Amy Alkon, "Gender Traitor"
I love when I get lectured by people who don't know what they're talking about, but who are sure they know it all.
Psychology Today re-featured the piece I wrote on the realities of female beauty and what men want.
A person who doesn't feel compelled to sign their name to their email -- but has the initials p e and the email address elprup1234 -- writes:
Hey Amy,When are you gonna quit bein a gender traitor, and quit dronin on and on about what men want? How come you never talk about what women want? You claim you studied psychology, then you should know about the research on what women are visually attracted to. Didn't you know using young, attractive, shirtless men is the new trend in advertising? It has nothing to do with gender politics, it's where the money is it, "capitalist".
I write back:
"Didn't you know using young, attractive, shirtless men is the new trend in advertising?"Says you.
And if so: Not in women's magazines or by people who know anything about female psychology. Perhaps somebody uses that in humor but women don't want to see naked men; they want to see pictures of women or expensive shoes. This is why women's magazines are filled with them and not pictures of naked men.
"Gender traitor"? Seriously?
Women want men who are tall. Looks, however, tend to be not much of a priority compared to money, power, and status. Women will not marry the hot barrista. Men will.
Anything else you'd like to lecture me on, hotstuff?
And nice how you sign your name to your email. I put my name on everything I put out that isn't a private conversation.
Apparently, someone has declared a trend of using shirtless men in ads. Guess what: They're mainly there for humor purposes or to outrage people.
I suspect you should have left the troll to stew alone.
Radwaste at October 24, 2013 2:35 AM
"Gender traitor"? I suppose it had to happen. We have "race traitor."
I wonder if Camille Paglia has ever been called a "sexual orientation traitor."
Patrick at October 24, 2013 3:47 AM
Didnt Camille Paglia get re-drummed out of the church of socialism by calling bull shit on global warming hysteria about five years ago in Salon?
Isab at October 24, 2013 4:04 AM
Can't really say, Isab. It's a distinct possibility based on some quick research I did over the last several minutes. I know that she is currently on hiatus from Salon, and she did indeed call B.S. on global warming.
In a long Q & A column that appeared on Salon in 2007, she responded to a question regarding global warming:
Patrick at October 24, 2013 4:30 AM
That answer is what I love about Camille Paglia, and why I understand how others can't stand her. A two-paragraph encomium on her deep childhood thoughts about plate tectonics and her alternate brilliant career as a geologist, moving on to her book and her voting record. It's bracing, amusing, and thought-provoking all at once. Never change, Camille.
Astra at October 24, 2013 5:33 AM
Regarding this particular statement of Paglia's, I view this as a blatant misrepresentation of the problem: "Man is too weak to permanently affect nature, which includes infinitely more than this tiny globe."
Man doesn't need to permanently affect nature to wipe out the species. We don't even need to permanently affect nature on this planet to wipe out all life on earth.
All we would need to do is make the earth uninhabitable for an instant. That's all it would take. Could we do this? I believe we could.
Patrick at October 24, 2013 5:38 AM
Wow, that's interesting. I didn't know that Paglia has training in the natural sciences; I guess I should have realized that from reading her, but I didn't. I may have to go back and do some re-reading with that in mind.
Patrick: "All we would need to do is make the earth uninhabitable for an instant. That's all it would take. Could we do this? I believe we could." I disagree on this; I think it's very unlikely with current technology. Perhaps with a future, yet-unknown technology that would be capable of releasing far greater amounts of energy. But not today. Carl Sagan retractied his support for the nuclear-winter hypothesis after he took a closer look at the data. I think it's far more likely that we would wipe ourselves out by making our culture uninhabitable -- and, arguably, this is already happening.
Cousin Dave at October 24, 2013 6:14 AM
Romance novels are marketed almost exclusively to women. Sales are so high that "category romance" is excluded from things like the NY Times Best Seller List (although some sub-genres can be included) because they would totally dominate the list if included.
Now go look at the covers.
https://www.google.com/search?q=harlequin+romance+covers&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=UCZpUtwkwpXKAZOUgbAC&ved=0CDwQsAQ&biw=1010&bih=654&dpr=1.25
This is what they use to sell to women, and successfully too.
Any questions?
David L. Burkhead at October 24, 2013 6:54 AM
Amy! How DARE you not live up to somebody else's option of how women should think, feel, and act! What kind of woman are you?! Don't you know that you are supposed to be a proud, strong woman who is independent and in control of your own life and who says exactly what the feminists want you to say? Please leave the 1950's behind and join us in the 21st century where women boldly parrot what they are told to parrot by other women (instead of by men)!
