In a peculiar and convoluted article, Jessica Valenti suggests that masculinity is to blame for the Arizona shooting rampage that left six people dead and 13 others injured last Saturday.
Let's briefly examine the, um, logic that led to that conclusion -- and then you tell me if feminism hasn't hit a new low for practicing double standards.
First, Valenti says this: "It remains unclear why 22-year-old Jared Loughner targeted [Congressman] Giffords, though reports of his mental instability and possible political beliefs are slowly pouring in. Without obvious answers at the ready, Americans are focusing on the culture of increasing vitriol in US politics."
Excuse me, Ms. Valenti, but all of the focus on "increasing vitriol" in politics is coming from one segment of Americans: marginalized far left ideologues who have crassly seized a tragedy caused not by any discernible political ideology but by mental illness in a disingenuous attempt to fasten responsibility for it on conservatives.
Valenti then declares that this "vitriol" even has a gender. Yep. It's male, of course, and she proves that by pointing to politicians' use of masculine language, including the phrase "man up," which is designed to show the electorate that the speaker isn't feminine. She declares: "In a country that sees masculinity – especially violent masculinity – as the ideal, it's no wonder that this type of language resonates."
I must note that the blanket declaration that America sees "violent masculinity" as "the ideal" isn't just a stretch, it's so preposterous that it is unworthy of serious refutation. It would mean, for example, that America holds the Unabomber, but not Captain Chesley Sullenberger, as "the ideal."
I haven't seen so much straw man since Dorothy met up with Ray Bolger on the Yellow Brick Road.
The upshot, Valenti suggests in an oblique and byzantine way, is that masculinity is to blame for the rampage.
Now think about this carefully. Do you see the irony in someone like Jessica Valenti blaming masculinity for the Arizona shooting rampage? In case I need to remind anyone, Ms. Valenti belongs to a group that has a conniption anytime someone suggests young women would be prudent not to drink to excess, flirt with men they don’t know, and then head back to the men's apartments with them. If the women thereafter claim they are raped, feminists denounce any suggestion that the women failed to take proper precautions as “victim blaming.”
You see, dear friends, feminists insist that the rapist alone is responsible for raping, and must be held fully accountable for it.
If the feminists are right about that, why are they and like-minded progressives so eager to give Jared Loughner a pass here? Or does personal responsibility only extend to rape cases?
Why are progressives, which includes feminists, so eager to blame everyone and everything for this rampage -- from Sarah Palin, to the Tea Party movement, to Jared Loughner’s favorite video “Bodies” by Drowning Pool, to conservative talkmeisters Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck, to masculinity itself -- everyone and everything except Jared Loughner?
You see, we live in a culture where we aren't allowed even to hint that a girl was less than prudent for putting herself in obvious harm's way with a rapist, but it's perfectly fair to malign an entire gender for the literally insane acts of one deranged person.
I point all this out in case anyone needs further proof of modern feminism's dishonesty, its generalized mental instability, and its blatant and palpable moral bankruptcy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
Brilliantly written. As usual.
85% of all repeat violent criminals currently in Americas prison system come from the matriarchal underclass.
I read that a few days ago, while sitting on the toilet. It was the appropriate setting. Yet, not to be outdone, Amanda Marcotte wrote something in response even more peculiar and convoluted. I know that must be hard to believe, but don't take my word for it:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/gender_power_and_the_giffords_shooting/
Although my personal favorite is this article on Feministing:
"But it’s not about cause. It’s about context. And it’s not actually about Jared Lee Laugher. Frankly, I think it’s pretty irrelevant whether or not he was influenced by violent right-wing rhetoric. It’s possible he wasn’t at all. But the very fact that he could have been is damning evidence that our political climate has gotten out of control."
http://feministing.com/2011/01/10/roundup-the-giffords-shooting-and-violent-political-rhetoric/#more-28810
I just love that last sentence there. It's feminist thought in a nutshell. It's a "fact" that "he could have". Just like it's a fact I could be dreaming this surreal rhetoric. Unfortunately, I'm not.
"85% of all repeat violent criminals currently in Americas prison system come from the matriarchal underclass."
Please, don't manufacture faulty and inflammatory statistics.
I have to disagree with part of your statement here, Archivist.
You started out making an excellent point. That this situation has nothing to do with politics, simply a mentally disordered young man who became fixated. We've seen this a number of times before.
