Ah Pitchguest! You don’t get it and you probably never will


Since you like a bit of fisking, Avi, I’ll indulge you by doing a bit of fisking of my own.

One by one, shall we?

Be my guest.

I was supposed to attend the Bangalore Slut Walk, it was cancelled when the right to assemble for women was revoked because of men. Men and conservatives who threatened women who were marching for the right to walk in India without harassment or risk and to not be shamed because of their clothes. It was cancelled roughly a year before Nirbhaya.
Now no one will stop them.
And that is why the SlutWalk exists. Because a lot of people’s defence against the rape of women is that they were dressed like sluts. They were asking for it. Well that argument was used by people in India who suggested the same thing for Nirbhaya.

Not only are you evading the argument, but you are moving the goalposts. If feminists contend no one should be called a slut, then the point of Slutwalks are contradictory. Namely because the point of Slutwalks is not just to make the case that dressing skimpily is not deserving of rape, but also to rebrand the word ‘slut’ and take it back, making it a positive, not a negative, word. In fact, the argument doesn’t even mention the purpose of Slutwalks, just the contrary view of feminists saying this is good (Slutwalks) and this is bad (being called a slut).

Oh, and if we’re going to be fair: Canada also launched the “Don’t be that guy” campaign, which meant to paint all men as potential rapists. It didn’t work out that well, according to this report:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/sexual-assaults-increased-in-2011-1.1287611

No. You ignored what I wrote.

And the most important line of what I wrote was….

“The name picked in Canada. The advice given was “Avoid rape by not dressing sluttily”. Let me rephrase that in a way you would find repulsive. She wasn’t wearing a burka so she was raped. Slutty is relative after all. One culture’s slutty is another’s normal.”

In reference to Constable Michael Sanguinetti’s remarks that to “avoid rape, don’t dress like sluts”. So women marched around dressed like sluts and called them that and carried signs about how it doesn’t matter what women wear, people who rape are still going to do it.

Are you aware perchance of the colloquial utilisation of the word “nigger” by the African American community as a way of robbing it of it’s power?

Well consider this similar.

Also?

“The other thing is that more and more people are coming forward to say, ‘Hey, this happened to me and wasn’t right.” which is a major component. I would say rapes may be increasing but at a slow pace, what is changing is the report rate of rapes. This is the same issue in India. Delhi once had just 500 rapes a year(and only 1 went to trial BTW), now? By September the Delhi police stated they had more than 1200 cases. It’s not that more women were being raped post Nirbhaya but more women were willing to press charges and the press was more willing to push for justice and the police under scrutiny were better at dealing with these.

People in Canada from the Battered Women’s Support Service ran the “Don’t Be That Guy” Campaign. And you know what? Perhaps we should speak to guys about what exactly is and isn’t rape.

“Why would anyone do that” you ask. The fact of the matter is a lot of rape occurs due to poor communication, expectation and not being told that their actions are harmful. The rapist isn’t some slavering monster but a normal human being who often does this horrible act because no one has told them that what they are doing is wrong.

This is a clear case of you simply misinterpreting the mission of SlutWalk, which is not a protest for the right to be called ‘slut’ but a protest for the right to dress however you want free of the presumption you are “asking for it”. This was ALWAYS it’s primary mission.

If we combine the main criticism from people such as Thunderfoot (who I repeat, picked INDIAN women to blame for this) which boils down to “risk aversion”, I must point out that I am arguing from a country where aversion to risk means an impossible life. A woman cannot leave the house here. Or even stay. I have put up stories of women who were raped by family members, hotel workers, auto/cab drivers. I put up stories of women who were raped for going to school or raped for standing up to their rights. I even put up a story about a young lady who was raped for escaping rape. Now you want to tell me what clothes these women wore? They wore the same clothes they have worn for thousands of years.

She wore a jeans and a blouse? RAPE HER!

You can see her ankles! She’s clearly asking for it.

She was out late? 6PM is late now? She was with a boy? So people raped her because she had a boyfriend? Mobile phone? Clearly got her raped. Chow mein? That too.

That was the dialogue in India. Now you tell me, what fucking risk aversion do you wish to tell the women of India?

Oh I got it.

1. Endeavour to not be female

2. Endeavour to not be in India

And through this all? The marches that took place were designed for women to stand up and tell their stories. To tell of police harassment and excuses given because of the clothes they wore or their hair or their attractiveness being used to deny them justice and protection and to protect rape.

Post Nirbhaya India saw rape rates spiral out of control. Often they went up by 100 to 200% in some areas. It is not because more rapes are occurring. Probably with greater awareness, more boys are learning not to. But what is happening is more women are standing up and being heard. I am going to go out on a limb here and say “it’s a good thing”.

And with this we come to the second part of the problem. The article you put speaks of increased rapes post raves due to drugs and alcohol. Guess what?

Don’t be that guy. Don’t be that guy who takes advantage of girls who are drunk or out of it. Don’t be that guy who lets other guys do that.

Not “don’t go to raves”. I mean seriously?

I like dancing with women. In fact one of the major things I miss is clubbing. Do you think women hate dancing with men? Do you think feminists don’t like men and the things we do? No they do like us. They fall in love with us and we with them. And sometimes we do it while we cut a rug and drink. Perhaps we should make these places safer for everyone?

Rather than say “Here be Rapists”.

And it doesn’t paint all men as potential rapists. Don’t be “THAT” guy. Have you actually seen or read any of those posters?

“Just because you helped her home, doesn’t mean you get to help yourself”.

“Just because she is drinking doesn’t mean she wants to fuck”

“Just because she isn’t saying no, doesn’t mean she is saying yes”

“It’s not sex if he changes his mind” (To explain? Consent is a continuous process. If something comes up, you can stop having sex. Sex isn’t a binary event and you can stop having sex midway due to an issue one of the people involved in it has). Anyone who says that a particular crime happened because the victim’s clothes or shoes or presence caused it has effectively stated something rather important.

That nothing can be done about this issue because the issue is much more complicated and difficult so it is easier to blame the victim.

The rape equivalent crime is being mugged in a tuxedo while the police say that “if you are dressed like a philanthropist, the underprivileged will take money from you. That person clearly thought you were a philanthropist. If you aren’t one why did you dress like one?”. No one says this, but people do say “why were you dressed like that at location x”. Which means they cannot solve the issue with the methods they have and think you should not create more of that issue because frankly it is irritating paperwork.

So people try and clean up that area. People try and reduce crime and educate kids and get them to schools and give them a future so that you can wear your tuxedo round that street and not get mugged. And we call these people pillars of the community.

If we do the same for rape we see people like yourself moaning about tricksy women. Cause lets face it. Your argument boils down to “what about all the men who are tricked into having sex with women and are surprised by rape accusations, this would encourage it!”

These are not stupid ideas. Your suggestion is that you are personally insulted because you don’t need to be told to do those things. Well then they aren’t posters aimed at you. Print the following out on a card. I suggest that everytime you are insulted by such a poster then you whip out the card and read the following.

“Except you Pitchguest, We know that you will do the correct thing at all times”

Porn is changing a lot.

Understatement of the century. Yes. If you care to look for it, there’s a market for all manner of porn. Not just “men objectifying women.” There are so many different kinds, it’s like an explicit hardware store. However if you have a one-track mind, like for instance Andrea Dworkin, then it doesn’t matter what the climate is. Women are objectified in porn. Women are taken advantage of in porn. Porn is bad for you. Period.

Sure… but Andrea Dworkin is not writing at A Million Gods. I have always been sex positive and my work has always provided care and assistance to sex workers.

I don’t see what this has to do with anything. Porn is just porn. A fair few readers are involved in it and don’t consider the sex industry to be bad unless it is forced and there is a clear delineation between voluntary and involuntary sex workers and porn.

In fact? With the Belle Knox issue, Porn’s again demonstrated a better system of care than bog standard blokes.

Feminism is not a monolith …

Oh man. That is funny. That is hilarious. Tell you what. I’m taking that and putting it in a folder. For later.

On this blog conglomeration there exists both me and Taslima Nasrin who are both considered feminists and who both have different ideas. I repeat….

Not a monolith. Hell, I even consider the MRA to not be a monolith. People like Paul Elam are many shades better than people like Roosh.

And just because you own 50 Shades of Grey and enjoy a BDSM doesn’t mean you like being beaten up.

What? How is this relevant to the argument? What the fuck are you talking about?

If you are unaware, the BDSM community has had issues with abuse that boils down to “this lady likes being hit, so I hit her” without going into safety and consent.

Except men are more in control of their lives than women are and the fact that the police can stand up and blame women for being raped in Canada. We are still discussing Birth Control access over decisions made by men. We are still discussing Abortion.

As far as I know, the issue of abortion (I don’t know about birth control) is a matter of mandate. By the masses. In other words, the majority decides. Are you saying that no woman ever have voted against abortion? Are you saying that women have never been the deciding factor on which to outlaw abortion, say in a state in the United States, by orders of magnitude? It’s always been men having their grubby little hands everywhere, always wanting to oppress and subjugate?

Considering how few women are on any abortion debate in the government? Considering how often it’s been men or indeed religious pushes by women who are trying to fit into a patriarchal society. This is something well noticed. That decisions on women’s healthcare are often made by men who have no idea what they are talking about.

And feminists don’t just blame the patriarchy but also other things that cause harm. Many feminists mock “Fashion Magazines” which are primarily run by women. Many feminists fight for pro-Choice against Pro-Life who have a lot of women in the movement. Not everything women do is helpful for women.

No. Shit. Sherlock. But, really? You don’t think it’s a conspiracy by the patriarchy to make women fight amongst themselves? No? You mean they actually have agency of their own, able to make their own decisions and choose of their own volition to disagree with other women without some invisible shadow daddy government watching and influencing their every move? Shut up!

The majority of cutters in Female Genital Mutilation are other women. The Burkha is enforced by other women. Many a time the dowry death of a young Indian lady is due to the mother-in-law.

But understand the thing that helps enforce it are expectations that are included in this. The patriarchy isn’t an organisation that meets on every third weekend to decide how to trample women in our man shoes but includes things like this. These things are not happening a bubble or a vacuum and are in general for the benefit of men.

 FGM is done due to an aesthetic issue and to guarantee fidelity. Cosmo’s entire photoshop aesthete is to promote the ideal that men have of women and a huge amount of it is to “drive men wild” and a lot of it is poorly researched and outright bad advice.

You seem to think that women reached equality the day they got the vote and that’s when feminism stopped being relevant. I am afraid you don’t realise that a lot of feminism is dedicated to breaking women out of roles and societal norms that are simply widely accepted so that women have a better chance at opportunity.

And that means condemning women like Sarah Palin whose actions harm women or TERFs such as Kathy Brennan.

And as I said, the Patriarchy isn’t an organisation but a cultural and social pressure for people to conform and behave to certain roles. This can be as radical as Afghanistan or as egalitarian as Finland. And this can change. The idea is to try and reach a more egalitarian society.

However the thing is that in general, women have faced the brunt of the issues and while men face issues, they have the greatest overall rewards and so it is associated with us. The patriarchy exists but not in the straw man way you seem to think.

This is a non-sequitur. Feminism does care about some men’s problems with regards to equality.

That so? I honestly couldn’t tell. So if I were to go places like Jezebel and say I was falsely accused of rape, they would be sympathetic to my cause? Do you think? Maybe not Jezebel. Bad example. They’re a bit too radical. How about Skepchick?

See the funny thing is “I was falsely accused” of rape. TAM 2013 was a strange event for me because I apparently attended it and raped someone while being physically on the other side of the planet. Funny thing? When the accusation was made it was probably done so to poison the well on whatever well poisoning that needed to be done.

And I have had nothing by nice conversations with Rebecca Watson and Heina Dadabhoy. Because here is the thing.

No one profited. The idiot who made that accusation hurt women by making it seem like there are women who make that stupid an accusation. The men didn’t benefit since real faux rape accusations will not be taken as seriously and neither will real rapes.

Yes, if you were genuinely falsely accused of rape they would be sympathetic to your cause. More so than the anti-FTB brigade who have been “rather distasteful”.

Now the MRA demand that we make it harder to bring up rape despite the fact that even today just 30% of rape victims ever seek justice because the rest are simply told that they cannot form a case or are so ashamed that by the time they come forward no case can be made. It’s like suggesting we make it harder to form cases of murder because people fake their deaths.