Shannon M. Howell at October 24, 2013 6:55 AM
Darg! Can't type. It should say "opinion" not "option." :)
Shannon M. Howell at October 24, 2013 6:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/10/24/amy_alkon_gende.html#comment-4004576">comment from David L. BurkheadPoster from Justin T. Lynn and Patricia Hawley on the "Forceful Submission Fantasy" from romance novels:
http://www.people.ku.edu/~phawley/Lynn_Hawley_SPSP09_Poster.pdf
Paper by Patty Hawley and William A. Hensley, IV, "Social Dominance and Forceful Submission Fantasies: Feminine Pathology or Power?"
http://www.people.ku.edu/~phawley/Publications/HawleyHensley_JSR_%202009.pdf
Amy Alkon at October 24, 2013 7:07 AM
Now, you can buy bad romance covers nail polish on etsy:
http://wtfbadromancecovers.tumblr.com/post/64886991015/and-now-for-something-a-little-different-okay-i
Astra at October 24, 2013 7:32 AM
Man doesn't need to permanently affect nature to wipe out the species. We don't even need to permanently affect nature on this planet to wipe out all life on earth.
Ha.
Ha ha.
Species have been coming and going for the last, oh, 4.5 billion or so years. The existence of humans is but a blink of the eye, and the existence of the industrial age is but a blip of a blink of an eye.
I believe the term is evolve or die.
I'll take Al Gore at his word just as soon as he adjusts his lifestyle to fit his alleged beliefs about global warming.
I'll take Michael Mann's hockey stick graph more seriously when it doesn't produce a hockey stick when you feed the function white noise.
I'll take Phil Jones more seriously when he produces his data to any and all, instead of refusing because some are trying to disprove his pet theory. Hint, Dr. Jones: that's how real science gets done.
I'll take them a bit more seriously if instead of trying to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period (and by extension, the Roman Warm Period) they try to fit known data into their theory. That's also how real science gets done: you don't cherry pick your data just because. Shout out to Millikan and his oil drop experiment.
Hmmm...the Roman Warm Period was from 250BC to about 400AD. Gee, what happened then? I'll also remind y'all that the planet has been occasionally nailed by very large asteroids and that wasn't enough to wipe out all life.
Until we develop either red matter, a nova bomb, or a Death Star the capacity for destroying all life on this planet exceeds our grasp.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 24, 2013 8:14 AM
Well said I R A Darth, I'll add I'll believe them when they suggest the simple easy cheap guaranteed solutions to saving energy, rather than the expensive profit run ones they are pushing.
You will save more energy by occasionally drying clothes on a clothes line, than you will switching all light bulbs to the expensive energy efficient ones. But Al G won't make 100 million off of clothes lines.
Joe j at October 24, 2013 9:44 AM
If you cannot separate the political hype from the scientific investigation, you have not even begun to start on this issue. I wish you would.
Radwaste at October 24, 2013 12:01 PM
Cousin Dave, what do you think would happen if we deployed the world's nuclear arsenal? Do you think the whole planet would reach unsafe levels of radioactivity?
How about the ozone layer? Are there ways we could wipe that out? We don't even have to wipe it out. Just thin it in inhabited areas.
Patrick at October 24, 2013 12:02 PM
Ah, poor militant feminists. Truth hurts, especially when it's science doing the hurting. Biology and evolution are JUST NOT FAIR!
I'm fat. Yet men still turn their heads to look at me, at least when I dress (as I almost always do - I'm no dummy)to flatter my figure, which includes a .7 waist-hip ratio. I also have shiny hair, clear skin, and straight, white teeth. I'm not my any means young or beautiful - I'm over 35 and my features are at best average - but straight men of all ages, races, and backgrounds seem to really enjoy a woman's ass, no batter how big or small, as long as her waist is significantly smaller.
Beth Cartwright at October 24, 2013 12:03 PM
I'll believe that young, attractive men are the trend in advertising when I see one on the cover of Cosmo.
Rex Little at October 24, 2013 1:06 PM
"to flatter my figure, which includes a .7 waist-hip ratio."
And for that, we ass/hip lovers thank you Beth. Fries with that shake please.
Re Ads: So those Diet Coke ads in the 90s were lying to me? If I get a nice toned chest and a construction job, I'll get ladies staring at me during my lunch break?
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/28/diet-coke-hunk-ad-campaign
I don't recall ever seeing Playboy magazines on the book tables of Costco. Last year I saw "50 Shades of Grey" there though.
Sio at October 24, 2013 3:15 PM
"About 74,000 years ago, eruption of the mountain Toba in Indonesia led to such global cooling that caused massive population reduction among animals all over the planet. The eruption column, ten miles high, spouted billion of tons of ash and gases into the upper level of the atmosphere. They quickly scattered all across the globe. The Billions of tons of sulfuric acid caused a yellow haze that clothed the planet for up to 6 years, blocking the sun's radiation, causing a complete deforestation in Southeast Asia and cooling of sea temperatures by 3–3.5°C. The eruption almost caused an instant Ice Age on Earth by accelerating the glaciers expansion. It is estimated that the growing snow and ice cover reflected back any sunlight that did manage to penetrate the dense cloud of sulfuric acid. The Toba eruption drove the Earth into what is called a volcanic winter. On the whole, average global temperatures were reduced by 5 to 15 degrees Celsius".
