IT’S SHIT LIKE THIS, FEMINISTS – The shit male rape victims face

Long-time commenter gwallan posted this list of the reactions he got when he tried to tell about his rape as a child:

I’ve been fairly outspoken about female perpetration since the mid nineties. I wrote the following about two years ago summarising the sorts of responses I’ve experienced personally. It’s nowhere near exhaustive but does give one an idea. Sometimes I wonder why I persisted.

Things I’ve been told or experienced when being overheard admitting to having been repeatedly molested by a woman as a seven and eight year old child…

 

Liar.
You must have wanted it.
Impossible.
You’re lucky.
You’re privileged by it.
Women never do that sort of thing.
It’s harmless.
Laughter.
I’ve been assaulted.
I’ve been threatened.
I’ve been called a poofter, a fag, gay, a misogynist.
I’ve been told it’s hateful to women.
I’ve had feminists, who have also done all of the above, patiently explain how my male privilege prevented my aunt from NOT doing what she did. Some of them implied that I must have seduced her.

 

It was legal at the time BECAUSE it was done by a woman.

 

Now some of this shit he faced as a male rape victim was not inflicted by feminists. As we insist on reminding everyone, feminist =/= woman, just as woman =/= feminist.

But all of it was inflicted either by women or their man-hating male toadies. And by male toadies, I mean gynophiles, men who value women over men. The Anglosphere is full of them; it is a cultural norm.

Feminists have to admit to a deplorable record on the subject of male rape victims, as bad as any evil patriarchal knuckle-dragger. To be sure some are full-throated in their support of male rape victims, but some hedge and dodge even as they mealy-mouth that rape is wrong, that victim-blaming is wrong, all rape is bad …(except not all equally bad, because, you know, power differentials…)

On the other hand there have always been feminists who pushed back against this attitude, which quite frankly is rape apologist. I recall a thread on Feministe that went on for ever and got very heated on this point, with the egalitarians carrying the thread. Sadly, they are usually in a minority, and sadly they seem not to be in the positions of decision-making power, but they exist. More please.

Latest posts by Jim Doyle (see all)

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmailby feather
  • Eagle35

    Gwallan et all, I have something to help you.

    Today, I’ll be redoing the “Speak To Me Distillation” on Radio Drama at 3pm PST. Gwallan and others, please pass it along. I want everyone who supports, and are, male survivors to hear about it.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/autistic-people-/2014/06/28/radio-drama-speak-to-me-complete-distillation–3pm-pst

  • Greg Allan

    Eagle, I won’t be able to listen live. Will it be available to download later?

  • Robert Crayle

    Off topic, but have any of you seen Dr Raandomercam’s latest video?

    Is the guy he’s responding to the perfect example of the Machismo driven White Knight? The pathetic grandstanding, the posturing for a hugbox audience, the ironclad belief that he’s ‘defeated’ people who disagree with him, his imagined relevence, his imagined audience of men raining down on him the respect he thinks he’s due (in the form of ‘angry man-tears’)? The sort of person who would feel terribly impressed with himself for calling a male victim of a female rapist a “spineless soft-cock” and then have a homicidal tantrum at a woman who did not damsel for him or rain approval down on his One-Good-Man-ness.

  • Victoria

    I find it hilarious when feminists say they’re fighting for men’s rights as women’s rights.

    E.g. http://imgur.com/gallery/zFwAcdB

    I see the point being made, but a lot of the examples are one sided or simply untrue. For example, I’ve known very, very masculine women who have dressed like men, had buzzcuts, acted like men – and got shit for it. Usually from other people. I grant that infopic its dues in that it’s not specifically mentioning feminism, rather just attacking gender inequality.

    But still. It’s amusing a lot of the byline of feminists and the online commentary is ‘We’re not racist, but…’ but ‘sexist’ rather than ‘racist’. Honestly. You could replace ‘men’ and ‘women’ with a lot of European and American opinion on immigration and men would be the scary immigrants coming from far away lands to steal your jobs and rape your women and women are the harmless, naive, innocent natives whose land is being violated.

