«

»

Jan 31 2006

Men Hate You

Cancer is Sexy!
Speaking of cancer, what’s with this retarded sexy-cancer image at NewScientist.com? Do I really need to trot out the picture of what cancer really looks like?

Or: “Jesus appeared to me on a grilled cheese sandwich, and lo he did say unto me that cervical cancer prevents premarital sex.”

Germaine Greer says women have no idea how much men hate them. I’ve been doing my best to spread the word, but let’s face it; I’m just a churlish tree falling in the forest. With no pope taking a shit nearby to hear me, I might as well be espousing tube tops to Godly Josh.

But really, girls. Men hate you.

Still, as Kunte “Geordi LaForge” Kinte says on “Reading Rainbow,” you don’t have to take my word for it. Just take a gander, if you can stomach it, at the news. If the new American compulsory-pregnancy Supreme Court doesn’t convince you of Dude Nation’s contempt for you, and if Chicago’s “rape epidemic” leaves you unfazed, how about this Australian knob? He’s pitching a tent for the schizoid American Godbag Family Anti-Sex/Fetus Worship Coalition’s position on the new HPV vaccine. Which vaccine, if you’re just joining us, is expected to be 100% effective in preventing cervical cancer. Health advocates want to include the vaccine in the standard bundle of shots that all kiddies get. Godbags just hate this vaccine.

Why do godbags hate a vaccine that will save the lives of half a million women a year?

Because, duh, they hate women.

To recap: HPV is sexually transmitted. The aforementioned vaccine, in order to be most effective, should be administered to girls before they become sexually active. Which is seen by godbags as an endorsement of female teenage boning. Godbags, although they rarely take a position on male teenage boning, are 100% dead set against female teenage boning. They believe it will, as reader Liz suggested in a recent email, melt the fabric of society (I can understand why they might fear this melting, since they buy all the cheap polyester fabric of their society at Wal-Mart).

Because HPV is sexually-transmitted, and because women are the sex class, the virus is automatically a girl-problem. And behold! Where girls and sex collide, there you will find a clump of patriarchy-loving assholes making up rules. Godbags naturally default to slut-punishing mode when encountering scary science that might help to confer human status on women. The myth of female virtue is the cornerstone of patriarchy. A pussy unpoliced will lead to hard drugs, communism, homosexuality, rampant stuffing of newborns into trash cans, and what have you.

But come ON. Does fear of cervical cancer even register on a teenage girl’s radar as a fornicational deterrent? The contingency is remote. Even so, Focus on the Fetus et al would prefer that those dirty sluts grow up to die of hideous cancer.

That’s how much they hate you.

[Thanks for the Australian knob link, Liz]

173 comments

7 pings

  1. Kaka Mak

    As an HPV pos woman, this issue is particularly near and dear to me–very few people even seem to know what HPV is–I didn’t, until last year, really, even after 2 colposcopy procedures.

    No one told me I could get cancer from a penis.
    You bet you bunions I’m telling my daughter–and everyone else who will/will not listen that penises can give you cancer.
    The whole anti-vaccine thing has me seething.

    Been getting my ass kicked a bit by men who can’t understand why I can say hating the patriarchy is not synonmous with hating men. I give up. For today.

    Thank you for this safe haven!
    I need a good does of no-apologies feminism today!

    I hadn’t seen your post op picture til today.
    I love your site more every day!

  2. sunny in texas

    maybe the newscientist creeps think that by inferring that cancer happens to nubile little sex toys, that this will be more likely to motivate men into giving a shit about it?
    i dunno.

    thing is, they are probably right.

    i’d been arguing with a bunch of godbags about abortion on a forum that i sometimes hang out on(i’m in IT so my workdays are sometimes very slow). and i was shocked at just how that particular thread showed some of the men to be woman-owning cretins. and proud of it.

    and i owe my newfound ability to argue these kinds of things to you. thank you. don’t ever give up the fight.

    no matter how much they want us dead.

  3. norbizness

    I hate women so much, I’m viewing this site with Internet Explorer right now.

    I think Germaine Greer’s Law has a Larry Miller Corollary: “If women knew what we were really thinking, they’d never stop slapping us.”

    P.S. I think LeVar Burton hates women too, that’s why whenever a girl finished her video book report on Reading Rainbow, he’d exclaim: “Don’t forget… women need literacy like a fish needs a bicycle!”

  4. Spinat Teig

    can someone please succinctly explain to me why this is a patriarchy problem? i think it is a godbag problem. godbags aren’t trying to spite women by forcing them to get cervical cancer, they’re spiting sexually active hetero couples (including men), hoping the existence of diseases will make them less promiscuous.

    godbags are generally patriarchal bastards, but i don’t think this is the right example.

  5. A White Bear

    Here’s a humdinger: http://www.slate.com/id/2135094

    “Being touched by your husband relieves stress. In a study, as women waited for electric shocks, scans of their brains showed high activity in regions that anticipate pain and regulate negative emotions. The activity subsided when a stranger touched their hands, but subsided far more when their husbands did so.”

    No mention of whether men are calmed by the presence of their partners. No mention of what possible warrant a study like this could have.

    “Maybe stress reduction is why married folks are healthier than singles.”

    No mention of whether a close friend, non-married partner, gay partner, or parent could have the same effect. What are they testing for? The all-healing power of Jesus Christ’s blessing to allow women to be harmed without complaint?

    Just remember, ladies — next time you have to suffer horrible quotidian female traumas, like being raped, beaten, or humiliated, just ask your hubby to hold your hand while he does it.

  6. Kelley

    Goddamnit!! Is someone really going to try to block the HPV vaccine?? Surely no politician would be stupid enough to try and block medication beneficial to wom…oh yeah, Plan B, right. Never mind!! (Twisty, my apologies for the elipses; I know you hate them!). Is there nothing we can do to stop the theocratic, sexist godbags???!!!

  7. Sylvanite

    Hell, the risk of pregnancy doesn’t even stop teens from having sex. I doubt many teenaged girls are even aware that HPV causes most cervical cancers. This is just further proof that godbag thinking on the topic of sex bears no relationship to reality.

    How do I hate these people? Let me count the ways!

  8. Twisty

    “Is there nothing we can do to stop the theocratic, sexist godbags???!!!”

    As long as people insist on using Internet Explorer, probably not.

  9. Tom

    You’re wrong on this, Twisty. The Godbags don’t want to ban the vaccine because they hate women. They want to ban it because they hate sex, and the lives of women are a small price to pay to make sex less attractive, even if only theoretically. Hence, the Godbags scorn and discount women who, after all, were responsbile for man’s fall from grace in the first place — the evil temptresses.

    Glad I could clear that up for you.

  10. Twisty

    Tom, I fail to see how your argument contradicts my thesis. In a patriarchy, women are synonymous with sex. Hating one is the same is hating the other. Glad I could clear that up for you.

  11. Kelley

    Twisty:

    Sorry about the Internet Explorer. I contribute from my computer at work, and thus don’t have a choice of browser.

    By the way, does anyone else see a symbolic parallel between the death of Coretta Scott King and the confirmation of Alito? Her death ended a watershed chapter in the fight for civil rights; Alito’s confirmation will be a watershed in just ending civil rights.

  12. Twisty

    Kelley, I don’t blame you for IE. I blame the whatchamacallit.

  13. CafeSiren

    Yeah, right: when I was a sexually active teenager, I didn’t think “Oh, wait! I could get an STD! Better not have sex!” What I thought was: “Better use a condom!”

    That’s right: threatening teenaged girls with viruses is NOT going to stop them from having sex, if that’s what they’ve decided to do. (And let’s face it: HPV is pretty low on the teenaged radar, compared with 1. Pregnancy; and 2. HIV) And I suspect that the corrolary is also true: taking away the threat of a potentially deadly virus is not going to prod all the girls who are currently savin’ it to go out boink everything in sight. Unlike the folks who see eternal punishment as the only reason to avoid doing anything (and what kind of fucked-up version of spirituality is that anyway?), some people make decisions based on other factors.

  14. Sharoni

    Alito’s being confirmed today (the Democrats failed); Wendy Wasserstein died yesterday (I will mourn); and now the HPV vaccine has become a religious right call-to-arms? Twisty, how far away are we from the Handmaid’s Tale? Abject misery is obviously our lot, we should all just get married and start feeding them slow doses of arsenic.

  15. sunny in texas

    just a note: i emailed a note of complaint to newscientist about that graphic.
    i’ll update you on any response if you want me to.

  16. tisha

    I just went to the New Scientist website and complained to the editor about the pic. The more I think about it, the madder I get. Using sex to “sell” their cancer information? How sick is THAT?

  17. sigh

    every day we are indeed faster approaching a world resembling that of the handmaid’s tale. tom, you moron, when the godbags say that they are going to deny hundreds of millions of women a preventative for a very nasty cancer, they aren’t saying that they hate sex, they’re definitely saying that they hate women. cervical cancer personally touches my life, unfortunately, but all i can do is keep fighting for women’s rights and supporting a wonderful blog like this. keep up the great work, twisty, i love you and continue to root for you!

  18. Mandos

    I have repeatedly wondered about the use of the word “hate”. Thing is, it’s hard for me to use the word “hate” when the policies and behaviours in question have an instrumental view of women. That is to say, their negative effects on women are justified via some exterior good (whether you agree with it or not). It’s hard for me to conflate instrumentalization with “hate” as it is commonly used, since hate implies that the destruction is justified in itself, rather than for some explicit purpose.

    That said, I understand you use the word “hate” to get a particular effect. But I wonder if it clouds the issue a bit.

  19. Twisty

    Quoth Spinat Teig in #4: “can someone please succinctly explain to me why this is a patriarchy problem? i think it is a godbag problem. godbags aren’t trying to spite women by forcing them to get cervical cancer, they’re spiting sexually active hetero couples (including men), hoping the existence of diseases will make them less promiscuous.”

    Patriarchy depends for its existence on male cohesion. Control of females is paramount to this. The godbaggery to which you allude emerges from patriarchy, not the other way around. Godbags are just patriarchy’s minions. There are other minions, too. Like left wing guys who think abortion is a fringe issue. Like ExxonMobil. Like that design magazine with the pussy cover. Like TV.

  20. tisha

    Don’t these godbags understand their virtuous children can be RAPED? Even if they were correct in their godbag assumptions, they should still get their SONS AND DAUGHTERS vaccinated.

    I swear, sometimes I think there is something wrong with the groundwater in the towns that breed these godbags. It’s fucking brain damage.

  21. Twisty

    Mandos, the word “hate” my cloud the issue for essentialist men, who may see the word merely as the opposite of “love”, but I promise you, it precisely describes the situation from a woman’s point of view.

    If you prefer, I could say “men enjoy higher status than women and go to great lengths to preserve it, even when those lengths often injure or kill women in the process.” Do you not concede the hostility innate in this behavior? Is it not the very definition of malice?

    If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…

  22. laughingmuse

    Even though this topic makes me want to cry, I still love you, Twisty, and I’m glad you are writing about it.

    Those utter, utter fuckers. How is it that some folks see it as their responsibility to paint their particular beliefs writ large on 1/2 the world?

  23. Sam

    I agree with Twisty that the majority of men actively despise women to the point of hate or else this world would look a lot different, but Mandos has a point.

    It’s hard to muster up enough emotion to hate an object or a fly that’s buzzing in your face, mostly you just step past them sure in your ability to ignore them to your content. For some men, hate is more emotional investment than they concern themselves with when it comes to the women they see as objects and annoying gnats.

    Susan Faludi’s book “Stiffed” explores how some men displace their anger at themselves, their jobs, their lives in general onto women. Many of these men really hate women, but some hate themselves, their jobs, and their lives more and take it out on everything around them, including women.

  24. Dharma

    Wow. That photo on the New Scientist is making me so sad. My mother is fuzzy headed and in mourning about her hair because it reminds her of being a victim on so many levels. Today is her last chemo, she is refusing to do the second course because the numbers don’t change much.

    I’m with Laughingmuse, this post is making me want to cry. The loss of Wendy Wasserstain, and now Coretta Scott King is not helping. Too much loss for less than a 24-hour period. Sharoni – unfortunately we seem to move closer and closer to the fiction of A Handmaiden’s Tale.

  25. k

    Did you see the article linked on Suburban Guerilla that women are dying of dehydration in Iraq because they don’t want to go to the latrine after dark for fear of getting raped?

  26. Sharoni

    The article on the rape epidemic carried this bromide, that some of the victims were “drug users or prostitutes whose lifestyles make their cases difficult to prosecute.” Men do hate women, and they teach women to hate themselves. Women are oppressed, used, degraded, defiled and generally turned into slave labor (in the name of “love” no less) and anyone, ANYONE I SAY, in their right mind, who was treated like this would perceive such treatment as hostile. I do. Sorry, that “men don’t hate women” thing that Mandos was tryint to push got to me.

    Twisty, not to get too far away from our abject worship of your ongoing crusade, I hope you are feeling better, I hope your treatment is going as well as possible, and I hope you can continue this fight for a long time to come.

  27. Steph

    Who cares about the semantics, hate, ignore, Godbagize whatever. There’s actually a vaccine that can stop a cancer that only affects women and some nutty men and probably women don’t want to see girls vaccinated.

    What they’re really saying is that they want women to continue to die from cervical cancer in the service of men’s desire for sex whenever they want from whomever they want it. If that ain’t patriarchy what the hell is.

    (That being said, I totally agree that it’s Hate, Twisty, but am tired of some people missing the forest for the trees).

