@Folamh3's banner p

Folamh3


				

				

				
6 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 13 13:37:36 UTC

https://firsttoilthenthegrave.substack.com/


				

User ID: 1175

Folamh3


				
				
				

				
6 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 13 13:37:36 UTC

					
				

				

				

				

				

					

User ID: 1175

The "with a penis" was implied.

Show me the relative rates of STD transmission by penetrative rape vs. other routes of transmission.

I think it's unacceptable to house sexual convicts with non-sexual convicts regardless of gender. If a convicted rapist asserts that he's now a woman, then he's a woman. She still shouldn't be housed with anyone due to the nature of her crime

Okay, but given the limited resources available to the prison service, in which it isn't practical to sequester all criminals convicted of sexual offenses away from the general population, where should a convicted rapist with an intact penis who claims to identify as a woman be housed? In the male prison, or the female prison?

And I don't think there's a problem housing them together for the same reason. Women beat the shit out of eachother in prison just as much as men do

Untrue. One data point: in the period 2001-18, 1,251 male prisoners were murdered in US prisons, while the equivalent figure for female prisoners was 7. Based on the size of the US prison population in 2022, that works out at 104.29 murders/100k population among male prisoners, 7.59 murders/100k population among female prisoners. A male American inmate is nearly 14 times more likely to be murdered in prison than a female inmate. This shouldn't come as a surprise given what proportion of the male prison population is serving time for violent offenses vs. what proportion of the female, or the obvious differences in aggression and propensity to violence between the sexes, or the obvious differences in physical strength between the sexes (which are only minimally explicable by differences in body mass).

Even if it was true, there's the obvious fact that female people cannot forcibly penetrate other female people, impregnate them and/or infect them with STDs: only male people (regardless of how they "identify") can do that. I would have thought this would have been an obvious point of concern for a self-identified feminist but apparently not.

I think what should stop them is weight classes

Sorry, that's a non-starter. For example, look at this website. When I filter to look at only male people, the top of the list is John Haack, who weighs 192 lb and whose combined lift is 2,232 lb. When I filter to show only female people, the first person of approximately Haack's weight is Crystal Tate at 196 lb, and whose combined lift is 1,540 lb. There are no female people on this list who have lifted more than 2,000 lb, or indeed more than 1,800 lb.

If you think the differences in male and female strength, speed and stamina are entirely explicable by reference to weight class, I just... I'm sorry. You're wrong. I sincerely think I would have better luck arguing with a flat Earther than someone who seriously thinks that male and female people are just as strong and fast as each other. Maybe I could understand how you arrived at that erroneous conclusion if you were literally blind.

"I do not believe that I am any taller than my friend from Japan because of how I was born. I think thinking otherwise removes agency from Japanese people - that no matter how hard they try, they're always going to be a little shorter than me - dehumanizes them and doesn't treat them as a whole person with free will and the choice to be better."

Maybe you believe that blank-slate thinking is "nicer" than recognising the genetic components of various physical and psychological traits. That doesn't mean that blank-slate thinking is true: that it makes more accurate predictions than the alternatives. I think you're getting confused on the is-ought distinction.

As an aside, I'm consistently baffled as to how blank-slatists did such a good job of marketing themselves like they're the ones who are promoting a kinder, more charitable worldview. I recognise that, genetics being what they are, some people are just smarter than other people through no fault of their own, and there's not really much they can do to change that, so they shouldn't feel bad about it. But blank-slatists would have us believe that, because there's supposedly no genetic component to intelligence, then if someone is bad at maths, the only possible explanation is that they're lazy. Which is both untrue and extremely unkind to a person who may well be driving themselves to distraction trying to understand algebra and just failing to get it for reasons entirely outside of their power to change.

Thinking a woman is secretly happier being a stay at home mother and TV shows, newscasts, movies and teachers have convinced her to be miserable removes her agency and treats her own choices as math results

You're the one who thinks that any woman in a romantic relationship with a conservative or non-feminist man is secretly miserable and filled with self-loathing but isn't consciously aware of it. I've described this attitude as condescending before and I'm happy to do so again.

or that women are inherently less funny, less intelligent, less emotionally resilient than men because of their genes

I think men are (on average) inherently less physically flexible, empathetic and emotionally intelligent than women, and more prone to aggression and violence, because of our genes. Does that mean I don't think men are people?

