Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Evilsciencechick Strikes Back 

Eric the chauvinist asshole has taken quite the beating on the grad forum. With the help of some friends (thanks everyone!), I have responded with the following email:


In reference to your initial posting, the topic of the forum was about
the ideal kind of mate for a graduate student. Your response started
out OK, but then made broad sweeping conclusions about women being
duped into working instead of having babies. This is your opinion,
sexist though it may be, and you have every right to have it. But
when you post it on a forum that is viewed by intelligent women who
are furthering their education so that they may enter the career
world, regardless of their child-bearing status, you're going to have
to expect an argument. Which I was happy to give you.

My response was that while there was nothing wrong with a woman
choosing the role of mother above career, many women choose not to.
And many of those women are very successful at combining family and
career. I gave my advisor as an example, but I could have given many

"Evilsciencechick, you are the perfect product of our age. You
instinctively dismiss the position of wife and mother as sub-human,
and then reiterate the 'you can have it all' party line."

I never stated that women can have it all. Men can't have it all,
either. I simply gave an example that refutes your original
statement. You are putting words in my mouth.

And if the product of our age brings talented, capable women - or men,
for that matter - into positions where they are able to contribute to
the growth of the society and economy, the world benefits regardless
of their gender.

"You just despise the feminine traits."

Here you took something I said waaaay out of context, with the purpose
of more easily attacking me and my point of view. Not a good debate

Then you try to draw attention away from the topic to attack what you
assume my lifestyle to be:

"how is it that women have come to believe the old lie that it's in
their interest to have sex outside of marriage? Every scumbag that
wants to use women and leave them loves that feminist dogma."

Whoa…are you calling me a slut? Excellent way to confuse the issue,
but nuh uh… not going to work here. I'm guessing your objection to
my lifestyle is stemming from religious grounds, and I am NOT getting
into a religious argument with you.

So I asked you to clarify "feminine traits" for me. You gave me two.
Let's examine what you said:

"Clearly it implies certain body parts. In particular, it implies
body parts that are used in carrying and nurturing babies."

Well, yes. You've got me there. Women have vaginas, uteruses
(uteri?) and breasts. All for the baby making and raising. Although
men will try anything, apparently:

Yes, vaginas, uteruses, and breasts are physical traits of women. Do
I despise these traits? Not really. I have nice breasts. And my
inner bits seem to be behaving themselves, so I can't really say much

against them. So these can't be the traits that I despise. And
surely a woman is more than just a collection of body parts!

What other trait did you give me? Modesty. Well, let's see...

From Dictionary.com
mod•es•ty n.
1. The state or quality of being modest.
2. Reserve or propriety in speech, dress, or behavior.
3. Lack of pretentiousness; simplicity.

Hmmmm….I don't see anything there about modesty applying only to
women, or only being feminine. What you have here, then, is a trait.
Not necessarily a feminine one, just a trait that can be found in men
or women. But you give me some examples:

"Men walk around naked in the locker room snapping each other with towels."

Well I don't suppose you've been in too many women's locker rooms, so
I can forgive you this mistake. Do you think we walk around in there
wearing burkas? I see more bush in the locker room than I do during
the state of the union. (a crude political joke! How unfeminine!)

"snapping each other with towels" doesn't seem to be immodest
behavior. It's actually childish behavior. A kind of primitive
dominance display. I'm not sure that all men do this either – but
I've not been any men's locker rooms myself, so I can't say for sure.

Are you also saying that all men are immodest? Again with the broad
statements, with not much to back it up.

The other example of modesty you gave once again attacks my sexuality.

"I don't know to what degree you despise modesty, but you did boast of
your fornication on a public website"

I won't even gratify that with a response. Attacking me like that is

cheap and does nothing to prove your point.

And as a grand finale, you insult my intelligence by recommending a
book that's "easy reading with short chapters, even though it's a
century old."

Oh, gee. Hope it doesn't use big words, either.

So much for your email. Let's continue with your latest post on the forum:

"I want every woman to be put on a pedestal. My desire is that women
would again have the honor and dignity that is fitting."

That's a very sweet sentiment. But taken with your desire to "protect
[your] wife by going out into the nasty work world, and allowing her
the safety of the home."

So you put your wife on a pedestal and give her honor and dignity by
protecting her from a career. Huh. Well, that seems to be a system
that works for you both. But your mistake is assuming that what works
for you will work for everyone. This is an error in thinking, because
not everyone is like you.

So to sum up, you have made a statement based on your experience and
tried to apply it to everyone, and then defended yourself by attacking
me, taking my words out of context, and twisting them around to
support your argument.

Thank you for the debate. It's been invigorating!