  28. Mandos

    If you prefer, I could say “men enjoy higher status than women and go to great lengths to preserve it, even when those lengths often injure or kill women in the process.” Do you not concede the hostility innate in this behavior? Is it not the very definition of malice?

    You may be right. I often use the word “malice” in just such a similar way (and I usually take it to mean something different from “hate” but let’s not quibble about that). The thing is that you could claim that any attempt to sustain a higher status than others is simply evidence of “hate”. If you believe that a certain order of things is “right” and “proper” (and many women believe it, as I’m sure you know), then you’re allowing people to come to harm for a Greater Benefit.

    “Hate” suggests, at the very minimum, a conscious desire to do harm, or even, to use your definition (of which, as I said, I’m not certain), a conscious knowledge that one is trying to sustain privilege over others at others extreme expense. It might have been true for ancient Greek men who explicitly wrote and knew what they did to women and the evil in it and supported doing it anyway. But most men (and women) in our time really don’t have this conscious understanding of their actions, so the use of the word “hate” suggests an overt intent to do harm.

    I’ve recently been reading a novel in which a female character is cursed by her hostile sister to be able to read continually the mind of a nice young man who lusts after her, but only in his mind (ie, initially, he never acts it out). For much of the novel, she’s being continually sexually harassed, effectively, and he’s largely oblivious of her experience of it, even though he eventually finds out about the bond. After that point in the story, it’s hard for me to say that he “hates” her, even though his thoughts do her harm, and he is, I guess, responsible for them. I thought that was an apt metaphor.

  29. BitingBeaver

    To the HPV thing, I’ve been dealing with it up close and personal for awhile now. I now have 2 strains of cancer causing HPV, both of which were given to me by men. But here’s the part that pisses me off the most, the medical establishment doesn’t even TEST men for HPV, although they could do so easily enough by tweaking a DNA test.

    I’m still recovering from surgery over HPV going cancer and here I am a half cervix lighter knowing that the medical establishment has known about this since the late 1800′s when they understood that cloistered nuns didn’t get cervical cancer at all. It took them this long to bother researching it enough to even come up with a vaccine.

    Anyway, to avoid cluttering up Twisty’s blog with my own redundant experiences with HPV and surgery, here’s the link for anyone that may be interested. I’ve chronicled my entire experience from that post on up to the surgery and recovery.

    Yes, men hate women, or at the very least, are completely apathetic to them. Even in our so-called unbiased medical community women remain nonexistent until some asshole decides that maybe there is money to be made off of them afterall.

    Damn, I HATE the Patriarchy.

  30. antelope

    Okay, I agree, men don’t hate women per se.

    But you know, it’s also true that Hitler didn’t hate Jews. I believe he said several times throughout his life that he didn’t. Poor old Hitler couldn’t even go fox hunting or bear to watch it because it was so horribly inhumane & he was such a sensitive guy.

  31. Mandos

    Ah but Hitler was conscious of what he did. I mean, it’s quite possible that he lived in a bubble, but I doubt it. Honestly, though, most people live in compartmentalized bubbles, including most of Focus on the Family. They honestly believe that what they’re doing will *help* women, because they believe that they can banish teh sex.

  32. Twisty

    Are you saying, Mandos, that you don’t think Hitler did what he did out of some desire to bring glory to the Fatherland? That he just hated Jews and queers and redheaded stepchildren?

  33. Mandos

    [quote]Are you saying, Mandos, that you don’t think Hitler did what he did out of some desire to bring glory to the Fatherland? That he just hated Jews and queers and redheaded stepchildren?[/quote]

    From what I understand, I think he thought that They Did Something To Him and that there was something fundamentally wrong with their existence.

    I admin there are probably men who consciously think there is something profoundly wrong with the existence of women, but I seriously doubt that it is the preponderance of even overt patriarchy, even such caricatured extremes as the Taliban. I mean, even Hitler didn’t want to exterminate women as such: he simply wanted them to have a lot of babies, and thought that German women having babies was good for German women, since what was good for the nation-state was good for the people in his ideology.

  34. antelope

    Hitler also said that Jews would be just fine if only there was some way to provide them with completely different brains. THIS is what I think the preponderance of men in our country, and especially the Godbags, currently believe about women. Those who have already chosen to become a vastly reduced caricature of a human being are just fine – those who have not would be just fine if only they could get with the program.

    In other words, men hate (and more importantly, fear, which is an emotion that bugs them far more than hate) an actual, independent, free-thinking woman. Is that different from hating women as a class? Not to me it isn’t.

  35. Finn

    “Germaine Greer says women have no idea how much men hate them. I’ve been doing my best to spread the word, but let’s face it; I’m just a churlish tree falling in the forest. With no pope taking a shit nearby to hear me, I might as well be espousing tube tops to Godly Josh.”

    Best paragraph I’ve read by anyone anywhere in a long, long time.

    You rule!!

    (how could I hate you?)

  36. Twisty

    Men as a class also think there is something fundamentally wrong with women as a class. Such that men are the default when we think “human being.” There’s all that original sin crap, and the fact of our being “unclean” all the time, and that we’re stupider than men, and hysterical, and unfit to rule or manage or lead or do anything, really, except spread’em and incubate and clean toilets. We are essentially slaves, Mandos. In order to feel good about enslaving us, men have had to convince themselves that we are subhuman, and deserving of this contempt. Call it whatever you want. “Hate” suits me fine.

  37. Sam

    I collected the following ads for penis enlargement that were sent to my Hotmail inbox in part because at the time I was arguing with people giving men the same misguided benefit of the doubt Mandos is giving them and I thought otherwise. These ads show some serious hatred of women that men, not Hitler-like men just men, have for women, women’s bodies, and women’s sexuality because if ad come-ons like this repulsed most men instead of attracting them the ads would have been discontinued instead of being spammed to me daily.

    A lot of times men are selfish and careless, and a lot more times they’re getting their dicks hard at the thought of hurting women sexually.

    Make Her Suffocate on your Thick Stick
    Take Your Massive Size Cock and Rip Her Apart
    Make That Slut Suck On Your Huge Love Muscle
    Make That Slut Suck On Your Brimming Sized Knob
    Choke Her With Your Brimming Sized Knob
    Gag Her With Your Voluminous Cock Size
    Make Her Swallow While She’s On Top Of Your Thick Stick
    Break Walls Apart With Your Humungous Knob
    Shatter Her Vagina With Your Monster Prick
    Split Her Slit with your Huge Husky
    Make Her Choke On Your Huge Knob
    Make Her Gag On Your Monster Size Member
    Make Her Suffocate On Your Fat Johnson
    Make Her Bleed After You Smack Her Cock-pit

  38. LCGillies

    I worked a Christmas-rush nightshift temp job sorting packages at UPS back in the mid 70′s. There was an interesting assortment of guys, both real teamsters and us holiday extras. We ate “lunch” at 3am, up on the balcony by the vending machines. One temp guy I sometimes ended up sitting with was a taciturn fellow who I somehow learned had a half-dozen children and was working UPS as a second job. He never said much. One night, sitting across from me at lunch, he looked up and said with sudden fierce intensity “a woman’s cunt is the gates to hell”—and said no more. Hate is the right word.

    Hitler thought Jews were a vermin, a social infection that he needed to extirpate. If he could have found a way to breed future aryans off men, he would have exterminated all the women as well.

  39. Josef K

    Once again, thank you for the unsexy cancer picture. Can we also have some unsexy rape pictures, please? Or some unsexy pictures illustrating female sexual dysfunction (TM)? Or a picture illustrating money worries that doesn’t feature a blonde woman with fine lines round her eyes, sitting at a kitchen table with a Fisher-Price calculator?

    Actually, even an unsexy picture of “women in a man’s world” would be kind of nice. You know, a female CEO who isn’t trussed up in a “power” suit, or a female firefighter who’s wearing more than just the helmet… Well, I can dream.

  40. Burrow

    If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…it must be a penguin!

    Seriously, this doesn’t even surprise me. I know it would be different if it affected boys/men as well, then it wouldn’t be being protested by godbags. (They do realise that you can get it from a man you may happen to be married to, right?)

  41. The Fat Lady Sings

    Yes – some men really, really hate women. Matter of fact I wrote an article about it, posted that article on Kos, and was attacked from all sides. My follow up, on Misogyny was treated the same way. With the Supreme Court now composed of a majority of narrow-minded bigots (and yes, I include Thomas in that statement) women’s ownership of their own bodies is about to take center stage. Not just reproductive rights, folks; along with banning the HPV vaccine, women will begin to see other things evaporate as well – such as any and all research into their specific health problems, or insurance covering things like pregnancy and birth.

    LCGillies – what that co-worker of yours said pretty much nails the view. All I can think of is that one sequence in Pink Floyd’s The Wall – the woman’s murderous cunt devouring and destroying everything male. It made me angry then, and it still pisses me off that, if anything – attitudes have deteriorated.

    And Twisty – you got yourself another Koufax nomination. Congratulations. It was much deserved. You do very good work.

  42. Tony Patti

    It’s like flowers after a rain, to see all the little posts pop up claiming that men don’t really actually, in the strict definition of hate that I claim to be the universal and incontrovertable meaning of the ideal manifestation of hate as an abstract concept utilized in a space/time constraint, hate women.

    And I understand the slight wince that can lead to a quick scroll down to the comment box whenever men are used as a category and you are yourself in that category. I feel it every time.

    Yet I myself hate men as much as men seem to hate women, possibly more. Since I never really learned to play the man game myself, I feel like a woman in certain subtle ways, and I think that the dehumanization and hate men have for women is also held for men like me, though my camoflage as a biological male is very good for avoiding direct attacks of certain kinds. So I can agree that men hate women, while denying that I hate women. I totally blame the patriarchy for any vestiges of hate for women I may have buried in my well-trained soul, too.

    The words I hate men never seem to appear anywhere on this blog, isn’t that kind of strange? Kind of non-patriarchal? I say it all the time; I’ve been saying it all my life. I’ve always hated them, even though I love many individual men.

  43. Liz

    if ad come-ons like this repulsed most men instead of attracting them the ads would have been discontinued instead of being spammed to me daily

    Those ads in Sam’s post are incredibly creepy and chilling. As are Twisty’s links and much of this discussion. Not too surprising that Mike Godwin and his trusty Law leapt in as early as post #30 this time around. Some days Reality just depresses the hell out of me.

  44. Carpenter

    Dude,
    Aren’t they going to give the HPV vacine to boys and men also? I’d imagine that if its good for the goose its good for the gander. Granted men can’t get cervical cancer but they can pass HPV to women. Shouldn’t they give it to all babies? Wouldn’t it help protect women even more? Surely men don’t want to be running around with HPV anyway.

  45. Will

    Is this a trap to get me to admit that I am in favor of female teenage boning?

    You need to turn the tables on this one. Market it as an anti-terrorism measure: this vaccine will allow this country to produce more little while babies to counter all of those brown babies being made.

  46. tisha

    In my universe, love and hate are two sides of the same coin. Meaning, to really “hate” something you need to care about it enough to love it. So, it stands to (my) reason that if men hate women, they’re at least they’re capable of loving them.

    Small comfort, eh?

  47. Q Grrl

    Hey, and all those spam ads that Sam got were just those for the um, “Vanilla” sex crowd… :p

  48. Nancy

    Speaking of sexbot ads for things unrelated to sex, what’s with the headless titty flasher ad at Pandagon? It leads to a supposedly liberal blog.

    Violet Socks mentioned it on a thread at Pandagon, but I don’t think Amanda or anybody else responded to it.

    Is that what it means to be sex-positive?

  49. Alex

    You focus on godbags too much. Just look at the godbag’s more enlightened and liberated counterpart, who champions women’s rights all the time- you know, a woman’s right to work in the sex industry, or not wear a bra, or walk around topless, or the “choice” to become a prostitute, or wear revealing clothing, etc. They’re practically feminists!

  50. Liz

    Just look at the godbag’s more enlightened and liberated counterpart, who champions women’s rights all the time…

    And it’s also true that Republicans DO believe in a woman’s right to control her own body!

  51. kathy a

    i can’t understand how a vaccine can be a moral problem. polio used to maim and kill a lot of people — i knew only one person who ever had polio, and it was a mild case and an anomoly, because *everyone* was immunized. presumably, polio could be spread by immoral means, but if anyone argued that as a reason against polio immunization, they have been relegated to the dustbins of history.

    germs are a public health issue — not a religious issue. germs don’t care how they get spread. it matters not whether the new host person is innocent as the day is long, or the opposite. babies have gotten HIV from blood transfusions. devoted spouses have gotten STD’s from less devoted spouses, or evil persons. so now that we know a germ can cause cancer, and it can be spread sexually, the smart and scientific and human thing to do is — not make this a religious issue.

    dharma, i am so sorry about your mom. hope you and she have much support and love.

    mandos — can’t a conscious disregard amount to hate? sure, the disregarder doesn’t see it so, but aren’t the effects the same? “this isn’t my issue, so i won’t worry” — if *that* tips things toward not protecting kids against a known cancer cause with a simple shot, well, then we are a pretty pathetic bunch.

