One of my favorite comments on the Hofstra false rape case is found in the comments section under a story about the case at the Huffington Post:
Bdub24 I'm a Fan of Bdub24
I try not to judge people, so I see this as a case of a woman getting a bit freaky and then having regrets. It happens, and it's unfortunate she chose to go the route she did afterwards without fully thinking about the ramifications of the accusations. It seems she felt it was the only option she could take in order to avoid being negatively talked about or judged. Lessons to be learned all around...the young woman, the dudes, and likely police department professionalism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/hofstra-gang-rape-hoax-st_n_289774.html?show_comment_id=31221463#comment_31221463
Let's examine this peculiar specimen more closely, shall we?
"I try not to judge people . . ."
But that's exactly what you're about to do, isn't it? You're about to judge a false rape accuser who, by any objective measure is a criminal who almost destroyed four innocent lives, as someone who shouldn't be treated as a criminal.
". . . so I see this as a case of a woman getting a bit freaky and then having regrets."
"Getting a bit freaky and then having regrets" is when a girl agrees to go to the prom with a kid who has nose piercings and then worries what her father is going to think when the kid comes to pick her up. This is in an entirely different universe from "getting a bit freaky and then having regrets."
"It happens . . .."
Sure. So did the Manson murders and the Lincoln assassination. Would you say "it happens" about those crimes? Or about rape? Or burglary? Of about any number of false rape claims that end up with someone dying? In any event, if you want to use hackneyed cliches, you might as well go the whole route and just say "it is what it is."
". . . and it's unfortunate she chose to go the route she did afterwards without fully thinking about the ramifications of the accusations."
No, "unfortunate" is when someone forgets a dentist appointment. This was a lie designed to destroy five innocent, young lives. As for not "fully thinking about the ramifications . . .," what secret, classified information do you possess that provides evidence for this epiphany? She falsely accused five innocent young men of the second most serious crime on the criminal books. Unless you are assuming she's a complete nitwit, she would have to know her lie would get them in a heap of awful trouble. But I think you are right that she probably did not fully think about the ramifications -- meaning, what happens to her if the lie falls apart.
"It seems she felt it was the only option she could take in order to avoid being negatively talked about or judged."
I buy this because that's exactly what I do. Whenever I fear someone might say negative things about me behind my back, to cover up and divert attention, I just tell a lie designed to destroy four or five innocent lives. It is, after all, my only alternative, so how can I be blamed?
"Lessons to be learned all around...the young woman, the dudes, and likely police department professionalism."
"Lessons to be learned": I heard the same thing on an episode of The Brady Bunch when Jan played a practical joke on Peter that ended up getting ink on his hands that was tough to get out.
And I'm glad that among those who should learn a lesson from this, you included "the dudes." Can't ever leave "the dudes" out if we're passing blame around, even if they were the victims. In other contexts, shrill voices would recoil at attempts to blame the victim for her own victimization (they even have a phrase for it: "victim blaming"). But since we're only talking about "the dudes," how could I have a problem with what you've said?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
105 comments:
Fortunately some of the other comments are sane.
Chawk it up to being "uninformed". Bdub24 has no idea how damaging a false accusation can be, and left him/herself wide open for criticism.
You had a good time analyzing that comment, and rightly so.
I especially chuckled when you said "No, "unfortunate" is when someone forgets a dentist appointment."
Well, Adam, perhaps unfortunately, you're seeing the real Pierce Harlan there -- teeming with rage when it comes to this subject. Thanks for your comment.
All men would feel that way if the world made any sense.
It's ridiculous. There is no excuse for what the woman did, yet they still try to defend,excuse,and rationalize her deplorable actions.
I bet if Hitler was a woman, we'd all be celebrating "International Hitler Day" right now as a "commemoration of female empowerment".
Some of the most maddening comments I have seen on this issue come from Feministing (big surprise).
http://www.feministing.com/archives/017809.html
Check out some of these quotes:
"I'm curious about this "ruining the accused's life" meme. It gets thrown around a whole lot in dialog about rape, and I've always wondered if it actually meant anything at all."
And another quote:
"Frankly I'm not convinced this was entirely consensual even with the cell phone video. We don't know what went on before that was turned on, we don't know what was going through her head."
If comments like these represent the feelings of a significant portion of women in this country, we are doomed.
They don't find video footage of her not being raped to be compelling? Are they insane? Nevermind, I already know the answer to that.
"We don't know what was going on in her head" is very revealing, though. These people are basically Nazis in skirts who want men to have no rights whatsoever. Only when any man can be raped on the command of any whore will women be "equal."
"Can't ever leave "the dudes" out if we're passing blame around, even if they were the victims"
Hey, look here man, I just know that something happened in that house!!!
This is a direct quote from feministing:
"But I keep coming back to the fact that trying to compare the two is problematic. In our culture, the incentives for rape are strong. All sorts of social messaging says women are just bodies, not agents. That women are passive and men are powerful, especially when it comes to sex. Women are not very likely to report being raped -- or even acknowledge that "rape" is the term for what happened to them. The incentives for false rape accusations, on the other hand, are few and far between. Think about how we treat women who stand up in public and say that they were raped. They are vilified."
Yes, "our culture" -- namely YOU FEMINISTS -- send the message that men are powerful while women are weak. YOU send the message that women are passive and have no power to say no. YOU are the ones who expose legitimate rape victims by rationalizing false rape accusations.
Also included in that spew was "we'll never know what happened in that house." Fuck you, there's a video recording -- and that's the only reason these innocent boys aren't going to prison!
The entire text:
After hearing that a woman at Hofstra University who accused four men of gang-raping her this week had recanted, my immediate reaction was more or less the same as Gina's: "No doubt this will be used against future victims." That sad truth is just the surface.
We typically every rape story framed as two-sided: His (I didn't rape her) and hers (He raped me). She's a victim, he's a villain. Or she's a liar, he's completely innocent. To a large extent, I agree with to Amanda Hess:
Most of the time, we, armchair rape analysts, launch into these arguments before we have any actual idea whether a particular person has raped another person. In most cases, we will never know. What we do know, all the time, is that rape is a problem, and false rape accusations are a problem. The meaningless squabbles between the two camps tend to overlook the fact that people concerned about rape and people concerned about fake rape accusations are both fighting against the same thing: rape culture.
Rape culture does not just encourage men to proceed after she says "no." Rape culture does not simply teach men that a lack of physical resistance is an invitation. Rape culture does not only tell men to assert ownership over whichever female body they desire. Rape culture also tells women not to claim ownership over their own bodies. Rape culture also informs women that they should not desire sex. Rape culture also tells women that saying yes makes them bad women.
Absolutely, we can blame the fucked-up narrative around rape (and race -- all of the accused were men of color) in this country for the total media meltdown that ensues after something like the Hofstra incident occurs. Like Amanda, I want to get beyond the situation at hand and focus on the broader picture -- after all, none of us know what actually happened in that Hofstra dorm room. And we can agree that, like rape, rape accusations are a problem.
But I keep coming back to the fact that trying to compare the two is problematic. In our culture, the incentives for rape are strong. All sorts of social messaging says women are just bodies, not agents. That women are passive and men are powerful, especially when it comes to sex. Women are not very likely to report being raped -- or even acknowledge that "rape" is the term for what happened to them. The incentives for false rape accusations, on the other hand, are few and far between. Think about how we treat women who stand up in public and say that they were raped. They are vilified.
