By Robert Crayle
I recently read an article by a blogger named Loki the Scottish Rapper called “PRIVILEGE AND PREJUDICE: SOCIAL JUSTICE IN AN AGE OF MALE CONFUSION.”
I thought I would pick out a few snippets from this blog. Quotes from the article are in speech marks:
“If we don’t initiate our young men into the tribe they will come back and burn the village down – or so the famous, slightly paraphrased, African proverb warns. In today’s social media-driven culture this pearl of wisdom could easily be dismissed as apologising for male violence. But irrespective of the current climate of inter-sectional identity politics this old proverb, almost offensive in its simplicity, holds worryingly true.”
So…men need to be directed to not burn villages down? Forgive me for asking, but how do you think the village was built in the first place? This smacks of a seriously Western Traditionalist mindset – that men need to be yoked to the superior morality of women and church (Christian or Feminist proclamation) or they are a force for evil. How progressive.
Also the phrase “male violence” is as incoherent as “black violence” and “Muslim violence”. In order for it to be coherent, it has to be unique and removed from the term “violence”. Are you claiming women are incapable of violence, or that their actions simply don’t matter? Either way, you show your chauvinism like a Pharos through the Typhos.
“There is much soul-searching going on within the collective male-psyche as the concept of being a man approaches its sell-by-date. Much like the vacuous self-help industry was on hand when religion fell out of fashion, consumerism will attempt to fill the hole left in masculinity following the collapse of industry.”
Great, can we sell you? And is there anything more vacuous, stupid, and destructive than the Social Justice machine tearing through the West, forcing guilt and shame on everyone to bully and browbeat people into accepting fatuous claims as rote?
And “being a man” is a concept to you? Do you pray every night that you’ll wake up as a pony?
“Who’ll be there when the free market drops the ball? Surely social justice will be on hand to pick up the slack?
Well not exactly. You see, the last thing a lefty wants to do right now is stand up for young men. In every area of life, the very concept of being sympathetic to the plight of the young male (white or otherwise) has become laughable.”
Exactly. Anti-male sentiments are more than part of the Social Justice movement, they are the binding principle that keeps it from flying apart. Without the external threat of EastAsia, the Great Social Justice nation of Oceania would dissolve. It’s not just laughable, it’s impossible. The group is defined by its opposition to maleness and masculinity, as it requires a scapegoat for itself, and an enemy to unite it.
“With a genuine political need to make its values visible in a climate dominated by nationalism much of the left seems, understandably, eager to capitulate to non-rational outrage; using it as a Trojan horse to push its agenda into a public mind currently consumed by constitutional politics.
In this particular conversation the topic of male identity is often discussed in increasingly narrow terms and even referred to as an obstacle to progress, unless, of course, the male is aligned with the prevailing orthodoxy. This is a natural push back against male dominance and while difficult to traverse at times, is undoubtedly a step in the right direction.”
So men are the enemy, to blame, and are not to contribute but to kneel to University Orthodoxy with no question. Gee, I wonder why they don’t like you?
“Recently, Roosh V, a right wing, pseudo intellectual pick up artist, attempted to hold a gathering in Glasgow for his followers to meet and discuss their sexual exploits. This, in itself, is not a crime. The issue caused fury because Roosh is also a writer with some controversial opinions on extremely sensitive topics like rape culture.”
The very fact that you can hold a concept like rape culture, take it out of the one place it applies (male prisons) and apply it to society instead, is why it is a moral imperative to oppose you, and why it is a privilege to be hated by the likes of you.
“One aspect of the debacle that many of us missed was the nature and intention of those who piped up defending his right to free speech. People, who did not agree with his views, but were alarmed nonetheless by many lefty’s eagerness to not only speak out against him but also intimidate and humiliate his followers. While targeting Roosh was completely understandable (and necessary) more attention could have been paid to the people on the periphery who were drawn to him for a multitude of reasons – not simply by a hatred of women.”