  52. firefly

    I think the reference to Hitler was a valid one. Hitler didn’t exterminate Jews because he hated them that much. He exterminated Jews,because it was an expediante way to gain power. And what was the purpose of gaining this power-to feed the vanity of Hitler, the Nazis and the German people at the expense of the Jews. To sacrifice the Jewish people at the alter of German pride which had been diminished by the loss of WWI. And that is what is so shocking about the godbags and the patriarchy. They do what they do to women not so much out of hate,but out of vanity. There is a saying-a woman is afraid that a man will kill her, a man is afraid a woman will humiliate him. Men diminish women, in order to diminish the female’s power to humiliate them. (And fathers in a patriarchy will humiliate their sons as well to feed their male vanity, creating sons full of hate and fear of humiliation). And beyond the smoke and mirrors that is what is at the heart of patriarchy-the vanity of old men. Pathetic.

  53. zuzu

    I can’t understand how a vaccine can be a moral problem.

    But don’t you want to run right out and roll around in rusty nails just as soon as you get a tetnaus shot?

  54. Sharoni

    And besides, do we generally have to tell children why they’re getting a vaccination? No. We take them to the Dr. and they get their shots. We don’t tell a 9-year-old “Now you can go out and have all the sex you want because now you won’t get cancer from sex.” We tell them you’re going to get vaccinated, they takes their shot, rubs their arm and it’s done. BUT NO, THESE PEOPLE WOULD RATHER SEE THEIR DAUGHTERS DIE FROM HAVING SEX WITH ANY GODBAG ASSHOLE THAT COMES ALONG.

    If this is not hostility toward women and just another way to keep them subjugated to the male imperative (being able to stick it in any time they want) I don’t know what is.

    Twisty, you rock!

  55. Runningtree

    the issue becomes free of any extraneous talk of the real meaning of the word hate and hitler’s motivations when you get to the bare facts of the matter:

    they oppose a vaccine that prevents women’s deaths

    so it’s pretty straight forward – are you for women dying or are you against women dying?

  56. Aussie Liz

    When I sent Twisty that link, I’d just spent two days walking around in a daze, wondering where all the outrage was about this story. Every time someone said hello to me, I answered “Barnaby Joyce is a turd”.

    The thing that makes the steam escape from my ears is him saying:

    “There might be an overwhelming (public) backlash from people saying, ‘don’t you dare put something out there that gives my 12-year-old daughter a licence to be promiscuous’,” he said.

    Senator Joyce – who has four daughters – said he would be “personally very circumspect” about giving such a vaccine to girls who were too young to cope with the potential consequences of sexual activity. ”

    A licence to be promiscuous? For a 12 year old? In our country, a 12 year old having sex is being raped. But not in whatever planet Barnaby Joyce is living on. On his planet the 12-year-old girl is leading that poor man astray.

    If there’s any consolation for this story, it’s that he tried to retract his comments a day or so later (he said he was taken out of context – he says he was only reporting what ‘some people’ in society might say, not referring to his own views – though this doesn’t explain the reference to his own daughters.

    Another consolation is that it’s not going to happen. The drug will be quietly made available.

    The final consolation is that the RU-486 debate should be resolved next week. Up until now, a deal between the Australian Prime Minister and a Christian senator who used to hold the balance of power, has meant that RU-486 is not available to women in Australia. The current Health Minister (a friend of the fetus) is trying to keep it that way, but after a huge debate (which included such patriarchy-blaming side shows as the Greens submitting that Viagra be studied for side effects and withdrawn if it’s as unsafe as RU-486, too, and also a study be done comparing the health consequences to a woman of NOT taking RU-486 – ie staying pregnant!), it’s going to a ‘conscience vote’ next week. ‘Conscience vote’ is the Prime Minister’s way of saying he’s lost control of his party on this issue, and that, male and female, they will vote against him, whether he wants it or not (this way he looks like a great leader, and also as though he has a conscience).

    Liz

  57. Mandos

    If this is not hostility toward women and just another way to keep them subjugated to the male imperative (being able to stick it in any time they want) I don’t know what is.

    So we have two themes here: hostility…and instrumentalism (the “male imperative”). Assuming this is true, I can’t really reconcile one with the other.

    I guess my problem (and my fixation with the issue) comes from the fact that I tend to view these things—oppression—in material and “economic” terms. The first thing I ask is “Who is getting (or once got) benefit out of what?” Particularly things that happen between classes, since what Twisty means by “Men Hate You”, I presume, is that “the cultural entity produced by the class of men is an expression of hatred towards the cultural object representing the class of women.” If you say, “X hates Y” in that sense, then the first thing I think is, “What’s X getting out of hating Y?” ie, how does the instrumentality of hatred for Y benefit X?

    What people are saying here appears to be that instrumentalization is hatred. But then I say, “What is X getting out of that?” That I can ask that question suggests that hatred and instrumentalization aren’t the same thing.

    Now people may be tempted to say, “Mandos Mandos Mandos. You are semantically quibbling again. This hardly matters to the reality of oppression.” Perhaps, I am guilty, yes. But I really do think it’s important to differentiate between active emotional states and states of exploitation, because materially different solutions to the problem are achieved by searching through these different spaces.

  58. JS

    Ah! ah! ah!!!!!
    i keep hearing about this vaccine thing . . . if there were a vaccine that would PREVENT prostate cancer, we’d all have fucking gotten it by now. That this is EVEN AN ARGUMENT is so frightening and disgusting especially because condoms do not prevent the spread of HPV and there’s almost no way to test for the virus in men (who can also be affected by it).
    I am spitting with rage (as a woman who has had the traumatic experience of seeing her own cervix on TV for a colposcopy, prior to which I had no idea how HPV was transmitted, what it could do, or even what it was).

  59. Sam

    “’What’s X getting out of hating Y?’ ie, how does the instrumentality of hatred for Y benefit X?”

    Excuse me while I whip this out:

    Men use women’s bodies in prostitution and gang rape to communicate with each other, to express what they have in common. And what they have in common is that they are not her. -Andrea Dworkin

  60. Elinor

    So we have two themes here: hostility…and instrumentalism (the “male imperative”). Assuming this is true, I can’t really reconcile one with the other.

    Well, maybe they’re two separate stages. When Y stays in Y’s place, Y instrumentalized but not necessarily treated with hostility – maybe condescending affection.

    If Y forgets where Y “belongs,” if Y gets uppity (which X can define pretty much however X wants to), X will feel and express immense hostility towards Y. At that point it’s safe to say X hates Y; X is terrified that Y will cease to serve X and angry at Y’s presumption, etc., etc., etc. The hostility itself is instrumental; it’s meant to push Y back into Y’s place.

    That’s where we are with women and the HPV vaccine, I’d say. It’s a punish-the-sluts move. If women were good and pure, we would all fulfil our duty to be virginal before marriage and monogamous after it. And quite possibly, if women were good and pure and devoted, we could MAKE men – all men – want to be monogamous too (not to mention that we could force them to be chaste if we all refused to have sex without marriage – not that they actually WANT that, you know, but it makes for a good excuse). So good, pure, devoted wives don’t get HPV *anyway,* so the only women who could benefit from the vaccine are irresponsible, selfish women who want to avoid being justly punished for their evil slutty behaviour.

    That’s my best guess at how this thinking works. Of course I’m a smidge tired at the moment.

  61. Mandos

    Men use women’s bodies in prostitution and gang rape to communicate with each other, to express what they have in common. And what they have in common is that they are not her. -Andrea Dworkin

    You will forgive me if I note that this is rather circular—or extremely deterministic.

    If they need to express that they are “not her”, then we can obviously conclude that “hatred” is involved somewhere, since why else would you need to express that? This is certainly the sense that Dworkin would have meant it. Then I can simply ask again, how does the instrumentality of hatred benefit men? Since all it’s doing here, if we take Sam’s Dworkin quote in the context of this thread, is to express that the instrumentality of women is to express hatred… circularly ad infinitum.

    The other interpretation in this context is the one that Dworkin would almost certainly not have intended. ie, that since men have a reproductive situation in common, and that reproductive situation doesn’t lend itself to the forms of solidarity that, say, childbearing does, men use rape to establish a common means of levelling that disadvantage. Or something like that—that is necessarily deterministic and precludes any meaningful sense of “hatred”.

    So either way, I don’t think it establishes a hatred-instrumentality connection.

  62. kathy a

    mandos, mandos, mandos — what are you saying? if kids can’t get their cancer-preventing shots [because some people are worried they might become, ya know, promiscuous], isn’t that a bad thing?

    is the bad thing better if it isn’t labelled “hate?” fine, it’s not hate, it’s stupidity. it is still bad. agreed?

  63. Mandos

    As I said, I think it matters what kind of bad we’re talking about.

  64. sunny in texas

    these religious freaks all live in a fairytale world where men are virgins until marriage…
    except in 20 years of actually being a real live christian(i am no longer), i never met a man who boasted about having waited till marriage to do the deed.

    the utter and complete hypocrisy/double standard makes my blood boil.

  65. Ms Kate

    Of course these godbags never seem to get the idea that a woman can be completely virtuous and godly, even by their Talaban definitions of virtuous and godly, and she can STILL get STDs!

    From her husband!

    This has been the GIANT GAPING HOLE in all the Africa anti-aids bullshit aimed at getting people to be virginal until marriage and then be monogomous.

    Guess who gets to be virginal, monogamous AND INFECTED? You guessed it! Women. Men don’t give two shits in a society where women really don’t have other economic choices – just being men, you know!

    I get so fucking sick of all the patriarchal bullshit concepts of effecting social control through controlling women because “men” have “rights” and “men” can’t “control themselves”. Fuck.

  66. dd

    Firefly, your comment was right on:
    There is a saying-a woman is afraid that a man will kill her, a man is afraid a woman will humiliate him. Men diminish women, in order to diminish the female’s power to humiliate them. (And fathers in a patriarchy will humiliate their sons as well to feed their male vanity, creating sons full of hate and fear of humiliation). And beyond the smoke and mirrors that is what is at the heart of patriarchy-the vanity of old men. Pathetic.

    When I read that, I did a quick run-through of recent run-ins with patriarchal men, and this really does get at the heart of the preponderance of the issues, by a large margin. You’ve just given me a whole new way of thinking about current relationships.

    As has this whole blog, actually. Keep it up, Twisty.

  67. thebewilderness

    Look Mandos, that shit may matter to the opressor, it ain’t shit to the opressed. Get it?

  68. antelope

    In my personal experience of hating people, let’s say my stepmother, for example, there is ZIPPO instrumentality to it. Not only do I not benefit, I also don’t cause all that much harm to the person(s) that I hate. All I really do with it is waste a lot of time and energy on bad feelings and resentful memories that would be better spent in some other way.

    The hatred that a lot of men have for women is very much along the same lines, and it bothers me not at all if they waste a bunch of time hating my class. The question is why, why, WHY are these people getting elected so that suddenly they have some power to treat their hate as more than just a stupid hobby? How can it possibly be that we are now rewarding pols who do NOTHING but demonize women as their primary way of getting into & office & staying there?

    Getting back to my personal example, it occurs to me that I have never had the guts to indulge in fantasies of taking revenge on my stepmother myself – I’m a peaceful kind of gal after all. But it is very, very satisfying to think that someone else might harm her for reasons that can’t really be linked to me.

    I may regret this, but – what is your definition of instrumentality anyway? Does it have anything whatsoever to do with how human thought processes actuallly work, or is it just a framework for interpreting stuff, and if the truth doesn’t fit the model then you need to try a different perspective on the truth until it does?

  69. kathy a

    so with you, thebewilderness.

    look — i have a 17 year old daughter, who really hates high school and wants to move on. and an 18 year old son. we found a pill in son’s room recently — it wasn’t to get high, as we feared — it was for herpes. we like his young girlfriend, too. they all more or less drive me nuts, but i don’t think any of them should die, or watch their friends die unnecessarily.

    i have a vested interest in my kids’ health — nearly 2 decades of loving and sacrificing for them does that. everyone can sort out all the super-duper-intellectual points later, but it would be a good idea to vaccinate my own personal kids,immediately or sooner.

  70. thebewilderness

    An illustration of hate.

    http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2006/01/women-in-uniform-die-to-avoid-rape-by.html

  71. Mandos

    Look Mandos, that shit may matter to the opressor, it ain’t shit to the opressed. Get it?

    I’m sorry that you feel that way, but I do think that meanings matter. The American “Right” has gained ascendency partly because it has a very clean set of definitions, and in fact an entire industry where people are paid to generate meaning for them.

    Apparently dry intellectual exercises may seem frustrating, I understand, though.

  72. Ms Kate

    I’m sorry that you feel that way, but I do think that meanings matter. The American “Right” has gained ascendency partly because it has a very clean set of definitions

    Note that “clean set of definitions” does not mean “lots of tight definitions creating 20,000 shades ‘o meaning pidgeon holes. That’s for those pointy headed poindexters who don’t know how to service clients. Aint got time for that!

    Clean set = small set. Simple. Grandiose.

  73. kathy a

    i’m all for dry intellectual exercises, mandos, but not while the subjects are living in my house. the subjects in my house tend to be wet, messy, opinionated, loud, and messy, and also they leave junk around, such as dirty dishes. mostly they do that to prove they are not hypothetical. i think they have convincing arguments, and i’d be glad to send them over, should you need convincing.

  74. Mickle

    “Hate” suggests, at the very minimum, a conscious desire to do harm, or even, to use your definition (of which, as I said, I’m not certain), a conscious knowledge that one is trying to sustain privilege over others at others extreme expense.”

    Does it really, though? I thought Twisty was pretty clear – they may love the woman, or particular women, but hate, or look down upon, that which makes them women. It seems to me you’re splitting hairs for your own comfort.

    “You will forgive me if I note that this is rather circular—or extremely deterministic.”

    No, actually I won’t.

    It’s the root of elitisim – you are picked because you are not one of the “not picked.” The circular reasoning is in the social structure, not Dworkin’s analysis of it.

    “But I really do think it’s important to differentiate between active emotional states and states of exploitation…”

    Sorry, but I don’t feel it’s my place to assure supposedly progressive men that I don’t mean them personally when I speak of the Patriarchy. If Twisty was speaking at the Democratic Convention, you may have a point; otherwise, stop taking everything so personally or stop expecting us to split hairs for your comfort – either will do.

    “….because materially different solutions to the problem are achieved by searching through these different spaces. ”

    Um, yeah – which is why it’s important to not sweep the fact that Men hate Women under the rug. Otherwise we may end up addressing only the symptoms, not the root cause.

  75. Asha

    Guys tend to descend into “definitions” and pretty much avoid talking about the subject at hand. I’ve seen it over and over.

    As a woman, I’d have to agree that there are plenty of men out there who truly hate women.

  76. Christopher

    I’m too tired to read all the comments here, so apologies if this has been brought up before, but I really do think it’s wrong to say men treat women like objects; they treat women worse.

    While in this particular case it can be argued that the motive of the scumbags is not hatred but a kind of cold instrumentality, I find that in most cases the actions of the Patriarchy make no sense when you assume they see women as property.

    Look at rape, for example. If women were seen as property, then there would be severe penalties for rape and vigourous prosecution of rapists (At least outside of marriage). After all, in the most patriarchal societies, a woman who has been raped is less desirable then one who hasn’t.

    This means that when a man rapes a single woman, her father has been cheated out of a dowry, out of property he spent a lot of time and money to produce. In many cases, it’s the same with the husband; His wife has to be punished for the rape, which means that he no longer has a cooking, cleaning, sexbot.

    And yet, in these societies we find that there is almost no interest in prosecuting or preventing rapes. Often it’s only the woman who is punished while the rapist goes free. This behavior makes no sense if women are simply pieces of property.

    Thus, I can only conclude that there is something deeper at work, a loathing and hatred for women, at the root of the patriarchy.

  77. kactus

    How do men hate us? Let me count the ways: they hate the way we drive, yet when our insurance premiums are lower than theirs they say it’s because we drive “like women”–i.e. not all manly and tough, the way men drive. They hate our bleeding cunts until they become non-bleeding cunts, at which point our cunts might as well not exist. They hate our baby-bearing wombs so much that when we’re done bearing their babies they’re happy to surgically remove them. They hate our tears. They hate and fear our laughter. They “allow” us our little temper tantrums, until the tantrums turn into honest rage, at which point we become churlish bitches. They hate our bodies so much they use every instrument known to man in order to rape, mutilate, torture, and murder us. Men only really love women’s bodies when they look the way men think they should look, and are safely in some man’s possession. Men hate and rape and kill women when they’re still little girls. They hate and rape and kill women when they’re teenagers, when they’re middle-aged, and even when they’re old. They hate women who won’t fuck them. They hate women who will.

    I could just rage on and on. There is not a woman in existence who doesn’t, in her inner-most honest place, know that men hate women. Even the most patriarchy-placating, anti-choice, bible-clutching sister out there knows that in order to survive she must cultivate a woman-hating man’s tolerance and affection.

  78. Elinor

    Christopher, that’s how I would see it.

    The notion that women can control men’s reactions to us (sexual and otherwise) is quite old and it is pretty clearly based in fear. There seems to be a basic understanding that women have to be restricted and punished in order to keep us in our “natural” place.

  79. Arwen

    Mandos:

    Why hate? Why not just indifference? What does hate give to misogynists?

    Hate makes insecure people feel better about themselves. People who are actively involved in cognitive dissonance in their lives tend to externalize their helplessness. This turns to anger and hate.

    (It is also easier to actively hate someone who can’t, on average, turn around and pulp your face to smithereens.)

    ——————–

    Also – and this is my personal take – it is easy to never grow up and deal with your relationship with your mother, who is a legitimate person to project yourself onto when you’re a very small child. Kids see everyone as objects. It’s healthy. Mothers tend to do more childcare. They’re more objectified right off the bat.

    Unfortunately, men never really have to learn that their mom’s a person, in order to establish their own identity: there’s less rebellion son to mother.

    If you dislike yourself as a child, you’ll take it out on mom. Healthy child behaviour.
    If you dislike yourself as a MAN, it’s an easy transfer from mom to lover to women.

    This is why, I think, there’s a lot of whiny temper tantrums in the discussions of misogynists.

  80. Arwen

    Oh! Oh!
    I think I should write a letter absolutely agreeing with the restriction of this vaccine. But I, (equal opportunity godbag), would like to take it further! NO ACCESS TO ANTIBIOTICS FOR Syphilis and Gonnorhea! Oh yah, godbags! Syphillitic Godbags. Amen and Hallelujah!

  81. lauragayle

    Wow. After all of those comments, I just want to remind folks:

    *Insurance companies were willing to uniformly cover Viagra (and similar meds) before birth control pills in prescription plans.
    *There is still nothing on the market in the way of a “little blue pill” to help women with their “sexual dysfunction.”

    No wonder the patriarchy in charge doesn’t want to support the HPV vaccine.

  82. LMYC

    I think they just resent us for existing. For being people, instead of just cunts and tits that can be pulled off a tree and eaten when the mood strikes.

    I’ve always said that their creation myth runs something like this:

    At first, GOD created MAN. And then in order to keep MAN from getting bored, GOD created these nice juicy, jiggly chew-toys called cunts and tits. And MAN would just reach up and pull one off the tree when he got hungry or bored or horny.

    Then, GOD played a nasty, cruel, mean joke on MAN — he attached brains to the cunts and tits, and now isntead of just being able to grab one when he wanted one, MAN had to contend with this stupid fucking other creature who seemed to think that the tits and cunts stuck to it belonged to IT. My GOD! They can’t just get one when they want one?! They have to pretend to give a crap about the stupid fucking brain attached to it now? That is just SO UNFAIR!

    And all the hate comes from that. It’s a red-faced, miserable, vicious tantrum directed at women for existing, for being alive and aware instead of just being disembodied body parts. We’re not “loved” by them — we’re just the arbitrary, unfair obstacle course they have to negotiate in order to get to the parts they want.

    Put simply — we’ve got something they want, and we’re in the way. When was the last time you loved/i> some stupid pointless obstacle that was in your way?

    They do not love us. They are not capable of it — at most, they can tolerate us for unfairly existing while they sit and stew waiting for us to just hand over what’s rightfully theirs.

    The unfairness of it all, I’m telling you.

    They hate us for existing. I hate them for resenting my existence. The symmetry of the situation is not as it would appear at first glance.

  83. Cass

    “I guess my problemn (and my fixation with the issue) comes from the fact that I tend these things- oppression- in material and ‘economic’ terms.”

    That is indeed your problem, Mandos… you have an extremely naive and simplistic view of human psychology. This kind of reasoning may have been acceptable when Engels was writing, but its been 105 years now since “The Interpretion of Dreams”, and we know far too much about the human mind to fall for the idea that the Khmer Rouge, “honor killings” or the rise of Calvinism can be explained away in terms of rational self-interest on the part of the perpetrators. We humans have never been primarily rational in our motivations, and never will be. My own speciality is domestic violence, and we know quite a bit about the pathology behind it, thank you… as indeed we know quite a bit about the roots of misogyny itself. Anteloupe is right… you’re stubbornly trying to apply your own model to a reality it doesn’t come close to fitting.

  84. antelope

    Anteloupe! I like that! I ehm zee anteloup-ay!

  85. Mandos

    We humans have never been primarily rational in our motivations, and never will be. My own speciality is domestic violence, and we know quite a bit about the pathology behind it, thank you… as indeed we know quite a bit about the roots of misogyny itself. Anteloupe is right… you’re stubbornly trying to apply your own model to a reality it doesn’t come close to fitting.

    Yes but you’re talking at an individual level and not at the level classes. Something that may be individually “irrational” can (and often is) be rational at level of classes at which Twisty says “Men Hate You”.

  86. Mandos

    Oh, and I don’t believe we know all that much about the mind, in that I don’t think that behavioural psychology can be well-founded without a thorough understanding of cognition which we do not presently have.

  87. antelope

    Mandos – I’m way rusty on this stuff, but is this Bourdieux you’re following, more or less?

  88. The Fat Lady Sings

    Twisty – maybe it’s just my computer – but the comment I put up earlier today says “still awaiting moderation”. Does that mean you didn’t get it, or do I need to change something in order to access your comment threads? And in case you didn’t get it – I wanted to say congrats on the new Koufax nod.

  89. tisha

    LMYC, I’ve read two of your posts, and now I totally have a crush on you. More, more!

  90. wheelomatic

    Mandos, to flip back to the Dworkin quote. You ask how does the instrumentality of hatred benefit men?
    It does so by reinforcing that men ARE NOT women, ie, the lesser, the expendable, the valueless OTHER. The hatred props up men’s view that they are the the shizznit and women are just shit.

    That is how the benefit-ego stroking. Why is this news?

  91. tisha

    http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:gtJhrfWKIzsJ:health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/183/63 “HPV vaccine” “studied for first time in men”&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

    Here girls, this will solve everything. The vaccine is being tested on men now to see how well it prevents genital warts and penile cancer in MEN.

  92. Twisty

    Mandos in #57: “guess my problem (and my fixation with the issue) comes from the fact that I tend to view these things—oppression—in material and “economic” terms…etc”

    OK, Mandos, knock it off with the chucking of semantic obstacles into the argument, already. Your’re saying the same thing, albeit a lot more eloquently and obfuscationally, as that Richard Ames guy–that in using the word “hate” I am being “shrill” (or as you put it in #18, that I’m using it for a “particular effect”).

    The “effect” I’m going for is truth.

    What do men get out of hating women? Patriarchy, dude. They get patriarchy. Entitlement, control, money, power, license to indulge their love of violence, a steady supply of pussy, and somebody to do their laundry. None of which pleasant benefits would be possible if women were not designated objects of contempt throughout all of human “civilization.”

  93. Jennie

    Let’s hope for the HPV vaccine to come through, because the Godbags have apparently decided that low-income women need “crisis preganancy” propaganda centers more than they need routine pap smears: http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2006-01-27/pols_feature.html

  94. Mark Early

    Mandos, the book you mentioned way up there at post oh-I-don’t-know sounds very interesting. What is the title?

  95. wheelomatic

    Thanks Twisty for # 92. That’s what I meant. And even if I HAD had my coffee at the time, I could not have said it that well. I will resume my place a “padawan” Blamer now and keep watching and listening.

  96. Cass

    Mandos: You’re making a false distinction… social pathologies tend to mirror individual ones, and vice versa. The views expressed by individiual rapists of their victims, for instance, are a haunting echo of the view of women one finds in the Confucian code, a fifteenth century manual for identifying witches, or a modern-day B.N.P politician. And yes, while human beings always resist losing privelage, that doesn’t explain why this brutal stratification happened in the first place, or- more to the point- why the same patriarchal fears towards women recur over and over again throughout history, and the most widely differing cultures.

  97. Ron Sullivan

    Mandos, Mandos, Mandos.

    Mandos #1: A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

    Mandos #2: “Instrumental” my fine fat ass. Hate is instrumental. You can define hate as pure emotion limited to something totally self-indulgent, materially pointless, and gratuitous, but there’s no reason anyone should accept that definition without clear evidence or at least some semantic justification. Or you can say that’s the definition you’re arbitrarily using for a particular discussion, and I’d suggest starting your own discussion if that’s what you want.

    Mandos #3: Once you’ve figured out what it is that men in general (and in particular, when they’re doing woman-hating things like, oh, honor killings, clinic bombings, assorted medical whimsies) are actually feeeeeeling, why, I think it’s clearly your task as a qualified analyst and parser of all things feely to go around and change that. It’s not our job to fix men. Really. I don’t even know how to work a Burdizzo or an Elastrator(tm). If you’re gonna be that subjective, this one’s all yours, son.

    And no I haven’t failed to notice that there’s plenty of female collaboration in patriarchy. We’ll take that on when you’ve finished your part.

  98. Twisty

    And Ron ties it up with a bow. Thanks, Ron.

  99. Cass

    And while I’m here let me throw in another thing: the idea that one must be consciously cynical in order to be guilty of an evil act is absurd from the philosophical point of view, and (again) ignores everything we know about the human mind. With domestic abusers for instance, the more seriously disturbed they are, the less ability they have to step outside their own, self-justifying narratives, and take responsility for what they’re doing. They’re hypnotized like a bird to a snake by the comforting thought that they’re the victims, and have a natural entitlement to treat others like objects. Often- and this is true of all kinds of neurosis- this turns into a downward spiral over time, til they reach the point where they simply can’t distinguish their own unconscious projections from reality. This obviously happened with both Hitler and his followers; its happening to-day with the American fundies; and you can find countless other examples in history, both from the lives of individuals and social movements.

  100. CharlieM

    Because they ‘hate’ women?

    I don’t know…

    It seems to me that it’s the indifference to the consequences that is the great harm here.
    And the indifference of these ‘godbags’ is what seems to be the greater evil. I can cope with hate – at least there is an emotional investment that implies that the object of the hate has some value/worth.
    But the sheer indifference to something or someone – and the resulting consequences of that indifference – is what I think is the great wrong being commited.