It's not about politics, video games, music. It's just about an untreated mental illness that, tragically, took this turn.
By that token, holding Jared Loughner personally responsible doesn't make sense. He had no more control, given his condition, than a person with a broken leg limping. There's probably a far better analogy, but you understand my point.
I agree with your basic premise about who's casting stones at who, but let's not unfairly malign the mentally ill.
". . . holding Jared Loughner personally responsible doesn't make sense."
I get your point.
Mentally ill persons can certainly be responsible for a crime, even if they are not legally or morally culpable for it. The same way a baby might grab a gun and discharge it is responsible for the act, but is not culpable for it.
Anon at 5:17: the Feministing writers write and think like children. If that is the quality of modern feminist thinking, we should be able to easily relegate that sad cult to the dustbin of history.
Roll on economic collapse, all these women living on state wages and fucking up our societies will be where they deserve, in the gutter.
Theres only one way to find definitively what percentage of repeat violent offenders currently in Americas prison system, come from the matriarchal underclass.
That would mean getting funds to study this...but gender-raunch wouldn't like that bit of information studied (it would not give statistics that Empower gender-raunch),so gender-raunch quackademics say "no monies for studies", and what gender-raunch say... goes.
Most of the content on Feministing appears to be targeted at an audience of juvenile, intellectually challenged undergraduates who seem incapable of understanding anything outside the realms of PC approved thought. I rarely bother to get upset at anything written there. Instead, I only ever read it for light, comic relief. I do get a good laugh at the obtuse posturing of a bunch of silly girls who imagine themselves to be experts on everything, probably on the basis of some useless degree in PC victimhood groupthink. You could well say that Feministing is the intellectual comfort food of my male chauvinist heart :-)
One example. Not long ago they had a piece discussing why it is that there are fewer women billionaires than men, despite the fact that girls do better than boys at school and college (booh hoo! I've got a lump forming in my throat already :-). Of course, they go through the usual suspects like the wage gap, lack of mentoring for women etc. It never seems to occur to them that maybe men and women have different skills which lead to success in different fields, or that schools are largely designed to churn out public servants or middle managers, not world-class entrepeneurs.
What I find hilarious about these pieces is that they present the issue as though it is some great mystery to be solved, when the answer to the question is immediately obvious to anyone with a reasonable level of common sense and whose brain has not been addled by the kool-aid they have been sucking down.
Another article discussed how suicide rates were higher for females than males in one small region of the world (I forget where), and how this was down to women being so badly treated. They then pose the question: given how much women are oppressed everywhere else, why aren't female suicide rates higher than male rates elsewhere. Well geniuses, perhaps because women aren't really that oppressed compared to men in our society!
Nick, that's great stuff. I make it a habit not to read it. Sometimes I stumble across something, and then I might write about it, but I don't go out of my way to look at it, or any of the other feminist blogs. I rarely read Abbyss2hope when it was publishing, even though she seemed to have a crush on me.
Archivist, you are missing out. You absolutely have to read Amanda Marcotte, it's amongst the most hilarious sets of sentences ever strung together.
Now, I will be the first to admit that amongst her extremists group of feminists, she's not the funniest, nor the most angry, nor the most vulgar. She is also not the most clueless, although she does make a good run for it.
But none of them have that entire package combined into one hell of a writer that most people would consider satirical.
Her ability to completely ignore any sort of fact even when pointed out to her is second only to few, and her speed at deleting any sort of post that was challenged by fact, logic, reason or rime IS second to none.
She is an inspiration to bloggers everywhere.
Jan 14, 2011 9:53:00 AM
Oh not only that, based on what I have read elsewhere, she has banned people from reading her blog, not just posting, for trying to argue with her.
Jan 13, 2011 9:46:00 PM
Then don't post made-up numbers you pulled out of you ass. You won't stop falsely accusing law enforcement of manufacturing faulty statistics. Yet, here you are doing exactly that.
I don't see the problem with blaming a rapist for acting imprudently, even if invited to do so. Don't we hold criminals in other cases to similar standards? Can I blame Wal-Mart for not doing enough to deter shoplifters, and for having the merchandise sitting right out there, where anyone can take it and then run out the door before security knows what's happened? Can I blame elected officials for not having sufficient security, and just putting themselves out there where anyone can shoot them?
I don't disagree with your criticism of Valenti, but I do have a problem with arguing that victims bear responsibility for "tempting" someone to act inappropriately. If I go up to my neighbor and tell her to shoot me, and she does so, I'm not going to be blamed for it. She is. That is how the law works.
