Elsewhere (266)
David Paxton on identitarian pay complaints:
A pay gap between two men is the product of market forces, but a pay gap between a man and a woman is attributable to either the market or to patriarchal oppression, depending on whom it favours… Pointing at specific cases, highlighting a demographic difference, and then declaring discrimination to be the sole cause without further evidence, is a tactic favoured by those who consider themselves thoroughly modern… But this thought process is pre-medieval – an unreflective instinct of pattern-seeking mammals who habitually see conspiracies in misattributions of cause and effect. Just as infant deaths were once blamed on a neighbour’s malevolent witchcraft, and crop failure on insufficient animal sacrifice, today’s hashtags blame identity-group discrimination for pay differentials when perfectly logical alternative explanations are readily available.
David Solway, husband of Janice Fiamengo, on the corrosive shakedown named “social justice”:
My wife, who for many years donated one fifth of her salary to charity, is anything but a heartless conservative, and I have gone out of my way to help people in distress. We do not reject the social safety net intended to assist the unfortunate who have, as they say, “fallen through the cracks.” But helping measures must be closely and fairly monitored so that the indolent and inept do not gradually displace or usurp the productive and the competent, to everyone’s ultimate disadvantage. A difficult task, to be sure, but worth undertaking. “Social justice” makes no attempt to distinguish the one from the other… The old saw that development grinds to a halt when there are as many or more people riding in the wagon as pulling it applies with a vengeance.
And Toni Airaksinen on the feminist appropriation of “toxic masculinity”:
The term may have first been popularised by early forms of the men’s advocacy movements. (Not feminist movements, as one might expect.) For example, one book that seeks to raise awareness of issues that men face, titled Man Enough: Fathers, Sons, and the Search for Masculinity (1994), highlighted one of the earliest examples of toxic masculinity in the literature. “Without a “father in residence,” [men] may go through life striving towards an ideal of exaggerated, even toxic, masculinity,” the author of the book, Frank Pittman, said on the topic of young men without fathers. But the term has recently been co-opted by the feminist establishment as a way to scapegoat, blame, and denigrate men as a whole. In the college classroom, toxic masculinity is presented to students as a reality that affects all men, and is harmful to all women.
And so we arrive at the contradiction of feminists who denounce “toxic masculinity” as both all-pervasive and a fundamental evil, at least among white people, while simultaneously endorsing fatherlessness and family instability, i.e., the most obvious causes of the behaviour they claim to dislike.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
And so we arrive at the contradiction of feminists who denounce “toxic masculinity” as both all-pervasive and a fundamental evil, at least among white people, while simultaneously endorsing fatherlessness and family instability, i.e., the most obvious causes of the behaviour they claim to dislike.
That.
That.
As Brad Wilcox notes here in some detail, absent fathers and “deconstructed” families – the ones that Laurie and her peers enthuse about – can also have hugely damaging effects on girls and young women.
But hey, being a feminist, Laurie cares.
http://www.skepticat.org/2018/03/truth-is-the-new-hate-speech/ It’s all kicking off in the skeptic community regarding trans and transphobia.
today’s hashtags blame identity-group discrimination for pay differentials when perfectly logical alternative explanations are readily available.
Big stars get big pay cheques.
I. Am. Shocked.
David, can you check the spam filter?
Freed.
To radical feminists, toxic is not one of many forms of masculinity. It is the definition of it.
I. Am. Shocked.
It’s comical how often such complaints boil down to some variant of, “But why isn’t the support band paid as much as the headline act?”
I remember seeing something in the Guardian about the Iron Man films and how supposedly sexist and outrageous it is that Robert Downey Jr is paid more than Gwyneth Paltrow. As if status, reputation and market value – the likelihood of putting bums on seats – were somehow irrelevant. (It’s worth noting that for the first film, Downey was paid around $500,000, a fraction of his eight-figure fees for subsequent films, and much less than that of supporting actor Terrence Howard, who was paid over $3M and at the time was deemed less risky and of greater value.)
