I think I will give up reading all of Orson Scott Card's articles. Not sure about the books. It's just not worth the stress and frustration. I tried to stop reading the political articles because they frustrated me so much, and frustration leads to stomach aches, teeth grinding which leads to agony. So instead I'd read his reviews of things, but Uncle Orson cannot review brownies without throwing in some line about the evils of liberals. Which is irritating as not all liberals are bad. I am a liberal. Quite bleeding heart, and very proud of it. Liberals are useful. It's not the conservativeness of the articles that bothers me, conservatism is useful too. I don't agree with most of the tenets of it. But, again, some are useful, good for society, much like some aspects of liberalism. You need both. You need perspective. It isn't right to dismiss people entirely because of their opinions, ie, calling them stupid or evil for not sharing your views as their experiences, religion, background shape the way they see the world. So I try not to do that, but at times, it's hard. Sometimes the delivery of these opinions can inflame and annoy me, making me think, I know you feel XYZ, but is it necessarily to be rude about it? If I believe in gay marriage and someone else does not, do I have the right to call them names? America and our rights as Americans are all about disagreeing and agreeing, freedom of speech. But, this must be done with respect, like everything else in our world that claims to be civilized.
Perhaps I am going on a tangent. Fact is, it's no longer worth it to read things that will aggravate this terrible IBS condition I have which is mostly caused by me stressing myself out and frustrating myself. There's no subtlety to Orson Scott Card's articles. No concept that there may be some children who do well with single parents. Or some gay couples that are just as healthy or more so healthy than straight couples. There's no concepts of things not being black and white. Not shades of grey or colours. So, instead of frustrating myself with these articles I'm not learning anything from, I think I should write my own articles and stories and politely but firmly challenge the sort of black and white thinking that makes the world a more frustrating place.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I think I will give up reading all of Orson Scott Card's articles.
Not sure why it's controversial or requires an announcement. I haven't read his reviews and WW articles (unless linked by someone else, and usually not even then) for years.
I still enjoy his fiction.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yeah, not exactly controversial to me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Shhh!!! You guys are ruining her dramatic exit!
It's like when you try to storm out of the room and you have trouble opening the door.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I gave them up years ago, but I do like most of his weekly columns in Mormon Times, so I read those. Unless he's talking about anything political. I skip those. His stuff about church is often really good. I enjoy those a lot.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm not exactly leaving here, as I'm fond of this place. I just cannot abide anymore of these frustrating articles. Arg. They drive me up a tree. I think I'd rather be pinched by big huge giant Calanthe-crab's big hermie pinchy claw again. Which really hurts. He drew BLOOD one time. He's lucky he does that cute washing his eye thing. Maybe if OSC wrote an article about butterflies and moths and why they are awesome and didn't ONCE say something like, liberals are like evil moths which would offend me on several levels. As moths are not evil but cute, adorable and sweet.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Shhh!!! You guys are ruining her dramatic exit!
It's like when you try to storm out of the room and you have trouble opening the door.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I enjoy reading his reviews on books. I've found quite a few really good books because of his reviews, and I think he understands what makes a book enjoyable really well... or at least he mostly enjoys the same sort of books I do. Movies are similar, but to a lesser extent.
I don't read much else he reviews, as it's mostly boring stuff like food or local politics. What exactly in his uncle Orson reviews has distressed you so much?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The general rudeness towards people who disagree with him. The constant dissing of liberals even if he's talking about something like iPods or cookies. Or movies. He always has to go on a tirade about liberals and their America hating ways. We don't hate America. We just think, well, that America is wonderful, but imperfect. We want to make it better in our liberal way... No side is really perfect. He says so many rude things about gay people. It's not nice. I don't think gay marriage will destroy America. None of these people talk about things that really hurt families like abuse and the like. It's just gays, gays, gays and, oh yeah, liberals and feminists. Which are USEFUL. People who contribute to America, pay taxes, yes, even serve in the military and the like. Even if you don't agree with folks, they deserve respect, but if folks just keep being rude and harsh all the time, not looking at another's point of view, well, it frustrates me.
Also he tends to diss JK Rowling a lot, which isn't fair. Why call her cowardly for answering a question a fan had about a character? Especially when Harry Potter wasn't about Dumbledore's sexuality. OSC's gay characters always end up either married off to women, or worse. Like that poor dude in Songmaster. That was so harsh. Poor guy. These things have been annoying me for ages, but I've sort of had enough...
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Unfortunately he wrote some good novels. Those of us who adored those books are the people who he can get the most emotional reaction from.
ETA: I was shocked to discover that I called Mr. Card the a-h word in that thread. Sowee...