I don't disagree with your criticism of Valenti, but I do have a problem with arguing that victims bear responsibility for "tempting" someone to act inappropriately. If I go up to my neighbor and tell her to shoot me, and she does so, I'm not going to be blamed for it. She is. That is how the law works.
Sometimes the feminist extremists, like you, reveal themselves when trying to post anonymously with such statements.
What this rant basically amounts to is the feminist holy grail:
It doesn't matter if the woman gave consent before and during sex. She can retroactively, and after the fact, withdraw consent, and he is a rapist.
As you said, if the woman tells a man to have sex with her, he does, she then claims he raped her, that makes him guilty immediately.
So all the feminists need is to point and click.
She declares: "In a country that sees masculinity – especially violent masculinity – as the ideal, it's no wonder that this type of language resonates."
I almost agree. The problem isn't masculinity, but that weird brand sold as it, sometimes called "machismo". It really is an ideal, and it really makes a difference.
I live in a country with far less crime than the US. But one way in particular we're not "better": we don't have any less schizophrenics. They're 0.5 - 1% of the population here as anywhere else. Why don't crazy people attack politicians here?
I think that to do such a thing, two things need to be in place: a certain understanding of the situation, and a certain idea of what to do in such a situation.
Jared Lee was mad, so he can bear no responsibility for his understanding of the situation: a schizophrenic can no more choose to disbelieve his delusions than I can choose not to believe in, say, the coffee cup sitting next to me. Reasoning your way out of schizophrenia is simply not possible, because the ability to reason is what's sick. Jared Lee may have thought the congresswoman (or even the child) was evil, and he'd be as convinced of that as a healthy person who had ten volumes of testimony and evidence for it.
But, there is another ingredient needed besides the belief that the situation is extreme. You also have to believe that in extreme situations, violence is right and just. Whether you call it "second amendment solutions", "R2-45" or anything else, enthusiasm for such self-righteous, drastic "solutions" differs by country - and probably by ideological affiliation.
THAT ingredient Jared Lee, mentally ill as he is, is fully responsible for. Schizophrenia messes with how you see the world, but it doesn't change your idea of how to deal with whatever world you see. A schizophrenic I know of wrote "Why does [PM of my country] do this to me, just to sell more hot dogs?" He was convinced the PM was using mind control to abuse his telepathic powers, in order to cause tragedies and sell more sausages. But he didn't conclude that the PM ought to be shot because of that. That wasn't part of his attitudes, and would be alien to his culture - regardless of gender roles.
So, although Jared Lee is in a sense responsible, he can't be punished. That would be unfairly excusing all the millions of people - in the Tea party and elsewhere - who are just as violent in principle, but have the good fortune to not have an ill brain messing up their view of the facts.
But back to masculinity: It's doing a disservice to the US to deny that there is glorification of violence in important subcultures, or even that this glorification is tied to cultural ideas of masculinity. What needs to be contested is that this cultural idea, the "man box", isn't constructed as much by women as by men (last time I checked, Sarah "Bullseye" Palin and Sharron "2nd amendment solutions" Angle were still women). Also the idea that it's unchangeable, biologically true (contradicted by reams of anthropological data) needs to be soundly rejected.
She declares: "In a country that sees masculinity – especially violent masculinity – as the ideal, it's no wonder that this type of language resonates."
I almost agree. The problem isn't masculinity, but that weird brand sold as it, sometimes called "machismo". It really is an ideal, and it really makes a difference.
I live in a country with far less crime than the US. But one way in particular we're not "better": we don't have any less schizophrenics. They're 0.5 - 1% of the population here as anywhere else. Why don't crazy people attack politicians here?
I think that to do such a thing, two things need to be in place: a certain understanding of the situation, and a certain idea of what to do in such a situation.
Jared Lee was mad, so he can bear no responsibility for his understanding of the situation: a schizophrenic can no more choose to disbelieve his delusions than I can choose not to believe in, say, the coffee cup sitting next to me. Reasoning your way out of schizophrenia is simply not possible, because the ability to reason is what's sick. Jared Lee may have thought the congresswoman (or even the child) was evil, and he'd be as convinced of that as a healthy person who had ten volumes of testimony and evidence for it.
But, there is another ingredient needed besides the belief that the situation is extreme. You also have to believe that in extreme situations, violence is right and just. Whether you call it "second amendment solutions", "R2-45" or anything else, enthusiasm for such self-righteous, drastic "solutions" differs by country - and probably by ideological affiliation.
THAT ingredient Jared Lee, mentally ill as he is, is fully responsible for. Schizophrenia messes with how you see the world, but it doesn't change your idea of how to deal with whatever world you see. A schizophrenic I know of wrote "Why does [PM of my country] do this to me, just to sell more hot dogs?" He was convinced the PM was using mind control to abuse his telepathic powers, in order to cause tragedies and sell more sausages. But he didn't conclude that the PM ought to be shot because of that. That wasn't part of his attitudes, and would be alien to his culture - regardless of gender roles.
So, although Jared Lee is in a sense responsible, he can't be punished. That would be unfairly excusing all the millions of people - in the Tea party and elsewhere - who are just as violent in principle, but have the good fortune to not have an ill brain messing up their view of the facts.
But back to masculinity: It's doing a disservice to the US to deny that there is glorification of violence in important subcultures, or even that this glorification is tied to cultural ideas of masculinity. What needs to be contested is that this cultural idea, the "man box", isn't constructed as much by women as by men (last time I checked, Sarah "Bullseye" Palin and Sharron "2nd amendment solutions" Angle were still women). Also the idea that it's unchangeable, biologically true (contradicted by reams of anthropological data) needs to be soundly rejected.
She declares: "In a country that sees masculinity – especially violent masculinity – as the ideal, it's no wonder that this type of language resonates."
I almost agree. The problem isn't masculinity, but that weird brand sold as it, sometimes called "machismo". It really is an ideal, and it really makes a difference.
I live in a country with far less crime than the US. But one way in particular we're not "better": we don't have any less schizophrenics. They're 0.5 - 1% of the population here as anywhere else. Why don't crazy people attack politicians here?
I think that to do such a thing, two things need to be in place: a certain understanding of the situation, and a certain idea of what to do in such a situation.
Jared Lee was mad, so he can bear no responsibility for his understanding of the situation: a schizophrenic can no more choose to disbelieve his delusions than I can choose not to believe in, say, the coffee cup sitting next to me. Reasoning your way out of schizophrenia is simply not possible, because the ability to reason is what's sick. Jared Lee may have thought the congresswoman (or even the child) was evil, and he'd be as convinced of that as a healthy person who had ten volumes of testimony and evidence for it.
But, there is another ingredient needed besides the belief that the situation is extreme. You also have to believe that in extreme situations, violence is right and just. Whether you call it "second amendment solutions", "R2-45" or anything else, enthusiasm for such self-righteous, drastic "solutions" differs by country - and probably by ideological affiliation.
THAT ingredient Jared Lee, mentally ill as he is, is fully responsible for. Schizophrenia messes with how you see the world, but it doesn't change your idea of how to deal with whatever world you see. A schizophrenic I know of wrote "Why does [PM of my country] do this to me, just to sell more hot dogs?" He was convinced the PM was using mind control to abuse his telepathic powers, in order to cause tragedies and sell more sausages. But he didn't conclude that the PM ought to be shot because of that. That wasn't part of his attitudes, and would be alien to his culture - regardless of gender roles.
So, although Jared Lee is in a sense responsible, he can't be punished. That would be unfairly excusing all the millions of people - in the Tea party and elsewhere - who are just as violent in principle, but have the good fortune to not have an ill brain messing up their view of the facts.
But back to masculinity: It's doing a disservice to the US to deny that there is glorification of violence in important subcultures, or even that this glorification is tied to cultural ideas of masculinity. What needs to be contested is that this cultural idea, the "man box", isn't constructed as much by women as by men (last time I checked, Sarah "Bullseye" Palin and Sharron "2nd amendment solutions" Angle were still women). Also the idea that it's unchangeable, biologically true (contradicted by reams of anthropological data) needs to be soundly rejected.
She declares: "In a country that sees masculinity – especially violent masculinity – as the ideal, it's no wonder that this type of language resonates."
I almost agree. The problem isn't masculinity, but that weird brand sold as it, sometimes called "machismo". It really is an ideal, and it really makes a difference.
I live in a country with far less crime than the US. But one way in particular we're not "better": we don't have any less schizophrenics. They're 0.5 - 1% of the population here as anywhere else. Why don't crazy people attack politicians here?
I think that to do such a thing, two things need to be in place: a certain understanding of the situation, and a certain idea of what to do in such a situation.
Jared Lee was mad, so he can bear no responsibility for his understanding of the situation: a schizophrenic can no more choose to disbelieve his delusions than I can choose not to believe in, say, the coffee cup sitting next to me. Reasoning your way out of schizophrenia is simply not possible, because the ability to reason is what's sick. Jared Lee may have thought the congresswoman (or even the child) was evil, and he'd be as convinced of that as a healthy person who had ten volumes of testimony and evidence for it.
But, there is another ingredient needed besides the belief that the situation is extreme. You also have to believe that in extreme situations, violence is right and just. Whether you call it "second amendment solutions", "R2-45" or anything else, enthusiasm for such self-righteous, drastic "solutions" differs by country - and probably by ideological affiliation.
THAT ingredient Jared Lee, mentally ill as he is, is fully responsible for. Schizophrenia messes with how you see the world, but it doesn't change your idea of how to deal with whatever world you see. A schizophrenic I know of wrote "Why does [PM of my country] do this to me, just to sell more hot dogs?" He was convinced the PM was using mind control to abuse his telepathic powers, in order to cause tragedies and sell more sausages. But he didn't conclude that the PM ought to be shot because of that. That wasn't part of his attitudes, and would be alien to his culture - regardless of gender roles.
So, although Jared Lee is in a sense responsible, he can't be punished. That would be unfairly excusing all the millions of people - in the Tea party and elsewhere - who are just as violent in principle, but have the good fortune to not have an ill brain messing up their view of the facts.
But back to masculinity: It's doing a disservice to the US to deny that there is glorification of violence in important subcultures, or even that this glorification is tied to cultural ideas of masculinity. What needs to be contested is that this cultural idea, the "man box", isn't constructed as much by women as by men (last time I checked, Sarah "Bullseye" Palin and Sharron "2nd amendment solutions" Angle were still women). Also the idea that it's unchangeable, biologically true (contradicted by reams of anthropological data) needs to be soundly rejected.
"I don't see the problem with blaming a rapist for acting imprudently, even if invited to do so."
Nor do I, and I never said I did.
"Can I blame Wal-Mart for not doing enough to deter shoplifters, and for having the merchandise sitting right out there, where anyone can take it and then run out the door before security knows what's happened?"
No, but Wal-Mart's Board of Directors sure as hell will. The same way my grandmother yelled at me when I went into the bad neighborhood one night and got beat up. By the way, that doesn't mean Wal-Mart excused the shoflifters or that my grandmother didn't want to cut off the balls of the guys who beat me up.
"Can I blame elected officials for not having sufficient security, and just putting themselves out there where anyone can shoot them?"
You can bet SOMEONE responsible for security is being blamed for the shooting, even as I write this.
"I don't disagree with your criticism of Valenti, but I do have a problem with arguing that victims bear responsibility for 'tempting' someone to act inappropriately."
I didn't say that, but you've obviously pegged me as someone who thinks rape victims "ask for it." Rapists are responsible for their rapes. But I sure as hell will call some victims stupid if that's what they were. If you are a parent, you will understand.
"If I go up to my neighbor and tell her to shoot me, and she does so, I'm not going to be blamed for it. She is. That is how the law works."
Thanks for the legal lesson.
Sorry about the multiple post, I was redirected to an error page upon hitting publish, I thought it didn't get posted.
See fbi female operative yell 'wolf' in a public forum in order to attempt to discredit former fbi agent who reports fbi crimes:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2012/09/417967.shtml
"Who are you calling a grinning joker, you despicable little man. You are certainly full of yourself, aren't you, slime ball. The readers can see by your post and comment that you are a loon, and there is no need for me to post a photo. Why would you ask for a photo, are you a pervert too, and want it to jack off by. Whew, you are a sick, sick person who has absolutely no grip on reality."
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2012/09/418123.shtml
"Your website is a testimony to your severe mental disorder. It is also the testimony of a serial crybaby who blames all his problems on someone else. The only thing I am disturbed about is you loose in the community. You appear to also be a pervert in addition to being a loon. Momma's watch your little ones if you live close to this sick man. "
My other reports:
http://sosbeevfbi.ning.com/forum/topics/courts-and-fbi-torture-maim-or-kill-wrongly-accused
http://fbiciaterrorists.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment