Dakota Smith Rants
…is the name of Dakota Smith’s new blog on the mabtw network.
Dakota’s intelligent, courteous, writes well, and tends to be not without opinion. Coupled with a strong libertarian perspective, I’m sure this will make excellent fodder for a very fine blog.
I suspect he and I will find lots to agree on, and lots to ‘agree to disagree’ on. I respectfully look forward to both.
His first post, “Are Androids better than Women?” probably falls more into the second category, but there’s a tremendous amount of meat in there. Just one small snippet:
Then there’s the issue of fidelity. In a 2002 Canada Globe and Mail article, it was reported that researchers have discovered that 10% of all children weren’t sired by the woman’s husband.
Consider that for a moment: 10% of all children have a father other than their familial one. Since not every sexual intercourse leads to pregnancy (indeed, as a father, I know it really can be work to produce a child), this hints at tremendous numbers of women who routinely cheat on their husbands. If one out of ten are getting pregnant by someone else, how many are cheating but are smart enough to use birth control? 50%? 75%? No study can adequately guage, because the majority of women would lie to the poll-taker.
Maybe he’ll have me preferring gyndroids yet…
Do please keep in mind that he’ll have his own rules on posting which will differ somewhat from those that are here — i.e., you’re in his living room over there.
The comments for this post here are for Female (and any others who wish to talk about Dakota’s blog or its contents without posting there). In Female’s case, I understand she and Dakota have agreed she’s not going to post at his blog site.
Good luck Dakota!
-wolfe
September 24th, 2006 at 18:30
I didnt expect Dakota to accept my apology and he is within his rights not to. I also would not have replied in this new section that you have created for me wolfe, in which to do that, I just would have let that be the end of it, if it wasnt for this paragraph Dakota wrote (below) that I feel I need to defend myself against.
I have never advocated male slavery or pedophilia. I find both abhorrant. If you wish to misread my views so that you perceive me as advocating such things, then that can be attributed to either 1. poor or uncelar writing on my behalf or 2. perceptual bias on your part.
In any case, I know who I am and I know what I believe and I know that you are dead wrong in believing I advocate such things. I find it offensive and slanderous to hear you make pronouncements about what you believe that I believe. You are not me, so how do you really know what I believe?
The world would be a far more peaceful place if people didn’t attach such seriousness to extreme views and believe they are correct about their beliefs 100% of the time. There is more merit in giving people the benefit of the doubt, which you can only do if you are willing to doubt the authencity of your own beliefs.
September 24th, 2006 at 19:46
Female, The world would be a much more peaceful place if women like you would learn to —- — —- –!
– redacted by wolfe.
September 24th, 2006 at 21:43
Billy, that kind of language isn’t acceptable on this blog. Please read “About“.
You may not attack other posters here, though you’re welcome to rationally criticize their ideas. If it’s any consolation, Female isn’t allowed to post irrational nonsense (by my definition) here.
If that bores you, well, it’s pretty much an open season on Mabtw.com itself. Hope you’ll enjoy reading and posting here though.
Best,
-wolfe
September 24th, 2006 at 23:18
@Female, I think the pedophilia charge came from your defense/support/call it what you will of Greer’s book. I didn’t really read yours or Dakota’s comments very closely, and I don’t have the energy to. That said, I think there’s some merit in believing that you at the very least expressed yourself poorly and that Dakota is not being patently unreasonable in believing what he believes.
As for male slavery, I myself have interpreted some of your more careless statements as advocating, in ignorance (i.e., not deliberately) just that. No, I don’t think you do it deliberately, but I don’t think you’re sufficiently aware of some of the legal minefields for men in the US/UK/Canada.
You tend (and you’re not alone in this) to post without thinking sometimes, especially on mabtw.
I do understand what it feels like to have someone viewing you as something you’re not. I don’t fully agree with your last two paragraphs though.
Best,
-wolfe
September 25th, 2006 at 01:04
wolfe, thanks for deleting Billy’s comment before I had a chance to read it.
I don’t really want to get into this issue again…*sigh*
1. I don’t support Greer.
2. I don’t support pedophiles.
3. I don’t believe that the reason Greer released the book is because she is a rock spider, rather, I think she did it to cause controversy and awareness for the sexploitation of women.