  101. Twisty

    Nice points, Cass. The quality of the commenting around here is getting seriously world-class.

  102. apophenia

    Hey, world-class blogs deserve world-class comments. (Twisty, you’re my new heroine.)

    Sadly, this is not one of those world-class comments, but I look forward to the day when I attempt one.

  103. LMYC

    You know, I see people like this Mandos character posting here and I have to say I’m reminded of the occasional whiner in every feminist forum — a closet subby-boy who inserts himself into a female space and makes all the girls hate him because he gets off on the abuse.

    Seriously, there’s one on every feminist board — some whiny little po-mo dork who loves to come in and step on the anthill because he gets the fun of watching us all PAY ATTENTION TO HIM! He’s like the little kid in third grade who passed milk through his nose to make everyone shriek. Ignore him. He’s not saying anything worth listening to, and he’s certainly not here to learn.

  104. Sharoni

    OMG! I just caught up, here. Mandos, the kind of bad we’re talking about here is: THEY WOULD RATHER SEE THEIR DAUGHTERS DIE A PAINFUL DEATH FROM CERVICAL CANCER (WHICH THEY CAN GET FROM SEX WITH A HUSBAND!) THAN PROVIDE THOSE SAME DAUGHTERS WITH A VACCINE THAT WILL PREVENT THAT. Bad. End of story. You can vaccillate all you want, you can intellectualize all you want, you can circulize, circumcize, and minimize all you want in your obviously male brain, but that right there is BAD.

    Twisty, please don’t ever go away.

  105. tigtog

    Biting Beaver in #29 (yes, way back up there).

    I’m still recovering from surgery over HPV going cancer and here I am a half cervix lighter knowing that the medical establishment has known about this since the late 1800’s when they understood that cloistered nuns didn’t get cervical cancer at all. It took them this long to bother researching it enough to even come up with a vaccine.

    BB, cancer sucks and there is no doubt that the medical establishment is patriarchal to the core. But this is the first and so far only vaccine for ANY cancer, EVER, and so far it’s the ONLY vaccine for ANY cancer, EVER. It’s not like they’ve been vaccinating men against male-only cancers merrily for years and refusing to vaccinate women.

    The development of this vaccine is a rare example of the medical researchers coming up with something that benefits women before they have found the equivalent treatment to benefit men (and yes I know that HPV affects men too and so it will help men as well, but it’s the larger number of asymptomatic women who will get most of the benefit). This situation doesn’t happen often enough, and should be celebrated.

    And despite the godbaggery, give most doubting Thomases information about penile cancer from HPV (and perhaps a high-res photo of what that cancer really looks like) and they’ll drop the godbag party line like a shot.

  106. tisha

    Ya know what’s sad? Most of us (probably) are HPV positive, many of us (probably) without even knowing it. I heard somewhere that if a woman (or man) graduates college without one of the many strains of HPV, it’s a freaking miracle.

  107. Tony Patti

    Good old Mandos. I don’t think he thrives on the negative attention, I think it hurts his feelings. Hopefully he’s tough enough to take it.

    It’s that kneejerk reaction I feel whenever I think about the Patriarchy: It’s not my fault, and I want to think my way out of it. His methods are pedantic, but his heart is, if not pure, understandable.

    It’s certainly illuminating to read the well-expressed oppositions to his comments, so that’s a big plus. His comments are difficult for me to follow, since he expresses himself rather obliquely. But I tend to understand the comments to his posts very well, and am thereby helped and illuminated.

    Thanks to this blog I am learning to be able to express my feminist emotions in ways that are conversational, informative, and far more reasoned than ever before. And expressing feminism is the only way I have of spreading it besides my own behavior, and raising a daughter who I assume will internalize it as easily as I did.

    Teaching a man to be able to say “Men hate women” and have it make sense and be able to see the horror and the humor of it at the same time is a step forward. It’s probably easier to teach a man to be able to say it who has always hated men his whole life. How could a man with any sense of empathy for women NOT hate men?

  108. Rana

    This is my take on it: in a society and culture where rape happens — and not just to that one unlucky woman in a thousand or a million, but more like those 1-4 in ten — anything or anybody that adds to that trauma is immoral and fucked up. This includes unwanted pregnancies, STDs, public humiliation, abuse by the court systems, and on and on.

    So anyone who thinks that they are being “moral” by making the risks to women _greater_ than they already are are fucking WRONG.

    I fucking hate hate hate these arrogant moralizing asshats who can’t wrap their heads around the fact that sexual activity isn’t always voluntary, and even when it IS, it’s not a blank check to add infections, dangerous pregnancies, economic hardship, WHATEVER, to the burdens women bear _simply because they are women_.

    That they would be applying this same sort of sickening behavior to their own CHILDREN (and, at the same time, EVERYONE ELSE’S children) drives me absolutely batshit insane. They’re basically saying that their right to be hateful, sex-hating freaks trumps their daughters’ rights to be protected from illness and the other dangerous effects of unprotected sex, including married sex (with infected husbands) or rape.

    What they don’t seem to get, ever, is that even if one is a perfectly “good” girl who plays by all the rules and does everything they want her to do, life in a FUCKING PATRIARCHY means that NO women are ever completely safe. We are ALL vulnerable to harm, and the notion that sexually-related harm is something to INCREASE and delight in (because those ‘sluts” had it coming”) instead of something to fight and be upset by is just plain SICK.

  109. Ms Kate

    As much as Mandos takes some fecal matter for posting here, I think his presence serves a very important purpose. He represents a particular segment of philosophy, a particular academic discipline which seeks to be part of the solution but all too often ends up being part of the problem. Here we can both acquire what is good in that manner of thinking, but also take apart that which is pedantic.

    As we can with Dworkinism, and any other school of thought which seeks to entirely explain the world from a singular perspective.

  110. WookieMonster

    Thank you so much Twisty, for this post and for comment 90-something (work enforced IE makes the post numbers go behind the text and become unreadable). I was mentally screaming at every one of mandos’ posts: “Men get the patriarchy, which is at it core control and power, from their hatred of women, besides how in the hell does getting a benefit have anything to do with hate anyway!!! Hate by my definition is pretty much an irrational emotion anyway, not really given to following cost-benefit analysis. Grrr.”

  111. Rana

    (I should amend that from “from illness and the other dangerous effects of unprotected sex” to “from illness and the other dangerous effects of sex” period, because, as we all know, accidents can happen, even to the most cautious and careful couples.)

  112. BitingBeaver

    tigtog,

    Sounds quite a bit like saying, “Well gee, they’ve done something so stop bitching already”. Perhaps I’m wrong in my interpretation but here’s the stats.

    HPV CAN be tested in men using a simple variation of a DNA test. MEN are giving HPV and cancer to women. Why aren’t we testing men as well? Here’s why, they don’t have to deal with the consequences of it. Penile cancer is incredibly rare and even warts are rarer in men than in women.

    To date, the most “effective” means of dealing with cervical cancer is after the fact. After you’ve been exposed to it. After the cells decide to go bonkers. After you’re well on your way to cancer.

    Quite frankly I would have much rather preferred knowing about the status of my partners cancer-in-wait BEFORE I had sex with him. You know, before I had to have painful biopsies and colposcopies, before I had to undergo expensive and traumatic surgery in which my cervix was cut in half, before I was told that I’m still at risk of invasive cancer and the only way to be 100% sure is to have a complete and radical hysterectomy.

    Although, it seems like what you’re telling me is that I should be glad that they’re doing, you know, something. Bullshit. I’ll be happy when they start telling us BEFORE we have to go through this crap particuarly when they only need to use a modified DNA test to test the status of men. (and I’d like to point out they already have the technology to convert it if they just gave a fuck about womens cervix’s)

    Until the medical institution actually gives a fuck I’ll continue to bash them as the Patriarchal asshats they are.

  113. Ron O.

    Now I have a crush on Tony. I hate men too. Always have. Putting me in a room full of other men is torture. I swear the IQ of men decreases when they get in close proximity to other men. I like plenty of individual men, though, like Tony.

    Further proof that Kansas godbag, I forget his name, who wants medical providers to report sexually active teens to the police. Apartly, the KS legislature has decided it’s a good idea to make sex illegal if you are under 16. I image the thinking going into that is somethng like “Gotta punish those sluts, cause they sure weren’t fucking me at 16.”

  114. Cass

    I didn’t make any assumption that Mandos was arguing in bad faith, still less did I set out to hurt his feelings. I think he’s operating off some demonstratably false assumptions, the kind of assumptions that, if you buy into them, will seriously skew your vision of reality. And yes, this “reality” has much to do with the existential realities women have lived with for thousands of years, which for thousand of years have been ignored, downplayed, or actively denied by male commentators. Hence the reason, gentleman, so many of us get angry…

  115. mythago

    I hate men too. Always have. Putting me in a room full of other men is torture.

    As Susie Bright says, “Go hate your penis someplace else”. Do you really not see that this ‘women are kewl’ thing is also a variety of sexism? Oh, we’re not people, we’re women, we’re pure and nice and so much better than those danglers.

    We junked the pedestal a long time ago. Please do so yourself.

  116. Ron O.

    Ha. You are so out of line, Mythago. You read too much into it. I just don’t care for single-sex gatherings. It gets ugly. Did I say or imply ‘women are kewl’ any more than the women here are saying ALL men hate women? I don’t really think you are very cool for example. I think you are too quick to judge people negatively to be cool. It’s not just me here. I’ve seen you do it on other blogs too.

  117. antelope

    If it’s true, like some articles say, that the children of U.S. Godbags are taking abstinence pledges & then going in for lots of oral & anal sex in order to marry as “virgins”, then what the HELL are we going to be dealing with when THOSE people start running for office? We think we’ve got open embrace of hypocrisy now, but I’m deeply afraid that it’s nothing compated to what’s coming from these kids who have learned that urges=hypocrisy starting just about as soon as they began to have urges of any kind.

    BTW, this is another strong similarity between our Godbags & Muslim Godbags, as friends who went to University in Muslim countries tell me that anal is very common in that context. But you know, it’s hetero anal, so therefore it’s okay.

  118. Ms Kate

    Now boys boys boys … take it outside.

  119. mythago

    You are so out of line, Mythago

    Gosh. Even on a blog for advanced patriarchy-blamers, there’s somebody happy to tell me I’m a-bein’ uppity! Worse, that I’m…I’m….not cool! I shall cry into my lavender-scented handkerchief.

    I just don’t care for single-sex gatherings. It gets ugly.

    Yes, that’s why you were so eager to point out that it’s gatherings of men you hate and how men get stupid in groups. Unless your name is short for Ronalda, you’re a man, and not exempt from Twisty’s point.

  120. Mickle

    Mandos: we’ve now spent how long discussing whether Twisty was “wrong” or not for using “hate” – and how many exactly discussing what can be done about all this? (or even just need to get it off your chest bitching?)

    I thought I was being too harsh before, but now I must say: for the sake of all the women you claim not to “hate” – get the fuck over yourself.

    “BB, cancer sucks and there is no doubt that the medical establishment is patriarchal to the core. But this is the first and so far only vaccine for ANY cancer, EVER, and so far it’s the ONLY vaccine for ANY cancer, EVER. It’s not like they’ve been vaccinating men against male-only cancers merrily for years and refusing to vaccinate women.”

    True, but how pathetic and frightening is it that this is the first vaccination for any cancer ever and not only are right-wing groups trying to stop it’s being put into use (and thus fully tested, since going public with medical treatments is always the final step in verfiying it works) but no one is discussing this?. (Or maybe this was plastered all over World News Tonight and Daily Kos and I missed it. I must admit I can barely stomache either anymore.)

    Can you see that happening if this was for prostate cancer? I can’t. Although I also admit that it would be even less likely if it was a childhood disease the vaccine was for – rather than the vaccine being used on children who may grow up into adults that may do things other’s don’t approve of.

  121. Tony Patti

    Mythago:

    I love my penis! I still hate men, though.

    Anyone who sports a lavender-scented handerchief in this day and age must be cool. Or sarcastic and bitter.

    I’m off to spray lavender on all my handkerchiefs! La la la!

  122. Mandos

    I was AFK and/or trying to do actual work all day, so there’s a lot that went on since I last read it. I dunno if I can respond to everyone, since I just started a flamewar somewhere else. ;) So many fish to fry, so little time.

    Mandos, the book you mentioned way up there at post oh-I-don’t-know sounds very interesting. What is the title?

    The book is The Towers of the Sunset by L. E. Modesitt, Jr. It’s the second book in the Recluce saga, but it has a standalone plot.

    OK, Mandos, knock it off with the chucking of semantic obstacles into the argument, already. Your’re saying the same thing, albeit a lot more eloquently and obfuscationally, as that Richard Ames guy–that in using the word “hate” I am being “shrill” (or as you put it in #18, that I’m using it for a “particular effect”).

    I didn’t say it was a bad effect. I think a lot of the further discussion emerged from the assumption that I disapproved of this usage on “churl” grounds. I have suggested that it isn’t an optimal description of the situation and that it causes conceptual confusion. That’s substantially different from accusing you that what you said was impolite.

    Guys tend to descend into “definitions” and pretty much avoid talking about the subject at hand. I’ve seen it over and over.

    There’s no way I can deny this that would satisfy this individual, but would one feel better if I said that I practically do this for a living? It ain’t just you, you know.