  • Robert Crayle

    @ Victoria

    One of the fundamental things feminists can’t agree on is what feminism is fighting for, namely

    1) Equality under the law, or
    2) Equality of outcomes, or
    3)Women’s rights and advancement only, or
    4) that 1) or 2) will be achieved by 3)

    The one underlying property seems to be the narcissistic view of the universe that makes everything about them. In that infographic they simultaneously make the point that the enemy is misunderstanding, then make the disgusting proclamation that attempts to dehumanise group A (men) is really just distaste for group B (women), which means their vision for “understanding each other” is indistinguishable from “be as focused on us and our problems as we are”. In other words, they are just more deluded versions of Valerie Solanas, and that men are just mal-developed women, in just the same way that “them damned immigrants and darkies” are just mal-formed westerners and good, clean whities.

    These people are hard to differentiate from modern fascists like UKIP in Britain.

  • SYABM

    @Vic

    That’s pretty much just how they rationalize it. All you have to do to show the lie is ask them why women’s rights are important to fight for directly, but men get secondhand table scraps.

    Or how this “femmephobia” nonsense helps men who are circumcised.

    Or why feminists didn’t discuss Elliot Rodger’s bullying at the hands of both women and men for not confirming to his gender role, preferring instead to blame “male entitlement” and MRAs (despite Rodger not actually being an MRA).

    Or how calling rape and abuse “violence against women” helps men.

  • Ginkgo

    Welecome, Vicotria,

    “Honestly. You could replace ‘men’ and ‘women’ with a lot of European and American opinion on immigration and men would be the scary immigrants…”

    It’ called a threat narrative and it seems to be an essential part of these memeplexes of victimhood and moral panic.

    Robert, it would be interesting to do a line by line comparison of that guy’s rants and Elliott Rodgers’ manifesto. I bet the parallels would be shocking.

  • SYABM

    Actually, come to think, it is odd how both Rodger and many malefems seem to place value on their assumption that they are Just Better than most men, how most men are brutish Neanderthals. The biggest difference is that Elliot was jealous of “barbaric” men getting attention from women that he felt he deserved, and decided there was something wrong with women for choosing those men, while many of the more popular malefems seem to be motivated by gaining (feminist) women’s approval.

    Replace steal “jobs” with “compete for attention and threaten their monopoly on gender issues” and you’ve about got it.

    Crayle, I haven’t seen the video, but it sounds like that guy is trying to emulate the style of the Amazing Atheist. Poorly.

  • Eagle35

    Actually, Greg, my telephone line went out on me so I wasn’t able to pull it off. The cast members had to improvise without me so they did a few things, discusses topics. The Speak To Me Distillation will happen again on Saturday, July 12th, 2014 3pm PST.

    Yes, Greg, my shows turn into podcasts one hour after they are broadcasted live. That way you can download them.

  • http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/ DaisyDeadhead

    The first place I ever heard male rape victims speaking honestly was Alcoholics Anonymous. And since I identified with them (drunks make great victims) so strongly, it never occurred to me to doubt them. But its also true none called it “rape” –just that they had been unwilling.

    I also became aware of an AA woman who would offer homeless or transient alcoholic men “a place to sleep”–and then later in the night, she would make it clear that there was a price attached. This was way back in the mid-80s, so I didn’t know what to do about that.

    But she told me herself, so I knew it was true. The men never said anything about it. At one point, since the men seemed so unaffected (but they also learned to avoid her after awhile, I noticed), I wondered if she was making it up out of some sexual fantasy.

    There is such silence about this subject, it will always seem outrageous at first to women who have never even heard about such things. Remember, most of us were taught to fear men, and that’s why most women find it so impossible to believe.

    But after you’ve heard the first story, or the second, or the AA lady tells you (giggling!) what she’s been doing… well. It has taken me all this time to see that as rape, because I also liked this person. Also: because of the giggling. Male rapists don’t giggle. Its a whole nother set of behaviors when its women. You know? This stuff will take education and learning about syndromes, etc. As Susan Brownmiller’s book introduced us to the Wild West concept of “the myth of the heroic rapist” (one of her chapter titles)… we need similar syndromes and ideas to explain the woman rapist. For instance, I’d classify this woman as a “caregiver rapist”–much more common in women and a crossover with the female role (as “heroism” is a crossover with the male role).