We should be asking why a woman is saying she was raped and then recanting. We should be looking at the campus culture and racial dynamics and history. We should be talking about what we can do about how rape is portrayed in the media. We should not just scream "LIAR!" and leave it at that.
Note: Because we've gotten so much hateful email on this topic, I'm going to make comments subject to approval. If you leave a comment, be aware it may take a bit of time before you see it published.
* * * * * *
Take special note of this section:
"We typically every rape story framed as two-sided: His (I didn't rape her) and hers (He raped me). She's a victim, he's a villain. Or she's a liar, he's completely innocent."
In other words, when the boys could by any stretch of the imagination be guilty, we should presume guilt and crucify them upside down; but when we prove beyond any possible doubt that she made it all up, all of sudden what matters isn't the truth in any particular case, but the largely imaginary social factors that cause rape and false rape accusations. The issue is always RAPE, RAPE, RAPE! even the boys were INNOCENT, INNOCENT, INNOCENT!
Basically, the truth only matters when it serves as a weapon in the eternal class struggle against men.
But at least the feminist finally admits that false rape accusations exist, and that they are a problem. She has little choice about that at this point, although she continues to deny the truth in this case.
I almost didn't notice that at least the press is naming the false accusor.
As an aside, I think many of the commenters on femisting and the like aren't just displaying a 'radical' minority viewpoint; their views are indicative of the general female population. The fact is that women view these things differently than men. They view things from the 'personal' standpoint instead of the standpoint of what is just. This is universally true.
Hey, look here man, I just know that something happened in that house!!!
Hey Norm,
What happened in that house is some wild, kinky sex! What happened would be things I'd be embarrassed to spraypaint on an overpass...
MarkyMark
Norm, your 7:47 threw me a curve!
" .... The fact is that women view these things differently than men. They view things from the 'personal' standpoint instead of the standpoint of what is just. This is universally true."
Norm, what does that mean? Please explain a woman's "personal standpoint" versus what is "just".
Pierce, the least you can do is get my new name right ... ATOM (not Adam) '''snort'''
:)
Feministing, with due apologies to those who disagree, is a hate site. Anyone who disagrees with that is not part of the men's movement. I would like to debate those asshole fucks on these subjects. They make up whatever crap they can pull from their vaginas about rape, and it's become a metaphor for man-hate. They don't understand consent; they make up "facts" about the prevalence of rape; they hate men who aren't radical feminist useful idiot fucks.
But no, in my experience, they don't represent women. Most women want to be with men. Those pigs over there truly hate men.
The gloves are off, gentlemen. We are going to destroy them.
Please explain a woman's "personal standpoint" versus what is "just".
I'm not Norm, but "Standpoint Theory" has been an integral part of "Feminist Analysis" for at least 4 decades. The Wikipedia entry explains it fairly well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory) and Google will provide you dozens of references on it.
In short, it denies that there is such a thing as "just" and dictates that the woman's standpoint is the only correct interpretation of the world.
oh
Yes, "our culture" -- namely YOU FEMINISTS -- send the message that men are powerful while women are weak. YOU send the message that women are passive and have no power to say no.
No. Our culture as in the general culture sends both of those messages. However, it's getting much better in that it's not as widely believed as before. But it's still there unfortunately.
Just wanted to point that out.
Pierce, there alot that I can say about your post marked Sep 18, 2009 10:35:00 PM. But what's the point. You'll still believe what you believe about feminists and the same goes for me.
Not saying that false rape accusations is ok. Also pointed that out for those who'll for sure say something lol.
Norm,
The fact is that women view these things differently than men. They view things from the 'personal' standpoint instead of the standpoint of what is just. This is universally true.
Is "personal" the right word? Depending on the situation, I think it's just that women look deeper into things...looks underneath the surface. Or it's just that in some issues and situations, things are just different for women. I don't know how to phrase it.
It's that saying. Men see things in black & white. Women see things in color.
Here's something about "standpoint theory" from that wiki link.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel created the theory to explore social institution of slavery in 1807. The theory plays off the idea that the belonging of an individual to a certain group affects the views of daily occurrences. People associate themselves with different social groups based on similarities to discover oneself.
This is from this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_feminism
Standpoint feminism makes the case that because women's lives and roles in almost all societies are significantly different from men's; women hold a different type of knowledge. Their location as a subordinated group allows women to see and understand the world in ways that are different from and challenging to the existing male-biased conventional wisdom
Standpoint feminists have recently argued that individuals are both oppressed in some situations and in relation to some people while at the same time are privileged in others. Their goal is to situate women and men within multiple systems of domination in a way that is more accurate and more able to confront oppressive power structures.
So no, it's not saying that the woman's viewpoint is the only correct interpretation of the world. It's funny you should say that though...I'll leave it at that.
Atom, females tend to concentrate more on emotions and feelings, whereas men concentrate on what is right from a view of justice. For example, if you had a jury comprised of several women and several men, and the trial was about, say, whether a 'strip search' of a 15-year old female high school student whom it was believed may be carrying a knife, the men on the jury would tend to think, 'yes it is perfectly okay to do that in principle, since if the girl had a knife she may stab someone, and that is wrong'; whereas the women on the jury would tend to think, 'no it is not okay, because the search embarassed or even may traumatize the girl.'
Notes to the above
[1]I put strip search in quotes, because unless the environment is prison, the term usually means down to the underwear. This is one way the media drums up hysteria...they convey that a strip search means totally nude.
[2]The case above is an actual one based on what I read in the paper, along with Ruth Bader-Ginsberg's thinking on the issue.
[3]Women who place much emphasis on what is just, in the same sense men do, are generally women who have what Steve Moxon calls 'male pattern brains'. That category also includes high-level career women.
[2]Feminists stop just short of calling justice an 'abstract concept'. I firmly believe that if the U.S. didn't have a constitutionally based government, they would do precisely that.
should of course say '[4]'
Renee,
it sounds like you have black-and-white thinking on the issue of men and women.
I have never heard of anything called 'standpoint theory'. I used the word as just that - a word.
As far as feministing, I did not at any point say that most women hate men as much as those women do, or agree with them on all or even most issues. As is evident from my comments, I am talking about the specific issue of thinking on what is just.
Renee's comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a relativist once. We were talking about something (I forget what) and I said, "no, that is not true."
He said, "so, I take it that you are an 'absolutist'?" I said, "what does that mean? (I have never seen that word in any philosophy text, I have only heard it spewed forth by relativists along with their spittle)"
He said, "well, there are two kinds of people in the world: relativists, and absolutists!"
You can fill in the rest.
"oh"
That's a nebulous response.
Renee said...
Is "personal" the right word? Depending on the situation, I think it's just that women look deeper into things...looks underneath the surface. Or it's just that in some issues and situations, things are just different for women. I don't know how to phrase it.
Pity women are incapable of applying any of this subjectivity to anybody not of the same gender.
Pity so many of them applaud, or make excuses for, the woman who abuses a man or boy.
I'm sick to the point of nausea at all the excuse making.
Is the word "hypocrite" still in the dictionary?
"Is "personal" the right word? Depending on the situation, I think it's just that women look deeper into things...looks underneath the surface. Or it's just that in some issues and situations, things are just different for women. I don't know how to phrase it.
It's that saying. Men see things in black & white. Women see things in color."
Women just arbitrarily do things based on how they feel about it at the moment. That's not "having a deeper understanding",it's acting like a child.
That's what impulsive children do, before they graduate kindergarten and start developing a sense of their place in society.