[ November 11, 2009, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Clive Candy ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm glad you've reached a decision.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Hey everyone, let's keep making fun of Synesthesia for being dramatic.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Interesting. I'm in that thread a few times. I can't say I want to silence OSC, he can write and say what he wants to say, as this is AMERICA. Where you can do that. But somehow, if I say things in a public way such as putting them in a newspaper for all to see, I'd want to say them with politeness and respect even for people whose point of views I totally disagree with one hundred percent and find a bit unhealthy. As free speech is a great thing, but politeness, well, you get more butterflies with honey than vinegar anyway. So I will politely disagree with OSC on his site even because THIS IS AMERICA.
Also for some reason the phrase THIS IS AMERICA is very funny to me. I think I am also a bit frustrated with the books too... Especially since there's this one book I read several times and didn't even notice this passage in it. Nothing in the world is more unhealthy to families than domestic abuse.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's not very nice... As, perhaps OSC and I have something in common and want to make the world a better place in our own way. But, it is my way to want to find the middle ground to things... I don't know, maybe it is a bit dramatic..
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Hey everyone, let's keep making fun of Synesthesia for being dramatic.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: That's not very nice... As, perhaps OSC and I have something in common and want to make the world a better place in our own way. But, it is my way to want to find the middle ground to things... I don't know, maybe it is a bit dramatic..
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Hey everyone, let's keep making fun of Synesthesia for being dramatic.
It's dramatic. Card is once again pleased to know that his writing effects people.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ignoring it might be a better solution...
But sometimes those articles can be so hurtful to a large segment of the population. A segment that are not bad people. Just people who see the world differently. I think i am probably not the intended audience in the first place.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Yea but if you ignore it, you're like someone who's running away from a challenge.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hmmm... You kind of are beginning to annoy me a bit. Which takes a long time to happen.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, look! The troll has managed to find a way to annoy the over-sensitive person! It's something no one could have predicted! :eyeroll:
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can't say I'm oversensitive... Again, mostly I'm very slow to anger, but the harshness of those articles has been getting under my skin for years...
Which is why it's time to run off and read stuff that is more enjoyable. Like stuff about John Lennon.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I know you can't say you're oversensitive, Syne, but everyone else can. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I know you can't say you're oversensitive, Syne, but everyone else can.
Well, if I am, there's nothing wrong with it... It's a bit better than being undersensitive... I am totally a bleeding heart, but we have our place in the world.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I didn't intend to annoy, Anastasia. My first post was made in sympathy, my second one was a jab at the people making "haha!" one liners, and my third one was a piece of advice drawn from my own experiences: just because a writer's opinions upset you doesn't mean you should ignore that writer.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I didn't intend to annoy, Anastasia.
Might want to fix that, then. Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Oops. How silly of me.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
hehe. Anastasia.
OK, ^^ But it's still so.. urg. It's just not good for my stomach lining to be constantly upset all the time. I have to think of my stomach lining. Bad enough I can't seem to stop watching criminal minds and all, and finding other things to aggravate me.
I must somehow break this habit, as I hate stomach pain and all that comes with it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm just waiting for OSC to become a full-time commentator on Fox News.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Since I came to the conclusion that reading most of his essays would be a painful and useless experience after about 2.5 of them, I can't really understand why this is dramatic. It's like, "Hmmph, he has some really disagreeable notions about things. Guess he isn't really God incarnate after all. Oh well."
Then I moved on. You should have taken this leap years ago Syn, you could have saved yourself alot of Alkaseltzer (or however it's spelled).
Then again, he's quite a bit more progressive than most of my REAL uncles, so maybe I'm just used to it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
File me under the "why is this controversial?" crowd.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I like the part about "single mothers and their sociopathic children". I still don't quite get why he thinks that fathers are the only adult males capable of providing direction/discipline for kids. The Cherokee left the disciplining of children to the mother's brother. I don't see why uncles/neighbors/teachers/etc. can't help with raising children. It does take a village, usually, unless the parents are superhuman. IMHO.
Oh well.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I like the part about "single mothers and their sociopathic children". I still don't quite get why he thinks that fathers are the only adult males capable of providing direction/discipline for kids. The Cherokee left the disciplining of children to the mother's brother. I don't see why uncles/neighbors/teachers/etc. can't help with raising children. It does take a village, usually, unless the parents are superhuman. IMHO.
Oh well.
Single-mothers cannot control young men. This is why the majority of criminals come from house-holds headed by a single mother.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Single-mothers cannot control young men.
I want to know where you came from and how utterly worthless and helpless all the women in your life were.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Single-mothers cannot control young men.
