Quantcast

«

»

Jan 21 2013

You are Judged by the Company You Keep

If you quote KKK quotes and hang out with a racist, we would assume you are a racist. Okay, the racist may be “family” but you know that you should speak out against it. You may even argue about it. You may even stop being friendly because you personally don’t think the Dutch are subhuman but your hypothetical sister does.

Because you are judged by the company you keep and by not speaking out. You may disagree with something but have to keep your mouth shut, but that just means you are supporting the thing you disagree with in the first place. If a child INSISTS on sticking his fingers into a electrical socket disagreeing with him but not telling him to stop is pretty much agreeing with him is it not?

You are always judged by the company you keep and I have slowly come to notice that the company that many naysayers against Free Thought Blogs and the like are not acceptable. The argument one individual from the slymepit made was “free speech”, well we have free speech here.

Watch this. I think Atheism Plus is heavily mishandled and it’s pure utilisation of safe zones makes debate and discourse impossible. In addition it takes a very very protectionist attitude to both culture and a purely western attitude towards feminism which is simply not universal or applicable in every situation. However due to the lack of any actual method of discourse there is no way to create active change through it. It is unfortunately a pure academic form of feminism and is unsuitable for punching out gender discrepancies in third world nations. It’s participants have little actual experience in field work and from experience are unwilling to defer to anyone who is outside the sphere of their security nor were they willing to grasp that principles are great if you can afford to have them. I have even spoken out explicitly against their cultural/race aspect of their movement because a lot of it tries to paint culture with a big fuck off brush rather than realising individual nuance.

Oh look! It’s a stance I have stated before I moved here. At no point was I ever hassled by the “FTBullies”. In fact my interviewer was Stephanie Zvan and when I specifically mentioned my apprehension with Atheism Plus we discussed precisely the above statement.

Oh look it’s genuine criticism of the movement. I have also disagreed with people like Taslima on Prostitution and Ian Cromwell on race. But the thing is through it all we have been specific about what we dislike about the other’s work. We haven’t stooped to personal attacks (Although I did offer to have a “shout racial slurs at each other till we both lose” contest with Ian),

I am not part of A+, but neither am I in the camp of the Slymepit because of the company they keep.

Stephanie Zvan survived sexual assault. But she was drunk. Oh noes! The Slut! When a Man is Drunk and Gets Laid He Taketh Responsibility! Right boys?

Many Slymepitters are represented at AVfM. Reap and Wooly Bumblebee and Astrokid who you may remember from my take on their work.

But because of free speech they get to say what they like. Free speech is fine, in fact that’s why I am examining a more flexible comment policy because I think I can do better (Hah! Suck it popular bloggers! My comments threads may be relatively empty but they will be elegant!) to give everyone the best of both worlds.

HOWEVER… The usage of this particular article by Wooly Bumblebee has crossed a line. In particular because THIS is precisely the same arguments people made when the young woman who was raped in Delhi. It was also made by AVfM. AVfM supports Indian MRAs who have blamed the rapes in India on women rather than the men.

“Coyote ugly.” It’s a phrase men use to describe the experience of waking up, hungover as shit, in bed next to a girl so ugly you’d rather chew your arm off than have her stir. Yep, another night of too many shooters and very poor judgement. Well played, tequila.

It must be Tequila’s fault!

Understand the difference between action and consent. You cannot give consent when you are drunk. You can barely order pizza yet are assuming you can give realistic consent? Yes both of you may be drunk but if both of you are drunk and want to have sex then both of you will have sex. What people who get drunk and are raped are discussing are women getting date raped through drugs like GHB or just plain old not being sober enough to put up a coordinated defence against a much stronger assailant.

You are however responsible for your actions when drunk. It’s just that simple.

I’m willing to bet that every single varsity athlete or high status (medicine, engineering, computer science) male on any given college campus has had the experience. Why? Because they get hunted. All the time. By women. You see these guys staggering bleary-eyed into the dorm rooms the next morning, bro-punching their friends and saying “Dude, how could you let me do that?”

Because women are all hungry like the wolf?

You want to know something funny? At no point has anyone ever thrown themselves at me because of my degrees. It’s always been because of my winning personality and sense of humour. I used to get women to sleep with me through the art of conversation, wit and being honest about things. It’s never been about me or my degree or my athletic skill. It’s always been because I am genuinely nice. Now I have noticed women who do sleep with these guys and if that brings them happiness then godspeed ladies, but more often than not it’s because they buy into the stupid Alpha male concept and forget that confidence isn’t arrogance. Real confidence is knowing what your limitations are. And we all have limitations. Real confidence isn’t denigrating other people but letting them shine too.

Whoever wrote that article is insulting to EVERY gender. No.1 Women aren’t Gold Diggers/Star Fuckers (Seriously? Doctor Hunting isn’t a thing), No. 2 that buys into the notion of Alpha Males which is just moronic as fuck because the “Alpha Stereotype” does poorly in medicine. It’s a team effort, if you hack your team off they will kill your credibility and your career. You can be an amazing doctor but you are nothing without your support. No. 3 you assume all men are dicks and cannot control their drinks nor who they fuck when drunk.

How could you let me do that is the hallmark of a man who cannot take responsibility for his actions. I am not your keeper, I will take care of you when sick but if you insist on doing things you consider distasteful then it’s your damn fault. I will try and field terrible decision fall outs but I won’t be held responsible for you insisting on doing something. Sleeping with a “ugly” person is not dangerous nor is it disgusting, it’s just you shagging someone who isn’t attractive.

The article goes on an on… Stephanie fields it much better than me. I would have sworn at people a lot more.

161 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 101
    A Hermit

    For the last time, LOOK. AT. THE. FUCKING. CONTEXT. I’m not going to say it again. If you’re denigrating me for dismissing evidence out of hand, then at the very least you can do the decent thing and actually consider the fucking context before you prematurely judge the comment as a “threat”?

    If anything the context makes it worse; in the midst of conversation about how online harassment can turn into real life violence in the form of an acid attack up pops your Slymepit buddy to suggest that Benson would benfit from the same treatment…

    Tell you what; I’d take that as a credible threat.

    If you had angry people sending you nasty insulting messages every day and one of them threatened you with a specific form of physical attack you;d be stupid not to at least consider the possibility…

    And even if he didn’t mean it literally (not that one can tell just by reading the threat) it’s a nasty, hateful vicious attempt to bully someone into silence.

  2. 102
    A Hermit

    For the last time, LOOK. AT. THE. FUCKING. CONTEXT. I’m not going to say it again. If you’re denigrating me for dismissing evidence out of hand, then at the very least you can do the decent thing and actually consider the fucking context before you prematurely judge the comment as a “threat”?

    Please explain how the context makes the suggestion of throwing a vial of acid in a woman’s face any less threatening?

    It is, at the very least, an attempt to bully her into silence. There is no possible context that makes that kind of vicious, demeaning, hateful attack (even if it’s “just: a verbal attack) on a stranger OK.

    What you’re defending here is indefensible.

  3. 103
    RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital

    A Hermit, you have to remember where he’s coming from. The Pit is full of 4-chan-type people who ignore and, in fact, mock pain and perceived weakness.

  4. 104
    leni

    Are we going to argue semantics now? What does it matter if it’s from the atheist community or not? Moreover, Rebecca hasn’t been able to prove without a doubt that the comments she’s gotten on YouTube and elsewhere have been, exclusively, from people within the atheist community.

    *sigh*

    Do you even know what semantics means? That wasn’t a semantic argument.

    And maybe it doesn’t matter to you where it comes from, but it does to me and I can understand how it could for Rebecca Watson too. That is not the face of atheism that I want the world to know us for. Rape and death threats? Fuck. No. I want to see it so I can find it and then send it the fuck back to AVfM or the Freepers or Fox News comment sections where it belongs.

    As for Rebecca, I shouldn’t have to explain to you why that stung more. Presumably you are human? Embrace it Pitch! As a first tiny step you could simply imagine what it’s like to think about what things might feel like for others! Don’t go directly for imagining what it feels like. Just imagine thinking about wondering what it might feel like to be someone else.

    Baby steps!

    I’ll link to it one more time.

    http://i.imgur.com/Fm3i0.png

    This is from an atheist, is it? Because I really can’t fucking tell. That she’s able to divine it’s from an atheist makes me think she’s either a mindreader (who can read minds across the internet) or full of shit. Take that how you will.

    *sigh*

    The large amount of shit generated was not coming from creationists. I don’t know why you think this image of one particularly stupid comment (though Tosh-like, I totally called that, yeah. Except for the part about Peter but feel free to forget that tiny error please) is worth mentioning.

    Oh look she got a comment that wasn’t so bad. Case closed! Nevermind that it was a wave of absolutely vile bullshit coming from people she mostly thought would be on her side that went on at a frenzied pace for what already seems like 10 fucking years and probably will be at least that long since some people will just not fucking shut up about it.

    So yeah, I’m sure that had nothing at all to do with it.

    I would have more sympathy if she weren’t so keen to make a fucking career out of it, if she weren’t so keen to make light of it whenever she makes a speech and giggle when she does it. If she really were bothered by them (the threats, the insults), would she really recount them with such fervour? With such joyous abandon? Like if we were to use another situation to give it some perspective. Would a rape victim telling the story about their rape laugh, giggle and make jokes about it, if they were really bothered by the ordeal? Now I don’t know any rape victims personally so I’m only stabbing at the dark, but I think not.

    *sigh*

    Would they also make the most about their rape, create a career making speeches about how they were raped and so on and so forth? Again, I don’t know any rape victims personally, but once again, I think not.

    You most definitely do know rape victims. Probably several and probably not all female. Gee, I can’t imagine why they didn’t confide that in you. You radiate such warmth and understanding!