‘Completely understandable and necessary’…scum like you would have murdered Oscar Wilde on the spot if you ever heard him. (And no, I neither read nor care what Roosh V says. It’s easy. Just try it. You might amaze yourself.) But I am floored by the Regressive Left’s inability to attack someone’s ideas in favour of simply trying to destroy people as a Stasi-like warning of what happens if anyone expresses ideas against Big Person (of unspecified sex, gender, race, sexuality, or headstate).
“…We simply told ourselves that anyone defending Roosh’s personal liberty must be a bedroom-dwelling sexual failure or feminist-hating rape apologist.”
Given feminism’s rampant apologia and obscurantism of any rape other than male-on-female, neither I nor anyone else is interested in their peurile tantrums about others’ ‘rape apologia’. They are the queens of excusing horrific behaviour. And the only way I can see right now of being a sexual failure would be by touching you, dude. The way you write makes me think if I touched you anywhere, my hand would get sticky.
“Sadly, what’s coming is not going to be as simple or predictable as dealing with misogyny. What we’ll soon be dealing with is a groundswell of cultural libertarianism that has the progressive left firmly in its cross-hairs.
It’s time to wise up or receive the hiding of a lifetime.”
Good. You people are the absolute negation of the Enlightenment, the Greek Classics, the very intellectual bedrock of the West. Also, you’re irretrievable bullies. I hate bullies. Especially bullies with loads of excuses. It’s the height of cowardice. And if there’s one thing I defy about the progressive left more than anything else, it’s what a bunch of moral cowards they are.
“That’s why it is absolutely essential that we realise we are not dealing with a band of neo-Nazi-skin heads or socially detached Tories. What we are dealing with is a new, improved version of ourselves.”
Improvements you could make yourself. But then you would stop being the progressive left.
“This is an intelligent and focused intellectual counter-culture emboldened by the new atheist movement of the early 2000’s – referred to pejoratively (and without a hint of irony) as ‘The Dark Enlightenment’ by socialists and progressives aware of its existence. But where Hitchens and Harris used delusional creationists as polemical target practice on bible-belt university campuses, this ascendant multi-faceted philosophy has turned its critical eye on the all-knowing religion of social justice.”
Also Dennet and Dawkins, for completeness. But if you are so aware of the fundamentally religious nature of Social Justice, why are you defending it? And if it is religious, then it is bound to revealed wisdom that will not change. What is even possible in the face of that?
“This is a movement equipped for the social-media age, much like Scottish Nationalism, that sees itself as the antithesis of the intellectual status-quo. Like nationalism, its arbiters unite around a founding principle from which they can never be shifted, and this becomes the glue that holds millions of individuals in place. Online there is a new pantheon of polemicists, thinkers, writers, artists and philosophers championing the libertarian cause; responding to current events like the recent ‘no-platforming’ of biologist Richard Dawkins, among other things, with not only contempt but genuinely sophisticated (sometimes entertaining) arguments rooted in more than just reactionary emotion and vaguely articulated principle.”
Again, why stick to this after acknowledging it has so little to do with intellectual interrogation? Why is there a problem with argument rooted in fact, or evidence? Isn’t empiricism the way an idea is tested? And why is any principle inferior to vague or no principles that can easily be abandoned in the manner of Social Justice? The hypocrisy of the group is deep and well known at this point – the difference between Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton comes to mind immediately.
“Where many on the left would find it politically incorrect to call a spade a spade, as it were, this emergent counter-culture is not only unafraid of slanderous accusations but they also come to the party armed to the teeth with facts and data supporting many of their controversial positions.”
Isn’t that…good? Slanderous accusations are even stupider than ad hominem; it’s just being a jackass and hoping mob rule will side with the slanderer. And shouldn’t arguments be backed up with evidence? Why is empirically demonstrating a claim something to be worried about? It’s what you clowns should have been doing from the outset.