The MRA does? Interesting

Are you suggesting the Men’s Rights Movement on Reddit and indeed “various websites” didn’t get together to make it harder to report a rape at Occidental College?

The first and fourth point were “Rape Apologetics”. Just saying….

What a fucking stupid thing to say. Good grief.

Perhaps. However slut shaming of rape victims IS a thing even in the USA where we saw the Steubenville rape where “correct me if I am wrong” the lovely MRA got together and decided that the victim was a “helmet bunny” and so deserved to be raped. Where such lovely individuals as Judgy Bitch excused the behaviour of not just the rapists but a town for whom a sport was more important than the victim of crime.

False rape allegations are insanely rare.

False rape allegations are relatively rare. In the UK the Crown Prosecution Service between 2011 to 2012 prosecuted around 5400 rapes and 35 false accusations.

Real rapes getting prosecuted would drop the percentage of false rape accusations even more since people who are going to make false rape allegations are a fixed minority. If the report rate is 33% (for ease of calculations) and 35 rape cases are faked a year in all of the UK out of 5400 then the rate of false allegation is 0.65%. If we double the prosecution rate then the false allegation rate drops to 0.325%. The issue isn’t that false rapes are being reported but that real rapes are not.

If every single case of rape gets to a prosecution in the UK where currently only 30% reach that state then there would be roughly 16000 cases of rape prosecution a year and just 40 (let’s round up) fake cases. 40/16,000 = 0.25%

I repeat, the MRA would like 0.25% of cases that are faked to represent the majority of cases

Or perhaps, if we have a proper report system the number of false allegations will go down because rapes are now properly investigated and so false accusations are more likely to come into the light.

And sure there are knee jerk responses but you know what? Taslima’s attitude to sex workers is harmful to them but that doesn’t mean Taslima is a gender traitor.

Indeed. Walking away from feminism makes you a gender traitor.

Sure maybe in your strange world but in Taslima and indeed the generation of feminists who didn’t get “sex workers” this was the norm. And if your actions promote equality in women you are a feminist in the same way that you are a vegan when you don’t eat animal products.

No, hurting women as a woman gives you that label and frankly not every feminist uses that label.

However me championing women’s rights makes me a beta male mangina.

Some asshole saying you’re a beta male is an indictment of the MRA? And you added the “mangina” because I guess you weren’t victimised enough? Poor dear.

ARGH YOUR SYMPATHY! IT BURNS! IT BURNS!

No. Some MRA think that male feminists are in it for the sex. Again see my above “beta male mangina” link.

Some decor! A qualifier! Let’s see if you can keep that up. Oh, and a double deliberate misquote? You must really be in need of some virtual hugs.

Really? I put up a rather tasteless piece of hate mail to explain why the first person I banned from the blog got banned. I have kept every single ban on here completely transparent and in fact the next person on the list to be banned is Larry Silverman who is the king of cut and paste spam.

In memoriam to that person, I put up his hate mail online for all to see. To run afoul of my lax comment policy is frankly an effort.

I have run into female MRA. There was Renee Hendricks who insisted that the MRA were not bad. That all changed after her site “A Voice for Men” ran articles arguing for men’s rights in India and blaming women for their rapes and hiding a culture of sexual harassment and rape.

Two things: One. Renee Hendricks is not an MRA. That’s your first error. And two, “A Voice for Men” is definitely not her site. Back to subterfuge are we, Avi?

She was doing something for AVfM at the time or whatever. However I was not a fan of her defence of them.

I don’t pretend to understand what’s going on in the minds of MRA who think this way irrespective of their gender. But considering Renee specifically supported a body that was willing to ignore the rapes in India to prop up their idiotic dialogue?

What? You are talking out of your arse.

You mean AVfM didn’t post articles where a man insisted that women in India have it easier despite the horrific stories coming out of India because they had “separate seats on the bus”. Or where GWW wrote a piece claiming women in Afghanistan don’t have it so “bad”.

It must be that weird “I have selective blindness” problem.

I have run into female MRA. There was Renee Hendricks who insisted that the MRA were not bad. That all changed after her site “A Voice for Men” ran articles arguing for men’s rights in India and blaming women for their rapes and hiding a culture of sexual harassment and rape. Then there was Karen from A Voice for Men claiming that women in Afghanistan don’t have it so bad and implied that the Taliban were some sort of Monkey’s Paw or malicious genie that granted Afghan women the wish that they could all stay home and have men do all the work outside. Then there was Judgy Bitch and her lovely slut shaming of a minor.

Oh Right! Links to stuff showing their daft beliefs.

You believe men only think men become feminists because they want to get laid, but also the only reason we tolerate female MRA is because we want to have sex with them.

Doesn’t say anything about ideals and paragons, does it, dickhead?

And you said nothing about the fact I demonstrated repeated and frankly stupid actions by anti-feminists and MRA that include

1. Support of the Indian Rapists (the ones who killed Nirbhaya)

2. Support for the Taliban

3. Support for the harassers and abusers of the Steubenville Rape Victim

And the makers of such arguments are held in high esteem among the MRA. Do you grasp that? Or must I break out the sock puppets?

Judging by the behaviour of MRA? I think women have every right to hate Men’s Rights Activists.

Nope. Couldn’t do it, apparently. Here’s what so absolutely wrong about this statement, Avi. If you remember I said I would tag a comment and use it later and here it is. You said “feminism is not a monolith.” What’s funny about that is, I agree. Feminism is most definitely NOT a monolith. And then you pull this bullshit. If feminism is not a monolith and feminism cannot be criticised in that context, then why should the MRM be smeared in that way? Are you incapable of noticing your own hypocrisy?

Do you even care? I’ve seen many feminists say things like this all the time: The MRA’s are descipable people. The MRA’s believe this and that. (All bad.)

I am sure MRA aren’t a monolith, however their most vocal speakers are in effect not interested in men’s rights but in damaging women’s. In fact in general the face of Men’s Rights is unfortunately the fucking dickheads. Now here is the thing. There are male related “masculine” movements dealing with different issues but you know what?

Most of them are harmed by the MRA hogging the spotlight and pretending to help men when what they think will help is thwarting women. Real issues are ignored and tossed aside.

Let’s look at Reddit’s MRA base.

1. Women Cried Rape 11 times to avoid taking the Bar Exam

2. An argument about the gender wage gap

3. Why must men buy expensive engagement rings

4. Family of teen boy killed after being caught sneaking into girl’s room wants girl charged

5. Male Dominated Societies are not more Violent. Because China!

6. Anti-feminism

7. A photo complaining about how the “biological urge to stare at women’s legs” is being curtailed by not stopping girls from wearing shorts but asking  boys to not stare

8. About a court case where an abusive father was held but the mother was released. Portrayed as a shocking travesty of justice where the only reason the woman was released on bail was because of her gender. Not because the bloke was already out on bail and so cannot be issued bail a second time for a second offence committed.

9. Male Circumcision (FIN-FUCKING-ALLY)

10. What Feminism hasn’t done for men

So that’s what? 8 to 9 things higher than a genuine male issue. The rest consist of fucking over women or the self congratulatory circle jerk.

1

Now here is the funny thing. The ABSOLUTE FUNNIEST THING and I know this won’t last because it’s Reddit and it’s a shifting front page.

2

This is from r/feminism

Point no. 2 is a gender issue aimed at men and women. Where a man isn’t allowed to take time off to see his kid and the woman is being forced to undergo surgery to enable the man’s career even though the man is legally entitled to time off for his family.

The feminists have taken an issue that affects men more seriously than the MRA.

Generalisations based on the actions of a few. If I’m to judge feminism, then should I look to people like Rebecca Watson? Maybe Anita Sarkeesian? How about Suey Park? These people have said and done immensely stupid things. Which means I can say feminists say stupid things and not be wrong, can’t I? I don’t need a qualifier, do I? People should just realise I’m talking about these seperate people and not ALL feminists. Right?

I did ramble on but I did have a point to make.

Rebecca Watson isn’t really bad. Okay you may have realised that I am a more robust breed of activist than the usual but that is because I have to be robust. I am friends with one of Ed Brayton’s friends on the Pathfinder project. He is pretty robust too, but we have to be because of what we do.

Rebecca Watson’s stupidity can be also be seen as courage. She just said what she thought. She didn’t like a strange man hitting on her in an enclosed box. If your entire dating strategy involves approaching women in elevators and asking them for dates then your problem is not Rebecca Watson but your approach. I mean this all boils down to her suggesting that an anonymous man shouldn’t hit on people in elevators and it made her uncomfortable.

Anita Sarkeesian’s big fuck up seems to be the use of copyrighted material and not understanding fair use. (If Anita Reads this? It’s simple. Fair Use is for the purpose of criticism or education purposes and only then some bits unless under the proper CC license. Not for branding). Her videos however are criticisms of plot devices in games and how a mainly male audience has allowed for some pretty shabby treatment of women. If you paid attention to ANYTHING else I do you would know that I play games and that I argue for the thing that affects me which is RACISM in games. And let’s face it. Sexism and Racism and Homophobia are the three pillars on which Internet Abuse and by extension abuse in games is based on. She got a stupid amount of cash due to Internet Harassment but honestly? You want her to debate her critics who really have poor arguments?

Suey Park? Less involved with her. I actually like her ideas but I think she screwed up due to ignoring South Asians. Oh are we discussing the Colbert thing? With an Asian? Oh my no. I know enough to know that Colbert made a joke on Camera with context. The idiot in charge of twitter tweeted the punchline and people read it and went “What the Actual Fuck”. The tweet was racist since it was a racist joke without the context of the point it was trying to make. Secondly? Asians were picked because they would be the group of people LEAST likely to take offence to their racist stereotype. That asians generally don’t fight back against their racism and this has lead to people taking advantage and doing “racist” things. And that we don’t like it. For Fuck Sake, I regularly speak about Pat Condell and his support for UKIP and his statements defending the EDL. One of them is racist the other one is a party of Right Wing Neo-Nazis and mainly hates Asians. And you think we don’t face any “serious” racism? You do realise there were terror attacks targetting mainly Asians last year in the UK resulting in injuries and one death? Suey Park just is the tip of the iceberg of resentment being faced by Asians. Oh and I saw her hate messages. Asian lass speaks up about racism against asians, best threaten to rape her!

Had Colbert used black people and the racist insults aimed at them? I am sure Colbert would be hard pressed to find people to back him up, darling of the American Left or not.

And want to know something? Most feminists are “straight” and “like” men. They think we are cute and sexy. They just wish we stopped harming them. That’s really all there is to it.

Real comedian you are. By the way, have you read the latest statistics on domestic abuse by women?

That the numbers are equal but more women are hurt in more serious ways.

Have you considered telling your MRA friends to stop fucking about complaining about expensive engagement rings and perhaps work towards a more unified response towards domestic violence?

Because your argument yourself boils down to “See how shitty things are for men! That’s why we don’t want women’s lives to get better!” rather than “This is shitty for men, we need some help on this”.

The lists of female privilege is just laughable straw men. For god sake they still complain about the draft. This is a Vietnam War era argument and the MRA are still making it.

And the list of male privilege is a laughable strawman, as it as well derives from a different era. How many times haven’t you heard “How many women have been presidents?” Well, not many, but if I recall there was that one time that was very close. When was that? Oh yeah. In 2008. That is if you don’t include other countries than the US, in which case wowee. I mean, I mustn’t have got the memo where it said that women nowadays are prohibited from becoming presidents. But, of course, it always comes back to what once were, and not what is. Which brings me to the argument about the draft. Feminists (see, I’m doing it again!) contend that we live in a patriarchal society that oppresses and subjugates women, and have lived in such a society for a long time – centuries, milennia, epochs, whatever – but then what about the draft? Men were sent away to die as cannon fodder. Why? To put women in their place? Please. And the draft isn’t gone forever. It’s just suspended. But at least if there’s a war on now, they won’t just exclusively enlist men.

Is that why all your presidents bar one have been White and Male? I mean seriously? 50% should be female and the demographies should be balanced. Instead we can see a distinct gender bias in politics. Now if we paid attention to major gaffes we would see why this is. Do you think highly influential politicians saying things such as “Legitimate Rape doesn’t cause pregnancy” or the “Binders full of Women” statement has ANYTHING to do with an abject lack of women in power to change and tell people that these ideas are stupid? The Democrats are trying but the Republicans just want female mouth pieces.