    Even so, some people have spoken out about their abuse. At the hands of the church, for example. Some people do write about it and do talk about it. And maybe even some of *gasp* made money from it. Why shouldn’t they?

    Because it makes you uncomfortable? Was it better when no one mentioned these things and you were safe in assuming they’d just gotten over it and there was nothing more to say? Even though it happens to so many people we are pretty much guaranteed to know at least one victim?

    *sigh*

    Right back atcha! That is exactly what I think every time I see one of you assholes complaining about elevatorgate.

    Yet. Again.

    Look. I don’t know what kind of abuse Dawkins or Hall gets, nor do I know the extent of Watson, but my point has been that one of these is not like the other. As I’ve said before, the sword is double-edged and while there’s women who speak up for Watson, the women who speak up against are labelled either ‘sister punishers’, ‘chillgirls’ or ‘gender traitors’. Neither “side” are clean. But it’s clear who takes the mantle from their eyes and really tries to do something about it, rather than use it as an aid.

    Strangely, the only people who you seem interested in accusing of using it as a crutch are criticizing people on your side of the fence. Coincidence? I dunno. Perhaps your should ask some Penn State fans for pointers on how you might further mitigate the damage.

    Instead of wondering if it could be better, the first thing you want to is deny there is even a problem. A problem that exists everywhere except (magically!) in places you frequent and by people you like. How surprising.

    Jesus. Wooly is her own person; she’s a grown adult. You make it sound as though everyone on the ‘pit agreed with what she said, or that people on the ‘pit never disagree on anything. They do. Almost every day, somebody disagrees with another ‘pitter about something and sadly that’s more “dissent” than can be seen on some boards here. For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with her assessment on the Zvan situation. I think Zvan uses her sexual harassment too much as a crutch, too, but I don’t agree that she wasn’t sexually harassed. Take it up with her. Her YouTube channel is “TruthAndOblivion” and she doesn’t, as far as I know, moderate comments.

    Thanks for the tip! I’ll consider giving Wooly more hits after I stop laughing about the fact that you think I’d care if she moderates comments or not. I don’t. Nor do I give a fuck about her videos. She can get a hit from me when she apologizes to Stephanie Svan and posts a video of that, which will happen exactly never. Until then, not interested.

    Anyway, I’m sure some people did disagree with Wooly Bumblebee.

    I’m also telling you why people like her (and several others, and everything I’ve see of the place) make me think that way, way too many of the people who post there are fucking assholes and idiots as opposed to the misogynists and rapists you think FtB readers like me think of them as. Basically a minor category error, but one that I felt needed correcting. See that’s where you should have pulled your semantics card ;) Don’t say I never did nothing nice for you.

    Sarcasm aside for a brief moment, the sheer volume of it and the magnitude of the nastiness does make it difficult to distinguish between simple assholery and endemic sexism, especially when it comes from women who should know better . Why don’t you sit the fuck down and think about why that might be a problem before you bother responding.

  5. 105
    julian

    @MikMik

    You can be as critical of Rebecca Watson as you like. Just b fair to her. I know sometimes she’s very defensive and resorts to belittling rhetoric pretty fast, but, well, let’s look at the Ed Clint piece on evolutionary psychology. It could have been a nice piece correcting Watson’s mistreatment and informing her about th real state of research which goes misrepresented in popular media. Instead it became another place to call her cunt, to call her worthless and to demand she be removed from any skeptical speaking arrangements.

    Don’t do that. I know in some places any critcism well be read as a misogynistic attack but that can’t be helped but tat doesn’t mean you should write a blank check for whoever turns up to spit their hateful rhetoric.

  6. 106
    thetalkingstove

    I see the pitter was repeating the lie that Rebecca Watson called for a boycott of Richard Dawkins’ work.
    I don’t expect it will make any difference to him, but for anyone else that didn’t know it was a lie, see the below

    http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

    Nope, I didn’t call for a boycott. I’m relaying the fact that I have no interest in giving this person any more of my money or attention. Other people have independently told me they’re doing the same. This is not an organized campaign, and no one is going to be vilified for continuing to give their own time and attention to Dawkins.

  7. 107
    mikmik

    A Hermit

    January 23, 2013 at 3:46 AM (UTC 5.5)

    I am absolutely not going to put up with this irrational shit from anyone any more because it is so mind boggling and bizarrely ludicrous that anyone should have to earn the right to voice an opinion. and the only way to earn that right was to not question anything that a few power drunk freaks decree,

    I’m still a little unclear on what exactly it is you’re disagreeing with though, you still haven’t actually said…

    So let’s see. I ask you to define what YOUR DEFINITION IS because I am already not sure what exactly we are talking about, then YOU, THE ONE THAT WON’T DEFINE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, condescends to me because YOU are a little unclear what I’m talking about.
    NO. FUCKING. KIDDING. FUNNY YOU SHOULD ASK THAT, A HERMIT. WHO IS THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT ‘IT’ WITHOUT DEFINING WHAT ‘IT’ MEANS, SO THAT THEN I CAN TELL WHAT YOU ARE TALKING THE FUCK ABOUT!
    In fact, that has been the fucking problem all along that I, and some others, – many others – keep asking about and pointing out, that it’s your non-specific use of terms that are unclear in their meaning. What a fucking goof you are being.

    It’s amazing how much you say blatant hypocritical stuff. From now on, I am going to ask, every single time you speak, what you mean because, as many, many of us have been pointing out right from the beginning, we are confused as to what exactly you mean, AND NOW YOU ADMIT THAT SO ARE YOU!
    Maybe you could tell me what the fuck you are talking about in the first place, you wouldn’t be so confused as to what the fuck we are talking about
    Un – bloody – real, A HERMIT. And it’s you, and some others here, that accuse ‘us assholes/slympitters/pieces of shit, of not having basic comprehension skills.

    The next part of your post also included this quote from me:

    I am absolutely not going to put up with this irrational shit from anyone any more because it is so mind boggling and bizarrely ludicrous that anyone should have to earn the right to voice an opinion. and the only way to earn that right was to not question anything that a few power drunk freaks decree,


    So, A Hermit, are you going to answer to that criticism:are you going to answer my questions that, the ones I’ve been already, asking for you to define the terms that I, and you find unclear?

    Please tell me: 1.)what specifically you are talking about, and 2), WHO YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT?, and quit implying that I am using vague terms THAT I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED A FEW TIMES ALREADY!

    Fucking prove it, every time you voice your opinion about some mysterious transgression I, or others, have supposedly committed.

    I AM FUCKING NOT GOING TO PUT UP WITH YOUR LIES AND SLANDEROUS VOMIT ANYMORE. SHUT YOU’RE FUCKING FACE YOU FUCKING HYPOCRITE, BECAUSE AS I HAVE JUST SHOWN, YOU ARE THE ONE BEING A FUCKING SLIMY PIECE OF SHIT, YOU AND FUCKING GRETCHEN.

    A Hermit

    January 23, 2013 at 2:02 AM (UTC 5.5)

    Actually Peter Tosh could be surprisingly relevant here…

    Get up, stand up
    Stand up for your rights
    Get up, stand up
    Don’t give up the fight

    fuck, HERE IS A SONG THAT EXPRESSES MY FEELINGS ABOUT BEING DEFINED OUT OF EXISTENCE, AND ABOUT CALLING IT OUT EVERY TIME

    Confrontation

    I even have the class to use a band with a women singer that is performing in a genre that is almost exclusively made up bands with male singers, you fucking sexist hypocrite. It expresses my emotions about you zeros that just don’t fucking get it, and then slander me and others with your demonstrably hypocritical and clueless slimy puke of an opinion. I’ve already decided to start calling you on your bullshit , especially when exploit RW’s extremely troubling situation to spread your filth.
    Then you lie, FUCKING LIE LIKE THE SCUM YOU ARE, and say we are telling you she should stop whining about it.

    YOU DEFAMATORY LOWLIFE’S ARE GETTING ATTENTION DRAWN TO YOU WHENEVER YOU PULL THIS BOTTOM FEEDING BEHAVIOR.

    Hey, like my non-specific rant? Are some women and men getting a little puzzled or angry because you think I’m talking about you? How about if I did this every time I dealt with a specific person? And please don’t try to peddle your bullshit by claiming that YOU ARE CLEAR, WE! ARE JUST UNEDUCATED UNSOPHISTICATED SIMPLETONS WITH NO REASONING OR COMPREHENSION ABILITIES WHATSOEVER.

    And, I am going to keep predicting that someone, and probably the next one to reply,will pull the exact thing I have shown that you do when you respond to valid criticism. I will keep doing this until whoever is responding can demonstrate my ignorant prediction by validly broaching the situation by clearly defining who you are talking about, where I fucked up in my rant, by using examples and empirically supported statements, if necessary. I am having trouble including all the, to me at the very least, dishonest and sweeping, and minimizing my concerns, aggrandizing yours, decreeing that I should be behaving in manner ‘X’, explaining to me, my actual intentions and what, if I had any sense, am actually saying. Basically if you deal my comments honestly, and we will use definitions from skeptic databases, philosophical encyclopedias, and then, and only then, I will be quite happy to eat crow and suffer the slings and arrows of your wrath, but not if it includes throwing in epithets about me having an ulterior agenda.

    Then will also appreciate how much work and effort it takes trying to cover all the bases, and how, even then, your debating opponent has much more to work with and find any little thing that I can accuse you of incorrect about, thereby sitting in motion a red herring that allows me to evade the rest of the claims you made that are correct, relevant, and damaging to my credibility, if that is the case.

