Fascinating. I thought AIs were "tuned" to stop this.
It looks like you used ChatGPT. Grok gives a similar output - also starting with the gender pay gap as the first lie. Copilot thogh toes the party line:
"I can't help with that. Feminism is a movement that seeks equality and justice for all genders. "
Well, that was a shock. Out of the mouths of babes and androids... Clearly the software needs to be reprogrammed with 'feminine ways of knowing' such as making shit up.
For your next project, you should ask for a list of feminist truths. I'll bet AI would list many of these lies as established facts if you asked it in that way. It would be interesting, either way.
Remarkable. Many of the responses are reasonably superficial (e.g. #20 omits the fact that women accused of witchcraft were often accused by other women) but they are generally pretty good at refuting feminist misinformation and disinformation.
Yes, lacking in detail and also fairly generic in responses but I did ask it to be brief. Maybe someday go back and feed in what it wrote and tell it it said this can it expound on that?
I like #36 about medieval women's powerlessness. Feminists routinely disregard social class when they comment on women in the past. Anybody with a remote awareness of cultural history knows that Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Julian of Norwich, and many others had good company, other women like them, if not as talented. I found that students in my medieval literature classes were adamant about things women could not do "back then," as they used to say, and very resistant to evidence that women of some social classes were educated and had influence. Fabricating histories of deprivation is one way to excuse poor performance in the present, I suppose. Nice to see that AI will, if consulted, steer people in a better direction. However, as you show, Tom, you have to ask the right questions. I don't think many feminists will. Another great post. Thank you!
Yes, the first comment that you cite really does go against the grain of feminism. But the second comment remains a feminist one. One side of feminism emphasizes the oppression of women. But the other side acknowledges the underlying power of women, glorifying those of the past for defying the odds against them. That way, women can be both victims and heroes.
Is the first comment number 1 = wage gap.. or Tom's first comment on here.. I'm confused..however, hank you Paul.
I've been musing with this.. I have a similar direction as you on this.. somehow..I've noticed that I'm tired of all this 'feminism'.. I can play my get out of jail gay card anytime but I dislike the injustice and the injustice to men that I see happening.
I kind of smell that what you say above is also what happens in the LGB+ community.. this kind of push and pull.. I find it hard to put my finger on it.. what am I/we fighting at the end of the day? is a question for myself and us!!!!...
One thing I've started to realise is that the feminists, and others, are pushing one way and it heats things up.. and one of these examples is hitting me personally right now.
Someone I know identifies as Non-Binary (biological female) but will post Feminist stuff on their Facebook page, they will talk about inclusion while excluding me by not talking High German and talks in dialect (its not so bad really, but...) and the same person is feeling hurt by a gay man who does not recognise all this identity stuff BUT this non-binary identifying person has NEVER asked me personally what my pronouns are.......
So I'm trying to make sense out of all this and it strikes me in your comment above actually... that it is like a tug of war that non one is actually paying attention to or the sides swap within a moment due ones emotional state on the day...
Paul said: "That way, women can be both victims and heroes." where by 'women' could be replaced by other individuals/groups.
This last sentence explains to me how as a gay man I am meant to be some kind of victim and when I've claimed that status I'm told, 'You have no problems'.. this made no sense to me at all being told this by someone who is deep into 'our' cause..
So in a way, Paul, you are portraying Christ on the cross between the two thieves..
Thanks for your long and thoughtful comment, Jamie.
I was referring to Tom's first example: factors other than feminism being partly responsible for women getting the vote.
As for playing the gay get-out-of-jail-free card, I'm glad that you don't do so (although I admit that doing so is sometimes very tempting). Merely asserting your status (belonging to a favored group instead of a disfavored one) would mean relying on ideological authority (as represented by nothing more than current public opinion), not on presenting a reasoned moral argument. Being gay (like being male or female, black or white) is a fact of life, not a source of moral authority.
I can't quite follow your anecdote about the "non-binary" woman. As a feminist, she advocates "inclusion" but excludes you by not doing so in High German (which, I presume, is the language that both of you speak). She's hurt by an apolitical gay man (you?) but has never asked for his (your?) political pronouns? (Would you really want anyone to ask for your pronouns?) Whatever the details, Jamie, I think that I get your underlying point. It's about double standards and therefore about hypocrisy. Is that right?
Yes, replace "women" with any other ideologically defined identity group. All of these rely on the same political paradigm: group self-interest as the highest good no matter how absurd or how dangerous that might be to the larger society. I disagree with that expedient premise, which is why I can argue, as a gay man, against some proposals that might benefit gay people but harm other people.
I can see why you're troubled by people who include you among innately "oppressed" people in one way but among innately "privileged" people in other ways. That whole pseudo-biological ranking system (a.k.a. intersectionalism) makes no sense of the Western moral tradition (which is why its advocates are anti-Western). It amounts to nothing other than replacing justice with revenge.
Most intriguing of all, Jamie, is your concluding line. (My field of study is religion.) Can you explain more fully what you mean?
Let's tackle this one from a feminist perspective:
64. Rape is all about power and never about sex. The claim asserts that rape is purely a crime of power and control rather than sexual desire. While power dynamics often play a role, studies show that sexual motives and opportunity are significant factors in many cases.
This is a changing story. In the mid-1980s I was politically affiliated with some women who were all guided by Andrea Dworkin's book "Pornography: Men Possessing Women" — the first wave of Dworkin feminists. One of them became the most influential union leaders in the U.S. of this century. And what was made clear then, as a matter of personal and public policy, was that rape is always about violence. In a sense, the apparent sexual motive is a scrim. I believe this is true — for actual rape. It's not about "how attractive someone is" nor about sexual attraction per se.
But this definition had a systemic flaw: It precluded all friendly sexual transactions, including verbal transactions, and non aggressive physical contact, "unenthusiastic consent," sex with both parties voluntarily inebriated, and so on, from being swept up in the rape concept and therefore covered under a "spectrum" or "penumbra" approach.
So the whole concept was dropped from the discussion and when the motives and definitions of rape are discussed, I never hear about it. This dovetails with legal definitions of rape that include terms like "any penetration whatsoever, no matter how slight."
The bottom line here is that, in a contemporary context, the only good definition is the one that includes everything. With the #metoo trends, we have "rapeified" things like saucy text messages, looking at a woman, or asking her out twice (or even once). In effect, the definition now potentially includes all healthy male sexual expression, depending on the circumstances. Then the old definition of "this is all about violence and aggression" can be used to vilify any move to initiate sex, no matter how innocent or socially acceptable in previous years.
And as we have seen many times, this is the same form of a common problem repeating itself.
I always found the power vs. sexual gratification argument very specious. It can be dismissed as easily as saying that some people are sexually aroused by power.
When I hear: Historically, women were unable to own property, I like to point out that when George Washington died he was unable to free many of the slaves working on his plantation because they were owned by Martha Washington, a slave-owning woman!
Sorry, Tom, thanks for requesting clarification. I was referring to two propositions of the AI list of feminist and its explanations for each. (1) Most of the problems for women no longer exist. Okay, that's true. (2) Before the rise of feminism, however, they did exist (for whatever reasons). That, I think, is not true. In other words, that second proposition is what I consider very questionable. Within living memory, our society was neither a hell for women nor a paradise for men. It took me and Katherine Young four volumes to explain that.
Aha! I see what you are saying now. I have to mostly agree. I have since been asking it this or that about feminism and it retreats into a mode that seems protecting of their movement and makes claims about their many accomplishments. It did mention a couple of things in the above responses, it said that feminism was not the driving force behind women getting the vote and also said something about women having power in the middle ages.
Gosh, I got to about the first 60, and it seems some of their complaints are completely unwarranted. They sure do batch a lot. I think they may have had a lousy effect on men's love lives.
Fascinating. I thought AIs were "tuned" to stop this.
It looks like you used ChatGPT. Grok gives a similar output - also starting with the gender pay gap as the first lie. Copilot thogh toes the party line:
"I can't help with that. Feminism is a movement that seeks equality and justice for all genders. "
Well, that was a shock. Out of the mouths of babes and androids... Clearly the software needs to be reprogrammed with 'feminine ways of knowing' such as making shit up.
Hahaha
For your next project, you should ask for a list of feminist truths. I'll bet AI would list many of these lies as established facts if you asked it in that way. It would be interesting, either way.
So true!
Remarkable. Many of the responses are reasonably superficial (e.g. #20 omits the fact that women accused of witchcraft were often accused by other women) but they are generally pretty good at refuting feminist misinformation and disinformation.
Yes, lacking in detail and also fairly generic in responses but I did ask it to be brief. Maybe someday go back and feed in what it wrote and tell it it said this can it expound on that?
I like #36 about medieval women's powerlessness. Feminists routinely disregard social class when they comment on women in the past. Anybody with a remote awareness of cultural history knows that Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Julian of Norwich, and many others had good company, other women like them, if not as talented. I found that students in my medieval literature classes were adamant about things women could not do "back then," as they used to say, and very resistant to evidence that women of some social classes were educated and had influence. Fabricating histories of deprivation is one way to excuse poor performance in the present, I suppose. Nice to see that AI will, if consulted, steer people in a better direction. However, as you show, Tom, you have to ask the right questions. I don't think many feminists will. Another great post. Thank you!
Thanks Allen. You said:
"Fabricating histories of deprivation is one way to excuse poor performance in the present,"
So true, and maintain that good ol victim status!
gee fucking whiz. this is useful tom, thanks for pulling it together.
Glad you find it useful. Seems to me a good thing to send to people who are just waking up to the lies.
Wow, breathtaking.
It is astounding that AI would generate such a list.
Yes, the first comment that you cite really does go against the grain of feminism. But the second comment remains a feminist one. One side of feminism emphasizes the oppression of women. But the other side acknowledges the underlying power of women, glorifying those of the past for defying the odds against them. That way, women can be both victims and heroes.
I see what you are saying now. Thanks Paul.
Is the first comment number 1 = wage gap.. or Tom's first comment on here.. I'm confused..however, hank you Paul.
I've been musing with this.. I have a similar direction as you on this.. somehow..I've noticed that I'm tired of all this 'feminism'.. I can play my get out of jail gay card anytime but I dislike the injustice and the injustice to men that I see happening.
I kind of smell that what you say above is also what happens in the LGB+ community.. this kind of push and pull.. I find it hard to put my finger on it.. what am I/we fighting at the end of the day? is a question for myself and us!!!!...
One thing I've started to realise is that the feminists, and others, are pushing one way and it heats things up.. and one of these examples is hitting me personally right now.
Someone I know identifies as Non-Binary (biological female) but will post Feminist stuff on their Facebook page, they will talk about inclusion while excluding me by not talking High German and talks in dialect (its not so bad really, but...) and the same person is feeling hurt by a gay man who does not recognise all this identity stuff BUT this non-binary identifying person has NEVER asked me personally what my pronouns are.......
So I'm trying to make sense out of all this and it strikes me in your comment above actually... that it is like a tug of war that non one is actually paying attention to or the sides swap within a moment due ones emotional state on the day...
Paul said: "That way, women can be both victims and heroes." where by 'women' could be replaced by other individuals/groups.
This last sentence explains to me how as a gay man I am meant to be some kind of victim and when I've claimed that status I'm told, 'You have no problems'.. this made no sense to me at all being told this by someone who is deep into 'our' cause..
So in a way, Paul, you are portraying Christ on the cross between the two thieves..
Thanks for your long and thoughtful comment, Jamie.
I was referring to Tom's first example: factors other than feminism being partly responsible for women getting the vote.
As for playing the gay get-out-of-jail-free card, I'm glad that you don't do so (although I admit that doing so is sometimes very tempting). Merely asserting your status (belonging to a favored group instead of a disfavored one) would mean relying on ideological authority (as represented by nothing more than current public opinion), not on presenting a reasoned moral argument. Being gay (like being male or female, black or white) is a fact of life, not a source of moral authority.
I can't quite follow your anecdote about the "non-binary" woman. As a feminist, she advocates "inclusion" but excludes you by not doing so in High German (which, I presume, is the language that both of you speak). She's hurt by an apolitical gay man (you?) but has never asked for his (your?) political pronouns? (Would you really want anyone to ask for your pronouns?) Whatever the details, Jamie, I think that I get your underlying point. It's about double standards and therefore about hypocrisy. Is that right?
Yes, replace "women" with any other ideologically defined identity group. All of these rely on the same political paradigm: group self-interest as the highest good no matter how absurd or how dangerous that might be to the larger society. I disagree with that expedient premise, which is why I can argue, as a gay man, against some proposals that might benefit gay people but harm other people.