4. I haven’t seen the book and don’t plan to, but I highly doubt it is pr0n in the true butt nekkid sense of the word.
5. I don’t really know what you mean by male slavery, but I guess probably, ‘men are trapped to work their whole lives while women can opt out of the workforce to have babies and raise them.’ I agree that is unfair and were I married to someone, pregnant and earning more than husband, I would no doubt be the one to keep my job, while hubby stayed home. I believe this is less about gender today and more about the higher pay-check.
6. You are entitled to disagree with me and have your own views, I don’t 100% agree with anything either because there are too many unknown variables or too many sides to consider in any situation. And I am likely to see 6 sides at once, before forgetting them all the very next second.
!1!Abschiken!1!
September 25th, 2006 at 01:43
edit: not “for” the sexploitation of women, but “of” the…
September 30th, 2006 at 23:37
While I have discussed slavery lately with wolfe on mabtw, that was mostly a historical reference. I submit to you female, how would you define the legal case where a man is forced to provide an income to an Someone Else? When that income must be maintained, regardless of the mans work situation? That the amount to be paid is not based on what the man makes, but rather on what he COULD make? That any future increase in income from improved circumstances or economic benefit must then force a recalculation, upwards, of the income you provide to this other person? That the man is forced to pay for his opponents lawyers, who then have a STRONG incentive to haul him into court as often as possible? That to be in a position where you are UNABLE to pay results in you going to jail, where you will be warehoused with rapists, killers, and thieves, and while you are in prison, the bills will continue to acrue, plus penalties, such that when you get out of prison, you can own more money than the average person will see in their lifetimes?
Is that not slavery? Because that is the state of the current LAW in America and many western nations in regards to divorce, and soon, just co-habitation.
A quick question then. If women are as capable of career advancement and wealth generation, why IS this the LAW? Wouldnt a womans ability to support herself lead women to want to abolish laws like this?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:18
@John. Yes, I recall our good discussion. Welcome to the site. Hope you’ll find enough of interest to hang around.
You raise a good question. It’s certainly a circumstance considerably worse than debtor’s prison and Victorian workhouses. (Recall that men also were the ones sent to debtor’s prison even when it was the wife who ran up the bills).
I hope Female will consider the topic.
-wolfe
October 3rd, 2006 at 01:23
Speaking of historical Slavery, I found a link you may be interested in concerning our discussion…
It appears to be an excerpt from a book, but its hard to tell. It concerns my question about arab involvement in slavery… Seems like they might have been far more involved than either of us imagined, but not so much with the american slave trade.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013369.php
This has some excellent citations, so its worth the read, but its pretty long if you follow the links.
My concern on mabtw was that history may get wholy re-written given todays current arab bashing PC sentiments.
October 3rd, 2006 at 14:31
@John, I entirely agree with you on the dangers of PC, and the potential for historical distortion, though I do have some comments on the site you reference below, in that regard.
That essay is quite interesting. I’d a passable idea of the extent of the problem, knowing for example that over a million (white) Europeans had been enslaved, but I admit I’d no idea the Arabs had gotten as far afield as Ireland and Iceland!
I would, however, take that essay (and possibly Jihadwatch in general) with a slight grain of salt. I’m familiar with the site, and it’s not bad, but they have a definitely rigid point of view.
The essay’s author, for example, makes the rather sly statement:
Well… this is a rather startling statement until you parse it closely, and follow the provided link.
After all, the ‘Young Turks’ governing Turkey who orchestrated the genocide were secularist progressives. Yes, he’s not actually stating that Jihad caused it, nor is he even actually stating that it was a critical factor, simply that a professor had identified it as such.
Follow the link, and you find a reference to a particular massacre with people chanting “God is Great”, and the clever phrasing:
Those etiological claims aren’t patently unreasonable, and deserve some study, but one could similarly argue that the Shoa was etiologically linked to Christianity, and I find that argument rather uncomfortable.
Certainly not to recognize that in the case of the Nazis we were dealing with non-Christian leaders, and in the case of the Turks we were dealing with secularist progressive leaders is, I contend, somewhat intellectually dishonest.
The site doesn’t state things that are untrue (as far as I know); it does, in my view, slant its statements carefully, excluding information that might confuse the issue.
Thanks for pointing out that essay which I’d not seen before.
