What's the deal with feminist myths?

[Stallywood]

Ikanneg ... I don't know what to say if you have never heard these feminist myths.  

You've never heard that women weren't allowed to own property?

I'll put it nicely and say ... that isn't even credible.

I agree.  These are standards. Especially the one about women never lying about rape.
Stally

[Russ2d]

Galt said:

"Men have a slight advantage with upper body strength. This is usually in a military context. Apparently, the implication is that women are equal in lower body strength, aggressiveness, devotion to duty and all the rest. "


I will address this- Feminism is predicated on the belief that men and women are functionally equal. They have spread many myths on this farce including the upper/lower body nonsense, you are absolutely right Galt.

Feminist physical myths (that are often mindless reguritated) include:

<Men are stronger but women have more endurance.> Factually incorrect. This myth seems to have been abandoned finally.

<Women have stronger stomach muscles because they get pregnant.> Both factually incorrect and absurd.

<Men are stronger in the upper body but women are stronger in the lower body.> Factually incorrect- the same mechanism by which men build muscle is the same regardless of body region. Men squat more weight then women, deadlift more weight, leg press more weight, run faster, jump higher etc.

<Men are stronger then women only because they are bigger and women are 'equal' to men when size differences are accounted for.> This myth is the latest which is replacing the earlier upper/lower nonsense. Men are stronger then women due to greater muscle mass and a far greater capacity to build muscle mass as well as a poorly understood greater neuro-muscular efficiency. The new myth wants the greater muscle mass 'discounted' in their definition. This illogic is equivalent to comparing the intelligence of humans to dogs and then subtracting IQ points off humans in proportion to the size of a human's brain versus a dog's and then concluding that humans are just big dogs.

<Female bodybuilders prove that women are physically equal to men.> Factually incorrect. Professional female bodybuilders are deformed- the result of cellular sex reversal from birth and via the use of synthetic male hormone. They do not fit into any rational definiton of a normal healthy woman. Thus they are not female and are not representative of what a female can do. Plus professional 'female' bodybuilders and powerlifters are still, even reversed as deformed men, inferior to their male counterparts.

The bottom line is normal healthy men are stronger then normal healthy women. The reason for this, which is an anathema to feminists, is because men are designed for physical prowess and women are designed for motherhood and nurturing. In otherwords a division of labor (sex roles) designed by nature.

Facts (and obvious reality) are something foreign to feminists. All that matters to them is satisying their own personal ego/identity issues and promoting a world which will hand to them whatever they want and forgive them whatever they do.

[CaptDMO]

My new favorite myth/denial -whatever
How Fathers Can Win Child Custody
A work in progress at Intellectual Conservitive (check out the list of contributing writers to the site)
When I first saw this I thought "Sheesh, what a load. This is just the same stuff woman have done for the last thirty years!"
Then I thought it makes a fine outline for fathers and those considering fatherhood- "What some women have done,what to to watch for, what to expect- if things may heading for the courtroom"
Strategies origanally prompted by divorce lawers to women-then, as word got out, through womens authors and chatty-chat at  women only gatherings (usually smaller discreet ones).

Waaaaay too many years of "antecdotal" cases in the courts and MSM showing  abuse by spiteful and greedy mothers using their children as tools in settlements -some of these schemes come straight out of hollywood!(effective in the CS industry none the less)

Within 48 hours the hyperlinks and trackbacks were appearing on the websites of "the usual suspects" and beyond. Most who have ZERO insight to the divorce/childrens legal system.

The usual "Men are scum", stereotyping of all male groups, instant "misdirection" with the all inclusive No CS/F4J/MRA/ex-revenge, and other folk that had nothing to do with it are casually tossed around by the chorus. When faced with the horrid lack of empathy, indisputable truths, and irrefutable facts, the responses ranged from the expected "Well I'll bet you....", to "You must have a....".

But, of course, what is most amusing is the instant denial, and the developmen of "A mother/woman would NEVER do this" myth. It was clear to me that "the usual suspects" believe that the same old Acceptance as truth by ceasless repetition they've learned from their screeching older sisters will still carry the day, and that endless denial in the bald face of truth will garner their ilk a "herstoric"(sic) place in the public eye.

Well, they're right,it will,
but it's no longer a  place that they'll feel so smug looking up from the bottom of.

[lkanneg]

I agree that men are genetically better designed in the physical strength department than women are.  Women do have a few innate physical advantages, but not many, and I can only think of two that actually relate to physical activity off the top of my head--lower center of gravity and greater flexibility.   However, like all tendencies, statistical likelihoods, etc., it's never wise to extend that generalization into the personal realm--you can't randomly pick a man and woman out of the general population and say, "He's stronger than she is."  When I was in the Army, my upper body strength was greater than about a third of the guys in my unit and equal to about another third, and the last third of the guys were stronger than I was.  So at that time, if someone had picked me and a guy at random from the group, they would have had somewhere between a 30-50% chance of being wrong, and a 50-70% chance of being right, if they'd said, "He's a man so he's stronger than you are."

[bluetrigger]

I think Ikanneg makes a valid point with respect to the precision of our wording.

Although I have heard all of the phrases stated the way that you put them , Ikanneg, I have also heard them phrased in the ways that the other posters have put them, too.  Either way, though, the substantial meaning is the same in either case. IMO.

Like most political ideological activists, feminists like to propagate their movement by creating memes that can be repeated in the media, classrooms and such, and which gain a false credibility by their repetition. Such as the myth (or false meme) that that DV cases increase on Superbowl Sunday, that the word "History" means "HIS-story", that the statistical difference in men's and women's incomes are due to discrimination, etc.  

Language deteriorates as it is circulated around. But your correction of the precision of our language is, at least for me, appreciated because it keeps us on our toes.  

Again,  I don't see how your corrections substantially change the validity of the points made on this thread.

[lkanneg]

LOL, I swear I'm not trying to be nitpicky!    Maybe it's partly the engineer in me...which gives me an idea for a siggy, it's one of my favorite quotes.  The main reason I'm so particular in what I say, though, is because I feel I must be able to factually defend any assertion I make, and I cannot factually defend goofy statements like, "No woman would ever do <whatever>."  And the choice of modifier really makes a massive difference in the accuracy of a statement...for instance, I could say, "Most rapists are men," and be able to back that up statistically.  I couldn't say, "All rapists are men," and be able to back THAT up at all.  And it's highly offensive as well.  Small as the difference in those two statements are, they make a *real* difference in the meaning, kwim?

I honestly haven't heard the statements you've all been posting coming from any feminist in the specific form you post them.  Of course I've heard somewhat *similar* statements, but again, the small change in word choice gives an enormous change in meaning sometimes.  I'm not trying to say that *nobody's* ever said what you've all been posting, though--I'm sure *somebody* has.

[bluetrigger]

Your caution against the use of sweeping generalizations is well taken. SGs are not always wrong, but usually are--especially when referring to catagories of people.Condsidering this thread, I'm not sure why you gave these examples. I didn't see any posts here that made generalizations. As far as I can see, all the posts made were appropriately conditional. Generally, when a poster does use a negative SG about people, Dr. Evil swopes down and smacks 'em.  

The sweeping generalizations that were attributed to feminists--that's a different matter. I've heard them all, expressed in a number of ways by feminists and non-committed people (which, btw, means they are having their intended effect). I've heard them in the media, classrooms, casual conversation, in meetings, in professional periodicals, in advocacy research, etc.; expressed sometimes exactly as phrased at the beginning of this thread.

I'll agree not all feminists make sweeping generalizations, but that's not the topic of this thread. The topic was about myths that (albeit some, not all) feminists do make (which sometimes take the form of catagorical generalizations about both sexes--nearly always in a way that harms the iimage of boys and men) . Which I think is a problem worthy of discussion. Especially on this board.

Again, I don't think the change in language substantially matters in the case of this thread. In fact, it kind of throws the subject off course.

Btw, if its in your nature to be nitpicky, that's ok. You need to be yourself!  :wink:

[CaptDMO]

?
I honestly haven't heard the statements you've all been posting coming from any feminist in the specific form you post them.  Of course I've heard somewhat *similar* statements, but again, the small change in word choice gives an enormous change in meaning sometimes..