Indira Gandhi was voted to power in India and was a strong Prime Minister, but she is still one woman among men. Thatcher? I think Bangladesh is the only country which has had two female prime ministers but I may be wrong on that.

The USA has been independent for nearly 200 years more than India and still hasn’t had a single woman hold the highest office in the land. Close doesn’t count mate. The public wanted Obama. Maybe next time. But honestly? The fact Obama and her are “firsts” is a good thing. Maybe from now more young women will go into politics and reach that magic 50:50 ratio. But as of now? She’s heavily outnumbered.

Men were sent to die as cannon fodder because to quote Sun Tzu “Land is the basis of the State”. Because the net state could benefit from more land. Women were not kept away from warfare because men were magnanimous. They were kept away because they were seen as incompetent and fragile and incapable of killing.

Seriously? Listen to me very very carefully.

We had a big huge big war called World War II. The Allies which included the USA, UK and it’s Commonwealth, China, France and Free colonies and the Soviet Union got together to kill Facists from Italy, Germany and Japan among other countries.

In that we had both professional soldiers and draftees. In many cases the reputations of elite units became cemented here solely because they were filled with professional career soldiers and were lead by career soldiers themselves and so performed head and shoulders above conscriptions. This was seen in EVERY theatre. Conventional combat tactics were evolving and while there were incredible acts of heroism. Professional soldiers were more likely to perform “bravely” as a unit.

So we began to change our armies. A modern day Marian Reform! They got smaller, better equipped and trained. We found out that with proper communications, combined arms, training and technology a professional soldier was the equal of dozen conscripts. The key changes were mobility, manoeuvrability and the ability to call on the right tool for the right job.

I am rather sure most nations would fight with that idea in mind rather than bloated armies of poorly coordinated human waves. Quantity is a quality of it’s own, but with the advent of mass area of effect weaponry and strategies such as curtained fire, even traditional human wave armies of places like India, China and Russia are changing their attitude to war and moving to smaller armies of professional soldiers with good technology.

And this is without including the economic cost of taking away your workforce and killing them off in  a war and the future effect of a damaged workforce.

What this boils down to?

The Draft is economically disasterous, strategically unsound and not utilised in a modern warfare environment unless the need is pressing such as Israel or there is little to no need and it’s just a formality such as in Singapore.

Also? We had 2 wars and had no Draft.

A lot of feminists are anti-circumcision. Both Female and Male. Now Female genital mutilation is on many scales worse than the male equivalent, but we often see MRA derail conversations about FGM with conversations about men.
Humour punches up. Male circumcision and getting kicked in the crotch is funny for the same reason falling down the stairs is funny. It is because it is someone in power getting hurt by an attack on one of the things that gives him power. While hitting a woman is not funny since women are routinely hit by men and it’s a major problem.

And once again, this is the stupidest, if not the most disgusting, statement you’ve ever written. Fucking hell.

Really?

I put up examples of your MRA friends stating that a 16 year old girl deserved to get raped because she fancied football players and you think pointing out that we find crotch attacks on TV funny for the same reason we find the 3 stooges funny is worse?

I put up examples of a rich woman in the USA pandering to MRA expectations by throwing the women of Afghanistan under a bus and you think pointing out that getting crotched is amusing to others for the same reason that someone tripping and falling on dog shit is funny. Because people find physical distress amusing. I mean you laugh at Home Alone but do you ever consider it’s a movie about reckless child endangerment and a near fatal amount of insult heaped upon the two antagonists? Or that it’s possibly a representation of American Imperialism in Vietcong and an allegory of the asymmetric warfare that took place?

I put up an example of MRA blaming the victim of the Delhi Rape for her death. Vile doesn’t hack it mate. The MRA are scum for doing things like that in such an uncritical fashion and have pretty much resigned themselves to be anti-female rather than actively help men.

Have you ever considered that you are over analysing it? We kick men in the crotch on TV because it’s funny. We don’t do that to women because women are beaten every day. I should know, my aunt died due to severe complications of caused by her beatings. Renal failure, it took more than 20 years to kill her but you know what? Getting kicked about like that will do that to you. One hits a bit too close to home.

And here is the thing? Have you seen crotch humour recently? It’s rarer. Slapstick as a comedy form is dying because we fear children will imitate what they see.

Oh and for the record? I encourage people to not get circumcised except in the rarest of conditions where it is necessary. But I know two things.

1. Circumcision has some benefits and whether the benefits justify the risks for surgery we need to find out.

2. Recovery is better in children than adults and conservative surgeries are more likely in kids so it is better to do it young

Now here is the thing. Every time I discuss Female Genital Mutilation, someone  comes up and goes “WHAT ABOUT BOYS”. Do you see feminists crashing intactivist forums to demand action for FGM? Nope.

Misandry exists among the more radical feminists but you know what? They are a minority, they are a vocal minority but they rarely are the ones speaking about things. However if we compare the net social effect of misandry versus misogyny then the voice of radfems is not a major voice while many MRA simply parrot things we take for granted.

Oh. Well, I’m glad you’re here, Avi, to assert what constitutes as radical feminism and what doesn’t.

What constitutes as a radical men’s rights activist? Oh, right.

Seems to me that while Radfems have been sidelined, Radical MRA are given front and centre.

No, no one says that. We say that women can be strong, capable and independent. However women don’t grow up in that environment and from a young age are told that they cannot do things.

Yes. Yes, they do. Almost every feminist on the planet has one time or another said or otherwise implied that. In fact, what you just said right there “women don’t grow up in that environment” just proves their point. Only men – I’m sorry, boys – grow up in an environment where they can be strong, capable and independent? Girls never get that? Do you have any evidence to support this conclusion, or are you just pulling information out of your arse again?

A simple example.

Indian girls are not told that maths is not for them. End result? 50% of Engineers are Women. A huge difference compared to the USA and UK.

Want more? Indian women are more likely to stay at home and be housewives. Why? Cultural Expectations. Your culture makes you expect certain things.

Are you seriously arguing something that we know harms men because of one SIMPLE statement?

Real Men Do Not Cry. Do you know how much depression gets hidden by ignoring this stupid fact? How many men suffer under the weight of their expectations? But here is the thing? While our expectations suck we are given a lot more freedom and treated with greater seriousness and capacity than women are.

If you think otherwise then congratufuckinglations, you suck as an MRA since you actually are supporting a world view that harms men SOLELY to fuck over women.

Weird, I thought it was gender traitor and rape apologist. Women who stay at home aren’t rejecting feminism. However we do realise that women are expected to give up careers with greater frequency than men are.

What do you mean ‘expected to’? By whom? The invisible shadow daddy government?

Shadow? I thought I told you! We meet at the Unicorn on every 2nd Satuday. We are planning a pub team soon!

Yes because you grew up thinking “House Husband” is a valid career opportunity for a bloke.

In addition due to the wage gap and difficulty of women to progress men are simply “better” off staying in a job. In addition men are derided for being “househusbands” making them less likely to be at home.

Sounds like it’s a matter of culture. In my country, men (or husbands) staying at home is normal. They’re even encouraged to by the government.

.Which is puzzling since you seem to think everyone else’s culture is like yours. In Saudi Arabia they don’t let women out unless they have a male guardian. Did you know that?

Have you ever considered that feminism rails against culture? And that (I repeat) The patriarchy is just a term used to describe a culture that is anti-female with most of the power and agency is in the hands of men? While there exist a few negative tropes for men, the majority hit women the hardest?

Now here is the thing, if the genders were balanced in how they were treated, there would be no issue with this. But as it stands, women staying at home is a thing mainly because women are expected to do so.

In what era would that be?

This one. Women are still expected to trade careers for childcare more than men are and women still are treated in many parts of the world like second class citizens. To say otherwise is to basically ignore reality in order to push your anti-feminist ethos. Your ideas rely on denying that women have problems and issues caused by culture.

It’s just laughable, if the MRA really wanted to fight for men’s rights they would be pushing for the acceptance of house husbands rather than the denigration of feminists. And that’s basically the MRA in a nutshell.

Irony. I do love me some irony.

No mate.

I have been exceedingly patient. I have been exceedingly polite considering you levelled personal insults at me.

You don’t really  have an argument. You basically just think women have it equal and anyone pointing out inequalities just want to rule over men.

Comments

  1. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    Under “MRA is not a monolith”, I suggest the manboobz challenge: Show me one blog of a person who identifies as an MRA and has a following that identifies as an MRA who doesn’t do misogyny or abuse. Then we can talk about if the MRA is a monolith or not. Until then, I’ll be over here in reality.

  2. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    Sorry, that’s for Pitchguest, obviously. Good post, thanks Avicenna

  3. says

    Argumentum ad Dworkin fail – that’s the ultimate “straw feminist” position to rail against, never mind that pretty much nobody holds it anymore. Hell, aside from Dworkin hardly anyone held that position, then! It seems that the only people who take her seriously any more is the MRAs.

  4. Astrokid.NJ says

    Yo Avicenna.. howz it hanging dude? Long time.. just checking in.
    Of course I wont waste 10 minutes reading your long assed essays. Last time I checked, I caught you lying and you had major reading comprehension issues.
    https://storify.com/AstrokidNJ/avicenna-million-gods-of-ftb-a-liar-whose-reading
    If you have done some pas-cha-taap and praa-yas-chit (regret and paying-for-sins), then I can take you out of the dog house. Perhaps you could also learn to be concise. Very few have the patience of Pitchguest.
    What sayeth you?

  5. says

    Oh yes the MRA idiot who insists that India is great for women and ignores the still high rate of dowries, child infanticide, rape and sexual assault.

    I put up actual stories of women and their harassment. You seriously think you have an argument. It’s laughable.

    Here is the joke.

    Every time you open your mouth to tell me things, everyone just realises how stupid the MRA movement really is. If you had any love of your fellow man?

    Shut Up. The men are talking, we think your representation of us is harmful. We can do better than this, we can do better than a misogynist who would ignore reality in his own country solely to validate the rants of people like Dean Esmay.

    And my point here is simple. You are not helping men. You are not making life better for them. What you want is to make life worse for women. You are not uplifting men, you are not giving us agency, you are not making the world better for us.

    The fact you didn’t read anything I wrote is pretty typical MRA behaviour. Doesn’t read, doesn’t learn, insists we all do what you say.

    As for conciseness?

    You defend a rape culture in India. You are bad. It’s that simple.

  6. Astrokid.NJ says

    ..who insists that India is great for women and ignores the still high rate of dowries, child infanticide, rape and sexual assault.
    Once you dumb things down, you can accuse your adversaries of anything, eh Avicenna?
    ok bro.. we MRAs are fools. what do you have to say about ANTI-Feminist womens rights activist Ms Madhu Kishwar, of ‘Feminism in India has no integrity. You can’t trust it‘ fame where she addresses the dowry issues amongst others?
    You know what Kishwar said about Rape-Hysteria?
    http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1673&ptype=#.Uz8PQqJCk98

    Demand that police be trained to be gender sensitive: Our colonial minded police are no doubt very gender insensitive and have a disgraceful track record of handling cases of violence against women. But it is not as if they treat men any better as is illustrated by examples below. Police are trained to understand only two codes: a bribe from below or a kick from above. Whether the hand that bribes or the one who gets the kick delivered is that of a woman, a gangster or a terrorist makes little difference to the police. It is well known that the likes of Dawood Ibrahim exercise enormous influence on the police and can make it dance to its tunes. Our police have no hesitation in harassing and brutalizing men. Women are no doubt doubly vulnerable but only if they are not well connected. Ask the poor slum dwellers, street vendors, rickshaw pullers, auto rickshaw drivers and other vulnerable groups who survive on the mercy of the police, whether the men among them have any special advantage vis a vis the police

    You know she’s a supporter of MRAs, dont you? As are all the women who formed ‘All India Forgotten Women’s Association‘.

  7. says

    A good fisking, but I have to wonder at the efficacy of it. Pitchguest cannot be reached; he and his fellow Slyme are committed to their counterfactual, irrational, and pernicious bigotry.

    Did you do this more for the kids at home?

  8. Roy G says

    “I think Bangladesh is the only country which has had two female prime ministers but I may be wrong on that.”

    Current Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, is the second woman to hold the position.

    And to not make this post just about information: Very well written post, Avicenna.