And while Iron Man films attract massive global audiences, I doubt that the bulk of those buying tickets are doing so in order to follow the thrilling adventures of Pepper Potts, minor character, as portrayed by Ms Paltrow. (Incidentally, Scarlet Johansson, who plays the Black Widow, a more marketable proposition, is the second-highest paid actor in the Avengers films, with a fee that dwarfs those of her male colleagues, excluding Downey.)
Actors tend to be socialists of the most childish sort, but they’re engaged in a very individualistic and cut-throat profession. If you can build a personal brand then you can command a higher salary, because it is assumed that that will put more bums on seats. If there are more parts being offered to you as a result of your past success, your agent can presumably sell you at a higher rate.
If actresses could be honest with themselves, they don’t want equal pay and they certainly don’t want to be paid by the work they put in on the project. They want equality of opportunity – the chance to be given enough meaty parts (fnarr fnarr) to build the kind of CV actors can. That is precisely what Foy got, and there’s a lot more excitement over her career than Matt Smith’s at the moment.
“The term may have first been popularised”
I think the Progs must have an army of terminology scrapers that find things and go, “Hmmm, that sounds cool and insightful, let’s repurpose that for our own ends and make the original concept/meaning obscure.” And since they virtually own so much of the media/culture…
…while simultaneously endorsing fatherlessness and family instability, i.e., the most obvious causes of the behaviour they claim to dislike.
As you note, the shifting goalposts among the likes of Laurie Penny is a wonder to behold. The single mother household is the pinnacle of social evolution brought forward by wise matriarchs. But less than ideal outcomes resulting therefrom are the fault of “toxic” males, who aren’t involved by definition. Not to mention that those children who grow up in loving, stable, two parent households are deemed “privileged” because their lives tend to be better off than those from single parent homes, thereby necessitating the destruction of marriage and family. How these people continue to command a place in the public square is beyond my comprehension.
the thrilling adventures of Pepper Potts, minor character,
Great name for a spin-off comic.
“If you can build a personal brand then you can command a higher salary, because it is assumed that that will put more bums on seats.”
– It may be called a “meritocracy”; and I note with wry disillusionment both how meritocracies are so successful at bringing the cream to the top, and how anathema they’ve been for the past many decades to every stripe of leftie from kindergarten (“Oh we MUST not award badges of merit, they make those who don’t get one, feel so bad…”) on through today’s entire SJW movement.
The which, does anybody else find it ironic referring to SJW’s as a ‘movement’?
Cream rises to the top; so does scum.
the shifting goalposts among the likes of Laurie Penny is a wonder to behold.
See also this. Note that when confronted with statements of the obvious, say, regarding coupling and poverty, Laurie and her groupies start telling each other how “angry” they are. Which makes me wonder if they do in fact realise, albeit dimly, just how ruinous their own advice is to the people they pretend to care about.
The irony being that if Laurie’s own parents had lived by her professed values – abandoning stable coupledom, monogamy, mortgages, etc – it’s unlikely that she would now have a media career and be in a position to air those supposed values, at least as a public figure. As I said at the time,
But hey, that’s who she is. And so far as I can tell, it’s who most of her peers are.
Of course Laurie has the considerable advantage of being raised, comfortably, in a stable family by two middle-class parents with the terribly bourgeois values she now claims to hold in contempt.
Let’s not forget Professor Amy Wax of the august Ivy League institution the University of Pennsylvania, whose rather mundane observations about the correlation between bourgeois values and success were deemed deeply offensive by the Laurie Pennys of the world.
Amy Wax… whose rather mundane observations about the correlation between bourgeois values and success were deemed deeply offensive by the Laurie Pennys of the world.
Speaking of which, Heather Mac Donald on modern taboos:
Related.
It’s all kicking off in the skeptic community regarding trans and transphobia.
Oh, pfffft. I used to consider myself an “atheist” and a “skeptic”; as I matured I eventually realized that both groups are simply Angry at Daddy and are using their ideology as a way to feel ever so superior to the plebs who aren’t as enlightened. That “skeptics” and atheists align so closely with contemporary leftists ideologically is not an accident.
pfffft
[ Wipes bar. Slides bowl of trail mix slightly to the left. ]
“a way to feel ever so superior to the plebs who aren’t as enlightened”
That’s what Snopes slowly devolved into, although there was always an air of smartpantsness there.
