Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.

Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
Here are the feminist reasons for not liking the Noer article. While I can understand “career women’s” objection to the article, although the article nevertheless serves the greater good, we can see from the feminist objection some of the real motivations behind the feminist movement.

Reason one:

Our anger at the article comes from two things: 1) It used bad science and made huge assumptions to suggest that marital problems are all the fault of the wife.

The article used peer reviewed studies and statistical evidence from which to derive its point. This is commonly accepted across all scientific fields and furthermore are the main constituents of “good” science.

The studies cited include those that came to the conclusions:

1. You are less likely to get married to her.
2. If you do marry, you are more likely to get divorced.
3. She is more likely to cheat on you.
4. You are much less likely to have kids.
5. If you do have kids, your wife is more likely to be unhappy.
6. Your house will be dirtier.
7. You’ll be unhappy if she makes more than you.
8. She will be unhappy if she makes more than you.
9. You are more likely to fall ill.

Note that not one of those conclusions, apart from point (8) and (3) suggests that it is all the woman’s fault. Number (7) points the finger directly at male insecurity as a reason for failures of marriage to career women. The article is equal and objective in both sides of the argument. Points like (7) have been mentioned many times by feminists and are popularized in literature like Maureen Dowd’s “Are men necessary”.

The conclusion in the article is objective and based on facts stating that the fault for marital problems under these circumstances are the fault of both parties.

The main point of the article is that under these circumstances marital problems result. This is in the clear interest of men to know as any normal man would wish to not have his marriage fail if he
were to get married.

[ The overwhelming response from women on this board is to deny any blame whatsoever for marital problems under these circumstances. ]

Reason two:

2) It characterized women in the context of marriage as commodities rather than participants in a “marketplace.”

In the context of marriage, both men and women are at the same time commodities and buyers in a market place. It should go without saying that based on the perspective, one side is a commodity and one side is a buyer. This article was written from a men’s perspective.

Both parties have a right to information on how to make an informed decision. If we were to censor information based on that it informs people that certain types of men or women are better or worse than others there are MANY instances that should have been censored which criticize certain men over others or certain qualities over others, including the feminist focus on “SNAGS”, the “Queer Eye” focus on “metrosexuals” and whatever whim of the day takes women’s fancies. The entire series Sex and The City revolves around this. A large number of television and magazine articles can be interpreted as characterizing men as commodities rather than participants in a marketplace. Naturally there is no complaint about that.

If it is acceptable that women make the selection, that they are the buyers, but when men do this it is unacceptable, then it is MEN that are reduced to commodities rather than participants in a marketplace.

So according to feminist logic, once again, anything that is objective and equal (problems under certain circumstances caused by both parties, men and women equally buyers and sellers) is in favour of men and oppressive of women while anything completely in favour of women (men never buyers, men always wrong) is their idea of equality.

If feminists claim to be about equality, then this is reason #3532523521 why they are not. Obviously their reason for not liking the article is something else. It isn’t a big stretch to work out that reason.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-03-2006 10:56 PM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-03-2006 10:47 PM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
Freeyourself
Regular Contributor
Freeyourself
I have a more simple answer. Wherever no fault divorce laws exist the majority of times men will get raked over the coals. Once you understand this then you’ll realize marriage is a lsoing proposition for men. I don’t want to hear about prenups since a judge can throw it out of court at his/her discretion.

09-03-2006 10:57 PM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

I have a more simple answer. Wherever no fault divorce laws exist the majority of times men will get raked over the coals. Once you understand this then you’ll realize marriage is a lsoing proposition for men. I don’t want to hear about prenups since a judge can throw it out of court at his/her discretion.

Agreed. This is information that men should have so that they can make a reasonable decision on how to avoid something they do not want in their lives. The Noer article really should have gone further and informed us of this, but that one would have had feminists bombing the Forbes building and burning crosses outside the wreckage for months.

This sort of thing is also one reason feminism has failed women, in this case women that are interested in marriage, as long as men are adequately informed that is. Hence the censorship.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-03-2006 11:06 PM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-03-2006 11:04 PM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Good post, Happy. It’s just too bad the nails you hammered in aren’t likely to stay down around here.

Anyway, I’ve been surprised not to see Linda Hirshman’s book “Get to Work” (A Manifesto for Women of the World) brought up even once over the last week. OK, I haven’t read every post here…

It only bears tangentially on Noer’s article. The main thrust of it is for women to stop all this baby-making and get out there in the work world and do glorious things.

Needless to say, feminists aren’t buying it.

“What?!”, you say.

That’s right. No one should be ordering anyone around. What women want is CHOICE, even though this amounts in practice to huge numbers of women ending up back in the home.

So there was a big debate about the book (at least at Slate), though it sounded to me more like an out-and-out rejection of the idea. What struck me about the whole brouhaha was how peripheral men were to it. On the several occasions where husbands are briefly brought up, it’s always in the context of what they need to do to be going with the program, like they don’t have any concerns of their own. This should be lesson enough to heed Noer’s conclusion.
So be forewarned: the feminacentrism is so thick you’ll find this of relatively little relevance to men other than as a warning just how little modern women think of you.

Here are the links:
A Working Girl Can Win – The case against staying at home with the kids.
Understanding Betty Friedan – Why Linda Hirshman doesn’t.
Desperate Feminist Wives – Why wanting equality makes women unhappy.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-04-2006 12:51 AM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

Happy_Bullet wrote:
Here are the feminist reasons for not liking the Noer article. While I can understand “career women’s” objection to the article, although the article nevertheless serves the greater good, we can see from the feminist objection some of the real motivations behind the feminist movement.

Reason one:

Our anger at the article comes from two things: 1) It used bad science and made huge assumptions to suggest that marital problems are all the fault of the wife.

The article used peer reviewed studies and statistical evidence from which to derive its point. This is commonly accepted across all scientific fields and furthermore are the main constituents of “good” science. (1)

The studies cited include those that came to the conclusions:

1. You are less likely to get married to her.
2. If you do marry, you are more likely to get divorced.
3. She is more likely to cheat on you.
4. You are much less likely to have kids.
5. If you do have kids, your wife is more likely to be unhappy.
6. Your house will be dirtier.
7. You’ll be unhappy if she makes more than you.
8. She will be unhappy if she makes more than you.
9. You are more likely to fall ill.