Women don't "look deeper into things", they just know how something makes them feel at the moment.
Someone with the effective mental capacity of a 3 year old can make decisions based on those criteria.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2009/09/big-bens-lawyer-accusers-attorney-fostered-unfounded-rape-accusations/1
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/17/false-rape-accusations-and-rape-culture/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/18/hofstra.case/index.html
I love this site. Are you The Avenger? If so, bravo, dude.
Yes, "our culture" -- namely YOU FEMINISTS -- send the message that men are powerful while women are weak. YOU send the message that women are passive and have no power to say no.
No. Our culture as in the general culture sends both of those messages.
* * * * *
No it doesn't, our culture is littered with "strong women," from Xena to Oprah; you feminists are the weak woman/strong man merchants, you are the ones who promote the bullshit stereotypes that would put men in control of every situation; I'm not going to let YOU get out of YOUR responsibility for the limitless harm that your self-chosen helplessness causes to both women and men who are falsely accused of crimes; I won't allow you to describe "our culture" in terms of a few cherry picked examples.
Men have allowed this pseudo-intellectual feminist crap to define "our culture" for far too long, and society is paying a steep price.
Guys, in case you didn't already understand this, modern victim feminism is really a totalitarian belief system -- and like all totalitarian belief systems, it blames EVERYTHING on a largely imaginary polluted culture. "Rape culture" is the delusion that all cultural expressions of males and/or masculinity magically cause women to be oppressed or abused. What the feminists want is to control men and what they are allowed to read, watch and hear, as well as what they can write and say.
The goal is "demanification."
The next time you see a victim feminist refer to "rape culture," realize that she really means "all culture produced by men."
"Guys, in case you didn't already understand this, modern victim feminism is really a totalitarian belief system -- and like all totalitarian belief systems, it blames EVERYTHING on a largely imaginary polluted culture. "Rape culture" is the delusion that all cultural expressions of males and/or masculinity magically cause women to be oppressed or abused. What the feminists want is to control men and what they are allowed to read, watch and hear, as well as what they can write and say.
The goal is "demanification.""
Right on the money.
The cause of this kind of thinking is women's irrational fear of (or prejudice against ,if you will) men.
Because they cannot understand masculinity, they fear it, because they fear it, it makes them angry, because they are angry,they construct imaginary "rape cultures" and punish the object of their fears in order to legitimize this fear (or prejudice) since they cannot admit that it is in fact sexism to be unnerved by a person simply because he is male.
Gwallan summed it ups: "I'm sick to the point of nausea at all the excuse making."
I'm through arguing with them. Radical feminism hates men. They can twist and pound and screech and spin all they want, but that is the bottom line, and our trying to "reason" with them is like Obama trying to change the KKK.
Men see things in black & white. Women see things in color.
Pretty much a textbook example of a sexist statement.
In philosophy, sexist attitudes can be understood or judged on the basis of the essential characteristics of the group to which an individual belongs—in this case, their sexual group, as men or women.
This also assumes a significant degree of homogeneity in the characteristics of men and women respectively, and generally does not take into account the differences that exist within these groups.
In other words, blanket statements like the one above are about as sexist as it is possible to get.
The goal is "demanification.""
Right on the money.
The cause of this kind of thinking is women's irrational fear of (or prejudice against ,if you will) men.
Because they cannot understand masculinity, they fear it, because they fear it, it makes them angry, because they are angry,they construct imaginary "rape cultures" and punish the object of their fears in order to legitimize this fear (or prejudice) since they cannot admit that it is in fact sexism to be unnerved by a person simply because he is male.
Add to that a pathological obsession with power and control. Because men and masculinity are something they cannot control, they must destroy them. FEMININE-ism seeks to be the dominant paradigm and to force everyone to view the world through a feminist lens.
What they do not realize is that by lumping all men into the same group - sexist at its extreme - is that they end up alienating the very men who would have, and could have, been their staunchest allies. The choice of language - e.g. "rape culture" - is so inflammatory that it distorts the dialogue.
One aspect of this bogus "rape culture" I have seen mentioned is the denial of women's sexuality and sexual agency. If you look at the commentary on the Hofstra case, no one will ever mention or even consider that the woman might have been a willing, perhaps enthusiastic, participant - maybe even the instigator, which is evidenced by the claim of one of the accused that she invited him back to her dorm and when he told her that he was with friends told him to bring them along.
The entire concept that a young woman might have found the prospect of several young men wanting her to be quite exciting and thrilling will not be allowed in the discussion at all. Both the conservative traditionalists and the "rape culture" narrativists only allow one role for the woman - that of victim - and one role for the young men involved - that of "abuser", perpetrator, victimizer.
Men need to really start forcing the issue of recognizing that women can be, and often are, active agents in initiating sexual activity. This bait-and-switch from active and enthusiastic participant, or even instigator, to pure, innocent, helpless, "victim", harms both men and women.
But, if you bust the victim game for women, then feminism falls apart because it has no reason to exist - thus women will fight to the death to hold on to their victim role and the ability to blame men for all their actions.
The cause of this kind of thinking is women's irrational fear of (or prejudice against ,if you will) men.
* *
They're projecting their own low self-esteem onto men. But yes, victim feminism is the Klan/Nazi Party for women, using the r-word to demean men like racists use the n-word.
As always THANK YOU PIERCE.
4 guys get arrested and thrown in jail based on her WORD something happened.
When it is PROVEN she lied they are thinking about filing charges.
Think of all of these cases where there is no proof and the woman is lying. She remains anonymous and the guy's name and face is plastered all over the media. He is also arrested and some end up doing decades to life in prison as well.
Rape accusers should have their names published.
Think of what would have happened without that video tape.
This woman deserves to have her picture on every station.
She should be a registered sex offender for life and serve at least 10 years in prison....but 25 like she felt comfortable giving those guys is more fair.
And she knew perfectly well prior to doing this that the consequences of getting caught would be laughable. By all accounts this is a very intelligent woman. These crimes are happening because our system encourages them.
And there was nothing to prevent these boys from being convicted. That is how these situations normally play out. But we never hear about the innocent men who have been convicted because everybody just assumes that convictions are reliable.
She should be a registered sex offender for life and serve at least 10 years in prison....but 25 like she felt comfortable giving those guys is more fair.
At least. This was the equivalent of the attempted murder of five men.
@ the 1:06:
I think she should be registered as a false rape accuser, and in this situation, receive a year for each person whose reputation was tarnished as a result of her hideous false claims. I really hate this girl -- not only for hurting innocent men, but for what she has done to rape victims.
That was ATOM -- not G
Norm,
What issue are you talking about. The LAST kind of view I have of the sexes is black & white.
Gwallan,
Pity women are incapable of applying any of this subjectivity to anybody not of the same gender.
Pity so many of them applaud, or make excuses for, the woman who abuses a man or boy.
Pity how you generalized and grouped an entire gender. And it's funny. And I wouldn't call it entirely subjectivity. It's more like "standpoint theory", unless they intercept. And I highly doubt that women applaud other female abusers.
And I highly doubt that women applaud other female abusers.
Except that we all saw that news story in which women literally did applaud a female actor who was pretending to beat the crap out of a male actor. You saw that too, Renee.
Pity women are incapable of applying any of this subjectivity to anybody not of the same gender.
They *can* but unfortunately they often choose not to. I think that women are less divided than men in a lot of ways. Which is a problem that men must overcome if we ever want to be treated as human beings again by our courts.
Anon: Sep 19, 2009 2:08:00 AM
This whole comment is HILARIOUS! The age old comparison of women and children...as if men don't have their moments.
Women just arbitrarily do things based on how they feel about it at the moment. That's not "having a deeper understanding",it's acting like a child.
SERIOUSLY LOL?! If anything, women seem to put more thought into things. But the quote above had nothing to do with my original comment. It wasn't about "doing" anything. It was about how women view issues and some situations. Standpoint theory if you will.
Besides, men don't "do things based on how they feel at the moment"?
Women don't "look deeper into things", they just know how something makes them feel at the moment.
Riiiight....lol
And looking at this comment, you basically typed this only based on how you felt about my previous comment. Because clearly there's not much thought put into this, unless all the women you encountered or were exposed to fit the criteria of your comments.
And I highly doubt that women applaud other female abusers.
Your credibility is less than zero, and you are desperately grasping at straws. This is why and how feminists have managed to make so many men into their enemies, and to completly destroy all trust men might have for women.
Apparently you either slept through, or simply ignored, or were perhaps too young, to remember the whole Lorena Bobbit incident. Women CHEERED her mutilation of her husband, as well as her ever changing story - from "he was a selfish lover" to "he abused me."
Or, take the case of Mary and Matthew Winkler. I saw many women lauding her as a "hero" for murdering her husband in cold blood, and then ripping the phone out of the wall so she could guarantee that he had no way to survive. Oh, but of course, he "abused" her too - by expecting what the right wing christian a-holes insist is a reasonable expectation between husband and wife.
You can persist in your denial until doomsday, and that is not going to change the fact that some men are catching on to your lies and are aware that it is still "every man for himself" and that due to the fact that the culture will provide absolutely no protections against the ability of you and other women of your ilk to destroy us, that we have to protect ourselves.
One of the big reasons we no longer have any concern at all for your lies of "abuse" is that you have alienated and driven away from yourselves most of the non-abusive men - the ones who were at one time willing to find a middle ground with you. You are left mostly with the "jerks" who hold you in utter contempt - even as they tell you pretty lies that you inevitably fall for. They are the only ones who can still stand you - because they see you not as human beings, but as objects to be conquered.
In other words, they see you as you see us.
Except that we all saw that news story in which women literally did applaud a female actor who was pretending to beat the crap out of a male actor. You saw that too, Renee.
Uhhhh, what are you talking about? Seriously, I don't know. And based on what you said, it's pretend. But tell me what you're refering to so I can know what you're talking about.
-------------
Anon - Sep 19, 2009 3:03:00 AM
No it doesn't, our culture is littered with "strong women," from Xena to Oprah; you feminists are the weak woman/strong man merchants, you are the ones who promote the bullshit stereotypes that would put men in control of every situation; I'm not going to let YOU get out of YOUR responsibility for the limitless harm that your self-chosen helplessness causes to both women and men who are falsely accused of crimes; I won't allow you to describe "our culture" in terms of a few cherry picked examples.
Looks like you "cherry-picked" my comment because either you totally missed this part, or you refused to acknowledge it:
No. Our culture as in the general culture sends both of those messages. However, it's getting much better in that it's not as widely believed as before. But it's still there unfortunately.
From that one comment you totally exploded with all this nonsense about feminists promoting stereotypes of men and women when in fact they are COMPLETELY against them and promote getting rid of stereotypes whether they be sexist, racial, homosexual, etc.,....
....this idea of ME and MY "responsibility for the limitless harm that your self-chosen helplessness...etc.,etc". As if I'm all for false rape accusations (what does that have anything to do with my previous comment anyway), and that I'm personally responsible.
Renee: you'll have to explain this standpoint feminist stuff further.
Women *can* be rational, *can* be objective, *can* be reasonable, *can* be non-biased. But there are many cases of women (as a group) not reacting that way when women have committed horrific crimes, including even drowning five children in a bathtub. In general, we are living in a very feminist/chivalrist culture based on double standards.
Looks like you "cherry-picked" my comment because either you totally missed this part, or you refused to acknowledge it:
* * * *
I did no such thing! You made a typical sweeping feminist claim with no evidence to back it up about culture, and I called you on it. You didn't make a "point." An unwarranted claim isn't a "point."
I'll repeat my point: you feminists can't continue to have to both ways, that is promoting the illusion of helpless women and all-powerful male tyrants while simultaneously accusing mass culture of doing the same thing! And as I pointed out, your description of our culture is completely bogus; female empowerment is a very strong underlying theme in contemporary culture.
Our culture as in the general culture sends both of those messages.
And, women make up, by the numbers, 50.7% of the US "culture." Best get busy talking to them about the "messages" they send out.
Not to mention 54% of the vote and 70% of consumer spending.
LIE DETECTOR #5
There is no such thing as false rape.
FALSE
Anon - Sep 19, 2009 2:53:00 PM
All this "you, you, you" business. As if I have anything to do with this or done any of this. What because I'm a woman it's ok to group women together?
What they do not realize is that by lumping all men into the same group - sexist at its extreme - is that they end up alienating the very men who would have, and could have, been their staunchest allies.
What it's not ok to do this to men, but it's ok to lump all women together?
Your credibility is less than zero...
And yours is any better? Ok, so the entirety of femaledom supported Lorena Bobbit...gotcha.
I have you know that I don't support what Lorena did (I'm 25 by the way, so I think I was a kid when it happened) and I'm sure that there are other women who don't support her either. Are there others who do, sure, but should they represent ALL women, no. You don't hear me say that ALL men sympathize with George Sodini just because some do. And I'm not saying that the two incidents themselves are equivalent by the way.
And really that case didn't come to mind when I thought of female abuse. It seemed to me like assault. When I think of abuse, I think of something habitual, something that continues over time. But hey that's just me.
Or, take the case of Mary and Matthew Winkler. I saw many women lauding her as a "hero" for murdering her husband in cold blood, and then ripping the phone out of the wall so she could guarantee that he had no way to survive. Oh, but of course, he "abused" her too - by expecting what the right wing christian a-holes insist is a reasonable expectation between husband and wife.
I'm not familar with this case but was she found guilty or not? Was there evidence of domestic abuse (medical records, etc.)? If domestic abuse did take place, then there are some situations where it was a case of self defense. Same thing goes for men.
All this "you, you, you" business. As if I have anything to do with this or done any of this. What because I'm a woman it's ok to group women together?
It's the other way around! You're philosophy revolves around lumping women together, but when we examine issues through the same lense you cry foul. You can't have it both ways.
I also find it hard to believe that you don't know who Mary Winkler is. How is that possible when you spend so much time at MRA blogs?
Or, take the case of Mary and Matthew Winkler.
I'm not familar with this case but was she found guilty or not?
I believe that she served a total of 67 days in custody.
Was there evidence of domestic abuse (medical records, etc.)?
No. In fact, their children testified that abuse did not take place.
If domestic abuse did take place, then there are some situations where it was a case of self defense. Same thing goes for men.
She shot him in the back with a shotgun, I believe while he was asleep.
Being only 25, there is no possibility that you have seen enough of life to have formed all your opinions on your own. You have also admitted that you know nothing about many of the issues and circumstances which have led many of the men here to the conclusions they have reached.In short, dealing with you at all would be a total waste of time if not for your value as a foil to bring up issued men have which have been silenced, suppressed, and shouted down for so long - since long before you were born.
You can regurgitate all the lies you have been fed in your "wimmins's studddeees" classes all you like, and all it does is take your credibility further into negative numbers.
Fortunately for men, our future survival does not depend on you waking up to all the lies you have been fed. All we need to do is keep enough distance between ourselves and fembots like you to minimize your ability to destroy our lives with your lies. The fact that you believe them is sad, but more for you than for us.
I suspect that none of these 5 young men will ever trust a woman again enough to allow her into the situation to destroy their lives with her lies. Another 5 victims, beyond your reach - sorry. They had to learn the hard way, but there are other young men who know them who may take a lesson from their experience.
Now, if you are as humanistic as you claim to be, you might give a bit of thought to why some men might have gained such a negative view of women. It is not an issue of "lumping you all together", it is an issue of risk/reward ratio. There are probably some mushrooms that pop up in my front lawn after a rain that aren't poisonous, but a significant risk exists that some of them might be. I have to make the evaluation of whether one of them might not be poisonous, and if not whether it might be tasty enough to be worth the risk of dying from eating it.
The "Hofstra 5" foolishly and naively were not aware of how poisonous young women have become, and came very close to having their lives destroyed by her lies - with the cooperation of the knee-jerk chivalrists. Once burned, twice shy, and if they are not totally stupid Danmell Ndonye is the last woman they will allow to get within striking distance.
That is why you need to take a stronger position against false accusers than the lip service you are now paying the issue, and to understand that false accusations of rape do not just harm real rape victims, but all women.
to bring up issued men have which have been silenced, suppressed, and shouted down for so long -
Should read -
"to bring up issues of men have which have been silenced, suppressed, and shouted down for so long - "
Having no edit function on these comments really stinks.
I'll repeat my point: you feminists can't continue to have to both ways, that is promoting the illusion of helpless women and all-powerful male tyrants while simultaneously accusing mass culture of doing the same thing!
They don't PROMOTE that (do you know what "promote" means)! Do they talk about it and discuss it when it applies, yes. The terms "helpless women" and "all-male tyrants" is complete exaggeration (unless you're talking about one form of domestic abuse or the conditions overseas). Stereotypes today don't really follow this specifically anyone. But what's the problem of bringing up the issues stereotypes. Or do you only want to talk about them when they concern only men.
And what makes you think you aren't making sweeping claims about feminism? You did it yourself, not to mention that you were wrong about that claim.
And, women make up, by the numbers, 50.7% of the US "culture." Best get busy talking to them about the "messages" they send out.
Same goes for the guys.
Not to mention 54% of the vote and 70% of consumer spending.
And....
Since were talking about percentages, here are percentages about women and the media. I'm talking about the media because of it's influence:
Women comprise only 13 percent of the top executives and 9 percent of the boards of directors of the nation's leading media, telecom and e-commerce companies, according to research by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
According to the study, women make up 17 percent of the boards of directors of the major media trade associations and 12 percent of the boards of industry groups that represent telecommunications companies.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20010315/ai_n10143093/
Renee,
You really need to study up more on the history of the ideology you are trying to defend here. If you choose to call yourself a "feminist", then people are going to assume that you buy into all the lies that feminists have told about men - and they are going to take a very hard edge against you due to the devastation those lies have caused in their own lives.
Fortunately for many of us, as long as we treat women like any of them could have the plague, we are doing the best we can to insulate ourselves from women's ability to destroy our lives with their lies.
"Rape culture" has nothing to do with insulting, demeaning, etc. specifically men or is about men. Seriously, it's ridiculous how wrong you all are. If you're truely wondering what it really is just email me. I don't want to go on and on about it on here.
And it's funny how one of you think that me saying that men see things in black & white, women see things in color is sexist. I always thought that both of them were positive in their own way and meant to compliment each other. I thought some of you liked seeing things in black and white.
There's alot more that I can say to a couple of these comments but I leave it with this. You think that feminists are all about victimhood, but looking at a few of these comments, what makes you think that you're any different at times. And no I'm not talking about false rape accusations, child custody, male stereotypes, etc.
I'm talking about comments like this:
Guys, in case you didn't already understand this, modern victim feminism is really a totalitarian belief system -- and like all totalitarian belief systems, it blames EVERYTHING on a largely imaginary polluted culture. "Rape culture" is the delusion that all cultural expressions of males and/or masculinity magically cause women to be oppressed or abused. What the feminists want is to control men and what they are allowed to read, watch and hear, as well as what they can write and say.
Wow, there is at least one woman out there who really does get it -
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/17/yawning-at-hofstra/?cp=all#comment-74208
53
Joy Watson Says:
September 19th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Statement from Joy Watson, Candidate for Nassau County District Attorney on the False Rape Claim at Hofstra University
(Mineola, NY) — September 19, 2009 – “In the aftermath of the falsely reported Hofstra rape incident, the accuser must be immediately charged,” said Joy Watson.
“Whether or not there are circumstances in her background warranting leniency is a matter to be considered in structuring an appropriate disposition or sentence. The circumstances should not prevent the Nassau District Attorney from holding the false accuser accountable. Her delay is a signal to the public that such acts are tolerated in Nassau County.
There is no question that a crime was committed here. There is no question who committed the crime. These young men had their reputations and lives negatively impacted by these false allegations. A delay can only be seen as an injustice to these young men or a ploy to get more news coverage for the District Attorney. In either case, justice is not being served. The five young men who were falsely accused deserve nothing less that a district attorney who will stand up to protect their rights.
The delay also smacks of a publicity grab at justices’ expense, as we are six weeks from the November 3 election. I think the public can see right through our current District Attorney and see where her priorities lie,” Watson added.
To Pierce and anyone else responsible for this blog, we are beginning to make some headway - FINALLY!!!! :)
Seriously, it's ridiculous how wrong you all are.
No, little girl, what's ridiculous is how clueless you are. The good news is that we really don't have to educate you, life will do that job once you have seen enough of it.
Enjoy your delusions, while they last.
Joy Watson is right on the money. Kathleen Rice's sobsister routine was totally inappropriate and amounted to approval of the crime.
I really need to comment quickly here. I publish my comment and another one pops up lol.
Anon - Sep 19, 2009 5:25:00 PM
No I haven't taken "wimmins's studddeees" classes or "women's studies" classes. And believe it or not, I don't agree with all the views and opinions that feminists share (I've said this many times before). But just because I acknowledge stereotypes of women and men, sexism, you think I'm insulting specifically men or supporting false rape accusations. Looking back on my post, I don't understand the hostility. It's not like I generalized and insluted the entire male gender, unlike a few of these posters who did just that about women. That's what I mean about "lumping together".
I don't really call myself feminist by the way, at least not entirely.
Being only 25, there is no possibility that you have seen enough of life to have formed all your opinions on your own.
What are you saying exactly, that I can't be objective? I admit that being female, I can't really entirely understand things from a males standpoint, but at the same time, as men you can't entirely understand things from a female standpoint. But yet sometimes you're so sure about what women go through and their issues (or lack thereof). How old are you exactly if you don't mind sharing?
Look, I can see what you're saying.
And hey, maybe I do need to read up on feminism. It's just the feminism I see now (Feministing.com) mainly seem alright (I didn't say perfect now) and have good intentions. They point out issues that both men and women face. Then again you don't really see a alot of Christian feminists now do you?
No, little girl, what's ridiculous is how clueless you are.
I can say the same about you little boy. Using the old tactic of equating a woman to a little girl if you don't agree with her....
Come on.
Look, I can see what you're saying.
Well, now there is some progress. Apparently my heavy-handed technique, although perhaps a bit painful, is having its intended effect.
As far as my age goes - well, I had my first Master's degree before you were born.
I was of the generation which came of age about the time feminism hit the big time. Major questions in those days were "Can I be a feminist and still like men?" For a lot of women, the answer turned out to be "no." The very creatures that men of my age were raised to love, cherish, and want to spend our lives with suddenly turned around and spat in our faces - without us, they were like fish without bicycles.
You really do need to read up on the history of the ideology you are supporting - explore its Marxist roots, and also the strong lesbian influence in feminist theory -
Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice-Attributed to Ti-Grace Atkinson
As much as I have hated watching the whole thing go down, women have been the enemy of men my entire adult life. I have seen literally hundreds of bloody divorces, most with associated false accusations of "abuse" to gain strategic advantage in custody and property settlements. At the 30 year mark, only 12% of my HS graduating class was still married to their first spouse. That is a lot of carnage to witness. The numbers were even worse with my college classmates.
Women have a very significant built-in advantage in the mating game - men, in general, have to be the ones to initiate. Even in those case where they aren't, they can still be "blamed" if the woman chooses to blame them.
You have the misfortune of coming in to "phase II" of the gender war - when men who were bowled off their feet by the feminazi bliztkrieg are finally getting their feet back from under them. If you study feminism much, you will run into the "Hegelian Dialectic". Feminism, which was once the anti-thesis has now become the thesis, and a new anti-thesis is forming. You will likely spend your adult life in the position I have spent mine - defending yourself from being attacked for beliefs attributed to you due to your gender. You will have a hard time understanding the hatred, just as I did.
If you have not already heard of a phenomenon called MGTOW, you will eventually. A growing number of men have simply turned their backs on women and want to have nothing more to do with them. You can educate yourself about the perspective out there other than Feministing by visiting places like MarkyMark's blog - http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com
Perhaps you are sincere. I seem to have rattled your cage enough to shake you out of your smug sense of omniscience. If so, perhaps you can be a catalyst in creating a future for both sexes in which they do not have to regard each other as enemies.
I would have been happy to treat women as friends and allies - unfortunately, they would not allow me to.
I can say the same about you little boy.
Being aimed at someone significantly more than twice your age, that is beyond lame - it is simply laughable.
You are a child, and not a particularly bright one at that. Life will test your beliefs and show you which are true and which are not far more effectively than I ever could.
Choose them well, the quality of your life depends on it.
If your generation came of age about the time feminism hit the big time, then you know the following statement is false:
"Rape culture is the delusion that all cultural expressions of males and/or masculinity magically cause women to be oppressed or abused."
Although the term "rape culture" did not exist in your hay day, are you denying that college/frat culture did not promote, encourage and sanction varied types of forcible intercourse? Their manhood depended on it! They HAD to score, then of course they HAD to "show and tell". Is the "culture" any different today? Let's not brush it aside as a delusion or a myth, okay.
To refuse to acknowledge that a rape culture existed when you were in school is what I would call "lame and laughable". So maybe you should ease up on Renee?
I agree with the very astute, mature gentleman commenting above, you sound like you are about one half generation or less ahead of me. If Atom is naive, Renee is a totally brainwashed clown. The fact that she does not consider herself a feminit is terrifying. It seems she is living proof for all of us here on this board, of how far feminist ideology has been inculcated in the minds of the weak and gullible.
Like I've said in the past, this is one issue where where boomers are really going to have to grab the bull by the horns. We cannot depend on succeeding generations of men to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (although there are a signicant number of younger guys who can see something is wrong, as shown by their comments on this board).
Although the term "rape culture" did not exist in your hay day, are you denying that college/frat culture did not promote, encourage and sanction varied types of forcible intercourse? Their manhood depended on it!
BULLSHIT. And that's not what they're talking about when they say "rape culture."
Atom is a typical chivalrist moron, who confuses consensual sex with rape. Old man, your day is over; we can't afford to live by your code any longer. Your generation dropped the ball and allowed the radicals to warp our society; now our generation has to pick up the pieces.
@ anon 8:28:
There's no sane reason for me to address your post. Not only is it INCOMPLETE, it's vulgar.
Oh no! Not "vulgar!" Typical fuddy-duddy old-fashioned obsolete chivalrist.
@ 8:35 ...
Consensual sex can never be confused with rape. And, I'm not an old "man".
And hey, you've yet to give me an accurate definition of "rape culture". I'm waiting.
However, I really don't like arguing little stuff. I agree with the MRAs on many issues, but denying that a rape culture exists (and has existed for decades) is not something I can support.
You're the one who is hallucinating a "rape culture that has existed for decades," so you give me the definition. My definition is "a culture existing only in the imaginations of chivalrists and feminists."
And you ARE confusing consensual sex with rape. Your attitude is a major reason why idiots will believe anything that college boys are accused of, even without a shred of evidence.
Nix that, based on Atom's recent comments, he too is brainwashed. Also he/she thinks 'the personal is political'. Wrong! That viewpoint is ideology in a nutshell.
Actually, claiming that a 'rape culture' existed in the past, is somewhat analogous to saying that a 'violence culture' existed in schools in the past - when corporal punishment of students was allowed. It is analogous in the sense that it politicizes the behavior of individuals; it is almost like a conspiracy theory.
Like I've said in the past, this is one issue where where boomers are really going to have to grab the bull by the horns.
I've spent the past 3 decades hopping on one foot because I've had the other squarely up the butts of other members of my age cohort trying to shake some sense into them. All in all, it was a complete waste of time. If you are going to wait for or depend on the boomers to do something about this, you are going to be sorely disappointed - not to mention in a world of hurt socially.
About the best we can do is make life as miserable as we can for boomer women - the group of women who has hated us, lied about us, stolen our children, and in general made our lives miserable. Younger men can help us out by having no pity for them and not falling for the "poor older women" sob stories that will inevitably be used to try to wring one more drop of male blood out of the exhausted turnip.
And, we can teach younger men who are willing to listen at least how to stay out of their clutches and keep themselves out of harm's way. The most innovative thing the boomeridiots could come up with was Men Going Their Own Way, (MGTOW), which some people have mis-named the "Marriage Strike." There is no "strike" involved because I really do not expect men to go back into the coal mines of marriage en masse.
The joke on women is that so-called "Women's Liberation" freed men far more than it ever could or would women. No longer do we have to work ourselves into early graves to support the consuming habits of some woman - let her make her own money and finance her own purchases. Look up "Liz Jones" over in the UK to see what the lives of women who fell for the scam look like.
We can also give younger men the tools to defeat the limited repertoire of mind-games and personal attacks women have used to manipulate men. Look up the "Catalog of Anti-male Shaming Tactics" for a full list of their mind games, and a counter-move for each one.
Beyond that, I would suggest that men give women the world without men that they have been demanding for the past 4 decades. I know that my life is certain more pleasant as a result of not having a woman in it to make me miserable - unlike many of my married friends who would trade places with me in a heartbeat.
All I can say to that is this:
I am OUT OF THE LOOP these days in regard to the college/frat "rape culture". I would go so far as to say that college rape has subsided in recent years as a direct result of women's groups, etc. Thank God!
But make no mistake ... it was ALIVE and well up until the early 1990s. Rape still happens, but certainly not as frequently as in past decades.
If you think I'm a radical feminist, or even a mild feminist, you're dead wrong. I'm happy to be a woman who adores her loving husband, and I am totally CONTENT^ to be the little housewife he wants me to be! And I am a "sexist". So sue me.
Yeah, the "marriage strike" is one of the more inane proposals to come out of the MRM. If you could get that many men to go along with a marriage strike then you'd have no problem putting together a men's rights organization that would dwarf NOW.
I also agree with a lot of the above, including some of the ironic results of feminism - which has by no means been good for women in every respect. What I would disagree with is focusing on making these boomer women miserable, or never having anything to do with a woman again. What is called for here is a political solution. All of the angry men need to support men's rights organizations and become active politically.
If you could get that many men to go along with a marriage strike then you'd have no problem putting together a men's rights organization that would dwarf NOW.
It isn't a "strike" in any sense. As I said, I don't expect men to spontaneously "go back to work" if the gender war ever gets to the peace table. In the past 40 years the marriage rate has declined by 50% as men have adjusted to new roles other than "protector/provider." Women don't need us to do those things for them - as they never tire of telling us - so that leaves us a lot more free time to go fishing.
Whatever explanation one wants to put on the phenomenon, the overall marriage rates have declined 50% in the past 40 years, while Out of Wedlock birth rates have skyrocketed. It's nothing organized, simply a large number of men independently arriving at the same conclusion that marriage has nothing to offer them, and lots of downsides.
Women *can* be rational, *can* be objective, *can* be reasonable, *can* be non-biased. But there are many cases of women (as a group) not reacting that way when women have committed horrific crimes, including even drowning five children in a bathtub. In general, we are living in a very feminist/chivalrist culture based on double standards.
Ummm ever heard of postpartum depression and pychosis? They are real conditions. Just because we acknowledge their existence and devastation from those conditions doesn't mean we're not rational, reasonable, and objective. What, can only men be objective?
And me having a "smug sense of omniscience"? Really lol? Seriously I see that from a few of you.
Well, now there is some progress. Apparently my heavy-handed technique, although perhaps a bit painful, is having its intended effect.
Painful...please. I have thicker skin than that.
I'll say this. As for feminism today, I've seen no evidence of them attacking specifically men as a gender. If anything, they attack the media and some of our societal ideas and views about men and women. That's where me and feminism see eye to eye. But as for the history of feminism, I admit I don't that much about it. However, I've read up on some of it, some of their complaints were valid. But yeah, the entire history of it I don't really know about. And like I said, some stuff I agree with, some I don't.
I do stand by that some of your posts, especially the ones about "rape culture" are incorrect.
I can go on and on but this post would go on forever, and really, what's the point.
Atom,
I hear ya.
I have a sneaking suspicion that someone posting here either got raped herself or had a close friend who did, while in college; or else perceived she was raped, or knew of a particularly rowdy fraternity - in any case, that person sounds like she is going on some emotional, personal experience, from which it is never valid to generalize.
both anons,
As far as MRA's, or guys who support one or more important men's or fathers' issues, it does seem that most of the big-name ones are baby boomers - Warren Farrell, Glenn Sacks, Paul Nathanson, etc etc...When I say take the bull by the horns, I wasn't referring to the masses who are asses, but instead a solid core of guys like the ones on this board, each engaging in a little political action or at least contributing to a group who does so.
lol Norm, yes, it was something I "perceived" as rape -- certainly not actual rape. I mean what kind of upstanding frat man would force himself upon a woman? Sorry I got carried away. A man would have to be a degenerate human being to commit such a act, right?
"a particular rowdy fraternity"?
Keep me calm, sweet Jesus.
Renee said...
Pity how you generalized and grouped an entire gender. And it's funny. And I wouldn't call it entirely subjectivity. It's more like "standpoint theory", unless they intercept. And I highly doubt that women applaud other female abusers.
I learned to monolith from feminists. Live by the sword etc...
Funny? What, Lorena Bobbit funny?
You doubt women applaud female abusers?
Is the applause greeting female child sex abusers on Oprah Winfrey's internationally broadcast television show canned? I would think that the overt, indeed shameless, nature of this and the fact that it constitutes "entertainment" for hundreds of millions of women is very enlightening.
I am known for my advocacy for male victims of female sexual abusers rather than victims of false accusations. I am acutely conscious of the attitudes which exist in our communities as a consequence.
You, Renee, have no idea what you are talking about.
Renee said...
Ummm ever heard of postpartum depression and pychosis? They are real conditions. Just because we acknowledge their existence and devastation from those conditions doesn't mean we're not rational, reasonable, and objective. What, can only men be objective?
This excuse was trotted out for a woman who raped a boy in my town last year. The "depression" was older than her victim.
Should I be advocating that any woman diagnosed with depression be removed from any contact with boys? Dozens in my country have all - successfully - cited that same defense. Particularly given that we will excuse them if they cite "depression" isn't it a bit risky to our boys to not take this precaution.
When I say take the bull by the horns, I wasn't referring to the masses who are asses, but instead a solid core of guys like the ones on this board, each engaging in a little political action or at least contributing to a group who does so.
A few years ago some of the men who were activists started discussing the phenomenon that it just seemed impossible to wake men up or galvanize them to action - most of them were too busy watching one gang of steroid mutants butt heads with another gang. Most activists just went ahead and did their own thing, and we began talking about "Armies of One."
There was a sea change about 6 years ago. After 4 decades of the "Iron Curtain with a Lace Covering" a lot of average men started to speak out and simply ignoring the social censure and personal attacks that went with it. Since then there has been a growing shift away from simply following feminist dogma to challenging it. Everywhere you look these days on the internet men are speaking out and being very explicit in their criticisms of feminism and the behavior of women.
A few hard-core men are not going to create a fundamental shift in social attitudes. Sites like this one can be the catalyst to get people thinking, but until the average Joe begins to think about his situation and stand up for himself, the big name activists are little more than bearded madmen crying in the wilderness.
But, in the last couple of years, particularly the last few months, the conversation seems to have exploded. The big new idea seems to be something called "Game", and a group who term themselves PUAs. One of their more outspoken figureheads is a guy who calls himself Roissy.
This Hofstra case is an interesting turn of events - one more brick in the wall of denial falling loose. Either way, men can't lose on this one. If the woman gets the classic "vagina pass", all hell will break loose among the internet commentariat. If she gets scapegoated for all the women before her who have gotten away with their lies, and crucified, it will set a good precedent. The Duke case changed things a little bit. This case will change them a bit more. The Alinsky radicals are not the only ones who can practice incrementalism.
"SERIOUSLY LOL?! If anything, women seem to put more thought into things."
Yep,that's why all the greatest philosophers and thinkers over the years have been women....
Wait...... Oh damn.
"And looking at this comment, you basically typed this only based on how you felt about my previous comment."
Nope. Just a factual correction based on allegorical evidence that strongly points in that direction.
"Because clearly there's not much thought put into this..."
I didn't put much EFFORT into it, mostly because I wasn't sure whether you were a female supremacist or just confused. Your comment seemed rather sexist, reminiscent of the "wise latina" comment,really,implying that women see a spectrum of colors whereas men can only see two .
I thought I'd feel you out.
Based on subsequent remarks I'd say you suffer from the same "ME FIRST" attitude that most women of your generation suffer from and are simply a female chauvinist fool.
"Ummm ever heard of postpartum depression and pychosis? They are real conditions."
And they say we're the ones who don't assign "agency" to women...
Yep,that's why all the greatest philosophers and thinkers over the years have been women....
Wait...... Oh damn.
Oh please. Considering that our society didn't encourage or at times allowed women to be schooled in philosophy or even be schooled PERIOD, that argument is WEAK. And considering how history are at times male centric and that historically men weren't interested in a woman's opinion, point of view, or analysis, I can understand how female philosophers were ignored.
are you denying that college/frat culture did not promote, encourage and sanction varied types of forcible intercourse?
I have no knowledge of "frat boy" culture. I always found them superficial, shallow, and frankly - stupid, as were the women who hung around them. I avoided the whole lot of them.
As far as the general college atmosphere goes, I can only speak for the one college I attended - and no, they most certainly did NOT "promote, encourage and sanction varied types of forcible intercourse."
That was during the first blush of the "sexual revolution" and most of the men my age were raised with the mentality that people waited until marriage - or at least until they were planning on marriage - to have sex. In fact it was more often the reverse - women were eager to exercise their newfound sexual "liberation" and any man they decided that they wanted to "do them" had damn well better get with the program or risk being called "queer" (that was before "gay") or worse have rumors about him spread all over campus.
One day I heard a huge commotion in the dorm hall and looked out my door to see a woman kicking the snot out of my neighbor's door. I invited her into my room to calm down (shows how long ago this was) and she was in an absolute rage over the fact that my neighbor refused to have sex with her. Remember the old phrase "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"?
".... most of the men my age were raised with the mentality that people waited until marriage - or at least until they were planning on marriage - to have sex. In fact it was more often the reverse - women were eager to exercise their newfound sexual "liberation" and any man they decided that they wanted to "do them" had damn well better get with the program or risk being called "queer" ..."
So I can assume that you were a "virgin" until marriage, and had to fight off liberated women who tried to use you for sex? If that's the Mary Poppins package you're trying to sell, you won't get many buyers.
What you have described in the quote at the top is the traditional idealistic view of society during the 60s/70s, and it applied to women -- not men. Naive women like myself bought it hook line and sinker. To me, virginity was a virtue that I would save until marriage.
If what you say is true ... that, as a man on campus, you had NO idea that men were encouraged to score with women, I have to think your personal situation was highly unusual. Frat news travels fast, but according to you, you were clueless!
What college? Revealing the name of the college will not effect your anonymity
Actually, my college had no fraternities or sororities at all. There were a couple of universities nearby which had them, but the Greek crew kind of stuck to their own group, which was fine with the rest of us. Any time they showed up anywhere, it always seemed like they should have brought a couple of moving vans to carry the egos.
If you were part of the frat picture of the early 90s, then it is you who are clueless about what the social conditions of the 60s-70s were like. The beer-swilling partying crowd was only a small percentage of the student body, and one which was looked down upon by most of the rest of us. Few of us had cars or allowances provided by daddy, and social activism was higher on a lot of our priority lists than social face time.
You seem to find it impossible to grasp that your autobiography is not the story of everyone else in the world.
Maybe we can agree that we're dealing in "small percentages" whenever we speak of the following campus issues:
1) Rape
2) False Rape Claims
3) The Greek population
4) My "autobiography" (as you called it), which does not reflect the experiences of the majority of college women.
All that said, I still don't understand how a MAN who attended college during that period could not have been aware of an undertow of "rape culture". Your denial tells me that you had no idea that women were being objectified.
Do you want to stick with that, or are you ready to be a little more open.
Remember, I loathe women who would dare accuse men unjustly of rape. I am not the enemy.
"Oh please. Considering that our society didn't encourage or at times allowed women to be schooled in philosophy or even be schooled PERIOD, that argument is WEAK."
You're telling me that the men who invented philosophy had schools that taught them to be philosophers? They didn't even have jobs. They didn't own land and they weren't married. By the standards of the times, they were lower on the social totem pole than women were.
Renee said...
Oh please. Considering that our society didn't encourage or at times allowed women to be schooled in philosophy or even be schooled PERIOD, that argument is WEAK. And considering how history are at times male centric and that historically men weren't interested in a woman's opinion, point of view, or analysis, I can understand how female philosophers were ignored.
Actually, given historical reality, it is your argument that is weak. Schools of any sort have only existed for the majority of folk for a couple of hundred years. Where some sort of education could be provided previously it was the young women and girls who were getting a more well rounded education. The boys and young men would be educated specifically to a trade or profession while the girls would do the classics. I would go off to the army while you would learn music and languages and history. It was in fact women who were "schooled" more in philosophy than men.
That women don't figure more in many of these things is more to do with them being male obsessions to begin with.
In the meantime check out some of the writing of, say, Elizabeth Tudor or the Brontes and wallow in the beauty of it.
The women haven't been ignored. There's just fewer of them.
Your denial tells me that you had no idea that women were being objectified.
Do you want to stick with that, or are you ready to be a little more open.
Since you read minds, and already know what I think, there is no point.
To distort the fact that men are attracted to women and feel desire toward them into "objectification" is fundamentally dishonest. Women of my age were known to say that they wanted to marry a doctor which is every bit as much objectifying men as success objects as you blame men for objectifying women.
The social group you hung out with were well known for being the most superficial, status-obsessed, appearance conscious group on any campus. Largely from wealth families, the women who were their groupies either came from the same social circle, and were looking to maintain their social status, or were seeking to marry up in terms of wealth.
Which were you?
If you are so fundamentally dishonest that you are incapable of admitting that some women desire sex, and some put pressure on men to engage in sexual activity (often as a means of jump-starting the track toward marriage) I'm not going to bother to play your little game.
It seems that you have cast me in a role that I refuse to play. If you are going to pre-judge all men as part of the "rape culture" then there is no point in proceeding. I'm so sick of my desires being used to jerk me around, and serve as proof that I am part of this "rape culture" that I quit dating more than 15 years ago. When a woman shoves her sexuality in my face trying to get me to react, I tell her to "get that thing out of my face."
The lie of the sexual revolution was that women desired sex and desired to be liberated from their old restrictive roles. They still want to use sex to gain male attention, but at the same time be able to deny the basis for that attention and play victim when the man acts on the message he thinks he is getting.
And, anyone who stands uo for and defends women's right to jerk me around, is far from an ally.
You've got it half right. Now if you were of the impression that the Greeks were the most superficial, status-obsessed, appearance conscious group on any campus, then you know the rest. I shouldn't have to explain to you their general attitude toward non-Greeks, especially women, who were/are a necessary part of the social equation, and how some studs felt they were entitled to score no matter what. Afterall, if a guy couldn't score, he was nothing.
Are you familiar with the infamous "road trips", the notch system, the pinning of the cards, the Vision, etc? All of it was part of what we define today as "rape culture".
I do believe the "I'm entitled to her body" attitude is much less pervasive today than yesteryear, due largely because women got organized, educated society, and pushed for harsh penalties for rapists.
The downside? False accusations. So let's find a way to get rid of the trash. That's what Pierce is all about.
"All of it was part of what we define today as "rape culture"."
Calling masculine culture "rape culture" is a sexist slur.
No guy I've known in all my years on this planet has ever said to me "Hey man, let's go out and rape some women tonight".
"Rape culture" boils down to demonizing men because they have a natural sexual urge to stick their penises in women.
We are not animals. Only a very tiny percentage of sociopathic men rape women.
Calling our biological urges "rape" is irresponsible if the intent is not to slur men, and fucking sick if that is the intent.
If being a psychologically-healthy straight male is a crime then lock me up.
Post a Comment