Of course Laurie has the considerable advantage of being raised, comfortably, in a stable family by two middle-class parents…
And yet she turned out badly anyway, proving while such an upbringing is valuable it is not a guarantee of success. 🙂
That “skeptics” and atheists align so closely with contemporary leftists ideologically is not an accident.
Yes, I noticed that too.
Speaking of Laurie Penny, some lucky few will get to see her talk to fellow lunatic Rose McGowan for a mere £8. I do hope there’s a video.
In other Laurie news:
Right now I’m rocking a neon blue buzz cut.
I believe I covered this in my novel:
Yeah, I think I got that right, don’t you?
The Skeptic Community™ were already in full luxurious bloom last September on this issue, on the doctrinaire leftist side. Are you saying there is some pushback?
I have a timing frame of reference because last year’s Dragon Con (which I attended) had on its Skeptic interest track of panels several on the wholly and clearly scientific basis (*cough*) of transgenderism, and how anyone against rote adoption of the Holy Talking Points was therefore Against Science.
In other words, last year it had been added to the regular repertoire of Things Dad and Those Horrible Xtianists Are Wrong About and Evil.
I do hope there’s a video.
I wonder. Is there any level of flattery or self-congratulation that would be… embarrassing?
As an aside, the Skeptic track occasionally has panels regarding the imaginative side of fiction (the ostensible overarching purpose of the con), but all too often the fare consists of the aforementioned I Hate You, Dad in toto. When it’s not taking a year off and shrieking at the paranormal track and their panels on Bigfoot instead.
all too often the fare consists of the aforementioned I Hate You, Dad in toto
I left the con scene over fifteen years ago because it was exactly that, and as far as I can tell had always been that. While I used to think it was merely pathetic, between Ed Kramer, the recent revelations about Marion Zimmer Bradley, and the various things I saw but didn’t quite grasp the implications of at the time, I’ve since come to the conclusion that the con side of fandom badly needs the Carthage treatment.
Is there any level of flattery or self-congratulation that would be… embarrassing?
I think Laurie in conversation with Rose McGowan will be interesting. If I’m right about this, it’s going to be a conversation between someone who was actually sexually traumatized and forced to keep silent about it, and a poseur adopting the trappings of victimhood for social status signalling. The differences between their demeanour should prove illuminating.
I do hope there’s a video.
I just pray Laurie will remember to bring tissues. Anything more is a bonus.
I wonder. Is there any level of flattery or self-congratulation that would be… embarrassing?
I doubt it. Me, I’m hoping McGowan has another massive rant at a deranged, heckling tranny and Laurie gets embroiled in the resulting brouhaha. I see she’s already getting shit on Twitter for not being woke enough to recognise McGowan’s anti-trans past.
If I’m right about this, it’s going to be a conversation between someone who was actually sexually traumatized and forced to keep silent about it, and a poseur adopting the trappings of victimhood for social status signalling. The differences between their demeanour should prove illuminating.
You’ve got a point there. If I was in the neighbourhood, I’d drop by. I’d have to crowdfund the £8 of course.
McGowan is …
She sounds like a bit of a cocoa-shunter to me.
“Hmmm, that sounds cool and insightful, let’s repurpose that for our own ends and make the original concept/meaning obscure.”
Now you’re making me homesick for Protein Wisdom. Dammit.
I just pray Laurie will remember to bring tissues.
Sorry, I’m just shallow.
Of course Laurie has the considerable advantage of being raised…with the terribly bourgeois values she now claims to hold in contempt.
For years, we Americans have been treated to stand-up routines riffing on the fact that twenty million Boomers all claim to have been in attendance at Woodstock, and yet all twenty million have moved Heaven and Earth to make sure that their own children never get high.
In hindsight, their sort of hypocrisy seems quaint; almost benevolent.
Sorry, I’m just shallow.
My eyes! My eyes!! GAHHHH!
I know, no refunds, credit note only.
