Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OUR MISSION
Followers
Liberty Bell
AVfM Donations
Reforming the justice system
Defending rights in higher education
False Rape Activist Paul Elam
Links: Information About False Rape Claims
- ● RUSSLYN ALI: 'Dear Colleague letter (lowered standard of proof on campus for sex charges, etc.)
- -- Criticisms of 'Dear Colleague' letter
- ● ROY F. BAUMEISTER: Is There Anything Good About Men?
- ●EMILY BAZELON and RACHEL LARIMORE: How often do women falsely cry rape?
- ● CYNTHIA BELL: Rape should be tough to prove
- ●ROY BLACK: Why we should protect those accused of rape
- ●CAMPUS SAFETY AND SECURITY DATA ANALYSIS CUTTING TOOL
- ● PROF. ALAN DERSHOWITZ
- --The trouble with rape prosecutions
- --When the rape rap is phoney
- ●SUSAN ESTRICH: Discussing the Al Gore rape case
- ●FATHERS AND FAMILIES WEB SITE
- ●ZACHARY FOWLE: Accused often guilty until proven innocent
- ●EDWARD GREER: The truth behind legal dominance feminism's 'two percent false rape claim' figure (debunks two percent canard)
- ●BRUCE GROSS: False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice (overview of false rape studies)
- ●AYA GRUBER: Law professor says feminists should abandon tough rape laws and the war on crime
- ●STEPHANIE GUTTMANN: How date rape 'education' fosters confusion, undermines personal responsibility, and trivializes sexual violence
- ●PIERCE HARLAN and E. STEVEN BERKIMER: Don't forget victims of false rape accusations
- ●CHAD HERMANN
- --Men are From Wilkinsburg, Women are From Collier
- --One-in-One-Thousand-Eight-Hundred-Seventy-Seven
- --The lessons of Michael Haywood
- ●AMANDA HESS: False rape claims and rape culture
- ●SANDY HINGSTON: The new rules of college sex
- ●JOANNE JACOBS: Rape and the bathroom wall
- ●KC JOHNSON: Durham-in-Wonderland (the Duke Lacrosse blog)
- ●KRISTIN JONES: A curious anomaly at UC Davis
- ●EUGENE J. KANIN: False rape reports
- ● RICHARD KLEIN: An Analysis of of Thirty-Five Years of Rape Reform: a Frustrating Search For Fundamental Fairness
- ●KENNEDY v. LOUISIANA (outlawed death penalty for child rape due, inter alia, to possibility of false claims)
- ●KOSS REPORT
- ●JIM KOURI: Duke rape case all too common
- ●JESSICA LACK: Playing the victim is overplayed
- ●JOHN LEO: A rape accusation at Brown
- ●PROF. ALAN LEVY: Political correctness is alive and well on college campuses
- ●CARRIE L. LUKAS: One in four? Rape myths do injustice, too
- ●HEATHER MacDONALD: Campus rape myth
- ●MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: Recommendation for dismissal of Strauss-Kahn case
- ●CHARLES P. McDOWELL: 'False Alligators' and fuzzy data: a new look at crime analysis
- ●WENDY McELROY
- --Continuing to defame the 'Duke 3' as rapists
- --Duke rape case raises issue of protecting identity of accused
- --False rape charges hurt real victims
- --Rape scandal turns sympathy into skepticism
- --Treat accused, accuser alike
- ●MSNBC REPORT: FALSE ALLEGATION THWARTED BY POLICE CAMERA
- ●NATIONAL COALITION FOR MEN
- --False accusations
- ●NCHERM: THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION RISK MANAGEMENT
- ●SARAH OVERSTREET: Coercion doesn't make sex a crime
- ●DR. TARA J. PALMATIER: Shrink4Men
- ●KATHLEEN PARKER: Picking up after the Duke debacle
- ●RADAR: Respecting accuracy in domestic abuse reporting
- ●RAINN: Reducing risk of sexual assault
- ●RAPE INVESTIGATION HANDBOOK: False claim red flags
- ●ANNA RITTGERS: Sometimes Women Lie About Rape
- ●KATIE ROPHIE: Date rape's other victim
- ●THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE: Dedicated to the defense of liberty and human rights
- ●SCIENCE DAILY: Women Have Not Adapted To Casual Sex, Research Shows
- ●SLATE DOUBLEX GABFEST: Jamie Leigh Jones and other high profile rape cases
- ●CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS
- --In making campuses safe for women, a travesty of justice for men
- --Researching the 'rape culture' of America
- ●JONNA M. SPILBOR: What If Kobe Bryant Has Been Falsely Accused? Why the Law of Acquaintance and Date Rape Should Seriously Penalize False Reports
- ●STATE PENALTIES FOR FALSE REPORTING
- ●STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR RAPE
- --National Conference for State Legislatures
- -- Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN)
- ●STERN REVIEW (UK)
- ●SHAUN WEBB: A Motion for Innocence
- ●LAUREN WEEDMAN: I lied about being raped
- ●TOY SOLDIERS WEB SITE
- ●NAOMI WOLF
- --A tale of two rape charges
- --Why is rape different?
- ●CATHY YOUNG
- --Last cry for 'rape crisis' feminism?
- --The noble lie, feminist style
- --Sexual assault on campus--is it exaggerated?
- --The unique power of crying rape
- --Who says women never lie about rape?
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Search This Blog
Become a fan of FRS on Facebook
Buy This Book
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Revolver Maps
Flag Counter
74 comments:
That is disgusting. And another example of how feminism helps men, I suppose?
Who is the artist?
Someone by the name of Sarah Maple.
First anon: I love your comment -- yes, this is yet another example of how that enlightened movement helps men. What I love best about this picture is how honest it is. It has reduced masculinity to what radical feminists really think it it is.
