Misogyny or racism? Such a difficult choice


Ha! Soraya pointed this out to me, from the New Yorker: GOP split over whether to emphasize misogyny or racism.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (The Borowitz  Report)—With less than two weeks to go until Election Day, there is a deep  divide among Republican leaders over whether to emphasize misogyny or racism as  the campaign’s closing theme.

In one camp is the Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who says that  his view that God is sometimes O.K. with rape is “gaining real traction with a  key demographic: men who don’t like women very much.”

“I can’t tell you how many misogynists have come up to me at my rallies and  said, ‘Thank you for saying what you said,’ ” he told reporters today. “I  think they’re like, finally, someone’s taking a more nuanced position on  rape.”

Ahahahahahahaha – ain’t it the truth.

But in the other camp is the former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, who  worries that the Republican Party’s emphasis on misogyny is threatening to drown  out its “winning message of racism.”

“I understand the appeal of Mourdock’s anti-woman theme, but I worry that  it’s going to overshadow our core value of racism, which is still our best shot  at winning this thing,” he said. “In politics, you’ve got to dance with the one  who brung you.”

Don’t forget homophobia.

I found some very excellent misogyny on Twitter just now.

 That’s the drill, you know. That’s why we talk about the threats and harassment – they are an opportunity and we are exploiting them. For what? Money! Fame!! Blog hits!!!

No actually that’s not why. We talk about them because they’re there, and they’re continuing. We think they’re bad, and should stop. That’s a normal, understood, accepted reason to talk about bad things.

 

Comments

  1. callistacat says

    Don’t be concerned that your wife is getting threats of murder and rape online, the most important thing here is that she doesn’t complain, like a good girl.

  2. julian says

    Don’t be concerned that your wife is getting threats of murder and rape online, the most important thing here is that she doesn’t complain, like a good girl.

    That’s what I’m stuck on right. Jesus, really? You’re going to brag your wife gets rape threats but doesn’t make a peep about the?

    I’m a pretty nasty person and have a while to go before I can call myself decent but… I dunno. That statement just makes me sick.

  3. Rodney Nelson says

    From what I can tell, the Republicans are going with both misogyny and racism. Some Republicans are emphasizing one, some the other, but they like them both. I notice that Condoleezza Rice is keeping a fairly low profile these days.

  4. says

    Hi Ophelia,

    I am ‘the wife’, Naomi. It is interesting that this topic came up because I started writing a blog last week about the rape and murder threats I received online. Most of these threats happened before Johnny and I married.

    callistacat: You are absolutely right! My husband should have built a time machine, gone back to 2006 and 2007, and kicked the shit out of all those Muslims threatening to rape and murder me. Sure, we hardly knew each other back then. But facts are clearly something you are not interested in.

    At any rate, I am going to restructure that blog about the rape threats, and Ophilia is going to get an honorable mention as one of the biggest cunts on planet earth. Unless she plans on making an apology for calling my husband a misogynist, I plan on making several more images of her for the world to see.

    http://venturephilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/10/my-new-cereal-box-designs.html

    Cheers Darlings!

    Hugs and Kisses

  5. DLC says

    hey, if we could have a non-white woman running for president, they could cover both bases at once.

  6. julian says

    Unless she plans on making an apology for calling my husband a misogynist, I plan on making several more images of her for the world to see.

    Wow… Where to start.

    ok

    1)Your husband was not called a misogynist. Something he said was held up as an example of misogyny.

    2)callisticat said nothing about anyone fighting. They and I express shock anyone would brag about something like this.

    3)That is just so petty and childish.

  7. LeftSidePositive says

    I can’t decide whether my dominant emotion for Naomi is disgust or pity.

    Although it is kind of funny to see a comment that practically has “SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION!!!” in flashing neon lights.

    Oh, and using a gendered slur to show how utterly outrageous it is that anyone finds the actions of you and yours misogynistic? Ur doin it rong…

    Furthermore, basic reading comprehension fail: Naomi, no one thinks your husband should have “defended” you or whatever from the rape and death threats. Callistacat made the reasonable assumption given his wording that this was a current issue, but that was not the point. The point is that his values are utterly fucked up–his having pride in your shutting up about it is absolutely disgusting. His refusal to see that calling out this behavior acts as a vital step in making it socially unacceptable is just plain stupid. His attitude that he gets to police the responses of those receiving rape and death threats is vile. His using the rape and death threats to you as a cudgel to silence others is minimizing and demeaning of your experience, whether you admit it or not, and is certainly dismissive of other women’s experiences.

    I should also point out that getting rape and death threats from people you perceive as an “Other” is a very different thing from getting them within your own community–Rebecca Watson has said repeatedly that getting rape and death threats from ardent Christians and other theists was just funny, but when they started coming from people in her own community and often with the indulgence of people she thought she could trust, then she felt very isolated and vulnerable. So, you do not get to project your experience onto someone else and think you know exactly what they’re going through. Basic human decency fail.

  8. says

    julian

    1. C man did say that my husband should have done something when his wife is getting rape threats.

    FACT – those threats happened before we married.

    2. Ophelia did call him a misogynist – look at what she wrote. It is right there in English. “I found some very excellent misogyny on Twitter just now.” Am I to understand that you do not know how to read the English language.

    3. Yes, I am childish. In fact, I proudly admit it. Unlike you people, I actually enjoy my life. I am not actively looking to be offended.

    It is pretty clear you people are a bunch of fruit cakes. You talk crap about my husband and I without knowing a thing about us. You call him a woman hater, without knowing him.

    C man went on to write, “that she doesn’t complain, like a good girl.” That comment is just rude. Without knowing me, or the facts, he calls me a ‘girl’. FYI: I am well over the age of 18.

  9. LeftSidePositive says

    Misogyny is not only perpetrated by conscious misogynists, so I think it’s Naomi’s English comprehension that fails. Not to mention a very childish tendency toward essentialism…

    Naomi: again, no one cares that the threats happened before you were married. The point is that IN THE QUOTED TWEET, he is acting dismissive and flippant about them.

    And callistacat isn’t calling you a girl. Ze is accurately pointing out that your husband is treating you like a little girl and boasting about your silence, and has fucked-up values that taking abuse apparently makes you a better person.

    Oh, and one more thing: you are showing us all we need to know about you both. No, we may not know your mother’s maiden name or your favorite color, but what the two of you have written is more than ample evidence that you both have some seriously fucked-up gender politics.

  10. Nepenthe says

    I can’t decide whether my dominant emotion for Naomi is disgust or pity.

    Yeah, after viewing that link and assuming that her apparent loathing of non-bikini-model women reflects some self-loathing (since the likelihood of her being part of the infinitesimally small number of women who fit into that class is, well, infinitesimal), it’s a tie. I’m going to call this new feeling pisgust.

  11. Stacy says

    I started writing a blog last week about the rape and murder threats I received online.

    Just don’t complain about them. Because that would be opportunistic and exploitative.

  12. mildlymagnificent says

    I wonder about that ‘in sickness and in health’ side of their marriage vows for this couple. (Doesn’t matter what words they did or didn’t use – it’s part of the deal.)

    Some time in the next 40 years, this now married woman may get some similar on-line nastiness thrown at her, or maybe a child of theirs does. Will this oh so admirable husband support her if she reacts differently? Will she defend him so proudly if he then tells the distressed version of her that she should just suck it up?

  13. callistacat says

    Naomi says “callistacat: You are absolutely right! My husband should have built a time machine, gone back to 2006 and 2007, and kicked the shit out of all those Muslims threatening to rape and murder me. Sure, we hardly knew each other back then. But facts are clearly something you are not interested in.”

    @Naomi

    What the hell? I didn’t know he didn’t know you when you were getting those threats. Why did he bother mentioning them at all? He did say you didn’t complain and that that was a good thing. That is pretty messed up.

    But you attack me and say I’m not interested in facts when you don’t know anything about me. Jesus.

    Calling a Ophelia a big cunt for posting his tweet. Nice. Stay classy, Naomi.

  14. Sassafras says

    I like how he says Naomi isn’t opportunistic or victimhood-exploiting, then she comes here to gripe about Ophelia being mean to them and try to get traffic for her blog.

  15. callistacat says

    @Naomi

    I wasn’t calling you a girl, I was commenting on your husband praising your silence on the issue, which in our society is what “good girls” are supposed to do.

    “Unless she plans on making an apology for calling my husband a misogynist, I plan on making several more images of her for the world to see.”

    ^But that is definitely childish and pathetic. Grow up already.

  16. mildlymagnificent says

    OK, I did it. I have now read “lovely response”.

    Briefly put, Naomi is a stronger, better, more original, more fearless, prettier woman than any feeble FtBlogger.

    I hope I can save 90 wasted seconds from a few people’s lives by my (admittedly trivial) sacrifice.

  17. julian says

    1. C man did say that my husband should have done something when his wife is getting rape threats.

    FACT – those threats happened before we married.

    callistacat said nothing about action. They expressed shock (and contempt).

    Don’t be concerned that your wife is getting threats of murder and rape online, the most important thing here is that she doesn’t complain, like a good girl.

    That was callistacat’s comment. There’s no suggestion to beat anyone up. It’s outrage and contempt but not a call to “man up” or any other gibberish.

    2. Ophelia did call him a misogynist – look at what she wrote.

    Yes, look at what she wrote.

