape women, considering it asserting manhood. Maybe I am a weird guy, but I am a man, and I know some things are just plain wrong. Women deserve as much respect as men. In my experience, women in general have far deeper understanding and perspective on issues than men. Men learn how not to think, to be good cannon fodder. Women are also taught not to think, but have reasons to rebel against that conditioning that would not occur to men. Men seem to think they deserve some kind of power over women. The whole concept of hierarchy is artificial and of questionable utility. I think only violent criminals make it necessary at all. Practically everything is run by hierarchy in this society, since the reigning philosophy is cutthroat competition, winners dominating losers. Competition does not need to be vicious. Relationships do not need to be hierarchical. Men do not need to rape, no matter how horny. Listen up rapists, you show what kind of man you are,   you are cowardly criminals. You have no more right to take what you want from a woman than a bank robber, but less risk. You are exemplifying the worst of what you have learned to believe appropriate. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Update, 8/16/06: Reuters reports 

A U.S. general will decide next month whether to court-martial four U.S. soldiers for the rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the killing of her family in March, a U.S. military spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

A U.S. military court in Baghdad that heard the rape case this month is reviewing the court documents and will submit its recommendations to Major General Thomas Turner, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, the spokeswoman said.

The rape case, the fifth involving serious crimes being investigated by the U.S. military in Iraq, has outraged Iraqis and led Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to call for a review of foreign troops’ immunity from Iraqi prosecution.

If court-martialled and found guilty Private First Class Jesse Spielman, Specialist James Barker, Sergeant Paul Cortez and Private First Class Bryan Howard could face the death penalty.

Former private Steven Green, 21, faces the same charges in a U.S. federal court in Kentucky. Green, who has pleaded not guilty, was discharged from the army for “personality disorder”.

So, our troops are immune from Iraqi prosecution, and also from the International Criminal Court. How convenient. Considering the status of the USA as a rogue nation that commits war crimes regularly with impunity, perhaps removing that immunity might have some effect on the dastardly ways the sole remaining superpower throws its weight around? One could argue these soldiers are merely mirrors of the policy of their superiors. One could hope they will not be sacrificed as bad apples while actions like theirs that have not made the news (yet) go on unabated, but I expect that is exactly what will happen. Then our army will learn nothing from this, just like Abu Ghraib.

My Book on Male Mythology August 2, 2006

Posted by angryscientist in About Me, Feminism, Uncategorized.
4 comments

This is most of an introductory letter I sent around to a few agents before I gave up on that book in 2000, since I could not get an agent interested enough to take it on. It is not an easy read.

I have written a book about myths crucial to male dominance, developing a thoughtful male perspective on feminism. The Crumbling of Male Mythology is my skeptical dissection of the imbalance of male power, still prevalent despite all the work of feminists to challenge it. Despite claims of inevitability, people need not be stuck in traditional male dominant two-sided logic. What would it take to truly level the field, to crumble such destructive fabrications into the scrap heap?

By vocation a software developer, I appreciate the depths of originality and insight I have found in feminist literature. This book disassembles the basic pretenses of sexism, confronting assumptions, motives, and results, to weave my case why its practice cannot be fair, sound, or practical. Interacting without rigid roles, sharing respect, power, and love, I argue is the worthy pursuit for men, as opposed to superiority over women. Another theme is how sexist regimes thrive on dividing and disempowering people, while feminist perspectives emphasize the principle of internal power that can empower everyone to realize their best.

Male control of traditional relationships and most fields of endeavor may presume to be due to superior skills, common sense, and what is best for all, but ultimately derives from violence or its threat. This is not hard to show, yet trite stereotypes still skew the perceptions of many, symbolic of underlying prejudices I call the blind wall, that they dare not look beyond. Other sciences have similar blind spots, such as disregarding the economic value of housewives or ecology. I take apart some of these errors to illustrate that science has its share of bias.

By way of evasion men may support equality in theory, but have trouble living it, think it is already achieved or going overboard, or deeper implications escape them. I examine how such fragmentary consciousness persists in the face of all women’s efforts have brought to light, preserving denial by contorting the meanings of feminism, equality, manhood, power, life itself.

I also wrote articles, dialogue, essays, and one science fiction tale intended for a movie. That story is about a couple of innovators for a small research lab whose breakthrough develops into a battleground between biotechnology and alternative health approaches to life extension.