  9. says

    Flewellyn – Both, it needed to be done. The problem is he doesn’t represent the slyme. No one does. It just so happens that libertarian speaking policies, effectively no moderation and a potent distaste for feminism goes hand in hand wiith the sort of anti-feminist MRA type that Pitchguest and indeed Astrokid so deeply embody.

    I think they just created fertile ground but the only thing that grows there is arseholes.

  10. says

    PGs skull is impenetrable, but I guess you know that. Must have had the patriarchy is not considered a conspiracy conversation about a million times. I’ve had the context conversation with him I’m sure, definitely have with the slymepitters in general. Still amazes me that they cannot understand that the feminist position about some words is that they are fine in some contexts but not others. This simple nuance is seemingly totally beyond the Pitters, I have to think it’s willful otherwise it’s hard to imagine how they could be so lacking.

  11. Kevin Kehres says

    In a way, I feel sorry for him and those of his ilk. Trapped in the 15th century like that. The general cluelessness of it all is pathetic.

    But then, it’s been a while since he reared his venom-tipped member. He’s had plenty of opportunity to educate himself and maybe even join the 18th century.

    He’s just frankly boring. He has not one single coherent idea worth considering or discussing.

    I know this take-down of him was cathartic. Won’t do him a bit of good. His eyes are shut, his ears are stopped, his nostrils filled with snot, without a sense of touch or even the basest level of common human decency.

    And no, if he comes around for some sport debate, I won’t honor him with the opportunity. Like many others have observed, it would look good on his resume; not so much on mine.

  12. leni says

    1. Endeavour to not be female
    2. Endeavour to not be in India

    Noooo! The female privilege is the best there!

    Well second best. Saudi Arabia is first, where every woman gets a free driver and shopping escort.

  13. leni says

    @ Astrokid:

    Women are no doubt doubly vulnerable but only if they are not well connected.

    I don’t think I really need to add to that.

  14. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Indira Gandhi was voted to power in India and was a strong Prime Minister, but she is still one woman among men. Thatcher? I think Bangladesh is the only country which has had two female prime ministers but I may be wrong on that.

    Israel came agonisingly close to having two female prime Ministers with Golda Meir – a famously strong leader being the Jewish states PM from 1969 to 1974 and Tzipi Livni* winning more seats for her Kadima party in the 2009 Israeli elections but not quite being able to form government.

    What do you think of those female leaders Avicenna – note Israel was the third nation on the globe to have a female PM.

    Also, although I guess its a somewhat different thing, England is one of many nations to have had multiple queens (as in the actual monarchs sense) including consecutive Queens Elizabeth the Great and Queen “Bloody” Mary I getting a Queenly hat-trick if you count Lady Jane Grey’s brief and disputed tenure in 1553 as legit.

    * See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzipi_Livni#2009_elections

  15. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    PS. After a bit more research New Zealand / Aotearoa has had two female Prime Ministers – Jenny Shipley in from 1997 -1999 and then Helen Clark from 1999 till 2008 – a consecutive period of female government.

    Sirimavo Bandaranaike serve d as PM for Sri Lanka incl. when it was known as Ceylon for three terms from 1960–65, 1970–77 and 1994–2000 and there’s a wiki-list of other female Pm’s here :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_prime_ministers

    which notes quite a few serving multiple terms of office.

  16. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    PPS. @ 8. Roy G

    “I think Bangladesh is the only country which has had two female prime ministers but I may be wrong on that.”
    Current Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, is the second woman to hold the position.

    D’oh! I missed seeing that both here and in the wiki-list, sorry. The other Norweigan female PM for the curious was Gro Harlem Brundtland in 1981, then 1986 to 89, and a third time in 1990 to 96.So that’s something, a few things actually I’ve learnt for today, thanks.

    And to not make this post just about information: Very well written post, Avicenna.

    I second the second sentence. As for the first one, hey, what’s wrong with that? I ,for one, like informative comments!

  17. says

    Couldn’t get through the full post, but I think we would agree that the MRA’s should have been all over defending that Met’s player for taking paternity leave. That it must not have been high on their radar speaks volumes.

  18. Pitchguest says

    No. You ignored what I wrote.

    -snip-

    That is an exceptional word salad you concocted just there, and it has absolutely *nothing* to do with what I wrote about Slutwalks or feminists’ contention that women shouldn’t be called sluts. Well done. Truly you are a wordsmith of the ages.

    And it doesn’t paint all men as potential rapists. Don’t be “THAT” guy. Have you actually seen or read any of those posters?

    It was a campaign to reduce the rate of rape. The “Don’t be that guy” posters were directed towards men. Targeting the rapists, obviously, but who are the rapists? The campaign is plainly saying that men all have the potential to be rapists and the posters are urging men not be “that” guy. It’s condescending. It is insensitive to *men* who’ve been raped, especially since it only seems to address rapes of women by men. But I guess that’s “punching up”, eh, Avi? Women can also be raped – by other women. But I digress.

    And I’m sorry, but I’m not going to waste my time on your strawmen arguments. Moving on.

    Sure… but Andrea Dworkin is not writing at A Million Gods. I have always been sex positive and my work has always provided care and assistance to sex workers.
    I don’t see what this has to do with anything. Porn is just porn. A fair few readers are involved in it and don’t consider the sex industry to be bad unless it is forced and there is a clear delineation between voluntary and involuntary sex workers and porn.

    I chose Dworkin as an example because she was known for her anti-porn activism. A stout feminist with a dislike for pornography, and it didn’t matter to her if people in porn – women, specifically – vowed they weren’t being taken advantage of in any way. To her, the matter was a done deal. Absolute. And she was not the only feminist vying for a ban on pornography. The thing is, though, Dworkin also wrote books where her characters sometimes outline their fetishes and they were quite sexual. Like pornography. It was the hypocritical aspect I was going for.

    If you want a more contemporary example, I’d say Greta Christina is a dead ringer.

    If you are unaware, the BDSM community has had issues with abuse that boils down to “this lady likes being hit, so I hit her” without going into safety and consent.

    I still don’t know what this has to do with the argument. Is the BDSM community attempting to ban pornography?

    On this blog conglomeration there exists both me and Taslima Nasrin who are both considered feminists and who both have different ideas. I repeat….
    Not a monolith. Hell, I even consider the MRA to not be a monolith. People like Paul Elam are many shades better than people like Roosh.

    Do you now? Which is why you tend to put them all in the same basket?

    By the way, Roosh is a PUA, not an MRA.

    Considering how few women are on any abortion debate in the government? Considering how often it’s been men or indeed religious pushes by women who are trying to fit into a patriarchal society. This is something well noticed. That decisions on women’s healthcare are often made by men who have no idea what they are talking about.

    Mate. Who gets to participate in abortion debates is decided by commitee. They are invited. Abortion POLICY, however, is decided by the majority vote. As far as I know, a debate on abortion is neither relevant nor conclusive of the end result that comes from the majority vote. It’s true that women have not always had the right to vote, but that was then. This is now. In most parts of the world, women have been able to vote and enter public office since before the first World War. To blame legislation that seeks to outlaw or diminish access to abortion on men alone is naïve.

    The majority of cutters in Female Genital Mutilation are other women. The Burkha is enforced by other women. Many a time the dowry death of a young Indian lady is due to the mother-in-law.
    But understand the thing that helps enforce it are expectations that are included in this. The patriarchy isn’t an organisation that meets on every third weekend to decide how to trample women in our man shoes but includes things like this. These things are not happening a bubble or a vacuum and are in general for the benefit of men.

    Look, Avi. We live in different cultures you and I. What I’ve been trying to tell you is that our two cultures are not interchangable. We don’t cut the clitoris off little girls. We think it’s obscene. We don’t (normally) cut the foreskin off little boys either. Neither of those are traditions or rituals worthy of note over here. The only exception to the rule which is acceptable (though in my view still reprehensible) is circumcision. In the States, the latter has become an almost normal part of the birth process of male infants.

    If the patriarchy was such an overriding force that it crossed barriers, then clearly female genital mutilation would be performed everywhere – for the continued subjugation of women. But it’s not. It’s an Islamic custom that only in certain parts is considered commonplace. We don’t force women to wear a burkha. We don’t have dowry deaths. How is it that the patriarchy – which has existed and influenced our lives since time immemorial – has such a strong presence in some countries, but dwindling or nigh on non-existent in others? How is it that the patriarchy is unable to transfer from one place to another without complications?

    FGM is done due to an aesthetic issue and to guarantee fidelity. Cosmo’s entire photoshop aesthete is to promote the ideal that men have of women and a huge amount of it is to “drive men wild” and a lot of it is poorly researched and outright bad advice.

    What? Cosmo? FGM? I can’t deal with this rambling nonsense.

    You seem to think that women reached equality the day they got the vote and that’s when feminism stopped being relevant. I am afraid you don’t realise that a lot of feminism is dedicated to breaking women out of roles and societal norms that are simply widely accepted so that women have a better chance at opportunity.

    I have made no such claim, and I have never denigrated the objective of feminism. What I have denigrated are the methods to achieve those efforts and people who supposedly identify as feminists but act anything but.

    And as I said, the Patriarchy isn’t an organisation but a cultural and social pressure for people to conform and behave to certain roles. This can be as radical as Afghanistan or as egalitarian as Finland.

    Ahahahahahaha, what??

    The patriarchy exists but not in the straw man way you seem to think.

    No, clearly not. The patriarchy seems to be as dynamic as the Amazon rainforest. The definition keeps changing every day. I don’t know who to trust anymore. (By the way, I don’t really think the patriarchy is an invisible shadow daddy government. I just think it’s bullshit.)

    See the funny thing is “I was falsely accused” of rape.

    Indeed. A third hand account by an anonymous source. As I recall, you blamed Rich Sanderson and the ‘pit for that. Never apologized.

    And I have had nothing by nice conversations with Rebecca Watson and Heina Dadabhoy. Because here is the thing.

    Gee. I wonder why. Couldn’t have anything to do with the schism – or chasm, more like – that’s formed over the years, on people who dissent on the subject of feminism and those who don’t. For instance, currently Ben Radford is in the middle of a lawsuit of alleged sexual harassment and assault, for which he may have been falsely accused. Does Skepchick represent both sides? Do they fuck. Radford hasn’t seen eye to eye with the Skepchick clique therefore he’s being hanged out to dry. The same thing here on FtB. Because he’s on the wrong side. I’m telling you right now, if the same thing were to happen to me, they wouldn’t care less.

    Yes, if you were genuinely falsely accused of rape they would be sympathetic to your cause. More so than the anti-FTB brigade who have been “rather distasteful”.

    Yes, Avi. Fighting fire with fire IS “rather distasteful.”

    Are you suggesting the Men’s Rights Movement on Reddit and indeed “various websites” didn’t get together to make it harder to report a rape at Occidental College?

    No. I’m not suggesting anything. Read my post again.

    False rape allegations are insanely rare.

    I don’t give a shit. To call attention to false rape allegations “rape apolegetics” is still a fucking stupid thing to say.

    False rape allegations are relatively rare.

    What??

    I repeat, the MRA would like 0.25% of cases that are faked to represent the majority of cases …

    What is this overarching, monolithic ‘MRA’ you speak of? And no, I don’t think they want it to represent the majority of cases. But feminists keep going on about a patriarchy that constantly oppresses and subjugates them, about the evils of men (white, heterosexual, cis men specifically) and the violence perpetrated against women. Meanwhile statistics show that men are victims in domestic violence as much as women are, but to bring this up is “derailing.” More likely they want an equal representation and not be demonised as potential rapists, sexual predators or worse. Which unfortunately has become a staple in feminist discourse. (Or should I say “much” feminist discourse? I wouldn’t want to generalise.)

    Sure maybe in your strange world …

    MY strange world? No, I’m afraid the target of your ire is much more closer to home.

    ARGH YOUR SYMPATHY! IT BURNS! IT BURNS!

    If you expect sympathy when you’re just as willing to misrepresent your opponent, you’ve got another thing coming.

    [About Renee Hendricks] She was doing something for AVfM at the time or whatever. However I was not a fan of her defence of them.

    No, she wasn’t. You are talking out of your arse.

    You mean AVfM …

    AVfM? I couldn’t give a toss. I was referring to your smear of Renee. She is not an MRA. A Voice for Men is not her site, she doesn’t support it, and she definitely doesn’t support the rapes in India. She occasionally comments there, but that doesn’t imply support. She occasionally reads it, but that doesn’t imply support. If she said the MRA aren’t bad, but A Voice for Men then wrote an article that hinted the rapes in India were deserved, that STILL doesn’t imply support, nor does it indict the entirety of the MRA because the MRA isn’t a monolith, now is it? Stop talking shit.