    “I found some very excellent misogyny on Twitter just now.”

    She found something misogynistic. The best people can say, repeat or perpetuate racist, homophobic, transphobic or otherwise bigoted ideas ad comments. If you want to argue that it wasn’t misogynistic that’s one thing. Demanding an apology for something that wasn’t said is ridiculous.

    3. Yes, I am childish. In fact, I proudly admit it. Unlike you people, I actually enjoy my life.

    It was also petty. Do you proudly admit to being petty?

  18. CrazyDWeirdo says

    This Naomi person is quite right with “This is the internet folks. Freaks are everywhere.”

    Just take a look at her blog.

  19. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    *blink*

    Well, for someone “not actively looking to be offended” Naomi sure likes to make some shit up so that she can be offended by it… Or that’s just her poor reading comprehension.

  20. saelpalani says

    Wow. Just Wow.

    Her husband and her made a video about this. I cannot believe the misogyny. Ok Ophelia, you didn’t say it, but I will. Both Naomi and her husband are misogynists. The video they made with her fake black eye while he jokingly pretends to have beaten her when she pleads with the audience that it was just a ‘fall’ is disgusting. In the video they actually complain Ophelia makes money on the net (oh and they’re not opportunistic at all with a blog post and a video right?). Then her husband calls Ophelia a dumb girl who would never get it.

    No, I guess not. As a WOMAN I will never get it that men think it’s ok for other males to threaten rape and violence over the internet. I will never get it that I’m supposed to somehow shut up about it.

    I hope those two NEVER have baby girls. I wonder what they’d do when she gets her first rape threats since in their mind it’s totally normal for this to happen?

    What we’re seeing here is two very immature, very sheltered and misogynist people who can’t get out of their own way.

  21. KaineDamo says

    The video they made with her fake black eye while he jokingly pretends to have beaten her when she pleads with the audience that it was just a ‘fall’ is disgusting.

    This is what is known on planet Earth as ‘humor’ and ‘satire’. And it may not be to your personal tastes, which is totally fine.

    The problem is taking your personal subjective opinion on what is and is not offensive, and trying to apply it to everyone else as if your subjective taste is objective fact. It’s not.

    That’s one of the points they made with their satire and it went totally over your head.

    The other point portrayed is their comfort with each other that enables them to joke about such topics.

  22. No Light says

    @24. Yeah, joking about domestic violence is hilarious.

    I know that I laughed all the time when I was being kicked across the floor, choked, punched in the stomach etc. So jokes about such a rib-tickling (albeit with closed fists) situation are twice as awesome.

    Those two deserve each other.

  23. KaineDamo says

    No, I guess not. As a WOMAN I will never get it that men think it’s ok for other males to threaten rape and violence over the internet. I will never get it that I’m supposed to somehow shut up about it.

    People use anonymity to say stupid, hurtful, mean spirited things. Welcome to the internet. This is the real issue here. Rape threats are not ok. And if anyone for a second thought these types of threats were legitimate, I hope the proper authorities are informed. Otherwise, what you’re dealing with is trolling. It’s impractical to think that blogging about it makes it stop. It doesn’t. In fact, it just feeds the trolling. There is no rule in life that says you must be protected from offense and unpleasant messages. Placing too much energy into it, and indeed, overstating the significance of trolling is not helpful.

    This article sums it up very well.

    http://musingsbysoggymog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/failing-at-feminism-how-to-guide.html

    If you put your opinions out there in a public forum, those opinions are subject to dissent and mockery – ownership of a vagina doesn’t change that.

    What sane reason could I possibly have to think I can say something people won’t like in a public space and expect not to get shit for it?!

  24. KaineDamo says

    @No Light

    Absolutely any topic without exception can be funny in the correct context. And if you disagree? Well that’s, like, your opinion man!

    What right have you to decide what is and is not funny to other people?

  25. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    What right have you to decide what is and is not funny to other people?

    A violent thug curb stomping someone can find it really funny. Hilarious. His mate standing by the side would probably confirm that the joke is the best ever.
    The person having their teeth knocked out probably isn’t laughing, but that idiot just doesn’t have any sense of humor, am I right?

    Point being:
    Just because some moron is laughing, doesn’t mean there is anything humorous.

  26. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    I know asking for people to be banned is gauche, but I wouldn’t mind if KaineDamo suddenly disappeared from this site never to be seen again. Just sayin’.

  27. KaineDamo says

    @Beatrice

    This is my very first time posting on FreeThoughtBlogs and it is awesome to see the red carpet rolled out for me. It’s as Orwellian as I’ve heard. Free thought?? Bah! Totally meaningless here. I say that humor is subjective and you want me banned.

    Do not project YOUR inability to differentiate between fiction and reality onto other people. Use some critical thinking, for crying out loud! Learn the difference between a personal opinion/belief and objective fact.

  28. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    (I have a bad feeling about this one [KaineDamo]… looks like they might go into seriously disgusting shit territory, that’s the reason for my #29, but I shouldn’t have started suggesting how Ophelia should run her place. Sorry, Ophelia!)

  29. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    Uh, shouldn’t you learn the difference between personal opinion and objective fact?
    Like, laughing at domestic violence is a pretty disgusting personal preference that deserves to be widely mocked by decent people, because it is objectively wrong.

  30. Forbidden Snowflake says

    What right have you to decide what is and is not funny to other people?

    What right do you have to tell other people what they should or shouldn’t be offended about?

  31. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    I apologized to Ophelia in my #31 for suggesting preemptive measures.

    But seriously, you’re not the first to come here with your novel, never heard before suggestions. You just struck me as especially callous, considering your response to No Light.

  32. Matt Penfold says

    Welcome to the internet.

    For some reason (stupidity is my guess) you seem to think that the Internet(note the correct spelling, it is a proper noun) is somehow abstracted from real-life. That is an error you need correct

  33. Matt Penfold says

    KaineDamo seems to be another of those who thinks freedom of speech means freedom from the consequences of what you say.

  34. KaineDamo says

    @Beatrice

    Have you ever watched Father Ted, the Irish comedy? There’s a couple on that show that are domestically violent with each other constantly. It’s fiction. No one is hurt. There is nothing objective about what you’ve said. Do you consider yourself a skeptic? Or logical whatsoever?

    It’s like saying, “how can people be entertained by Die Hard? Murdering dozens of people is objectively wrong”. Or, “how can people be entertained by the film Halloween? Serial murder is objectively wrong!” It’s not REAL!

  35. KaineDamo says

    @Matt Penfold

    You have me wrong. I do think there are consequences. I’ve pretty much said as much above, when I quoted an article on the potential consequences of putting your opinions in the public sphere.

    Let me make myself clear.

    What I think, is that you should have absolutely no protection from being offended.

  36. KaineDamo says

    What right do you have to tell other people what they should or shouldn’t be offended about?

    I don’t think I have that right at all. I just don’t think that you have any right of protection from offense.

  37. Matt Penfold says

    You have me wrong. I do think there are consequences. I’ve pretty much said as much above, when I quoted an article on the potential consequences of putting your opinions in the public sphere.

    Sorry, don’t believe you. Do you want another go at saying something credible.

    Please do not assume people here are as stupid as you.

  38. KaineDamo says

    @Matt Penfold

    That’s the second time you’ve called me stupid, but I’ve yet to see you present a cogent argument in response to my positions. And stating “I don’t believe you” in response to my stated positions shows a remarkable lack of tentative trust. How can we even begin to have a grown up conversation without just a little tentative trust? What reason do you have to not believe my stated positions?

  39. Matt Penfold says

    Oh, and there is big difference between causing harm and causing offence. KaineDamo needs to learn the difference.

  40. KaineDamo says

    I know the difference, Matt! Basically what I have heard so far is, a bunch of subjective emotion laden bullshit about the offensiveness of the fictional portrayal of domestic violence. Where is the harm?

  41. Matt Penfold says

    That’s the second time you’ve called me stupid, but I’ve yet to see you present a cogent argument in response to my positions. And stating “I don’t believe you” in response to my stated positions shows a remarkable lack of tentative trust. How can we even begin to have a grown up conversation without just a little tentative trust? What reason do you have to not believe my stated positions?

    A grown-up conversation would require you to be honest. Since you have already lied about what you said earlier, I cannot consider you honest.

    You clearly have no concept of how making a joke of something can legitimize it. Unless and until you remedy that gap in your knowledge you are arguing from a position of ignorance. Up until know I will accept that ignorance was genuine. From here on though it will be assumed to be willful.

    This is stuff that has been covered here time and time again. Can you explain why you are ignorant ?

  42. Sassafras says

    What reason do you have to not believe my stated positions?

    You came into this discussion to defend two “comedians” who called the blog author a cunt and attacked her with some of the crappiest photoshops I’ve ever seen outside of Geocities circa ’95, and scolded everyone for not having a sense of humor about it. You got tentative trust, you just burned through it so fast you didn’t even get to see it.

  43. Matt Penfold says

    I know the difference, Matt! Basically what I have heard so far is, a bunch of subjective emotion laden bullshit about the offensiveness of the fictional portrayal of domestic violence. Where is the harm?

    Oh stop playing games. You know what the harm is.

    Why all the pretence ?

  44. KaineDamo says

    @Matt

    Can you explain why you think your opinion is objective fact? Where have I lied?

    Your argument is incredibly transparent. In order for you to consider me honest, essentially I have to agree with your position. That’s awesome. Instead of just fulfilling your burden in the argument and presenting your case, you switch the burden entirely onto the opposition. And you’re calling ME dishonest? Fuck you, Matt.

    What, I just need to FtB more to realize the error of my ways? That’s not how a debate works. How about you show me something independent, something of a minimal value of peer review, that backs up your view that jokes legitimize harm in real life?

    That you don’t recognize the Orwellian connotations of your position is astounding to me. Who gets to decide which jokes are harmful? Is this to be implemented into law, and how is it to be implemented? Prison sentences for jokes deemed harmful, or just fines?

    When it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, I very much take the position of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. All is permissible, only up to the point that speech presents a clear and present danger. Jokes within a fictionalized context do not present this kind of danger even remotely.

  45. KaineDamo says

    Oh stop playing games. You know what the harm is.

    I almost feel like I’m arguing with a fucking creationist. “The evidence of creation is obvious! You know HIM!”

    If you have a cogent argument to make, just fucking make it.

  46. KaineDamo says

    @Sassafras

    The whole point of the conversation is centered around offense. I already know that you find them offensive. The question is, why should anyone care? Do you think you should be protected from them?

  47. Matt Penfold says

    Can you explain why you think your opinion is objective fact? Where have I lied?

    The harm done by racist, homophobic, sexist and other forms of hate speech is well documented. Both in terms of the harm done to individuals, and in legitimizing such behavior in society in general.

    I have already shown where you lied, so why ask again ?

  48. davidmc says

    Missing the point too. The domestic violence isnt the joke. Its how the couple change to hide it from the priest and if they weren’t catholic they could get divorced.

  49. KaineDamo says

    @Matt Penfold

    You have not shown that I have lied. You haven’t come anywhere close to any kind of demonstrable argument that fits the context of this conversation. You made a specific reference to hate speech. I disagree with you that fictionalized portrayals of domestic violence amounts to hate speech. It is your subjective opinion that it is hate speech. You have not made any kind of objective, demonstrable connection between the two. Who decides which kinds of fictional speech amounts to hate speech? See the Orwellian connotations of your position I’ve stated previously.

    I have one question for you. Is it possible that you could be wrong?

  50. Matt Penfold says

    If you have a cogent argument to make, just fucking make it.

    It has already been made, many many times. It has been made on this very blog, so you have no excuse for not knowing it.

    Stop being so fucking lazy. I am not here to hold you hand. If you come here not having done your homework, that is your fault. Quit blaming the rest of us for your ignorance.

  51. No Light says

    Kaine wants to know why we think he’s stupid. I’ll have a go.

    Father Ted is a piss-take of Catholicism. Ted is only a priest because families sent their first son to medical school, and the second to the seminary. Ted’s brother is a doctor. Ted sees priesthood as a way to have an audience, his greatest wish is to be on television.

    Father Dougal is a child. He doesn’t believe in god, he frequently laughs when reminded that catholicism holds bible stories to be true, because “Who could believe any of that?”

    Father Jack is a lecherous drunk, living out his days being able to act however he wants due to his title and advanced age. He used to be in charge of PE at the girls school he taught at, and reminisces fondly at the thought of netball practice on a warm day.

    You never see the three of them in any religious setting, except the mobile mass to save Dougal from the milk float bomb.

    Now to John and Mary, the violent couple. Kaine, being the simpleton that he is, thinks that the humour is supposed to be derived from the violence.

    Actually, again this is a satire remember, it is the RCC who are the targets for being too stupid (Dougal) too notice abuse happening under their noses, or too focussed on not rocking the boat (Ted) by mentioning it. Easier to go along with the couple’s pretence of a loving marriage, than to admit something is very wrong.

    It’s also an obvious dig at the Papal doctrine that says divorce is not allowed. This couple loathe each other, but what choice do they have? The death of one of them is the only way out, so they keep on trying to kill each other.

    Kaine, meanwhile, is sat chuckling away, “Hurr Hurr he just called her a bitch. That put her in her place!”

    So there you have it sunshine. Evidence that the muffin I just ate was more capable of intelligence than you are.

  52. KaineDamo says

    @davidmc

    I agree with you. Father Ted was immensely clever, and the relationship of that couple was clever satire on how people hid serious marriage problems in the Catholic community. Naomi and her husband had their own points to make, pretty much poking fun at the image built up of them by people that don’t know them. Whether or not people agree with them, or find them funny, isn’t the point.

  53. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Who gets to decide which jokes are harmful? Is this to be implemented into law, and how is it to be implemented?

    Before, you pretended to understand the concept of speech having consequences. Now you’re having a hissy fit, calling said consequences “Orwellian”, of all the overused words, all because someone called you stupid and someone else suggested that you be banned from this blog. This isn’t “Orwellian”. These are the consequences of your speech. Specifically, these are the consequences of you barging into a space in which sexism, slurs, violence, jokes about violence, the consequences of jokes about violence, threats, ways to deal with threats, trolls and ways to deal with trolls have been discussed extensively, failing to read or understand any of this background and shouting your naive folk wisdom a-la “don’t feed the trolls” at us.

  54. Matt Penfold says

    I have one question for you. Is it possible that you could be wrong?

    Yes. I don’t think I am, but I could be.

    I have a question for you. Do you intend to apologise for your lack of honesty, your willful ignorance and your deliberately missing the point ?

    Oh, and that you do not think making a joke of domestic violence cannot contribute towards a climate in which domestic violence can flourish, then you are woefully ignorant of the literature.

  55. Sassafras says

    @KaineDamo

    Actually, no. The conversation was about some idiot telling women to shut up and stop complaining about rape and death threats when you turned it around to be about us not knowing how to take a joke. I didn’t see anyone say that we should be “protected” from what offends us, but you don’t even want us talking about it! You ask why anyone should care, well, the people here care and have a right to discuss it, and if you don’t care, then why the fuck are you here? No one forced you to come join in the discussion. You talk on and on about people supposedly wanting to force their offense onto everyone and being Orwellian, but you’re the one that came here to demand everyone accept your view of the situation.

  56. KaineDamo says

    @Forbidden Snowflake

    I’m not really interested in the fact that I’ve been called stupid or that someone asked for me to be banned. That’s not what I think is Orwellian.

    What I think is Orwellian are the logical conclusions of the type of points presented here (presented as though they were objective fact rather than opinion), and I’m wondering how it would be practically implemented in society.

  57. KaineDamo says

    *Though I did refer to the suggested banning as Orwellian in the context that this place is called Freethouught, which reminds me of doublespeak, but that’s not even the main crux of the conversation.

  58. No Light says

    David beat me to the divorce thing while I was writing mine.

    Boggles my mind that someone would be so numb in the head to. think that Father Ted is just slapstick like Bottom, or Some Mothers Do ‘Ave Em. Baffling.

    I mean, the fact that none of the featured clergy demonstrate any adherence to papal doctrine? They’re. secretly married with a child, or gay, or lotharios, gambling addicts, halfwits who could never function in the real world.

    Hello, isn’t it really fucking obvious? I wasn’t even raised Christian and I can get it. I’m waiting for someone to write ‘Rabbi Mendy’, but I fear the tv companies would be too afraid to touch it.

  59. Forbidden Snowflake says

    What I think is Orwellian are the logical conclusions of the type of points presented here (presented as though they were objective fact rather than opinion), and I’m wondering how it would be practically implemented in society.

    Ah, so what you think is Orwellian is the stupid strawman you made up about us wanting to legally ban certain kinds of jokes even though nobody actually said so. I see.
    Well, let me explain it to you slowly: this is exactly where the consequences of speech come in. We, the people, are able to make the kind of shit you’re defending here socially unacceptable simply by not accepting it like it’s fucking weather, and by speaking out against it. Since this is exactly what Ophelia does in the OP, and you claim to understand the concept of consequences, it was extremely stupid of you to jump to the conclusion that people here want to ban speech.

  60. KaineDamo says

    @Matt Penfold

    No. Because, again, you have not made your case. It is not my job to make your case for you. That is not how a rational discussion works.

    It reminds me very much of this idiot at the Hannity forums (I used to lurk around there when I was bored during work years ago because I was curious about the batshit stuff they’d say), this asshole would make claims, would then be asked to back up his claims, and pretty much every time he’d say “I’m not doing your homework for you”. That’s not how it works. You are being an asshole. And saying that I am dishonest, when you’re using such a transparent tactic as trying to do shift away YOUR burden in the discussion, is just about one of the more dishonest things an individual can do during a debate.

    So again, fuck you.

  61. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    KaineDamo,

    I said laughing at domestic violence is wrong.

  62. No Light says

    Kaine – Freethought = free to think what you like, especially. a freedom to not be constrained by religious brainwashing

    Freethought =/= the ability to come into someone’s space, call them a cunt, wish rape on them, and then say “I’M JOKING! Why aren’t you laughing you uptight humourless bitch?”

    The blog itself is actually called “Butterflies. and Wheels”. Maybe I should email Ophelia saying “I CAME HERE FOR DISCUSSION OF RED ADMIRAL DECALS ON WHEELTRIMS YOU WHORE”

    Or, y’know, maybe I won’t, because I’m not as cognitively deficient as you are, and can parse actual meaning from words, instead of just trying to guess what’s going on.

  63. Matt Penfold says

    … it was extremely stupid of you to jump to the conclusion that people here want to ban speech.

    I also think he cannot see what is wrong with such speech that we would want to encourage people not to use it. Given the literature on the harm done when racist/sexist/homophobic/etc slurs are used, even when supposedly joking, is vast, I would really really like to hear the excuse for his ignorance.

  64. KaineDamo says

    I mean seriously, imagine a creationist making claims about the age of the Earth being 6000 years old, and when asked to back it up, accuses the opposition of not doing their homework and not reading the creationist literature.

  65. Forbidden Snowflake says

    *Though I did refer to the suggested banning as Orwellian in the context that this place is called Freethouught, which reminds me of doublespeak, but that’s not even the main crux of the conversation.

    Oh, I see. You’re one of those.
    Well, here’s the Wikipedia definition of Freethought:

    Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism and not authority, tradition, or other dogmas.

    You’ll notice that the definition isn’t “Saying any kind of stupid shit you want with no consequences”. Your citation of silly refuted folk-wisdom such as “don’t feed the trolls” is actually an example of a failure in freethought.

    tl;dr: it’s freethought blogs, not free pass blogs.

  66. KaineDamo says

    @Forbidden Snowflake

    What you’re saying makes perfect sense in regards to how you operate your own personal space. But beware. Don’t have an expectation that the rest of society should necessarily pick up and run with the positions laid out here.

  67. Matt Penfold says

    No. Because, again, you have not made your case. It is not my job to make your case for you. That is not how a rational discussion works.

    It is your job to educate yourself. Clearly though you do not want to be educated.

    Now I asked you to explain your ignorance earlier. You have not done so, so I am assuming you cannot. Unless and until you are willing to educate yourself, what do think you can contribute ? Why do you think your ignorance is something you think the rest of us are interested in ?

  68. KaineDamo says

    Matt, I can’t make it any clearer about the burden of discussion and how people rationally present their claims. You have effectively ejected yourself from the debate.

  69. Matt Penfold says

    Oh, I see. You’re one of those.

    Yeah, and he is also one of those who has not got passed “but it was only a joke” stage of cognitive development. He really does seem to think that calling something a joke makes it all OK.

  70. Forbidden Snowflake says

    What you’re saying makes perfect sense in regards to how you operate your own personal space. But beware. Don’t have an expectation that the rest of society should necessarily pick up and run with the positions laid out here.

    Thanks, Cap’n! Did you really consider it necessary to warn me that society might not line itself up according to my preferences, or did you just feel like making some random semblance of an objection?
    Really, think before you hit Submit.

  71. KaineDamo says

    @Forbidden Snowflake

    If you don’t have that kind of expectation, then we’re in agreement! There is no reason for us to argue.

  72. Matt Penfold says

    Matt, I can’t make it any clearer about the burden of discussion and how people rationally present their claims. You have effectively ejected yourself from the debate.

    You were never even it. You disqualified yourself before the start by refusing to do your homework.

    Now stop pretending it is my job to educate you. It just makes you look an idiot, and full of a sense of entitlement.

  73. Forbidden Snowflake says

    I’m all about logic, reason and empiricism!

    Good to hear! In that case, go read this, for starters.

  74. KaineDamo says

    @Matt Penfold

    I see that despite your unwillingness to fulfil your burden in the discussion, that you’re still willing to take snipes at me. I could say that you have yet to reach the stage of development in which you can recognize the difference between fiction and reality.

  75. KaineDamo says

    Matt, you’re being immensely irrational. The opposition in a discussion does not have the burden of proving the claims of the other individual. This is very basic stuff.

    This is basic, ‘who has the burden in a court case, the prosecution or the defense’ kind of stuff. In this discussion, I am the defense, and I deem fictionalized portrayals of domestic violence, comedic or otherwise, to be not guilty. You are the prosecution. You have the burden. This is the LAST time I’ll explain it. If you do not grasp it, I will not waste further energy on you.

  76. Matt Penfold says

    I see that despite your unwillingness to fulfil your burden in the discussion, that you’re still willing to take snipes at me. I could say that you have yet to reach the stage of development in which you can recognize the difference between fiction and reality.

    You really do need to explain something to me.

    Your argument is not new, it has been dealt with repeatedly on this blog, on FtB and elsewhere. Why should I take the trouble to rehash the refutation for you ? Why do you think you are so special you cannot find it for yourself. In fact, why had you not found it before you came here ?

    Stop demanding you be treated like a special little cupcake.

    And cut out that difference between fiction and reality crap. It just shows you have not looked at how fiction can create a hostile atmosphere for disadvantaged groups. Parading ignorance is never wise.

  77. Forbidden Snowflake says

    If you don’t have that kind of expectation, then we’re in agreement! There is no reason for us to argue.

    Guess what, buddy: nobody who is trying to change society, or a small part of it, for the better, believes that everything will magically change to meet their preferences. Stop telling people who are trying to improve things to shut up because this is just how the world is. You don’t have to help them, but don’t stand in their way.

  78. Matt Penfold says

    KaineDamo,,

    This is not a court of law. However, were it a court of law you would be someone who is wilfully ignorant of the law and demands everyone else teach him.

    You do not have a new argument, so refer to previous refutations.

  79. KaineDamo says

    I know where the burden in the discussion is. I am perfectly comfortable. Forbidden Snowflake, I will look at the presented material.

  80. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    KaineDamo,

    There’s fiction. There’s reality. And there’s the influence of fiction on reality and vice versa.

    Domestic violence is very often not taken seriously by the authorities or even family and friends of the abused spouse. The fight for physically and emotionally abused women to be protected by the society is still on. On the other hand, we’re pretty clear on murder being bad. That’s why Die Hard doesn’t diminish our sense that murder is a serious crime, but treating domestic violence as a joke has a negative influence by reinforcing the already bad situation.

  81. Matt Penfold says

    That’s why Die Hard doesn’t diminish our sense that murder is a serious crime, but treating domestic violence as a joke has a negative influence by reinforcing the already bad situation.

    We will also need to explain to him that it not the harm done by any particular joke, but the cumulative effect.

    This is all stuff he is expected to know of course.

  82. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Also, KaineDamo, google “source amnesia” and “availability heuristic”. People’s understanding of reality is informed by media, including fiction.

  83. Matt Penfold says

    A Framework for Thinking about the (not-so-funny) Effects of Sexist Humor

    Julie A. Woodzicka Washington and Lee University
    Thomas E. Ford Western Carolina University

    Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6(3), pp. 174-195

    Go read KaineDamo.

  84. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    We will also need to explain to him that it not the harm done by any particular joke, but the cumulative effect.

    Yes, of course, it’s not just the one joke.
    And more worryingly, it’s not just some nobodies. You have these jokes as punchlines (pun wasn’t intended, but there sadly is one) of commercials and advertisements. When it all adds up, there’s some serious damage.

  85. KaineDamo says

    What’s a blatherskite?

    Thanks for the material everybody. I WILL research beginning with the stuff put out here.

    I like to argue. It’s kind of a guilty pleasure at times. But the honest truth is, I don’t want to be anyone’s enemy!

    I will return when I find out more. Right now I’m getting ready for a DND game so I can’t say exactly when I’ll be back. I’m always open to new information.

  86. Spahznork says

    Don’t you guys see? Kaine is stating the null hypothesis–that you don’t have the right to not be offended. The positive assertion–that you do have the right to be not offended requires an objective experiment. You must prove that the probability of your measurement is less likely than p=0.05 to come from the null hypothesis.

    Of course, you’re still not out of the woods then. There’s still a chance you can reject the null hypothesis even when it’s true. So you’ll need to do another experiment, preferably one with an independent set of systematic errors. Geez. Don’t you guys know anything?

  87. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    I WILL research beginning with the stuff put out here.

    Cool.

    I like to argue. It’s kind of a guilty pleasure at times. But the honest truth is, I don’t want to be anyone’s enemy!

    Would be cool if you hadn’t barged in acting like a complete asshole.

  88. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    Ophelia, sorry again for going all “Off with his head!”
    I think I should work on anger management (and letting people handle their blogs as they wish).

  89. Matt Penfold says

    Ophelia, sorry again for going all “Off with his head!”
    I think I should work on anger management (and letting people handle their blogs as they wish).

    He was an annoying fucker though.

  90. Utakata says

    blatherskite:

    1.A person who talks at great length without making much sense.

    2.Foolish talk; nonsense: “politicians get away all the time with their blatherskite”.

    Source: The first thing I got when I typed that into Google.

    So this guy was calling you folks Orwellian because you disagreed with his less than finer views about Father Ted, lol?

  91. No Light says

    Utakata – You got it in one,

    No doubt he’d have been one of those people who laughed along with Alf Garnett, rather than at him.

  92. saelpalani says

    I made a video about those two misogynists to show them for what they are to me. I think it sums it up really well. I’m a woman whose been threatened twice online and luckily I have law enforcement in my family and even though my harasser lived in another country, he got a visit from his local police department and understood that it’s ILLEGAL to threaten people online.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N88WyNO_jU

    This is for sane, rational people who understand that it’s WRONG to harass and threaten people online, nevermind ILLEGAL.

  93. patterson says

    Let me see if I have Kaine’s position straight.

    No one has the right to criticize bigotry because that’s an Orwellian assault on free speech. And no one has the right to take offense at another persons actions, unless of course you’re taking offense at people taking offense, then it’s perfectly justified.

    I wonder if you can take offense at people who take offense at people taking offense? Probably not.

  94. Stacy says

    @patterson, yeah, if you take offense at people taking offense at people taking offense, that’s suppressing Free Speech™ again.

    Basically if you’re sneering at somebody any emotionally disturbed 12 year old heterosexual boy would sneer at, it’s comedy, you humorless bitch. If you criticize the sneering, you’re Orwellian.

    (If anybody needs to borrow my notes, I’ll stick around after class.)

  95. says

    I should probably rename this blog Humorless Bitch. Or Fucking Cunt. Or One of the Biggest Cunts on Planet Earth. Or Fucking Ugly Bitch Cunts Shut the Fuck Up.

  96. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    But then what will I refresh obsessively?

    Seconded

  97. Stacy says

    Thirded.

    You’re just saying that’s what They want you to do, right, Ophelia? You’re very much needed and appreciated.

  98. saelpalani says

    Ophelia,

    I’ve spent some time this early morning looking through various works about women who have been threatened to the point of quitting. I can’t tell you what to do but I can say that I wish for you to stay. There are many women, including myself, who stand behind you in this.

    I really hope to provide support for women, maybe help women go through the process of calling the police and filing the reports.

    I want to help so badly. I’ve been there too.

  99. Stacy says

    The thought that a bunch of dimwitted narcissists like Naomi and her husband, et al., can discourage your voice is horrifying.

    Ophelia, whatever you choose to do I’ll support you, but please, I hope you’ll hang in there. You’re important. This blog is necessary.

    Virtual hugs if you want them.

  100. No Light says

    Chiming in to add a voice of support.

    I greatly respect and admire you, and want you to do what’s best for you. This blog has been an amazing comfort to me, just knowing there’s somewhere safe to discuss injustice and anti-woman sentiment all over the world.

    Ultimately though, your mental health must come first. I think, that with Greta and Jen on hiatus, and Natalie on reduced output, you’re copping the entire bucket of shit, filled by imbecilic, gutless, misogynist filth that just want women to. keep their mouths shut.

    All we can do is form a virtual human shield around you here, and offer our love, support, hugs and most importantly – deep gratitude.

    Whatever the outcome Ophelia, thanks for being you.

    x

  101. Stacy says

    Just read that Ann Coulter has called the people who objected to her use of the word retard “word police” and “authoritarian bullying victims.” So your critics are in charming company.

    (“Authoritarian bullying victims” is a phrase full of fail.)

  102. octopod says

    With the kind of indiscriminate broadsides of runny verbal excreta you’ve been taking, the idea that you’re pointing out misogyny For Teh Blog Hitz is …I was going to say “improbable”, but “ludicrous” or “deranged” is closer.

    #105, exactly. What a sad pair of people. My sympathies to everyone who has to interact with them, and sincere hopes that they do not reproduce.

    (I am reflecting right now upon the potential merits of starting a blog with the name “Fucking Ugly Loudmouth Attention-Seeking Bitchy Cunts” and a string of similar epithets as the subtitle. I wonder if it wouldn’t take the wind out of their sails a bit to have it all confirmed already.)

  103. Maureen Brian says

    You know I want you to stay.

    People capable of actual thought, people like you who have put years into understanding this really ought to win over noise machines who lack two brain cells to rub together. They may outnumber us but they can’t out-think us.

    Whatever, though, I’ll support you.

  104. A. Noyd says

    Ophelia (#110)

    Or, actually, maybe I should just close it the fuck down.

    Like any really good blog, the draw of this place is about more than just your writing; it’s also the community you cultivate. It’s no wonder the assholes who fear change go after you. They want to destroy what you’re making. If only the rest of us could take most of the hits for you.

    ~*~*~*~*~*~*~

    octopod (#119)

    I wonder if it wouldn’t take the wind out of their sails a bit to have it all confirmed already.

    Probably not. People I’m arguing with think they’re being clever to point to my ‘nym as confirmation that I’m easily upset. (Which isn’t what the ‘nym is a reference to, but it wouldn’t matter if it was.) I can guess, in the case of a blog with a title like that, people would do the same thing—and then pretend that your use of those words prevents you from objecting to being called those things by others.

  105. ttch says

    I must be really innocent because when I clicked and read the tweet (without closely reading your framing of it), I thought he was being sarcastic. I mean, that’s the only reasonable interpretation…

    Anyway, Ms. Benson, please don’t give up blogging. You have a beautiful sane voice that profits our world.

  106. says

    Naomi, ugh, well at least on her blog is a far stronger discrediting of her position than Ophelia could manage, given its from her own mouth (Or imagination since its Photoshop?)

    @KaineDamo, reading your to and fro with the commenters on here I was reminded of this story,
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskeptics/2012/10/19/the-spectator-sport-of-black-women-bashing/

    I’m assuming the people here trying to get you to see that finding these sort of things funny (White kids in this example are laughing away!) is something you might be able to manage when privileged enough to not have to suffer from the misogyny or racism depicted there. But surely you can see what damage can be done by displays of misogyny and racism where the oppression is the punchline? Even if, like me, you are mostly oblivious of it? Only takes a little empathy really.

  107. Rob says

    Ophelia, as many others have said the work you and other bloggers here at FTB and elsewhere do has value for all of us in the real world. You are a target for at least some people because they can see that real world change occurs that they do not like (sure there are some who just do it for the lull or because they like to argue). None of that makes life easier on you.

    I suspect that this idea has been floated before. Is there some way that volunteer moderators could be inserted between the incoming comment/email stream and any FTB or other bloggers who want the assistance? I would see the mandate as simply and strictly being the removal of outright abuse directed at the holder of the blog and quarantining of threats for further consideration/action. No dealing with argumentation or dissent. That is the Blog owners purview.

    We could still keep stats about the number and type of abuse to track progress (?) but removing the constant barrage of unpleasantness from your consciousness would have to help surely.

    If you or any other FTB bloggers are interested in this I would help any way I can. I’m sure there would be other volunteers.

  108. ttch says

    I second Rob’s idea. And if your webmaster isn’t up to making the changes needed I’m sure you can request volunteers for that too.

  109. No Light says

    I’d be happy, like Rob, to try and ease the strain. Even something as simple as putting new commenters on auto-mod, and requiring commenters to login through WP, Google, FB, whatever.

    I love playing whack-a-mole.

  110. says

    Thanks, both. It’s not really practical, but thanks. There are things I can do when I’m expecting an onslaught; it’s just that I don’t always expect them.

  111. No Light says

    I’m sure this goes without saying, but all you ever have to do if you need anything, is ask us.

    You’ve built a community of readers and commenters, active and quiet, who respect you. If everyone else is like me, they don’t want to see you struggle or suffer unnecessarily over anything.

    I know nobody likes asking for anything! Greta said she felt awful asking for help, but we did what a community does! That same support is there for you (and other bloggers) too.

    You’ve been getting hit with the shittiest end of a very shitty stick lately, and I feel awful for you.

    I recommend the elephants.com elecam videos on YouTube, or the baby three-toed sloths in the orphanage at Costa Rica.

    Oh! And have you seen Teddy the talking porcupine on YouTube? He will raise a giggle, and I guarantee he never says anything misogynist. He’s very bright, a university porkypig! Start with the earliest one.

    I hope at least one of the things can raise a smile.

  112. ewanmacdonald says

    Ophelia: just another message of support. Whatever you choose to do, I know you won’t do it lightly. You need to look after yourself first and foremost. But from my perspective, your voice is a brilliant and valuable one, and the idea that these lowlives will get their way by getting you offline is a terrible one. I hope it doesn’t come to that.

  113. says

    Just want to add to the support dogpile ;)
    You’re a powerful, incredibly eloquent voice in this community and we need you, but not at your expense, so please put yourself first.
    (Off topic – I’m transcribing a video you’re in – you are an absolute joy to transcribe – not a single (unintelligible) from you in the whole thing ;)

  114. Mattir says

    And another one in the support pile. You’ve taught me a whole lotta stuff, and I would so miss your ideas and writing if you left…

  115. callistacat says

    Me too :) Your blog is the one I keep coming back to even after I felt like giving up on this movement. You’re such a gifted writer and you tackle issues that a lot are afraid to even talk about. It’s so rare to find a place on the internet where condescending and sexist behavior towards women isn’t the norm. You hold these things up to the light and expose the fashionable nonsense that people use to justify anti-women bigotry. You are a hero and you have my total support, Ophelia.

  116. xmaseveeve says

    Comment 10, The Wife:

    You’re over 18? Not in IQ. And my, don’t the Stepford wives getting foul mouths nowadays? Shouldn’t you be baking a from-scratch cake to stick in your husband’s fat mouth?

  117. xmaseveeve says

    I’ve only read to comment 11 so far, but I’ve made tea and am going to read the whole thread. When it started, I thought, someone’s going to come on and prove her right…something wicked this way comes…then, bam, sure enough – that shocking comment. Ophelia, you must be doing something right.

    This is a two-pipe thread…

  118. xmaseveeve says

    Do you get a Cunt of the Year statuette? Men would always win it, hands down. Right enough, I’ve not read the thread yet…

    – Gives you an award and then immediately challenges you for it? I don’t know! Wifey, ‘You don’t have to bake. There’s no law for it’ (from The Stepford Wives).

    I’m going in!

  119. xmaseveeve says

    Kaine, when a special defence is lodged, the burden of proof shifts to the defence, but only on the balance of probability. As yours is so far even from reaching the realms of possibility, and there is ample precedence, you do not have a case. Not even a straw one.

    (And, not a good idea to quote Wendell Holmes, as you’ve clearly either not read his work, or else did so with the same comprehension which you have demonstrated on here.)

  120. xmaseveeve says

    Ophelia, much love! Another wonderful thread. It’s very disturbing that some think beating women is funny, or cool to the point of a face-tattoo. We must call it out. Have another hug, from me.

  121. says

    Hello Everybody!

    Did you all miss me as much as I missed you. My absence is due to the fact that I had to restructure my blog today. You know how it is.

    All the images have been moved to a page in the upper right hand corner.

    http://venturephilosophy.blogspot.com

    As I do not follow up on comments here….in fact I do not even read any of them, you can always leave a message on my blog if you would like me to write about any topics. Like…why Ophelia is an old hag who talks about people she does not know. Or, about what real misogyny is. LINK.http://venturephilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/10/one-angry-man.html

    If any of you are ever interested in exposing real woman hate, go to the link above. That is the kind of shit one should focus their attention on.

    Cheers Darlings!

  122. says

    Wow.
    Sorry I wasn’t here to help deal with the POS.
    Ophelia, sorry you have to deal with this crap.

    It is just absolutely insane what this shit is coming to. I know many don’t like the use of such words in the way I’m using it, but I just can’t think of any other way to express it.

    It has gone well beyond bizarre and annoying and threatening and disheartening.

    It’s just flat-out crazy.

    These movies and shows where you suddenly discover you’re surrounded by brain-eating zombies are starting to feel uncomfortably less implausible.

  123. Bjarte Foshaug says

    Ophelia, for what it’s worth, I am a feminist in large part because of you. What your harassers don’t seem to get – well, there are so many things they don’t get, but one of them is that we who follow your blog on a daily basis can actually read and decide for ourselves who is arguing fairly and who’s just being an asshole. It’s perverse that you have to put up with all this crap, but know that you are not alone. There are legions of us out there who can see exactly what they are doing, and it’s making us very, very angry.

  124. says

    Ophelia,

    In this blog you accused a person of misogyny. That is a very serious accusation, but you didn’t provide any evidence to back up your accusation.

    The tweet you referenced said, “My wife has gotten rape and death threats online. She doesn’t complain because she’s not an opportunistic, victimhood-exploiting twat.”

    How does that have anything to do with misogyny?

    How do you know this person wouldn’t have the same views with regard to a man who gets rape and death threats online and then exploits it for profit? That is, firstly, why do you think the statement is focussed on “women” as a group, rather than on individuals, and, secondly, why do you think it is focussed specifically on women, and not also on men, and thirdly, how does it constitute hate?

    Or are you trying to change the meaning of the word “misogyny” to mean “anything I don’t like”?

  125. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    Dear Naomi,

    I’m sure you are not going to read this comment, since you obviously don’t care about what people here are saying about you. I understand that you are desperate for some blog traffic and that’s no shame. But really, being a complete and utter asshole is not the way to go. If you had shown even a little bit of honesty and genuine desire for a discussion, I might have given visiting your blog(s) and talking there a second thought. Unfortunately, all I’ve seen is a pathetic asshole who wouldn’t be able to argue her way out of a paper bag. Still not reading this? Good. I don’t really view your immaturity as a bad thing, but the way you express it is pretty sad. You are an adult asshole pretending to be a younger asshole, because I guess it seems cute(?) to you. You’re not cute. Or amusing. You’re just an asshole. And those are dime a dozen, so I’m really not interested in learning what your special asshole superpowers are. Good luck fighting real misogyny by photoshopping Ophelia’s face on bikini clad models. Do make sure to report your success in making this world better for women.

  126. Martha says

    I’m very sorry you have to deal with this juvenile crap, Ophelia. If this is the best the other side can do, I have no doubt that you are winning. Though I’m sure it didn’t feel like that yesterday.

    I’m not completely without sympathy for young women (and I won’t watch the videos, so I have no idea of Naomi’s age) out there who want to believe so badly that they will be treated fairly by society that they ignore all evidence to the contrary. I almost even hope that Naomi and her ilk won’t find experience as bitter a pill as the statistics suggest that they will. But I can’t quite bring myself to be that charitable after reading this thread.

  127. saelpalani says

    @142,

    You sir are a total flug. If you can’t figure out what words mean by using the dictionary and then applying it, then you certainly don’t belong here.

    Misogyny

    Your assignment is to go look up that word and then apply it to the comment left by that other knob, Johnny and his ridiculous wife Naomi.

    Hint: The comment is misogynist.

    Now piss off.

  128. A. Noyd says

    Kevin Solway (#142)

    That is a very serious accusation, but you didn’t provide any evidence to back up your accusation.

    ZOMG GUYZ! Calling someone a misogynist* is SEERIUS!! Because, as we all know, it’s a bazillion times worse to be called “misogynist” or “racist” or “homophobe” than to actually do something misogynistic, racist or homophobic.

    How does that have anything to do with misogyny?

    It’s got everything to do with misogyny, just like your selective hyper-skepticism has everything to do with misogyny. Or don’t you realize both you and the Tweedledeedummies are operating straight from the misogyny playbook? Are you afraid you’ll curl up and die if you break character and say anything remotely original? I mean, really, the “I don’t have to believe a thing you say till you convince me by doing back-flips through seventy thousand hoops, all the while yodeling the national anthem” brand of denialism is all the rage with woman-hating shitbags. You’ve conveniently forgotten your duty to do some groundwork by educating yourself in the basics to show people you’re actually willing to learn something before JAQing off all over this place.
    ……….
    *Which, technically, Ophelia didn’t do.

  129. says

    Kevin Solway: how do I know? Because the tweet was in the context of “discussion” (i.e. raging at) Rebecca’s article in Slate. I saw it via Jean Kazez, because @supexcellency included her in a previous tweet, which indicates the context.

  130. No Light says

    Are you afraid you’ll curl up and die if you break character and say anything remotely original? I

    That’s why that side are destined to fail. All they have are strawmen, misattributions, lies, and bluster.

    They think endless parroting of the same proven falsehoods, jeering, and crowdsourcing winged monkeys to go “LALALALAAAA WE CANT HEAR YOU CUNT HAG BITCHES!!!!” will drive us into the ground.

    The problem is though, we’ve got nothing to lose. We’ve been mocked, slandered, ridiculed, swarmed and harassed. We’re still here. They never stop to wonder why. To them this is fun, diversion, shallow amusement. For us? We’re fighting for our lives to improve, and the lives of the girls and women (and other marginalised groups) who’ll come after us.

    We’re in this to the fucking death, because there’s nowhere to go but up, while we wait for the lumbering dibosaurs of prejudice to be wiped out.

    Were the extinction level event that they’re too stupid to see coming.

  131. says

    @148,

    Misogyny means “hatred of women”. You can look it up in any dictionary.

    Even using the personal definition which you referenced, which has nothing to do with hatred of women, how does that personal definition have anything to do with the tweet in question?

    It doesn’t.

    There is no evidence in that tweet that the person has any generalized dislike of women, or anything of the kind.

    If you are saying that a person can be a misogynist without having any generalized dislike of women, then I think you are an idiot.

  132. says

    There’s also a more substantive point here, though, as A. Noyd indicated.

    I didn’t say “‘supexcellency’ is a misogynist.”

    (And if I had, who cares? What is ‘supexcellency’? It’s just a Twitter handle. It’s not a real person’s real name.)

    I didn’t say “‘supexcellency’ is a misogynist.” I said I found some very excellent misogyny, and I showed the tweet. The tweet is misogynist. Maybe whoever tweeted it isn’t normally misogynist, but blunders into saying misogynist things on occasion. I’m not sure that’s really possible, but maybe it is; in any case saying this particular remark or tweet is misogynist is not identical to saying the person who made the remark or tweet is a misogynist.

  133. Utakata says

    So..um…Naomi, what has age got to do with this? You do realize you are getting old yourself? So do we get to despise someone more as they get older? Or do you simply have a problem with people older than you are? I am curious to know.

  134. says

    Kevin Solway, stop playing stupid. The tweet in context is indeed misogynist. It’s all about giving a woman endless vicious shit for the crime of saying “guys, don’t do that.” That is misogyny.

  135. Lyanna says

    Kevin Solway, you fool, calling a woman a “twat” is an expression of general dislike of women. Just like calling a black person a “nigger” is an expression of general dislike of black people.

    Saying a woman is an “opportunistic twat” for complaining about rape threats is an expression of hatred of women.

    I don’t have to prove that the moron who said this wouldn’t have said it about a man, any more than I have to prove that someone who calls a black person an “opportunistic nigger” for complaining about threats of violence wouldn’t have said it about a white person. That’s just ridiculous. You can’t prove a negative. So if you demand proof that every racist/misogynist wouldn’t say the same thing about men or white people, you end up ignoring racism and misogyny.

    Racism and misogyny are about expressions and effects, not what’s in your heart. I don’t care whether the tweeter, in his heart of hearts, “truly” hates women or not. He’s acting like he does. He’s using words that express such hate.

    Using racial or sexual slurs is misogyny. It’s not “evidence” of misogyny, it just is misogyny. Dismissing a woman’s complaint about rape threats (which men do not receive online in anywhere near the same numbers) is misogyny.

    Ophelia, we’re with you. Hang in there, and thank you very much for doing what you do.

  136. says

    Utakata – don’t be silly! Naomi isn’t getting older! Only vile stupid ugly cunts get older. Smart people like Naomi know better than to get older, so they don’t.

  137. A. Noyd says

    Kevin Solway (#151)

    Misogyny means “hatred of women”. You can look it up in any dictionary.

    If you actually read Stephanie Zvan’s post that I linked, why are you telling me this? She’s quite clear on how the dictionary definition fails. Let’s see if you can correct your poor reading comprehension before we move on to more advanced topics. Quote to me what Stephanie said makes the dictionary a bad source. I’m not even asking you to agree with it; just show me you can see that an argument has already been made which addresses dictionary definitions.

  138. says

    @155 Lyana,

    You say, “calling a woman a ‘twat’ is an expression of general dislike of women”.

    But I’ve only ever heard the term used to mean “a foolish or despicable person”, and without any gender connotations. In fact, I suspect that the term “twat” is used to describe men much more than it is used to describe women, since the term is very frequently used by women to describe men. So it’s not at all like the term “nigger”, which I’ve never heard used to disparage a white person.

    So this usage of the term “twat” is definitely not an expression of dislike of women.

    Johnny is certainly using words to express that he deeply dislikes something, but he appears to only dislike specific individuals. And there’s no evidence that the dislike has anything to do with gender.

  139. says

    That’s just incorrect. It applies to the way “twat” is used in the UK (where it’s pronounced “twatt” – it rhymes with hat and cat, not with hot and pot), but not the way it’s used in the US. At this point, claiming to be completely unaware of this is somewhat…credulity-straining.

  140. says

    @157 A. Noyd,

    Stephanie Zvan’s analysis is entirely wrong.

    The definition “hatred of women” is not a translation, but is a definition.

    Dictionaries are not for translations, but are for definitions.

    Regardless of that, I went with Zvan’s personal definition, and I remarked that the tweet/s in question don’t even come close to falling within the domain of even Zvan’s personal definition (which is an extremely foolish definition, by the way).

  141. says

    Also, saying “I’ve only ever heard” is stupid in this context. What one person has only ever heard does not translate to an absolute certainty about how the word is used everywhere always. In other words, what one person has only ever heard is largely irrelevant. It could be the start of a conversation, but it sucks as a conversation-stopper.

  142. Utakata says

    …or they never grow up you mean?

    But either way…

    …so far in this post, you had one person accusing this blog of being Orwellian, because no one was quite agreeing with his take on Father Ted. You have had another person who thinks you are an “old hag” and this is somehow relavant to the conversation, despite openly and gleefully admitting she’s a brat and a troll on the internetz. And now some dude who doesn’t quite see that twitting someone is a “twat” is misogyny, and is demanding evidence as to why it is like the YEC Hovind trolls demanding proof why God doesn’t exist over at Pharyngular the other day.(Are you certain about that, Kevin?)

    In short, I really hope you don’t quit blogging Ophelia. Your enemies are demonstratively idiots. They are to be mocked and scorned and not giving up over. Just saying.

  143. says

    @159 Ophelia Benson,

    I’ve heard American women use the term “twat” to describe men, in the sense of “twit”, and it didn’t have any gender connotations.

    So there is clearly some degree of overlap with British usage.

    In any case, even if the intended meaning was “vulva”, that still doesn’t imply misogyny.

    You can’t just look at a handful of mere words and draw the conclusion that those words arise out of a hatred, or dislike, or low opinion, of women as a group.

  144. Martha says

    @163 You can certainly look at the handful of words to draw the conclusion that they express a hatred, dislike or low opinion of women as a group.

    The words in question clearly state that women should not complain about getting rape or death threats; if they do, there’s something wrong with them.

    That is clearly a misogynist sentiment. Why are you grasping at such straws to defend it?

  145. Martha says

    Just in case anyone was in any doubt about Kevin’s lack of sincerity, I just clicked the link to his web page and found the following description:

    THE THINKING MAN’S MINEFIELD
    For those magnificent individuals who seek the eternal.

    Welcome to The Thinking Man’s Minefield (which doesn’t exclude masculine women). If you are interested in thinking then I am happy to tell you that you have stumbled on a gold mine!

    I’m so delighted to know that masculine women are also welcome in his home. If I’d come upon this before menopause, I’m sure my brain would have been too feminine to handle it. /snark/

  146. A. Noyd says

    Kevin Solway (#158)

    But I’ve only ever heard the term used…. …which I’ve never heard used….

    Dude, your experience is severely limited. You shouldn’t be using it as a basis for making arguments about how the world works. The rest of us aren’t afflicted with your myopia.

    (#160)

    The definition “hatred of women” is not a translation, but is a definition.

    The dictionary itself contradicts you: “from Gk. misogynia, from misogynes “woman-hater,” from miso- + gyne “woman” (see queen).” It’s a definition by way of a translation.

    Dictionaries are not for translations, but are for definitions.

    Oh, is the study of foreign language something else you lack experience with? I would say most dictionaries are for translations. Even in the case of native-language definitional dictionaries, loan-words (like misogyny) are often defined by their translations, even when doing so is insufficient.

    Now, could you make a case for how “hatred of women” truly reflects the way “misogyny” is used in real life? Or are you going to tell me misogyny isn’t used the way Stephanie describes because you, personally, haven’t seen it? I’ll tell you right now, that’s not going to cut it.

    Regardless of that…

    Stop trying to leap ahead. You’re clearly not ready for any arguments that require you to put two and two together.

  147. Stacy says

    Your enemies are demonstratively idiots. They are to be mocked and scorned

    I agree.

    I checked out Naomi’s blog. She refers to herself as, among other things, a “philosopher” and a “linguist.” On a sidebar she links to The Friedrich Nietzsche Society and the Albert Camus Society.

    See, that’s how you can tell she’s really smart and philosophical and stuff.

    I read a couple of her posts. She thinks and writes like a bright-normal 13 year old:

    “Today I started downloading a large audio book to my I-Pod, Why the West Rules – for Now. This heavy book was written by Ian Morris, read by Antony Ferguson. According to Amazon reviews, it spanks fifty thousand years of history and offers fresh insights on human development on nearly every page. People are also saying that it is deeply researched and brilliantly argued.

    “Right now many worry that China and India spells the end of the West as a superpower. There is a real possibility that India and China will be the next superpowers. To understand what is happening, we need to look back in time and understand why the West became the superpower in the first place. Readers are saying that the book reveals differences of race, culture, individual striving geography, and populations explaining why the West dominates. As geography and human ingenuity continue to interact, the world will change in astonishing ways.”

    That was written by a grown up.

    So, Ophelia, really, you mustn’t be dismayed. Incisive criticism like “cunt” and “old hag” are to be expected. You’re dealing here with a philosopher and a linguist.

    Wonder if Naomi has seen A Fish Called Wanda?

    Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy.
    Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.

  148. Bjarte Foshaug says

    If the options you have to offer women who receive rape and death threats are “shut up or be portrayed as ‘opportunistic, victimhood-exploiting twat(s)’, you are definitely a misogynist, as well as a loathsome, detestable, vile, pathetic, hideous, insufferable, disgusting, awful, contemptible, ugly, piece of shit who would be far more valuable as worm-food, and I haven’t even gotten to the bad part yet!

  149. says

    @164. Martha,

    Genuine rape threats should be reported to the relevant authorities, and shouldn’t be used for personal advantage and profit-making. The latter makes a joke of the whole concept of rape, and devalues the term of any meaning, as well as devaluing the experience of genuine rape victims.

    @166. A. Noyd,

    You ask how “hatred of women” reflects how the word “misogyny” is used in real life.

    There are conceivably men who hate, or have contempt, for women as a group. Perhaps they have had bad experiences with women, or otherwise have a warped perception of women, and consequently hate all women (for the most part). This is called “hatred of women”, commonly known as “misogyny”.

    Calling a particular woman a “twat” is not misogyny, just as calling a particular man a “dick” is not misandry.

  150. saelpalani says

    @167 Stacy,

    Hahahaha!

    Is she going to write a blog post called ‘Cowboys and Indians’ next?

    Seriously, I think her highest level of reading comprehension is ‘The Cat in the Hat’. (No insult to Dr. Seuss here)

  151. A. Noyd says

    Kevin Solway (#169)

    There are conceivably men who hate, or have contempt, for women as a group.

    And, so? I asked about real life, not half-assed hypotheticals. Speculating that there are men who “hate, or have contempt for, women as a group” (as if it’s even a question) doesn’t go anywhere in demonstrating that all uses of “misogyny” are sufficiently summed up by “hatred of women.”

    This is called “hatred of women”, commonly known as “misogyny”.

    That “hatred of women” is known as “misogyny” isn’t at issue. What I am asking you to demonstrate is that “misogyny” is commonly, and with no significant exception, used to mean “hatred of women.” (And no, citing dipshits like yourself flipping open the dictionary for the first time in an attempted “gotcha” doesn’t count.) If you don’t get the difference between what I asked and what you gave, consider this: “Having facility with words” is commonly know as being “articulate,” but that isn’t the whole of the definition of the word.

    But I see Ophelia has tired of you. I guess you won’t be able to dazzle us anymore with your circular flailing and your failure to understand simple concepts like how dictionaries work.

  152. Lyanna says

    But I’ve only ever heard the term used to mean “a foolish or despicable person”, and without any gender connotations. In fact, I suspect that the term “twat” is used to describe men much more than it is used to describe women, since the term is very frequently used by women to describe men. So it’s not at all like the term “nigger”, which I’ve never heard used to disparage a white person.

    That’s wrong. Twat means vagina and I’ve only ever heard that meaning.

    You are about as believable as a white person claiming that “nigger” isn’t a racial term.

  153. says

    I’m inclined to believe Kevin Solway knows a lot about misogyny. Also maybe trolling. Martha started it so I looked on his webpage, big mistake for a troll to link to this…
    http://theabsolute.net/minefield/aboutme.html

    Increasingly I realized the inseparability of reason and masculinity. At the same time I could not help noticing the increasing feminization of society. The only course open to me was to attack femininity at the root. My life’s work, I decided, would focus on making people aware of the shortcomings of femininity and the great benefits of masculinity. For there to be wise men, there must first be men.

    I wasn’t going to quote the bit that made me lol, as it seemed unfair until I read that paragraph above.

    I had a girlfriend at the age of ten, and within twelve months I felt that I had exhausted the possibilites of relationships with women.

    I can recommend the whole page for a good laugh. Don’t for a minute think Kevin was arguing in good faith!

  154. Ysidro says

    You know, if I wrote something that Ophelia called misogynistic, I certainly wouldn’t think “OMG, she called me a misogynist!!!!”

    Rather, I’d think “did I say something misogynistic without realizing it?”

    And then I’d exaimine the claim. And I’d probably find it was misogynistic. And I’d apologize and correct myself.

    Because A) I’m not usally intentionally an asshole and B) people like Ophelia have taught me the importance of not saying such things, even unthinkingly (ESPECIALLY unthinkingly.)

  155. xmaseveeve says

    I just pushed the wrong button and lost my whole post! I had analysed a very short post by ‘Naomi’ – 139, I think – which had 8 – not typos – but EIGHT serious grammatical errors. Very low intelligence. I really can’t face wading into her Stockholm Syndrome, pig-ignorant malicious glee again!

    And Kevin? Kevin must be deafened by the rush of air between his ears. Can’t face his posts again either. Does ‘genuine rape victims’ refer to ‘legitimate rape’?

    To sum up. We’ve seen this show before. It wasn’t good the first time, and now that we’re constantly all too well ahead of them, it’s just tedious and depressing for those of us who have any empathy.

    Feminism is gaining momentum again. Now, I don’t know what motivates a person, especially a woman, to hate women (and herself) so much that they’d spout wicked, cognitively dissonant old chestnuts and take pleasure from it. But we must keep fighting.

  156. Stacy says

    @oolon

    OK, I bit. I checked it out.

    Kevin Solway writes

    I recently discovered a magnificent book, Sex & Character by Otto Weininger. I could only find one single copy of this book in the state of Queensland. Weininger describes the differences between the sexes better than anyone I know of, and understanding this difference is the first step towards all higher life. Weininger took his own life while still in his early twenties, but his thoughts are such that he will never disappear.

    So naturally I checked Wikipedia:

    …Weininger, himself a Jew who had converted to Christianity in 1902, analyzes the archetypal Jew as feminine, and thus profoundly irreligious, without true individuality (soul), and without a sense of good and evil. Christianity is described as “the highest expression of the highest faith”, while Judaism is called “the extreme of cowardliness”. Weininger decries the decay of modern times, and attributes much of it to feminine (or identically, “Jewish”) influences. By Weininger’s reckoning everyone shows some femininity, and what he calls “Jewishness”

    A couple of Weininger quotes, same source:

    A genius has perhaps scarcely ever appeared amongst the negroes, and the standard of their morality is almost universally so low that it is beginning to be acknowledged in America that their emancipation was an act of imprudence.

    Greatness is absent from the nature of the woman and the Jew, the greatness of morality, or the greatness of evil. In the Aryan man, the good and bad principles of Kant’s religious philosophy are ever present, ever in strife. In the Jew and the woman, good and evil are not distinct from one another … It would not be difficult to make a case for the view that the Jew is more saturated with femininity than the Aryan, to such an extent that the most manly Jew is more feminine than the least manly Aryan

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

  157. xmaseveeve says

    Imagine groups of petty, patronising, sanctimonious, odious little nobodies, getting together (because ‘filths savour but themselves’) and plotting how to undermine the rights of over half the population? They came on here to give us the scrapings of their barrel, and expect us to be grateful, and to see the error of our ways?

    A man decides that women are a waste of space because he had a relationship with a ten year old girl and she didn’t have much conversation? And he has subsequently not learned anything new? You couldn’t make it up. He even threw in the ‘Muslima’ fallacy, supplying conclusive evidence that he’s never read this blog.

    Watched Father Ted last night. Not many laughs. The woman only got hit twice.

  158. Bjarte Foshaug says

    As has previously been noted, only hating some (as opposed to all) women doesn’t make you any less of a misogynist if your reason for hating the “some” has anything to do with them exercising their inalienable right to set boundaries for themselves. Only a misogynist would hate any woman for such a contemptible reason, and if you found anything at all objectionable about Rebecca Watson’s ridiculously reasonable request to “not do that”, we can pretty much rule out any other reason.

    If the only reason some women are not “opportunistic, victimhood-exploiting twat(s)” in your view is because they have thus far had the good fortune to avoid the kind of situations in which their personal boundaries come into conflict with whatever you feel entitled to demand of them, your temporary willingness to tolerate them (ready to be withdrawn at a moment’s notice if they should fail to please you) counts for absolutely nothing. An acceptance on these terms only is no real acceptance at all.

  159. callistacat says

    Men in the U.S. call other men “pussies” all the time. I don’t think I’ve ever actually been called one, at least to my face. Does that mean pussy isn’t referring to females or is gender-neutral? Guys who treat their girlfriends like they’re fully human are also commonly referred to as “pussy-whipped.” Not sexist?

    And guys are told they “throw like a girl” or should “stop acting like a girl” all the time, too. Does that mean calling someone a girl as an insult isn’t misogynistic too? It’s not gendered because men and boys get called it?

    Kevin wrote: “At the same time I could not help noticing the increasing feminization of society. The only course open to me was to attack femininity at the root. My life’s work, I decided, would focus on making people aware of the shortcomings of femininity and the great benefits of masculinity.”

    We’re all turning into pussies! It needs to stop!

  160. No Light says

    Y’know, if Naomi’s associating with coprophages like Kevin, then it’s no wonder she’s so full of internalised misogyny that it’s spilling out of every orifice.

    Oh and Kevin, Kupkake, “misandry” isn’t a thing.

    Sure, some women think men are loathsome black-holes of insufferability, but there is no such thing as institutionalised, societally-condoned subjugation and vilification of men, boys, and expressions of masculinity,

    I do hope Naomi has a few more book reports in her. Perhap she could take on Half the Sky or (and I think this one would be very enlightening) Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism’s Work Is Done .

  161. Utakata says

    @ Stacy 167

    “I checked out Naomi’s blog. She refers to herself as, among other things, a “philosopher” and a “linguist.” On a sidebar she links to The Friedrich Nietzsche Society and the Albert Camus Society.”

    Yeah, I forgot to mention that, lol. Thanks for pointing that out. :)

  162. xmaseveeve says

    Comment 178, Stacy,

    OH MY GOD! Thanks for the research. He’s an anti semite too? Nice. Do you think it’s Mel Gibson?

  163. Rob says

    I just lost 2 minutes of my life looking at Solway’s site. Oh dear. Since kevin and his mates seem tot hink that they are deep and logical thinkers, obviously out of our league, can we pass them on to Richard Carrier and Camels with Hammers? Nothing like watching a philosopher with a new chew toy.

  164. Hamilton Jacobi says

    Hi Naomi,

    You’re blog is the best ever. You should do one with Albert Einsteins head on Hugh Jackmans body LOL. Cuz Hughs bod is totally hot and Alberts bod is totally not LOL. And who beleives that relativity crap anyway, amirite? I mean, how can all religions be true when there is only One True Lord and Savior LOL.

  165. says

    @Stacy, wow, I didn’t notice that nasty theme on there. His whole site did come across as some sort of woo cult leaders advert. The one true path to objective truth and genius, probably involves lots of screaming at the moon and sitting naked in sweat lodges to become a ‘true man’. Could be a Kevin Kargo Kult festering away somewhere in the forests of Queensland.

    …Google should have been my friend, just did a search, he does have some followers and a very smart lady who has him pegged. He is obviously trying to spread his fame to this corner of the internet.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iihNHQykKw

    I’m guessing we have not seen the last of him on FtBs. Pathological narcissism does not take well to being dismissed.

  166. Stacy says

    @oolon

    I thought he was some new type of eccentric nutter but he is the same boring MRA we see everywhere, bah

    Well, I’ll give him eccentric and nutter!

    He does sound like a would-be guru.

    Pathological narcissism…

    …seems to describe so many of them.

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>