Best,
-wolfe
October 6th, 2006 at 12:53
@female
We recently clashed in another place re Germaine Greer. At that time I was extremely aggressive and threatening towards you.
You did not deserve the treatment I gave you and I apologise to you from the bottom of my heart. It will not happen again.
October 7th, 2006 at 01:34
@Gwallan Glad to see you say this. A lot of people got and get quite heated on mabtw. This need not be a bad thing, but it’s one reason why I’ve got different comment standards here.
-wolfe
October 9th, 2006 at 05:11
Thank you gwallan, I accept your apology.
October 9th, 2006 at 06:20
@wolfe
As you know I don’t normally get overheated. Frustrated maybe but that instance was absurd on my behalf. Still, if it was ever going to happen it’s sexual abuse of kids that’ll do it. I guess I’m not Robinson Crusoe on that one.
@female
I’m so pleased you got this message and also that you’ve accepted it so graciously. Thankyou.
BTW this doesn’t make us mates
(although maybe we should jointly gang up on wolfe one day to try to convert him to the left oops dark side)
October 9th, 2006 at 18:18
Indeed you’re not. I’m the same way on the subject, and I don’t limit myself to sexual abuse (not suggesting you do). Physical abuse and psychological abuse are also unacceptable.
I’ve still hopes of converting both of you!
-wolfe
October 9th, 2006 at 18:37
No problem gwallan, I needed to upgrade my firewall and security system anyway, so thanks for the kick up the rear to do so! btw, have you clicked on Normal Human’s url and checked out her web-site? Very interesting. I don’t think I’d be as game to bad mouth James Packer as she is (who in case anyone doesn’t know is apparently my future husband according to many psychics lol). She also doesn’t seem to like Tony Abbott..gasp!
October 12th, 2006 at 03:23
@female
I’m still dealing with that one.
I need to ascertain what, if any, is the connection between Flood and Normal. If they are one and the same - I actually think from the style of Normal’s posts that it’s more than one person - Flood could be in for a rough ride.
If you look at Normal’s very last comment(obviously directed at me and designed to inflict as much emotional damage as possible) you’ll get an idea of why I’ve come to detest feminists in the past five years. This, while not always the tactic, is one I’ve encountered before. I’m handling it better this time - in the past that could’ve sent me straight back to the counsellors.
Next February RMIT are releasing the results of a rape attitudes survey they’ve conducted over the past six months. I’m looking forward to that. I’m hoping to use that to bring some of this stuff more into the public eye - for both female and male victims. The problem I’ve had in the past is getting people to take me seriously because I’m a bloke.
The rape advocates of twenty years ago got some traction with the media and judicial systems and they become more sensitive - for female victims anyway - and sometimes even overly sensitive. The general public hasn’t seemed to have absorbed it as well unfortunately. A survey in the UK last year found that over fifty percent of folk would still partly blame a raped woman if she was drinking or wearing a short skirt. That even included women! In the meantime male victims should just shut the f#$k up and consider themselves lucky(or paedophiles depending on who you talk to).
Many feminists do seem to have trouble recognising a potential ally sometimes I’m afraid.
October 12th, 2006 at 04:25
gwallan, Michael is okay. Seriously. And he isn’t Normal, as in the poster that goes by the name “Normal”.
October 12th, 2006 at 04:27
If you want to know how I know this, it’s because I emailed him and he emailed me back. He is sincere. Really.
October 12th, 2006 at 04:29
btw, I’m very sorry about what happened to you.
October 12th, 2006 at 10:53
@female
Thanx for that. I appreciate it.
I’m going to write to Dr Flood soon. Regardless of a bad start there may be some room for dialog with him. We’ll never see eye to eye - I’m to much of a seventies style feminist and a slowly lapsing lefty but we’d probably intersect in a lot of areas. The rape attitudes thing for one. As I’ve said before my alienation from feminists has mainly been over their attitude to my saying that women can rape(thats a discussion for another time I think). Normal Human really demonstrated the sort of things I’ve been through with them.