    And you said nothing about the fact I demonstrated repeated and frankly stupid actions by anti-feminists and MRA that include
    1. Support of the Indian Rapists (the ones who killed Nirbhaya)
    2. Support for the Taliban
    3. Support for the harassers and abusers of the Steubenville Rape Victim
    And the makers of such arguments are held in high esteem among the MRA. Do you grasp that? Or must I break out the sock puppets?

    Please. So many self-proclaimed feminists who have said and done appalling things but still held in high regard among the feminist heirarchy. Does it indict the entirety of feminism?

    I am sure MRA aren’t a monolith, however …

    Brilliant.

    Let’s look at Reddit’s MRA base.

    This is from r/feminism

    Not wearing goggles of any description, I see the two pages are both filled with self-congratulory circle jerking and the objective to fuck over the other. Neither of them have a consistent narrative that seeks to co-exist with the other.

    I did ramble on …

    Ha! Second understatement of the century.

    … but I did have a point to make.

    Ah.

    That the numbers are equal but more women are hurt in more serious ways.

    The same, but somewhat misconstrued by your statement there. It says the numbers are equal, but men have the CAPACITY for greater harm than women. Which makes sense, since we are sexually dimorphic species after all. (Paging Hornbeck, paging Hornbeck!) It doesn’t say more women are hurt in more serious ways, that would be embellishing.

    Have you considered telling your MRA friends …

    My what, sorry? My MRA friends?

    Because your argument yourself boils down to “See how shitty things are for men! That’s why we don’t want women’s lives to get better!” rather than “This is shitty for men, we need some help on this”.

    You’ll have to forgive my ignorance, but I don’t see how “they just wish we stopped harming them” in regards to women makes for a balanced discussion on domestic violence.

    Is that why all your presidents bar one have been White and Male? I mean seriously? 50% should be female and the demographies should be balanced. Instead we can see a distinct gender bias in politics. Now if we paid attention to major gaffes we would see why this is.

    What? Should be? The electorate in America is half female, half male. Women there have had the right to vote and stand for electoral office since 1913. Which means that male presidents since then have been voted in by both men *and* women. Do you understand how democracy works? Statistically women have been in the majority in the US since the late 20th century. If all women should have voted for Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election, she undoubtedly would have won. But they didn’t. Must’ve been patriarchy, eh?

    Men were sent to die as cannon fodder because to quote Sun Tzu “Land is the basis of the State”. Because the net state could benefit from more land. Women were not kept away from warfare because men were magnanimous. They were kept away because they were seen as incompetent and fragile and incapable of killing.

    Of course they were. Patriarchy! *shakes fist* Except I’d bet that if you asked the majority of those interned at the Normandy grave site if they really wanted to go to war to die because they were “magnanimous”, they’d most likely respond they would rather be home with their friends and family. And I’m a bit confused as to why only some men were sent away to die, but some didn’t because they had … money? Status? It’s almost as if it was a matter of class, but no. That would be ridiculous. Men. Magnanimous. Patriarchy. That’s better.

    Seriously? Listen to me very very carefully.

    -snip-

    Please. Stop. That was just a bunch of fluff. It had nothing to do with what I said. Piece of advice: get an editor.

    I put up examples of your MRA friends stating that a 16 year old girl deserved to get raped because she fancied football players and you think pointing out that we find crotch attacks on TV funny for the same reason we find the 3 stooges funny is worse?

    Again with this “MRA friends” shit. And no, not crotch shots! Circumcision! You know, that religious, ritual procedure where you cut off part of the boy’s penis? I’ve mentioned it a few times in this post. This might count as repetition. And you know what? I could not give two shits about what some other assholes are saying about 16 year old girls. That is their cross to bear. Yours is saying that circumcision is humorous because it’s “punching up.” Because all those infants, of creeds and colour and ethnicity and nationality, are such masses of privilege that it’s a real knee-slapper when someone a scissor to their nether regions.

    Now here is the thing. Every time I discuss Female Genital Mutilation, someone comes up and goes “WHAT ABOUT BOYS”. Do you see feminists crashing intactivist forums to demand action for FGM? Nope.

    Maybe because the issue of circumcision is being dismissed and called humorous and “punching up”?

    Seems to me that while Radfems have been sidelined, Radical MRA are given front and centre.

    Heh. Indeed. Because the Watsons, the Sarkeesians, the Richards and the Parks, are not radical or extreme in their rhetoric at all.

    Indian girls are not told that maths is not for them. End result? 50% of Engineers are Women. A huge difference compared to the USA and UK.

    … wuhhh… in what other culture are girls told that maths isn’t for them? Are they in the UK and the US? Really?

    Are you seriously arguing something that we know harms men because of one SIMPLE statement?
    Real Men Do Not Cry. Do you know how much depression gets hidden by ignoring this stupid fact? How many men suffer under the weight of their expectations? But here is the thing? While our expectations suck we are given a lot more freedom and treated with greater seriousness and capacity than women are.

    What? No! Seriously. This is such a rambling mess. Where did I imply that men aren’t harmed by stereotypes? This is the nth fucking strawman in your post. It’s also the nth fucking non-sequitur. “Real Men Do Not Cry.” Yes. This is a problem. Where did I say different? All I did was I disputed your fact that feminists never say it’s the fault of society that women adhere to beauty standards and peer pressure.

    Then you said that women don’t grow up in an environment where they can be strong, capable and independent. Newsflash: India is not the fucking world, mate. Is it like that in most of Europe? Nope. Is like that in most of America? Nope. But the thing is, I’ve never once said that culture is encompassing. So if standards are different in India, well, then that’s because they’re different in India. However feminists (there I go again!) are the ones who insist that they are constantly kept down by men by virtue of the patriarchy, which they INSIST is encompassing. But that can’t be right, since standards are different country to country. So someone must be wrong. The question is, who?

    If you think otherwise then congratufuckinglations, you suck as an MRA since you actually are supporting a world view that harms men SOLELY to fuck over women.

    For the last time, I am not an MRA. Get it through your thick skull.

    Yes because you grew up thinking “House Husband” is a valid career opportunity for a bloke.

    Erm. I grew up thinking it was *normal* and… a valid choice. I realise it might not be universal everywhere, but over here many men do, in fact, stay at home.

    Which is puzzling since you seem to think everyone else’s culture is like yours.

    Wha, wha and whaa? In your post alone, you have mentioned the cultures of India and the UK probably about ten times. I briefly mentioned how things work where *I* live because YOU seem to think that the so-called patriarchal structure is the same everywhere. You said it’s patriarchy, I said it sounded like a matter of culture. The rest you made up in your own head. And yes, I did know that about Saudi Arabia. But it bears repeating!

    Have you ever considered that feminism rails against culture? And that (I repeat) The patriarchy is just a term used to describe a culture that is anti-female with most of the power and agency is in the hands of men? While there exist a few negative tropes for men, the majority hit women the hardest?

    Yes, patriarchy. Not the patrilineal patriarchy, but the feminist theory version of patriarchy, which NO ONE have been able to prove – by the definition it currently has – exists. At least, not without omitting logic and reason and common sense. It’s the modern boogeyman feminists use to blame for all the world’s ills. That and rape culture.

    This one. Women are still expected to trade careers for childcare more than men are and women still are treated in many parts of the world like second class citizens. To say otherwise is to basically ignore reality in order to push your anti-feminist ethos.

    Actually, it’s FACING reality, because all cultures are not the same! To say women are still treated as second-class citizens in many parts of the world DOES NOT MEAN they are treated as second-class citizens in this part of the world! It’s simple – fucking – logic. In this era, women are for the most part able to vote, able to stand for electoral office, able to start a business, able to buy their own property, able to start their own bank account, and so on and so forth. This is different from OTHER ERAS where these rights were dialed down or reduced or not existing altogether, which means that things have changed. Dramatically.

    Are women still expected to trade their careers for childcare? Expected to? I would say no. I really have no experience other than where I live and anecdotal evidence from friends living elsewhere, like Spain, Switzerland, Italy, France, the UK and the US. But I can say with confidence that OVER HERE women are not expected to trade their careers for childcare. Also, how is disagreeing with your statement that women are expected to trade in their careers for childcare an anti-feminist ethos? I don’t know about you, but I’m using FACTS to back up my assertions. Are YOU?

    Your ideas rely on denying that women have problems and issues caused by culture.

    Irony again. I love it.

    No mate.
    I have been exceedingly patient. I have been exceedingly polite considering you levelled personal insults at me.
    You don’t really have an argument. You basically just think women have it equal and anyone pointing out inequalities just want to rule over men.

    Christ. Where do you get your delusions from?

  19. johngreg says

    Pitchguest said:

    Where do you get your delusions from?

    Answer: Avi is a (ahem) doc-to-be; no doubt he prescribes them.

  20. says

    Radford hasn’t seen eye to eye with the Skepchick clique therefore he’s being hanged out to dry.

    Conspiracy theorist thinking, what a surprise from the pitters :)

    Amazing they can get a JREF research fellow and TAM speaker to concoct false allegations for them, IS NO MAN SAFE FROM THESE MAGIC SKEPTIC HARPIES!?

  21. Pitchguest says

    Do they know you call them harpies?

    I imagine they would be very cross with you. Very cross.

  22. Holms says

    That is an exceptional word salad you concocted just there, and it has absolutely *nothing* to do with what I wrote about Slutwalks or feminists’ contention that women shouldn’t be called sluts. Well done. Truly you are a wordsmith of the ages.

    In which you rebut a criticism not by offering counterargument, but by simply discaring the entire text. Oh and some snide sarcasm.

    It was a campaign to reduce the rate of rape. The “Don’t be that guy” posters were directed towards men. Targeting the rapists, obviously, but who are the rapists? The campaign is plainly saying that men all have the potential to be rapists and the posters are urging men not be “that” guy. It’s condescending. It is insensitive to *men* who’ve been raped, especially since it only seems to address rapes of women by men. But I guess that’s “punching up”, eh, Avi? Women can also be raped – by other women. But I digress.

    That campaign targets male-against-female rape because it is the heavy majority of all rape. Men are the most common aggressors, woment the most common victim. Targetting this form of rape is justified by statistics, but I see you intend to blur that by bringing up female-against-female and X-against-male rape with no mention that they are overwhelmingly less common.

    Insterestingly, you neglect to mention that men are most frequently raped by men, and that the most likely victim of a woman rapist is another woman. So yes, I guess you *do* digress.

    I chose Dworkin as an example because she was known for her anti-porn activism …

    If you want a more contemporary example, I’d say Greta Christina is a dead ringer.

    a) Avicenna’s point remains – Andrea’s views have very little support and thus are a poor representation of feminism. It would be like citing the secular pro-life brigade and concluding that atheism is therefore pro-life.

    b) I dislike speaking for other people’s point of view, but from what I have gathered, Greta Christina is about as sex positive as it gets, and is also generally supportive of the sex industry, including porn. In what way is she even remotely similar to Dworkin?

    c) Te be blunt, Your comparison is so poor I’m questioning if you’ve ever read any of Greta’s posts on sex and pornography.

    Who gets to participate in abortion debates is decided by commitee. They are invited.

    Committees that are disproportionately comprised of men, frequently even 100% male.

    They are invited. Abortion POLICY, however, is decided by the majority vote.

    Unless it is a public referendum, the public doesn’t get a vote at all, meaning your ‘women can vote’ point is moot. The real situation is that legislation votes involve the government officials of that state / federal house… who are disproportionately male.

    What? Cosmo? FGM? I can’t deal with this rambling nonsense.

    And yet you insist on returning here, attempting to rebut posts you admit to being unable to comprehend. Also, while I can see the point that Avicenna’s writing style is much more ‘stream of consciousness’ than ‘professional essay’, I followed it just fine. Maybe read it again?

    No, clearly not. The patriarchy seems to be as dynamic as the Amazon rainforest. The definition keeps changing every day. I don’t know who to trust anymore. (By the way, I don’t really think the patriarchy is an invisible shadow daddy government. I just think it’s bullshit.)

    Are you even remotely aware that you responded to Avicenna’s “The patriarchy exists but not in the straw man way you seem to think” comment with a strawman?

