Let's have a calm, polite and substantial discussion about gender and sex

[angus]

Hi guys...

Men have a constant and very low level sex drive.  They're always horny, but never really very horny.  Women have a periodic, but very intense sex drive.  They're not horny most of the time, but when they are they are fabulously so.  It is in this way that our species evolved, and according to the Theory of Natural Selection, it did so because those specimens with those respective drives were more successful sexually.  Men are also different than women in other ways.  Men have penises.  Women have uteri.  Men have more upper body strength.  Women have more body fat.  Men have spent thousands of years making war and killing big game.  Men do not have maternal instincts.  

I don't have a problem with same-sex marriage, but I won't try to pretend that a child with two fathers will ever know what it is like to have a mother.  Nor do I have a problem with female commanders.  My current boss is a woman, and so have been many of my previous bosses.  I have voted for a woman for Governor.  I think that anyone in any position of authority who discriminates solely on the basis of sex is a pig and should probably be fired.  Nevertheless, it is foolish and unproductive to pretend sex differences do not exist, or that we, the self-ordained most highly evolved species, are somehow above the laws of physics and of biology and of chemistry.

I also detest feminism in all its forms.  (For what it's worth, I would probably detest masculinism equally, should I ever encounter its existence.)  I embrace egalitarianism--which definitely should not ever be confused with feminism, and I suggest that others consider it as well.  Egalitarianism means equal rights and equal treatment under the law.  It does not recommend a pretense that men and women are the same.

[angus]

I also detest feminism in all its forms. (For what it's worth, I would probably detest masculinism equally, should I ever encounter its existence.)  I embrace egalitarianism--which definitely should not ever be confused with feminism, and I suggest that others consider it as well. Egalitarianism means equal rights and equal treatment under the law.  It does not recommend a pretense that men and women are the same.

While I wouldn't go as far as you did with the rest of your post, and while "detest" is a bit too strong of a word for me, I'll say that I roughly agree with this.

Feminism took a noble idea, Women's Lib--equality of wages, bra burning, the right to serve in combat, etc.--and tarnished its image forever.  It's a bitter philosophy, good only for building tension and wreaking havoc.  It's as bad as racism and as bad as male chauvinism.  Perhaps worse even, because it's more subtle and therefore under the radar. 
 

[angus]

bitterness in gay people.  

bitter gay man.

That's like jumbo shrimp, or pretty ugly, or top floor, or United Nations.

[angus]

THIS IS GOING TO BE LONG AND RAMBLE-Y AND PERHAPS INCOMPREHENSIBLE AND I APOLOGIZE.

pshaw.  Never apologize for loquacity or for digression. 

Feminism certainly isn't about equality.  We already have a word for that so feminism must be something else.  Anyway, other than the unnecessarily insipid introduction, ironically set in ALLCAPS, I think it was a fine post and one with which I can agree without further reservation. 

[angus]

it should strive to do better by looking at countries that actually do better...

It would, and it could, if we could stop getting hung up on all this feminism and White Man's Guilt and all that.  France, for example, addresses inequality by economic and class level.  We, on the other hand, have all these "opportunities" for Hispanics, women, blacks, etc., rather than trying to help out those less fortunate regardless of their gender or ethnicity.  I'm not advocating the barbaric measures taken by your country in terms of repressing religious freedom and stifling free speech and telling school teachers and nurses what religious iconography they are and aren't allowed to wear, mind you, but I do agree that France probably does a better job at promoting true economic egalitarianism than we do, and it does so precisely because it doesn't get all hung up on race- and gender-based affirmative action.

[angus]

My university is in the news after it was discovered that student leaders led new students in a "rape chant" during frosh week.

What was interesting with regards to this discussion is the varied responses blaming other cultures. The campus feminists are blaming patriarchy of course, while the resident priest and church groups blame the secular culture and the loose morals it produces.

It's certainly not surprising to see conservatives attempting to spin these events in their favor. I don't really see anything modern or "secular" about these kinds of attitudes, though.

quirk of English.  or maybe it's just American English.  Anyway, folks have taken to using the word secular as an antonym for religious.  Not what the word etymologically stands for, obviously, but at some point you have to accept that the kids are using it that way now.  (It actually says "Novus ordo Seclorum" on the back of a US one dollar bill.  It has been that way since long before I was born.  My guess is that only a small fraction of Americans know that, and an even smaller fraction of Americans can properly translate that into modern vernacular English.)  In that light, you can see how the priest--who is schooled not only in the language that bastardizes the word "secular" so much that it means the opposite of religious, but also in the language from whence it passed--would blame secular forces for all manner of disagreeable developments.  

It is equally understandable that feminazis--who are very "secular" in the original non-modernized sense of the word--would blame patriarchy for the phenom.  We could probably make similar comments about the conflation of patriarchy with catholic priests, which of course brings us full circle.  In that light DC's incisive comment is rather poignant, wouldn't you say?  Not bad for on-the-fly existentialist philosophizing.  Especially for a Republican.

As for the rudeness and vulgarity of the poetry in question, that goes without saying.  As for the fact that political correctness now weighs in heavier than freedom of speech, I suppose that flies as well, now that it's been run up the flagpole.  I'm not sure which is worse, but if you want to fire off volleys against the sad moral state of universities now, and of the students who attend them, then you'll have no shortage of ammunition.  

[angus]

"Freedom of speech" is overrated.

Indeed.  So is democracy.  And sushi.  And mobile phones.  That fact doesn't make any of it less worthy of the occasional nod.  Especially when we get so caught up in some crusade that we overlook their intrinsic values, warts and pimples and dropped calls aside.

[angus]

Obvs you can believe that people should have the right to say idiotic bullsh!t and still tell them that what they're saying is idiotic bullish!t.

stipulated.

If anything I wrote seems to imply otherwise, then either you misinterpreted it or I was drunk when I posted it or both.