    Now, FINALLY, I want to clear up my intentionally non specific categorizations. I am just talking about you, A HERMIT, Gretchen, and RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement’s Hospital. Right now, I am talking about the specific individuals that I am taking issue with, and not ‘feminists’ or ‘A Plusers’ or ‘women’, many, most, or all of whom are individuals that contribute in their own way, and of which I see and know are smart, direct, and very well reasoned.

    Ya see how that works?

  8. 108
    Kimpatsu

    “I think Atheism Plus is heavily mishandled and it’s pure utilisation of safe zones makes debate and discourse impossible.”
    Is apostrophe misuse a medical condition? What does “…it is pure utilization…” mean, perchance?

  9. 109
    Avicenna

    No more than being a smart arse is one. Also bear this in mind. I am writing qualification exams at the moment. Spell Checking Stuff is not high on my list of things to do.

    That due to the excessive usage of safe zones you cannot actually discuss anything with anyone because it’s easy to invoke safety than concede defeat on a topic. See, I concede that my grammar is poor because I don’t have any way to spell check stuff. I am using a 7 year old laptop that require a standing fan to keep cool enough and notepad to write stuff. Now you may be the grandmaster of English but I am not.

  10. 110
    A Hermit

    Please tell me: 1.)what specifically you are talking about, and 2), WHO YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT?,

    I think I’ve been quite clear; I gave a link to the “page o hate” fro examples of the kind of abuse sent Watsopn’s way; I gave you a link to Paul Elam’s comments about rape victims, I’ve talked about how our friend Pitchguest here is being dismissive of women’s concerns.

    As for the Slymepit Ive expressed my general impression of the place; if you like I suppose I can post links to examples of comments there that are sexist and misogynisitc (wouldn’t be hard; I have a few in mind that I read just yesterday in which Ophelia Benson is repeatedly referred to as “Cobweb Cunt” and the recent threat to throw acid in her face is dismissed as “just a joke…as our friend Pitchguest was doing here).

    Fucking prove it, every time you voice your opinion about some mysterious transgression I, or others, have supposedly committed.

    I certainly haven’t accused you of any transgressions, I don’t know why I think you have. I’m talking about people like Paul Elam and the “Voice for Men” crowd and the people sending rape threats and sexist insults to the Skepchicks and FtB bloggers. I’m not talking about you and I don’t know why you would think that I am.

    What I was asking you for specifically is what aspects of feminism are you disagreeing with; you keep saying you disagree with Rebecca Watson, for example, so I was wondering what specifically you disagree with her about. I could have made that clearer I suppose and I’m sorry if gave the wrong impression there. It wasn’t my intention to be a “FUCKING SLIMY PIECE OF SHIT”…O-o

  11. 111
    RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital

    Mikmik, I’m not sure why your spittle-flecked rant was directed to me at the end. I’ve never spoken to you in this thread.

  12. 112
    A Hermit

    Actually I have to amend that; I did accuse Mikmik of lying by accusing me of saying that “anyone that shows disagreement in some way is automatically an idiot.”

    Which I never said, so….

  13. 113
    A Hermit

    It might be worth taking a step back, as this thread has wandered the way these things always do, and look at my original comment here, which was a response to something a commenter callin gthemselves “Astrokid” said: http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/01/21/you-are-judged-by-the-company-you-keep/comment-page-1/#comment-31446

    “Rebecca Watson has created more MRAs than Paul Elam ever could”.

    No, she just innocently turned over the rock they were hiding under.

    As for Paul Elam, his post on rape victims in which he calls them “conniving bitches” who are “begging to be rapes” kind of tells us everything we need to know about him…http://manboobz.com/2010/11/14/paul-elams-vanishing-post-blaming-and-mocking-rape-victims/

    Why any rational, thinking human being would want to associate with that asshole is beyond me.

    See, my concern here from the beginning has been with the idea that the people being subjected to online harassment and threats are somehow to blame for causing their harassers to attack them.

    And since Astrokid had mentioned Paul Elam I directed readers to the kind of thing he is famous for and, in keeping with the spirit of Avicenna’s original post commented on my amazement that any thinking person would want to be associated with Paul Elam.

    So let’s start there. Mikmik. What part of that, if any, to you take exception to?

  14. 114
    Astrokid.NJ

    It might be worth taking a step back, as this thread has wandered the way these things always do…
    See, my concern here from the beginning has been with the idea that the people being subjected to online harassment and threats are somehow to blame for causing their harassers to attack them.

    And if I may help in preventing the conversation go off on another tangential..
    Neither does RW create MRAs nor does Paul Elam.
    That statement is just a pithy way of capturing concepts. Heck.. I didnt even know who Paul Elam was by the time I became a proto-MRA, in response to seeing anti-male laws in action, and the pro-women bent of society always to the exclusion of male interests. I became a full fledged MRA only after reading a whole lot of feminism, its actions in law and social policies, and anti-feminist literature by Hoff Sommers, Warren Farrell, and reading up some MRM literature other than AVFM.

    What that statement captures.. is the fact that more men become aware of men’s issues when they are impacted in their own spheres.. such as the goings-on in the atheist community.. (of which RW is only symbolic) rather than when intellectual arguments are presented by the MRM (of which Paul Elam is symbolic).

    My 2 cents done.

  15. 115
    A Hermit

    So in a more wordy manner Astrokid reiterates the same nonsense; that feminists are responsible for alienating men.

    Please explain to me, Astrokid, how women like Watson asking to be treated with respect “impacts men in their own sphere”?

  16. 116
    A Hermit

    And in keeping with the theme of being judged by your associations, Astrokid, maybe you can expand on Farrel’s views on incest for us while you’re at it…since you brought him up as an influence:

    http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm

    millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves.

    Tell us Astro, how far should we go with genitally caressing our children?

  17. 117
    Astrokid.NJ

    Please explain to me, Astrokid, how women like Watson asking to be treated with respect “impacts men in their own sphere”?

    It has been stated hundreds of times, but you refuse to see the opposing viewpoint. PitchGuest explained it as well (I gave it only a brief glance.. I dont read these conversations on evelatorgate any longer..)

    We didnt really have a problem with RW saying that she doesnt like whatever happened to her. The problem arose when PZ and his gang said that this should be a procedure.. effectively that all men should not be conversing with all women in that fashion. Fuck that. Lots of women dont want such a procedure either.. and when BluHarmony, Miranda Celeste Hale, ScentedNectar argued their perspective, they were shouted down because they were in the minority. Now.. you will look at the events differently.. and there is no resolution on that for last 1.5 years. So.. lets not bother looking at that event.

    Note that i phrased it as the goings on in the atheist community (of whom RW is only symbolic).. not RW saying “guys dont do that”. Its you people who want to reduce it to some simplistic level.

    So in a more wordy manner Astrokid reiterates the same nonsense; that feminists are responsible for alienating men.

    Like I said before.. I am not getting into a debate with feminists on this. Its been done hundreds of times. Most recently, one idiot male feminist showed up at skepticink.. A World Without Dogma and I whooped his ass and he left suddenly. You can read there if you want.. his name is shaunphilly.
    And its not just “feminists alienating men”. The MRM is about understanding the male experience.. we are anti-traditional as well, we dont give a fuck for the gender roles expected of us.. as providers and protectors.. and we are very mindful of the damage done by feminists, white knights and mang…

    bottomline.. You can continue chasing ghosts.. associations blah blah. Good luck. I will reiterate what I said.. the other atheists themselves are fighting you.. so MRAs dont need to do anything.. we move on to other pristine pastures and fuck feminist shit up there. As well as fuck up social-conservative shit. for e.g we expose this fuckwit.. the PZ Myers of American Protestantism..
    Mark Driscoll Screaming How Dare You

  18. 118
    mikmik

    Mikmik, I’m not sure why your spittle-flecked rant was directed to me at the end. I’ve never spoken to you in this thread.

    Don’t like being lumped in with others? That’s my point. I included you because I noticed(but didn’t really get much into) that you were coming from the same place as Gretchen and A Hermit, so I wanted to see if individuals(you) like being painted with the shortcomings of others, or if it is fair to do that in order classify you as a liar and whatever else I was apoplectic about.
    Are you responsible for what the other two said? Of course not. THEY SAID WHAT THEY SAID. Not you.
    – - – Sorry, but I want to explain why lump single individuals into general categories doesn’t work very well. It is taking away a person’s individuality and placing them into a general context which is very difficult to defend, because then, your detractors can point out anything you’ve done that they’ve done, and it’s possible to cherry pick specific instances of similar behavior to ‘prove’ your initial conjecture. – - -

    That’s enough to make anyone livid if you lump them in with a group that do things the person strongly disagrees with. For example, A Hermit likes to (almost lol) incessantly refer to this mythical rock as if anyone that disagrees, even mildly, with anything RW has said or done, is a slug that hides from the light. It just doesn’t go, but it is difficult to argue against, because then you get into that back and forth trading of example to show whether, or whether not, A Hermit is right to imply that you live under a rock, hide from light, and all that stuff. It is also a personal insult, because A Hermit, you fucking moron, the critters that live under rocks and have adapted to live in that type of niche, they are the ones that are responsible for turning shit into food for all life to sustain itself, and create more life.
    – - -
    RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement’s Hospital, I apologize. I wasn’t thinking properly when I suddenly tossed your name in there. I didn’t do it to prove my point about anything, but it’s worked out well for me.

    That doesn’t mean fuck all. It was dirty and low-down, and I was wrong to do that to you.

  19. 119
    mikmik

    Avicenna, best of fortune and all your work that you’ve done to get to the qualifications. I hope you do very well. :)

  20. 120
    A Hermit

    The problem arose when PZ and his gang said that this should be a procedure.. effectively that all men should not be conversing with all women in that fashion.

    And this is a steaming pile of bullshit. No one has ever said that, or anything like it.

    See this is the real problem; you lot have invented this false narrative in which the evil feminazis led by the nefarious evil genius PZ Myers are plotting to control men’s behaviour and stop them from initiating or pursuing sexual interaction with any woman anywhere.

    This is a myth on a par with right wing conspiracy theories about “the homosexual agenda”…a delusional fantasy propped up with misrepresentations, rumours and ridiculous lies that get bounced around in that echo chamber you live in.

    Women in the secular movement are simply asking that they be treated with respect; harassment policies don;t exist to stop people from flirting or hooking up; they just ensure that the clueless few who don’t understand how to respect other people’s boundaries don’t ruin the event for others.

    Even swinger’s conventions have such policies for crying out loud…they still manage to get some sex in at those…

    Honestly, you buy into this ridiculous conspiracy theory and you expect me to take you seriously?

  21. 121
    A Hermit

    The MRM is about understanding the male experience.. we are anti-traditional as well, we dont give a fuck for the gender roles expected of us.. as providers and protectors.. and we are very mindful of the damage done by feminists,

    Well, I’ve been living the male experience for more than half a century, sonny boy, so I don’t need an ideologue like you to tell me how to do it…

    And the whole point of feminism is to break down those traditional gender roles, for men as well as women, so I’m afraid you’re kind of missing the point in a rather spectacular way here.

  22. 122
    A Hermit

    For example, A Hermit likes to (almost lol) incessantly refer to this mythical rock as if anyone that disagrees, even mildly, with anything RW has said or done, is a slug that hides from the light.

    There’s that lie again…please show me where I said anything of the kind.

    And stop avoiding my question. What part of my original post do you disagree with? And why?

    If you’re serious about having a dialogue you might try actually responding to what I say instead of inventing opinions for me and calling me names. Think you can do that?

  23. 123
    Astrokid.NJ

    @AHermit:

    See this is the real problem; you lot have invented this false narrative in which the evil feminazis led by the nefarious evil genius PZ Myers are plotting to control men’s behaviour and stop them from initiating or pursuing sexual interaction with any woman anywhere.

    From PeeZus’s ‘Always name Names’ thread

    There is an odd attitude in our culture that it’s acceptable for men to proposition women in curious ways — Rebecca Watson recently experienced this in an elevator in Dublin, and I think this encounter Ophelia Benson had reflects the same attitude: women are lower status persons, and we men, as superior beings, get to ask things of them. Also as liberal, enlightened people, of course, we will graciously accede to their desires, and if they ask us to stop hassling them, we will back off, politely. Isn’t that nice of us?

    It’s not enough. Maybe we should also recognize that applying unwanted pressure, no matter how politely phrased, is inappropriate behavior. Maybe we should recognize that when we interact with equals there are different, expected patterns of behavior that many men casually disregard when meeting with women, and it is those subtle signs that let them know what you think of them that really righteously pisses feminist women off.

    Its your lunatic PZ who weaves a lunatic narrative.
    PeeZus even wrote a post called ‘The Decent Human Beings’ Guide to Getting Laid at Atheist Conferences’.

    If thats not an example of control, then there’s Schrodinger’s Rapist championed by the same idiots. Then there’s the demonization of monopod guy.. and so on and so forth. A woman’s slightest worry is the supreme concern of the toilet slaves. Its as if men go through lives with no problems at all.

    And the whole point of feminism is to break down those traditional gender roles, for men as well as women, so I’m afraid you’re kind of missing the point in a rather spectacular way here.

    You forgot to mention that feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings. And Stalinism is the radical notion that workers are human beings.
    And feminism has broken down gender roles so well that women are initiating 50% of the time now, and women are going down on their knees 50% of the time to ask a man to marry her. Not to mention all the damn laws that have been passed to fuck men up.. that have been documented over and over.. which you will never address because YOU have never had any problem.. so fuck other men who have had these problems.

    This is how these conversations go. So fuck this shit. Like I said, I will bow out now as an MRA and let the slimepit-FTB shit play out.

  24. 124
    RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital

    If thats not an example of control, then there’s Schrodinger’s Rapist championed by the same idiots.

    Do you know the point Schrodinger’s Rapist is trying to illustrate? That women are statistically likely to A. be raped and B. be raped by men. That means that women consider strange men to be potentially dangerous, and they take reasonable precautions. You know, like not drinking whatever’s given to them, or going home with someone they don’t know. It’s a self-preservation heuristic that we apply to all sorts of situations. You yourself undoubtedly engage in Schrodinger’s Thief; you don’t know who could be a robber so you don’t give strangers copies of your house keys or leave your doors unlocked when you leave the house. Considering the idea that a crime could happen to you and taking precautions against that crime’s occurrence is not just reasonable, it’s necessary.

    The only “idiots” here are the ones who hear “since rapists don’t wear ‘Hello, I am a rapist!’ name badges, I’m going to take precautions” and twist that into “ALL men are ACTUAL rapists, so let’s castrate them!!!” That’s willful misunderstanding, and it’s fucking tedious MRA bullshit.

    You forgot to mention that feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings. And Stalinism is the radical notion that workers are human beings.

    Do you read this shit before you post it? Seriously?

    Not to mention all the damn laws that have been passed to fuck men up.. that have been documented over and over.. which you will never address because YOU have never had any problem.

    You mean like men being expected to do all the fighting in the military? Yeah, that was just changed TODAY, and you know why? Because feminist women complained that it was unfair and discriminatory against both genders.

    What other “damn laws” are impeding men in this country? Because the military and family court are the two legs I’m aware of on the MRA hobby horse, and one of them just got shotgunned off. As far as the other? When men try for custody of children, they usually get it. If you think women getting custody of children more often is “unfair”, try convincing more men to want custody.

    Until then, MRA will continue to be “bitchez, man…bitchez” and nothing else.

  25. 125
    John Morales

    Astrokid:

    Not to mention all the damn laws that have been passed to fuck men up.. that have been documented over and over.. which you will never address because YOU have never had any problem.. so fuck other men who have had these problems.

    Yeah, I note you don’t mention them other than by mentioning them (‘them’ being these imaginary laws).

    (As a man, I can tell you that your substanceless, whiny puling offends me)

  26. 126
    Astrokid.NJ

    @RahX

    It’s a self-preservation heuristic that we apply to all sorts of situations. You yourself undoubtedly engage in Schrodinger’s Thief; you don’t know who could be a robber so you don’t give strangers copies of your house keys or leave your doors unlocked when you leave the house.
    … The only idiots here are the men who hear .. and twist that to “ALL men are ACTUAL rapists…That’s willful misunderstanding, and it’s fucking tedious MRA bullshit.”

    Firstly.. When will you stop putting all this on MRAs? You cant seriously be saying that the slimepit is all MRAs. Or that Paula Kirby-like women who have opposed this are MRAs. Fine.. I will just ignore such rambling from now on.

    I would have been totally cool even if the author had said “all men are actual rapists” (Isnt that what Marilyn French wrote long ago.. “All men are rapists and thats all they are”). I dont care what they think.. AS LONG AS they are the ones taking precaution.. and not asking me to change my ways. Just like I take precautions from scrodinger’s theives or schrodinger’s golddiggers. I dont go around asking thieves/golddiggers to take action to make me feel safe. These below quotes from SR clearly state that men should take action.

    The second important point: you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat.

    This means that some men should never approach strange women in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a woman cold. That doesn’t mean you’re doomed to a life of solitude, but I suggest you start with internet dating, where you can put your unusual traits out there and find a woman who will appreciate them.

    Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a rape joke? NOT A GOOD CHOICE—not in general, and definitely not when approaching a strange woman.

    Tangential Point: I mentioned earlier that several women completely disagreed with all these restrictions. bluharmony, scented Nectar, etc all find this to be a joke. They dont mind being approached in this fashion. So, you have not even convinced women of this.

    What other “damn laws” are impeding men in this country? Because the military and family court are the two legs I’m aware of on the MRA hobby horse, and one of them just got shotgunned off. As far as the other? When men try for custody of children, they usually get it. If you think women getting custody of children more often is “unfair”, try convincing more men to want custody.

    Here is a handy listing of Mens Issues (sorry.. I don’t have a concise text-based listing so handy).
    I will demolish your child custody claim. Even when child custody is contested, women get 85%, men 8% and the rest go to foster homes. feminists (NOW) have fought against shared parenting.
    Even the male feminist organization.. National Organization For Men Against Sexism (nomas) fights against shared parenting. That’s how biased the system is.
    I would have given links to prove this .. its on their websites. but then my posts will get stuck in moderation queue. If you dispute these facts, and are unable to locate these.. I will provide the links.

    The standard feminist response when these facts are presented.. is to say that patriarchy forces women to have child custody.. which is more bullshit. Till 1870, the default was father custody.. which was according to the rules of marriage contract 1.0.. when feminists lobbied and got the Tender Years Doctrine passed.. which allowed women to have custody till age 7. Over the years, they lobbied more and more.. an got it extended (to 11.. and then to 18 .. IIRC).

    My biggest question to you feminists is:

    You claim to be for equality.. of rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES, and breakdown of gender roles.
    How come you dont defend yourselves against ANY of the flaws of feminism that I point out VIA REFERENCES to external sources.. Not MRA sources.. but mainstream academics? (such as Barbara Kay’s article, John Ellis’s article, Daphne Patai, etc about gender studies being bullshit?). Christina Hoff Sommers goes on documenting one injustice after the other. for e.g some titles of her articles

    In making campuses safe for women, a travesty of justice for men.
    Domestic violence myths help no one
    Baseless Bias and the New Second Sex: Claims of bias against women in academic science have been greatly exaggerated. Meanwhile, men are becoming the second sex in American higher education.
    No Country for Burly Men: That an emergency economic recovery program should be designed with gender in mind is itself remarkable. That, in current circumstances, it should be designed to “skew” employment further towards women is disturbing and ominous.

    I have mentioned earlier “Women have enormous sexual power. Its been 50+ years of feminism. How come you didnt give up some of that? Why dont I see women initiating 50% of the time, women going down on their knees and asking the man to marry him 50% of the time?”. How come you dont respond to such? Do you have no shame at all?

  27. 127
    Pitchguest

    To leni:

    Are we going to argue semantics now? What does it matter if it’s from the atheist community or not? Moreover, Rebecca hasn’t been able to prove without a doubt that the comments she’s gotten on YouTube and elsewhere have been, exclusively, from people within the atheist community.

    *sigh*

    Do you even know what semantics means? That wasn’t a semantic argument.

    And maybe it doesn’t matter to you where it comes from, but it does to me and I can understand how it could for Rebecca Watson too. That is not the face of atheism that I want the world to know us for. Rape and death threats? Fuck. No. I want to see it so I can find it and then send it the fuck back to AVfM or the Freepers or Fox News comment sections where it belongs.

    Not semantics? I say public figures are bound to get insulted and maybe threatened, but because you say Rebecca gets insults and maybe threatened by people who describe themselves as atheists, it’s worse? No, no it’s not. I suppose you think that’s a great argument, but it isn’t. It’s semantic bullshit. They get equally threatened, regardless of where their affiliation lie. That’s the point.

    However, in Rebecca’s case, she makes the assertion that many — a lot more than the religious — come from atheists, but even with her “Page ‘O Hate” this claim is unfounded. That is why I linked to one of those ridiculous comments of whom which she claims are, supposedly, atheist and it makes you wonder what game she’s playing. What’s interesting is that I do have a hunch, and what’s even more interesting is how her supporters are completely unaware of her motives. But I have no proof, so my speculations are as unfounded as hers.

    As for Rebecca, I shouldn’t have to explain to you why that stung more. Presumably you are human? Embrace it Pitch! As a first tiny step you could simply imagine what it’s like to think about what things might feel like for others! Don’t go directly for imagining what it feels like. Just imagine thinking about wondering what it might feel like to be someone else.

    Baby steps!

    Why it stings more? Don’t be daft. We shouldn’t have to have this conversation because it is ultimately attempting to justify what people who allegedly define as atheists do or say and as we do with creationists, we refuse to play into their hands. And if it’s not clear, I refuse to play into hers — and yours. To make an analogy, Stalin was an atheist. Unquestionably. But he was also a murderous dictator. Should fellow atheists refrain from critisizing him? Now I’m not saying that Watson is a murderous dictator nor am I implying such, I’m merely trying to make a point.

    We’re all different. We don’t think the same, we don’t hold the same views or ideals. What we have in common is that we happen to atheists. I don’t care for people who threaten people with violence and I honestly don’t care for people who voice childish insults (implying they’re either trolls or not old enough to know better), but I can’t change how people behave. If they happen to be atheists, so fucking what? Not like we’re a fucking collective, are we? But if Miss Watson attempt to dictate behaviour of people who happen to be atheists because it “hurts her more”, then she might be as well be Stalin.

    I’ll link to it one more time.

    http://i.imgur.com/Fm3i0.png

    This is from an atheist, is it? Because I really can’t fucking tell. That she’s able to divine it’s from an atheist makes me think she’s either a mindreader (who can read minds across the internet) or full of shit. Take that how you will.

    *sigh*

    The large amount of shit generated was not coming from creationists. I don’t know why you think this image of one particularly stupid comment (though Tosh-like, I totally called that, yeah. Except for the part about Peter but feel free to forget that tiny error please) is worth mentioning.

    Oh look she got a comment that wasn’t so bad. Case closed! Nevermind that it was a wave of absolutely vile bullshit coming from people she mostly thought would be on her side that went on at a frenzied pace for what already seems like 10 fucking years and probably will be at least that long since some people will just not fucking shut up about it.

    So yeah, I’m sure that had nothing at all to do with it.

    Vile bullshit or not, most of the comments are clear attempts at trolling and other times you wonder whether they’re old enough to drive, let alone use a fucking computer. The large amount of shit may not have been from creationists or religionuts, but there’s no clear evidence they’re from atheists either. Yet this is the narrative that’s being touted by Rebecca and her sycophants through her, so you will excuse my revulsion at her lack of scientific integrity and scepticism.

    And again, what does it matter if they’re from “her side”? Atheists? Atheists are not a monolithic structure, not a collective, can be just as vile and cruel as the rest of humanity. Why? Because they’re not doing what they do in the name of atheism. Atheism isn’t an ideology, doesn’t have any dogma or tenets. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. That’s it. (And this is precisely why I’ve been against the idea of A+ from the get go. What a fucking stupid concept.) However, while she may get insults and threats from people who may be atheists, what bothers me more is that she assigns intentions from these anonymous keyboard warriors and uses them for her agenda.

    Do you think I would have anything against Watson, if she didn’t try to manipulate her audience like that?

    Would they also make the most about their rape, create a career making speeches about how they were raped and so on and so forth? Again, I don’t know any rape victims personally, but once again, I think not.

    You most definitely do know rape victims. Probably several and probably not all female. Gee, I can’t imagine why they didn’t confide that in you. You radiate such warmth and understanding!

    Even so, some people have spoken out about their abuse. At the hands of the church, for example. Some people do write about it and do talk about it. And maybe even some of *gasp* made money from it. Why shouldn’t they?

    Because it makes you uncomfortable? Was it better when no one mentioned these things and you were safe in assuming they’d just gotten over it and there was nothing more to say? Even though it happens to so many people we are pretty much guaranteed to know at least one victim?

    You like to manipulate people’s intentions and words, don’t you? No, I am not saying they shouldn’t ever talk about it, all I’m saying is I don’t think they should use it as a crutch. When Stephanie Zvan wrote her letter to Richard Dawkins, she signed the letter, “Stephanie Zvan, teen survivor of sexual assault” – and others signed the letter, too, in reference to people she thinks he should apologise to for his “Dear Muslima” argument. But she ignored or omitted that Dawkins had himself been molested as a child. (And I don’t think I need to add just how insulting it is for her to say she was a “survivor” of sexual assault in light of that. [No, I'm not saying Stephanie wasn't victim to sexual assault by this, I'm just saying it's insulting.])

    She didn’t take his own sexual assault into account, and used her own to (seemingly) score some brownie points. Tacky.

    *sigh*

    Right back atcha! That is exactly what I think every time I see one of you assholes complaining about elevatorgate.

    Yet. Again.

    Assholes complaining about elevatorgate? Again? As far as I know, I wasn’t the one who brought it up. In fact, I’m pretty sure avicenna did, or maybe that was A Hermit? It’s hard to keep track. But that’s the spin that’s kept the wheels of this fulcrum turning, hasn’t it? That “we” are the assholes complaining about it and the reason Rebecca keeps mentioning it in her talks, again – and again – and again – well, that’s just because it’s necessary, because the assholes just keep complaining about it. Very feedback loopy, isn’t it? (Or just loopy if you ask me, but YMMW.)

    Look. I don’t know what kind of abuse Dawkins or Hall gets, nor do I know the extent of Watson, but my point has been that one of these is not like the other. As I’ve said before, the sword is double-edged and while there’s women who speak up for Watson, the women who speak up against are labelled either ‘sister punishers’, ‘chillgirls’ or ‘gender traitors’. Neither “side” are clean. But it’s clear who takes the mantle from their eyes and really tries to do something about it, rather than use it as an aid.

    Strangely, the only people who you seem interested in accusing of using it as a crutch are criticizing people on your side of the fence. Coincidence? I dunno. Perhaps your should ask some Penn State fans for pointers on how you might further mitigate the damage.

    Your leading statements are getting very boring. I brought up Stephanie as an example because she saw fit to blast Dawkins about “Dear Muslima” by first using, according to your own rules, a gendered slur (“Dick”) and then using her sexual assault as if something to brag about. She seemed to think her sexual assault was something that deserved a mention or she wouldn’t have brought it up, and what’s more, Dawkins’ “Dear Muslima” didn’t even say anything about sexual assault victims or make an attempt to marginalise them so why *would* she bring it up? (Was she trying to say Watson was a survivor of sexual assault due to what happened in the elevator? If so, that’s pretty damn ridiculous, no?)

    Instead of wondering if it could be better, the first thing you want to is deny there is even a problem. A problem that exists everywhere except (magically!) in places you frequent and by people you like. How surprising.

    Eh? Where am I denying there is a problem? You really need to start providing examples if you’re going to indict me with this crap.

    Jesus. Wooly is her own person; she’s a grown adult. You make it sound as though everyone on the ‘pit agreed with what she said, or that people on the ‘pit never disagree on anything. They do. Almost every day, somebody disagrees with another ‘pitter about something and sadly that’s more “dissent” than can be seen on some boards here. For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with her assessment on the Zvan situation. I think Zvan uses her sexual harassment too much as a crutch, too, but I don’t agree that she wasn’t sexually harassed. Take it up with her. Her YouTube channel is “TruthAndOblivion” and she doesn’t, as far as I know, moderate comments.

    Thanks for the tip! I’ll consider giving Wooly more hits after I stop laughing about the fact that you think I’d care if she moderates comments or not. I don’t. Nor do I give a fuck about her videos. She can get a hit from me when she apologizes to Stephanie Svan and posts a video of that, which will happen exactly never. Until then, not interested.

    That would be “Zvan” with a zed. I would think her supporters would at least know to spell her name correctly. And the reason I brought up Wooly’s moderation was that you could take the argument straight to her instead, rather than use me as a catalyst. I don’t know Wooly’s mind better than Wooly and I’m not here to fight her battles. If you’re interested about her motivations, then maybe you should ask her yourself.

    But if you’re not even going to make the journey there until she apologises to Zvan, I guess I’m wasting my breath. Just don’t expect me to justify what she does. However, I will say this; at least I admit when I disagree with someone I supposedly support. That’s more than Zvan have done for her BFF Laden, who have threatened people with physical violence, doxxed people, attempted to get someone fired because he didn’t agree with them (in this case, a she), implied men have “rape switches” and “women damaged by testosterone”, that a woman should “get off the rag” and kiss his arse and much much more.

    Stephanie not only condoned everyone of these situations, but also justified and even endorsed some of them. What do you think about, leni?

    Anyway, I’m sure some people did disagree with Wooly Bumblebee.

    Good. I’m glad to see you have some integrity and able to acknowledge this.

    I’m also telling you why people like her (and several others, and everything I’ve see of the place) make me think that way, way too many of the people who post there are fucking assholes and idiots as opposed to the misogynists and rapists you think FtB readers like me think of them as. Basically a minor category error, but one that I felt needed correcting. See that’s where you should have pulled your semantics card Don’t say I never did nothing nice for you.

    I don’t care if you think they are fucking assholes, or idiots. That’s your prerogative. What “we” have been objecting to (“we” because I’m a member there now, too, and I apply to the blanket statements made about its members) is that we’re misogynists and sexists, would-be rapists and would-be murderers and that we’re not averse to make threats of violence and/or murder. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then I suggest you take it up with regular Wowbagger who can’t stop the spin about the Pit, Aratina Cage, hjhornbeck, Sally Strange and so on. It’s ridiculous. If you want to call us assholes and idiots, go ahead. I don’t think anyone of us, from either “side”, can be exempt from that.

    But misogynists and sexists? Rapists and murderers? There’s criticism, there’s hyperbole and then there’s downright libel. Which threshold do you think you’ve crossed?

    Sarcasm aside for a brief moment, the sheer volume of it and the magnitude of the nastiness does make it difficult to distinguish between simple assholery and endemic sexism, especially when it comes from women who should know better . Why don’t you sit the fuck down and think about why that might be a problem before you bother responding.

    Don’t talk to me about nastiness. If you want sheer volume of nastiness and assholery, all you need to do is a browse the comment section of drama posts made by the regular fainting cough brigade (e.g., Myers, Benson, Zvan, Christina, etc) and watch them fly into fits of rage. Compared to that, the comments made on the Pit are small potatoes. Compared to the truly nasty actors, we are amateurs. In fact, the ones I’m most worried about are not the keyholders in this pursuit, but the enablers. The gullible herd who, like sheep, do what their masters tell them. The enablers (the commentariat) are much more vile and eager to inflict violence (from “I’ll snap your neck” julian francisco, to “die in a fire” Wowbagger) and that… is scary.

    But what is interesting is that this climate around Pharyngula, Almost Diamonds, B&W, etc, is preferred; it’s “working as intended” (their words, not mine) and there is far more “nastiness” being flung around there than anywhere on the Pit.

  28. 128
    Pitchguest

    A Hermit:

    I think I’ve been quite clear; I gave a link to the “page o hate” fro examples of the kind of abuse sent Watsopn’s way; I gave you a link to Paul Elam’s comments about rape victims, I’ve talked about how our friend Pitchguest here is being dismissive of women’s concerns.

    As for the Slymepit Ive expressed my general impression of the place; if you like I suppose I can post links to examples of comments there that are sexist and misogynisitc (wouldn’t be hard; I have a few in mind that I read just yesterday in which Ophelia Benson is repeatedly referred to as “Cobweb Cunt” and the recent threat to throw acid in her face is dismissed as “just a joke…as our friend Pitchguest was doing here).

    Tell you what, the moment you stop being disingenuous is the moment we can start having an actual conversation. To wit, I’ve never dismissed women’s concerns (funny how in the hands of propagandists, it becomes women’s (plural) concerns, and not this woman’s (singular) concerns).

    But in the case of Benson, I know she’s being manipulative and dishonest. She would treat Jerry Conlon’s tweet as an actual, genuine threat? Pull the other one. But it’s sweet that her supporters would be gullible enough to believe she treats it as an actual, genuine threat and quick to act like white knights for her honour. Who said chivalry was dead?

    The context of Jerry Conlon’s tasteless joke (but still a joke) comes from Ophelia Benson’s ridiculous blog post where she made an acid attack on the artistic director of the Bolshoi all about herself. So when Jerry made the joke (not funny, but still a joke), of course she would treat it — or pretend to treat it — like an actual threat because that is what she wanted to happen in the first place: that someone would be stupid enough to provide her with that kind of ammunition. Also, the reason she would treat it as a threat is to control the damage of her utterly inane blog post.

    What Jerry Conlon did was tasteless and uncalled for, but anyone that actually believes it was a credible threat and something that would actually be carried out, is a fucking idiot – and Ophelia’s supporters do not disappoint. I’ll post a link in a subsequent comment that tries to explain this phenomenon, since if I link another one in this one it’ll just end up in moderation.

  29. 129
    Twitter28

    Hi, just wanted to say i liked this article.

  30. 130
    Pitchguest

    To RahX:

    Do you know the point Schrodinger’s Rapist is trying to illustrate? That women are statistically likely to A. be raped and B. be raped by men. That means that women consider strange men to be potentially dangerous, and they take reasonable precautions. You know, like not drinking whatever’s given to them, or going home with someone they don’t know. It’s a self-preservation heuristic that we apply to all sorts of situations. You yourself undoubtedly engage in Schrodinger’s Thief; you don’t know who could be a robber so you don’t give strangers copies of your house keys or leave your doors unlocked when you leave the house. Considering the idea that a crime could happen to you and taking precautions against that crime’s occurrence is not just reasonable, it’s necessary.

    The only “idiots” here are the ones who hear “since rapists don’t wear ‘Hello, I am a rapist!’ name badges, I’m going to take precautions” and twist that into “ALL men are ACTUAL rapists, so let’s castrate them!!!” That’s willful misunderstanding, and it’s fucking tedious MRA bullshit.

    Do you know what I think is tedious bullshit? Schrödinger’s Rapist. By the way, it’s amusing that you should say stastically women are likely to be A) raped and B) raped by men, when the opposite is equally as likely. So your starting point is just meaningless platitude. Then you say women consider strange men (in other words, strangers) to be potentially dangerous and take reasonable precautions. Ok, fine, for the sake of argument, say they do. However, statistically, women are more likely to be raped by men they know; family members, friends, acquaintances, and less often — much less — from strange men. In fact, most of the time women are raped by people they know.

    But the author of Schrödinger’s Rapist doesn’t take this into account when writing her extremely paranoid piece of fluff. She simply assumes that this is what all women feel when they walk outside and enter the streets, that for them all men are potentially rapists. (Although as a caveat, the piece is meant for those “good men” who wishes to approach women in the street romantically. [But once again, statistically the man is more likely to rape her once he's gotten to know her better and not on a whim.]) That is why I think Schrödinger’s Rapist is a load of bollocks.

    Whoever the author of that piece is, she doesn’t need men to cross the street; she needs counselling.

    Not to mention it ignores the principles of Schrödinger’s original experiment, so you wonder why she even called it “Schrödinger’s Rapist” in the first place.

    (Fun fact: The pseudonym “Phaedra” comes from the Phaedra of Greek mythology, who after being scorned by the man she loved, Hippolytus, told her husband [oh yes] that Hippolytus had raped her [he hadn't] for which he was either poisoned, thrown off a cliff or murdered [the stories differ]. Makes you think, doesn’t it?)

    A Hermit:

    And this is the link I was talking about.

    New Media Douchebags, explained.

  31. 131
    Klang

    However, statistically, women are more likely to be raped by men they know; family members, friends, acquaintances, and less often — much less — from strange men. In fact, most of the time women are raped by people they know.

    Oh good grief. The point of SR is just to ask men to consider that they might appear threatening when they approach women in certain ways and at certain times. And rather than say “Ok, I’ll try and consider that” you people insist on getting all Spock about it.

    Do you really expect a woman who’s in a situation with a man she finds uncomfortable to be telling herself “its ok, he’s statistically unlikely to attack me as we are not related’? Why are you so opposed to modifying your behaviour in the slightest way to make other people feel safer?

    You lot fail at empathy so much it’s shocking you can operate in the world.

  32. 132
    bradleybetts

    @Astrokid

    If thats not an example of control, then there’s Schrodinger’s Rapist championed by the same idiots.

    Schroedinger’s rapist is the really rather simple concept that when you approach a woman she has no idea if you are a rapist or not, so do your best to put them at their ease. That’s it. What’s controlling about that?

    And feminism has broken down gender roles so well that women are initiating 50% of the time now, and women are going down on their knees 50% of the time to ask a man to marry her. Not to mention all the damn laws that have been passed to fuck men up..

    Bullshit. Society still considers it a man’s role to propose and to ask women out in the first place. It shouldn’t, but it does.

    And what laws are you talking about? Examples, please, because I am aware of none.

  33. 133
    bradleybetts

    @Pitchguest

    By the way, it’s amusing that you should say stastically women are likely to be A) raped and B) raped by men, when the opposite is equally as likely.

    What? You think that the statement “Men are likely to be A) raped B) raped by women” is as valid a statement as RahX’s? Because statistics disagree with you. It is nowhere near as likely. In fact even if a man is raped he’s more likely to be raped by another man.

    And also, pack it in with the hyperskepticism. You are being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to undermine the concept of Schroedinger’s rapist without actually considering the purpose of the concept; i.e. to give men an insight into a woman’s reaction to him. To reiterate; Schroedinger’s rapist is the really rather simple concept that when you approach a woman she has no idea if you are a rapist or not, so do your best to put them at their ease. That’s it. In other words, don’t be suprised if she’s a bit edgy around you. Don’t take it as an insult. Just be mindful that to her, you may very well present a threat. That is literally it. And it’s a perfectly sensible thing to say, so stop getting all hysterical about it.

  34. 134
    A Hermit

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/01/21/you-are-judged-by-the-company-you-keep/comment-page-3/#comment-35666
    Let’s take a closer look at what Astrokid calls a “lunatic narrative..”

    There is an odd attitude in our culture that it’s acceptable for men to proposition women in curious ways — Rebecca Watson recently experienced this in an elevator in Dublin, and I think this encounter Ophelia Benson had reflects the same attitude: women are lower status persons, and we men, as superior beings, get to ask things of them. Also as liberal, enlightened people, of course, we will graciously accede to their desires, and if they ask us to stop hassling them, we will back off, politely. Isn’t that nice of us?

    It’s not enough. Maybe we should also recognize that applying unwanted pressure, no matter how politely phrased, is inappropriate behavior. Maybe we should recognize that when we interact with equals there are different, expected patterns of behavior that many men casually disregard when meeting with women, and it is those subtle signs that let them know what you think of them that really righteously pisses feminist women off.

    What is Myers saying here? Why he’s saying that we should treat women as equals and not put unwanted pressure on them; interact with them as equals…

    And this, to the MRA, is “lunacy…”

    Not to mention all the damn laws that have been passed to fuck men up.. that have been documented over and over.. which you will never address because YOU have never had any problem.. so fuck other men who have had these problems.

    I did address this; such laws are the product of gender stereotyping, which is what feminism is opposed to…

    See, this is why I consider myself a feminist and not an MRA; the former seeks equal treatment and doing away with stereotypes; it’s a win-win proposition.

    The latter turns the conversation to a zero sum game; if women get more rights men must be losing theirs! which is the same bullshit formulation we get from opponents of gay rights, minority racial rights…it’s a paranoid point of view.

  35. 135
    Avicenna

    I dislike schrodinger’s rapist but I understand why the concept exists.

    You see people judge me by what I am a lot. I have suffered some pretty overt racism (I have been prevented from flying kind of racism. I have seen my aunt stripped because they didn’t believe she was on near permanent dialysis… Because we were brown. It hurt a lot. They couldn’t even tell the difference between a HINDU and a Muslim then why on earth are they indulging in stupid procedures like this. No little old lady with a metal hip was made to strip… just the brown one) I don’t like being judged and a lot of who I am was a stupid 18 year old me ripping his shirt while screaming “I WILL SHOW YOU ALL!!!”. I was the kind of person who would wear a “It’s okay, I normally pay to be degraded and stripped by a man in uniform” T-Shirt through security because for a fair while after 9/11 I would have to take pants off and get felt up. For me it was fighting back. Schrodinger’s Terrorist. (I also had an “It’s Okay! I enjoy it!” and a “At least buy a boy a drink first!” t-shirt)

    I really wish women didn’t feel like all men are rapists but they do feel threatened by us because of the behaviour of our gender. Now we may not be “rapey” but there are a few who are. For all the good people do it’s easy to poison the well by the behaviour of the few. You may not be the grope monster (I am the gentleman grope monster. I take permission first!) but you certainly look like one. And that is unfortunate. So women feel threatened by us.

    The correct way of dealing with this is not for me to act in the way that the grope monster does.

    To walk a mile in their shoes and to recognise that their fears (While IMHO are stupid) are based on genuine human experiences.

    It is a symptom of the way things are in our society. The fever is a symptom of the bacteria, not the villain in the disease. In that way schrodinger’s rapist is the symptom of the pathogen that is rape and sexual harassment. The cure is to remove the pathogen. To create a world where women aren’t raped so women don’t see men as rapists. Now I have to fight that in a “For Fuck’s Sake Stop Raping” sort of way but you guys are lucky.

    The best you got is “don’t take advantage of drunk women, don’t grab women without permission.

    Oh a lot of rapes can be blamed on women too. (WHAT!) Specifically what women are told by popular culture. No means Yes is the WORST thing on earth and I have known women who have said that. No means Try Harder? No. No should mean No. Do not listen to Cosmo or Marie Claire or any other magazine of that sort. Women are straight up being taught how to play hard to get. That’s also encouraging rape culture because you cannot tell the difference between hard to get and no.

    We will teach boys not to rape and we will teach girls to say No means No and stand by it.

    But for now? I give you the advice that I gave my brother when he went on dates. No means No, Maybe means No. Yes means Yes. If maybe means yes then be pleasantly surprised but maybe means no…

  36. 136
    A Hermit

    Tell you what, the moment you stop being disingenuous is the moment we can start having an actual conversation. To wit, I’ve never dismissed women’s concerns

    LMAO…that’s about ALL you’ve done here.

    What Jerry Conlon did was tasteless and uncalled for, but anyone that actually believes it was a credible threat and something that would actually be carried out, is a fucking idiot

    Unless he acted on it and then you’d be calling her a fucking idiot for ignoring it…there’s just no way to tell if it’s something this person (or someone else reading his tweet) might act on or not.

    And in any case it was an ignorant, vicious attempt to silence a woman for speaking for mind; I wouldn’t consider that “just a joke.” By that standard alone it’s worth taking seriously, and as part of a pattern of insults and intimidation it’s a sign of a serious problem…one which YOU are continually making excuses for and dismissing as unimportant.

    AS for Schrodinger’s Rapist, think of it this way…when I go out and catch a train, for example, I keep my wallet in an inside pocket because everyone on that train platform is Schrodinger’s pickpocket. To behave otherwise pretty much guarantees that at some point I will have my wallet stolen.

  37. 137
    Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle

    What Jerry Conlon did was tasteless and uncalled for, but anyone that actually believes it was a credible threat and something that would actually be carried out, is a fucking idiot

    *facepalm* So much for that whole “I’ve never dismissed women’s concerns” nanosecond.

  38. 138
    Astrokid.NJ

    @Hermit:

    I did address this; such laws are the product of gender stereotyping, which is what feminism is opposed to…
    See, this is why I consider myself a feminist and not an MRA; the former seeks equal treatment and doing away with stereotypes; it’s a win-win proposition.

    I have already countered this argument above.. w.r.t ‘child custody’. I have argued that it was feminists who lobbied for the ‘Tender Years doctrine’ in 1870 to gradually shift child custody from default father custody to default mother custody. I have pointed to the role of NOW and NOMAS within the last 20 years as well in opposing shared parenting. Its as if you ignore feminist history, and want to blame ‘patriarchy/gender stereotyping’ always.. even if I lay the evidence right in front of your eyes.

    @bradleybetts:

    Society still considers it a man’s role to propose and to ask women out in the first place. It shouldn’t, but it does.
    And what laws are you talking about? Examples, please, because I am aware of none.

    And I am asking WTF has feminism done about it in 50 years? How many feminists have attacked that issue? How many female feminists have led by example in reversing it? Even in JTEberhard’s recent proposal captured on vid, I see him doing it. Matt Dillahunty married a feminist. Who did the proposing there? Sid Rod and RW’s mawwage at TAM. Sid proposed. Why isnt even a single feminist leading by example?
    Well.. I have seen lot more intelligent discussion on this subject over at genderratic.com by a second-wave feminist called Daisy.. than by you folks.

    And Re: laws.. We discussed ‘child custody’ issue here. Could you not see it?
    I included a YT vid in the same comment you responded to.. Called ‘Mens Issues’. Did you have trouble watching that?
    I included titles of articles by Hoff Sommers pointing to unjust laws and public policies. Did you have trouble following up on that and studying the issue?
    What exactly am I dealing with here? Are you a baby that needs spoon feeding?

    I am done here.

  39. 139
    Astrokid.NJ

    @bradleybetts:
    oops.. I said “I included a YT vid in the same comment you responded to.. Called ‘Mens Issues’. Did you have trouble watching that?”
    Sorry.. my bad.. it was the next comment, not the same comment.

  40. 140
    punchdrunk

    A quick google search found this:
    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/06/15/a-tale-of-two-fathers/4/

    One reporter’s summary:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

    And from the New England Law Review:
    http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm

    We began our investigation of child custody aware of a common perception that there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions. Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. Reports indicate, however, that in some cases perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes. In general, our evidence suggests that the courts hold higher standards for mothers than fathers in custody determinations.

  41. 141
    Paul W.

    Pitchguest:

    By the way, it’s amusing that you should say stastically women are likely to be A) raped and B) raped by men, when the opposite is equally as likely.

    What universe do you live in?

    I’m trying to find a way to read that statement as non-batshit crazy. No luck so far.

    I tried reading “opposite” to mean that women are equally likely to be not raped as to be raped, and not raped by men as to be not raped by men, but that’s equally crazy. (So far as I know, nobody in this universe thinks the odds are strictly even.)

  42. 142
    mikmik

    Avicenna

    January 24, 2013 at 8:42 PM (UTC 5.No means No, Maybe means No. Yes means Yes.

    I think that there is an important addition to those: “Yes, can turn into no.It means no”

    I don’t know how often this happens, but if a woman starts to get uncomfortable, for any reason, IT’S HER CALL.

    Another insidious reinforcement of an attitude towards objectifying women and the disrespect that leads to trouble, is that after a night out, when guy’s first question to their buddy is, “Did you get laid/lucky?”