    For instance, currently Ben Radford is in the middle of a lawsuit of alleged sexual harassment and assault, for which he may have been falsely accused. Does Skepchick represent both sides? Do they fuck. Radford hasn’t seen eye to eye with the Skepchick clique therefore he’s being hanged out to dry. The same thing here on FtB. Because he’s on the wrong side.

    You may as well admit that you only skim read the criticisms levelled at Ben Radford’s conduct, you are just that wrong. His actions are what have been criticised every step of the way, and are also the reason he does not ‘see eye to eye’ with Skepchick / FTB.

    Seriously, read the details of the criticisms rather than just the heading.

    I don’t give a shit. To call attention to false rape allegations “rape apolegetics” is still a fucking stupid thing to say.

    Pointing the plain fact that that false allegations can and do happen is not an example of rape apologetics.

    Assuming that all rape allegations are false are false and must be treated as false until convicted – despite copious evidence that convictions are rare, that taking proceedings to court is rare, that only a fraction of rapes are even reported, and that these multiple levels of rarity and inaction are used to intimidate rape victims out of reporting, and that the first course of action is usually to blame the victim, and that dropped charges due to said intimidation are characterised as ‘she wouldn’t have dropped charges unless the charges were fake’, despite actual convictions of false allegations being the rarest outcome of any rape charge – is.

    But feminists keep going on about a patriarchy that constantly oppresses and subjugates them, about the evils of men (white, heterosexual, cis men specifically) and the violence perpetrated against women. Meanwhile statistics show that men are victims in domestic violence as much as women are, but to bring this up is “derailing.”

    If the conversation is, for example, that rape is disproportionately perpetrated by men against women, and a person rebuts with ‘but but domestic abuse is fairly equal’ as if that were the same thing, then yes, I too would criticise that rebuttal as being the wrong statistic for the current conversation.

    Please. So many self-proclaimed feminists who have said and done appalling things but still held in high regard among the feminist heirarchy. Does it indict the entirety of feminism?

    Do I smell another Dworkin reference coming on? … Oh. No examples, just a generalisation. Lucky for you you have not been railing against overly general comments, or else that would make you a hypocrite!

    What? Should be? The electorate in America is half female, half male. Women there have had the right to vote and stand for electoral office since 1913. Which means that male presidents since then have been voted in by both men *and* women. Do you understand how democracy works? Statistically women have been in the majority in the US since the late 20th century. If all women should have voted for Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election, she undoubtedly would have won. But they didn’t. Must’ve been patriarchy, eh?

    I see you are firmly in the ‘women can vote, therefore patriarchy is impossible’ camp. I suppose you also feel that way about racialised politics? Homophobia? Pure naivete.

    Of course they were. Patriarchy! *shakes fist* Except I’d bet that if you asked the majority of those interned at the Normandy grave site if they really wanted to go to war to die because they were “magnanimous”, they’d most likely respond they would rather be home with their friends and family. And I’m a bit confused as to why only some men were sent away to die, but some didn’t because they had … money? Status? It’s almost as if it was a matter of class, but no. That would be ridiculous. Men. Magnanimous. Patriarchy. That’s better.

    Apparently you are not aware that patriarchy can also harm men; in this case, by holding men to arbitrary but harmful standards of ‘manliness’.

    Heh. Indeed. Because the Watsons, the Sarkeesians, the Richards and the Parks, are not radical or extreme in their rhetoric at all.

    I know you think you’re being sarcastic here, but you’re accidentally correct. Watson, Sarkeesian and Richards are not radical or extreme in their rhetoric at all. Well put.

    (I left out Parks because I’m not sure who you’re referring to and thus cannot make a judgement on that body of writing.)

    … in what other culture are girls told that maths isn’t for them? Are they in the UK and the US? Really?

    Another example of attempted sarcasm that is accidentally correct. Yes, the US and UK. Yes, really. A whole bunch more, too. The point being that mathematical ability is not tied to gender, but mathematical representation is, thanks to the cultural discouragement that is still in effect in many areas.

    For the last time, I am not an MRA. Get it through your thick skull.

    You may not embody the activist portion of the MRA acronym, but you sure do spout a lot of the same bullshit.

    Yes, patriarchy. Not the patrilineal patriarchy, but the feminist theory version of patriarchy, which NO ONE have been able to prove – by the definition it currently has – exists. At least, not without omitting logic and reason and common sense. It’s the modern boogeyman feminists use to blame for all the world’s ills. That and rape culture.

    Two can play the ‘proof by fiat’ game. Patriarchy exists, and it is congruent with logic, reason and common sense.

    Your move!

    In this era, women are for the most part able to vote, able to stand for electoral office, able to start a business, able to buy their own property, able to start their own bank account, and so on and so forth.

    Good thing you haven’t been railing against generalisations at all, else that would make you a hypocrite! <== redux.

    Are women still expected to trade their careers for childcare? Expected to? I would say no. I really have no experience other than where I live and anecdotal evidence from friends living elsewhere, like Spain, Switzerland, Italy, France, the UK and the US. But I can say with confidence that OVER HERE women are not expected to trade their careers for childcare.

    Oh okay, only in the UK, US, Spain, Italy, Switzerland and France then, plus an unspecified ‘many parts of the world’ earlier. Whew! I thought it was a wide scale problem, but luckily it doesn’t occur ‘where you live’, therefore it …isn’t a problem? We had better stop arguing against it at all then!

    Sarcasm aside, the fact that you may not have witnessed the pressure is in no way an indication that there is no such pressure, unless perhaps you are a woman. But I suspect you are a man, meaning you are much less likely to notice it, especially if it is relatively subtle.

    Where do you get your delusions impressions from?

    I glean my impressions of you from your writings, and they largely agree with Avicenna’s take.

    Mainly that, while you don’t claim to be an MRA, you are identified as one by having identical arguments and rhetoric, combined with the reek of the slymepit evident in your FTB conspiracy silliness.

  23. Pitchguest says

    Here we go again.

    In which you rebut a criticism not by offering counterargument, but by simply discaring the entire text. Oh and some snide sarcasm.

    “Discarding.” And yes, because it had no relevance to what I said. I made a single point about Slutwalks and he responds with an essay, none of which had anything to do with the original claim. Am I supposed to pick it apart piece by piece, even though it’s filled with strawmen and non-sequiturs? No thanks.

    That campaign targets male-against-female rape because it is the heavy majority of all rape. Men are the most common aggressors, woment the most common victim. Targetting this form of rape is justified by statistics, but I see you intend to blur that by bringing up female-against-female and X-against-male rape with no mention that they are overwhelmingly less common.

    Insterestingly, you neglect to mention that men are most frequently raped by men, and that the most likely victim of a woman rapist is another woman. So yes, I guess you *do* digress.

    I couldn’t give a donkey’s buttocks if it’s justified by statistics, it’s still condescending, it’s still insensitive and more importantly, it didn’t work. Why weren’t there similar campaigns to reduce domestic violence or robbery or stabbings? And indeed, even if the rape statistics state men are the majority of offenders, is it really productive to paint all men as potential rapists in that regard? Why not make it neutral and make it a campaign against rape in general?

    Moreover, how can you say that I neglect to mention that men are raped (or that women are raped by other women) when I explicitly mention it in the very quote you’re addressing? Did you really not see that? Whether they’re frequently raped by other men or other women is besides the point, however, because the campaign SPECIFICALLY targeted men raping women, not men raping other men, or women raping other women.

    a) Avicenna’s point remains – Andrea’s views have very little support and thus are a poor representation of feminism. It would be like citing the secular pro-life brigade and concluding that atheism is therefore pro-life.

    b) I dislike speaking for other people’s point of view, but from what I have gathered, Greta Christina is about as sex positive as it gets, and is also generally supportive of the sex industry, including porn. In what way is she even remotely similar to Dworkin?

    c) Te be blunt, Your comparison is so poor I’m questioning if you’ve ever read any of Greta’s posts on sex and pornography.

    a) Is of no consequence. She was one of the most well-known outspoken feminists with an aversion to pornography. My point was, though, that no matter how strongly she felt about pornography and the objectification of women that she drew from it, in her books she outlined her own fetishes that were sexual in nature, akin to what happens regularly in pornography. She was a hypocrite is what I was trying to get at.

    b) Greta Christina has almost nothing in common with Dworkin, except her hypocrisy about sex and pornography. She has written blog posts castigating people’s sordid sex fantasies and tut tutted, but at the same time has written several erotic novels – one of which has one of her characters fantasising getting gang raped. I mean, what?

    Committees that are disproportionately comprised of men, frequently even 100% male.

    Oh dear. Is this another one of those “Society is against women” tropes? (That which no one ever says?) I don’t know how these committees operate, I don’t know how the process works and I don’t know how it’s decided who gets to come on and have their say and who doesn’t. All I know is, it doesn’t matter one iota what people say during these debates because they have no say in the majority vote.

    Unless it is a public referendum, the public doesn’t get a vote at all, meaning your ‘women can vote’ point is moot. The real situation is that legislation votes involve the government officials of that state / federal house… who are disproportionately male.

    In the US, perhaps. In which case, both the male and female vote becomes moot. And if I recall correctly, abortion in the US is legal throughout the country. Clearly the disproportionately male legislators didn’t all oppose abortion by virtue of them being male.

    And yet you insist on returning here, attempting to rebut posts you admit to being unable to comprehend. Also, while I can see the point that Avicenna’s writing style is much more ‘stream of consciousness’ than ‘professional essay’, I followed it just fine. Maybe read it again?

    Comprehend? I said nothing about the ability to comprehend his posts. I said it was rambling nonsense. He brings up FGM and the reason it’s frequently being performed (aesthetic), and then he suddenly brings up Cosmo and ideals men have of women and how it’s designed to ‘drive men wild’ and how it’s poorly researched and I lost the plot. Meanwhile the original claim was that feminists blame their problems on the patriarchy, Avi disputing this and saying not everything women do is helpful for other women, me saying basically no shit, and then he’s off on a tangent about FGM and Cosmo. Fuck knows.

    Are you even remotely aware that you responded to Avicenna’s “The patriarchy exists but not in the straw man way you seem to think” comment with a strawman?

    Oh for fuck’s sake.

    Look. It’s simple. At one point in our little conversation, I used the phrase ‘invisible shadow daddy government’ to refer to the patriarchy. I wasn’t being serious. This was before you joined the conversation. (Though I would’ve expected you to follow it ‘just fine.’) Avi took that as a strawman. So I clarifed; I don’t really believe the patriarchy is an ‘invisible shadow daddy government’. I just think it’s a bunch of tosh. Clearer now? Or do I have to bring out the sockpuppets?

    You may as well admit that you only skim read the criticisms levelled at Ben Radford’s conduct, you are just that wrong. His actions are what have been criticised every step of the way, and are also the reason he does not ‘see eye to eye’ with Skepchick / FTB.

    Seriously, read the details of the criticisms rather than just the heading.

    His actions? The Scientific American article that started it all laid out allegations of sexual harassment/assault against an unnamed colleague (later revealed to be Ben Radford) and that was immediately taken as gospel by FtB, Skepchick and the A+ clique. Not a single moment of dissent. He had been quiet for months following the allegations, which was a further sign of his guilt apparently (according to the commentariat) and when you FINALLY hear from him (announcing his lawsuit against Stollznow), again he is completely and utterly denigrated.

    There was talk of extortion, hiring expensive lawyers to force a settlement, only for him later to admit that he’s borrowed thousands of dollars. What happens next? A retraction letter is posted detailing his (supposed) innocence and how it was supposed to be notarised by Stollznow in a few days (as revealed by email correspondence with Baxter [her husband] and Radford) and once more there is no scepticism to be had. Radford is demonised, Stollznow is a saint. Afterwards Stollznow starts a fund to get money for court fees which reaches its goal after twenty four hours. Radford responds by posting evidence on a site that details how Stollznow may have falsified dates on emails to make her case more solid. And, of course, the reaction is as you would expect. His actions? His actions have been trying to defend himself against supposedly libellous statements by Stollznow, and no one here has even ATTEMPTED to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Pointing the plain fact that that false allegations can and do happen is not an example of rape apologetics.

    Assuming that all rape allegations are false are false and must be treated as false until convicted – is.

    What? First of all, who is it that is assuming that all rape allegations are false? Second of all, not assuming that all rape allegations are false but assuming that all rape allegations are not 100% to be believed is not the same thing. Because the narrative that’s espoused by feminists (sorry, ‘many’ feminists) is that the victim is always to be believed. Which isn’t very good when the objective is to find out the truth. Rather what *should* be espoused is ‘taking them seriously.’ Saying ‘I take you seriously’ instead of ‘I believe you’, and withholding judgment altogether until you have all the cards, is no more rape apology than telling someone to lock their door is blaming them for home invasion.

    If the conversation is, for example, that rape is disproportionately perpetrated by men against women, and a person rebuts with ‘but but domestic abuse is fairly equal’ as if that were the same thing, then yes, I too would criticise that rebuttal as being the wrong statistic for the current conversation.

    Don’t patronize me. Avi said, “they just wish we stopped harming them.” In context with domestic abuse and domestic violence, this completely removes culpability on women and puts it squarely on the men. The point is not to generalise against either sex, if you can manage that.

    Do I smell another Dworkin reference coming on? … Oh. No examples, just a generalisation. Lucky for you you have not been railing against overly general comments, or else that would make you a hypocrite!

    Sikivu Hutchinson, frequently writes racist articles about white people, implies white men are all racists, and claims the atheist movement is composed of old, white men, to enact a white supremacist view. Still respected by feminists.

    Adria Richards, took a picture of two men because they made a joke about ‘dongles’ and tweeted it out in public with the purpose to shame. The men got called into the manager’s office; one of them got fired. She said it made her feel like Joan of Arc. Meanwhile on her own twitter feed, she makes euphemistic jokes about dicks in socks and no one bats an eye. Still respected by feminists. (She got fired, too, but got various work offers straight after.)

    Rebecca Watson, the stupid things she’s said and done is too much to mention on this comment section. The most recent one is where she insinuated atheist men needs to call women cunts or their balls would shrivel up to form a ‘mangina’. On a drive for blood cancer research. Still respected by feminists.

    Suey Park, misconstrued a tweet by the Colbert Report that was taken out of context, started the twitter hashtag #CancelColbert and went on a tirade about white men and white privilege and all manner of rhetoric that would make KKK members blush. When it was revealed that she had misrepresented the situation, she doubled down and claimed it was satire. Still respected by feminists.

    Jennifer McCreight, an aspiring scientist, wrote a blog post that said she had infiltrated the ‘boys club’ and accused the atheist movement of being nothing but old, privileged, white, racist men, and said we needed a ‘third wave of atheism’. That became what we know as A+, which created a McCarthyist ‘you’re either with us or you’re against us’ clique and it’s still going strong today. Still respected by feminists.

    Should I go on? That’s just off the top of my head.

    I see you are firmly in the ‘women can vote, therefore patriarchy is impossible’ camp. I suppose you also feel that way about racialised politics? Homophobia? Pure naivete.

    What patriarchy are we talking about? The radical patriarchy of Afghanistan, or the egalitarian patriarchy of Finland?

    Also, I merely made it clear to Avi that his point about presidents being disproportionately male since 1913 (at least in the US) have as much to do with women as with men.

    Apparently you are not aware that patriarchy can also harm men; in this case, by holding men to arbitrary but harmful standards of ‘manliness’.

    Yeah, no. That is exactly the *opposite* of what I think. Hence my point. Except I don’t call that condition ‘patriarchy’, I call it ‘class.’

    I know you think you’re being sarcastic here, but you’re accidentally correct. Watson, Sarkeesian and Richards are not radical or extreme in their rhetoric at all. Well put.

    Indeed, because all feminists think of men as unable to call women cunts or their balls would shrivel up, that videogames enforce sexism in society and getting men fired from their jobs for making harmless jokes as being ‘Joan of Arc’. This is completely normal feminist behaviour.

    Another example of attempted sarcasm that is accidentally correct. Yes, the US and UK. Yes, really. A whole bunch more, too. The point being that mathematical ability is not tied to gender, but mathematical representation is, thanks to the cultural discouragement that is still in effect in many areas.

    Let me get this straight. Girls are (in the UK and the US) told, verbatim, ‘maths are not for you’? They are told this by society as a whole? Ingrained in their culture is that little girls should be discouraged (and *are* discouraged) from entering fields that delve into mathematics? Oh, no. You said ‘many areas’. So not the whole country, then, just in ‘many areas’? And I suppose in those ‘many areas’ where girls are discouraged that boys are contrarily *encouraged* to pursue that field? Yes? No?

    You may not embody the activist portion of the MRA acronym, but you sure do spout a lot of the same bullshit.

    So ‘MRA bullshit’ is looking at evidence and trying to form an educated opinion from both sides?

    ‘MRA bullshit’ is not generalising your opponent and an attempt to reach common ground?

    Two can play the ‘proof by fiat’ game. Patriarchy exists, and it is congruent with logic, reason and common sense.

    Your move!

    Er, yeah. Evidence, please. Boom.

    Good thing you haven’t been railing against generalisations at all, else that would make you a hypocrite! <== redux.

    How is saying that women are ‘for the most part’ able to do this and that in this particular era, generalising in any respect whatsoever?

    Oh okay, only in the UK, US, Spain, Italy, Switzerland and France then, plus an unspecified ‘many parts of the world’ earlier. Whew! I thought it was a wide scale problem, but luckily it doesn’t occur ‘where you live’, therefore it …isn’t a problem? We had better stop arguing against it at all then!

    What the fuck are you talking about? Avi is the one who keeps (and has kept) insisting that patriarchy is a problem everywhere. He pointed out the problems that occurs in India and the UK. In contrast, I point out what happens over here, where I live. (That would be the people’s monarchy of Sweden.) Of course, he also adds these convenient prongs that paints patriarchy as this kind of, sort of, sometimes not even oppressive or subjugative at all, when he said that it could be as radical as Afghanistan and as egalitarian as Finland. Just how can something like the patriarchy, a societal peer-pressure to oppress and subjugate women, be called ‘egalitarian’ in any respect? Do you know? You who know so much about the patriarchal structure, please. Regale me.

    I glean my impressions of you from your writings, and they largely agree with Avicenna’s take.

    Mainly that, while you don’t claim to be an MRA, you are identified as one by having identical arguments and rhetoric, combined with the reek of the slymepit evident in your FTB conspiracy silliness.

    So I get identified as an MRA no matter what? I don’t get a say in it? Did we enter the McCarthy era? Is MRA the new word for communist? Ridiculous.

  24. johngreg says

    Ah, Pitchguest, trying to dialogue with Holms is a complete waste of time. He follows, very much, the Hornbeckian mode: shift the focus; willfully misinterpret/misread; misquote; narrow in on the least important of his opponent’s points; misstate opponent’s points; obfuscate; invent; derail, derail, derail; shuffle; start again.

  25. Pitchguest says

    He should be glad I’m so patient. A lesser man would have tossed his surlies by now.

  26. Holms says

    “Discarding.” And yes, because it had no relevance to what I said. I made a single point about Slutwalks and he responds with an essay, none of which had anything to do with the original claim. Am I supposed to pick it apart piece by piece, even though it’s filled with strawmen and non-sequiturs? No thanks.

    You responded to his reply dismissing it as missing your point, and yet his reply was to point out that you had missed the point of the slutwalk idea, and hence that your premise “If feminists contend no one should be called a slut…” was flawed. A very brief reply might have been to point out that the ‘if’ of your statement was wrong and leave it at that, but I’m fairly sure you’d have a cry about not getting an explanation instead.

    Hence, a big ol’ essay explaining what the aim of the slutwalks were as a longer way of pointing out that what you had inferred was incorrect.

    And yes, if you want a rebuttal taken seriously, you point out the errors it makes rather than simply dismissing it. For that matter, if simply dismissing something was sufficient, why did you not simply settle for that in your reply to Avicenna? Why did you not settle for that in your reply to me? Instead, both of those replies were long, point for point rebuttals, so it seems you already agree with me on that point.

    …it’s still condescending, it’s still insensitive and more importantly, it didn’t work.

    Condescending: fucking diddums. Any man feeling insulted at the entirely true fact that men are the overwhelming perpetrators of rape should be getting angry at the macho culture that expects men to be complicit in the dudebro backslapping / slut shaming crap. If you aren’t a party to that shit, then you aren’t the target of the campaign and hence aren’t being insulted.

    Insensitive: bullshit. Targetting the most common form of a thing (i.e. the male against female form of rape) is not a statement that there are no other forms. The campaign did not target everything because they are not prevalent, and there does not exist a cultural practice of celebrating female rapists, nor of victim blaming male rape victims. Male against female rape on the other hand, frequently results in lax punishment or even approval for the perpetrators (‘boys just being boys’ and other dismissals), plus shaming of the victim (‘she was caught being a slut and is now just ashamed’ and the rest of the shit).

    Doesn’t work: …for fucks sake, the article you link to says the opposite of what you claim. “The other thing is that more and more people are coming forward to say, ‘Hey, this happened to me and wasn’t right.'” Meaning, direct evidence that the awareness campaign raised awareness you dishonest bastard.

    Why weren’t there similar campaigns to reduce domestic violence or robbery or stabbings?

    Who says they don’t exist?

    And indeed, even if the rape statistics state men are the majority of offenders, is it really productive to paint all men as potential rapists in that regard?

    Apparently, yes. As for the poor poor men feeling miffed at being tarred by that brush, as noted above, take it to the people that support that atmosphere that congratulates men for ‘scoring’ while scolding the women for being ‘scored’ or whatever.

    Why not make it neutral and make it a campaign against rape in general?

    Because such things are not prevalent. The campaign was specific to the problem, and benefitted from that tight focus. See: the results you linked. Actually read the link this time, though.

    Moreover, how can you say that I neglect to mention that men are raped (or that women are raped by other women) when I explicitly mention it in the very quote you’re addressing?

    I didn’t say that you neglected to mention the simple point ‘men can be raped’, I said that you neglected to mention that the gender most likely to rape a man is another man. I also did not say you neglected to mention the simple point that ‘women can rape too’, I said you neglected the point that even female rapists disproportinately target women.

    I added naunce to what you said.

    Interestingly, what that naunce says is that even if we look at the corner cases (male rape victims, female rapists), we see that the aggressors still skew towards men, and the victims still skew towards women.

    a) Is of no consequence. She was one of the most well-known outspoken feminists with an aversion to pornography. My point was, though, that no matter how strongly she felt about pornography and the objectification of women that she drew from it, in her books she outlined her own fetishes that were sexual in nature, akin to what happens regularly in pornography. She was a hypocrite is what I was trying to get at.

    You made a point against her views (in the text quoted in the OP), that she was hypocritical in her treatment of porn.

    Avicenna already conceded that her your argument against her, and went on to mention that your point was irrelevant: “Sure… but Andrea Dworkin is not writing at A Million Gods. …”

    You replied by insisting that your point was that she was totes hypocritical on the subject of porn: “It was the hypocritical aspect I was going for.”

    My first reply to you was that it continues to be irrelevant: “Avicenna’s point remains – Andrea’s views have very little support and thus are a poor representation of feminism.”

    Your reply to me was to say that she was hypocritical on the subject of porn: “My point was … She was a hypocrite is what I was trying to get at.”

    I, right now, am reiterating that your point is irrelevant to this blog and to feminism in general today. We get it. Are you going to insts that she is totes hypocritical again? We’ve never disputed that! IT’S JUST IRRELEVANT.

    Greta Christina has almost nothing in common with Dworkin, except her hypocrisy about sex and pornography. She has written blog posts castigating people’s sordid sex fantasies and tut tutted, but at the same time has written several erotic novels – one of which has one of her characters fantasising getting gang raped. I mean, what?

    Nope, still bullshit, still pretty sure you don’t read her blog. She’s very much fine with people having and acting their fantasies, with the entirely reasonable caveat that any other parties need to be respected.

    I don’t know how these committees operate, I don’t know how the process works and I don’t know how it’s decided who gets to come on and have their say and who doesn’t.

    That sounds like an indirect way of admitting that you aren’t in any position to say one way or the other whether these discussions are male dominated or not, and yet earlier you objected to Avicenna’s assertion that the discussion is dominated by men. I agree that you plainly don’t know how these discussions are run, so why did you object to their characterisation as being male dominated?

    Not that it matters, because people better informed than you have pointed out many times that the discussion is unjustifiably dominated by men. The committees are predominantly chaired by men, men decide who else to invite to the discussion, men dominate the government where legislature is voted on. It’s almost entirely dudes all the way down.

    Hence, the point remains that this discussion about women remains dominated by men.

    All I know is, it doesn’t matter one iota what people say during these debates because they have no say in the majority vote.

    I addressed that point already. The general population of a nation may be 50/50 (or very near), but legislation is not voted on by the general populace, it’s voted on by the fucking government… which is predominantly male.

    I said nothing about the ability to comprehend his posts.

    …I lost the plot.

    Yes, exactly, his stream of consciousness style of writing confused you and you missed his point. That’s what I said!

    So I clarifed; I don’t really believe the patriarchy is an ‘invisible shadow daddy government’. I just think it’s a bunch of tosh.

    Gotcha; you used some hyperbole, which was taken at face value, which you then dropped. A pity that you still seem to think the idea of society being male-dominated is rubbish, but I guess we need baby steps with you.

    The Scientific American article that started it all laid out allegations of sexual harassment/assault against an unnamed colleague (later revealed to be Ben Radford) and that was immediately taken as gospel by FtB, Skepchick and the A+ clique. Not a single moment of dissent.

    Incorrect. The harassment claim was treated cautiously at first, followed by increase acceptance as more details came out and were scrutinised; markedly different to your mischaracterisation of immediate acceptance.

    The fact that you appeared not to be aware of there even being a discussion, that the acceptance of the accusation was gradual, was what led me to believe that you only skimmed the articles on that topic.

    Don’t patronize me.

    Says the guy who has been nothing but snide and patronising for the entire conversation.

    In context with domestic abuse and domestic violence, this completely removes culpability on women and puts it squarely on the men. The point is not to generalise against either sex…

    Sure, domestic abuse is one topic with statistics that suggest awareness campaigns take a fairly generalised approach. Strange though that when the statistics of a different conversation (rape) suggest an approach aimed largely at men, you …also seem to want a generalised approach.

    Which is it? Do we base our approach based on the statistics of that topic [leading to a gender neutral approach for domestic abuse but a gender specific approach for rape] or not?

    Sikivu Hutchinson, frequently writes racist articles about white people[1], implies white men are all racists[2], and claims the atheist movement is composed of old, white men,[3] to enact a white supremacist view[4]. Still respected by feminists.

    Adria Richards, took a picture of two men because they made a joke about ‘dongles’ and tweeted it out in public with the purpose to shame[5]. The men got called into the manager’s office; one of them got fired[6]. She said it made her feel like Joan of Arc[7]. Meanwhile on her own twitter feed, she makes euphemistic jokes about dicks in socks and no one bats an eye[8]. Still respected by feminists. (She got fired, too, but got various work offers straight after.)

    Rebecca Watson, the stupid things she’s said and done is too much to mention on this comment section. The most recent one is where she insinuated atheist men needs to call women cunts or their balls would shrivel up to form a ‘mangina’[9]. On a drive for blood cancer research. Still respected by feminists.

    Suey Park, misconstrued a tweet by the Colbert Report that was taken out of context, started the twitter hashtag #CancelColbert and went on a tirade about white men and white privilege and all manner of rhetoric that would make KKK members blush[10]. When it was revealed that she had misrepresented the situation, she doubled down and claimed it was satire[11]. Still respected by feminists.

    Jennifer McCreight, an aspiring scientist, wrote a blog post that said she had infiltrated the ‘boys club’ and accused the atheist movement of being nothing but old, privileged, white, racist men[12], and said we needed a ‘third wave of atheism’. That became what we know as A+, which created a McCarthyist ‘you’re either with us or you’re against us’[13] clique and it’s still going strong today. Still respected by feminists.

    1) Lie.
    2) Lie.
    3) Inaccurate. The prominent atheist population is skewed towards old white men.
    4) Lie.
    5) Partial truth. You omit the reason for doing that though: that the joke was sexual and thus inappropriate. Which by the way was borne out by the organisers.
    6) Partial truth. Again you omit an important fact: the same feminists that applauded her action were subsequently very disapproving of the punishment, stating that it was heavily disproportionate.
    7) Partial truth. No mention however of the fact that she said it on the day of the convention, when the only action levied against the men was a lecture on appropriate behaviour from convention staff. Interesting that your phrasing seems to imply that she was celebrating the firing, when that had not happened yet.
    8) Partial truth. You are treating the two very different venues – twitter and a professional convention – as if they have the same behavioural requirements.
    9) Lie. Much like your ‘shadow daddy government’ thing earlier, that was hyperbole. It was extremely obvious if you bother to watch the video in which she says it. Have you watched it?
    10) Not the the writing of hers that I’ve seen, but perhaps you have a link?
    11) Likewise, I’m not aware of her having misrepresented anything, she was upfront about the hashtag being hyperbole from the start. Link?
    12) Similar to #3.
    13) “What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not.”

    Every example you trotted out (with the possible exception of Suey Park) was so riddled with pertinent omissions or rank untruth, this entire section could be taken as a manual on how to conduct a discussion with absolutely no honest intent.

    Also, I merely made it clear to Avi that his point about presidents being disproportionately male since 1913 (at least in the US) have as much to do with women as with men.

    Again, gaining the vote does not by itself eliminate male domination of the government.

    Yeah, no. That is exactly the *opposite* of what I think. Hence my point. Except I don’t call that condition ‘patriarchy’, I call it ‘class.’

    The issue of class a.k.a. income disparity means that armed service, and hence wartime casualties, will be dominated by the poor. The issue of your ongoing intellectual dishonesty means that you will ignore the possibility of other contributing factors. The exclusion of women from the armed services – usually on spurious and/or patronising grounds – will mean that armed service, and hence wartime casualties, will be dominated by men.

    Put those together, and the result is that armed service, and hence wartime casualties, are dominated by men that are poor.

    The fact that men did the majority of the dying in WWII (to continue with your specific example) is not because we are just so vastly less selfish than women; it’s because militaries have had discriminatory practices that exclude women from participating. Woment didn’t force conscription on men; men did.

    We’re not more selfless than women, but we have historically barring women from expressing that same gesture of selflesness.

    Girls are (in the UK and the US) told, verbatim, ‘maths are not for you’? They are told this by society as a whole? Ingrained in their culture is that little girls should be discouraged (and *are* discouraged) from entering fields that delve into mathematics? Oh, no. You said ‘many areas’. So not the whole country, then, just in ‘many areas’? And I suppose in those ‘many areas’ where girls are discouraged that boys are contrarily *encouraged* to pursue that field? Yes? No?

    No, neither I nor Avicenna said or implied ‘verbatim’.

    No.

    Yes.

    By ‘many areas’ I actually meant ‘many nations’ rather than portions within the UK and US.

    I have no idea what you suppose.

    Er, yeah. Evidence, please. Boom.

    Uh, yes, that’s exactly the point I was making. My ‘proof by fiat’ was a counter to your own such fiat, which was simply a denial stated in direct opposition to the conversation at hand. Essentially, the statement I quoted said ‘nope’ to all of the points raised thus far, and my counter to this was basically ‘yep’.

    How is saying that women are ‘for the most part’ able to do this and that in this particular era, generalising in any respect whatsoever?

    Probably that fact that taking western nations to represent the globe IS a generalisation.

    In contrast, I point out what happens over here, where I live. (That would be the people’s monarchy of Sweden.)

    Fucking phew! I was dreading that you might turn out to be a Strayan.

    Of course, he also adds these convenient prongs that paints patriarchy as this kind of, sort of, sometimes not even oppressive or subjugative at all, when he said that it could be as radical as Afghanistan and as egalitarian as Finland. Just how can something like the patriarchy, a societal peer-pressure to oppress and subjugate women, be called ‘egalitarian’ in any respect?

    I haven’t the faintest idea about what Finland is like other than ‘cold’, so I can’t really unpack that point for you. I can only suggest that patriarchal influences on a culture can vary greatly; one culture may actively bar women from being able to drive, while another may insinuate that women are unsuited to, oh I don’t know, STEM careers.

    johngreg
    Ah, Pitchguest, trying to dialogue with Holms Steersman is a complete waste of time. He follows, very much, the Hornbeckian Steersian mode: shift the focus; willfully misinterpret/misread; misquote; narrow in on the least important of his opponent’s points; misstate opponent’s points; obfuscate; invent; derail, derail, derail; shuffle; start again.

    Fixed.

    Back to Pitchguest
    He should be glad I’m so patient. A lesser man would have tossed his surlies by now.

    You may well have patience, but I would love it if you could add ‘intellectual honesty’ to your list of virtues.

  27. Holms says

    Pitchguest:
    “So, can someone tell me: what is the point of clarifying things, if people like Holms exist to cherrypick them out of existence?”

    The best part of that little pity party was the bit where no one gave a shit about it. But if you managed to avoid death by sheer ennui, I’d still love to hear your explanation for how you managed to have so many basic errors in your list of “feminists who have said and done appalling things” bit, especially your blatantly dishonest take on Adria Richards.

  28. Blanche Quizno says

    Please don’t forget Geraldine Ferraro, the vice presidential candidate who ran with presidential candidate Walter Mondale in the 1984 Presidential Election. The Democratic duo lost to Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.

  29. Blanche Quizno says

    To summarize: The first Italian American vice-presidential candidate in US history was also the first woman vice-presidential candidate in US history. Her name was Geraldine Ferraro, and she ran alongside presidential candidate Walter Mondale in the 1984 presidential election, which was 30 years ago this year.

    Sarah Palin does not deserve any honors, certainly not for being the first woman vice-presidential candidate. Geraldine Ferraro was first – and MUCH better. Heck, Sarah Palin wouldn’t even finish out her term as governor because she was determined to obsessively chase her 15 minutes of fame in the spotlight. And who’s raising her Down Syndrome child while she’s out self-gratifying all over the conservative media?? I guess those old white guys like to watch…

  30. Pitchguest says

    It’s very simple, Holms. If you omit important statements that clarifies the other statements you cherrypick, then why should I even make the effort to respond charitably? Better still, why should I even respond at all if I know you’re going to do it again?

    I’m not going to waste my time unpacking that shit. Besides, while you say that you ‘follow it just fine’ I notice several instances where you clearly don’t. For example, saying I ‘lost the plot’ doesn’t mean I don’t understand, it just means I don’t know where he’s going. Indeed, whatever his point was, it was lost in his nigh neverending barrage of nonsense. But again, that doesn’t say anything about general comprehension. What John said about your mode seems to be spot on. I’m not going to indulge such dishonesty.

  31. Holms says

    I could raise the objection that dismissing a rebuttal, without offering a single counter argument beyond your declaration of ‘OMG CHERRY PICKING’ to be a fairly weak response and unbecoming of an alleged sceptic – especially since the post you are dismissing highlights exactly the same dismissal by fiat tactic – but whatever. Clearly that didn’t take the first time, so I’ve no reason to suspect you will listen to reason this time around.

    Instead, I’d be satisfied if you simply explained issue that I find to be representative of your bullshit approach.

    Your post:
    “Adria Richards, took a picture of two men because they made a joke about ‘dongles’ and tweeted it out in public with the purpose to shame[5]. The men got called into the manager’s office; one of them got fired[6]. She said it made her feel like Joan of Arc[7]. Meanwhile on her own twitter feed, she makes euphemistic jokes about dicks in socks and no one bats an eye[8]. Still respected by feminists. (She got fired, too, but got various work offers straight after.)”
    My criticisms:
    5) Partial truth. You omit the reason for doing that though: that the joke was sexual and thus inappropriate. Which by the way was borne out by the organisers.
    6) Partial truth. Again you omit an important fact: the same feminists that applauded her action were subsequently very disapproving of the punishment, stating that it was heavily disproportionate.
    7) Partial truth. No mention however of the fact that she said it on the day of the convention, when the only action levied against the men was a lecture on appropriate behaviour from convention staff. Interesting that your phrasing seems to imply that she was celebrating the firing, when that had not happened yet.
    8) Partial truth. You are treating the two very different venues – twitter and a professional convention – as if they have the same behavioural requirements.

    That single passage and rebuttal highlights you at your most dishonest in intent / negligent in research.

  32. thetalkingstove says

    Pitchguest –

    Greta Christina has almost nothing in common with Dworkin, except her hypocrisy about sex and pornography. She has written blog posts castigating people’s sordid sex fantasies and tut tutted

    Any examples of this?

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=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>