I want to know where you came from and how utterly worthless and helpless all the women in your life were.
quote: “Here is the lottery ticket that single mothers are handing their innocent children by choosing to raise them without fathers: Controlling for socioeconomic status, race, and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent. By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced. A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.
Wow. Just... wow. Quoting Ann Coulter is a sure fire way of convincing people to take you seriously. Really.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Regarding single mothers...atleast they're trying. If they suffer any disadvantage, its because the men CHOOSE not to be involved. I imagine its not the mere absence of a father that is the problem but rather the feelings of abandonment.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Because if Ann Coulter quotes statistics, those statistics must be wrong.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I like the part about "single mothers and their sociopathic children". I still don't quite get why he thinks that fathers are the only adult males capable of providing direction/discipline for kids. The Cherokee left the disciplining of children to the mother's brother. I don't see why uncles/neighbors/teachers/etc. can't help with raising children. It does take a village, usually, unless the parents are superhuman. IMHO.
Oh well.
Single-mothers cannot control young men. This is why the majority of criminals come from house-holds headed by a single mother.
My (widowed) mother did a fantastic job.
She doesn't constitute a particularly large sample, but one is enough to challenge your 'cannot' position. Certainty and self-righteousness are downright unappealing. So is trolling.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
It is a statistical truth. There will be many exceptions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Single-mothers cannot control young men.
I want to know where you came from and how utterly worthless and helpless all the women in your life were.
blah blah
I don't care about what Ann Coulter told you about women. I want to know what the women in your life were like to leave you so utterly susceptible to being able to think of women the way you do. It's hard to imagine how it's possible, unless you came from one of those religious families that trains women very carefully to be obedient and muted poppets lorded over by taciturn men in godly marriages.
It's (hilariously) horrific. You're like a purposefully constructed pastiche of chauvinistic neuroses aimed at the apparent frailty and vulnerability of women who need your socially obligatory protections to be enacted for their own sake.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I merely pointed out statistics. I don't know why you have to ask intrusive questions about my personal live.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I don't know why you have to ask intrusive questions about my personal live.
Gee I seem to have explained that right here
quote: I want to know what the women in your life were like to leave you so utterly susceptible to being able to think of women the way you do
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
That's like asking someone "why do you beat your wife?"
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I do have unconventional ideas though. I read this blog everyday:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: That's like asking someone "why do you beat your wife?"
No. It's like asking someone what kind of relations they have with women that made them act out a pervasive, neurotic, chauvinistic appraisal of the female sex and feeling compelled to make your lightning-rod estimations of womanhood known frequently to this forum.
I mean it.
You've gone from several topics of startlingly poor taste to now saying this. This isn't just about this one incident of bad statistics. This is about you being known for having an utterly abhorrent crusade against womenhood, plaintively asking and suggesting that their financial liberation is at fault for our financial ills, that they can't be allowed to be soldiers because their capture and possible rape would drive ous literally insane out of some poorly-explained male reactionary drive, that they're poor lost confused dears who should not have strayed from male-dominated social structures, etc.
It's like someone cut you out whole cloth from parts of The Handmaid's Tale.
And that is why I ask.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I shared a horrifying commercial that showed a man being basically bullied into making a huge financial decision. I said nothing about women's financial independence. Furthermore, it's true that a female soldier getting captured and raped could have negative consequences that male soldiers getting captured and tortured wouldn't bring about. And this: "that they're poor lost confused dears who should not have strayed from male-dominated social structures, etc" is you talking out of your ass.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I shared a horrifying commercial that showed a man being basically bullied into making a huge financial decision.
The question you posed was "Are women to blame for the financial crisis?"
In conjunction with your sourcing and supposition, that's why I say you suggested it.
quote:Furthermore, it's true that a female soldier getting captured and raped could have negative consequences that male soldiers getting captured and tortured wouldn't bring about.
The negative consequences you asserted were all completely invented and delusional, so forgive me for not buying it.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: [qb] I shared a horrifying commercial that showed a man being basically bullied into making a huge financial decision.
The question you posed was "Are women to blame for the financial crisis?" In conjunction with your sourcing and supposition, that's why I say you suggested it.
Well, it was clear from the context that I wasn't talking about women's financial independence. I was actually suggesting that it's possible it's women who care about big houses and therefore cajoled their men into getting loans they shouldn't have. After all, women do tend to be far more "house proud" than men.
quote: The negative consequences you asserted were all completely invented and delusional, so forgive me for not buying it.
Yea, remember Jessica Lynch? Now imagine dozens of girls like her getting captured and raped. Our forces will be committing war crimes in retaliation in no time.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
... "more" war crimes anyways ...