    A man needs to write the “Against Our Will” for men, and describe some of this stuff as Brownmiller did for women.

  • Ginkgo

    DDH,

    The gift that keeps on giving. Thanks for that account.

    “There is such silence about this subject, it will always seem outrageous at first to women who have never even heard about such things. ”

    “Also: because of the giggling. Male rapists don’t giggle.”

    Believe me they used to. It’s huge progress that they don’t any more. Now as you say the other half of the job remains.

    That’s half the problem. It doesn’t help, although it’s very natural, that advocates on the other side of the question get very reactive if anyone poses any questions. Do you recall how over at FC you once asked how a woman could rape a man, I mean what are the mechanics, how does this actually go down, and you got a firestorm until it occurred to me to take you at your word, that your question might really just be an attempt to get information and not a silencing tactic? And guess what, that was what you were doing, trying to understand.

  • Paul

    Speaking (indirectly) of female rapists, Toysoldier has an interesting post up about Author Marion Zimmer Bradley’s daughter accusing her of abuse. (and, if I read correctly, not just of her.)

    Kinda wish I could see some of the feminists who railed on fans of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski respond to this.

  • http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com Danny

    DDH:
    The first place I ever heard male rape victims speaking honestly was Alcoholics Anonymous. And since I identified with them (drunks make great victims) so strongly, it never occurred to me to doubt them. But its also true none called it “rape” –just that they had been unwilling.
    Damn. Sadly yes drunks make great victims because just like anyone who is of diminished capacity drunkenness makes for a cover.

    But after you’ve heard the first story, or the second, or the AA lady tells you (giggling!) what she’s been doing… well. It has taken me all this time to see that as rape, because I also liked this person. Also: because of the giggling. Male rapists don’t giggle.
    A female rapist giggling is probably about the same as a guy that laughs boisterously. Their way of advertising they got away with something wrong.

    The men never said anything about it. At one point, since the men seemed so unaffected (but they also learned to avoid her after awhile, I noticed), I wondered if she was making it up out of some sexual fantasy.
    Which is not very different from how women act who have been raped by men.

    A man needs to write the “Against Our Will” for men, and describe some of this stuff as Brownmiller did for women.
    Yes there needs to be a ground breaking moment/book/story/etc… that sheds light on male victims. Although I think that will be a bit harder now.

    Remember, most of us were taught to fear men, and that’s why most women find it so impossible to believe.
    Yes. Over the last several decades the narrative and dialogue on rape has largely been sculpted around the notion that rape is something that men do to women. Which is why nearly every type of rape that is not male against female is treated as some variation or deviation of rape.

    Ginkgo:
    That’s half the problem. It doesn’t help, although it’s very natural, that advocates on the other side of the question get very reactive if anyone poses any questions. Do you recall how over at FC you once asked how a woman could rape a man, I mean what are the mechanics, how does this actually go down, and you got a firestorm until it occurred to me to take you at your word, that your question might really just be an attempt to get information and not a silencing tactic? And guess what, that was what you were doing, trying to understand.
    True. And I’m glad she did try to understand. A lack of understanding is what’s causing so much of this mess. Another thing that’s causing this mess is that instead of trying to understand lines are drawn in the sand based on presumptions and projections.

    Paul:
    Kinda wish I could see some of the feminists who railed on fans of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski respond to this.
    My money says dead silence for the most part. You’ll get a few here and there that will call themselves out but don’t look for anything from the major sites.

  • http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/ DaisyDeadhead

    I did respond to Tamen’s comment on my blog; I am not a big MZB fan. But as I said over there… PKD always hated that MZB got a pass, and now I see why. They were sorta-kinda friends, and he sometimes dropped hints about her “lifestyle”. (PKD* had psych issues and did not have many “friends”–mostly other scifi writers like MZB and Harlan Ellison and Heinlein who “looked after” him, so to speak.)

    PKD liked “brown haired girls” who were often 16-18 (I think one or more of his wives was? he had five wives) and he put these girls in his stories/novels. If you saw “Blade Runner”–the Sean Young android was originally one of these, softened considerably for the movie version. In “Total Recall” you have the prototype: the bitch wife who fights very well physically (Sharon Stone) based on his ex wife Anne, and the young “sleazy and demure” archetypal “brown haired girl” played by Rachel Ticotin.
    And yet, these girls were awful cutthroats! They usually tried to kill him a couple of times before the end of the book, LOL. But he hated that Joanna Russ and MZB were not put under the ethical microscope for writing similar underage characterizations… now I get it. No evidence JR was a perv in real life (but she also liked young protagonists and has a lesbian seducing one in a novel), but it turns out MZB was.

    When I wrote about Polanski, I said a good viewing of “Repulsion” will tell you he is a rapist (http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2009/09/repulsion-1965.html) and a good viewing of “Manhattan” tells you all about Woody. I would not personally interact with either one of them. But it is obviously less clear with women artists… and yet, people are now saying you can find clues in MZB. As I said, I wasn’t a fan, but I’d love to hear from people who are. I was a fan (and guess I technically still am) of both Allen and Polanski… both were very important groundbreaking filmmakers… so I wrote about Repulsion as “how to find rapist movie directors”–and so we now need, “how to find child molesting authors”… Is there anything in MZB’s work that was ignored and now is a red flag in light of this information?

    Like, after the Woody Allen thing, suddenly everybody remembered the high school girl in “Manhattan”… but he also made countless jokes in his 60s movies.

    Example:

    Coworker reads paper aloud: “Says here there is a rapist loose in Brooklyn.”

    Woody: (aghast) “I was nowhere NEAR Brooklyn!”

    He also talked about sex education and said he was up to “advanced child molesting”–all of that considered funny at the time. We just didn’t take any of it seriously.

    A comment on the Repulsion thread says that Rosemary’s Baby has the same tendencies (closing in on a woman) as Repulsion does.

    I am really curious to read an analysis of MZB’s work (by one of her fans) that takes all of this into account, the way I did in my Repulsion post. If this DOES NOT HAPPEN, there is definitely a cover up (or deliberate minimizing) going on.

    *PKD is Philip K Dick, and you should already know his initials and should have read all of his books by now. :) Murderous brown haired girls notwithstanding!

  • http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/ DaisyDeadhead

    I just responded to Tamen over there at Toysoldiers… I think he has a separatist blog so might not print my comments. (no problem) But I just wanted to repeat what I said: IT IS TRUE that all during the 70s, “child sexuality” was presented as some innocent sweet Woodstock back-to-the-garden thing, and everybody was talking about it… and the NAMBLA pedophiles used some good initial hippie impulses (i.e. letting kids masturbate or “play” together in a basically uncoerced way, as they often do if left alone long enough) and co-opted them for their own nefarious purposes. This is why I never got mad at Warren Farrell*; I was there, and I saw. Andrea Dworkin and everybody else said things about “child sexuality” (cue violins, rainbows and flowers!) and both Dworkin (a victim as a child in a movie theater) and Farrell changed their tone and clarified when they realized people were using their words in ways they had NOT intended. I hate when people misinterpret the past, as Gingko knows, sends me into FITS FITS FITS…

    I am proud of yall for sticking to this and not letting go… I am linking Tamen’s piece if I can ever update my sorry-assed blog. (I have been arguing with these awful feminist troglodytes on Tumblr and can’t tear myself away. I must be insane!)

    Anyway, keep up the good work. We have to keep talking about this.

    PKD knew!!!!

    *as well as the fact that he wrote a very nice letter to me when I was 15, encouraging my feminism and telling me I was on the right track, blah blah. I kept that note for a long time, it meant a lot to me when I was the only feminist on my block. Nothing seductive in it. I wrote to him after I saw him on Phil Donahue. YES, I am OLD. 😉

  • John D

    John D.

    Can somebody please double-check this for me?

    This is the CDC IPV study link that mentions made to penetrate.
    http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

    As far as I can tell the portion that talked about men’s assailant being a woman 80% of the time, it looks like that has been replaced with the prevalence that it will be a stranger or intimate partner.

  • http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com Danny

    John D you might want to share that with Tamen (http://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/). He keeps a pretty good watch on stuff like that.

  • Eagle35

    Guys, I nearly broke myself again debating another one of those gynocentric feminist. I should’ve known better.

    Ginko, you think you can do another “It’s Shit Like This, Feminists…” piece on it? It’s a perfect example of why I get so triggered when dealing with the reality that nobody give a fuck about what happened to me as a youngster at the hands of females.

    It went like this:

    First she said that people had misinformed opinions about feminism. I told her feminism isn’t perfect and has done some nasty things to aid and abet societal stereotypes about men and boys. She then said my opinion was misinformed so I gave her the list I posted here with some additions. I’ll post her responses and my thoughts on them.

    Me: 1) When Male and Female rape victims were being tallied, Mary Koss (biased feminist researcher) went over the results of the former and decided that classifying what happened as rape wouldn’t be “Appropriate”. So with one stroke of the pen, she erased an entire population of people looking for validation of their existence from official records. And for decades, all research statistics have followed her methods to the letter: Classifying rape as only something requiring penetration while leaving out forced envelopment and other methods to be consigned to a paltry “Sexual Assault” label that grants nowhere near an equal level of compensation for the victims compared to a charge of “Rape”. No feminist stood to oppose her or rally to stop the research from being tampered with in such a way.

    Gynocentric Feminist: “Sorry, I don’t think you understand exactly what Mary Koss was doing. She was trying to normalize a definition of rape dependent on the sources she was using for a literature survey. She has some very good reasons for her definitions, even though I ultimately disagree with them.”

    Woah!

    Me: “2) Sometime in the 80s, Feminists lobbied for The Duluth Model of Domestic Violence where Domestic Violence was deemed something men do to women alone, begetting Primary Agressor Laws. If any man reported domestic violence from his spouse, the police were required to arrest him on the spot regardless of whether he was innocent or not. Granted, every state varies, but overall the climate is skewed towards assuming every man as the primary aggressor in domestic violence. Meaning that male victims of domestic violence were put in a rock and a hard place: Man up and take the abuse or call the police and risk spending time in a jail cell. Again, no feminist stood in opposition to this.”

    Gynocentric Feminist: “Yet again, there is a good reason for this in that the police cannot risk deciding who is innocent or who is guilty when someone’s life is on the line. Considering women are more likely to be severely injured or murdered in domestic violence, it’s probably a good call. It sucks if the man is the victim, but it’s necessary to prevent tragedy.”

    WOAH!

    Me: “In the 90s, research showed boys and girls struggling in the school system. Feminist special interest groups lobbied for change in the teaching methods and curriculum tailored towards how girls learned so they could be given a leg up even though the research was right in front of their two eyes proving the contrary. No one thought to say “Hold on, we’re going about this pretty narrowly! Boys are struggling too. Let’s have some perspective here.”. It’s gotten to the point that decades later, any attempt to address the struggles of boys is met with hostility and disbelief in the issue. I’ll give you a guess as to who we can thank for that.”

    Gynocentric Feminist: “Oh gosh this one is pretty paranoid.”

    Oh wow, what a very convincing counterargument *sarcasm*

    Me: “When it was reported that Boko Haram were going off on a killing spree in the name of their beliefs, innocent school boys were caught in their sights. It was also reported that another village had been massacred. They signaled out the male babies, the boys and men as special targets and gunned them down on sight, the death toll 300-400 plus. Yet, when they kidnapped school girls, the media and feminist groups joined together in unity to decry the terrorist group and declared their motives a part of the “War on Women”. They forgot the innocent boys and men dead and didn’t so much as utter a peep of concern back then. How do you explain that?”

    Gynocentric Feminist: “No one fucking forgot any innocent boys and men killed by Boko Harem. You hear news stories all the fucking time about people they’ve murdered.”

    Did she even read the—aw geez!

    Me: “5) Finally, the major example of blantant hijacking of issues that cut across both genders and spectrums: Elliot Rodgers. When all was said and done, the media and feminist groups went on a verbal rampage, lambasting the Mens Rights Movements through unverified and spurious claims of a connection with the PUA forums Elliot frequented prior to his spree. Never one to resist running their mouths further, they declared that his spree was motivated PRIMARILY by misogynistic attitudes towards women. The true facts were thus:

    A: Misogyny was ONE motivation, not the primary one. Reading his manifesto, he had deep-seated hatred towards Alpha males, his parents, brother, Asians, mankind, and himself.

    B: Of the victims he killed, four were men (three happening to be Asian roommates) along with two women. Now you’re going to say “But he intended also to target a sorority house so it was motivated by hatred of women”. Wrong. He was targeting a SPECIFIC woman. Mainly, blonde women, because that was one of his preferences. You will also note he SPARED the life of a woman at gunpoint while injuring countless others, men and women, on a drive-by, including law enforcement officials.

    Of course, the media and these groups never let a few harmless facts get in the way of their agenda. I’ve been on Mens Rights forums. You know how many users were scared to identify themselves as such in public thanks to this targeted smear? That if they so much as identified even support towards Mens Issues? Did you also know, conveniently, that a petition was set up for the White House to label Mens Rights Advocates as terrorists? TERRORISTS! Let that sink for a minute.”

    Gynocentric Feminist: “A. It was the primary factor.

    B. He literally talked about how he wanted to kill women.”

    *bangs head repeatedly on wall*

    When she also didn’t respond to my story of three feminist’s invalidating my negative experiences at the hands of females in addition to males and reminded her again, she had this to say:

    Gynocentric Feminist: “I’m confused… I don’t know who these people are… what do you want me to do?”

    Gindko, please tear this gynocentric feminist a new hole here. And wish me luck because right now, my head is swimming with suicidal thoughts again.

    Doesn’t help that I had been reading Ray Bradbury and made the stupidest mistake of finding out more about him:

    “There are two races of people – men and women – no matter what women’s libbers would have you pretend. The male is motivated by toys and science because men are born with no purpose in the universe except to procreate. There is lots of time to kill beyond that. They’ve got to find work. Men have no inherent center to themselves beyond procreating. Women, however, are born with a center. They can create the universe, mother it, teach it, nurture it. Men read science fiction to build the future. Women don’t need to read it. They are the future.”

    -Playboy interview

    Fuck him and his women pedestalizing garbage.

  • Robert Crayle

    Ray Bradbury always sounds to me like a prideful contemptuous sack of shit, as well as one of the most overrated novelists ever to stink up the medium. His signature work is a pathetic screed about people not reading as much as they used and the warning of “if you don’t appreciate our genius, then da gub’mint will take us away and you’ll be saaawwwwry!” It’s a continued problem of the besetting sin of the novelist – the idea that they know better, and societies structured around their brain-drippings will just work. The good ones actually have what George Orwell called “the power of facing” – the ability not just to see unpleasant things, but to accept and incorporate them. Bradbury just worships his own reflection and his harem of the mysterious and wondrous feminine from which all nebulous , unnamed, and ‘actually worthwhile’ things spring. He is the antithesis of Orwell, Mark Twain, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harper Lee, Kurt Vonnegut, Isaac Asimov, and anyone else actually interested in more than self-congratulatory masturbation in word form.

    TLDR: I don’t like Ray Bradbury, and don’t understand why anyone does.

  • Eagle35

    It was my mistake to ever learn more about him in the first place. I guess it goes to show you, majority of artists are assholes that get a free pass for their behavior because society says they contributed something valuable to culture.

  • Robert Crayle

    Is Roman Polanski even on trial yet? How long has Charlie Sheen ever been in jail?

    One of the parallels of the ‘cult of the mysterious feminine’ that is so old is the relatively new ‘cult of celebrity’ in which ‘genius’ translates as an immunity not only to a lot of society’s rules but also a lot of free pass to say the most sickening dehumanising shit with the caveat that you ‘just know something everyone else doesn’t’ and must be trusted as an ‘expert’ on society and being human.

    I actually have begun to suspect that a mini-‘war’ (har har, no-one gets shot at in these puerile stouches,b ut they do so love using that little three letter emotive) has erupted between the ‘cult of feminine belonging’ and the ‘cult of celebrity’ in trying to get well known people convicted of rape or sex-crimes even without evidence or poor anecdata ie Julian Assange, Bill Henson, Dominic Strauss-Kahn, Woody Allen, Michael Jackson. The idea being “we can bring these beings down. Even the great cult of celebrity is on notice from us. They are mortals we can crush with rabble-rousing and shameless manipulation of humanity’s poor data collection and processing ability.” It’s like watching any two cults of belonging war over a group of people and the ‘driver’s seat’ of what is allowed. In this case both want to allow itself what is punished in others, but one revels in the harm of others while the other is too apathetic to give a rip.

  • Robert Crayle

    Also Ginkgo, one of my earlier comments in this thread is awaiting moderation. Can it be put through, or did I actually cross a line? (If so, my apologies to you all).

  • Eagle35

    I’ll do you one better, Robert, and mention Orson Scott Card.

    Not only is Mister Card a homophobic bastard, he actually contributed funds to an organization that is against gays and lesbians. Yet there are some who always bleat “Separate the work from the artist”.

    Then there’s Frank Miller and his rather…uh…insidious opinions on liberals. Granted, I know liberals have flaws but ever since September 11th, 2001 he has completely flipped his lid. And this is coming from a guy who is a fan of his work.

  • VU

    A little off topic but I’m pissed off. I hear feminists whining about the war on women because Hobby Lobby won’t be made to cover A FEW types of emergency contraception. Most types they still cover, just plan B and some IUD’s they don’t cover.

    So then I stroll on over to healthcare.gov to find out what kind of contraception options I have under the Affordable Care Act. And I read this.

    “Plans aren’t required to cover:
    Drugs to induce abortions
    Services related to a man’s reproductive capacity, like vasectomies”

    So let me get this straight there is precisely zero coverage required for men’s contraceptives including vasectomies. (Honestly I believed that vasectomies would be required coverage.) and you think you are a second class citizen because if you happen to work for Hobby Lobby you don’t get free plan B. (But still get free monthly birth control)

    I swear feminists are quite frankly the most entitled political group in human history. If the strong independent women arn’t getting crap for free, then it’s because the whole world hates women.

  • Robert Crayle

    Because their idea of “strong and independent” is “demand instead of beg”.

  • Ginkgo

    Can’t find it, Robert. can you resend? I can’t imagine what line you could possibly cross.

  • Ginkgo

    And Eagle – yeah, I will raise that to a post. It’s pretty exemplary of the problems men have with feminists on men’s issues.

  • Robert Crayle

    @ Victoria

    One of the fundamental things feminists can’t agree on is what feminism is fighting for, namely

    1) Equality under the law, or
    2) Equality of outcomes, or
    3)Women’s rights and advancement only, or
    4) that 1) or 2) will be achieved by 3)

    The one underlying property seems to be the narcissistic view of the universe that makes everything about them. In that infographic they simultaneously make the point that the enemy is misunderstanding, then make the disgusting proclamation that attempts to dehumanise group A (men) is really just distaste for group B (women), which means their vision for “understanding each other” is indistinguishable from “be as focused on us and our problems as we are”. In other words, they are just more deluded versions of Valerie Solanas, and that men are just mal-developed women, in just the same way that “them damned immigrants and darkies” are just mal-formed westerners and good, clean whities.

    These people are hard to differentiate from modern fascists like UKIP in Britain.

  • Robert Crayle

    Nope… I reposted it…awaiting moderation again. Strange.

  • Ginkgo

    There it is. Approved!

  • http://tamenwrote.wordpress.com Tamen

    John & Danny:

    Regarding the perpetrator statistics in NISVS 2010 – I checked it and the statistics that 79.2% of men who reported being made to penetrate reported only female perpetrators is still in the report.

    DaisyDeadhead: I saw your reply on your blog. Among some of the posts I’ve read about the recent publication of Marion Zimmer Bradley’s daughter’s accusation of sexual abuse I came over links to something called the Breendongle – telling about when MZB’s husband were banned from attending some con’s. Having people agonizing of whether one should ban from a con (which would have children present) a person who among other things were rubbing a 3-year old child’s genital area with a pencil rubber at a party in view of many other people is just mind-boggling: http://breendoggle.wikia.com/wiki/Breendoggle_Wiki

    Reading about how people then ignored Breen’s “sexual relations” with a 10 year old child because the child was considered an asshole just breaks my heart and make my blood boil.