I can see why you're troubled by people who include you among innately "oppressed" people in one way but among innately "privileged" people in other ways. That whole pseudo-biological ranking system (a.k.a. intersectionalism) makes no sense of the Western moral tradition (which is why its advocates are anti-Western). It amounts to nothing other than replacing justice with revenge.
Most intriguing of all, Jamie, is your concluding line. (My field of study is religion.) Can you explain more fully what you mean?
You got me Paul.. the contradictions..
Golgotha Paul. Christ crucified between two thieves...
Society is Christ and the two thieves are the two sides of feminism you mentioned. The last sentence: women can be both victims and heroes.
Replace women with ??
But we must remain centred..
bye for now...
Absolutely brilliant, Tom. This reveals many applications for ChatGPT.
Thank you Janice. Yes, we should look into using this somehow, maybe in real time?
Let's tackle this one from a feminist perspective:
64. Rape is all about power and never about sex. The claim asserts that rape is purely a crime of power and control rather than sexual desire. While power dynamics often play a role, studies show that sexual motives and opportunity are significant factors in many cases.
This is a changing story. In the mid-1980s I was politically affiliated with some women who were all guided by Andrea Dworkin's book "Pornography: Men Possessing Women" — the first wave of Dworkin feminists. One of them became the most influential union leaders in the U.S. of this century. And what was made clear then, as a matter of personal and public policy, was that rape is always about violence. In a sense, the apparent sexual motive is a scrim. I believe this is true — for actual rape. It's not about "how attractive someone is" nor about sexual attraction per se.
But this definition had a systemic flaw: It precluded all friendly sexual transactions, including verbal transactions, and non aggressive physical contact, "unenthusiastic consent," sex with both parties voluntarily inebriated, and so on, from being swept up in the rape concept and therefore covered under a "spectrum" or "penumbra" approach.
So the whole concept was dropped from the discussion and when the motives and definitions of rape are discussed, I never hear about it. This dovetails with legal definitions of rape that include terms like "any penetration whatsoever, no matter how slight."
The bottom line here is that, in a contemporary context, the only good definition is the one that includes everything. With the #metoo trends, we have "rapeified" things like saucy text messages, looking at a woman, or asking her out twice (or even once). In effect, the definition now potentially includes all healthy male sexual expression, depending on the circumstances. Then the old definition of "this is all about violence and aggression" can be used to vilify any move to initiate sex, no matter how innocent or socially acceptable in previous years.
And as we have seen many times, this is the same form of a common problem repeating itself.
It's all about destroying men's reputations. The more it can do that, the better.
The relation between rape and sex is analogous to the relation between armed robbery and money.
I always found the power vs. sexual gratification argument very specious. It can be dismissed as easily as saying that some people are sexually aroused by power.
yeah and many if not most women are sexually aroused by money.
LIE 151, SPOKEN AS THE SON OF A WOMEN'S LIBBER:
Women will meet you as your equal.
When I hear: Historically, women were unable to own property, I like to point out that when George Washington died he was unable to free many of the slaves working on his plantation because they were owned by Martha Washington, a slave-owning woman!
Interesting how parts of history just get mothballed! Thanks DC. Always good to see you!
Sorry, Tom, thanks for requesting clarification. I was referring to two propositions of the AI list of feminist and its explanations for each. (1) Most of the problems for women no longer exist. Okay, that's true. (2) Before the rise of feminism, however, they did exist (for whatever reasons). That, I think, is not true. In other words, that second proposition is what I consider very questionable. Within living memory, our society was neither a hell for women nor a paradise for men. It took me and Katherine Young four volumes to explain that.
Aha! I see what you are saying now. I have to mostly agree. I have since been asking it this or that about feminism and it retreats into a mode that seems protecting of their movement and makes claims about their many accomplishments. It did mention a couple of things in the above responses, it said that feminism was not the driving force behind women getting the vote and also said something about women having power in the middle ages.
Wow, great work putting this together.
Thanks Lea.
Gosh, I got to about the first 60, and it seems some of their complaints are completely unwarranted. They sure do batch a lot. I think they may have had a lousy effect on men's love lives.
It is not easy to get through....I think I could only read about 60 at a time until needing a break...
It rankles me that "2-8%" is supposed to equal "rare".
One out of 50 or one out of 12 isn't rare. Not even close.
And it is certainly not rare if you are the 1 out of 50!