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The real question in this thread is WHY anyone even acknowledges that Clive Candy exists. He/she is clearly the most overt and worthless troll to visit Hatrack in some time, and people keep responding.
Strange days, my friends. Strange days.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I briefly look through them to see if they improved, they keep getting worse before it was "Okay, we have a difference of opinion and his points are arguable..." now its "Okay, now I know who is writing for Glenn Beck..."
However I found that aside from one or two brief cringe worthy moments in Ender and Exile his fiction is just as meaningful and enjoyable to read as Ender;s Game was and will continue to support his science fiction writing.
ANDD GOD DAMNIT CLIVE KEEP YOU FILTHY SEXIST BULLCRAP IN THE THREAD YOU STARTED FOR DISCUSSING THAT BULLCRAP!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I like the part about "single mothers and their sociopathic children". I still don't quite get why he thinks that fathers are the only adult males capable of providing direction/discipline for kids. The Cherokee left the disciplining of children to the mother's brother. I don't see why uncles/neighbors/teachers/etc. can't help with raising children. It does take a village, usually, unless the parents are superhuman. IMHO.
Oh well.
Single-mothers cannot control young men. This is why the majority of criminals come from house-holds headed by a single mother.
Where in my post did I say I think single motherhood is an ideal circumstance? I certainly didn't mean to imply it. I certainly don't believe it. However, I find hilarious the idea that somehow a child's father is somehow automatically better equipped to provide discipline/direction/guidance than any other adult male in a child's life. Fathers are not. They might be more likely to care/try, but that's not an absolute. Certainly I appreciate the help of other capable/willing adult males in my daughter's life, whether teachers, relatives, neighbors, parents of her friends, or whatever. It takes a village. Again, IMHO.
I would appreciate responses from people OTHER than Clive, if I'm going to get responses at all. Please?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
As someone who was raised more by his brother-in-law than by his frequently traveling father, I can say an adult male presence is vital, but it doesn't have to be a father.
Actually, quite a few modern day fathers, even if they stay with their family, are so buried in work and their own concerns they barely seem to notice their children. This is because, IMO, a lot of men either don't want children, or don't understand them/care enough about them once they have them to play an active role in their lives. This is why mentor programs are so important.
I think the point has been a bit derailed, though. It's not "women are weak and incapable of raising strong manly men" (as Clive suggests) but "it takes at least two people to raise a child, preferably of both sexes." Some single mothers and fathers pull it off, others don't, but the ones I've seen do it successfully are the ones who rely of their family/neighbors/church to help them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Single-mothers cannot control young men.
I want to know where you came from and how utterly worthless and helpless all the women in your life were.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Somalia.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ANDD GOD DAMNIT CLIVE KEEP YOU FILTHY SEXIST BULLCRAP IN THE THREAD YOU STARTED FOR DISCUSSING THAT BULLCRAP!
QFT
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Single-mothers cannot control young men.
I want to know where you came from and how utterly worthless and helpless all the women in your life were.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Somalia.
You don't know anything about gender relations in Somalia, you weirdo.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You don't know anything about gender relations, period. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Single-mothers cannot control young men.
I want to know where you came from and how utterly worthless and helpless all the women in your life were.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Somalia.
You don't know anything about gender relations in Somalia, you weirdo.
Bite me, you neanderthal paleo-nutbag.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Still waiting for you to refute me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Still waiting for you to refute me.
You've been refuted practically non-stop from the point you said "No human society has ever used women successfully in combat" and made the claim that the presence of women at Abu Ghraib was what caused human rights abuses to take place there despite having absolutely no evidence of this fact and being unable to present a factually sound reason why this is so.
You've been refuted dozens of times already, you just are in the enviably dissonant position of assuming that you can't be refuted from positions that you are presenting on the scientific weight of "well, this is how I see it."
I mean, seriously. The best (by which I mean worst) part is your consistency in trends and attitude which make you so unbelievable. Women caused Abu Ghraib. Women are responsible for the financial meltdown. Women are responsible for our criminal population. And for whatever reason you feel it is important to keep dropping these bombs in this forum in a reliable fashion. Please keep the baldly misogynistic hits coming.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
The fact that women were used in combat in SOME instances does not mean that they were IDEAL. The Russians used women to defend against the German invasion...yet they didn't use women in their Afghanistan campaign. Hmm...what made them change their mind? Yes, you list my positions...but am I wrong?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
For starters, yes you are. I not only listed your positions, I pointed out again that you've been refuted dozens of times already.