Note that not one of those conclusions, apart from point (8) and (3) suggests that it is all the woman’s fault. Number (7) points the finger directly at male insecurity as a reason for failures of marriage to career women.(2) The article is equal and objective in both sides of the argument. Points like (7) have been mentioned many times by feminists and are popularized in literature like Maureen Dowd’s “Are men necessary”.

The conclusion in the article is objective and based on facts stating that the fault for marital problems under these circumstances are the fault of both parties. (3)

The main point of the article is that under these circumstances marital problems result. This is in the clear interest of men to know as any normal man would wish to not have his marriage fail if he
were to get married.(4)

[ The overwhelming response from women on this board is to deny any blame whatsoever for marital problems under these circumstances. ](5)

Reason two:

2) It characterized women in the context of marriage as commodities rather than participants in a “marketplace.”

In the context of marriage, both men and women are at the same time commodities and buyers in a market place. It should go without saying that based on the perspective, one side is a commodity and one side is a buyer. This article was written from a men’s perspective.(6)

Both parties have a right to information on how to make an informed decision.(7) If we were to censor information based on that it informs people that certain types of men or women are better or worse than others there are MANY instances that should have been censored which criticize certain men over others or certain qualities over others, including the feminist focus on “SNAGS”, the “Queer Eye” focus on “metrosexuals” and whatever whim of the day takes women’s fancies. The entire series Sex and The City revolves around this. A large number of television and magazine articles can be interpreted as characterizing men as commodities rather than participants in a marketplace. Naturally there is no complaint about that.(8)

If it is acceptable that women make the selection, that they are the buyers, but when men do this it is unacceptable, then it is MEN that are reduced to commodities rather than participants in a marketplace.

So according to feminist logic, once again, anything that is objective and equal (problems under certain circumstances caused by both parties, men and women equally buyers and sellers) is in favour of men and oppressive of women while anything completely in favour of women (men never buyers, men always wrong) is their idea of equality.

If feminists claim to be about equality, then this is reason #3532523521 why they are not. Obviously their reason for not liking the article is something else. It isn’t a big stretch to work out that reason.(9)

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-03-2006 10:56 PM

(1). I’m a student in the social sciences, including social-psychology and the philosophy of logic. While I didn’t bother with examining the statistics Noer cites because I know others will play that out as will time, I think one must always not take mere statistics at face value. Do you think Noer’s statistics tell the whole story and represent all the findings? I’d hope not and there have already be critics who’ve shattered it like here.

(2). But it doesn’t characterize it as being about male-insecurity, does it? The reader points the finger at male insecurity if they conclude as much. Noer doesn’t explain something he describes something … in an article that specifically names the women. So what you say there is just disengenuous.

(3). But at what point does he say, “career men and women should work out these issues that cause divorce” instead of saying, “just don’t bother”? In other words, he addresses the symptom instead of the cause and tells it in an article that, once again, names women. Of course he is not a psychologist (thank the Gods), but the criticism is completely legit.

(4). Ahh, so you’ve admitted he is addressing men, correct? Then if he is and your analysis is correct, then he should suggest the men deal with their internal issues which you conclude already exist and claim the article “points to” (but it doesn’t). Instead, he is saying “don’t go to these women” which does take any blame off the man.

(5). I didn’t see that, but it doesn’t really matter.

(6). That is a matter of opinion that raises the question of whether or not marriage is still relevant in that context. What do you think is helping to fuel the Culture War? Yet another legitimate criticism. Because, as you admit, the article tagets men then, as you admit, the men are seeing women as commodities. But since there are people who don’t view things like that, including women, they will see it as Noer addressing men as if they should view women as a commodity. Another legitimate criticism.

(7). I don’t see anybody disputing that. Except maybe Forbes who apparently made a bad business decision. Thats capitalism for ya.

(8) Who said fictional television and silly reality shows were exempt from criticism?

(9). I think you’re fighting a straw-feminist. You can’t pretend you know what every feminist thinks, every thought you attributed to feminists were in fact accurate, and that every criticism came from feminism.

The article was criticized. Like in most cases, there were times when it was legit and times when it wasn’t. People are still criticizing it. Deal with it.

09-04-2006 12:59 PM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

But it doesn’t characterize it as being about male-insecurity, does it? The reader points the finger at male insecurity if they conclude as much.

EXACTLY the point!! It doesn’t characterize things as being “all the woman’s fault” unequivocally either. The reader does that if they conclude as such. Your rebuttal to this point contradicts the entire rest of your argument and is the basis of mine.

This is why the critics have a problem with equality, because it could be “interpreted” either way. The feminist problem with the article is, point blank, that it is written from a man’s perspective and is on men’s issues.

(3). But at what point does he say, “career men and women should work out these issues that cause divorce” instead of saying, “just don’t bother”? In other words, he addresses the symptom instead of the cause and tells it in an article that, once again, names women. Of course he is not a psychologist (thank the Gods), but the criticism is completely legit.

This is laughable. What you are saying amounts to an assertion that couples on the brink of divorce never try to work these issues out. It is more than reasonably a given that they will try to do that without being prompted. Yah duh on that one. There is no way “no attempt to work out the issues” is the cause.

Yes, it is a medical axiom that PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE.

The symptom is “greater risk of divorce” and “greater risk of problems in your marriage”. The cause is “marriage to a career woman”. Like a good doctor, Michael Noer, is advising us to prevent something which may well have negative effects for us. Indeed, including negative effects on our health. The only point of yours that reasonably makes sense at all is the one career women keep bringing up:

(4). Ahh, so you’ve admitted he is addressing men, correct? Then if he is and your analysis is correct, then he should suggest the men deal with their internal issues which you conclude already exist and claim the article “points to” (but it doesn’t). Instead, he is saying “don’t go to these women” which does take any blame off the man.