Their drill is normally one or more of the following.
a)I must have imagined it b)I’m a liar c)I was lucky d)I must have wanted it e)I must have deserved it f)It couldnt have done any harm g)She was probably abused herself h)you’re a paedophile yourself and, strangely, worst of all i)well, I’m not that kind of feminist….but…
October 16th, 2006 at 16:26
seventies style feminist
I’m not sure what that means, can you clarify? I thought you were anti-feminist. A simple guide to the different meanings that can be applied to the word ‘feminist’ would be really helpful in order for those without an indepth knowledge base to draw from.
The rape attitudes you mention only consider the sexual aspect of the behaviour, which I was glad to see you noted in the forums. I agree this not take into account the control/abusive power aspect of the act and the attitudes you encountered seem indicative of this.
October 18th, 2006 at 23:48
@female
Apologies. I’d missed your response here.
Defining feminist is difficult even for feminists themselves. In fact the feminist blogosphere frequently erupts into paroxysms over it.
The various labels that would fit me would include “equity feminist” or “individual feminist”.
Could I suggest you check out iFeminists
What is ifeminism?. That’s very like my position. My response to BIZ in the Responsibility in the Curves thread includes part of a thing I wrote somewhere else(Feminism, my biased attitude toward it) that is really designed for another environment and is probably a bit reactionary.
I only seriously diverged from feminism about five years ago and that was in response to their hostility to me over sexual abuse issues and my “coming out” as a victim. (It was while this process was occuring that Greer released “The Boy” so my peculiar attitude to her does make sense in that context.) That said my misgivings had started when affirmative action laws were put in place. I really do believe feminism has lost touch with some of it’s original principles.
It’s probably easier for me to sum up my original hopes for feminism by explaining why I find Martina Navratilova amazingly attractive. She was a woman whose goal was to be the best tennis player she could possibly be. She brushed aside issues of appearence and sexual preference and maintained her goals. It didn’t matter to her that people said she was too muscular or a lesbian. She worked her backside off and expected no special favours. When she succeded she didn’t brag and when she lost she made no excuses. These days as a commentator she is dignified, well spoken and intelligent. If I had the chance to choose from all the women alive right now, and notwithstanding any number of Caprices or Elles, it would be Martina. She is simply magnificent.
On the rape attitudes thing that would involve more writing than I’m able to do at the moment. I will say that often people don’t realise how sensitive victims, female and male, can be to the subtle nuances of our culture. I’ve been doing the groundwork necessary for an advocacy campaign in my region but only for a short time. I’ve got a number of appropriately and well positioned high profile people in my town on side and prepared to help. At the moment we’re going into a state election campaign so things are on hold for a couple of months but that suits everyone involved, including myself. One of the reasons I do make a point of mentioning it openly is to keep myself committed to the process so I do aplogise for shoving it down your throat as I have. I’ll make a promise to you to update you later on when things are actually happening. Come to think of it another personal aim with this is to draw me back towards my feminist roots and, maybe, the middle ground where I’m much more comfortable.
October 19th, 2006 at 05:55
Thanks, don’t worry about the delay, I’m no saint when it comes to speedy or actual replies to all questions, myself.
Your reply is very interesting..I certainly didn’t expect to hear that you find Martina Navrilova attractive. I haven’t yet looked at the feminism info, I’m a bit braindead right now, so will leave that for another day.
re: the election campaign. I am guessing you are a Labor supporter. If so, can you or someone else please mention to Kim that if he wants to be voted in, he needs to stop blinking everytime he sees a camera, because it doesn’t do much for his credibility.
I vote Greens because I can’t stand the major parties but I think Julia Gillard has got the right stuff so I’ll probably swing your way, come election time. Of course I do realise it will be a cold day in hell before a woman becomes Australia’s PM.
October 19th, 2006 at 08:44
@Female
Martina ohhhhh….
But important in highlighting some of the things I reckon feminism has forgotten. That appearences shouldn’t matter and achievement is only real if it’s achieved on one’s own. It ties in with my sporting background too. While I wasn’t bad I was never quite good enough at international level. However I did learn quite a lot about what motivates high achievers.
Do check out iFeminists. The primary instigator of the site is Wendy McElroy who frequently does articles for Fox in the US. Very astute lady.
re the Labour Party at federal level. One word - gutless. Very interesting to see you mention Julia Gillard. Inside I went BINGO. I’ve been pushing her barrow quietly for a couple of years. I reckon she’s a star in the making if she isn’t already. I seriously believe if they dumped Kim now and gave Julia the job she’s win the next election in a canter. Don’t give up on a woman PM yet.