    Mandos: You’re making a false distinction… social pathologies tend to mirror individual ones, and vice versa. The views expressed by individiual rapists of their victims, for instance, are a haunting echo of the view of women one finds in the Confucian code, a fifteenth century manual for identifying witches, or a modern-day B.N.P politician. And yes, while human beings always resist losing privelage, that doesn’t explain why this brutal stratification happened in the first place, or- more to the point- why the same patriarchal fears towards women recur over and over again throughout history, and the most widely differing cultures.

    Let me put it this way: I believe that they may mirror each other, but that their causes and origins aren’t necessarily the same or can be discussed in the same way. I agree with you entirely that the most interesting question is why patriarchy is so ubiquitous. It’s ubiquity suggests that a conventional terminology for individual relations is inadequate in describing it. Its ubiquity suggests that terms like “hate” are misleading if one wants to make, among other things, an evaluation of origins.

    As much as Mandos takes some fecal matter for posting here, I think his presence serves a very important purpose. He represents a particular segment of philosophy, a particular academic discipline which seeks to be part of the solution but all too often ends up being part of the problem. Here we can both acquire what is good in that manner of thinking, but also take apart that which is pedantic.

    Thank you. I live to be of service. I don’t “seek to be of service” beyond providing what I think are correct analyses. People are free to disagree with them, and in fact it would be boring if they didn’t!

    OMG! I just caught up, here. Mandos, the kind of bad we’re talking about here is: THEY WOULD RATHER SEE THEIR DAUGHTERS DIE A PAINFUL DEATH FROM CERVICAL CANCER (WHICH THEY CAN GET FROM SEX WITH A HUSBAND!) THAN PROVIDE THOSE SAME DAUGHTERS WITH A VACCINE THAT WILL PREVENT THAT. Bad. End of story. You can vaccillate all you want, you can intellectualize all you want, you can circulize, circumcize, and minimize all you want in your obviously male brain, but that right there is BAD.

    One thing I do firmly disagree with and haven’t stopped disagreeing with is the notion that discussions of fine-grained concepts and distinctions is useless and threatening.

    Thank you so much Twisty, for this post and for comment 90-something (work enforced IE makes the post numbers go behind the text and become unreadable). I was mentally screaming at every one of mandos’ posts: “Men get the patriarchy, which is at it core control and power, from their hatred of women, besides how in the hell does getting a benefit have anything to do with hate anyway!!! Hate by my definition is pretty much an irrational emotion anyway, not really given to following cost-benefit analysis. Grrr.”

    The point is that “Men Hate You” is a claim about causes. Emotions are irrational when individuals hold them but there may be patterns when they appear as a societal constant. These patterns can’t be justified in terms of the emotions themselves: that would be circular.

    Apologies to everyone to whom I haven’t responded who also expected a response. There are simply too many and as much as I would like to, I cannot keep up. It also appears that there are quarters who don’t appreciate the extent of my interventions. I respect that. I honestly can’t guarantee you that I won’t respond to a response to this, though, but I might have already sunk too much Internet time into it :)

  123. Mandos

    Hmm. I posted something and now it’s vanished. It was rather long. I’m too tired to rewrite it. Hopefully it’s just being held for moderation and I didn’t just lose the time investment.

    Mandos: we’ve now spent how long discussing whether Twisty was “wrong” or not for using “hate” – and how many exactly discussing what can be done about all this? (or even just need to get it off your chest bitching?)

    I thought I was being too harsh before, but now I must say: for the sake of all the women you claim not to “hate” – get the fuck over yourself.

    Frankly, discussing “what can be done about this?” is, to put it bluntly, kind of an odd thing to do on a blog. If that were a serious issue, I suggest you wouldn’t be on this blog, or you’d be on some official organizingy coordinatory blog or web site. I rarely see, for instance, Twisty, actually ever saying much about “WHAT CAN WE DOOOO?” And that’s perfectly correct.

    And I think I can be genuinely interested in the language used and the causes imputed without making any claims about myself. I don’t write for anybody’s sake.

  124. Mandos

    BTW what I posted and is now missing were some assorted responses to people on this thread. Now potentially you’ll NEVER KNOW. Mwahaha.

  125. Arjet

    Just because when I went to link to this post the nudie-cutie cancer graphic from New Scientist pissed me off again, I dropped them a line:

    What’s with the artsy black-and-white nude on your “Cancer” page? Are you trying to compel guys to pay attention to cancer by showing them a little skin? Are you hoping to play off their patriarchal “chivalry” to get them to feel sorry for the poor, naked woman who (while sexually attractive) suffers, we assume, from cancer?

    Or are you just trying to spice up your website with some visual objectification of women, thus reinforcing the notion that even in the context of science, even in the context of women’s health, women still exist for the sexual viewing pleasure of men?

    Please. Do your credibility a favor and lose the eye-candy, OK?

    Thanks.

    Yes, some of that was more-or-less cribbed from Twisty and others. Still. Thanks to Tisha in #16 for giving me the idea.

  126. Chris Clarke

    I don’t write for anybody’s sake.

    Must.
    resist.
    obvious.
    joke.

  127. Sunya Harjis

    Hi there!

    I felt it was important to clarify some definitions for Mandos. While the rest of the world feels this is done to death, I think Mandos has cleverly subverted his personal male culpability by changing the entire frame of the debate: he would like to argue that what Men feel for Women is not Hate.

    Why are you concentrating on Hate and leaving Women so perilously undefined?

    Here are your malice and instrumentality arguments violently raped, in a nutshell: when men talk about women and woman stuff with each other, and using shared cultural language, and when the cultural language talks to them about women, what is the thing they are all discussing? It is a lot of things! But it is not Twisty, with chemo hair and breast cancer and angry patriarchy blaming blogs! It is not Sunya, with all the guns and barbells and violent political rhetoric! It is not fully formed human beings who happen to be female; it is not, in essence, how they talk about other men. What is discussed as “woman” is a completely male construct, revolving around men’s desires and ideas, and imposed – usually without any conscious thought at all – on the half of the human race that they aren’t.

    Men react violently to that image. That’s the thing that gets shucked into basements and raped and skinned! That’s the thing that gets plastered on every billboard! That image, which they have created and subscribed to, is a horrible and ludicrous one, and bears only the most tangential resemblance to Actual Women. And then men hate Actual Women for failing to be Imaginary Billboard Women, and then there are a whole series of feedback hatreds tied to the deep difference between Actual and Imaginary women, how each fails to be like the other, how each competes for male power and submits to male power, etc.

    Mandos, you pedantic, trivializing bore, you are so quick to disarm Hate only to leave the much more potent word – Woman – totally unexamined. I think it’s because you really hate them.

    PS: I’m better than you.

  128. Ron Sullivan

    Mythago: “Unless your name is short for Ronaldo…”

    Or Veronica, but honest, he’s not me. My paternal great-grandfather amputated the family “O’.”

  129. mythago

    It’s not like they’ve been vaccinating men against male-only cancers merrily for years and refusing to vaccinate women.

    If this were a vaccine that prevented an STD strongly linked to penile cancer in men, and very rarely to cervical cancer in women–how much of an outcry do you think there would be over that vaccine? Do you think anyone would fuss over how it promoted promiscuity in men?

  130. tigtog

    #112 Biting Beaver – I was hesitant to post what I did because I knew I hadn’t fully articulated what was making me uncomfortable with your post at #29.

    Here it is: I think it’s pretty fucking awesome that someone has come up with a vaccine against cancer at all, and you seemed to be dismissing that achievement entirely. Not much more than a decade ago the idea that a simple viral infection could trigger cancer was considered laughable, and now we have a vaccine with the potential to eradicate cervical cancer entirely within a generation. Don’t you think that’s at all praiseworthy?

    Blaming the patriarchy for the screwed up implementation planning of the vaccine programme is entirely valid. Your points about testing men as well as women I totally agree with – it seems senseless not to test men.

    I just don’t think the research team deserves your scorn. That’s probably because the team at the University of Queensland who developed the vaccine are FriendsofFriendsofFriends, so I cop to some defensive bias.

  131. tigtog

    mythago, I entirely agree that if the vaccine was for a common penile cancer that only rarely gave women cervical cancer, there would be no breastbeating about any potential increase in teenage male promiscuity. I certainly never meant to imply otherwise, and if my post seemed to imply that such hypocrisy was unthinkable in any way then my phrasing was clumsy indeed.

    Why don’t the Internets telepathically convey my pure patriarchy-blaming intent properly? Naughty Internets.

  132. Mandos

    Mandos, you pedantic, trivializing bore, you are so quick to disarm Hate only to leave the much more potent word – Woman – totally unexamined. I think it’s because you really hate them.

    I’m amused by this attempted takedown, but it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I said. Obviously, like, I can only deal with one thing at a time, and the entire rest of the blog is devoted to taking down patriarchal concepts of “woman”. I think this was entirely written to get to the last, shocking little punch line at the end here. For the sake of it, as far as I can tell.

    I mean, I did one better than that. I talked about the concept X hates Y, voiding both categories. It’s called, like, analysis. You know, that thing where you examine the components of an argument?

  133. Chris Clarke

    Mandos, smugness is rather unattractive when the smug have in no way earned it.

    I talked about the concept X hates Y, voiding both categories. It’s called, like, analysis. You know, that thing where you examine the components of an argument?

    Which is less than useful if you create a completely spurious definition of the relationship between X and Y along the way.

    To suggest that an emotion cannot be rightly called “hate” if it does not carry with it a desire to do violence is, well, just completely wrong, and is rebuttable by the recounting of trivial and anecdotal examples. Here’s one from real life: I hate a former coworker. I also understand why she is the way she is, and feel some measure of pity for her. But I do hate her. I loathe the fact that her stock response to perceived conflict is to blame others. I detest her habit of taking on responsibilities and then foisting them on her associates through one dishonest ruse or another. I revile her continuing to take advantage of friends.

    Do I want to commit acts of violence aganst her? No way. Would I secretly take pleasure in seeing such done against her? Not a chance. I want nothing more than to never have to talk to her again. I don’t want to see anyone suffer, and she’s no exceptiion.

    Are you gonna sit there and tell me that because I don’t want to hurt her physically, that I don’t really hate her?

    That’s one example. I could provide you with dozens more, as could most people here.

    In other words, you based your whole argument on a false definition that gave you the results you wanted, and then with no apparent sense of irony criticised someone else upthread for engaging in circular reasoning.

    And I hate that.

  134. Mandos

    Mandos, smugness is rather unattractive when the smug have in no way earned it.

    It wasn’t smugness. In the case of Sunya, she was obviously attempting a takedown by changing the subject. “You didn’t talk about X, therefore you are poopy.” This accusation can be made against practically anything and is therefore entirely useless. If in deflecting it, I sound smug, well, then…as eloquent as she tried to be, it was not exactly a challenge.

    To suggest that an emotion cannot be rightly called “hate” if it does not carry with it a desire to do violence is, well, just completely wrong, and is rebuttable by the recounting of trivial and anecdotal examples. Here’s one from real life: I hate a former coworker. I also understand why she is the way she is, and feel some measure of pity for her. But I do hate her. I loathe the fact that her stock response to perceived conflict is to blame others. I detest her habit of taking on responsibilities and then foisting them on her associates through one dishonest ruse or another. I revile her continuing to take advantage of friends.

    I didn’t define hate as something that necessarily contained a desire to do violence. In fact, I specifically did the opposite: its possible that violence done to others is instrumental—and it’s therefore not useful to characterize it in terms of the emotion “hate”. And you clearly agree that it’s an emotion.

    In other words, I’m saying that “hate” in these context is at best a (potentially useful? maybe) rhetorical tool, but not a particularly useful category of analysis. People did understand this and disagree with me.

  135. PISSED OFF

    I wrote an email to the Newscientist.com about the picture of the naked woman on their cancer site. They wrote me back and said that they were sorry that it “offended” me but that they’d had no other complaints (the full email is below). Could other poeple write them and give them a few other complaints? Maybe I wasn’t articulate enough in trying to explain that the picture of a naked woman is an inappropriate way to show what cancer looks like.
    Dear Clare,

    Thanks for your comments regarding the Cancer banner. Apologies if the
    image offended you.

    However, we’ve had no other complaints. Cancer is a difficult topic to
    illustrate, and we feel that the image is an appropriate way to convey
    the despair and anguish experienced by cancer sufferers.

    Best regards,

    John

    John Pickrell
    Special Reports Editor
    New Scientist
    Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road
    London, WC1X 8NS UK
    Tel: 44 (0) 20 7611 1228
    Email: john.pickrell@rbi.co.uk
    http://www.newscientist.com/specialreports

  136. the bewilderness

    Mandos, you are so not allowed to use Modesitt as an example of anything unless you can prove that you know him personally.
    Why not you may ask. He splits hairs to reveal complexity, you split them to avoid the obvious.

  137. Hazel Stone

    Catholic Church hates women, big surprise…

    Catholic leader in Guatamala likens birth control to bullets, says it promotes a culture of death.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4673160.stm

  138. Julian Elson

    Ayup, François Poullain de la Barre, John Stuart Mill, Condorcet: woman-haters all.

  139. Chris Clarke

    Fun contest: Which quote is from Mandos?

    I didn’t define hate as something that necessarily contained a desire to do violence.

    or

    “Hate” suggests, at the very minimum, a conscious desire to do harm, or even, to use your definition (of which, as I said, I’m not certain), a conscious knowledge that one is trying to sustain privilege over others at others extreme expense.

    Answer: Both of them!

    Next up: Twisty calls the Patriarchy a “Great Grey Barge of Evil,” and Mandos rebuts her based on the fact that the barge’s plimsoll line is orange.

  140. Mandos

    I was taking your violence in a literal sense, because it sounded literal, Chris.

    Mandos, you are so not allowed to use Modesitt as an example of anything unless you can prove that you know him personally.
    Why not you may ask. He splits hairs to reveal complexity, you split them to avoid the obvious.

    I think I am permitted to read and interpret anyone I like. Has the literature world all of a sudden decided that authorial intent matters, or is it just for me?

  141. Mandos

    Also to clarlify, in the context in which I used “harm” cited by Chris, I thought it was pretty clear that I meant “harm for harm’s sake”, not “instrumental harm.” ie, hate implies the former, not the latter.

  142. Sunya Harjis

    WTF homes? You’re all super-simplifying my argument to “you didn’t talk about X, therefore you are poopy”, then talking about how your definitions somehow matter and other people’s definitions, as you perceive them, are faulty, all of which implies 1. you didn’t goddamn read what I wrote and 2. you maybe can’t grasp what I wrote.

    You can’t talk about the relationship between X and Y without thoroughly defining X and Y. Didn’t you learn that in your sophomore abstract algebra class, bullethead? And then you cheerfully disengage yourself from any discussion whatsoever about what Y (or in this case, XX), is! That’s bad algebra, whether semantic or mathematic. I could note to you in crystal-clear ways that you can’t even begin to talk about Hate until you know what you’re claiming men are hating or not hating, but you don’t want to talk about that. Because you can’t. Because it’s messy. Because it will inevitably violently shift the discussion away from the thing you’re calling precision and everyone else knows as sacrificing feasibility for objectivity.

    Which, to be fair, is preferred practice in accounting!

    But is really, really, really bad for public policy. You know what group of political ideologists really love sacrificing feasibility for objectivity? Neo-conservatives. This isn’t any time to evoke Godwin, it’s time to get down and dirty with preferring to have your principle be correct (supply-side economics!) than everyone else’s practice to be workable (the New Deal!) So, clearly, feminists and other people who love women want to dispense quickly with your ivory tower dance, which, in the name of accuracy, sacrifices their political energy and impetus, their position, their power, their commonality. It is something like waving your hand over Gitmo and saying “these aren’t prisoners of war; POWs have features like X and not like Y, and these have Y and not X, and hence I do not have to abide by the GENEVA CONVENTION when dealing with them.”

    What the fuck is it to you, anyway? You’re not in the camp. You’re not even one of the guards. Is it that you don’t want to believe there are camps and prisoners? Is it that you wish to convince others that what we are calling a detainment camp is not a detainment camp, hence… we should think about something else? I’m bewildered, too, by your refusal to provide other options for “hate” in the sentence “men hate women”; you prefer to argue, exclusively, “men don’t hate women, hence you are wrong”. If you want to talk about glib and easy arguments, yours is the easiest and most glib of all, containing no force or substance, and then you gleefully write the whole thing off in 123 with “I thought we were just talking about stuff!” anyway!

    Man, I hope your ass gets reborn as a woman. You’re the kind of choad who can blow the whole revolution. I can only pray you stick to being rules lawyer at local Magic: The Gathering tournaments and stay well away from where any actual power resides.

  143. Chris Clarke

    Ah, I see where I went wrong, Mandos. You were maintaining the sharp distinction between “conscious harm done to another either deliberately or negligiently” and “violence.” Yep. That’s not hair-splitting at all. And I can totally see how that would undercut Twisty’s whole argument.

    And I am the Queen of Romania.

  144. Cass

    Sartre defined “hatred” as an emotion desiring the annihilation of an object seen as a profound existential threat to the self. There, my dears, is your instrumentalism, and that’s what we’re talking about here.

    So, do “men hate women”? Much of the time, obviously, yes, but it’d more accurate to say “the patriarchal mind tends to fear and loath the feminine principle”, which results, of course, in worldwide violence and bias against women, fear of men “tainted” by femininity, and mockery of what’s seen as feminine values almost everywhere.

  145. mythago

    Why don’t the Internets telepathically convey my pure patriarchy-blaming intent properly?

    Even here, the patriarchy’s evil influence is felt!

  146. Cass

    P.O.’d: That’s very nice!! Do you think we can expect, somewhere down the line, a picture of a naked fellow writhing about on the floor to convey for us the anguish of some other killer disease?

  147. Pinko Punko

    I think Mandos’ point is somewhat semantic, although I don’t think he is arguing in bad faith nor do I think he is the nutlog that the frothies seem to think he is. That said this HPV situation is the clearest, latest manifestation of patriarchy in all countries that do not do genital mutilation, although the result is somewhat the same. Here, though the godbags can claim that they are not actively causing the women’s cancer, they are passively doing it. The patriarchy does indeed hate women because it wants them to get cancer and die if they have sex, even though all the patriarchy does is try to get women to have sex so that they can then be punished. This is the definition of malice to me. However since all the little cogs in the patriarchical machine ascribe their own motivations and actions to their little roles (the porn addicts and the godbags playing their separate parts) there may not be the individual hatred, and perhaps that is to what Mandos refers. However I think the clincher here is “don’t hate the playa hate the game” is NOT going to work in this situation, and that is what Mandos’ argument seems to boil down to?

    Am I wrong? Did I not attack him enough?

  148. Twisty

    Quoth Sunya Harjis in #142:”WTF homes? … power resides.”

    Ah, Sunya. How I’ve missed you.

  149. tisha

    (And thanks for the math link, Sunya! Maybe now I’ll pass calculus! LOL)

  150. Mandos

    You can’t talk about the relationship between X and Y without thoroughly defining X and Y. Didn’t you learn that in your sophomore abstract algebra class, bullethead? And then you cheerfully disengage yourself from any discussion whatsoever about what Y (or in this case, XX), is! That’s bad algebra, whether semantic or mathematic.

    Do you really want to play the algebra game? Oh, boy.

    What you linked to Does Not Mean What You Think It Means, obviously. There’s an entire algebra—the untyped lambda calculus—whose entire purpose is to discuss the semantics of relations and operators without recourse to anything but a trivial notion of the domains. Add some very simple base types and you can generate a fairly robust compositional semantics—and even without types you can generate most of arithmetic. Check out Bob Carpenter’s book, Type-Logical Semantics, if you have the time.

    Even if this line of criticism were valid, it’s still not relevant. The point of lambda-abstracting the predicate HATE is precisely so that we can talk about lambdaY.lambdaX.HATE(X, Y). Obviously the domain over which X and Y can exist are much larger than classes “men” and “women”; perhaps “thinking entities” or something. So in this larger context—a superset, I must say—we can see whether it is a useful concept at all before we get to the subset. If it’s not useful in the superset, then it can’t be useful in the subset.

    The policy issue is well-taken. I suggest that the best policies against system oppression are compensatory. For instance, one combats Neo-Nazism by giving the young people drawn to it some other opportunity to achieve a socially valued status, etc, etc. “Hate” may exist in Neo-Nazis, but I find it hard to figure out where it fits in the development of policy.

    You’re not even one of the guards. Is it that you don’t want to believe there are camps and prisoners? Is it that you wish to convince others that what we are calling a detainment camp is not a detainment camp, hence… we should think about something else?

    Except that…the analogy is really weak. The point is that, as you acknowledge, names of things influence policy choices. If it’s something related to what people commonly call “hate”, then you’d be dealing with it as a matter of emotion. You’d be going on “love” campaigns, and this blog would not exist. You’d be counteracting something negative with something cheery and positive. So if you want to call it “hate”, it’s your own, very idiosyncratic definition of “hate”. If you’re dealing with it (correctly) in terms of anger, it suggests that it’s something other than hate. It suggests you’re upset that women are used in a particular way. That they’re not just in the detainment camp for the sake of the being in the detainment camp—that it’s actually a very dispassionate labour camp. That violence doesn’t just happen to women as a class because its fun to be violent to women as a class.

    Of course, you’re free to use “hate” in an idiosyncratic way, but I don’t think it really has any place confusing policy discussions, if you actually want to do something.

    And I provided an alternative word, but you just weren’t reading.

    Man, I hope your ass gets reborn as a woman. You’re the kind of choad who can blow the whole revolution. I can only pray you stick to being rules lawyer at local Magic: The Gathering tournaments and stay well away from where any actual power resides.

    Look, you know very little about me, but I assume it amuses you to ascribe these images to me. No, I don’t play Magic: The Gathering. But it’s not like I’ve not had my own brushes with being the object of unwelcome scrutiny. Not, perhaps, on the scale that women have it. But I’m a brown guy with an–in this time–somewhat unfortunate real name. And I travel a lot, including crossing a border. Make of that what you will. I don’t take it as fear of hate, myself, not in any socially useful way.

  151. Mandos

    That said this HPV situation is the clearest, latest manifestation of patriarchy in all countries that do not do genital mutilation, although the result is somewhat the same. Here, though the godbags can claim that they are not actively causing the women’s cancer, they are passively doing it. The patriarchy does indeed hate women because it wants them to get cancer and die if they have sex, even though all the patriarchy does is try to get women to have sex so that they can then be punished.

    Yes and no. The people who oppose the vaccine do so because they believe they have a better cure, for a wider ranging set of things they consider impediments to human well-being (rightly or wrongly). They believe that the HPV vaccine is a competitor to that cure. It happens that they believe that human behaviour is a curable disease vector—again, rightly or wrongly. It’s easy for me to apply the word “criminally negligent and stupid”, perhaps. Or “very strange view of the universe”, maybe. But it’s hard for me to apply the word “hate” under any definition I can think of.

    Why does this matter? Because if they “hate” women, it suggests that there will be no actual way to stop them.

  152. Chris Clarke

    Of course, you’re free to use “hate” in an idiosyncratic way,

    As are we all, apparently.

  153. suezboo

    Holy shit, Mandos. This is not a seminar room. It is an angry, even churlish, feminist blog. We are angry women and we write about it. Twisty and the other commenters have shown you the hate men feel to women in that they will kill them rather then give up control of their bodies.This is angry-making to me, a member of the underclass. It stirs up my obstreperal lobe to its limits. You see it as an interesting little semantic game. I like you but , please, play somewhere else. The women have serious, grown-up work to do.

  154. Frumious B.

    The Family Research COuncil’s position on the HPV vaccine can be found here:

    http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05J04

    The Family Research Council welcomes the news that vaccines are in development for preventing infection with certain strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease. We also welcome the recent reports of promising clinical trials for one such vaccine. Any medical advance in this area holds potential for helping to protect the health of millions of Americans and helping to preserve the lives of thousands of American women who currently die of cervical cancer each year as a result of HPV infection. Media reports suggesting that the Family Research Council opposes all development or distribution of such vaccines are false.
    ….
    They may be woman-hating godbags, but they are not opposed to the development of an HPV vaccine.

    The reason the vaccine is proposed only for girls is money. While girls and boys can both carry and pass the virus, only girls get cervical cancer. Vaccinating both girls and boys doubles the cost, but only incrementally decreases the number of cancer cases. Hopefully when this vaccine becomes available, insurance companies will cover the cost of vaccinating boys so that parents who choose to do so will not have an undue financial burden.

  155. Sunya Harjis

    My justice energy is crackling with sparks of gleeful power as I note that Mandos has replied like the turtling rules lawyer fuckface he is.

    Do you, citizens of Twistiland, not know what a “turtling rules lawyer fuckface” is? Then just read Mandos’ reply to me aloud, to yourselves, in your best Comic Book Guy voice. See how natural it is? How … right it sounds to use that voice with those words? Especially, ” …I assume it amuses you to ascribe these images to me.” Which is the point at which I burst into actual laughter.

    Read the point at which he presumes to take me to task for bad definitions and failure to understand his special precious “calculus.” He’s so fucking stupid he doesn’t even know I was backhanding him for his earlier crazy-talking about analysis! Not only was the definition of “well-defined” a perfectly useful one when talking about whether Woman was conceptually understood enough to be discussed, it was a clever math reference! About the field of math called analysis! Which Mandos never took, because he was very busy with WRT 399: Anime And The Semantic Calculus. It’s not like it was hard to tell that I was full of the funny jokes in that post; as usual, I never try to hide how splendid and entertaining I am.

    Rules Lawyer Mistake #1: you are so invested in your argument you have no sense of humor anymore.

    Note that, as suezboo already pointed out, Mandos comes to a public forum dedicated to congenial, cynical, and impassioned patriarchy blaming. He proceeds to take everyone to task for failing to do “intellectual heavy lifting”, and then, when one person or another gets his balls in a fucking vice about what a dipshit he’s being, he turns on Super Defense Mode and says stuff like “we’re just TALKING” or “look at what this Semantic Authority says about semantics!” Note how he once again didn’t talk about definitions of Women! Note how he did not address how cheap and easy it is to say “men don’t hate women… because of semantics!” You know what that means, right? He has to put more and more into sustaining the idea that we should be having a semantic argument at all in the first place, and later, in the future, he will always be on the hook for semantics, always on the hook for doing anything in an argument except “just TALKING”, always on the hook for topicality.

    Rules Lawyer Mistake #2: you start mortgaging future credibility to pay current debts of honor.
    Rules Lawyer Mistake #3: you start to genuinely believe that the argument you want to be having is the argument everyone should be having.

    But the thing that clearly makes him a Turtling Rules Lawyer Fuckface is the Invocation Of Authority. That was the stupidest thing ever, because it said something you should never get caught saying: it says he didn’t like or couldn’t win the argument I was shoving him into, so instead he tried to make the argument he would much rather have – the bloodless and intellecutally sterile semantic hairsplitting one – somehow more exalted. He brought in a Name Brand, and he didn’t even bring the Name Brand in on the vanguard – he brought it in on a flank position! To support a notion that nobody was even going to bother to challenge!

    A simplified example of Mandos Turtling Bastard Invocation Of Authority: Tha Maneuva

    “Mandos, everyone says you smell awful.”
    “Oh really? Sartre said, ‘People don’t truly understand smell.’”

    Who gives a fuck! Certainly not anyone smelling you! You’re a Turtling Rules Lawyer Fuckface, and you stink!

    Rules Lawyer Mistake #4: you let the argument go on so long people realize what you’re doing, and that it sure isn’t relevant to anything they’d ever give a shit about.

    I fucking HATE it when pants-dampening ninnies like Mandos pull this routine, because it’s older than dirt and utterly without dignity, but everyone who uses it thinks he is the smartest son of a bitch who ever shat out a reply.

    Citizens of Twistiland: don’t be a turtling rules lawyer fuckface.

  156. Mandos

    I usually try to take it that people are arguing with me in good faith if they respond to me. I try to provide as clear and detailed answers as I can. Sourced when I remember the source.

    But clearly, you were not arguing in good faith. Not from the beginning. So you’re absolutely right: I really should have known. So I hope you enjoyed this. And you’re right about another thing too, much good may it do you.

    And no, I’m not much of an anime fan. Bye.

  157. Cass

    “The people who oppose the vaccine do so because they believe they have a better cure, for a wider range of things they consider impediments to well-being (rightly or wrongly). They believe that the HPV vaccine is a curable disease vector- again, rightly or wrongly. Its easy for me to apply the words ‘criminally negigent and stupid’, perhaps. Or ‘very strange view of the universe’ maybe. But is hard for me to apply the word ‘hate’ under any definition I can think of.”

    I hope I’m not being immodest when I say this, but among co-workers and friends I’m generally renowned for my patience, and the sweetness of my character.. two qualities you are now testing severely, dear Mandos. We’ve been over all this before. The self is not defined by the rationalizations its conscious mind invents, and if psychology stopped at that point… well, it wouldn’t even exist. The fact that you’re exceptionally naive and ignorant of psychology doesn’t give you license to ignore what’s known either, or to flee into a fog of relativism whenever you reach the limits of your knowledge.(I should have transported you beyond those limits by now, but never mind.) Relativism is the last refuge of the intellectually lazy or impaired, and I expect better of you, Sir, in the future.
    Patriarchy 101 tells us the primal fear of the patriarchal mind may be female sexuality. (As we have covered before, profound hatred is always preceded by fear.) This tragic reality results in such divurgent phenomena as as rape, burkas, genital mutilation, societal contempt for prostitutes, most or all pornography, the famous “double standard”, and “conservatives” all over the world who define the word “morality” almost exclusively in terms of sexual behavior and control of females. We are not required, again, to take the self-justifications of religious conservatives seriously, any more than we accept fascism or the actions of a serial killer recieving his instructions from God as rationally based.
    One last point: using mathematical terms in a argument so fuzzy-headed and relativistic gives rather a bizarre effect, but it doesn’t make those arguments any more convincing. Were I a more cynical soul (which thankfully, I’m not)I would suspect you’re using these terms to puff yourself up like a blowfish, intimidating those disagree with you while playing the role of a condescending male intellectual to all these emotional females you’re trying to provoke. A word of warning: theres’s always a possibilty when playing such a game (not that you are, of course) that someone will see through you, and you’ll look like a complete idiot. Just a thought.

  158. Mandos

    I disagree with you and outlined the reasons why I disagree with you earlier on so it’s not useful for me to repeat myself.

    It was Sunya who brought up the math in an apparent joke at my expense. I took it seriously, because I take math seriously. My mistake. Now I know better about Sunya.

  159. Chris Clarke

    Is it because I disagree with you and outlined the reasons why I disagree with you earlier on so it’s not useful for me to repeat myself that you came to see me?

  160. Sunya Harjis

    “But clearly, you were not arguing in good faith.”

    Turtling Rules Lawyer Fuckface Mantra: If I’m not winning, everyone else is cheating.

  161. Donna

    Okay, let me just preface by saying that I’m not even worthy of kissing the hem of most of your garments here. But this blog rocks my world so much I can’t stand it. I’d like to point out that waaaaaay upthread, Mandos responded to Sam’s Dworkin quote by characterizing heinous acts such as gangrape as “reproductive strategies” by disadvantanged womb-deprived males. Now, in my humble, rank amateur, patriarchy-blamer experience, I’ve found that as soon as ANY behavior by men toward women, no matter how horrific, can be attributed to Almighty Male Sperm Spreading Imperative, two things are true: You are dealing with an intractible patriarchy apologist and this person has no intention whatever of being part of a solution to what we see as a problem. After all, it’s not a problem, really. It’s the Almighty Male Sperm Spreading Imperative. It will always, always, always, come back to that. Whatever it is.
    Talk about your circular arguments.

    Stop spinning your wheels with these time-wasters.

  162. ehj2

    calculus and rhetoric are less relevant here than our own direct experience.

    and the poetry and the mythology on this issue couldn’t be clearer.

    to the masculine, the feminine is the sun, the moon, and the stars.

    she is overwhelming.

    the only way for the masculine to “manage” psychologically what is perceived as overwhelming is to deprecate it.

    to a child, nothing is more fearful than an angry mother. every man who has not completely left home psychologically and resolved his mother complex is afraid of an angry woman.

    and we hate what we fear.

    the average man fears and hates women. period.

    men “need” for women to have less power because men perceive women to already have too much power. period.

    /e

  163. Esme

    Cervical cancer actually was on my radar when I first started having sex at age 16. Why? Because when I was 15, and dating my first real boyfriend, my pediatrician mother came into my bedroom to inform me that she thought I was having sex and therefore ought to know that having sex at a young age increases my likelihood of contracting cervical cancer.

    Trauma to the cervix, she explained, often results from sex before the body finishes developing, and this trauma increases my likelihood of cervical cancer.

    I still don’t know if this is true or not, but it still worried the living hell out of me until I decided that “maybe you’ll get cancer a really long time from now” seemed like a really stupid reason to further delay starting to do something that every bit of my mind and body wanted to be doing, particularly when the means to do so was so readily available.

  164. Pony

    Your mother the pediatrician is right. (Of course). Sex can give you cervical cancer. Young women and girls are particularly susceptibe. Planned Parenthood can explain how, why, and what to do to protect yourself. It’s more involved than using a condom, and also involves regular gyne examinations and pap smears, and soon one hope, vaccinations for a couple of types of carcinogenic STD viruses, but not all.

  165. saltyC

    I think at my age (39) most women have had genital warts. I’ve had every other kind too by now… planter’s warts, regular warts. They are a funny bug… sometimes they come back, sometimes they’re gone for good.

    Having a regular pap smear will detect it and they can freeze them out.

    What the Gyno said is if left untreated they can possibly lead to cancer.

    She also said they are highly contagious and it’s hard to tell if they’re gone for good and hard to tell if you are contagious.

    So, what should I do?, tell every sex partner about it? They had no answer.

    I called the CDC and asked them for advice. They said it was up to me to tell partners.

    So,

    I decided not to tell. The truth is, there is so much stigma with STD’s, and most people who have them don’t even know. So why potentially become labeled?

    Just another risk you take by having sex.

    Same thing with herpes, I don’t blame people who have herpes and never tell people they have sex with. They say 75% of people with herpes don’t even know they have it, and they can be contagious too.

  166. Pony

    There has been *at least* one case of a partner not infomed suing successfully. It was herpes. I’d tell.

  167. saltyC

    How many of us have been warned in advance that a partner has an STD? Me: never. Yet a very large portion of Americans have either herpes or warts. That means lots don’t tell. In this culture that is mixed up about sex, it is risky to tell. More risky than getting sued, the person who was sued must have had a lousy lawyer.

    I knew a woman in college who everybody talked about having herpes. Most of the people who talked about her probably also had herpes. The disease is not as bad as the stigma. That’s probably why, when I asked about warts, the CDC said they took no position on telling. Telling could give you a rep.

  168. saltyC

    Face it, every time you have sex you are exposing yourself to an STD. Don’t assume anyone will tell. Actually one time I did warn one partner about warts and he took it badly and also brought it up later in a bad situation. He never did catch it and it never reocurred, so I assume after 12 years of it not coming back that it’s gone. So why risk telling on something that’s probably gone anyway?
    I won’t go along with you on this one.

    Have you had a blood test for herpes? that’s the only way to know you don’t have it. I haven’t, but I figure since I’ve had sex with at least twelve partners I probably have it by now. Should we all get tested so we can tell the world how many bugs make our crotches their home?

  169. Pony

    Not to do so is both lying, and potential assault of another person’s body. These things aren’t trivial, especially in women. Some can cause infertility and cervical cancer. Not to mention, if you give it to someone else, and they give it to someone. No. It’s not honourable not to tell.

  170. saltyC

    Stepping down a bit from your high minded moral tower, consider real life:

    One in four American women has herpes. That’s including mormons. 3/4 of them don’t know they do. That’s from the CDC.

    You should be careful every time you have sex, if you had sex with more than four people it’s a good chance you’ve been exposed. You don’t need visible blisters to be contagious, so someone may have it and be contagious and not know. They could be telling the truth and still have herpes.

    Although it is more contagious if symptoms are present.

    But if it is the same as physically assaulting another person if you know and don’t tell should we all get blood tested for herpes, something very few have done, so we can tell… Or is it better to not know, that way you won’t be “lying”.

    There’s already enough guilt associated with sex. Actually now that I reflect on it, I did tell my partners that I had warts a while ago, but I can understand not telling. I heard recently that a boyfriend of mineof three years had herpes and never told me, and it annoys me, but I wonder if I caught it, why I never had symptoms. I thought maybe I was already immune… maybe I had a “dormant” case? Or maybe we just never had sex when he happened to be contagious. Well, as soon as I found that out I shared my thoughts with a current boyfriend and he sure didn’t take it well. Too close to thinking about me and another man’s penis, as well as all the sex-dirt confusions and dirty slut connotations…. too much to ask someone like him to understand. So I regretted telling him.

    If you don’t have it, be careful, even if you do be careful, get regular pelvic exams, and let’s lighten up on the blaming and unrealistic expectations.

  171. Pony

    I think it’s also a good idea for both partners to have labwork, done together, from the same physician if possible, prior to intimacies.

  172. Pony

    Oh and condoms. Always.

  173. saltyC

    Pony, you are right, of course. You should tell. Here I am telling everybody I had warts and was exposed to herpes, and taking the position of sympathy to those who don’t tell.

    At least I hope we learned that even good people sometimes don’t tell, so be careful… whether or not you have the cooties.

  1. As fun as any misogyny round-up can be at Pandagon

    [...] Our favorite patriarchy-blamer has a post titled “Men Hate You*”, subtitled “Jesus appeared to me on a grilled cheese sandwich, and lo he did say unto me that cervical cancer prevents premarital sex.” today. Twisty has found an article that’s good, solid evidence that plain old misogyny is a driving force in politics today. Yes, the Twisty-named godbags are running loose in Australia as well as here in the U.S. and trying to drum up opposition to the HPV vaccine, mostly because it prevents a kind of cancer that only women get–cervical cancer. Evil motherfuckers–I wish I believed in hell, because I’d know at least that these self-righteous woman-haters would be burning in it soon enough. [...]

  2. Feministe » Which Of These Things Is Not Like The Others:

    [...] Relatedly, the godbag woman-hating right says, “fuck and die.” Literally. And if you’re one of those who would like to think that misogyny is dead and consensual hetero sex is always equal and nonviolent, check out this comment. Good luck holding down your lunch. [...]

  3. Patriarchy Blaming 101 at Pandagon

    [...] Now I’m not arguing that all men hate women or anything like that. I’m saying that giving people the benefit of the doubt up front is generally a good idea, because most people are good and you can’t live in fear. But it’s also important to give up persisting in the belief that people mean well when they behave badly. And people who agitate for laws designed specifically to minimize women’s joy and maximize our problems hate women. [...]

  4. BlogHer [beta]

    Quote o’ the Month: Andrew Riddles at Chandrasutra

    This Quote o’ the Month is from the comments thread to an excellent piece of analysis at Chandrasutra regarding the James Frey controversy.
    It’s also a relatively tangled nest of quotes for my series. Enjoy the complexity!
    This comment, left by Andre…

  5. Study of the Week: ‘Foreplay’ Scientifically Proven Unneccessary at I Blame The Patriarchy

    [...] Meanwhile, I remain unconvinced that anyone conducts a sex study for any reason other than to gratify some pervy urge to stick electrodes on other people’s naughty bits and watch porn. __________________________________________ * Man o man, NewScientist.com just loves the skeeze. Remember their delightful sexy-naked-cancer graphic? [...]

  6. Bitch | Lab » Spam me harder, baby

    [...] She posted this in comments here [...]

  7. Smite Me! [.net] » Blog Archive » It’s not my party!

    [...] (especially independent) – I don’t fucking care, as long as the party isn’t dominated by a sorry sack of women-hating Godbags. The Dems and Repubes are different incarnations of the same corrupt, bloated, paternalistic, [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>