As far as your assertion that men “should” (we “should”?) deal with our “internal issues” is concerned, and leaving aside the argument of whether we are talking about “internal issues” or “evolutionary instincts”, the rebuttal is the most hammered in of any on this board and that is very simply “*why* should we?”

For the umpteenth time: It is not in people’s best interests to do something they don’t want to for no apparent reason. It has been asked again and again by men, what is the BENEFIT then of choosing a career woman if I have to do that. NO-ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER. The only response has been manipulative appeals to guilt, like you ‘should’ do it “because umm we want you to.. or you’re selfish”. Uh huh. How about, you “should” not have a career. It’s a meaningless statement.

The overwhelming majority of women have point blank REFUSED to accept any blame whatsoever for career women marriages failing on this forum and have gleefully pointed out (7), and made other unbacked assertions, like men are “lazy” etc. This has certainly pointed to their unwillingness to look at their side of the problem and provided PROFOUND evidence that Michael Noer was correct.

The fact is, what you are VERY SUBJECTIVELY suggesting as fair is “disclaimers” all over the article which would heavily dilute the POINT, and effectively turn it into a 30 page womyn’s studies essay anyway. There are many of THOSE already, with points which DO unequivocally DIRECTLY blame men and suffer no criticism as harsh as the Forbes article.

I hate to imagine how it would be “interpreted” if the article were titled “Are Women Necessary”, or even, the more relevant, “Risk of divorce outweighs any profit from marriage”.

(1). I’m a student in the social sciences, including social-psychology and the philosophy of logic.

That’s nice. I suppose you are familiar with the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam then? GOLD STAR FOR YOU!!

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-05-2006 03:04 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-05-2006 12:16 AM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

EXACTLY the point!! It doesn’t characterize things as being “all the woman’s fault” unequivocally either. The reader does that if they conclude as such. Your rebuttal to this point contradicts the entire rest of your argument and is the basis of mine.

The article is speaking to men as you admit. About women, as you seem to admit. You are being just disengenuous.

This is why the critics have a problem with equality, because it could be “interpreted” either way.

If you ignore the forest for the trees. What is the name of the article? Does he address what men are “more likely” to do or what women are “are likely” to do? Whom does he emphasis are the ones that bear the effects?

This is laughable. What you are saying amounts to an assertion that couples on the brink of divorce never try to work these issues out.

I’m addressing the material in the article. Which already fails to suggest the people to whom it is speaking bother to take any personal responsibility. I’m criticizing him, not doing his work for him.

Yes, it is a medical axiom that PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE.

The symptom is “greater risk of divorce” and “greater risk of problems in your marriage”. The cause is “marriage to a career woman”. Like a good doctor, Michael Noer, is advising us to prevent something which may well have negative effects for us. Indeed, including negative effects on our health.

It is incomplete, sloppy, and misleading. A doctor would address the cause and not the symptom. At least they should.

As far as your assertion that men “should” (we “should”?) deal with our “internal issues” is concerned,

You’re missing the entire point. I’m using your analysis of the argument.

“evolutionary instincts”, the rebuttal is the most hammered in of any on this board and that is very simply “*why* should we?”

How did so-called “evolutionary instincts” get into this? He didn’t say anything about evolutionary instincts. Your offense on selected criticisms of this article is based on ways in which it could be interpreted at the expense of what he actually does say. Then you talk out of the other side of your mouth and go back to the content of the article.

The overwhelming majority of women have point blank REFUSED to accept any blame whatsoever for career women marriages failing on this forum and have gleefully pointed out (7), and made other unbacked assertions, like men are “lazy” etc.

Well, I’m convinced.

The fact is, what you are VERY SUBJECTIVELY suggesting as fair is “disclaimers” all over the article which would heavily dilute the POINT, and effectively turn it into a 30 page womyn’s studies essay anyway.

What does “womyns” studies have to do with this, you’re going all over the place. This is just about criticizing an article and whether they are legit or not.

I hate to imagine how it would be “interpreted” if the article were titled “Are Women Necessary”, or even, the more relevant, “Risk of divorce outweighs any profit from marriage”.

We’re talking about Noer’s article right now. Why all these tangents and irrelevancies? Stick to content, not distractions. It’d be easier to take you seriously if you weren’t dancing around all the time.

That’s nice. I suppose you are familiar with the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam then? GOLD STAR FOR YOU!!

… Which would mean something had I suggested that I could not be wrong. Looks like you are the one unfamiliar with it. Also, why are you SHOUTING?

Shouting isn’t going to make the criticisms go away.

09-05-2006 12:28 PM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

I am repeating myself in this post unfortunately, but will add in some additional enlightening information in an attempt to keep readers from becoming bored.

You are stating that although he has has used statistics that could be interpreted to mean either or both are at fault but just because he is speaking from a men’s perspective, which is to say “about women” and :

“Because there is no ‘sufficient’ evidence to clearly say he is NOT blaming women for everything.”

“That means he IS blaming women for everything.”

It does not stand up to logical analysis.

The argument is ad ignorantium right there (and this is without addressing the definition of ‘sufficient’). Seeing as your philosophy of logic training is incomplete:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_ignorantium

“The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false.”

People should familiarise themselves with this fallacy as second to ad hominem (ie. “you are just being disingenuous”) and ad misericordium it is a VERY common fallacy used by feminists due to their focus on SUBJECTIVITY.

Furthermore I want to know exactly what would be counted, subjectively, by ALL WOMEN as ‘SUFFICIENT PROOF’ that he is NOT blaming only women in his article.

You have not only suggested that someone addressing this sort of issue would have to very clearly write from two perspectives at the same time – from which one can logically conclude that you have a problem with an article being written from one perspective, in this case, blatantly to your convenience, the Man’s.

You have gone further than this and infact go so far as to say it is only fair if he CRITICIZE men directly.

I don’t want to know how far this criticism has to go before the man’s perspective can be deemed as acceptable to include. I suspect it has to be eliminated completely and replaced with the typical OVERTLY one-sided and venomous attack on men that has become commonplace from feminists (and you seem to have no problem with – eg. third-rate “womyns studies essays”).