“Positons that are usually associated with the political right but which are becoming more mainstream as Western media and politics adopts a more anxious and protectionist posture in the wake of global economic uncertainty and escalating military conflict. But while many of the issues raised by this movement are synonymous with the right, this new movement also has a healthy culture of open debate and intellectual inquiry and for this reason has become attractive to larger numbers over the last few years. This is not necessarily because of misogyny but more, the allure of reasoned, non-accusatory, discussion in age where the white man is much easier to dismiss out of hand.”
If your group dismisses bio-groups out of hand, you may have more in common with the far right than you are capable of realising.
“But ultimately, beneath the politics and rhetoric, people are flocking to see the world through this particular lens because they feel rejected for being honest about how they feel. While many of the high-profile libertarians may be of genuine concern to us, many of their followers are just everyday people who are confused and isolated in the cacophony of modern life. They look online and are attracted to the idea of being accepted, unconditionally, into another tribe. A tribe where it’s acceptable to be their authentic selves without being accused of apologising for rape and structural violence.”
Something you’ve already done, then made a virtue of re-assuring people for purely political ends. You don’t want to change; you are contriving ways to lie to people to sell your abhorrent bigoted beliefs to people who reject them.
And confused? Isolated? I thought the danger was that they were becoming sophisticated and co-ordinated. You are not the Pied Piper, you are a fool with no ability to re-assess your own beliefs about the world.
“Over here we only seem to talk about what we are against or who we’re shutting down next. I know this is not the case for those involved in grassroots activism, but this is the dim-light we currently give off to the wider public. Over in shiny-new libertarian land our traditional open and shut topics like immigration and rape culture can be openly discussed and debated without accusatory language and condemnation. It’s a movement that prides itself – unjustly so at times – in the art of debate, where a firm grasp of the facts is underscored by an unshakable belief in the free exchange of ideas.”
As opposed to the completely defensible belief that some ideas must never be questioned, because otherwise the whole foundation of what you do crumbles? Wow, where do we sign up! Will my flagellant robe and whip arrive this week by Express Post?
“We have to separate what parts of this movement we could constructively engage from the parts we need to fight. The first instinct would be to attack its moral failings, but their response would be brutal, reasoned and devastatingly entertaining to hear. By dismissing it as misogyny we’re playing the man and not the ball and we are being willfully aloof to the fact that the intellectualisation of prejudice is something every one of us is guilty of from time to time.”
Some of us, from the time we open our mouths to the time we shut them…
“We should be unafraid to own up to our absurdity and, in fact, welcome the critical gaze from within our own ranks as well as behind enemy lines.”
The first step of that would be welcoming the cultural libertarians and critics you’ve mentioned. They may know some things you don’t.
“Can we, for example, concede that some feminist activism is unhelpful while also asserting, unequivocally, that society as a whole benefits from gender equality and that it’s the opposite of rational to generalise all feminists based on the misguided actions of a few? Why not explain to them that new-atheist poster-boy and legendary polemicist, Christopher Hitchens, was a strong ally of women globally and when he wasn’t going after Bill Clinton for sexually abusing them he was talking about how the empowerment of women is the only known cure for poverty. He even went after Mother Theresa, so angered he was with her ‘poverty is the friend of the poor’ nonsense and hated religion partly because of the way it subjugated women, not only to men, but false Gods.”
So it’s bad to generalise feminists but generalising men is fine? There really is No True Scottish Rapper….
And Christopher Hitchens was an admitted and unapologetic chauvinist. He did not believe men and women were equal; he was an ally of theirs from a position of presumed and axiomatic superiority. Women’s freedom was something only men could grant because only they could take it away. Feminist poster child everybody.
“Can we accept that while nebulous, thorny, self-referential and indulgent, identity politics can also be a transformative vehicle for empowerment and has already contributed greatly to the enhanced rights and freedoms of all people – including white men? Are we able to detect when it’s disappearing up its own arse and gently make one another aware or will we continue to walk on egg-shells around socially-mobile, relatively privileged activists who rarely have to interface with every day people?”