Also you're now waffling and contorting from having previously said "No human society has ever used women successfully in combat" to "well yeah so they were used in combat sometimes but that doesn't mean they were ideal"
You're basically demonstrating a pretty classic case of "Clive Candy Being Wrong, Doesn't Understand Why: The Movie"
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Once again, the fact that women were used in combat doesn't mean they were used successfully. We know this because historical armies did not proceed to do the rational thing (if the female soldiers were so awesome) and keep using them as soldiers.
And you guys kept linking to that "women in the military" wiki article when a fair amount of it actually backs me up:
But oh noes, I am a bad person.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Once again, the fact that women were used in combat doesn't mean they were used successfully. We know this because historical armies did not proceed to do the rational thing (if the female soldiers were so awesome) and keep using them as soldiers.
More bad logic. Many societies pressed cultural minorities into service during times of need and then, despite their capacity to serve perfectly well, opted out of retaining them as soldiers. It can be due to prejudice and/or differing levels of necessity alongside social mores.
Besides, you're wrong again. Some armies pressed women into service and (OH NO!) use women in combat today. Evidently they proceeded in a way which unintentionally violates your concept. Damn.
Clive Candy Being Wrong, Doesn't Understand Why: The Movie: The Game
quote:agahaghagahga
Those links don't back you up, because the concerns they address are fundamentally different from the arguments you made. Noting that arguments exist do not help your case when they are not the case you're making, and the case you're making is bankrupt.
As for you being a bad person? Well, your words, not mine. I just think you're a misogynistic man with utterly bizarre neuroses about women, and fundamentally incapable of being a rational person while arguing.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I made those arguments, and everyone chose to them ignore them and respond with "OH NO THERE WERE IN FACT FEMALE SOLDIERS" -- the same thing you're doing. I guess it makes sense to ignore what you can't refute.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:everyone chose to them ignore them
It is certainly true that if you make 20 statements, and ten of them can be easily proven false, people will first point out that you've made ten false statements and wait for you to concede that, yes, indeed those statements were false. At that point, they might begin to address the remaining ten.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.
Pretending that there is discussion going on in this thread...
I recently read about a study (here) trying to understand (something along the lines of) the quoted observation by looking at the age at which girls first had sex. They compared sets of cousins where one cousin would be raised by a single mother and the other by both parents. If the father's absence was a cause for early sexual maturity they expected to see a difference in the age of first experience. They didn't, suggesting that genetics plays a significant role.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Most of the armies that have women in their armies aren't in war. The United States has a significant female service members, and its refusing to use them in the front line. That's going to be the same case for every army. Good old liberal Israel actually tried this and changed its mind immediately. But let's totally ignore this.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Look, I was trivially wrong. It's like my saying "Human beings have ten fingers" and you people responding with "BUT WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WITH NINE FINGERS?" Yea okay, point for you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... ANDD GOD DAMNIT CLIVE KEEP YOU FILTHY SEXIST BULLCRAP IN THE THREAD YOU STARTED FOR DISCUSSING THAT BULLCRAP!
Out of idle curiosity, is this in reference to anything?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.
Pretending that there is discussion going on in this thread...
I recently read about a study (here) trying to understand (something along the lines of) the quoted observation by looking at the age at which girls first had sex. They compared sets of cousins where one cousin would be raised by a single mother and the other by both parents. If the father's absence was a cause for early sexual maturity they expected to see a difference in the age of first experience. They didn't, suggesting that genetics plays a significant role.
Interesting.
quote: Specifically, the same genes that might make a dad more likely to leave his family could be behind early sexual development as well.
Really? It couldn't be that the father was driven out, could it? Women initiate 75% of divorces so it's more likely that fathers aren't abandoning their children but rather women are leaving the father and taking the children.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The fact that women were used in combat in SOME instances does not mean that they were IDEAL. The Russians used women to defend against the German invasion...yet they didn't use women in their Afghanistan campaign. Hmm...what made them change their mind? Yes, you list my positions...but am I wrong?
For one thing the Soviet Army uses conscription it would arguably make sense to not deploy significant quantities of female soldiers to Afghanistan if they were conscripts HOWEVER a brief look through this book http://www.scribd.com/doc/19531155/The-SovietAfghan-War which is entirely availiable online appears to imply that active duty Soviet FEMALE soldiers WERE IN FACT DEPLOYED TO AFGHANISTAN which means you did absolutely ZERO research when you made your claim meaning furthermore everything you say is LIKELY to be scientifically unsubstantiated.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... ANDD GOD DAMNIT CLIVE KEEP YOU FILTHY SEXIST BULLCRAP IN THE THREAD YOU STARTED FOR DISCUSSING THAT BULLCRAP!