This is really typical “logic” from feminists. Argumentum ad ignorantium’s most common rebuttal is in the legal system, where :

“In most modern criminal legal systems there is a presumption of innocence, and it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove (usually “beyond reasonable doubt”) that a defendant has in fact committed a particular crime. It is a logical fallacy to presume that mere lack of evidence of innocence of a crime is instead evidence of guilt.”

Naturally feminists have a problem with this and would argue things like, in relevance to accusation of rape cases, that if a man cannot PROVE HE HAD CONSENT, then only because the female says he did not – HE DID NOT. In those cases it is often asked exactly what WOULD consitute CONSENT and an answer is unable to be given or absurdly impractical and giving rise to further questions (ie. “written proof without any cohersion”). It is instead suggested what is fair is the subjective viewpoint of the female. Quite pathetic as evidence and contrary to objectivity.

What is really disgusting is that people have REALLY gone to jail based on this exact premise. Such is the perversion of the current legal system that we can no longer rely on the presumption of innocence thanks to feminists.

This sort of thing is a clear miscarriage of justice based on feminist logic and unfortunately it looks like Michael Noer is going to be subject to this, for doing a public service for men.

This is morally reprehensible and disgraceful.

Of course I doubt you are capable of admitting you are wrong as to do that would be to admit to rejection of your subjective point of view as valid over objectivity and equality. I am familiar beyond the point of nausea with the feminist method of argumentation.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-05-2006 10:07 PM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-05-2006 09:57 PM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“…The feminist problem with the article is, point blank, that it is written from a man’s perspective and is on men’s issues.”

This is the crux of the matter. Women can’t have anything like that happening. Men might get ideas, ideas of their own. Not allowed. Drives women nuts. Noer’s piece is like the first little spark of the fire season. Gotta stamp it out. Keep things under control – their control, that is. This is a female-only echo-chamber we live in.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-06-2006 12:13 AM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

You are stating that although he has has used statistics that could be interpreted to mean either or both are at fault but just because he is speaking from a men’s perspective, which is to say “about women” and :

“Because there is no ‘sufficient’ evidence to clearly say he is NOT blaming women for everything.”

“That means he IS blaming women for everything.”

It does not stand up to logical analysis.

That isn’t what I’m saying. The available evidence is him speaking to men about women. The available evidence has him stating what the woman will do wrong. The available evidence has him stating how it will effect the man in a bad way. The available evidence has him not addressing any actions of those to whom he speaks, yet indeed about those about whom he speaks. That is not an appeal to ignorance … which is much easier to prove with physical, tangible issues than languistics anyway. It is about criticism. You continue to be disengenuous and the word ‘sufficient’ came from you.

People should familiarise themselves with this fallacy as second to ad hominem (ie. “you are just being disingenuous”)

Using the word disingenuous the way I do is not an ad hominem because I use it in addition to criticisms of your offense on any criticisms of this argument. You opened the setting with trying to speak for a whole groups of people and trying to attribute things to them which they didn’t necessarily say so you’ve quite lost credibility with trying to attribute faulty logic to the other side. No reason to pretend.

Furthermore I want to know exactly what would be counted, subjectively, by ALL WOMEN as ‘SUFFICIENT PROOF’ that he is NOT blaming only women in his article.

1) It is hard to determine what is subjective and what isn’t from anybody. Yes, even the wonder that is you who, guess what, isn’t being subjective. 2). You aren’t going to get anything from “all women” whether it qualifies as “on this board”, “the world”, or my opinion. 3). People’s criticisms do not have to be done on your terms. Sorry.

You have not only suggested that someone addressing this sort of issue would have to very clearly write from two perspectives at the same time – from which one can logically conclude that you have a problem with an article being written from one perspective, in this case, blatantly to your convenience, the Man’s.

Actually, no I haven’t. I’ve suggested, if anything, that you’re going to get criticized if you don’t evenly distribute blame, selectively use statistics, or other such things.

You have gone further than this and infact go so far as to say it is only fair if he CRITICIZE men directly.

I’ve tried to illustrate that since he speaks to men, as you concede he does, and he isn’t clear/is ambiguous on whom he places blame, as you want people to believe he is, then it would be more productive to suggest the people to whom he is speaking re-examine their own behavior. Which it would be.

I don’t want to know how far this criticism has to go before the man’s perspective can be deemed as acceptable to include.

I’m not here to say whether it is “acceptable”, but just about anything anybody writes is going to get criticized. Get over it.

I suspect it has to be eliminated completely and replaced with the typical OVERTLY one-sided and venomous attack on men that has become commonplace from feminists (and you seem to have no problem with – eg. third-rate “womyns studies essays”).

The only person who has suggested this here is you. You can’t seem to deal with what is actually being presented.

What is really disgusting is that people have REALLY gone to jail based on this exact premise. Such is the perversion of the current legal system that we can no longer rely on the presumption of innocence thanks to feminists.

Here you go again, off on your tangents. I have no idea what you’re talking about. But presumption of innocence is a legal term, not a general one. The public can think what they want of OJ, Robert Blake, Mike Tyson, no matter what the outcome was. But to pretend such injustices happen due to feminism? Hahahaha! Yeah. It really never would happen if there was no feminism.

This sort of thing is a clear miscarriage of justice based on feminist logic and unfortunately it looks like Michael Noer is going to be subject to this, for doing a public service for men.

Hahaha! He is a guy that researches Santa Clause and wrote something on a lagging business webpage. It has nothing to do with justice, it has to do with criticism. He isn’t on trial, he just really, really sucks. Sorry you don’t like the criticisms.

Of course I doubt you are capable of admitting you are wrong as to do that would be to admit to rejection of your subjective point of view as valid over objectivity and equality. I am familiar beyond the point of nausea with the feminist method of argumentation.

Oh, yes, Clearly everybody should be as coherent, relevant, objective, and totally not unstable with a bad sense of proprotion like you.

09-06-2006 11:19 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.

Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
Here are the feminist reasons for not liking the Noer article. While I can understand “career women’s” objection to the article, although the article nevertheless serves the greater good, we can see from the feminist objection some of the real motivations behind the feminist movement.

Reason one:

Our anger at the article comes from two things: 1) It used bad science and made huge assumptions to suggest that marital problems are all the fault of the wife.

The article used peer reviewed studies and statistical evidence from which to derive its point. This is commonly accepted across all scientific fields and furthermore are the main constituents of “good” science.

The studies cited include those that came to the conclusions:

1. You are less likely to get married to her.
2. If you do marry, you are more likely to get divorced.
3. She is more likely to cheat on you.
4. You are much less likely to have kids.
5. If you do have kids, your wife is more likely to be unhappy.
6. Your house will be dirtier.
7. You’ll be unhappy if she makes more than you.
8. She will be unhappy if she makes more than you.
9. You are more likely to fall ill.

Note that not one of those conclusions, apart from point (8) and (3) suggests that it is all the woman’s fault. Number (7) points the finger directly at male insecurity as a reason for failures of marriage to career women. The article is equal and objective in both sides of the argument. Points like (7) have been mentioned many times by feminists and are popularized in literature like Maureen Dowd’s “Are men necessary”.

The conclusion in the article is objective and based on facts stating that the fault for marital problems under these circumstances are the fault of both parties.

The main point of the article is that under these circumstances marital problems result. This is in the clear interest of men to know as any normal man would wish to not have his marriage fail if he
were to get married.

[ The overwhelming response from women on this board is to deny any blame whatsoever for marital problems under these circumstances. ]

Reason two:

2) It characterized women in the context of marriage as commodities rather than participants in a “marketplace.”

In the context of marriage, both men and women are at the same time commodities and buyers in a market place. It should go without saying that based on the perspective, one side is a commodity and one side is a buyer. This article was written from a men’s perspective.

Both parties have a right to information on how to make an informed decision. If we were to censor information based on that it informs people that certain types of men or women are better or worse than others there are MANY instances that should have been censored which criticize certain men over others or certain qualities over others, including the feminist focus on “SNAGS”, the “Queer Eye” focus on “metrosexuals” and whatever whim of the day takes women’s fancies. The entire series Sex and The City revolves around this. A large number of television and magazine articles can be interpreted as characterizing men as commodities rather than participants in a marketplace. Naturally there is no complaint about that.

If it is acceptable that women make the selection, that they are the buyers, but when men do this it is unacceptable, then it is MEN that are reduced to commodities rather than participants in a marketplace.

So according to feminist logic, once again, anything that is objective and equal (problems under certain circumstances caused by both parties, men and women equally buyers and sellers) is in favour of men and oppressive of women while anything completely in favour of women (men never buyers, men always wrong) is their idea of equality.

If feminists claim to be about equality, then this is reason #3532523521 why they are not. Obviously their reason for not liking the article is something else. It isn’t a big stretch to work out that reason.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-03-2006 10:56 PM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-03-2006 10:47 PM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
Freeyourself
Regular Contributor
Freeyourself
I have a more simple answer. Wherever no fault divorce laws exist the majority of times men will get raked over the coals. Once you understand this then you’ll realize marriage is a lsoing proposition for men. I don’t want to hear about prenups since a judge can throw it out of court at his/her discretion.

09-03-2006 10:57 PM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

I have a more simple answer. Wherever no fault divorce laws exist the majority of times men will get raked over the coals. Once you understand this then you’ll realize marriage is a lsoing proposition for men. I don’t want to hear about prenups since a judge can throw it out of court at his/her discretion.

Agreed. This is information that men should have so that they can make a reasonable decision on how to avoid something they do not want in their lives. The Noer article really should have gone further and informed us of this, but that one would have had feminists bombing the Forbes building and burning crosses outside the wreckage for months.

This sort of thing is also one reason feminism has failed women, in this case women that are interested in marriage, as long as men are adequately informed that is. Hence the censorship.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-03-2006 11:06 PM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-03-2006 11:04 PM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Good post, Happy. It’s just too bad the nails you hammered in aren’t likely to stay down around here.

Anyway, I’ve been surprised not to see Linda Hirshman’s book “Get to Work” (A Manifesto for Women of the World) brought up even once over the last week. OK, I haven’t read every post here…

It only bears tangentially on Noer’s article. The main thrust of it is for women to stop all this baby-making and get out there in the work world and do glorious things.

Needless to say, feminists aren’t buying it.

“What?!”, you say.

That’s right. No one should be ordering anyone around. What women want is CHOICE, even though this amounts in practice to huge numbers of women ending up back in the home.

So there was a big debate about the book (at least at Slate), though it sounded to me more like an out-and-out rejection of the idea. What struck me about the whole brouhaha was how peripheral men were to it. On the several occasions where husbands are briefly brought up, it’s always in the context of what they need to do to be going with the program, like they don’t have any concerns of their own. This should be lesson enough to heed Noer’s conclusion.
So be forewarned: the feminacentrism is so thick you’ll find this of relatively little relevance to men other than as a warning just how little modern women think of you.

Here are the links:
A Working Girl Can Win – The case against staying at home with the kids.
Understanding Betty Friedan – Why Linda Hirshman doesn’t.
Desperate Feminist Wives – Why wanting equality makes women unhappy.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-04-2006 12:51 AM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

Happy_Bullet wrote:
Here are the feminist reasons for not liking the Noer article. While I can understand “career women’s” objection to the article, although the article nevertheless serves the greater good, we can see from the feminist objection some of the real motivations behind the feminist movement.

Reason one:

Our anger at the article comes from two things: 1) It used bad science and made huge assumptions to suggest that marital problems are all the fault of the wife.

The article used peer reviewed studies and statistical evidence from which to derive its point. This is commonly accepted across all scientific fields and furthermore are the main constituents of “good” science. (1)

The studies cited include those that came to the conclusions:

1. You are less likely to get married to her.
2. If you do marry, you are more likely to get divorced.
3. She is more likely to cheat on you.
4. You are much less likely to have kids.
5. If you do have kids, your wife is more likely to be unhappy.
6. Your house will be dirtier.
7. You’ll be unhappy if she makes more than you.
8. She will be unhappy if she makes more than you.
9. You are more likely to fall ill.

