17

Found this blog in the medicine subreddit. Unfortunately the guy talks waaay more about his sociological insights, plenty of them about women, than psychiatry.

I think this might be worthy to discuss so we can break down his points. Some of his quotes:

"if some field keeps the trappings of power but loses actual power, women enter it in droves and men abandon it like the Roanoke Colony."

"I know, I know, women get paid less then men. Sigh. There are a million reasons for this, but the most important is the simplest: some people want to get more money from the job, and some other people want the job to offer them more money, and they are not the same people"

"We need more women in power." Wrong preposition, dummy, but anyway you have them. You have judges and prosecutors and twenty female senators, what has it gotten you? Your own ground floor women don't protect each other, you know who had to come to this teen's aid? Anonymous. Men."

"And if the girls did nothing, it means they were taught to do nothing, and the people most responsible for that lesson was other women."

I found this is the prototype of misogyny by intellectual men that do have some grasp on how capitalism works and how liberal feminism is a product, that knows of socialization and recognizes that men dominate the world/women and still have nothing positive to say about feminism or women because it is threatening to him, as a man.

So of course, he blames women. Women are the ones teaching women how to behave, how to be a victim, how to be less then men. This is truth at some extend, because patriarchy is also supported by women, but we in no shape or form benefiting from it. He compares women to black slaves and asks why they do not rise up, knows it is because of the "system", but I think he missed the obvious threat of violence common to both.

It all comes down to men beating us into submission, from centuries, both physically and mentally. He has no idea what is the psychological terror of being raped or even the threat of being physically weaker than 50% of the population. The problem he presents isn't why men are violent, but "why women don't fight back." The problem of rape isn't a men's problem of being violent, but a women problem of not cooperating to stop it.

Of course he picked a specific example of women being potentially able to help another woman, but choose not to. Most rapes however do not happen in such setting, but inside homes, with a relative/familiar adult to a girl. He also conveniently ignores how much women have done for women, to fight against rape, to ask for better salaries, etc

Everything women conquer to this type of men has no merit. Not because the system is so powerful as he seems to imply, but because he hates women. He refuse to see anything good that we may have accomplished, presenting everything we conquer as given to us by men to further manipulate us, or empty victories..

I find this kind of thinking is the norm in the intellectual misogyny bubble.

Thoughts?

- https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html Found this blog in the medicine subreddit. Unfortunately the guy talks waaay more about his sociological insights, plenty of them about women, than psychiatry. I think this might be worthy to discuss so we can break down his points. Some of his quotes: > "if some field keeps the trappings of power but loses actual power, women enter it in droves and men abandon it like the Roanoke Colony." > "I know, I know, women get paid less then men. Sigh. There are a million reasons for this, but the most important is the simplest: some people want to get more money from the job, and some other people want the job to offer them more money, and they are not the same people" > "We need more women in power." Wrong preposition, dummy, but anyway you have them. You have judges and prosecutors and twenty female senators, what has it gotten you? Your own ground floor women don't protect each other, you know who had to come to this teen's aid? Anonymous. Men." > "And if the girls did nothing, it means they were taught to do nothing, and the people most responsible for that lesson was other women." I found this is the prototype of misogyny by intellectual men that do have some grasp on how capitalism works and how liberal feminism is a product, that knows of socialization and recognizes that men dominate the world/women and still have nothing positive to say about feminism or women because it is threatening to him, as a man. So of course, he blames women. Women are the ones teaching women how to behave, how to be a victim, how to be less then men. This is truth at some extend, because patriarchy is also supported by women, but we in no shape or form benefiting from it. He compares women to black slaves and asks why they do not rise up, knows it is because of the "system", but I think he missed the obvious threat of violence common to both. It all comes down to men beating us into submission, from centuries, both physically and mentally. He has no idea what is the psychological terror of being raped or even the threat of being physically weaker than 50% of the population. The problem he presents isn't why men are violent, but "why women don't fight back." The problem of rape isn't a men's problem of being violent, but a women problem of not cooperating to stop it. Of course he picked a specific example of women being potentially able to help another woman, but choose not to. Most rapes however do not happen in such setting, but inside homes, with a relative/familiar adult to a girl. He also conveniently ignores how much women have done for women, to fight against rape, to ask for better salaries, etc Everything women conquer to this type of men has no merit. Not because the system is so powerful as he seems to imply, but because he hates women. He refuse to see anything good that we may have accomplished, presenting everything we conquer as given to us by men to further manipulate us, or empty victories.. I find this kind of thinking is the norm in the intellectual misogyny bubble. Thoughts?

14 comments

What he says is true to some extend. Women are the most oppressed group and also the group less likely to stand up for their own. Most women are double agents of patriarchy and only a handful of women are prepared to be shaun by society because of caring more for women than for men. What he doesn't get is that what mens thinks makes us a women (femeninity thats to say submission) is what makes our sex so pathetic. To be free most women have to fight what they think makes herself a women and little women are disposed to do that. So we are stuck in that system because we are social animals and most not prepared to be alone. He is also an hypocrite because if he though women would stand up for themselves and stop this pathetic male serving behaviour he would turn a violent misogynystic and do everything he could to stop it as most men will.

Yes, the gun part was terrible. A random women saying something he actually agrees on the internet, the association with guns and masculinity, triggers him because he is the one that can roll his eyes at the cheap consumerism focusing on gender. If it was a men I beat he wouldnt think twice of it.