Periodic Table of Swearing

[Bob of QF]

Thunderf00t's blog...

Feminist reduced to tears by T-shirt
http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/ ... y-t-shirt/

TF00t knocks it out of the park... again. Good stuff. Comments were interesting too...

[franc]

This is the cult of the temple of the loser. It's congregation are people that are failures on an individual level and are little more than the urinal mints in life's toilet. They naturally resent this, so when an opportunity arises that empowers them, they seize it and mount pogroms of infinite vengeance at what they believe to be an eternity of injustice.

Crystalline insight.

And if you want to see what happens when people of this caliber gain real power, look at Soviet Russia...

I keep telling you folks, Nietzsche had this nailed well over a century ago, well before modern identity politics were even conceived, with his ruminations on slave morality. It has nothing to do with any -isms and everything to do with resentment at the sense of worthlessness that, deep down, gnaws at the bowels of all of these slugs.

[Badger3k]

Rebecca Watson received a message titled "Is Rebecca becoming a liability to the show [SGU]" from a man saying that her discussion of sexism creates a divisive nature and is a waste of resources. She considered this to be "hate mail."

http://i.imgur.com/XMHM6.jpg

leads to...

http://i.imgur.com/UD5Ml.png

Wow - I would honestly have no problem with anybody I know getting "hate mail" like that. It was written respectfully, was reasoned and thoughtful, and even if you disagree with everything he wrote, that in no way makes it hate. But to Watson, if you disagree with her in the slightest, you gotta be a hater! Haters gonna hate! Now, if he had started the letter saying "...and she looks like a member of team rocket trying to steal the pokeballs of the men..." or something, maybe she might have a point.

I'm still not sure if she is just that clueless as to what actual hate is or she's using this as an attempt to reframe the narrative - if the guys at SGU look at it seriously, she can claim the victim card and cite them following hate speech (according to her and her deluded followers). I suspect a bit of both.

[Bob of QF]

What would you guys do if Surly Amy somehow chose to post on here to defend her side? Would you be willing to give her a listen?

I suspect the difference here is that the comments would not be banned or edited.... but would have to stand on their own merits, rather than depending on any quasi-"reputation" the poster's name implied.

My $0.02 of about a week of catching-up reading...

[Bob of QF]

What you guys don't seem to understand is, that the only reason TAM was a safe place, was that the usual victims didn't show up this year.

Had Ophelia not done the smart thing and pulled out, she certainly would have been bludgeoned in the hallway by a guy wearing a hockey mask.

Had Watson showed up, dog only knows how many times she would have been asked out for coffee and raped on various modes of in-hotel transportation.

If PZ and Abbie were unexpectedly at the same venue, a Ned Beatty (Deliverance) would certainly have occurred, PZ on the receiving end (does anyone really want to see that?).

None of these horrible things happened precisely because of the TAM boycott. Look what happened to the one SkepChick that was brave enough to attend...the horror she was put through, having to day after day sit there, knowing that there was a T shirt walking around mocking her.

No, the ONLY reason TAM was safe was because the fftb people had the forethought to prevent such nasty occurrences by not showing up. So they should not be blamed, but supported in not showing up at any conferences anywhere. This would make atheism safe for everyone.

Well, it could be said that it takes actual balls to face up to criticism of one's own views... and that nobody over at FtB has any of those.

Not that I'm saying that, mind... I'm just pointing out a hypothetical possibility here.

[franc]

I am only surprised it wasn't said earlier. It's Keyser Söze -

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ment-99302

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah. I am not sure what to make of it. This chick is something else. Started off being an almost cute metal chick and is now some androgynous pan-sexual fuck-knows-what -

No one is really sure what to make of her any more, my circles have known this thing for years (Sacha knows her), but it looks like she really wants to earn her baboon stripes now - she is probably Greta Christina's number one groupie. FWIW, I composed a response -



For the 'tardbook impaired -

[DW Adams]

I'm at work so I haven't been able to visit the link yet, but here is something that just came across twitter:

PZ Myers ‏@pzmyers

BRILLIANT. RT @rebeccawatson: I've started a new website in which all the articles will be written by spammers: http://bit.ly/MaPgqd

[Lsuoma]

I keep telling you folks, Nietzsche had this nailed well over a century ago, well before modern identity politics were even conceived, with his ruminations on slave morality. It has nothing to do with any -isms and everything to do with resentment at the sense of worthlessness that, deep down, gnaws at the bowels of all of these slugs.

Quite. Plus that mofo had FIVE consecutive consonants in his name. How fucking cool is that?

[Badger3k]

I'm at work so I haven't been able to visit the link yet, but here is something that just came across twitter:

PZ Myers ‏@pzmyers

BRILLIANT. RT @rebeccawatson: I've started a new website in which all the articles will be written by spammers: http://bit.ly/MaPgqd

If they do start something that is supposed to be humor, I have a feeling it will be as successful as FOX News' attempt at a "Daily Show". IOW - fail miserably. If they want a website written by spammers, all they have to do is look around at themselves.

[Dilurk]

Thunderf00t's blog...

Feminist reduced to tears by T-shirt
http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/ ... y-t-shirt/

TF00t knocks it out of the park... again. Good stuff. Comments were interesting too...

Do you think we could get TF00t to blog here too? ; - ) It would be nicely ironic.

[Bob of QF]

I am only surprised it wasn't said earlier. It's Keyser Söze -

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ment-99302

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah. I am not sure what to make of it. This chick is something else. Started off being an almost cute metal chick and is now some androgynous pan-sexual fuck-knows-what -

No one is really sure what to make of her any more, my circles have known this thing for years (Sacha knows her), but it looks like she really wants to earn her baboon stripes now - she is probably Greta Christina's number one groupie. FWIW, I composed a response -



For the 'tardbook impaired -

Well done.

Your last quote is worth reposting:

"How much truth is contained in something can be best determined by making it thoroughly laughable and then watching to see how much joking around it can take. For truth is a matter that can withstand mockery, that is freshened by any ironic gesture directed at it. Whatever cannot withstand satire is false." -- Peter Sloterdijk

[Dilurk]

Like, it's not feminism that's the problem - it's this new social idea of difference that's sort of all over the place now. I've seen people bitch about trigger warnings on tumblr in other places I visit while I'm not slimeing it up, and similar kind of stuff and speech patters. And amongst publishing and writing groups it's very much exclude X and endorse Y, etc. It's a funny way of thinking about the world, where you have to protect everyone.

Er, I'm talking garbage at this point aren't I? Eghrgh, I'll go to sleep. :( :cry:

No, you were spot on.

[Tigzy]

In other news "The Soundbyte of one hand clapping" seems to have a thing about PUAs:

Do I detect envy?

http://www.freethoughtblahgs.com/skepti ... omment-216

There also may be some PUA predators who look at a conference, discover there is a published harassment policy, and don’t go to the conference.

http://www.freethoughtblahgs.com/skepti ... omment-216

It also protects the conference. If a PUA is ejected for predatory behaviour and there is no published harassment policy, said PUA could sue for breech of contract

The PUA thing as regards the baboons is odd: I often see it lumped in as being part of so called MRA culture. And yet, as far as I'm aware, a PUA is generally a male on the lookout for sex with women. Furthermore, it seems to escape them that a PUA is on the lookout for consenting sex with a woman. (Often, the connotation you get from finding any reference to a PUA on the baboon boards is that it is a bit rapey, too)

One only needs to check out the PUA forums to see how important the consent of the woman is to the 'playas', as it were. You won't find any rophynol ads there, nor any treatises on how to get a woman so drunk she's almost comatose. The tips on offer invariably involve means to improve confidence, speech skills, body language (one's own and the observation thereof), attractive clothing styles and so on and so forth. In other words, it's about attaining the skills which the PUAs believe will increase a man's sexual attractiveness towards women - and as a result, hopefully increase their chances of getting laid. Consent is completely at the heart of what PUAs do, if their forums are anything to go by; if it wasn't, then why would so much energy be devoted to those things which they believe will increase the odds of a woman consenting to sex with them?

How, exactly, this is part of 'MRA culture' - according to the baboons - is beyond me. In fact, considering the amount of work a PUA has to put in to making themselves attractive to the opposite sex, it's clear that they guys are dancing to the womens' tune here. I'm guessing any hardcore MRA wouldn't give a tinker's toss whether women thought he was sexually attractive or not.

I mean, sorry to burst any lurking baboon's bubble here, but - gosh, darn! - women sometimes just like to have a casual, no-strings lay too. And PUAism is just another means of increasing the means by which men and women on the lookout for an easy fuck can get it on. Remember, the keyword here is consent - and if two consenting adults decide to just get laid with other, then what is the problem, exactly?

[Patrick]

I go there whenever it's linked here, to see for myself. I don't mind them getting bucks for my hit-counts. Those are not MY bucks, after all. It might give them some form of "credibility by number of readers", but any sane person reading their content will probably rethink of this "credibility" stuff.

Also, I do it for the Lulz!

I'm currently working in a role that has required me to learn far more about online advertising technical infrastructure and revenue models than is mentally healthy (if you must throw produce, and I sympathize with the urge, please make it fresh). Adding to the page views on FTB is not necessarily going to increase their revenues, so long as you don't click on any ads while you're there. In fact, if their CTR (click through rate) gets low enough, this might even reduce the amount they make.

So look early, look often, and click on nothing!

[Evan]

A reader of SkepDirt chimes in on the FTBullies:

But on certain blogs, it seemed not to matter how politely or rationally you stated your views on
Elevatorgate, the treatment of Dawkins, or the unremitting allegations of sexism that followed over the
course of the past year. In response to my posts, members of the pro-Watson team hurled childish,
degrading insults, censored my statements, made false accusations about what I had written, and even
vandalized my blog (since taken offline due to frustration). Attempts to point out that such behavior is far
beneath what one might expect from adults, especially ones claiming to value "reason" and "rational
thinking," only gets you slurred a "tone troll." (But Dawkins was too harsh, you say!?) Ironically, these
silencing techniques are perpetrated by the very same people who claim that their critics are just trying to
silence Rebecca Watson.

I became less and less interested in debating any of these issues when it became apparent that many
participants in these battles, including those privileged enough to enjoy giant microphones, are far more
interested in fueling the fires of tribal outrage and promoting their own egos than in addressing any of
these issues rationally – and they seem to have no problem conflating those who politely disagree with
those who send rape threats.

It matters not that I too condemn in the strongest possible terms those who would send threats to Watson
and others. It matters not that I too support efforts to create a sexual harassment policy for conferences
and events. For I am a "troll" and a "misogynist" merely for questioning the consensus at Skepchick and
Freethought Blogs concerning "Elevatorgate" and for questioning claims, like Greg Laden's, that "large
areas of the Skeptics movement are very unfriendly to women."

---

FWIW, I composed a response -

https://www.facebook.com/felch.grogan/p ... 6797238842

For the 'tardbook impaired -

Given the confidentiality agreement of the FfTB backchannel, I thought that the first rule of the baboon club was "Don't talk about baboon club." Nonetheless, you wrote an excellent response to the unfounded accusation.

[Badger3k]

In other news "The Soundbyte of one hand clapping" seems to have a thing about PUAs:

Do I detect envy?

http://www.freethoughtblahgs.com/skepti ... omment-216

There also may be some PUA predators who look at a conference, discover there is a published harassment policy, and don’t go to the conference.

http://www.freethoughtblahgs.com/skepti ... omment-216

It also protects the conference. If a PUA is ejected for predatory behaviour and there is no published harassment policy, said PUA could sue for breech of contract

The PUA thing as regards the baboons is odd: I often see it lumped in as being part of so called MRA culture. And yet, as far as I'm aware, a PUA is generally a male on the lookout for sex with women. Furthermore, it seems to escape them that a PUA is on the lookout for consenting sex with a woman. (Often, the connotation you get from finding any reference to a PUA on the baboon boards is that it is a bit rapey, too)

One only needs to check out the PUA forums to see how important the consent of the woman is to the 'playas', as it were. You won't find any rophynol ads there, nor any treatises on how to get a woman so drunk she's almost comatose. The tips on offer invariably involve means to improve confidence, speech skills, body language (one's own and the observation thereof), attractive clothing styles and so on and so forth. In other words, it's about attaining the skills which the PUAs believe will increase a man's sexual attractiveness towards women - and as a result, hopefully increase their chances of getting laid. Consent is completely at the heart of what PUAs do, if their forums are anything to go by; if it wasn't, then why would so much energy be devoted to those things which they believe will increase the odds of a woman consenting to sex with them?

How, exactly, this is part of 'MRA culture' - according to the baboons - is beyond me. In fact, considering the amount of work a PUA has to put in to making themselves attractive to the opposite sex, it's clear that they guys are dancing to the womens' tune here. I'm guessing any hardcore MRA wouldn't give a tinker's toss whether women thought he was sexually attractive or not.

I mean, sorry to burst any lurking baboon's bubble here, but - gosh, darn! - women sometimes just like to have a casual, no-strings lay too. And PUAism is just another means of increasing the means by which men and women on the lookout for an easy fuck can get it on. Remember, the keyword here is consent - and if two consenting adults decide to just get laid with other, then what is the problem, exactly?

Let me try my hand at this - the problem is that when the guy is a PUA, he sees the women as sexual beings, er no, sex objects, and that any attempt by the man to alter the odds in his favor (that a woman would chose to sleep with him) is seen as an affront to the woman's right to choose and is straight manipulation and lying. If the woman does not have complete an total control over the entire process (i.e., he comes over and talks to her), that is evil and sexist.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I go there whenever it's linked here, to see for myself. I don't mind them getting bucks for my hit-counts. Those are not MY bucks, after all. It might give them some form of "credibility by number of readers", but any sane person reading their content will probably rethink of this "credibility" stuff.

Also, I do it for the Lulz!

I'm currently working in a role that has required me to learn far more about online advertising technical infrastructure and revenue models than is mentally healthy (if you must throw produce, and I sympathize with the urge, please make it fresh). Adding to the page views on FTB is not necessarily going to increase their revenues, so long as you don't click on any ads while you're there. In fact, if their CTR (click through rate) gets low enough, this might even reduce the amount they make.

So look early, look often, and click on nothing!

I have Add Block Plus :)

[Trophy]

I used to be a regular reader of FTBs until the crazies started to dominate. However, I do not like the general atmosphere here (and let's face it; here is turning into another echo-chamber too). But I still think it is possible to find valuable insights in both groups, sometimes.

Regarding the issue of colorblindness, Crommunist has a nice article that explains the concept and the problem with it (backed by evidence).
http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... -a-virtue/

[Dilurk]

I go there whenever it's linked here, to see for myself. I don't mind them getting bucks for my hit-counts. Those are not MY bucks, after all. It might give them some form of "credibility by number of readers", but any sane person reading their content will probably rethink of this "credibility" stuff.

Also, I do it for the Lulz!

I'm currently working in a role that has required me to learn far more about online advertising technical infrastructure and revenue models than is mentally healthy (if you must throw produce, and I sympathize with the urge, please make it fresh). Adding to the page views on FTB is not necessarily going to increase their revenues, so long as you don't click on any ads while you're there. In fact, if their CTR (click through rate) gets low enough, this might even reduce the amount they make.

I have never worked in detail on this stuff but have had a passing acquaintance with CTR as well. I'd only add the caution that the visitor counts might factor into how valuable their ads are seen, If the FfTB staff were to market the site. You'd be the expert on this not I.

So look early, look often, and click on nothing!

Perhaps our visit counts would not matter but it still annoys me to give them any visit counts at all. Designated visitor anyone?

[Tigzy]

Let me try my hand at this - the problem is that when the guy is a PUA, he sees the women as sexual beings, er no, sex objects, and that any attempt by the man to alter the odds in his favor (that a woman would chose to sleep with him) is seen as an affront to the woman's right to choose and is straight manipulation and lying. If the woman does not have complete an total control over the entire process (i.e., he comes over and talks to her), that is evil and sexist.

Hmmm. From the baboon point of view, it seems they view women in general as being largely oblivious to when a man is being manipulative and lying to her. Hardly a fair generalisation, I think, nor a very pro feminist one.

(Not that any PUA techniques I've seen involve any manipulation and lying - it seems more concerned with male self-improvement, with said improvements being those they believe will have the additional benefit of being more attractive to women.)

[ERV]

Let me try my hand at this - the problem is that when the guy is a PUA, he sees the women as sexual beings, er no, sex objects, and that any attempt by the man to alter the odds in his favor (that a woman would chose to sleep with him) is seen as an affront to the woman's right to choose and is straight manipulation and lying. If the woman does not have complete an total control over the entire process (i.e., he comes over and talks to her), that is evil and sexist.

Hmmm. From the baboon point of view, it seems they view women in general as being largely oblivious to when a man is being manipulative and lying to her. Hardly a fair generalisation, I think, nor a very pro feminist one.

(Not that any PUA techniques I've seen involve any manipulation and lying - it seems more concerned with male self-improvement, with said improvements being those they believe will have the additional benefit of being more attractive to women.)

I screwed around with someone who wrote/writes those things. Not only were they gorgeous, intelligent, confident, etc, but the relationship was refreshingly honest.

[Badger3k]

I used to be a regular reader of FTBs until the crazies started to dominate. However, I do not like the general atmosphere here (and let's face it; here is turning into another echo-chamber too). But I still think it is possible to find valuable insights in both groups, sometimes.

Regarding the issue of colorblindness, Crommunist has a nice article that explains the concept and the problem with it (backed by evidence).
http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... -a-virtue/

Well, one study...filled with such choice bits as

To conduct the study, Tynes showed 217 ethnically diverse college students images from racially themed parties and prompted them to respond as if they were writing on a friend’s Facebook or MySpace page.

“Since so much of campus life is moving online, we tried to mimic the online social network environment as much as we could,” Tynes said. “What we saw were people’s responses almost in real time.”

Fifty-eight percent of African-Americans were unequivocally bothered by the images, compared with only 21 percent of whites. The majority of white respondents (41 percent) were in the bothered-ambivalent group, and 24 percent were in the not bothered-ambivalent group.

and

“If you subscribe to a color-blind racial ideology, you don’t think that race or racism exists, or that it should exist,” Tynes said. “You are more likely to think that people who talk about race and racism are the ones who perpetuate it. You think that racial problems are just isolated incidents and that people need to get over it and move on. You’re also not very likely to support affirmative action, and probably have a lower multi-cultural competence.”

Really? Damn, I guess I have to change my thinking to fit into the stereotype. Considering how "PC" some cultures have become, I think that might be a better reason for this:

Tynes’ research also revealed an incongruence of reactions among white students that she’s dubbed “Facebook face.”

“To their friends, they would express mild approval of the party photos or just not discuss race,” Tynes said. “But in private, in a reaction that they thought their friends wouldn’t see, some students would let us know that they thought the image was racist or that it angered them. We think that it’s because whites have been socialized not to talk about race.”

That's a far cry from looking beyond a person's race, gender, religion - what have you - and look at the person as an individual. It doesn't mean ignoring the numerous problems that our society still has. That last quote comes straight out of the "let's not offend anyone" playbook.

So, color me skeptical.

To finish

Since a color-blind racial ideology is associated with endorsement of the racial theme party photos, Tynes says that mandatory courses on issues of racism and multicultural competence are necessary for students from elementary school through college.

Associated with? For 24% of white college students - what other factors were involved, and what is the causation, not correlation, please. What about the other students in this "ethnically diverse" group of college students? What were there reactions? What about the 42% of African-Americans = were they bothered or not? Were they also acculturated not to talk about race? Sorry, a lot of holes and unanswered questions in that news clip. Not having access to the actual study, we can't say jack based on a news clip - we have no idea how biased/unbiased the article was, nor how accurate. We can speculate all we want, but let's see the data.

Specifically, beginning in elementary school, texts should provide a more comprehensive view of American history and culture, not just focus primarily on whites.

“Simply telling people to celebrate diversity or multiculturalism or saying, generically, that we believe in tolerance isn’t sufficient,” Tynes said. “We need to teach people about structural racism, about the ways that race still shapes people’s life chances and how the media informs our attitudes toward race.”

These are good short-term goals. Hopefully one day, call me idealistic if you want, we won't need to make such primitive distinctions and it really won't matter (or rather matter as much as every other factor country of origin, age, sex, birth order, astrological sign (snort), whatever).

[Tigzy]

Let me try my hand at this - the problem is that when the guy is a PUA, he sees the women as sexual beings, er no, sex objects, and that any attempt by the man to alter the odds in his favor (that a woman would chose to sleep with him) is seen as an affront to the woman's right to choose and is straight manipulation and lying. If the woman does not have complete an total control over the entire process (i.e., he comes over and talks to her), that is evil and sexist.

Hmmm. From the baboon point of view, it seems they view women in general as being largely oblivious to when a man is being manipulative and lying to her. Hardly a fair generalisation, I think, nor a very pro feminist one.

(Not that any PUA techniques I've seen involve any manipulation and lying - it seems more concerned with male self-improvement, with said improvements being those they believe will have the additional benefit of being more attractive to women.)

I screwed around with someone who wrote/writes those things. Not only were they gorgeous, intelligent, confident, etc, but the relationship was refreshingly honest.

LOL - Damn, Abbie. On top of everything else, you had to go and get it on with a PUA too! No wonder the baboon squad think you're da debbil. :lol:

[Badger3k]

Long post last time, but a shorter way of saying what I wanted to say (you always think of this afterwards...) would be:

Being color-blind (along with sex, age, etc) doesn't mean ignoring those factors, or ignoring racism, sexism, etc - it means taking in the whole person and not elevating one aspect of themselves above all others. Hiring someone who fits a quota can help remedy a bad situation, but not if the person is completely wrong for the job - it's a balancing act. I think it's still needed in some situations, but it shouldn't be needed at all. If we can educate people the goal would be to get to where none of that matters (beyond concerns such as job safety - hiring an 80-year old grandmother to climb up electrical poles in rainstorms may not be the best idea - unless she is the best.

I'm not sure if that was better or not.

[Patrick]

hiring an 80-year old grandmother to climb up electrical poles in rainstorms may not be the best idea

And here I thought this site was all about the lulz.

[Stretchycheese]

Having read up on the T-shirt-gate drama, I'm reminded of Paul Kirby's comment from Sisterhood of the Oppressed and Typhonblue's Women in Groups - Wonderful or Warlords:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B02RDDb ... edit?pli=1
http://www.genderratic.com/p/1402/v-lea ... -warlords/

For years women were kept out of positions of influence because of the stereotypical image of them as hysterical, over-emotional, over-subjective, irrational, over-delicate, etc. And for years, real women have been working very hard to demonstrate the injustice of that stereotype. Frankly, when I see precisely those characteristics being paraded with pride by people who have the gall to call themselves feminists (and to dismiss those who disagree with them as misogynist), I am utterly disgusted.

Lets imagine each women has two such status bars. The first is ‘perceived agency’, the second is ‘victim cred’. As the first increases, the second decreases. And as the first decreases the second increases.

Women are socialized to see their potency in terms of their ability to command-control others into doing stuff for them. The less agency they are seen as having, the more victim cred they have and the more ability they have to shame others into doing something for them. (This is also why women’s beauty efforts and social graces function to ape the behavior of juveniles. Children are helpless, looking and behaving like a child evokes that.)

Posturing for women then becomes about trying to increase your victimhood cred while increasing perception of your opponent’s agency, specifically her ability to hurt you.

It's as if Amy read those statements and thought "hey, awesome strategy!!"

[astrokid.nj]

I mean, sorry to burst any lurking baboon's bubble here, but - gosh, darn! - women sometimes just like to have a casual, no-strings lay too. And PUAism is just another means of increasing the means by which men and women on the lookout for an easy fuck can get it on. Remember, the keyword here is consent - and if two consenting adults decide to just get laid with other, then what is the problem, exactly?

Great post Tigzy. Their behaviour makes sense to me only when feminism is defined (based on the entirety of its actions) as 'the project to increase the power of women, with no end in sight'. The moment men get some share of the power in gender relations, they cant stand it. And I suspect all this is psychological with the caveat of course that the degree of manifestation lies along a spectrum, as always.
As to why the male feminists/baboons do it, turns out that there is something like the HADD (HyperActive Agency Detection) in our brains that predisposes us to side with the females lot more than the males. This is the reason for the inner White Knight (of varying strengths) within all of us.

Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?
Rudman LA, Goodwin SA.
Source
Department of Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA. rudman@rci.rutgers.edu
Abstract
Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.

Franc,
I have to disagree with your claim that this is not a gender issue. As compelling as Slave Morality theory is, it just doesnt explain

• why the gender participation in this battle is so skewed: Why arent there lots more gender traitors and more importantly why are only so few bitching about men being demonized? (for e.g Even Jean Kazez is happy with thinking of men as Schrodinger's Rapist and living by that rule. I asked her is she's fine if I thought of Women as Scrodinger's Gold Diggers. *crickets*).
• the reason non-losers feel resentment: Not all of them are losers in life.. Uberbaboon, Novella, Brayton, Pigliucci all seem to be succesful and had good reputations.

I contend that this is just natural female-favouring and male-discarding psychology taken to natural limits. Bear with me and watch this whole 7-min video which shows how 'men are invisible' in society.
MAN WOMAN & MYTH: Men Don’t Exist
[youtube]9oQCb4HdDCE[/youtube]

Girl Writes What: Invisible Men
[youtube]JRE13DyLzlg[/youtube]

[Guest]

Not that any PUA techniques I've seen involve any manipulation and lying - it seems more concerned with male self-improvement, with said improvements being those they believe will have the additional benefit of being more attractive to women.

To be fair, some do. Clarrise Thorn has some interesting things to say, but I haven't read her book.

I think most of their reputation is unearned. There does seem to be a taboo against any man who isn't naturally gifted at attracting a mate, and working specifically to improve that aspect of themselves. I would agree, however, that someone only interested in getting their dick wet, so to speak, and not in a complete encounter with a human being, is almost certainly an asshole.

[QuestionMark]

Regarding that other woman that was supposedly almost-hugged by a stranger...was she wearing her "Hug me, I'm vaccinated" shirt at the moment? She was attending that table in lieu of Elyse if I recall correctly.

[bhoytony]

She went into TAM with a chip on her shoulder, and when she realized no one was kissing her Skepchick ass, by golly she wasn't going to leave without manufacturing something to further smear TAM and DJ, while making herself out to be the wounded heroine.

Heroine? Heroine? It's HERO you sexist pig. What gendered slur will you be using next, actress?

I for one am not laughing at Amy.

I am.

[Tigzy]

Not that any PUA techniques I've seen involve any manipulation and lying - it seems more concerned with male self-improvement, with said improvements being those they believe will have the additional benefit of being more attractive to women.

To be fair, some do. Clarrise Thorn has some interesting things to say, but I haven't read her book.

I think most of their reputation is unearned. There does seem to be a taboo against any man who isn't naturally gifted at attracting a mate, and working specifically to improve that aspect of themselves.

Well, negging again is about projecting confidence. More a statement along the lines of 'I'm comfortable about teasing you a little'. Couples neg each other all the time (re: 'I'm with Stupid' t-shirts, for example). If it's manipulative, then no more so than the kind of teasing that goes on between people already in relationships.

I would agree, however, that someone only interested in getting their dick wet, so to speak, and not in a complete encounter with a human being, is almost certainly an asshole.

How does it follow that someone who simply wants sex is an asshole?

[John Greg]

Best fake FfTB name on FreeThoughtblahgs:

Clyt M. Nestra farce des porcs-épics morts insérer ici OMFG

:lol:

http://www.freethoughtblahgs.com/strang ... omment-264

[Lsuoma]

How does it follow that someone who simply wants sex is an asshole?

See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want us to shit all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck. And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Best fake FfTB name on FreeThoughtblahgs:

Clyt M. Nestra farce des porcs-épics morts insérer ici OMFG

:lol:

http://www.freethoughtblahgs.com/strang ... omment-264

Funny how this French name meme spreaded so quickly on FTB after I posted there. My life is now fulfilled! :D

Prior to last year, I had never heard of PUAs or MRAs. I've been sailing steady with my wife-to-be for almost 3 years now, and the wedding is only a few Euros away. Just to say I am quite unaware of these cultures, and I don't very much care. Each to their own.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Correction, it started on SB's Pharyngula.

[StueNever]

Phil's avatar drove me nuts since day one, but in a good way. If anyone is familiar with the Game of Thrones IMDB or this actor, then you'll see why.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BM ... 4,314_.jpg

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0318821/
:lol:

Completely off-topic, do continue...

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Phil's avatar drove me nuts since day one, but in a good way. If anyone is familiar with the Game of Thrones IMDB or this actor, then you'll see why.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BM ... 4,314_.jpg

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0318821/
:lol:

Completely off-topic, do continue...

I did NOT betray Ned Stark!

[Tigzy]

Prior to last year, I had never heard of PUAs or MRAs. I've been sailing steady with my wife-to-be for almost 3 years now, and the wedding is only a few Euros away. Just to say I am quite unaware of these cultures, and I don't very much care. Each to their own.

LOL - yeah, just in case it comes across as if I've been studiously studying PUA tips, it's because...well, I have. :lol:

Not that I'm all that interested in going out and getting laid, as I'm monogamous by nature and prefer long term relationships. I found out about the PUA stuff via my brother a few years ago, who directed me towards David D'Angelo stuff on account of the fact that I was shitting myself over my first date since I split up with my ex. I found the PUA stuff interesting - but not for me. For what it's worth, the date turned out to be a distaster, on account of the fact that I managed to somehow convice myself I was a midget, and she proclaimed herself to be a witch - owing to the fact that she could magically cure people of headaches, even if they've taken an aspirin. I know, I know...don't ask.

Afterwards, quite convinced I had been wrong about my height all my life, I measured myself and found that I was actually slightly taller than I had always believed. Which left me with the disturbing impression that my eyes must be very low down on my head.

[StueNever]

Phil's avatar drove me nuts since day one, but in a good way. If anyone is familiar with the Game of Thrones IMDB or this actor, then you'll see why.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BM ... 4,314_.jpg

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0318821/
:lol:

Completely off-topic, do continue...

I did NOT betray Ned Stark!

Yes you did and damn the pic is broken. Vous etes coupable.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5zih ... o1_400.jpg

Try another one..

[justinvacula]

I've been told I look like Vincent Price:

http://i.imgur.com/v3jq8.jpg

...perhaps more like David Silverman, though :)

http://i.imgur.com/5hjye.jpg

[Guest]

Well, negging again is about projecting confidence. More a statement along the lines of 'I'm comfortable about teasing you a little'. Couples neg each other all the time (re: 'I'm with Stupid' t-shirts, for example). If it's manipulative, then no more so than the kind of teasing that goes on between people already in relationships.

Sure, and I agree playful teasing within a relationship is healthy. I think it does require a level of intimacy beyond the first 5 minutes of meeting someone though.

How does it follow that someone who simply wants sex is an asshole?

Only if it doesn't matter who the other person is, and how up front you are about the matter. Two people go up to each other and say 'wanna fuck?' 'yeah!' No problems. Convince someone you're interested in them as a potential long term partner just to have sex one time, asshole.

[Dilurk]

...
Prior to last year, I had never heard of PUAs or MRAs. I've been sailing steady with my wife-to-be for almost 3 years now, and the wedding is only a few Euros away.
...
Just to say I am quite unaware of these cultures, and I don't very much care. Each to their own.

Ditto for me.

Moreover extremists of all stripes tend to be dogmatic, both producing propaganda. I don't do extremes. I don't do dogma.

[Tigzy]

Well, negging again is about projecting confidence. More a statement along the lines of 'I'm comfortable about teasing you a little'. Couples neg each other all the time (re: 'I'm with Stupid' t-shirts, for example). If it's manipulative, then no more so than the kind of teasing that goes on between people already in relationships.

Sure, and I agree playful teasing within a relationship is healthy. I think it does require a level of intimacy beyond the first 5 minutes of meeting someone though.

How does it follow that someone who simply wants sex is an asshole?

Only if it doesn't matter who the other person is, and how up front you are about the matter. Two people go up to each other and say 'wanna fuck?' 'yeah!' No problems. Convince someone you're interested in them as a potential long term partner just to have sex one time, asshole.

True, as regards negging; but only some PUAs claim that negging works, others don't. PUAism isn't all about negging, either. From what I've read, many PUAs don't feel that negging is right at all. PUAism is a pretty broad church, from what I've seen.

As for the latter point - ah, so now it's that someone who pretends to want a long term partner in order to get sex is an asshole. Well I've got no disagreement with that. Yeah, those men and women who do pretend to want a relationship in order to get sex are being not very nice at all.

[Guest]

True, as regards negging; but only some PUAs claim that negging works, others don't. PUAism isn't all about negging, either. From what I've read, many PUAs don't feel that negging is right at all. PUAism is a pretty broad church, from what I've seen.

Sure, as I said, I think their reputation is largely undeserved. I can understand from the name why some women might feel there is an implication of manipulation, but I don't think that's the intention.

As for the latter point - ah, so now it's that someone who pretends to want a long term partner in order to get sex is an asshole. Well I've got no disagreement with that. Yeah, those men and women who do pretend to want a relationship in order to get sex are being not very nice at all.

Yes. Sorry if I wasn't clear before. I meant to imply a sense of 'lying by omission'. Not being upfront that only sex was of interest, and instead letting the other party think something more might be there.

[justinvacula]

There's been sort-of drama surrounding ZOMGitsCriss removing a video she released concerning feminism. ZOMGitsCriss says she removed it as the data did not support the assertions she made in the video. The person who mirrored the video said he hoped "it wasn't influence from some radical feminists from her current affiliations (like Free Thought Blogs and the Skepchick herself, Rebecca Watson)."

http://i.imgur.com/qtQbd.jpg

[Tigzy]

True, as regards negging; but only some PUAs claim that negging works, others don't. PUAism isn't all about negging, either. From what I've read, many PUAs don't feel that negging is right at all. PUAism is a pretty broad church, from what I've seen.

Sure, as I said, I think their reputation is largely undeserved. I can understand from the name why some women might feel there is an implication of manipulation, but I don't think that's the intention.

As for the latter point - ah, so now it's that someone who pretends to want a long term partner in order to get sex is an asshole. Well I've got no disagreement with that. Yeah, those men and women who do pretend to want a relationship in order to get sex are being not very nice at all.

Yes. Sorry if I wasn't clear before. I meant to imply a sense of 'lying by omission'. Not being upfront that only sex was of interest, and instead letting the other party think something more might be there.

Yeah, it has to be said, the various keywords deployed by the PUAs do have unfortunate connotations: one thing I don't like is the 'HB' (Hot Babe) rating to describe women - which seems to imply that women who only fit a stereotypical ideal of beauty are 'worthwhile'. I'm certainly not pretending that PUAism doesn't have its ickier side. But I think to denigrate the PUA movement as a whole is wrong, in that from what I've seen of it, it is much more about self-improvement on the basis of appearing more attractive to women. Certainly to me, when looking at so many of the techniques and different spheres of PUAism, confidence seems to be the underlying theme.

Also, when looking at the PUA forums, there's a surprisingly large number of guys there who state that they just really want to learn about acquiring that confidence and reassurance which they feel they need in order to find a girlfriend and settle into a long term relationship. They're certainly not all looking for easy lays, by any means.

[LMU]

On PUAs:

I don't know the PUA teachings, so this may be wrong, but I always interpreted "negging" to be about expressing that the PUA doesn't put the woman on a pedestal. The PUA is not saying he thinks the woman is inferior in some way, he's saying that he recognizes that she has flaws but is still interested.

If you think a healthy relationship should be a partnership between equals, then it should not just be the man trying to impress the woman. The woman, if she is interested, should be trying to impress the man as well. Negging is a way of drawing the woman's attention to that.

Again I could be totally wrong about that, after all most of my impression of PUAs is from reading Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman! where IIRC he found that women were more likely to sleep with him, if he did NOT pay for them, and then thinking what an extension of that principle would look like.

[Tigzy]

Good point, LMU.

[JAB]

There's been sort-of drama surrounding ZOMGitsCriss removing a video she released concerning feminism. *snip* The person who mirrored the video said he hoped "it wasn't influence from some radical feminists from her current affiliations (like Free Thought Blogs and the Skepchick herself, Rebecca Watson)."

OhOh Noooo!, they're reprogramming Criss! Thanks for that twitter exchange... I may go back and subscribe to the peach again.

[AndrewV69]

Funny how this French name meme spreaded so quickly on FTB after I posted there. My life is now fulfilled! :D

Prior to last year, I had never heard of PUAs or MRAs. I've been sailing steady with my wife-to-be for almost 3 years now, and the wedding is only a few Euros away. Just to say I am quite unaware of these cultures, and I don't very much care. Each to their own.

If I understand Game theory you are positioned as an "alpha" by playing in a band. Something like that anyway.

As for being a MRA, lots of them apparently become one, after going through and adversiral divorce and/or have trouble obtaining access to their children, custody apparently gets granted to the mother most of the time even if the father is the most "fit" parent. Example is this case in Australia:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... amily-law/

No, you read the last paragraph correctly. He banned the father from seeing the children. Then, he wrote a letter to the children saying you should see your father.

In any event, your society does not appear to have gone far enough down the road as far as Sweden:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/go ... of-sweden/

Three seconds of bodily touching between two persons in a relationship who normally have sex – including oral – every time they meet is however regarded as a serious crime in Sweden. It does not matter that they after this incident had sex as usual as soon as they were reunited after her trip to Finland.

(This is interesting, because the above law if applied to my ex-wife would have had her convicted of rape and spending many years in prison, given the number of times I woke up with her straddling me and going at it with abandon. I doubt it though, laws like this appear to be male only, females being exempt)

[James Onen]

I'm not understanding the FTB-esque moral puritanism that occasionally rears its head here.

About PUAs... They want to get laid, period - and are applying techniques intended to increase their chances of having females they are sexually attracted to consent to having sex with them. Do PUAs just want sex from certain women they meet, and nothing more? Perhaps they do.

Problem?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'm not understanding the FTB-esque moral puritanism that occasionally rears its head here.

I'm not understanding this assertion without quotes or links. What/who are you refeering to? <--Honest question, no baiting.

[James Onen]

Let me try my hand at this - the problem is that when the guy is a PUA, he sees the women as sexual beings, er no, sex objects, and that any attempt by the man to alter the odds in his favor (that a woman would chose to sleep with him) is seen as an affront to the woman's right to choose and is straight manipulation and lying. If the woman does not have complete an total control over the entire process (i.e., he comes over and talks to her), that is evil and sexist.

[James Onen]

Things can get confusing here so I don't know if he meant it, or he was trying to see it the way FTB would see it.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Let me try my hand at this - the problem is that when the guy is a PUA, he sees the women as sexual beings, er no, sex objects, and that any attempt by the man to alter the odds in his favor (that a woman would chose to sleep with him) is seen as an affront to the woman's right to choose and is straight manipulation and lying. If the woman does not have complete an total control over the entire process (i.e., he comes over and talks to her), that is evil and sexist.

James, you may have misread Badger's post. He's actually pointing out what the problem with the FC5 is.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Crossposts! me love them :D

[Tigzy]

Things can get confusing here so I don't know if he meant it, or he was trying to see it the way FTB would see it.

I think Badger3k was just playing baboon's advocate with that point.

[James Onen]

Things can get confusing here so I don't know if he meant it, or he was trying to see it the way FTB would see it.

I think Badger3k was just playing baboon's advocate with that point.

Oh okay, then. Thanks, Tigzy. And Badger3k, sorry for the misunderstanding. I retract my previous comment.

[AndrewV69]

I used to be a regular reader of FTBs until the crazies started to dominate. However, I do not like the general atmosphere here (and let's face it; here is turning into another echo-chamber too). But I still think it is possible to find valuable insights in both groups, sometimes.

Regarding the issue of colorblindness, Crommunist has a nice article that explains the concept and the problem with it (backed by evidence).
http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... -a-virtue/

This is the relevant part:

As I said, none of this surprises me in the least. Racism can’t be overcome by pretending it doesn’t exist, and race will continue to divide people until we start talking openly about it without fear of reprisal or social ostricization.

As far as I can recall, I have known only one person in my life who was clearly "colourblind". As far as I am concerned, for the majority of people, it is an impossible task to ignore race. Note that I am not talking about racism, which is a different kettle of fish.

[Tigzy]

Oh okay, then. Thanks, Tigzy. And Badger3k, sorry for the misunderstanding. I retract my previous comment.

No probs. I get what you're saying about FfTBs moral puritanism, though - their dislike of PUAs (amongst many other things) does appear to be motivated by a kind of Orwellian 'Ministry of Sex' distaste. It's incredibly bizarre to see purported freethinkers take such a disdainful attitude to people who just might want to have wholly consensual, no-strings sex.