Our friend Paul Elam wants Nicole Fabian-Weber's vile pro-mutilation post removed from the Web. Paul asks that we communicate with the blog owner to express our displeasure. Here is the contact information: http://thestir.cafemom.com/contact
And here is my note:
In an era when we tell our sons they must never engage in gendered violence, Nicole Fabian-Weber (“Wife Cuts Off Husband’s Penis & Chucks It in the River,” 10/18/11) celebrates sexual mutilation when the genders are reversed. Your Web site has done a grave disservice to our children by running that piece, and you should pull it now.
Without even a hint of due process, without a scrap of evidence being considered by a trier of fact, Ms. Fabian-Weber arrogates to all women the right to exact the most gruesome vigilante “justice” on any “member” of any member of the opposite sex.
By what rationale is such a despicable display of gender get-evenism acceptable to your Web site?
We can tell our sons that gendered violence is unacceptable until we’re blue in the face, but when they see that it’s OK when mommy does it, they won’t bother drawing those fine-line, politically correct distinctions you seem to take for granted, and they’ll assume it must be OK when daddy does it, too.
Is that the kind of shameful example you want to set?
Sincerely,
Pierce Harlan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
My submission:
Nicole Fabian-Weber's article "Wife Cuts Off Husband's Penis & Chucks It in the River" on 18 October 2011 celebrates sexual violence by women against men. She says "I've always admired a woman who has the cojones to cut off a man's weenus" - not even a qualification about the man being abusive, which is the usual excuse for female violence against men, any woman who intimately mutilates any man is to be admired - and the only reason she hasn't done it herself is that she thinks she would find the experience unpleasant herself - she thinks it "would probably be more punishment for me than the man itself". That "itself" is pretty revealing. Fabian-Weber apparently doesn't consider men to be human, so is it any wonder she thinks the only negative consequence worth mentioning of this kind of violence is to the person committing it?
This article is a disgrace, and you are a disgrace for publishing it. Remove it, and remove Fabian-Weber from your payroll.
One of the best comments I saw on the page referred to her opinion as
"Feminist Sharia Law"
This is definitely a term we need to use more.
I pointed this out on Fidelbogen's blog as well.
There are plenty of sites that support male genital mutilation.
In fact, one of them is actually trying to get a bill passed that mandates all men be castrated at age 40. The reasoning is that "the penis serves no purpose after age 40".
I am working on compiling a list of sites, as well as who hosts them (the web-host provider), and possibly the name of the individual who runs them.
I WILL POST ALL THE INFORMATION I CAN FIND.
Veri interesting Zimba "Feminist Sharia law", i will ponder!!
http://www.likelike.com/pollcommentary/3814
-sccrow
"Feminist Sharia Law"
That was mine...and I'm a woman.
As outraged as one might justifiably feel for such out-and-out man hatred demanding that her post be censored is decidedly ill considered for two reasons: 1) The idea that, "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it," is arguably the single most indispensable principle of any truly free and civilized society. Censorship is tempting as hell but, once given the power, human beings have a sorry track record of picking the wrong things to suppress and will go after ideas that are controversial but turn out to be more enlightened than the ambient orthodoxy. 2) We want as much of a track record as possible to show what a bunch of hateful loonies feminists are. To pull the article is to do away with evidence that is extremely helpful to our side. Feminists have the chutzpah to claim that their reputation for male bashing is not based on reality but is part of the patriarchal smear campaign to oppress them. (In other words, it's our fault.) We need to preserve such outrages in order to push back as effectively as possible.
Forgive the vernacular, but one of the greatest advantages of free speech is that it tells you who and where the assholes are.
HB: points well made. In my view, the First Amendment has nothing to do with our protest. The Web site that ran the hate speech is not a public space. It is owned by a private blogger. Business entities know there are commercial consequences, which are often severe, to offensive speech when it comes to women, blacks and other groups, and, thus, they self-police. Many of those same business owners still don't feel any consequences when it comes to offensive speech about men as a class, and we are doing nothing more here than letting them know that some of us do consider "men" a class who don't take kindly to be treated as sub-human.
It's just like my site here. I frequently point out that this is not Speakers' Corner at Hyde Park. This is a privately owned blog. Not only will I enforce our own rules, but Google, which operates blogger, will enforce its rules. Many a blog has been removed for misogyny.
So while I agree it's good to expose the idiots, I think there's more utility in letting businesses know they need to start self-policing when it comes to offensive speech about men -- if only for the sake of our sons and daughters who should not be subjected to it.
Free speech does not include the right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Fabian-Weber is inciting violence and mayhem.
Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater is an example of the principle of Clear and Present Danger which is illegal, if you believe Nicole Fabian-Weber's statements constitute a clear and present danger, you should contact the FBI IC3 unit and making a case for her immediate arrest.
Asking the website to remove her article because you find her comments merely offensive is an infringement of free speech... and the weasel's way of fighting hate speech.
Babbo, the blogger doesn't have a duty to publish hate speech. I love how you folks all of a sudden discover the First Amendment and apply it where it has no application when a woman wants to lop off dicks. Go to Davey Futrelle's site and make the same argument when he's quoting some asshole who wants to slice up women.
No, Babbo, free speech is what you do in a public square, not on a privately owned blog. Privately owned blogs know they can't call for mutilation of any other group -- except for men, and only their genitals.
This isn't really a matter of free speech honestly, it's more of a matter of free press? Writers are supposed to be able to print their opinions without editorial interference. As a blogger yourself, you understand that right? What would you do if someone was offended by something you had written, went over your head and contacted Blogger.com about it, and Blogger.com censored you? No good can come of that.
If you honestly believe this chick's posting constitutes a clear and present danger, you should definitely contact the FBI and file a report on this. I'm completely serious about that, because it's a serious crime. I haven't done so because I'm not convinced of that fact. And if you are reluctant to do the same because you aren't sure you can make a convincing case for law enforcement action... well, then all you're really doing is taking the weasel's way of silencing somebody you disagree with.
Babbo, you write and reason like a child. Go read what I wrote. Try to understand it. There is no clear and present danger. There is no first amendment issue.
Do you seriously think that any newspaper in America would print the column of any columnist, even Charles Krauthammer or someone of that stature, that advocated slicing up women? Nor should they. No, Babbo, you know very well what we are saying. We are calling for equal treatment, that's all. If that means we are "weasels," then we're weasels.
At least we're not little girls trolling an adult site about a very serious issue. Go troll somewhere else.
Bimbo,
It is considered Freedom Of Speech to request HATE speech be removed.
If Nicole Fabian-Weber's article chortled ove loping off BLACK men's penises it would be HATE speech.
If Nicole Fabian-Weber suggested how amusing the thought of loping off GAY men's penises is would be HATE speech.
If Nicole Fabian-Weber speculated aloud how deserving Jewish men's penises being hacked off with sissors is would be HATE speech.
But it's all good clean fun to mentally masterbate to the thought of Men in general being castrated?
Anon at 11:01: I wish I had thought of those points. Great comment.
@anon 12:20:00
Ty for
"feminist sharia Law"
a fabulous phrase.
Post a Comment