Out of idle curiosity, is this in reference to anything?
Huh? Explain.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Women initiate 75% of divorces...
That does not mean that the father hasn't abandoned his family first. It just means he hasn't necessarily bothered to fill out paperwork -- which makes sense, because a father who abandons his family is probably going to find divorce fairly expensive, whereas simply wandering off is absolutely free.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Maybe women are initiating 75% of divorces since, as you admit, divorce is so costly for men. It's the man who is far more likely to lose the house and children while being obligated to turn over a substantial portion of his income for as much as 25 years. But sure, the reality is that men are simply walking away and not bothering to fill out the paper work (as if they can't easily be found by Child Support services). That's the real explanation of that statistic.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The fact that women were used in combat in SOME instances does not mean that they were IDEAL. The Russians used women to defend against the German invasion...yet they didn't use women in their Afghanistan campaign. Hmm...what made them change their mind? Yes, you list my positions...but am I wrong?
For one thing the Soviet Army uses conscription it would arguably make sense to not deploy significant quantities of female soldiers to Afghanistan if they were conscripts HOWEVER a brief look through this book http://www.scribd.com/doc/19531155/The-SovietAfghan-War which is entirely availiable online appears to imply that active duty Soviet FEMALE soldiers WERE IN FACT DEPLOYED TO AFGHANISTAN which means you did absolutely ZERO research when you made your claim meaning furthermore everything you say is LIKELY to be scientifically unsubstantiated.
But did they serve on the front lines? Did they undertake missions as dangerous as those that male soldiers did? I didn't claim that there were no Soviet female soldier presence in Afghanistan, I'm saying they weren't the ones exchanging fire with the Mujahideen.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My point, of course, is that observing that women initiate 75% of divorces does not function as proof that somehow only 25% of men are to blame for divorces.
--------
quote:I didn't claim that there were no Soviet female soldier presence in Afghanistan, I'm saying they weren't the ones exchanging fire with the Mujahideen.
I'm sure, when Afghani terrorists/freedom fighters attacked Soviet convoys, the female drivers of those convoys thought something like, "Oh, no! If only I were a man, so I could shoot back without suffering the horrible penalties of my sex!"
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
I'll never stop reading his reviews of books, I've been turned on to too many good ones to stop. I've probably bought a dozen or so books either for myself or my dad based on OSC's recommendations, most recently Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn books, which were great and made me excited that he was finishing The Wheel of Time. But I've started to avoid Card's political stuff cause at this point he seems stuck in whatever mode people pay him to write those articles in, I guess inflammatory mode.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote: Specifically, the same genes that might make a dad more likely to leave his family could be behind early sexual development as well.
Really? It couldn't be that the father was driven out, could it? Women initiate 75% of divorces so it's more likely that fathers aren't abandoning their children but rather women are leaving the father and taking the children.
Without seeing any data, my guess is that # of children born out of wed-lock > # of children in single family homes due to divorce.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My point, of course, is that observing that women initiate 75% of divorces does not function as proof that somehow only 25% of men are to blame for divorces.
And the sole reason I pointed out that statistic was because The Economist casually referred to men leaving their families. How can we tell a man leaving his family from a man getting left...statistically? We can't. The "75%" statistic is at least startling enough to give people who would casually refer to "men leaving their families" some pause.
quote:I'm sure, when Afghani terrorists/freedom fighters attacked Soviet convoys, the female drivers of those convoys thought something like, "Oh, no! If only I were a man, so I could shoot back without suffering the horrible penalties of my sex!
How do you know that soviet convoys were being driven by women in any sort of significant numbers?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote: Specifically, the same genes that might make a dad more likely to leave his family could be behind early sexual development as well.
Really? It couldn't be that the father was driven out, could it? Women initiate 75% of divorces so it's more likely that fathers aren't abandoning their children but rather women are leaving the father and taking the children.
Without seeing any data, my guess is that # of children born out of wed-lock > # of children in single family homes due to divorce.
Even in those situations it isn't clear that the man chooses to leave his children -- or even the mother. It could just as likely be that these men are being cast out as it could be that they're choosing to abandon those children/baby-mama.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote: Specifically, the same genes that might make a dad more likely to leave his family could be behind early sexual development as well.
Really? It couldn't be that the father was driven out, could it? Women initiate 75% of divorces so it's more likely that fathers aren't abandoning their children but rather women are leaving the father and taking the children.
Without seeing any data, my guess is that # of children born out of wed-lock > # of children in single family homes due to divorce.
Even in those situations it isn't clear that the man chooses to leave his children -- or even the mother. It could just as likely be that these men are being cast out as it could be that they're choosing to abandon those children/baby-mama.