I MUST STAND CORRECTED. In no place did I see the exact words "A mother/woman would NEVER do this"

Further, nowhere did I see any attempt at refute of the history of, or current popularity of, womans use of the actions described at all.However, at this point,I've only reread comment threads from two( yet unnamed-but pop ) of the  sites that I've gleaned  insight from for my previous written opinion.

Language deteriorates as it is circulated around. But your(Ikanneg) correction of the precision of our language is, at least for me, appreciated because it keeps us on our toes.

parenthesis mine
agreed and seconded.

[neoteny]

In case you missed it the first time:

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

That was outstanding; thanks for the link.

[neonsamurai]

Ikanneg said in relation to friends of hers who'd been raped

Several...hmm, let me think. Counting...four, that I've known of.

Four of your friends have been raped? That's terrible. Why didn't they report what happened to them to the police?

[lkanneg]

Ikanneg said in relation to friends of hers who'd been raped

Several...hmm, let me think. Counting...four, that I've known of.

Four of your friends have been raped? That's terrible. Why didn't they report what happened to them to the police?

Let's see...No. 1 might have called the police of her own accord, but before she had managed to calm down enough to have that suggested to her, somebody else had already called them.  No. 2 was raped by her boyfriend; she was too afraid of what her very racist, violent father would do to her if he found out during the course of a police investigation and trial that she had been dating a black guy to try to have him prosecuted for it.  No. 3 was raped by a, well she thought, a friend; they were both part of a close circle of friends and she had gone willingly alone to his place that time as she had done many times in the past.  She couldn't stand the idea of their entire circle of friends *knowing,* which they would have; she couldn't stand the idea of rejection from any of those friends; she thought the police/judge/jury would blame her for being alone with the guy on purpose and she would be humiliated and traumatized for nothing; she was terrified that he would come after her and do it again in revenge if she tried to have him arrested.  No. 4 was raped by her boyfriend and wasn't 100% sure at the time that he had known for sure that she didn't want to have sex-- and she didn't report him from a combination of that feeling of uncertainty and because she thought that nobody would believe she hadn't wanted to have sex because she had let him kiss her and touch her intimately (she was a virgin).  (She did find out much later that he had definitely known she hadn't wanted to have sex.)

[neonsamurai]

That's pretty grim.

But it sounds like there was nothing anyone could do about the last three. I mean, the guys broke the law, but the situations were so difficult that nothing could be done without causing more problems. It's like me knowing who one of the London bombers is, but if I told the police I'd lose all my friends, or have my family disown me.

It's a tough call.

[SIAM]

I think we are giving feminists too much credit here with words like "myth" and "belief" - they are deliberate lies.  Lies that are as bold as telling the emporer that he is not naked, but in fact wearing clothing of materials so fine, they can't be seen by the human eye, nor felt by skin.  Eventually society will stop playing the game that women are weak when it suits them, and equal and as good as men are when it suits them, or even better than men when it suits them.  

For me, this is the biggest lie of all:-

women are better parents then men (aka "in the best interests of the child, we award full custody to the mother").  

Second biggest lie:-

DV almost always involves the man being the aggressor and the women being the victim.

While I'm at it, another kind-of lie:-

passive aggression is just a "bit of fun"/clever/sophisticated.  Many women hide their aggression through passive acts, such as with-holding access to her children's father or through ostracising somebody from a group (through bad-mouthing them, spreading false rumours).  Not only are women just as likely as men to be physically violent, they are far more likely to resort to passive-aggression than men are.  

I honestly believe women in general have a greater capacity to cruelty and aggression than men do.

[lkanneg]

I honestly believe women in general have a greater capacity to cruelty and aggression than men do.

Wow, I can't even begin to imagine how you'd factually back up such an assertion.

[SIAM]

Wow, I can't even begin to imagine how you'd factually back up such an assertion.

I came to this conclusion through experience and observation.  When including passive-aggression, I believe my experiences are not atypical of other people's.