"Its was like flipping the switch on the global climate system from hot to cold" said Michael Rampino, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences."
Patrick, This sort of event has happened many times in the past.
A global nuclear war would have the potential to do this also, but there would be less smoke and sulfur dioxide in the air because nuclear blasts are much cleaner than a massive volcanic eruption, and most radiation is a very short term problem.
This is particularly true of airbursts which cause less ground contamination.
Isab at October 24, 2013 3:29 PM
Turns out Amy's gendertraitortroll has a poetry video.
Classic.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 24, 2013 5:28 PM
Yes and no with the French. While I have historically noted a lot of smartly-dressed fat people, there's a particular style I call "French frump", sort of faded cottons with tight faded jeans and wine-red hair, and dour expressions as they sit on the metro looking miserable.
NicoleK at October 25, 2013 12:40 AM
"Cousin Dave, what do you think would happen if we deployed the world's nuclear arsenal? Do you think the whole planet would reach unsafe levels of radioactivity?"
I don't think so. Raddy knows more about it than me, but nuclear physics was an early interest of mine and I try to stay up with it. Most of the radioactivity from nuclear weapons is of short duration (hours to a few days), and the longer-duration products tend for the most part to remain confined to the immediate area of the blast. And anyway, an all-out nuclear war is a lot less likely than most people think. And the day is not too far away when missile defense will make it nearly impossible.
"How about the ozone layer? Are there ways we could wipe that out? We don't even have to wipe it out. Just thin it in inhabited areas.'
I was just reading something about this a few months ago. The conclusion that's emerging, after 30+ years, is that the Montreal Protocol didn't achieve the expected results. There's considerable controversy about why not (CFC production does continue in the Third World, although not in the quantities that existed prior to 1979), but most people seem to be admitting now that solar cycles play a much larger role than previous theories accounted for. Also, most of the alarms about the ozone layer were in relation to ozone thinnning over Antartica. But Antartica has unique weather phenomonea (e.g., polar stratospheric clouds), and a complicated geomagnetic situation, that have made it difficult to generalize the results.
Cousin Dave at October 25, 2013 6:47 AM
Cousin, et al, it's more complex than that.
Like this.
I'll point out that Fat Man and Little Boy were ridiculously inefficient bombs, horrifically "dirty" w/r/t their explosive yield, and there are millions living right where they went off today. So radiation is still over-hyped.
Radwaste at October 26, 2013 6:52 AM
“Occidental’s Wade concurs, “I wouldn’t call it equality—I’d call it marketing, and maybe capitalism,” she says. “Market forces under capitalism exploit whatever fertile ground is available. Justice and sexual equality aren’t driving increasing rates of male objectification—money is.”
FeministversionofAmyAlkon at November 3, 2013 7:13 PM
As a doctor, I'm surprised to see Psychology Today lets nonprofessionals like Amy Alkon disseminate bad information to the public. This is why no one in the field of psychology takes Psychology Today seriously. Evolutionary psychology is so controversial that very few psychology programs even teach it. Amy might as well have studied creationism because it's far to difficult to find evidence that supports these theories.
FeministversionofAmyAlkon at November 3, 2013 7:18 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/10/24/amy_alkon_gende.html#comment-4028532">comment from FeministversionofAmyAlkonFirst of all, any person of science knows better than to dis an entire field, unless the field is astrology. There are good studies and bad studies in every field.
Your comments here suggest you to be anything but a person of science. You, in fact, wrote me multiple nutso emails, which I just glanced at and ignored, same as I do letters I get from people in jail. (You're "competent" and they're all "innocent.")
You also don't post your name, and make these little sneak attacks with nothing behind them. If you're going to criticize me, do it in your own full name.
Your thinking does say a lot about you -- that you're a tiny indoctrinated feminist elf.
Furthermore, people who are actual thinkers don't line people up into "professionals" and "nonprofessionals." There are plenty of wildly sloppy Ph.D.s who don't hold a candle to me in scientific rigor. I'm probably more rigorous because I don't have a Ph.D. Oh, and I am ever so grateful to the late Dr. Albert Ellis, the founder of cognitive therapy, a fan of my work (no tiny snob like you), who told me that not only did I not need one, it would be a waste of my time.
Not having a Ph.D. allows me a few things: 1. To be transdisciplinary in a way no Ph.D. can be, which means I can pull together various bits of science to formulate actual practical advice that is based on research and evidence. 2. To not be subject to the witch hunts on campus for anything resembling free speech. 3. To not have to buy into the indoctrination of feminists and other political correct forms of thinking on campus. 4. To not have to be subject to tiny little people like you.
PS You can actually study subjects intensely without getting grades or paying $100K in student loans.
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2013 8:20 PM
Leave a comment