OK, so if your goal is to point out that more data is required before accepting their alternate hypothesis as fact, then you have no argument from me(nor, I would guess, the researchers). Btw my guess would be that in the majority of the cases, the men do not wish to be a father figure. But I have not seen data one way or the other.
I wonder if the Economist has accurately reflected what the researchers actually said. In particular:
quote: Specifically, the same genes that might make a dad more likely to leave his family could be behind early sexual development as well.
is a statement about genes common in the father and offspring. On the other hand the experiment described is reliant on genetic similarity of the mothers. Or am I missing something?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Single-mothers cannot control young men. This is why the majority of criminals come from house-holds headed by a single mother.
Gosh darn it. That makes a large chunk of the men I know criminals! Who'd have thunk?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I wondered about that too.
It's an interesting experiment but they need to control for more things. How often did the cousins see each other, for instance? Did they live in the same neighborhood? If the latter, then perhaps one of them getting a boyfriend influences the other to get a boyfriend, and so on...
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:Single-mothers cannot control young men. This is why the majority of criminals come from house-holds headed by a single mother.
Gosh darn it. That makes a large chunk of the men I know criminals! Who'd have thunk?
Just because the majority of criminals come from house holds headed by a single woman does not mean the majority of men raised by single women become criminals. Hello.
[ November 12, 2009, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Clive Candy ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by BryanP: I'll never stop reading his reviews of books, I've been turned on to too many good ones to stop. I've probably bought a dozen or so books either for myself or my dad based on OSC's recommendations, most recently Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn books, which were great and made me excited that he was finishing The Wheel of Time. But I've started to avoid Card's political stuff cause at this point he seems stuck in whatever mode people pay him to write those articles in, I guess inflammatory mode.
You know? He's the one who got me to read Octavia Butler by quoting tons of Wild Seed in his book on how to write science fiction. He used her as an example of good writing. And he was totally right on that point. Maybe I should be reading his reviews of books too.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My point, of course, is that observing that women initiate 75% of divorces does not function as proof that somehow only 25% of men are to blame for divorces.
And the sole reason I pointed out that statistic was because The Economist casually referred to men leaving their families. How can we tell a man leaving his family from a man getting left...statistically? We can't. The "75%" statistic is at least startling enough to give people who would casually refer to "men leaving their families" some pause.
quote:I'm sure, when Afghani terrorists/freedom fighters attacked Soviet convoys, the female drivers of those convoys thought something like, "Oh, no! If only I were a man, so I could shoot back without suffering the horrible penalties of my sex!
How do you know that soviet convoys were being driven by women in any sort of significant numbers?
Because the book and Soviet archives say so, and until you display the academic integrity to go out and find sources to contradict this it is all we need to refute you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Huh? Explain.
Sometimes you mimic Stewie Griffon or Zero Punctuation, or other. I was just curious if this was another reference to something.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by BryanP: I'll never stop reading his reviews of books, I've been turned on to too many good ones to stop. I've probably bought a dozen or so books either for myself or my dad based on OSC's recommendations, most recently Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn books, which were great and made me excited that he was finishing The Wheel of Time. But I've started to avoid Card's political stuff cause at this point he seems stuck in whatever mode people pay him to write those articles in, I guess inflammatory mode.
Sorry, I'm having a hard time hearing you... the herd of trolls is making too much noise.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Clive I am confused on your opinion of women.
Your view of them as delicate things that need protecting is seen in your comments about our reaction to their mistreatment in war, and how no lone mother can handle a young man.
Then there is your view that women are behind most domestic splits. You argue that women, not men, are the ones that force men to leave them. This makes women very powerful and very ugly in deed.
The contradiction in you logic is obvious. If no woman can control a young male, how do women manage to force their husbands and sexual partners out of their lives after the children are born?
I do not have statistics on divorce or single mothers. I do personally know 5 cases where it was the cheating male, the abusive male, or the scared of commitment OMG I don't want to be a father male who leaves. Can we blame the women? Why aren't we blaming the men? Why can't we blame the dead-beat dad who sleeps with his secretary? He argues that the divorce cost him his house and his money, and he shouldn't have to pay for that just because he slept around.
Or the guy who beats his wife on occasion, but surely not enough for her to run off to a shelter and get a court injunction. The bruises healed, eventually. She's just a ho who wants to raise crimminal children.