Or could it possibly be the case that I think men and women have different, complementary strengths and weaknesses?

I’m not a woman because I have titties and estrogen, I’m a woman because I identify with the Western cultural construct of a woman

Out of curiosity, do you have a womb?

I don't know if I can think of examples of feminists literally killing each other over sectarian differences

The TERF/TIRF debate has come pretty damn close at times, which is hardly surprising given that the latter denomination contains a higher proportion of male testosterone-y people than probably any nominally feminist denomination in history.

Don't you find it interesting that essentially every prominent feminist activist has campaigned in favour of shorter prison sentences (no sentences at all, in some cases) for women regardless of the crime? I mean, seriously, please point me in the direction of a prominent feminist activist or academic demanding harsher sentences for female murderers.

You can be as prescriptivist as you like, but at the end of the day you have to look at the facts on the ground, how the term is actually being used and how the people who describe themselves as such are behaving. This game of "my extremely specific stipulative definition of feminism is the only true and valid one, if you criticise anything associated with feminism that doesn't fall under that stipulative definition then you're arguing in bad faith" is really just a kind of navel-gazing, and it was old hat in 2014:

I point out something I don’t like about feminism, then everyone tells me in the comments that no feminist would ever do that and it’s a dirty rotten straw man. And then I link to two thousand five hundred examples of feminists doing exactly that, and then everyone in the comments No-True-Scotsmans me by saying that that doesn’t count and those people aren’t representative of feminists. And then I find two thousand five hundred more examples of the most prominent and well-respected feminists around saying exactly the same thing, and then my commenters tell me that they don’t count either and the only true feminist lives in the Platonic Realm and expresses herself through patterns of dewdrops on the leaves in autumn and everything she says is unspeakably kind and beautiful and any time I try to make a point about feminism using examples from anyone other than her I am a dirty rotten motivated-arguer trying to weak-man the movement for my personal gain.

Are there any male feminists who describe themselves as "sex-negative"?

Gaiman's schtick was hardly just that he is "a male feminist" - he is a bestselling author, gregarious convention-goer, and supposedly a commanding storyteller in person and all around magnetic personality, on top of being a male feminist.

True, although I'd argue that signalling his progressive bona fides was a necessary component to him successfully bedding women given the social circles in which he was considered to be a high-status figure. Bestselling authors in the sci-fi and fantasy genres who don't have the "correct" politics will get cancelled and deplatformed long before an opportunity to bed a groupie presents itself. Just ask Orson Scott Card.

And I'd argue that signalling "I'm a male feminist" is about as cheap as it gets.

Had you heard about this when you included the hyperlink? I hadn't heard of it prior, but I can't say I'm terribly surprised. That whole caption doth protest too much.

Norton was too old for the role and it really showed in the flashbacks... but his performance justifies willingly suspending disbelief.

I think he was only twenty-eight at the time of filming, I assumed his character was meant to be about that age before going to prison.

I respect the film for actually allowing Derek the space to articulate his arguments behind his opinions. I recently linked to a dumb rap-metal song released six months into Trump's first term which is essentially three minutes of "punching Nazis is good, actually". The bridge features the line "what makes you think you're the superior race?", which the vocalist clearly intended as an armour-piercing question which would instantly silence any alt-right types listening. It's sobering to be reminded by American History X that there are plenty of far-right people who would not be flummoxed by this question at all, and who would actually be able to present very detailed and persuasive arguments as to why they endorse white supremacy.