I may have to re-think my lunch break blog reading habits 😛
And yet she turned out badly anyway…
Remember the Bell Curve. Trends say nothing about any given individual. Someone always has to be on the “fuck-up” end of the spectrum.
This has to be an extremely devious marketing plan:
Or maybe Guinness has a mole high up in Heineken’s organization.
A link? Bah. A snippet? Sneer.
Why not a cornucopia?
Ben Shapiro on broken families.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgTnbq8JvSk
In effect, and like so many of her type, our leftist guru is coasting on the legacy of values that served her well but which she claims to despise and urges others to reject.
That.
That.
And it’s not just her own background, and what it made possible, that reveals the lie.
As noted before, Laurie’s self-imagined role as a wordsmith revolutionary would be much harder to sustain without a great many other people cultivating those same despised bourgeois values and keeping things ticking over. A fact that Laurie counts on, despite her pretence. In effect, we, the bourgeois rubes whose values she disdains, are her safety net. The fact that few of us are credulous enough to follow her advice is what allows her to mouth it in relative comfort and security, knowing that the destruction of capitalism, marriage and the family unit (and all that would go with it), which she claims to want, won’t happen just yet.
Identitarian entrepreneurs have identified a new niche market to guilt-trip: white people who use reaction gifs of black women. They’re calling it “digital blackface,” and you’re never going to believe this, but it’s extremely problematic.
Re: upthread, the atheist/skeptic web got invaded by intersectional entryists way back in 2010/2011 or so, with Rebecca Watson and “Elevatorgate” (accusations of sexual harassment/rape culture centered on an impromptu proposition in an elevator, basically). Freethought Blogs was the epicenter of the schism, where PZ Myers and his acolytes insisted that the Richard Dawkins/Sam Harris/Christopher Hitchens version of “New” Atheism was unacceptably white, male, cisgender, and Islamophobic. Also, any atheists who thought that arguments over religion were distinct from politics and should remain so were derided as “dictionary” atheists and run out of town, essentially. They tried to invent a new “movement” called Atheism+ (atheism plus social justice, etc.) which quickly formed into the usual circular firing squad, with only the most broken psychotics left standing.
only the most broken psychotics left standing
I’m not sure how you’d tell the difference, frankly.
It’s been my experience that the most overwhelmingly strident atheists are the ones who haven’t been anywhere near a practicing Christian in decades, and do not seem to be particularly ensconced in their own private version of A Handmaid’s Tale. It’s as if the more ethereal the bogeyman, the more terrified they are of it.
Boy, that sounds familiar.
Well…
(so late in the thread it seems off-topic now, but I couldn’t resist)
It’s been my experience that the most overwhelmingly strident atheists are the ones who haven’t been anywhere near a practicing Christian in decades, . . .
What does christianity have to do with it? Particularly given atheism being utterly and entirely as much a matter of faith as hinduism/christianity/pastafarianism/islam/whateverian . . .
After all, consider the following: State the proof, with details, that there is no such thing whatsoever of any god or gods or goddesses, nothing paranormal whatsoever.
Without any such proof, pastafarianism/islam/atheism/whateverian/christianity/hinduism will continue to be examples of mere faith, the same faith, completely identical faith, and each varied practitioner of faith will continue to scream at the next one regarding their individual menu items.
I’ve noticed that actresses complaining about the pay gap appear blissfully ignorant about how much younger they are (5-10 years seems to be a good estimate) than their male co-stars. I don’t know about you but to me it would be a privilege to start earning at 19 instead of 29. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an “introducing” credit for an actor, like the one Cameron Diaz got for The Mask. Many of these actresses are also models, which can be a highly paid profession, one mostly barred to men, so it would be interesting to compare total income (modeling + acting) between the complaining actresses and similarly aged actors.
Right now I’m rocking a neon blue buzz cut.
We must never forget this day.
Neon? She calls that neon blue? Bleh.
Damn, she can’t even get that right…
we, the bourgeois rubes whose values she disdains, are her safety net. The fact that few of us are credulous enough to follow her advice is what allows her to mouth it in relative comfort and security, knowing that the destruction of capitalism, marriage and the family unit (and all that would go with it), which she claims to want, won’t happen just yet.
Haha. That.