Actually aside from Kevin Rudd the best federal performers from my perspective are the women. Also worth keeping an eye on is Greg Combe of the ACTU. He’s a realy astute operator. If he goes into fed politics I reckon he’ll do OK.
The other women I feel are solid are Annette Ellis, Jenny George, Jenny Macklin, Tanya Plibersek and Nicola Roxon. In the Senate there’s Kate Lundy(who’s really surprised me), Ursula Stephens and Penny Wong. Look our for Wong if she goes into the House of Reps - briliant speaker and extremely intelligent. Gillard is still the real standout at the moment though.
As for the Libs I’m seriously disturbed with them at the moment. Aside from my tribal connection to the ALP I’ve always been OK with past Liberal govts, even Fraser after the Whitlam sacking. The Libs have always played wedge politics but the current lot have raised it to new high. Their deliberate fostering of division over refugees and the war on terrorism is apalling. Remember that old tor about patriotism and scoundrels. They manipulate these things to create hatred to serve their own selfish ends. They are pure evil.
Not at all surprised you’d vote green. I’m quite happy that they’re outpacing the Dems whom I’ve often perceived to consist of many pretentious frauds. The Greens, as long as they stay reasonably moderate, have a very important place in the scheme of things. Actually I’ve been known to hand out their cards at booths, alongside the ALP ones, when they were short of numbers on the ground(not to mention having been in the WWF for many years).
October 20th, 2006 at 06:01
I checked out the ifeminist website briefly and it described me pretty well. I guess I was an ifeminist and never knew it. You know far more about political candidates than I do. I agree Gillard could (and should) win for Labor but I’d be surprised if the boy’s club let her have a go at it, considering the amount of backbench coups Kim has now done to get the top spot back.
In the next couple weeks I am going to parliament myself to sit in on a few meetings (which is all I’m willing to reveal). This will be my first foray (and most likely last) into the sacred inner sanctum of BS, I have to say I can’t wait to meet some of these people. Hopefully I won’t have to run to the bathroom after they’ve hit me with their “charm”.
I used to support WWF. Now I prefer WSPA.
October 20th, 2006 at 07:01
@female WWF? World wrestling federation? WSPA? Women’s Socialist Penal Association?
@gwallan Please, be careful on ascribing “pure evil” to certain politicians and parties. I respectfully disagree with you, based, admittedly, only on careful reading and research. Are you genuinely sure “pure evil” is the best phrase you can use? If so, are you prepared to back it up?
The fact that you disagree vehemently with them — and think they’re dead wrong — that I’ve got no issue with. (well actually I do, in that I disagree, but I respect your right to disagree) But pure evil?
Best,
-wolfe
October 20th, 2006 at 07:12
Oh and, cool Female. iFeminist… nothing wrong with that. Consenting women deserve to be rogered nicely and have every reasonable opportunity open to them.
-wolfe
October 20th, 2006 at 07:59
@27 - animals, animals, animals, animals everywhere.
@28 - ce qui ?
October 20th, 2006 at 09:09
@wolfe
Forgive me for that. It was, as you suggest, pure hyperbole. Must be subconsciously gearing up for the election. I’d better watch that.
Also not helping are debates I’ve had recently with folk who consider socialism to be evil. I find that frustrating. I simply can’t accept that a system can be evil of itself, in this case either of capitalism or socialism.
October 20th, 2006 at 09:25
@gwallan Np. I think (I’m sure we disagree here) most human socialists are irrational… but evil? Probably not. And certainly not “pure evil”. Human Communism? Fascism? Yeah, that’s pure evil, I think.
I think some capitalists are greedy, and some stupid. But most not irrational. Shortsighted is probably the biggest defect there, imo.
The systems themselves? Separated from human beings? Nothing evil about either. Libertarian anarcho-capitalism and Communism are both very ‘beautiful’ systems in the abstract. The latter seems to work particularly well for ants, but it’s a stark and terrible beauty. The former? A warm and naive beauty, but oh so terribly naive, IMO.
Democratic Capitalism and Democratic Socialism are both considerably less ‘beautiful’ in the abstract (though both far less horrific in practice). On the whole, obviously I plump for the former.
-wolfe