That aspect of the film and Edward Norton's exceptional performance aside, I don't really rate this movie. Making a convincing movie about neo-Nazi or far-right extremists seems to be remarkably difficult to do - Romper Stomper with Russell Crowe is even worse; Green Room was very entertaining, but only nominally about this theme (if the skinheads had been Mafia members and the band had stumbled in on a Mob murder, the plot of the movie would have been identical). The only such movie I remember being really convinced by was This is England. The naturalistic, largely improvised performances, verité-esque cinematography and unobtrusive score sold the experience far more effectively than American History X, in my view. Like American History X, it does offer its far-right characters a chance to express why they arrived at their opinions, but this usually comes in the form of impassioned ranting rather than Derek's sober, articulate (hence chilling) expressions of his worldview. I've heard The Believer with Ryan Gosling is very good, I must check it out.

I recently stumbled across this video essay talking about American History X's behind-the-scenes drama, concerning how director Tony Kaye's original cut of the film was rejected, and Edward Norton stepped in to handle the recut when Kaye proved extremely uncooperative (to the point of suing the producers and starting a knife fight with them in the press). Even though the video essay essentially takes Kaye's side and says Hollywood mistreated him, I came away from it with the distinct impression that Kaye is a colossally pretentious narcissist who is extremely difficult to work with. If he'd been willing to compromise and play the game a bit, he might have eventually been granted an auteur license which would ride him to glory at the Oscars. Instead he torpedoed his career right out the gate, and unsurprisingly hasn't helmed a major Hollywood production since.

There's a clip in the video when Edward Furlong is doing a promotional interview for the movie and the journalist asks him about the behind the scenes controversy. He says something to the effect of "Yeah, it's a pity that the producers weren't happy with Tony's cut of the movie. Maybe one day they'll release the director's cut on DVD or something, that'd be cool." As more than one YouTube comment points out, it's pretty embarrassing when a 21-year-old former child star with a drug problem comes off as more reasonable and emotionally mature than a 46-year-old director.

@justawoman has been posting here for years, why would she get caught by the new user filter?

You don't see e.g. Dworkin's husband getting accused of rape, because radical feminism doesn't provide the environment for weird sex shit.

IIRC Dworkin was married (in the common-law sense) to a gay man. If he was never accused of raping a woman, it was probably for reasons unrelated to his politics or hers.

If you're a male sex pest in denial, feminist messaging must be perversely comforting. You'll hear these angry women ranting about how all men are bastards who just see women as holes to put their dicks into and how men will never respect them, ever - and you'll think to yourself "woah, all men are like that? I thought it was just me, phew!"

I think the "every accusation is a confession" thing gets abused, but when I read an article by a male feminist talking about how men need to confront the fact that they tend to be dismissive towards women's lived experiences and fail to properly value their input, all I can think is - speak for yourself, dude.

I don't think the OP was asserting that it's true - I think they were saying "this is the hypothesis, do you think there's any truth to it?"

As previously mentioned, I was planning to spend the month of February doing a self-imposed NaNoWriMo. I unexpectedly had to move house last week so I ended up postponing the start date until yesterday. I will keep writing, aiming to maintain the pace of NaNoWriMo (1,667 words/day), until March 9th or I finish the first draft, whichever comes first.

Yesterday was surprisingly productive, I knocked out 500 words on my morning commute. Didn't reach my daily quota, but right now I'm 1,644 words up from where I started on Monday.

A Google returned this article: https://nationalpensionhelpline.ie/taxation/etf-tax-in-ireland-might-be-changing/

I don't know if this is the same information you were reporting to me. It may be of interest.

Can you suggest some of these Irish ETFs? Would I be charged at the upper tax band if I invested in an Irish ETF, as opposed to an American one?

Thanks for the advice.

I know essentially nothing about investing, but I want to invest in a specific index fund. I understand I need to open an account with a broker to do this, and there are many brokers to choose from. Before selecting a broker, how do I know that I'll be able to invest in that specific index fund via the broker? Secondarily, which broker would you recommend I use?

I can tell you from being adjacent to the porn industry for a while

I'd love to hear you expand upon this.

I've only told a couple of people about the book so far and am deliberately not going into a huge amount of detail. The basic premise is that it's set in eastern Europe. There's a woman working for a pharma/medtech company, who's developing an invention which has the potential to completely revolutionise diagnosing fertility disorders, but she's concerned that the invention will be stolen from her and used for purposes she doesn't intend.