Hacker News Reader

Comment by riazrizvi | Hacker News Reader

Personally I would love to know which stories you consider to be 'provably fake and completely contrived'. I have personally been the victim of multiple racial attacks both verbal and physical throughout my life. As a consequence I have v. low tolerance for racism, toward any race, and am thoroughly convinced we are all fundamentally equal in ability. And yet I am also fine with Breitbart's stance of wanting to eliminate the racial hypocrisy of political correctness for minorities only. As the OP I would love to know what articles in particular offend you. I'm just curious.

View on HN

Not racism but misogyny.

Milo: How To Make Women Happy: Uninvent The Washing Machine And The Pill

https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/08/29...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08...

He's citing university studies there. I disagree with the premise and the conclusions, but it's not fair to call it misogyny. More just like paleo-conservatism/traditionalism/neo-reaction.

It's a (I think, false) belief that traditional gender roles led to a more cohesive society or something. It's quite a stretch to jump from there to misogyny. Perhaps sexism, but not misogyny.

It outright is misogyny, particularly since his claim about the washing machine being bad in any way is entirely unsupported and completely false.

Further complete idiocy:

Yes, he gets his claim of "women unhappy" from an actual study, but either ignores or misrepresents the results of said study, which concludes largely that women consider themselves to have better lives, and have better lives, but feel unhappy because they now compare themselves to a larger scope of possible achievements.

And while he's correct that the pill is shit and does a lot of harm in women, it's utterly disgusting to turn that around into "the church is right". No, the conclusion here is that men need to "man the fuck up" and get their tubes tied, and their rubbers on. (And the refusal of many here probably also is a good source for the unhappiness above.)

I could go further, but to properly address how much of that article is vile lies would require a post bigger than the article itself.

At the end of the day he is absolutely posting with a fucking agenda, and that is misogyny. Trying to deny that is utterly incomprehensible and reprehensible.

Maybe I just have an incorrection definition of misogyny. I would call it a sexist agenda, not necessarily a misogynistic one.

  misogyny/mɪˈsɒdʒ(ə)ni/noun
  dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

Trying to claim the correct thing to do is to make women happier by limiting the scope in which they can live their lives and by making them more "blissfully unaware" entirely fits this.

Fair.

Again I think there is a double standard at work here. This is misogyny, these articles? To me misogyny would be an article that argues that women are not as smart as men, not as capable. I think this writer is arguing women would be happier if they reverted back to traditional roles because data shows they are not as happy today in modern times. Personally I think he's wrong. My wife is a professional, I want my daughter to be a professional. But the case that this website should be censured seems flimsy to me, I think we can tolerate these views. Can't we hear a case why women shouldn't be in the army? Can't we hear why someone things girls should play with dolls and boys should play with action men? I mean are our values so flimsy that they can't withstand a little breeze like this? I just googled some articles on how women are better at x,y,z. Not hard to find: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/advice/g1711/women-bet..., http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/seven-things-wom..., http://www.thehealthsite.com/fitness/6-things-women-can-do-b..., http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/09/03/7-things-science-....

I mean, are we scrubbing all this stuff? Is this 1984?

Misogyny is not some kind of flag that gets thrown once a certain level of horrible is passed, it describes a stance towards women, and those articles do take it.

Also, you're strawmanning yourself am entire farm there, even if you didn't intend to.

'Strawmanning an entire farm', I like that, it's cute.

I refer to these other articles because I'm saying there is a double standard. Why are we suddenly talking about banning Breitbart? For writing a provocative article on why women would be happier in traditional rules? If we look at the articles I mention and replace the word 'woman' with 'man', I can't see a lot of difference between what we now are supposed to be outraged by.

How is pointing out a double standard in these contrasting articles a straw man?

Man, i can't tell if you're trolling me, or really can't see it. I'm actually kinda pissed because if you're serious you're being really dense, and if you're trolling you're being really good.

The article IS saying women aren't as smart as men, particularly not smart enough to handle freedom and responsibilities without being unhappy.

Then you try to bring "capable" as an example, which is ... just a superset of smart?

Then you say bb is being censured for that one article, when it's the fact that they're constantly and almost exclusively producing similar hateful stuff.

Then you start bringing up imaginary examples that are not at hand, which is honestly the purest kind of strawmanning.

And then you try to bring up articles that you claim should be deserving of the same reaction, but are very dissimilar.

I hope this helps you grok things, and if not, there's nothing left to say to you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com