  43. 143
    A Hermit

    I have already countered this argument above.. w.r.t ‘child custody’. I have argued that it was feminists who lobbied for the ‘Tender Years doctrine’ in 1870 to gradually shift child custody from default father custody to default mother custody. I have pointed to the role of NOW and NOMAS within the last 20 years as well in opposing shared parenting. Its as if you ignore feminist history, and want to blame ‘patriarchy/gender stereotyping’ always.. even if I lay the evidence right in front of your eye

    That wasn’t evidence; it was unsubstantiated propaganda. 1870?! Seriously?

    As for shared parenting there are reasons for opposing that which have nothing to do with gender; the issue here is the best interest of the child, stability, consistency in upbringing, etc.

    http://www.hcmmlaw.com/blog/2009/08/22/the-legal-distinctions-between-sole-custody-versus-shared-parenting/

    And of course, your “facts” are all wrong… it is NOT the case that 85% of child custody cases go the mother.

    Here is some real data for your consideration: http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm

    According to the data here Only about 4% of custody cases go to trial, the rest are mediated.:

    How is child custody decided?
    51% agreed on their own
    29% settled without third party involvement
    11% decided during mediation
    5% resolved differences after a custody evaluation
    4% went to trial (of the 4% that initiated litigation, only 1.5% actually completed it)

    Also, when custody cases do go to trial father’s actually come out with full or joint custody than when things are settled through mediation.

    When parents mediate When parents go to evaluation or trial

    Sole possession to mother 63% 44%

    Sole possession to father 6% 11%

    Joint possession 25% 40%

    Other 6% 5%

    There’s still a discrepancy but it’s interesting that men are less likely to seek sole custody, and more likely to negotiate sole custody for the mother than have it imposed on them by a court.

    To the extent that women are more often given custody that has to do with the continuing discrepancy in gender roles (something feminism opposes not because of some nefarious feminist plot.

  44. 144
    mikmik

    punchdrunk January 25, 2013 at 12:08 AM

    Thanks for the links. It only makes sense, and it’s good to get clarity and resources that can be pointed to. I still have an impulse to think men get burned in these cases, but it’s just bias confirmation. Thanks!

  45. 145
    Astrokid.NJ

    @Hermit:
    You couldnt look up tender Years Doctrine on Wikipedia?

    The tender years doctrine is a legal principle which has existed in family law since the late nineteenth century. This common law doctrine presumes that during a child’s “tender” years (generally regarded as the age of thirteen and under), the mother should have custody of the child. The doctrine often arises in divorce proceedings.

    Historically the English Family Law gave custody of the children to the father, in case of divorce. Until the nineteenth century the women had few individual rights, most of their rights being derived through their fathers or husbands. In the early nineteenth century, Mrs. Caroline Norton, a prominent British society beauty, feminist, social reforment author, and journalist, began to campaign for the right of women to have custody of their children. Norton, who had undergone a divorce and been deprived of her children, worked with the politicians of those times and eventually was able to convince the British Parliament to enact legislation to protect mothers’ rights. The result was the Custody of Infants Act 1839, which gave some discretion to the judge in a child custody case and established a presumption of maternal custody for children under the age of seven years.[1] In 1873 the Parliament extended the presumption of maternal custody until a child reached sixteen years of age.[2] This doctrine spread then in majority of the states of the world as England was controlling a wide empire. By the end of the 20th century this doctrine was abolished in the majority of the states of USA and Europe.

    @punchdrunk and @Hermit:
    Yeah.. Yeah.. You will produce your own facts from feminist blogs/articles and some scholarly studies. I know. Hoff Sommers talked about “Feminist Advocacy research” for a reason.

    National Coalition For Men has addressed such .. specifically the New England Study that was found via googling.
    http://ncfm.org/2011/04/issues/fathers/

    Fathers have historically been denied equal parenting rights with mothers. The 19th Century “tender years” doctrine, which explicitly gave mothers custody over children ages 13 and younger, was later replaced with the “best interests of the child” doctrine, but the gender bias persisted. As late as 1971, the Minnesota State Bar Association’s handbook advised lawyers and judges that “except in very rare cases, the father should not have custody of the minor children. He is usually unqualified psychologically and emotionally.” Time Magazine, 11/11/03, “Father Makes Two,”

    Its ok guys. You probably havent seen guys get shafted by the system, to delve into it like others have.
    You will google quickly.. and convince yourself that the best interest of the child is whatever your ideology tells you. Throughout our evolution each parent had something absolutely unique to offer to the child .. but ideology says shared parenting is not good, coz more often than not the woman benefits.
    No amount of intellectual arguments will make it clear.. coz feminist advocacy research has prepared other “facts”.
    Barbara Kay et al must be fools, right? Michael Coren & Barbara Kay Discuss Society’s Contempt For Men

    Thats why I said earlier.. “RW has created more MRAs than Paul Elam”. Only real world experience will help.

  46. 146
    A Hermit

    Rape data:

    https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

    Lisak & Miller…Their sample was 1882 college students, ranging in age from 18 to 71 with a median age of 26.5 — so somewhat older than a traditional college population. The group was also ethnically diverse. They asked this group four questions about rape and attempted rape. I’ll paraphrase:

    1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
    2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
    3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
    4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?

    …Of the 120 rapists in the sample, 44 reported only one assault. The remaining 76 were repeat offenders. These 76 men, 63% of the rapists, committed 439 rapes or attempted rapes, an average of 5.8 each (median of 3, so there were some super-repeat offenders in this group). Just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes.

    The breakdown between the modus operandi of the rapists also tells us a lot about how wrong the script is. Of all 120 admitted rapists, only about 30% reported using force or threats, while the remainder raped intoxicated victims. This proportion was roughly the same between the 44 rapists who reported one assault and the 76 who reported multiple assaults…

    …McWhorter used a Sexual Experiences Survey tool that has been in use for more than 20 years. Of her 1146 participants, 144, or 13%, admitted an attempted or completed rape — substantially higher than Lisak & Miller. But in another respect, her work very much matched theirs: 71% of the men who admitted an attempted or completed rape admitted more than one, very close to Lisak & Miller’s 63%. The 96 men who admitted multiple attempted of completed rapes in McWhorter’s survey averaged 6.36 assaults each. This is not far from Lisak & Miller’s average of 5.8 assaults per recidivist. Looked at another way, of the 865 total attempted or completed rapes these men admitted to, a staggering 95% were committed by 96 men, or just 8.4% of the sample.

    McWhorter’s findings on modus operandi also confirm the basic finding of Lisak & Miller’s earlier study: 61% of the reported attacks were intoxication-based, 23% were overt force alone, and 16% were both…

    …Of the men who used only force against their victims, none reported raping a stranger; all the men knew their victims… [T]he stereotypical rape incident characterized by a man violently attacking a stranger was not reported by any of the respondents. Instead, respondents who used only force against their victims reported raping only women they knew. men who trageted strangers exclusively reported they used substances only in the rape incident…

    … The overwhelming prevalence of acquaintance over stranger rapes and of intoxication over overt force, and the relative rarity of weapon use and physical injuries, is easily explained. Rapists know what works. They like to rape, they want to keep doing it, they want not to be caught. It is in their interest to be very sensitive to which accounts of rape are believed and which are attacked and to know which targets and methods are lowest-risk for them.

    What they do is what works. They rape their drunk acquaintances because it works. They rape their drunk acquaintances because we let them.

  47. 147
    julian

    @MikMik

    I can’t find the link but there’s also been at least one study that found college aged men were more likely to assume consent was present if alcohol was resent whatever the reality of the scenario put in front of them.

    A lot of assumptions about men being burned by accusations of sexual assault or divorces tend to be greatly exaggerated. And I say that as someone who doesn’t like child support (at last the way we do it).

    There are situations where the system is biased against men but these men tend to fit into other societal stereotypes. For example, the animalistic black man out to rape our daughters or the dead beat Irish dad who’s just gonna drink his checks away.

  48. 148
    julian

    @MikMil

    Forgot to add that in the workplace you see it a bit more clearly. For example women given more maternity leave with the expectation they will be cutting back hours and becoming primary care givers while men are given almost no paternity leave (unpaid when it is) and expected to pass child rearing off to the mother and increase his hours.

  49. 149
    RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital

    I have already countered this argument above.. w.r.t ‘child custody’. I have argued that it was feminists who lobbied for the ‘Tender Years doctrine’ in 1870

    Now I get it! You picked up your gender politics the same place you get your history: TWO FUCKING CENTURIES AGO!

    I am done here.

    Try to stick the flounce this time.

    Oh wait, I see you already failed there, sunshine!

    Its ok guys. You probably havent seen guys get shafted by the system, to delve into it like others have.

    You know what’s funny about the court system? People who lose cases tend to feel like they got shafted! You know why? Because they wanted to win! Totally unexpected, right?

    Just because you lost a case doesn’t mean there’s bias. You were linked to multiple sources of studies on this, and you attempted to refute that with a link to an MRA advocacy group. You really suck at this argumentation shit.

    You go back into history as far as you can and search for whatever whackjobs you can in the present to support what you think feminism is, all the while ignoring actual feminists right here who have been trying to tell you what our ACTUAL positions are. It’s like arguing with a very thick, very dull brick wall.

  50. 150
    A Hermit

    Vile bullshit or not, most of the comments are clear attempts at trolling and other times you wonder whether they’re old enough to drive, let alone use a fucking computer. The large amount of shit may not have been from creationists or religionuts, but there’s no clear evidence they’re from atheists either.

    Given her target audience it’s more reasonable to suppose that more of those comments are coming from that audience than from random uninterested trolls; especially since we do have plenty of example of known atheists making exactly those kinds of attacks (Reap Paden, anyone?)

    You have even less evidence for the supposition that the threats and insults come from creationists or trolls even younger than you are, but that narrative better fits your biases, so evidence be damned!

    And wherever it’s coming from shouldn’t we all be objecting to it, instead of minimizing, dismissing or sympathizing with it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>