How many comments never get published?

Occasionally I find it interesting to take a glimpse at the writings of feminists.

That’s how I came across this article that criticizes commenter angrybob for arguing against common sense.

“Common sense” is one of the worst arguments you can use since no two humans will entirely agree what exactly will fall under it. A hundred years ago it was common sense to hit one’s children so that they learn respect. 2000 years ago it was common sense to offer sacrifices to the gods. Today some think it is common sense to put women on pedestals. Other disagree strongly.
What ever you claim to be common sense I’d wager I can find someone who disagrees.

The conclusion: common sense has nothing to do with truth but with “The people i know (like?) agree with me” and thus proofs nothing.

My “Someone is wrong on the internets” instinct kicked in and I wrote a reply pointing out several of the items in the post and its comments that cannot seriously be regarded as fact.

My comment was killed, although I am at a loss to say in what way it is actually offensive. Nevertheless I shall not let it perish and put it up here. The references of course only make sense when you compare them to their original context.

>I don’t know about you, but did this guy just compare Gillard and Obama to Hitler?

No, he didn’t. He compared three ideologies that react(ed) to dissenting acts or opinions with shaming or violence.
That’s a subtle difference for someone trained to be offended easily, I know. But it’s important.
Feminists often resort to shaming language (You do too. See below.) or even violence.

>I would simply say ‘homosexuality’.

I scratched my head over this for quite a while now. The original quote was “(….) I might find it within my heart to lend them a box of tissues. Lavender scented, of course.”
What could possibly be the idea behind the afterthought “lavender scented” if not an insinuation of woofterness? What purpose does it have? Why not stop with the tissues?
Can’t think of anything.
Lavender is as un-masculine as you can get, on par with camomile-tea or bedsheets with roses.
Oh wait: “misogynists are not real men”, is that what he wanted to say? Oh dear.

>things start to get a little dark

Here “dark” means “not adhering to feminist ideas”. I like the non-emotional, non-shaming choice of words.

>the lack of commonsense

That is the main argument of the article. Given that “commonsense” has little more meaning than “ideas I find obvious and have a hard time to imagine anyone not agreeing with” this is not much of an argument.
Experience shows that the commonsense of two persons can vary as widely as any religion.
Or in other words, “commonsense” means nothing more than “I believe this to be true”. Which is in no sense the same as “This is true”.

> such idiotic claims

It is an increasingly noted phenomenon that females push into any male space and try to make it their own.
The change from GLTT to LGTT is just small example for this trend. If you have never noticed the trend you probably do not understand what andybob is talking about.
Another example (just the first i dug out of a few dozen I came across the last few months):
A club in London, hundreds of years old, has been forced to change its rules to admit a female member. Boyscout groups have been forced to admit girl members at the same time when boys are not even allowed to join a singalong of the girlscouts (let alone join their ranks).
In other words: nothing idiotic about it. You haven’t looked. Or you don’t take it seriously. Don’t call those who DO take it seriously idiots.

>Last I checked it’s usually men that do the proposing. And if he was pressured into it,

When a man proposes he thinks he has found a good woman. The tales of divorced men show that there are a lot fewer of those around than any young and innocent man (about to propose) would like to think.
So the message is: “Don’t propose until you are really certain of your partner and you have fully understood the risks involved in marriage. Marriage isn’t the good institution anymore that you have been told it is.”

>by reference to statistics that show that, in the first place, women, on average, earn far less than men

Every statistic claiming that has been shown to compare apples with oranges. Every study that took pains to factor in the “equal work” in “equal pay for equal work” came to a wage gap in the -5% to +5% range. Yes, in some areas women earn more than the males doing the same job.

>on the other, that male on female violence is far far far more prevalent than female on male

At least for domestic violence the numbers widely accepted by experts are 25-50-25.
Meaning: 25% of all DV cases are committed solely by males. 50% equally by both parties. 25% solely by females.

I see no “far, far, far” in those numbers.

>One expects that a very large proportion of homicides by a female would be desperate mothers killing their newborns.

So that’s OK then? They are desperate so it is OK for them to kill?

> that it is NEVER the victims fault

Oh, you would sooo like to believe that, wouldn’t you?

First thing any therapist learns is: “It always takes two. So what is the patient’s part in what is/was happening?”
There almost always is a part.
Stop being a baby.
Be responsible for what you do.

Howard Schwartz on Political Correctness and Entitlement

I am currently reading an excellent book: “Society against itself” by Howard Schwartz. I am not sure yet that I agree with his entire theory but the book is of the best kind of book: it motivates me to think long and hard about what it has to say. Whatever else, I am certain that I will be smarter or wiser after reading and thinking about it. And that certainty is alarmingly rare.

To give you an idea:

For a long time now I am feeling increasingly  uneasy about every new example of political correctness I come across. Something about PC feels completely wrong even if I so far could not put my finger on what exactly that is.

I know that I am not alone with that impression. “Political correctness gone mad” is a standing idiom in the UK.

Another thing I always wondered about is the fact that practically every author in the manosphere relates tales of “entitled” women. Apparently very many females in the US and the UK have an irrational sense of their own worth and thereby what they are entitled to.

Schwartz offers a theory that answers both questions: What is wrong with PC and what is wrong with girls* today.