Is it that you believe that women are a precious but flawed resource that men are too perfect to damage. Hence the only reason for single motherhood is that the flawed woman forces the man to give up his property rights on her?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've found OSC's positive recommendations can be very good but, by and large, his negative ones are largely just a vehicle for him to go into an anti-elitist/liberal/academic/artsy rant. I sort of wish there was some indicator of when he's actually reviewing something as opposed to going off on something that offends him in the guise of a review.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Huh? Explain.
Sometimes you mimic Stewie Griffon or Zero Punctuation, or other. I was just curious if this was another reference to something.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, it is far more likely if I say something that gives offense is a misunderstanding, however the above is me clearly telling Clive to shut the hell up.
Are you trying to imply or say something? If you have something to say, don't disguise it and dance around the issue come right out and SAY IT right now it seems what your saying seems laden with subtext. Clarify, are you trying to imply something or have some criticism or did you actually want to know if I was quoting something and directing it at Clive?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Also you're now waffling and contorting from having previously said "No human society has ever used women successfully in combat" to "well yeah so they were used in combat sometimes but that doesn't mean they were ideal"
Actually his original statement was "That's why no society in history ever used women in combat." It appears in the first post in his thread.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:Also you're now waffling and contorting from having previously said "No human society has ever used women successfully in combat" to "well yeah so they were used in combat sometimes but that doesn't mean they were ideal"
Actually his original statement was "That's why no society in history ever used women in combat." It appears in the first post in his thread.
So, an even worse and even more catastrophically incorrect assertion?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar ...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar ...
You really gotta stop doing that.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I have a lot of issues with OSC's articles, but the one that bugs me recently is this:
Lately, it seems like every single time he mentions global warming he mentions something about how in Roman times it was warm enough for the Romans to grow grapes and make wine in England. Then he proceeds to explain that today it is still not possible to grow wine grapes in England, and how this shows that global warming is not that serious.
Well, I know nothing about global warming. However, I think that the English Wine Producers Association would disagree with his assessment.
These days, the country is crawling with vineyards.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana:
quote:Originally posted by BryanP: I'll never stop reading his reviews of books, I've been turned on to too many good ones to stop. I've probably bought a dozen or so books either for myself or my dad based on OSC's recommendations, most recently Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn books, which were great and made me excited that he was finishing The Wheel of Time. But I've started to avoid Card's political stuff cause at this point he seems stuck in whatever mode people pay him to write those articles in, I guess inflammatory mode.
You know? He's the one who got me to read Octavia Butler by quoting tons of Wild Seed in his book on how to write science fiction. He used her as an example of good writing. And he was totally right on that point. Maybe I should be reading his reviews of books too.
Me, too! Wild Seed is one of my favorites, and I got it out of his "How to Write..." book.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have a tiny hermit crab on me.
That aside, how did a I don't want to read OSC articles turn into all of this while I was at work?!
Also I love Octavia Butler. Perhaps way more than OSC as I loved the way she wrote about race and gender Plus I want to be an Ooloi-Human construct.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote: Specifically, the same genes that might make a dad more likely to leave his family could be behind early sexual development as well.
Really? It couldn't be that the father was driven out, could it? Women initiate 75% of divorces so it's more likely that fathers aren't abandoning their children but rather women are leaving the father and taking the children.
Without seeing any data, my guess is that # of children born out of wed-lock > # of children in single family homes due to divorce.
Even in those situations it isn't clear that the man chooses to leave his children -- or even the mother. It could just as likely be that these men are being cast out as it could be that they're choosing to abandon those children/baby-mama.
...and even giving you 100 yards of leash, I still lose you right here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:These days, the country is crawling with vineyards.
Well, at least that's what the elitist, wine drinking liberals want you to believe.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I've found OSC's positive recommendations can be very good but, by and large, his negative ones are largely just a vehicle for him to go into an anti-elitist/liberal/academic/artsy rant. I sort of wish there was some indicator of when he's actually reviewing something as opposed to going off on something that offends him in the guise of a review.
Heh, I've found likewise. The media I've liked that he's liked, I've often found I like for some of the same reasons he did. But when he starts going on about media he doesn't like...man, at a guess I'd say he's got at least a 50/50 chance of being off-putting by his politicking.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It just makes me think that, dude, I know you don't like liberals, that's all well and good, but what do liberals have to do with... well... Like him talking about Ipods. Now why does he have to turn that into a bash on President Obama? I was not a fan of President Bush, but if I was reviewing, say, anything, I would not suddenly turn it into a rant about that because it doesn't have to do with whatever I'm reviewing. Unless it's a book about President Bush or a movie about him, or a book about President Obama. But perhaps, again, I'm not his audience. But I'm still bugged by the pot shot at single mothers. That seems kind of harsh.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: You really gotta stop doing that.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)