Sunday, February 04, 2007

Another "Men Are More Logical Than Women" Spouter Offers Himself As Proof Of The Opposite

Check out this guy.

First of all, I want you to know that men have Logic-o-rama. Women, well, we just don't. Estrogen just doesn't come with little logic capsules. Penis = logic. Uterus = emotional and illogical.

Going there would just be beating a dead horse.

It just goes downhill from there. Women get into science classes in college because men are discriminated against. Feminism is a hate movement. There are like a bajillion laws in place that discriminate against men. Feminism like totally wasn't and isn't needed because women would have gotten their rights without it. Science like totally is teh roxzorz.

That, my dears, is the basic gist of it.

My response was as follows (It is only so short because og character restrictions):


But then if we get into your science programs, it would only be because you were discriminated against!! Or are we only to look from the sidelines in skimpy cheerleading outfits? In any case, the invention of the pill came before a court case which made it legal. It's invention would have been meaningless had women not been able to legally use it, and I don't think you change laws in a laboratory. I don't think science gave women the right to vote, either.

In response, I received this:

The first part of your post is irratinal don't want to be a cheerleader? Then don't. You can do what you want to do, didn't anyone tell you that? (btw, I did study science in uni and there was anti-male discrimination).

The second parts are good points, yes there are good changes that feminists have made, but feminism takes credit for all the advances that women have made.. Advances that would not have happened if the science wasn't ready. That was my point.

So by now I'm just laughing. However, while laughing, I constructed what I believe to be quite a clever response to Mr. ArgusEyes.

My comment was just a tad on the long side for YouTube regulations, so I figured I'd just send you a message. I hope such a thing is not too bold. In any case, here is what I had wanted to say before I was denied by ridiculous character restrictions:

The point was not irrational because you didn't get it. The cheerleader comment was a snide remark in reference to first the "men have more logical minds" (yeah right) comment, and secondly, the "man-discrimination". The point was that you say look to science, yet when we do and we beat out the men who also look to science, we're told it's because men are just discriminated against. Therefore, you must not want women to actively participate in science, just watch and ooh and ahh over your manly logicalness (yes, I know that's not a word). If you believe men were being discriminated against, then you must believe that the women who took their places were not as qualified as the men. I saw no explanation for such a belief. Having a special interest in including women isn't discriminating against men. You say that there were 8 women in your class, right? Do you believe they were all inferior to the male candidates they beat out? I mean, if I did try to go into science, wouldn't I just be stepping on all of the men who are better at it than I am? Wouldn't you consider me a black mark on the boy's club of logical thinking? You say all these things in your comment ("You can do whatever you like"), yet it completely contradicts your apparent attitude in your video (If you're in a science class and have excess amounts of estrogen, it's because men are discriminated against and you suck at logic and science). Someone's wringing their hands.

In any case, without feminism, the advances of science would have been meaningless. When epidurals first came out, many people were against them because of the Bible and the whole "pain in childbirth" thing. Therefore, feminism had to step in. Didn't see science doing anything for women that it wasn't doing for anyone else. Science improves the lives of everyone, but it doesn't work in awarding people human rights. That requires social efforts. What you're suggesting is that because science helps everyone, it's been better for women than feminism. I mean, I'm sure scientific breakthroughs in diagnosing and handling Sickle Cell Anemia helped the black community because Sickle Cell Anemia disproportionately affects black people, but it didn't do more for their human rights than the civil rights movement. It just improved their quality of life just like it would have for anyone. Big whoop!

Not only that, but you've changed your story. Is feminism a horrible hate movement or has it had positive changes? Are you saying positive changes can come from hating men and erecting horrible man-hate laws that just keep men down? Come on now. Not only that, but you specifically said that feminism was not needed. Women would have gotten those rights anyway. I see absolutely no evidence of that, and in fact, see evidence in direct OPPOSITION to that. That was also contradicted by your saying that feminism has had positive effects.

So, in conclusion, I think you yourself are proof that perhaps men aren't more logical than women. It was a good attempt at defaming feminism, though. I give you points for creativity at least.
Also, feel free to watch his other videos. Did you know? Women are more sexist than men! Oh the horror!

6 comments:

FEMily! said...

First, I give you major props for your response to that guy. It was very logical, unlike his harangue.

Second, as you've mentioned, his rant was hilariously ironic. He claims that women aren't good in science, not by stating a statistic, but by telling us that he had 8 women in one of his science classes. He says that women would have gained "equal" rights without feminism, not because of any scientific theory that posits "everything shakes out in the end," but because that's a hunch he must have in order to get 5 minutes of fame on YouTube.

Now, if he stated that women are worse at science and, from his personal experience, men are worse at using language, then there would have been some truth in that.

Lily. said...

I'm back! You tell 'em, sista! :]

ArgusEyes said...

"what is logic"

I'll take pointless rhetoric for $400 alex.

---------
"Now, if he stated that women are worse at science and, from his personal experience, men are worse at using language, then there would have been some truth in that."

If A && B = true
A and B must be true
As mentioned A was apparently false

--
I notice you didn't post my reply, or reply yourself, or tell me about this blog. Coward.

Megan said...

Good sir,

Your reply would have been even more embarrassing for you had I posted it, and I figured you had gotten enough fame from all the misogynists who like to subscribe to your name on YouTube. As such, you didn't need, what was it you called us? Some variation of the hairy-legged, man-hating, lesbian sterotype I'm sure, giving you a hard time. I figured it best you not come trolling on my site. As such, if you do, your comments will not be posted.

Have a lovely, logical day.

Anonymous said...

Yeah right? Umm, just Yeah.

As loathe as I am to chime into the exchanges of polemic driven women, I'll descend from this masculine perch of unchecked power just long enough to bestow my deluded manly mana.

If there's a peeing contest over logic, I'm certain you'd be a gallant contender. But are you the anomoly? I've been privy to countless encounters between warring genders. Now, my experience is no more a holistic measure than your own, ample skills of rationale, but in my experience, the males of the furore have typically been the adherants to logical retort and defence. While the women have been prone to clutching the crutch of hightened-emotion tolerance. It's not going their way, so they get in a tizzy. Exchange passion way up in the face of principal, and count on the exploitation of male concessions like chivalry, and female-protector instincts to sneak the protest under the radar of rigour. You know what a woman's best weapon is against men? Men. Even if they are typically logical creatures (men), women have evolved as masters of clouding issues, subverting and submersing logic, and embracing tools like misplaced affection to turn men against each other.

Women have all the ears.

On occasions where I've seen men hold stringently to insisting on logic to resolve conflict, and state their defence, the rules are then shifted by the woman to a complaint about a lack of, or call for "feeling", or "intuition". Again clouding the review of such cold, soulless and unfeeling premises as "facts". As if it was suddenly a crime now for the man to make sense of an emotional conflict. Yes, lets all stop making sense. That will be awesome. The only conclusion to draw from some arguments I've seen, is the only thing that would satisfy and console the women, was to achieve the man's rile. To get him as inflamed as she obviously was. Is this some perverse way to demonstrate caring? Fill me in.

On the flipside, I do think that men are (from my experience) guilty of neglecting the personal interests of women. I've witnessed women step out of their comfort zone to try to relate to or accomodate men's interests. There are paradoxes in what constitutes "practical" that women are often regarded as being. I think it's probably derived of women being more emotional in their approach to relationships, trying to encourage a method of bonding. Whereas men are more logical (even if it may be myopic logic): She likes that stuff, we like this stuff, so why should the twain meet halfway? Contrary to popular conception, I've seen women to be far more constrictive to social freedoms of men, than men of women. Maybe women want to sink tentacles into the various social activities because of a lack of trust? Just speculating. But, typically, men seem far more accepting of women doing "girl stuff" and leaving them to it.

By the way, there ARE bajillionz of laws that discriminate the hell out of men. The fact that you mock it is substance enough to conclude your level of acknowledgement. You've obviously cultivated fine powers of reason. See if you can't germinate a slew of your "sista" (*sigh* @ lame gender affirmation) with the same seed of thought prowess. I think you overestimate it's prominence and prediliction on your side of the fence.

Nice brain by the way. It's highly attractive. I hope I can make that observation without you presuming you're being hit on.

-Hzqi

on YouTube

Megan said...

I think I just got MRA Bingo.