Riiiiiiight, because affirmative action was put in place to help get more men in the workforce.
How charmingly misandrous.
One of the worst pieces of misandry I've seen.
How about: I wish I had a vagina.
Because then I can trick you into having sex.
And then I can destroy your life by lying that you raped me.
2nd Anon: Right on the money,bro.
Oops. Meant to reply to the anon that said "How about: I wish I had a vagina.
Because then I can trick you into having sex.
And then I can destroy your life by lying that you raped me."
Raunch culture feminists know where their power comes from, making everything in society .."RAUNCHY".
Raunch culture feminists pass their raunch into society, then the gender feminists steps up to the hysteria platform...and blame the hetero-sexual man.
Yeah, because that's all we do - fuck womyn and keep 'em out of the workplace.
I don't get it. Which female jobs are men stealing, again?
Actually this shows at bottom line where feminists are coming from: they have a love/hate (mainly hate) relationship with physically getting fucked. They abhor the thought that men have this 'power' over women, even if only momentarily.
I have always suspected this to be the case.
p.s.
the dufus who created this obviously does not understand which direction affirmative action works in. What a loser. Stupid too.
Also they are objectifying women by having one of them pose in a bikini.
Norm,
I think the bikini one is simply going with that particular quote. It'd be objectifying if she was in a bikini and advertising a sandwich, or if you only she her body or boobs in an ad...not even her face, for something completely random. I've seen speakers shaped as a disembodied female torso with the speakers as boobs lol.
Anyway, what site was this posted on? Is this really feminist art? From the feminism I've encountered online, this shot has nothing to do with what their about. Is it misandric though, yes.
This is like me saying that the misygonist ads and pictures I've seen are by MRAs, which isn't true. The ads are just misygonistic. But hey, I know nothing about the photographer so I could be wrong.
Some of the nastiest / vulgarist shit i have ever seen came from the raunch culture crowd.
Here's another example of her work.
http://abnoxio.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/maple08eee.jpg
Renee,
actually I was being tongue in cheek. But what do you mean by this,
"It'd be objectifying if she was in a bikini and advertising a sandwich"
Why is that 'objectification'? What is wrong with it? You're telling me some woman eating a sandwich while wearing a bikini is 'objectification'. What does that mean...that real women in bikinis are on a sandwich-free diet?
You know, that comment speaks volumes about you. It shows how P.C. you are, to what extent you have been brainwashed by feminists, and to what extent you are unlike anyone else on this board.
And in addition to all that, it is just plain fucking LUDICROUS!!
A woman showing off her natural beauty is no more "objectifying" than a woman showing off her natural gift for singing or athleticism or painting or even imitating birds. Somehow, for beauty, it's "wrong" -- and that's only because men are drawn to and aroused by it.
Norm,
Well for one thing, all this talk about PC and PIC...I don't consider what I said to be PC. And there are times (NOT all the time) when being politically incorrect is just a politically correct term for being an asshole. But I digress.
Why is that 'objectification'? What is wrong with it? You're telling me some woman eating a sandwich while wearing a bikini is 'objectification'. What does that mean...that real women in bikinis are on a sandwich-free diet?
I admit, my example was pretty general. But it's not literally just a woman eating a sandwich, it rather how it's presented. Take Hardee's for example and the notorious commercial of Paris Hilton (or another blond with more clothes in another similar commerical) riding a mechanical bull while eating a Hardee's burger. Need I go into details?
I know that this has been touched on before, and the comments about it made sense. But as I thought about it, I realized that there's a difference between admiring someone's beauty and actual objectifying. Yes you can admire a woman's beauty as you do her musical or writing talents. But in the case of objectification, women (or their body parts) are basically seen as sex objects, nothing more. Ever heard of the idea "sex sales"? Beauty comes in all forms, so in the case of objectification, the woman (or man) in question is seen through the eyes of the group in question, "the glaze". Yes we talked about that too and the general consensus is that it's a myth. Personally I think there's some merit to it. I'm getting the impression that you think that I believe that the "glaze" and admiring someone's beauty is the same thing. It's not.
Here are a few links that are examples and offer better explanations. Yes it's from Feministing, but me agreeing with the topics of discussion has nothing to do with them being feminists. I'm able to look beyond that to the subject at hand. And to me, the topics make very good points. Take from it what you will.
Men are presidents, women are butts
The Long History of Objectifying Erin Andrews
Casual Dismissal and Objectification of Rape in Quantum of Solace
What is amusing us that Shit-For-Brains Sarah Maple actually used a picture of a woman in a headscarf.
Just sit back and watch the turds hit the fan with the backlash from the Muslim community. Those zealots will do more for her than any of us ever could.
Should be a gas!
I think theres a whole host of reasons for this 'artist'.
One reason is that shes just another woman, pissed off because she isnt as beautiful or sexy as marilyn monroe, and she cant manipulate men in the way a beautiful woman is able to. so she lashes out at those who reject her, and who are easy targets (men).
Thats the way women are.
take a look at this photo on her website, it says it all:
http://www.sarahmaple.com/wordspage.htm
by the way, look at the first picture again, the words read
1. 'I wish I had a penis.'
2. 'Because then I'd fuck you'
3. Then steal your job.
My guess is she subconciously really does wish she had a penis. She probably wants to be a man.
Thats why alot of women are behaving like men these days.
Men wannabe's. Its pathetic.
Steve,
Thats why alot of women are behaving like men these days.
Men wannabe's. Its pathetic.
How are they behaving like men and what exactly are examples of "male behavior"? Is it really "male behavior" or behavior that's actually universal to everyone?
Of course I know men and women are biologically different by the way. I just want to know the ways in which women are behaving "like men".
"Take Hardee's for example and the notorious commercial of Paris Hilton (or another blond with more clothes in another similar commerical) riding a mechanical bull while eating a Hardee's burger. Need I go into details? "
Yes, please go into details. Perhaps then I will see what your problem is.
First, picture me waving my hands back and forth from side to side, saying, "oh my God, we are all doomed by this commercial!"
Now let me ask you a series of questions:
You know there is such a thing as a mechanical bull, right?
And you know there is a place called Hardees, and they make hamburgers, right?
And you know that statistically, it is bound to be the case that some of the people who ride mechanical bulls also eat
Hardees' hamburgers, right?
And you know some of those people are bound to be women, right?
When you show me a group of women walking in circles around a mechanical bull with placards that read, "women should not eat Hardees burgers while riding this bull, because men who see you doing so might rape you!", then I will consider that there is some (though flimsy) link between your PC fears, and reality. (note I said I will only CONSIDER it. My initial impression would be that the women with the placards are complete nuts, and losers with too much time onn their hands to boot.)
It's too bad you have had BS shoved down your throat for twenty or thirty years so I guess you're not to blame. And after all, we are all ultimately limited by our innate abilities.
God help me, I hardly have any hair left from pulling it out. If I see one more P.C. statement about women or gender issues today, or about how bad women have had it, I am going to SCREAM!!!!!!!! (Guess I better not look at this web site again until tomorrow.)
Agreed, Norm. To put it charitably, women need to grow up. This oppression crap is holding back an entire gender. When I think of what women could do if they spent time being productive instead of whining about men . . . it is frightening.
Norm,
First, picture me waving my hands back and forth from side to side, saying, "oh my God, we are all doomed by this commercial!"
This really had me laughing! Just in case that you're not joking, I'll just say that you're taking my opinions and overracting from them. Of course you'll just say that I myself am overreacting, which isn't true.
Yes, please go into details. Perhaps then I will see what your problem is.
I'll just say for you to go on Youtube and see for yourself. I have a feeling that you're not going to get it from me describing it to you.
You know there is such a thing as a mechanical bull, right? And you know there is a place called Hardees, and they make hamburgers, right?
And you know that statistically, it is bound to be the case that some of the people who ride mechanical bulls also eat
Hardees' hamburgers, right?
And you know some of those people are bound to be women, right?
Yes and DUH to all of these questions.
When you show me a group of women walking in circles around a mechanical bull with placards that read, "women should not eat Hardees burgers while riding this bull, because men who see you doing so might rape you!", then I will consider that there is some (though flimsy) link between your PC fears, and reality. (note I said I will only CONSIDER it. My initial impression would be that the women with the placards are complete nuts, and losers with too much time onn their hands to boot.)
Lol, you're looking at this from a narrow, straight forward, and very literal point of view. Of course I have no problem with women riding mechanical bulls and eating a burger at the same time, if there are those that do that. We are of course known for our multitasking of course. This isn't about that anyway. I was using that commericial as only one example. It's about the subliminal (and sometimes blatant) messages that one gets from the ads. Like I said, the links I posted have more examples and better explainations.
And I don't know how many posts of the ones you descibed you have seen today, but don't stop visiting (even though it's for a day) on my account. Believe me when I say that I've seen my share of statements either from this site (not often) or others, so you're not the only one.
For kicks, check out the site menarebetterthanwomen.com.
Pierce,
Agreed, Norm. To put it charitably, women need to grow up. This oppression crap is holding back an entire gender. When I think of what women could do if they spent time being productive instead of whining about men . . . it is frightening.
I never mentioned anything about oppression. I never even mentioned men specifically. And women are being pretty productive as well, at least I think so. Believe it or not we "whine" about men because there's reasons to. Just like how men "whine" about women. Are there times that in either case it's unnecessary, of course, but there are times that it's valid as well.
I guess the old sayings go,"walk a mile in someone else's shoes", and "the grass is greener...".
But anyway.....
"Believe it or not we "whine" about men because there's reasons to."
Believe it or not, women have been afforded every special treatment possible to help them move from ruling the domestic sphere -- which they always have and still do -- to joining men in the place women insist men stay, the workplace. If women have a beef with a specific man, or woman, their complaints are given preference. Women do not -- repeat -- do not, have an institutional beef against any governmental or social instutution, or against men as a class. Men, on the other hand, are, in many respects, now treated as second class citizens because the feminist pendulum has swung so far that men are disadvantaged in ways women never were and never will be. Sorry if you don't buy it -- go wallow in the tar pit of victimhood with the lesbians who HATE AND DESPISE men, and who predominantly comprise radical gender feminism. Sorry if the truth hurts.
Raunch culture feminists know where their power comes from..It comes from raunchifying everything..and then blaming heterosexual men for it.
Sorry if you don't buy it -- go wallow in the tar pit of victimhood with the lesbians who HATE AND DESPISE men, and who predominantly comprise radical gender feminism. Sorry if the truth hurts.
Believe me, I don't consider myself a victim of anything. And why do people always bring up lesbians in regards to (I'm assuming) feminism? Maybe they're lesbians only because, *gasp*, they prefer other women. That's like saying there's a connection between gay men and MRAs. And saying that all lesbians/feminists hate men...isn't that another form of victimhood?
I doubt that a LARGE percentage of feminists DESPISE men. Do some of feminists and women sometimes do and say things that are misandric in nature, of course, just like how some men and say and do things misygonistic in nature. We're all humans. But hey my only interaction with feminists is through a few sites, and most of the time I lurk around lol.
If women have a beef with a specific man, or woman, their complaints are given preference. Women do not -- repeat -- do not, have an institutional beef against any governmental or social instutution, or against men as a class. Men, on the other hand, are, in many respects, now treated as second class citizens...
I see what you're saying completely about men as second class citizens. But that doesn't mean that everything is sunshine and roses for women all the time either. Aren't women allowed to voice their concerns and opinions about our society just like you all? Isn't everyone free to anaylize what goes on in our society?
I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that men have more of a reason to have beef with women as a sex than vice versa, among other things?
To me this seems to be the case of men and women believing that the other gender having it good. Agree to disagree.
And quick question...
What exactly is a "raunch culture feminist"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Chauvinist_Pigs
Anon, I actually looked up something about that. Both takes a interesting look at the whole "Female Chauvinist Pigs" idea.
Female Chauvinist Pigs At the Trough
Female Chauvinist Pigs
Renee, go away.
Yeah, get out of here.
Renee, stick around.
Best way to make Rancid Renee walk away is to ignore her inane blitherings. Personally, any one posts something on my blog that is clearly an attempt at misdirection or obfuscation, i simply delete it. Life is too short to argue with people who refuse to see the truth.
I'm not a religious piggy, but...
"The light shines withing the darkness, and the darkness does not see it"
Regarding the photo, this is just another talentless woman using feminism to garner herself a career she otherwise would not enjoy, after all, there is neither aesthetic nor intellectual value to her work so if she wasn't a feminist she's be working at WalMart - with Hillary and Sonia.
Lol, is it bad that I laughed? I see 3 Anons saying both to leave and stay. I know it's different people, but seeing 3 Anons in a row makes it look like a bipolar person posted them.
To the Anons that said for me to leave, that's the best you can come up with? I should leave because I have a different opinion? It'll be different if I posted insults and downright offensive posts, but I've done neither.
To the last Anon, thanks :)
Porky,
I wasn't trying to misdirect the discussion. I just shared an opinion about something Norm posted, and it went on from there.
Life is too short to argue with people who refuse to see the truth.
So completely true...like I said, agree to disagree.
Rancid Renee...HA! I'm sure I could come up with something relating to Porky, but I won't stoop to that.
I found this. It speaks volumes.
Confessions of a user of men
OK. Time to put men out of your misery. Feminism was and is the biggest con in history. We talked endlessly about "equality" yet that was the last thing we wanted. You men have yet to realise that women never say what we mean. It is always shrouded in hyperbole and imagery.
So now, we are so close to having our cake and eating it. Here are just a few examples.
1) We can take you to the cleaners in divorce. No suggestion of equality there. We can have affairs and divorce you and we STILL get the house and maintenance for as long as we need. There is now absolutely no risk in a woman filing for divorce. You men don't even have the right to shag us any more. More and more women are making their husbands live celebate lives in marriage. Once we have that ring on our finger we rule! I am only 27. I have been married three times. Each one I stayed with for three years and then took for every penny I could get. You see, we only have to convince a judge of "irretreivable breakdown" of the relationship. And how is that determined? Easy. When ONE party does not wish the relationship to continue. My current husband needs another year I would say. The business he has built up is not quite where I need it to be yet. When it is, he will go the same way as the others. The house is already mine "for tazx reasons". At least thats what he thinks. I "allowed" my name to be put on the deeds, but he will find come the day that this just means the house is mine already. I tend to go for cash settlements with regard to maintenance which leaves me free to start again. Not that I need to now. By the time I have ditched this poor sap, I will have more than enough to live a very good lifestyle with for the rest of my life. Even if money starts to run short I can always do it again. It's not as if I have to have sex much either. I pick men who are on the way up building their buisnesses. The hours they put in mean they are usually too tired and if they have affairs with their secretaries, well, that just makes it easier for me.
2) We get far less severe prison sentences for the same crimes. We can even murder our new born children and it is written off as Post Natal Depression. Women's groups all over the world are working for the day when no woman will ever be sent to prison for any crime. ANd trust me, that day will come.
3) In the work place not only do we get paid for taking time off to have children, but now we even get pay rises while we are off, an absolute right in law to return to the job we left and in some cases now, we even get promoted while we are on leave. Employers have to invest in our training, but we are free to screw them over by taking all the training and qualifications we can get of of them and then leaving.
4) We now have senior politicians who advocate "positive descrimination" . In other words, if you are a white male, you are where you belong. At the bottom of the heap. Women are eased into top jobs and ministerial positions in Government. The Sisterhood is alive and well and working beautifully. The Labour Government, always breathtakingly stupid has actually gone as far as prohibiting the selection of male candidates in some wards. Fantastic.
And you poor men. What can one say? All you need is a little show of panty now and then and you are putty in our hands. You and you alone have allowed us to take this supremecy and you have done so without a whimper. When I joined the feminist movement, I didnt really buy into the more vitriolic mantras of "all men are pigs" and "the only good man is a doormat", but now I see you for what you are. A means of providing what I want.
http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2009/08/confessions-of-user-of-men.html
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9212733216193396230&postID=7334970648343662823
Renee,
"Lol, you're looking at this from a narrow, straight forward, and very literal point of view."
I am merely making the logical connection which you implied must exist. Perhaps you should go back and read the applicable entries.
As far as walking in someone else's shoes, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we in America have ALL been walking in WOMEN's shoes, for the last 30-40 years. My feet are so sore from it I'm going to have them amputated. Then I'll have an excuse to sit in my lounger all day and do the things we all know men do - shout at my wife ('verbal abuse'!), drink beer, throw the cat at the TV, etc.
"the feminist pendulum has swung so far that men are disadvantaged in ways women never were and never will be"
Actually, by definition there is no pendulum. The science tells us that throughout history, across all cultures, it is males who are at a disadvantage, due to their being the 'genetic filter' (it's also true of most other species).
This is where women who otherwise appear to be scientifically-minded suddenly become superstitious and freak out; or else they just plain ignore the evidence ("That can't be right! I just know!!")
"Objectification" is feminist bullshit, because women "objectify" men AND other women even more so in their own magazines and programs than the PORN INDUSTRY does. Have you seen the covers of the magazines that women read?
The difference between men and women on this issue is that men UNDERSTAND that porn and beer commercials aren't realistic, while women are often so shallow that they think that MEN really are supposed to be like they are depicted in fashion magazines. Women feel disappointed if their boyfriends don't live up to their ridiculous fantasies, whereas men are far more realistic much of the time.
About the "feminist art," I don't understand how women who dehumanize men and express Naziesque hatred for all men can complain about men who think that women are dumb. The Archie Bunkers out there are operating on a far more civilized level than this cunt, who obviously would set up death camps for men if she could.
And I am not engaging in cheap hyperbole when I say this. Those who say that this is anything less than Adolf Hitler level hate directed at half of the human race are just excusing it on the basis that women shouldn't be taken seriously -- a pretty sexist notion in and of itself!
Also bizarre is the claim that penises are stealing jobs from vaginas, considering that 80% of those who have lost their jobs in this terrible recession have been men.
Can you imagine a man dressing up as a woman and saying that he wished he was a vagina, so that he could bleed on men and steal their jobs? He'd wind up in a rubber room!
"Have you seen the covers of the magazines that women read?"
Romance novels are the true 'porn for women'. They gobble 'em up, blissfully unaware of their double standard.
Re Hitler, actaully there are valid parallels that can be drawn between radical feminism and Nazism. Check out Nathanson and Young's 'Legalizing Misandry'.
(They are Ph.D.'s at McGill University in Canada.) The problem is that most people, including some well-known MRA's, are a long way from recognizing this P.C.-fascist hatred of men for what it is. Part of the reason for that is that it has snuck up on us gradually, so people, especially the younger ones, don't have anything else to compare it with - there is no recognizable 'contrast' with other time periods.
The other reason is the incredible stupidity and lack of insight of so many people...if you tell them radical feminism has elements of fascism, they respond by saying things like, "well, I don't see any men being lined up and shot yet!" People who think this way are unable to learn lessons from history, or to take a 'long-range' view of anything. They also did not understand the book '1984'.
Renee,
I think the main problem you are having is that you are not viewing things objectively. The fact is, no group anywhere at any time has had things as easy as white American women do now. You cannot see this, however, because you interpret all the slings and arrows each of us as individuals must suffer in life, and you somehow derive from that your theory that women as a class have it bad.
No.
It is men as a class who are getting the short end of the stick. Anyone who is truly objective and unbiased can easily see that. There is no place here for arguments like, 'some men get screwed, some women get screwed'. That is an entirely different issue, if it can be called an issue at all, and it is something which has nothing to do with MRA's or this board.
"When ONE party does not wish the relationship to continue"
No-fault divorce has been perhaps THE key element in our recent social breakdown. Kids growing up without fathers - In a since that is the 'root of all evil.'
Norm,
As far as walking in someone else's shoes, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we in America have ALL been walking in WOMEN's shoes, for the last 30-40 years. My feet are so sore from it I'm going to have them amputated.
To my knowledge, "walking a mile in someone's shoes" means that you get a feel for what that person goes through and why they think and feel a certain way in response to society and in general. It's about understanding. Based on that, I think you're talking about something different.
Anyway, I get you what you're saying, but who's fault is that? You can say feminism, but feminism didn't physically stop men from raising their concerns and speaking out. They just seem to choose not to.
I am merely making the logical connection which you implied must exist. Perhaps you should go back and read the applicable entries.
Once again, this thinking is too literal. I was talking about the subliminal message of the ad of a woman seen as a sexual object, nothing more. Like I said, "sex sales". Do you even know what commercial I'm talking about?
Then I'll have an excuse to sit in my lounger all day and do the things we all know men do - shout at my wife ('verbal abuse'!), drink beer, throw the cat at the TV, etc.
Who's "we"? But hey, if you say so.
Norm,
Actually, by definition there is no pendulum. The science tells us that throughout history, across all cultures, it is males who are at a disadvantage, due to their being the 'genetic filter' (it's also true of most other species).
The problem here is that you're looking at it only from a scientific standpoint. In sociological terms, women have been seen as everything from evil, to property, or almost equivilant to children. There was a time in which it was believed that their opinions didn't matter or that it wasn't as valued as a man's. They really didn't have a way to have a voice when it came to politics for a loooong time. And it was even believed that women shouldn't learn math and science because their brains couldn't handle it! In other words, society took the word "weaker" in "weaker sex" to extremes.
I could go on, but I'll stop there.
Now I know you'll say that men had to go to war, work, etc., etc. I don't deny that. They had it tough. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to disregard and devalue issues that women faced, and vice versa.
Norm,
I think the main problem you are having is that you are not viewing things objectively.
I have been VERY objective here. In fact I think I have been one of few objective ones here. I agree with points on here that others have made, but because I also agree with the existence of a form objectification, I'm not objective?
The fact is, no group anywhere at any time has had things as easy as white American women do now.
I think it's interesting you posted "white women", since alot of people (mainly other whites) have a problem when someone says that they have it better than other people or other races, especially in the case of white men. Anyway, how do you define "having it easy"? Just becase they "have it easy", are they not allowed to voice concerns, opinions, criticisms, and analyses about our society like white men or other groups of people do? Once you "have it easy" you're supposed to keep your thoughts to yourself?
You cannot see this, however, because you interpret all the slings and arrows each of us as individuals must suffer in life, and you somehow derive from that your theory that women as a class have it bad.
As a black woman, I do see some ways in which white women have it better. But that's besides the point (see above). But you are COMPLETELY wrong in thinking that from those "slings and arrows" I think that only women as a class have it bad. I never even said that women as a class have it bad. Do women as a class have isuues that is unique to them, yes. The same goes for men. Looking back at my posts, where did you even get that from, that only women as a class have it bad? Especially when I was just mainly focusing on objectification. Whether you believe it or not, there are issues that BOTH men and women have faced and still face today.
It is men as a class who are getting the short end of the stick. Anyone who is truly objective and unbiased can easily see that. There is no place here for arguments like, 'some men get screwed, some women get screwed'. That is an entirely different issue, if it can be called an issue at all, and it is something which has nothing to do with MRA's or this board.
I don't know where you got your definition of objective from, but based on the above quote, I don't get the impression of you being objective at all. I think what I'm seeing here is that the issues you mostly talk about are governmental, biological, and institutional (correct me if I'm wrong). The issues I talk about are mostly sociological and societal. We are talking about different issues (although they can and do intercept).
Of course we will be naturally more aware about issues and realities that affect our gender, but to completely close yourself off to the reality that women have their own issues and concerns isn't being objective. How is it, that as a woman, I can still acknowledge that men have their issues of their own, but if I say that women have their own problems as well, I'm not objective?
But hey, maybe you think that you're objective because you really believe that women don't have any reasons to express any concerns that is specific to their gender. None at all. But like I said, I think we're really are talking about different types of issues.
Renee, go away. You are a feminist heckler. You don't really care about false rape accusations against men.
Some final thoughts,
"Objectification" is feminist bullshit, because women "objectify" men AND other women even more so in their own magazines and programs than the PORN INDUSTRY does. Have you seen the covers of the magazines that women read?
I agree, we all "objectify" in some form or another. I guess the problem lies in how it's presented (I mean, some of those Axe commercials have been ridiculous). Some I've seen are so...blatant and obvious. Take comic books for example. Enough said. The links I posted are also great examples and explanations.
The difference between men and women on this issue is that men UNDERSTAND that porn and beer commercials aren't realistic, while women are often so shallow that they think that MEN really are supposed to be like they are depicted in fashion magazines.
And you think men aren't as shallow? To me, it's not about it being realistic. If you think the girl's hot, then she's hot. And you would want to be with someone like that in real-life. But hey, I'm not a guy, so I don't perceive to know how they act in general, unlike some of you here who seem to be expects in the behavior of women.
Romance novels are the true 'porn for women'. They gobble 'em up...
Oh of course! I read fanfiction over the internet that's equivalent to porn :) Aren't men biologically more visually stimulated while women are more stimulated by....whatever the opposite of visual is? Basically we're more stimulated by what we read in regards to sex.
About the "Confessions of a user of men post".
2) I think women getting lesser sentences doesn't have to do with feminism, but a warped version of chivary. Also, post partum depression and psychosis are very serious conditions. If a mentally unstable person killed someone and got off due to insanity, is that wrong? If a woman was sane when she murdered her kids, then by all means put her away. But in the cases of what I mentioned, what applies to a person who is mentally unstable should apply to her in regards to sentencing. What does this have to do with feminism?
3) So if a woman wants to have kids or gets pregnant while working, she should just quit? She should choose between her career and becoming a mother? Believe it or not, some women can't afford to quit. Should they not become mothers period? Once they give birth, should they not take time off to be with their own baby? What about paternal leave?
4) If women are "eased" into top positions, why aren't there more of them at the top? It predominatly male is it not?
Many of what was descibed in that list had nothing to do with feminism and more to do with a woman who was or women who were manipulative. And to me, having only men as a way to provide for women seems to me the OPPOSITE of what feminism is about, that women can provide for themselves as well. But maybe I'm taking that part to seriously.
Anyway, about the picture. As I mentioned before, is this really feminist art? From the feminism I've encountered over the net, this shot has nothing to do with what they're about. Is it misandric though, yes.
This is like me saying that the misygonist ads and pictures I've seen are by MRAs, which isn't true. The ads are just misygonistic. Nothing more.
Renee, go away. You are a feminist heckler. You don't really care about false rape accusations against men.
Of course I care about false rape accusations against people. Just because I disagree with some points doesn't make me a heckler. It's a discussion, deal with it. And we're not talking about false rape accusations anyway.
Once again, I don't really consider myself a full-fledge feminist. Some stuff I agree with, some I don't. Same goes with some stuff on this board. Anyway, other feminists probably wouldn't consider me one. I mean look, I visit this site and you don't see me saying that false rape accusations don't happen that much, do you? And I agree what men have big issues in this society.
What, I disagree with some things (none to do with FRA or men's rights), and I'm a heckler? Lol, ok.
Renee, go away.
I agree, we all "objectify" in some form or another. I guess the problem lies in how it's presented (I mean, some of those Axe commercials have been ridiculous). Some I've seen are so...blatant and obvious. Take comic books for example. Enough said. The links I posted are also great examples and explanations.
__
No, we don't "objectify." There is no such thing as "objectification." It's a false concept.
"Take comic books for example. Enough said" is just lazy thinking on your part. Your mere assertion that comics are bad because there are gorgeous women in them doesn't prove a thing.
Why are comics bad but women's magazines good? There is no possible standard by which that can be the case, unless people with penises should just have less freedom than women to view the images that they want.
I've also noticed that comics are also full of incredibly sexy men with huge muscles. Why would images of hot women be sexist but images of hot men not be sexist? That doesn't make any sense if you accept the feminist assertion that men and women are basically the same.
Unless comics are bad because they should be a tool of class warfare but aren't.
It's a false concept.
Suit yourself.
is just lazy thinking on your part. Your mere assertion that comics are bad because there are gorgeous women in them doesn't prove a thing.
No it's not lazy thinking, it an example I used. Also, I never said comics were badas, don't put words in my mouth.
Why are comics bad but women's magazines good? There is no possible standard by which that can be the case, unless people with penises should just have less freedom than women to view the images that they want.
You're comparing apples to asparaguses. Women's magazines (or the ones that I know of) don't have women presented as blatant sexual objects like comic books do. Especially since it's not trying to visually "sale sex" to other women. That's like saying Cosmopolitan and Maxim are in the same category. They're not. Why do you think Sport's Illustrated have a swimsuit issue? It has nothing to do with sports lol? Oh, and this has nothing to do with decreasing men's freedom to view what they want, don't be so dramatic. I'm just making observations. So sue me.
Would you say that a magazine geared towards males that has a good looking or shirtless guy on the cover is objectifying? How can you even compare magazines and comics to prove your point?
I never said that comics as a whole are bad. I like comics books. I just get annoyed of seeing things like a woman's behind taking up the whole or half of panel once in a while.
I've also noticed that comics are also full of incredibly sexy men with huge muscles.
Do other male readers think that those males characters are sexy in the same way as a female character that has huge breasts, tiny waists, and in some cases big butts? Especially since males are the majority of comic book readers? It's about the audience. Guys with muscles or strength has been a traditional archetype of manliness and a hero (at least in pop culture).
Why would images of hot women be sexist but images of hot men not be sexist?
I never said that. The fact that you think that speak volumes. Like I said, we all objectify in one form or another. It's one thing to admire someone's beauty, it's another to objectify.
I would like to say though that comics have been improving in how they visually portray women. They aren't only skinny with big hips and big breasts. The anatomy is actually realistic.
Ms. Renee Feminist, get out of here.
"Would you say that a magazine geared towards males that has a good looking or shirtless guy on the cover is objectifying? How can you even compare magazines and comics to prove your point?"
OF COURSE IT'S OBJECTIFYING!! It's just that most men would not be aroused by that. To objectify is to reduce someone's humanity to an object -- and guess what, Renee? Male models are reduced to objects. Men don't look at male models and say, "I wonder how intelligent he is? I wonder if he's a good person?" We look at them and say, "oh, male model -- I should get my hair cut like his" or whatever." We look at a good looking female model and we say, "oh, female model -- and wow!"
The difference between the two models? MEN ARE ATTRACTED TO WOMEN. You all need to grow up because without that attraction the human race ends. End of story.
This is my last post on this topic.
Pierce,
Male models are reduced to objects.
I never denied this.
Men don't look at male models and say, "I wonder how intelligent he is? I wonder if he's a good person?" We look at them and say, "oh, male model -- I should get my hair cut like his" or whatever."
That's not objectifying...that making an observation on his haircut. The goes for women in a similar situation. The example you descibed isn't an example of a male model being reduced to an instrument of pleasure.
Of course men are attracted to women and vice versa. But sexual objectification in and of itself is not vital to the human race.
Seriously, all you have to do is google "women objectification" or "objectification" under Google images and see what I'm taking about. Also try "men objectification". Just letting you know that there aren't that many results.
"That's not objectifying...that making an observation on his haircut."
And THIS is my last post on this topic: your inability to make a sensible distinction between male and female models underscores the absence of logic in your argument and actually supports my argument. Here is the answer: in my example, I have reduced a male model to a haircut. Some men reduce women models to a sex partner.
And, the final point on this subject: most women reduce men to success objects. Period.
I'm sorry, I have to add this, or I'll keep thinking about it lol.
What distinction are you talking about??? Both male and female models can be objectified sexually, so what are you getting at. I stated that already. And I have been talking about sexual objectification if you didn't notice. I thought that was obvious. What you described isn't related to the discussion.
Well usually, when anybody uses the word "objectification" in terms of ads, the media, and society, it's usually a give-in what type of objectification is being discussed. Maybe I should have called it "sexual objectification".
As mentioned before just search using Goolge images to see what I'm talking about.
Ooooh, gee whiz, Renee, anybody can "win" an argument when they change the rules, now can't they? So it's SEXUAL objectification only -- which is different than any other type of objectification . . . exactly how?
Wait . . . I know. Because men are proven to have a much greater sex drive than women.
So . . .
Men lose again!!! Ding! Ding! Ding! Renee wins the grand prize! That's what happens when a woman establishes the "rules." You go, girlfriend!
There is a legal term for reasoning such as yours: horseshit.
But anyway, thank you for making my case for me. The most effective arguments are those where you can use the other party's own words to show how utterly vapid their position is. You lose. Go back to Feministing, please.
Pierce Harlan
Please, I never changed any "rules", whatever rules there were, if any. It seemed you were confused as to what I meant by objectification and didn't get the point from my posts and examples. I mean come on, liking a guys haircut? It's about how men and women are portrayed BY the media. I added the word "sexual" to it so you'll get the point more. Obviously not.
And think about it. You admit, that people are objectified, so what's the problem here? You basically made my case. And you don't see me disagreeing with men being seen as "success" objects either.
The problem is, you turned it into a sort of victimization of males by saying they "lose", especially for having a higher sex drive. This isn't a game or about punishing males for their sex drive. I'm just pointing out objectification by the media and that it exists. If you think I "won" the arguement, fine by me. Obviously I proved my point.
As you guys constantly point out, constantly playing the victim-card doesn't help anyone's case.
About this sex drive...
Sex Drive: Men Vs Women
Not Tonight Honey, and Who Knows Why
But hey, if what you said is based on actual scientific research then ok. I found this article. It's a long read and it's late so I'll read it later.
Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical
Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence
Back to the topic at hand:
Looking back on the post that started it all, perhaps the girl in the picture is being objectified. To me, her being in a bikini was to further emphasize the point of the picture or rather the quote that she was holding. With that being said, if she is being objectified, then what's with all the hoopla saying that it doesn't exist?
Lastly, something I found.
What Is Feminist Art?
Renee, all kidding aside, the reason you are being met with such resistance is that we all know this argument. We get it, OK? Women are not just sexual beings. But unfortunately, too many radical feminists don't want to see the bigger picture. Their focus is so narrow that it's dishonest.
Here is the most amazing aspect to the entire objectification debate: that radical feminists assume males generally regard females generally as sexual beings, and they can't conceive that men are sufficiently intelligent to appreciate female beauty AS WELL AS all the other attributes, including intelligence, women possess. They can't conceive that men regard women as human beings. They think that because women in ads and on television are beautiful, men must only be looking at breasts. The fact is, women aren't as physically attracted to men as the other way around. If they were, you'd see at least equal amounts of male flesh in ads. Female beauty is given more airtime because it sells better. Period. That's the free market.
Do some men treat women as second class citizens in the workplace? You bet they do. But far fewer than we are led to believe, and even that is changing rapidly. The vast majority of men treat women as full human beings, and the "evidence" to the contrary simply isn't persuasive. Now the other side of the coin is that a lot of women do not treat men as human beings but as sexual predators, dogs, selfish pigs, dicks and any number of other terrible stereotypes. (Women and men can call other men "dicks" with abandon. Women can call other women "bitches" and the "c" word -- but heaven help a male who does that.)
The reason you are being met with such resistance is that you are ringing a bell that's been sounded repeatedly by your radical sisters and it just doesn't ring true. It tells only a sliver of the story and ignores so much nuance, so much gray, that it's simply not an accurate picture of reality. It ignores the other side of the coin. And if you continue reading one-sided radical feminist articles, you'll convince yourself their tripe "must" be true. My sincere advice to you: take off the gender lenses and you'll see reality much more clearly.
Pierce Harlan
What's wonderful about this thread is that our dear, sweet, wonderful, open-minded, Ms. Renee is finally showing her true feminist colors for everyone to see.
I have suspected her as a poser all along.
Archivist,
Key word here is "radical", unless you think that ALL feminists are radical.
You think that my posts are an attack against men. It's not. Like I mentioned a thousand times before, I don't consider myself that much of a feminist if any at all. I'm sure others feminists wouldn't consider me one either. Some things I agree with, some I don't. This happens to be one of them, if this really is a "feminist" thing.
Here is the most amazing aspect to the entire objectification debate: that radical feminists assume males generally regard females generally as sexual beings, and they can't conceive that men are sufficiently intelligent...
Even though I never seen evidence of this from sites like Feministing (that I can remember), I understand you. From what I've seen, feminists do mention what you posted when it actually applies, but they don't say that ALL men are guilty of it. Besides, they mainly accuse the media and society itself for doing that to women. That was the point of my posts.
Anyway, what does this have to do with ME and the specific material of my posts? I was focusing on the media, not the men who look at the media. Some of you took what you accused radical feminists of doing and you used that to interpret my posts instead of reading it for what it was. You made it about men when it wasn't, that's the issue here and that's what got you all upset. You took it personally. I seemed to be one of the few, if only objective one here.
They think that because women in ads and on television are beautiful, men must only be looking at breasts.
Once again, this doesn't apply to me and my posts. In fact, I don't think that this is true for all feminists. Do some of them think that way, sure. Now if you don't think that there's a difference between feminists and radical feminists in this regard, then well, you're bound to disagree. As mentioned before, it's about how it's PRESENTED. I see beautiful women MANY times on tv and ads who aren't being portrayed as blatant sex objects.
As far as wearing gender lenses...if I really was wearing any, I wouldn't be on this site, much less agreeing with many of the topics and points here now would I? So what if I agree with feminists on some things. It has nothing to do with it being "feminists articles" and more to do with what's being presented. The article itself. I'm sure other feminists would accuse me of wearing "gender lenses" when it comes to reading and agreeing with articles here as well, which isn't true either.
Why is it so bad for feminists to generalize men, but ok for some of you all to do the same to feminists and women in general? Not once have I generalized men since I've been here.
Since I doubt that any of you searched under Google images, here are some links with pictures:
There Is No Justifiable Objectification
It discusses both men and women.
WOMEN AS ITEMS FOR CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION
Seriously, if this link doesn't prove my point, then nothing will lol.
This is just ridiculous, and slightly disturbing
Dual Objectification
Women as Sex Objects
Men as Sex Objects
In fact, after looking at the pictures, how can any of you say that objectification in the media doesn't happen. Are these examples of ads for the purpose of truely "admiring" someone's beauty?
UGH that was long....
The fact is, women aren't as physically attracted to men as the other way around.
Of course, I said this before in another post.
Female beauty is given more airtime because it sells better. Period. That's the free market.
You think I don't know this? It's obvious.
"I don't consider myself that much of a feminist if any at all."
That's like this: "I don't consider myself that much of a cannibal if any at all," he said, as he wiped his hands and swallowed the last of the missionary.
The media shows beautiful women because it shows beautiful people, period. They show beautiful women because that's what women and men prefer to look at. Now, does that mean MEN, as a class (and, no, Renee, I never said radical feminists say "all" men) reduce women to the status of subhumans?
The media shows beautiful women because it shows beautiful people, period. They show beautiful women because that's what women and men prefer to look at.
No shit. But what I'm talking about (and the pictures under the links are obvious enough) that they do take it to extremes, hence the objectification.
Now, does that mean MEN, as a class (and, no, Renee, I never said radical feminists say "all" men) reduce women to the status of subhumans?
No. You and others keep on insisting this is about men as a class and that I'm insulting them. NOT.TRUE. How clearer can that be for you all? That's the problem and why there was such a hoopla about what I posted. It's about the MEDIA!
Renee, not responding or reading any more here -- not enough time.
Post a Comment