Note that not one of those conclusions, apart from point (8) and (3) suggests that it is all the woman’s fault. Number (7) points the finger directly at male insecurity as a reason for failures of marriage to career women.(2) The article is equal and objective in both sides of the argument. Points like (7) have been mentioned many times by feminists and are popularized in literature like Maureen Dowd’s “Are men necessary”.

The conclusion in the article is objective and based on facts stating that the fault for marital problems under these circumstances are the fault of both parties. (3)

The main point of the article is that under these circumstances marital problems result. This is in the clear interest of men to know as any normal man would wish to not have his marriage fail if he
were to get married.(4)

[ The overwhelming response from women on this board is to deny any blame whatsoever for marital problems under these circumstances. ](5)

Reason two:

2) It characterized women in the context of marriage as commodities rather than participants in a “marketplace.”

In the context of marriage, both men and women are at the same time commodities and buyers in a market place. It should go without saying that based on the perspective, one side is a commodity and one side is a buyer. This article was written from a men’s perspective.(6)

Both parties have a right to information on how to make an informed decision.(7) If we were to censor information based on that it informs people that certain types of men or women are better or worse than others there are MANY instances that should have been censored which criticize certain men over others or certain qualities over others, including the feminist focus on “SNAGS”, the “Queer Eye” focus on “metrosexuals” and whatever whim of the day takes women’s fancies. The entire series Sex and The City revolves around this. A large number of television and magazine articles can be interpreted as characterizing men as commodities rather than participants in a marketplace. Naturally there is no complaint about that.(8)

If it is acceptable that women make the selection, that they are the buyers, but when men do this it is unacceptable, then it is MEN that are reduced to commodities rather than participants in a marketplace.

So according to feminist logic, once again, anything that is objective and equal (problems under certain circumstances caused by both parties, men and women equally buyers and sellers) is in favour of men and oppressive of women while anything completely in favour of women (men never buyers, men always wrong) is their idea of equality.

If feminists claim to be about equality, then this is reason #3532523521 why they are not. Obviously their reason for not liking the article is something else. It isn’t a big stretch to work out that reason.(9)

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-03-2006 10:56 PM

(1). I’m a student in the social sciences, including social-psychology and the philosophy of logic. While I didn’t bother with examining the statistics Noer cites because I know others will play that out as will time, I think one must always not take mere statistics at face value. Do you think Noer’s statistics tell the whole story and represent all the findings? I’d hope not and there have already be critics who’ve shattered it like here.

(2). But it doesn’t characterize it as being about male-insecurity, does it? The reader points the finger at male insecurity if they conclude as much. Noer doesn’t explain something he describes something … in an article that specifically names the women. So what you say there is just disengenuous.

(3). But at what point does he say, “career men and women should work out these issues that cause divorce” instead of saying, “just don’t bother”? In other words, he addresses the symptom instead of the cause and tells it in an article that, once again, names women. Of course he is not a psychologist (thank the Gods), but the criticism is completely legit.

(4). Ahh, so you’ve admitted he is addressing men, correct? Then if he is and your analysis is correct, then he should suggest the men deal with their internal issues which you conclude already exist and claim the article “points to” (but it doesn’t). Instead, he is saying “don’t go to these women” which does take any blame off the man.

(5). I didn’t see that, but it doesn’t really matter.

(6). That is a matter of opinion that raises the question of whether or not marriage is still relevant in that context. What do you think is helping to fuel the Culture War? Yet another legitimate criticism. Because, as you admit, the article tagets men then, as you admit, the men are seeing women as commodities. But since there are people who don’t view things like that, including women, they will see it as Noer addressing men as if they should view women as a commodity. Another legitimate criticism.

(7). I don’t see anybody disputing that. Except maybe Forbes who apparently made a bad business decision. Thats capitalism for ya.

(8) Who said fictional television and silly reality shows were exempt from criticism?

(9). I think you’re fighting a straw-feminist. You can’t pretend you know what every feminist thinks, every thought you attributed to feminists were in fact accurate, and that every criticism came from feminism.

The article was criticized. Like in most cases, there were times when it was legit and times when it wasn’t. People are still criticizing it. Deal with it.

09-04-2006 12:59 PM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

But it doesn’t characterize it as being about male-insecurity, does it? The reader points the finger at male insecurity if they conclude as much.

EXACTLY the point!! It doesn’t characterize things as being “all the woman’s fault” unequivocally either. The reader does that if they conclude as such. Your rebuttal to this point contradicts the entire rest of your argument and is the basis of mine.

This is why the critics have a problem with equality, because it could be “interpreted” either way. The feminist problem with the article is, point blank, that it is written from a man’s perspective and is on men’s issues.

(3). But at what point does he say, “career men and women should work out these issues that cause divorce” instead of saying, “just don’t bother”? In other words, he addresses the symptom instead of the cause and tells it in an article that, once again, names women. Of course he is not a psychologist (thank the Gods), but the criticism is completely legit.

This is laughable. What you are saying amounts to an assertion that couples on the brink of divorce never try to work these issues out. It is more than reasonably a given that they will try to do that without being prompted. Yah duh on that one. There is no way “no attempt to work out the issues” is the cause.

Yes, it is a medical axiom that PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE.

The symptom is “greater risk of divorce” and “greater risk of problems in your marriage”. The cause is “marriage to a career woman”. Like a good doctor, Michael Noer, is advising us to prevent something which may well have negative effects for us. Indeed, including negative effects on our health. The only point of yours that reasonably makes sense at all is the one career women keep bringing up:

(4). Ahh, so you’ve admitted he is addressing men, correct? Then if he is and your analysis is correct, then he should suggest the men deal with their internal issues which you conclude already exist and claim the article “points to” (but it doesn’t). Instead, he is saying “don’t go to these women” which does take any blame off the man.

As far as your assertion that men “should” (we “should”?) deal with our “internal issues” is concerned, and leaving aside the argument of whether we are talking about “internal issues” or “evolutionary instincts”, the rebuttal is the most hammered in of any on this board and that is very simply “*why* should we?”

For the umpteenth time: It is not in people’s best interests to do something they don’t want to for no apparent reason. It has been asked again and again by men, what is the BENEFIT then of choosing a career woman if I have to do that. NO-ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER. The only response has been manipulative appeals to guilt, like you ‘should’ do it “because umm we want you to.. or you’re selfish”. Uh huh. How about, you “should” not have a career. It’s a meaningless statement.

The overwhelming majority of women have point blank REFUSED to accept any blame whatsoever for career women marriages failing on this forum and have gleefully pointed out (7), and made other unbacked assertions, like men are “lazy” etc. This has certainly pointed to their unwillingness to look at their side of the problem and provided PROFOUND evidence that Michael Noer was correct.

The fact is, what you are VERY SUBJECTIVELY suggesting as fair is “disclaimers” all over the article which would heavily dilute the POINT, and effectively turn it into a 30 page womyn’s studies essay anyway. There are many of THOSE already, with points which DO unequivocally DIRECTLY blame men and suffer no criticism as harsh as the Forbes article.

I hate to imagine how it would be “interpreted” if the article were titled “Are Women Necessary”, or even, the more relevant, “Risk of divorce outweighs any profit from marriage”.

(1). I’m a student in the social sciences, including social-psychology and the philosophy of logic.

That’s nice. I suppose you are familiar with the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam then? GOLD STAR FOR YOU!!

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-05-2006 03:04 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-05-2006 12:16 AM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

EXACTLY the point!! It doesn’t characterize things as being “all the woman’s fault” unequivocally either. The reader does that if they conclude as such. Your rebuttal to this point contradicts the entire rest of your argument and is the basis of mine.

The article is speaking to men as you admit. About women, as you seem to admit. You are being just disengenuous.

This is why the critics have a problem with equality, because it could be “interpreted” either way.

If you ignore the forest for the trees. What is the name of the article? Does he address what men are “more likely” to do or what women are “are likely” to do? Whom does he emphasis are the ones that bear the effects?

This is laughable. What you are saying amounts to an assertion that couples on the brink of divorce never try to work these issues out.

I’m addressing the material in the article. Which already fails to suggest the people to whom it is speaking bother to take any personal responsibility. I’m criticizing him, not doing his work for him.

Yes, it is a medical axiom that PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE.

The symptom is “greater risk of divorce” and “greater risk of problems in your marriage”. The cause is “marriage to a career woman”. Like a good doctor, Michael Noer, is advising us to prevent something which may well have negative effects for us. Indeed, including negative effects on our health.

It is incomplete, sloppy, and misleading. A doctor would address the cause and not the symptom. At least they should.

As far as your assertion that men “should” (we “should”?) deal with our “internal issues” is concerned,

You’re missing the entire point. I’m using your analysis of the argument.

“evolutionary instincts”, the rebuttal is the most hammered in of any on this board and that is very simply “*why* should we?”

How did so-called “evolutionary instincts” get into this? He didn’t say anything about evolutionary instincts. Your offense on selected criticisms of this article is based on ways in which it could be interpreted at the expense of what he actually does say. Then you talk out of the other side of your mouth and go back to the content of the article.

The overwhelming majority of women have point blank REFUSED to accept any blame whatsoever for career women marriages failing on this forum and have gleefully pointed out (7), and made other unbacked assertions, like men are “lazy” etc.

Well, I’m convinced.

The fact is, what you are VERY SUBJECTIVELY suggesting as fair is “disclaimers” all over the article which would heavily dilute the POINT, and effectively turn it into a 30 page womyn’s studies essay anyway.

What does “womyns” studies have to do with this, you’re going all over the place. This is just about criticizing an article and whether they are legit or not.

I hate to imagine how it would be “interpreted” if the article were titled “Are Women Necessary”, or even, the more relevant, “Risk of divorce outweighs any profit from marriage”.

We’re talking about Noer’s article right now. Why all these tangents and irrelevancies? Stick to content, not distractions. It’d be easier to take you seriously if you weren’t dancing around all the time.

That’s nice. I suppose you are familiar with the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam then? GOLD STAR FOR YOU!!

… Which would mean something had I suggested that I could not be wrong. Looks like you are the one unfamiliar with it. Also, why are you SHOUTING?

Shouting isn’t going to make the criticisms go away.

09-05-2006 12:28 PM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

I am repeating myself in this post unfortunately, but will add in some additional enlightening information in an attempt to keep readers from becoming bored.

You are stating that although he has has used statistics that could be interpreted to mean either or both are at fault but just because he is speaking from a men’s perspective, which is to say “about women” and :

“Because there is no ‘sufficient’ evidence to clearly say he is NOT blaming women for everything.”

“That means he IS blaming women for everything.”

It does not stand up to logical analysis.

The argument is ad ignorantium right there (and this is without addressing the definition of ‘sufficient’). Seeing as your philosophy of logic training is incomplete:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_ignorantium

“The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false.”

People should familiarise themselves with this fallacy as second to ad hominem (ie. “you are just being disingenuous”) and ad misericordium it is a VERY common fallacy used by feminists due to their focus on SUBJECTIVITY.

Furthermore I want to know exactly what would be counted, subjectively, by ALL WOMEN as ‘SUFFICIENT PROOF’ that he is NOT blaming only women in his article.

You have not only suggested that someone addressing this sort of issue would have to very clearly write from two perspectives at the same time – from which one can logically conclude that you have a problem with an article being written from one perspective, in this case, blatantly to your convenience, the Man’s.

You have gone further than this and infact go so far as to say it is only fair if he CRITICIZE men directly.

I don’t want to know how far this criticism has to go before the man’s perspective can be deemed as acceptable to include. I suspect it has to be eliminated completely and replaced with the typical OVERTLY one-sided and venomous attack on men that has become commonplace from feminists (and you seem to have no problem with – eg. third-rate “womyns studies essays”).

This is really typical “logic” from feminists. Argumentum ad ignorantium’s most common rebuttal is in the legal system, where :

“In most modern criminal legal systems there is a presumption of innocence, and it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove (usually “beyond reasonable doubt”) that a defendant has in fact committed a particular crime. It is a logical fallacy to presume that mere lack of evidence of innocence of a crime is instead evidence of guilt.”

Naturally feminists have a problem with this and would argue things like, in relevance to accusation of rape cases, that if a man cannot PROVE HE HAD CONSENT, then only because the female says he did not – HE DID NOT. In those cases it is often asked exactly what WOULD consitute CONSENT and an answer is unable to be given or absurdly impractical and giving rise to further questions (ie. “written proof without any cohersion”). It is instead suggested what is fair is the subjective viewpoint of the female. Quite pathetic as evidence and contrary to objectivity.

What is really disgusting is that people have REALLY gone to jail based on this exact premise. Such is the perversion of the current legal system that we can no longer rely on the presumption of innocence thanks to feminists.

This sort of thing is a clear miscarriage of justice based on feminist logic and unfortunately it looks like Michael Noer is going to be subject to this, for doing a public service for men.

This is morally reprehensible and disgraceful.

Of course I doubt you are capable of admitting you are wrong as to do that would be to admit to rejection of your subjective point of view as valid over objectivity and equality. I am familiar beyond the point of nausea with the feminist method of argumentation.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-05-2006 10:07 PM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-05-2006 09:57 PM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“…The feminist problem with the article is, point blank, that it is written from a man’s perspective and is on men’s issues.”

This is the crux of the matter. Women can’t have anything like that happening. Men might get ideas, ideas of their own. Not allowed. Drives women nuts. Noer’s piece is like the first little spark of the fire season. Gotta stamp it out. Keep things under control – their control, that is. This is a female-only echo-chamber we live in.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-06-2006 12:13 AM

Re: Feminist problem with Noer is a problem with equality.
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

You are stating that although he has has used statistics that could be interpreted to mean either or both are at fault but just because he is speaking from a men’s perspective, which is to say “about women” and :

“Because there is no ‘sufficient’ evidence to clearly say he is NOT blaming women for everything.”

“That means he IS blaming women for everything.”

It does not stand up to logical analysis.

That isn’t what I’m saying. The available evidence is him speaking to men about women. The available evidence has him stating what the woman will do wrong. The available evidence has him stating how it will effect the man in a bad way. The available evidence has him not addressing any actions of those to whom he speaks, yet indeed about those about whom he speaks. That is not an appeal to ignorance … which is much easier to prove with physical, tangible issues than languistics anyway. It is about criticism. You continue to be disengenuous and the word ‘sufficient’ came from you.

People should familiarise themselves with this fallacy as second to ad hominem (ie. “you are just being disingenuous”)

Using the word disingenuous the way I do is not an ad hominem because I use it in addition to criticisms of your offense on any criticisms of this argument. You opened the setting with trying to speak for a whole groups of people and trying to attribute things to them which they didn’t necessarily say so you’ve quite lost credibility with trying to attribute faulty logic to the other side. No reason to pretend.

Furthermore I want to know exactly what would be counted, subjectively, by ALL WOMEN as ‘SUFFICIENT PROOF’ that he is NOT blaming only women in his article.

1) It is hard to determine what is subjective and what isn’t from anybody. Yes, even the wonder that is you who, guess what, isn’t being subjective. 2). You aren’t going to get anything from “all women” whether it qualifies as “on this board”, “the world”, or my opinion. 3). People’s criticisms do not have to be done on your terms. Sorry.

You have not only suggested that someone addressing this sort of issue would have to very clearly write from two perspectives at the same time – from which one can logically conclude that you have a problem with an article being written from one perspective, in this case, blatantly to your convenience, the Man’s.

Actually, no I haven’t. I’ve suggested, if anything, that you’re going to get criticized if you don’t evenly distribute blame, selectively use statistics, or other such things.

You have gone further than this and infact go so far as to say it is only fair if he CRITICIZE men directly.

I’ve tried to illustrate that since he speaks to men, as you concede he does, and he isn’t clear/is ambiguous on whom he places blame, as you want people to believe he is, then it would be more productive to suggest the people to whom he is speaking re-examine their own behavior. Which it would be.

I don’t want to know how far this criticism has to go before the man’s perspective can be deemed as acceptable to include.

I’m not here to say whether it is “acceptable”, but just about anything anybody writes is going to get criticized. Get over it.

I suspect it has to be eliminated completely and replaced with the typical OVERTLY one-sided and venomous attack on men that has become commonplace from feminists (and you seem to have no problem with – eg. third-rate “womyns studies essays”).

The only person who has suggested this here is you. You can’t seem to deal with what is actually being presented.

What is really disgusting is that people have REALLY gone to jail based on this exact premise. Such is the perversion of the current legal system that we can no longer rely on the presumption of innocence thanks to feminists.

Here you go again, off on your tangents. I have no idea what you’re talking about. But presumption of innocence is a legal term, not a general one. The public can think what they want of OJ, Robert Blake, Mike Tyson, no matter what the outcome was. But to pretend such injustices happen due to feminism? Hahahaha! Yeah. It really never would happen if there was no feminism.

This sort of thing is a clear miscarriage of justice based on feminist logic and unfortunately it looks like Michael Noer is going to be subject to this, for doing a public service for men.

Hahaha! He is a guy that researches Santa Clause and wrote something on a lagging business webpage. It has nothing to do with justice, it has to do with criticism. He isn’t on trial, he just really, really sucks. Sorry you don’t like the criticisms.

Of course I doubt you are capable of admitting you are wrong as to do that would be to admit to rejection of your subjective point of view as valid over objectivity and equality. I am familiar beyond the point of nausea with the feminist method of argumentation.

Oh, yes, Clearly everybody should be as coherent, relevant, objective, and totally not unstable with a bad sense of proprotion like you.

09-06-2006 11:19 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: