Thursday, November 12, 2009

Why I can't read Femininsting.com

I rarely read feministing.com because its world view is akin to a cult, with tenets accepted by its devotees that are flatly contrary to the accepted beliefs and common experiences of the vast majority of Americans. Assertions are posited as fact without any supporting evidence, based on nothing more than the serene ipse dixit of its authors. The readers who comment on the posts opine with a self-righteousness and a certainty usually reserved for the "straight-man" characters in a comedy film -- you know, the ones who will end up with a truckload of horse manure dropped on their heads before it's over.

In short, that site so reeks of anti-intellectualism that it can aptly be called bizarre. (I will, of course, await the de rigueur sarcasm of that blog's devotees, who will take issue with the fact that this blog speaks out for a class of victims they insist does not exist.) I inadvertently stumbled onto a link at that site to a post by one of their writers named Courtney, called The Question of Accountability in Feminism. This is an example of what I am referencing:

". . . it does seem critical for men interested in doing feminist work and identifying with the feminism to be accountable to certain basic ideas--like the notion that men have, for too long, possessed a disproportionate amount of power in our society."

Ah, there it is. In black and white. The central tenet of modern feminism, and the raison d’ĂȘtre for that blog's existence. Read it, re-read it, and memorize it. "Undeserved" male privilege. Men haven't acted as they have -- inventing and building pretty much everything, risking and often giving their lives through perils of every kind and nature, struggling against all adversity to be providers for their wives and femilies -- out of a social compact to which women have been willing participants if not prime instigators. Oh, no. Men are nothing less than oppressors and subjugators of women, lording over them with brute strength and singularly intent on retaining their "power."

And I have a bridge in Jersey I'd like to sell the readers of Feminising.com. There is an ancient legal word for their central tenet: horseshit. It is so out of step with reality, nobody buys it outside of Womyn's Studies classes and one dark and twisted corner of the blogosphere. It is scarcely worth bothering to refute since it is self-evidently wrong.

Wait. There's more. You'll really like this.

"This means that in feminist spaces, men should be cognizant of how much they talk, what sort of influence they exert, what kind of leadership they inhabit. But then again, shouldn't men and women always strive to be cognizant of these things."

I am loathe to try to attach meaning to something so strangely worded. I don't know about you, but it reminds me of how the head maid talks to the newly hired help in a very wealthy household: "Do not speak unless you are spoken to; you must know your place . . .."

There's more:

"And, of course, real accountability would come in creating a world where everyone gets to express their gender identity in whatever way feels most authentic, a world where no one would be forced to exist within a gender binary that didn't feel right for them."

Right. Except that if men want to act in a way that feministing.com disapproves of, men had better be prepared to be branded as evil. So much for expressing your gender identity.

There was a time when I could write a very lengthy piece ridiculing a post like this. I now realize it isn't worth my time. Virtually nobody is buying this nonsense, aside from very impressionable (and dare I say often troubled) young people and angry older women, who feel so terribly disenfranchised that they blame "men" for whatever ails their twisted psyches. The central tenets underlying their movement are simply wrong, by any measure, and their blog isn't worth reading or refuting.

47 comments:

Sonja Newcombe said...

In other words men have to take the place of children - to be seen but not heard.

I love this follow-up comment:
"I agree, and it goes farther than just not being sexist. Feminist men should be anti-sexist, and call people out on their sexism when they see it"

I see men call feminists on their sexism and get removed from the site for it...

Archivist said...

Well, Sonja, sexism is a one-way street. Because women are so oppressed, don't you know.

And, honestly, I laugh when I type that.

I don't know one intelligent person who buys into this silliness.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, they are in their own little world. Do you ever hear anyone else talking about that shit? I don't. It's like Scientology or something, a view of all history that just doesn't ring true.

Axel said...

The people at that blog scare me, they are so "out there." A good way to put it, their own little world.

Anonymous said...

Their readers aren't just stupid, they're mean.

Veldan said...

Sonja, it only counts as sexism if a Man is oppressing a Women, a Women oppressing a Man is just "getting even" < /sarcasm>

The scariest part about these people is that i bump into huge groups of them handing out pamphlets whenever i dare wander onto my university campus.

The delusion runs thick in academia it seems.

Archivist said...

Veldan, college campuses are ground zero for their sort of "truth." When they grow up and get married and land a job, they will realize how idiotic they must have appeared to persons with fully developed brains.

Anonymous said...

Veldan, you left out something. What do the pamphlets say?

SgtMom said...

I've been trying to do some research on valid, concrete, unbiased rape statistics with NO LUCK.

I DID find this interesting post on a site called Aspiring Economist - they at least allow both genders to post.

http://aspiringeconomist.com/index.php/2009/09/11/rape-statistics-1-in-4/



# rohara Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

The one in four rape statistic is nothing but a scare tactic used to accomplish three things:

1. To terrorize young women everywhere that there is a bogey man behind every corner waiting to rape them.

2. To demonize men so that they can more easily be railroaded in the workplace and in custody and divorce disputes.

3. To purport within the popular culture that women are forever victims of gross injustice and as such require special privileges and rights to “protect them”

Why in God’s name can’t the federal government commission a neutral party like the RAND Corporation or some other entity to do an unbiased and thorough scientific analysis on the incidence and prevalence of rape as well as false rape accusations?

Seriously, I hear numbers like “300,000 women are raped every year in the U.S.” and “only one in five rapes are reported.” Almost every time I hear a statistic on rape it comes from some victims advocacy group that gets public funding for their activities and of course they are going to exaggerate the numbers. The press always publishes these stats and purports them to be the gospel truth. And anybody who is not naive enough to believe them and says something about it is immediately attacked and branded as a “rape apologist”, or worse yet, a rapist themselves.

Can’t we have a serious debate about this very important issue that affects both women AND MEN without the hysteria?

...................................

WHY indeed, has this information not been compiled by official sources?

Why can this not be discussed with the truth on the table?

Sonja Newcombe said...

"Why can this not be discussed with the truth on the table?"

Because of all the groups with a vested interest in perpetuating the lies.

Anonymous said...

Sgt. Mom where on earth have you been? You should read this site lots more carefully because they treat objective rape stats all the time. Including Kanin's 41%.

Anonymous said...

Sgt. Mom where on earth have you been? You should read this site lots more carefully because they treat objective rape stats all the time. Including Kanin's 41%.

Anonymous said...

SgtMom, please provide the link for your son's case?

Gogonostop said...

"We will now discuss the Patriarchal Oppression Theory, or POT: the most smoked theory since the 1960’s.

Interestingly, the use of POT in the 60’s arose alongside the increased use of other recreational drugs. Normally, most arch-conservatives would demand that POT should be illegal. However, like most libertarians, I think people should be allowed to smoke it if they wish (you see, the personal is political!). However, they must know its side-effects before they try it. Read the label:

WARNING: Side effects that may arise from using this drug (POT) include elapsed methodology, distended statistics, inflammatory statements, eruption of gall, myopia, hysteria, and feelings of isolation from peer review.

You’d think it would especially be outlawed in academia. Unfortunately, that’s where it was crafted. By whom? The FDA (Feminist Drug Administration). Do they prescribe remedies for any of its side effects? Only one: a corrective “lens.” Where is it smoked? Usually, where its dealers cannot get caught by peer reviewers: Women’s Studies. There, the finest hysteria-inducing leaves of radical Feminist texts are rolled up and puffed with a fervor that Snoop Dogg and Kid Rock would envy.

A few brave detectives (researchers) are hot on their trail. But unfortunately, like most dealers, those who deal in POT 'know people.' That’s where the multicultural mafia comes in. In the alleys of academia, bullets of political correctness fly wildly. 'It’s curtains for you, researcher!' In Russia, it’s said the mob controls the marketplace of goods. In academia, the multicultural mafia controls the marketplace of ideas. Unwelcome theories are blacklisted. Men walk in fear, afraid to speak their mind. The air bristles with the totalitarian energy of political correctness. Gender wardens regulate the marketplace by monitoring all aspects of what defines good 'penhumanship.' A brave soul somberly ventures a question: 'Are we allowed to discuss the male condition today?' A low and icy whisper responds: 'do you want to join the rest of the dead white males?'"

SgtMom said...

Anonymous said...

Sgt. Mom where on earth have you been? You should read this site lots more carefully because they treat objective rape stats all the time. Including Kanin's 41%.

Nov 12, 2009 10:56:00 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SgtMom, please provide the link for your son's case?

Nov 12, 2009 11:00:00 PM

...............................

Don't know if you're the same Anonymous or not -

*I* posted about Kanin's study days ago - long before the last posting - and all I got was flak about the site where I found it (http://abuse.suite101.com/article.cfm/false_allegations)

I can (and have) cite exacting studies done by the DOJ and various studies commissioned by states (not Joe Blow here, or Jane Doe there) that show time after time recidivism rates for sex offenders are very, very low. It does not stop the media from reporting exactly the opposite, but misinformation can be countered with solid,inarguable facts.

I've been here, there and everywhere - NOWHERE do I find non biased, OFFICIAL rape numbers, false rape numbers, demographics, ages of accuser/accused, and other valuable information.

If the studies exist, why didn't you simply post the link? Why the attitude?

Think how good it would feel to smack me in the face with a good old "Study commissioned by the state of" or DOJ Stats are posted at....?

What other crime category is treated this way, where information is based not on solid verifiable numbers, but posturing, guessing in the dark, and out right lying?

(Here's an interesting discussion about Kanin's study http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9if6n/recanted_rape_claim_treated_as_false_alarm_as_if/
................................

Next answer:
My son's case is still in litigation.

I will find out after it is finalized what I can and cannot legally post.

Does anyone on this thread have their case posted?

This case has many elements that my son's did, if you're interested. My son was a juvenile, not allowed a jury trial, and accepted an Alford plea. This was an adult who refused a plea and was convicted(what happened to him is why my son accepted a plea).


http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2009/05/accusers-as-victims-case-study.html

Anonymous said...

"And, of course, real accountability would come in creating a world where everyone gets to express their gender identity in whatever way feels most authentic, a world where no one would be forced to exist within a gender binary that didn't feel right for them."

gender binary!!!

HaHaHa! :) Love what these gals say.

SgtMom said...

Wikipedia makes my point:

""According to USA Today reporter Kevin Johnson "no other major category of crime - not murder, assault or robbery - has generated a more serious challenge of the credibility of national crime statistics" than has rape.[3]...""

...............................
Statistics on rape are common in western countries and are becoming more common throughout the world. They are, however, highly politicized, often sex biased, and have been accused of being unreliable because they are so diverse and are used by different groups for different reasons. This is partly because of inconsistent definitions of rape in both legislative and academic studies. However, it is also because of over reporting, under reporting and false reporting of the crime. In the United States rape is defined differently by separate states. In many legislatures in the world some non-consensual sexual acts are not defined as rape at all. They may be considered legal, or as an illegal form of sexual assault. In some jurisdictions, male-female rape is the only form of rape considered rape while in others male-male, female-male or female-female rape may also be included as a legal form of rape.[1] Rape of children is rarely reported in official reports. Nor is the rape of children by their mothers and fathers or other relations represented in official publications. Rape, alone among other major crimes, suffers from severe definitional contradictions that create controversial statistical disparities.

These factors lead to accusations that all rape statistics are unreliable. For example, male-female rape in particular is a highly politicized issue, leading to the polemical use of questionable statistics.[2] According to USA Today reporter Kevin Johnson "no other major category of crime - not murder, assault or robbery - has generated a more serious challenge of the credibility of national crime statistics" than has rape.[3]

A United Nations statistical report compiled from government sources showed that more than 250,000 cases of male-female rape or attempted rape were recorded by police annually. The reported data covered 65 countries.[4]

Male on male, female on male, and female on female rape statistics are rarely shown in official report

Anonymous said...

"This means that in feminist spaces, men should be cognizant of how much they talk, what sort of influence they exert, what kind of leadership they inhabit. But then again, shouldn't men and women always strive to be cognizant of these things."

I am loathe to try to attach meaning to something so strangely worded. I don't know about you, but it reminds me of how the head maid talks to the newly hired help in a very wealthy household: "Do not speak unless you are spoken to; you must know your place . . .."

I think you did a good job comprehending what is a veiled feminist excuse for women to have total power and say what they wish while men, are only allowed to have the opinions feminists give to them.

Anonymous said...

"And, of course, real accountability would come in creating a world where everyone gets to express their gender identity in whatever way feels most authentic, a world where no one would be forced to exist within a gender binary that didn't feel right for them."

"Right. Except that if men want to act in a way that feministing.com disapproves of, men had better be prepared to be branded as evil. So much for expressing your gender identity".

Good and valid point.

It is off topic but, I found this;

http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.606

Anonymous said...

Of course feminist are still trying to force taxpayers to pay for abortions.

NOW President: Obama "pushing women back into the back alleys to die"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/now-president-its-not-acceptable-for-president-obama-to-achieve-health-care-reform-by-pushing-women-.html

Norm said...

"nobody buys it outside of Womyn's Studies classes and one dark and twisted corner of the blogosphere"

Where did you get that idea? Those are underlying tenets of radical feminism itself.

Norm said...

"I don't know one intelligent person who buys into this silliness."

then you must not know any radical feminists. though I assume you know of them...they're the ones who have been sneaking legisative and judicial changes by the public. In other words, they're the ones with the influence. - NOW, AAUW, Association of Women Judges, etc. etc.

Norm said...

"I've been trying to do some research on valid, concrete, unbiased rape statistics with NO LUCK."

What is non-valid, not concrete, or biased about the Kanin and McDowell studies? Name me even one single facet of either of those studies.

You know, that tyupe of comment really shows where you're coming from - you think that since you see references to those two studies only or mainly on men's rights boards, they must be 'biased'.

"I DID find this interesting post on a site called Aspiring Economist - they at least allow both genders to post."

Are you looking for scientific reasearch, or blog comments? In general, the closest you'll come to a good mix of those is...well...you're there right now. And, we are allowing you and Sonja to comment here, aren't we?

Norm said...

going back to a comment I made about gg-atom girl on another men's board, I believe that about the best attitude we can expect out of a woman who posts on MR boards is something like:

"Hey, men have legitimate grievances too! And their (sic) stats are just as good as those of feminists, god dang it!"

Norm said...

If any MRA's are wating around for anywhere near the kind of support that feminists of old got from men, then you're more likely to be struck by a tsunami first. And that's assuming you live in the Himalayas.

Anonymous said...

Norm, chivalry is far more deadly than silly feminism.

Zammo said...

Feministing.com has pretty much jumped the shark. The gals over there have jumped into the deep mud of ridiculous political correctness with the fringe elements ruling supreme. When Tran and Cis become such huge political and social issues I wonder which inmate is running the asylum.

Russ DoGG said...

My rule since college days has been never to debate with a communist, because there isn't much to say to someone who believes the moon is made of green cheese. Call that my black list, if you wish, but please erase from the record any suggestion that I ever imputed pro-communism to any of my guests.

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.

New York, Dec. 20, 1999

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/21/opinion/l-mr-buckley-s-guest-list-989517.html

Just interchange communist with feminist

Anonymous said...

SgtMom, why would it be illegal for you to provide a media link to your son's case? A published piece is not confidential.

Samson said...

Norm your 2:38
I haven't seen her on any MR site except this one and Sacks. Where's the link?

Archivist said...

"Feministing.com has pretty much jumped the shark. The gals over there have jumped into the deep mud of ridiculous political correctness with the fringe elements ruling supreme. When Tran and Cis become such huge political and social issues I wonder which inmate is running the asylum."

Right. Here's the reality, and a lot of guys here won't agree with this, but that's fine. Feminism isn't mainstream. On certain issues, almost by default, they exercise a lot of political influence (rape and dv especially). Why? Because what other group cares as much as they do? But as a movement by itself, it is relatively marginalized, from what I can see.

I've seen "feminists" on Bill O'Reilly's shoutfest (which is an enjoyable show) and O'Reilly essentially panders to them and acts as if he's bemused by them, as if they are a sideshow and a little nutty.

But when they join forces with chivalrous men they can be quite powerful. Chivalry seems to be the most destructive force that hurts victims of FRA. Feminists don't seem to have been the guiding forces behind horrible Fed Rule Evid 413 -- I've seen some feminist scholars oppose it. Biden, Mr. VAWA himself, opposed it. The guiding forces were law and order Republicans (as we've explained on this site previously) like Bob Dole.

The head of the ACLU endorsed "Until Proven Innocent," and Dershowitz is probably our greatest spoken in the FRA movement. Nobody could call them right wingers.

Feministing is a curiosity, nothing more. It attracts a lot of Womyn's studies majors, and their naivette shows.

You wanna see how "big" feminism is? Go to Google and type in various words to see the number of results. Type in: feminism; clear that and type in Steelers; clear than and type in "Star Wars." Now compare the numbers of results. Unscientific to be sure. But a crude indicator of what's on people's minds in the English speaking world.

Anonymous said...

If feminism is not mainstream, why do you want to eliminate chivalry? Please provide antonyms for the word, chivalry, to enable your readers to better understand how men should treat others.

Norm said...

"chivalry is far more deadly than silly feminism."

Radical feminism does not = silly feminism, not by a long shot.

Norm said...

"Feministing is a curiosity, nothing more"

The point is that the mentality expressed there is not a curiosity.

Norm said...

Samson,

I'm not sure who you're referring to - in my 2:38, I wasn't referring to any one woman in particular. If you mean gg-atom, yes I have only seen her on those two boards you mention. Then again, I only frequent one other board, and there is only one woman posting there right now - and she's not any thing like peach nut.

Archivist said...

"If feminism is not mainstream, why do you want to eliminate chivalry? Please provide antonyms for the word, chivalry, to enable your readers to better understand how men should treat others."

I suppose some of our readers like Norm are better qualified to respond, but looking at this question through the false rape lens, I will say this: Eliminating chivalry has nothing to do with feminism, per se. When we use chivalry here, we are talking about elevating women on a pedestal and adopting a mindset of protecting women from dangerous or evil males. In practice, when men and women view the world through a chivalrous lens, they seek to mold public policy in ways to "protect" women even at the expense of innocent men and boys. That is our concern here.

I don't know of any antonyms that would shed light on the way men SHOULD behave. Men (and women, of course) should treat everyone fairly regardless of gender, with a view toward insuring that the innocent are not punished, and that the presumed innocent are not treated as criminals.

Archivist said...

"If feminism is not mainstream, why do you want to eliminate chivalry? Please provide antonyms for the word, chivalry, to enable your readers to better understand how men should treat others."

I suppose some of our readers like Norm are better qualified to respond, but looking at this question through the false rape lens, I will say this: Eliminating chivalry has nothing to do with feminism, per se. When we use chivalry here, we are talking about elevating women on a pedestal and adopting a mindset of protecting women from dangerous or evil males. In practice, when men and women view the world through a chivalrous lens, they seek to mold public policy in ways to "protect" women even at the expense of innocent men and boys. That is our concern here.

I don't know of any antonyms that would shed light on the way men SHOULD behave. Men (and women, of course) should treat everyone fairly regardless of gender, with a view toward insuring that the innocent are not punished, and that the presumed innocent are not treated as criminals.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough. In that vernacular, women are also guilty of chivalry.

Archivist said...

". . . women are also guilty of chivalry."

Oh, sure. It's a mindset where women expect men to stand back on the elevator, etc. And that sort of stuff is irritating to some of us, but relatively unimportant. When this mentality manifests itself in the enactment of Rule 413 and things of that nature, it is deadly.

I hope Norm opines on this issue since he's well versed in it.

SgtMom said...

Norm said...

What is non-valid, not concrete, or biased about the Kanin and McDowell studies? Name me even one single facet of either of those studies.

""You know, that tyupe of comment really shows where you're coming from - you think that since you see references to those two studies only or mainly on men's rights boards, they must be 'biased'.""

.....................................

Don't tell me what I "think", Norm.

Kanin and McDowell are OUTSIDE sources.

OUTSIDE the agencies that generate the numbers.

Do you know what I mean by that, Norm?

It means I'm not so busy hating women that I've missed the BIG PICTURE.

Police agencies, the Department of Justice, and individual state criminal agencies track and keep tabs on ALL crimes...except THIS one.

Do you not realize the ENORMOUS implications of this, Norm?

It's like a doctor saying you have high blood pressure and must lose your life savings to be hospitalized indefinitely - without even being able to say what your blood pressure is.

THAT'S how enormous this is.

When I write legislators, news editorial commentaries, responses to misinformation or lies, I want to back up my comments or rebuttals with COLD HARD FACTS from the legal agencies that are RESPONSIBLE for them.

The next time I read a post stating "1 in 4 blah,blah,blah..." I want to refute it with :" DOJ figures indicate this", "Studies conducted by the state of ( ) found THIS to be the actual number".

I want it CURRENT. I want it ACCURATE. I want it UNBIASED -meaning the FULL story, not just dribs and drabs.


Norm - I wasn't referencing THIS blog when I said "they allow both genders to post". I rarely see that on a feminist blog.

*I* post on this blog...I've openly declared myself a female(admittedly a big mistake). I KNOW they let women post here...


I want numbers. I want truth. I want to know why this isn't readily available.

What do YOU want?

SgtMom said...

Anonymous said...

SgtMom, why would it be illegal for you to provide a media link to your son's case? A published piece is not confidential.

Nov 13, 2009 10:36:00 AM
..................................

Anonymous - why would a person who posts anonymously request personal information from another?


If you have an acceptable need to know, perhaps private correspondence can be arranged.

Anonymous said...

Technially, we're all anonymous, and I fail to understand your refusal to provide a link to public information. But that's your choice -- so be it.

Anonymous said...

left out the c

Anonymous said...

Archivist said:
"I don't know one intelligent person who buys into this silliness."

Your naiveness frightens me. I can tell you've never met any radical feminists before, you've only read about them.

Just why the hell do you think your blog even exists? Think about it. Why? Lies. 40 years of damage from twisted academia from pseudo-intellectualism.

SgtMom said...

Anonymous said...

Technially, we're all anonymous, and I fail to understand your refusal to provide a link to public information. But that's your choice -- so be it.

Nov 14, 2009 11:40:00 AM


Technically, I would no longer be anonymous if I posted personal information.

I don't post as anyone of a dozen anonymously, I post exclusively as SgtMom. I own what I post.

Since I don't know you or what your intentions are with my personal information, I have every right to expect my privacy to be as respected as yours is.

I don't understand your persistence in asking.

I will again offer private correspondence if there is a valid need to know and your intentions in asking are defined.

Anonymous said...

Nevermind, it's pointless.

SgtMom said...

That's what I thought.