I’ll take ‘not if their lives depended on it’ for $600 Alex.
Also, those tools weren’t just those things – they were the tools of social destruction, degradation, terror, and genocide that was the story of most of the world outside the West in the twentieth century. They were used to scour the Third Reich of undesirables, purge the Soviet Union and Maoist China of hundreds of millions, and suppress most of the worlds population. They are not good tools.
The enhanced rights and freedoms owe nothing to those tools. They were fought for over centuries of argument and careful progress. Identity politics has only hindered them and sold away any intellectual veracity the left had – in the most whorish way too.
“Can we accept that some women, whipped up into a frenzy by radical feminists, have inadvertently denigrated the very concepts that were created to support those who have suffered genuinely harrowing abuse? Safe spaces and trigger warnings have now become a source of misunderstanding as libertarians cite countless examples of privileged women using them in absurd ways. We hear stories of women who claim tweets can trigger their PTSD and see examples of ‘safe spaces’ being invoked in public places, while a growing culture of ‘no-platforming’ stifles debate. In the case of ‘trigger warnings’, while completely rational and understandable concept, can we also engage with an argument that says there is no real evidence to suggest that being protected from recalling distressing memories is conducive to a healthy recovery from a traumatic event?”
What is rational about trigger warnings? Phobias and other similar fears are debilitating. It’s not just a feeling of upset, it’s a mental condition that is paralysing. Panic attacks are often mistaken for heart attacks, because they are so similar. It’s a terrifying experience.
And the worst thing to do is feed that fear. People with that level of anxiety must seek genuine psychological help. Nothing makes the fear worse than reinforcing it. And nothing reinforces for than a continual bombardment of a society that insulates and affirms that fear, that tells you the fear is justified, when it’s not. Kudos to you for beginning to recognise that.
“Can we accept that progressivism has an image of being largely about middle class white people assuming the role of spokesperson on behalf of others and that class, therefore, must be at the forefront, running parallel to any other social theory being discussed or debated?”
Good that you can acknowledge this, but it reveals the essential truth of progressive politics: colonialism to harvest other people’s victimisation as a guilt stick for it’s own purpose. It’s not “an image” of this, it’s a truth of this kind of politic. It’s exploitation of the most greasy and cynical kind.
“Can we accept that the social theory of privilege is probably best served as a means of articulating one’s own experience but is maybe not the best way to pitch social change to other individuals and groups? Namely as it tends to implicate them in horrendous acts of oppression with no recourse to dispute the accusation? Is acknowledging some of this admitting defeat or just whittling our task down to a more manageable size?”
Without guilt and shame, you are nothing but bawling children trying to block society out with pure noise. So yes, defeat is inevitable without a bogeyman to attack in the name of natives and a simplistic persecution narrative.
“When it comes to foreign policy and immigration can we accept that opposing points of view are not necessarily immoral?”
Progressives take the immorality of anything other than mindless agreement as rote. So good luck with that; you may be going it alone just for writing that.
“Can we present rational arguments for our assertion that casting a critical eye on the institution of Islam itself, as opposed to just extremist elements, will do more harm than good in the struggle to fight terror? Can we, essentially, make a positive case for a religion or does this contradict our secular, rational leanings?”
Given that Islam is probably the most difficult religion to justify on any level of secularity or rationality, that may be a tall order.
“How does political correctness affect our ability to discuss uncomfortable facts?”
By making it impossible. Political correctness is for making lies palatable and murder acceptable.
“How can we say gender-based violence is a problem for men because mostly men perpetrate it but on the other hand skip over the fact most terrorism is perpetrated by radical Muslims?”
By admitting you are and always were bigoted hypocrites. And then rethinking your beliefs at a fundamental level. Which is why I don’t think that’s your goal; the goal is toi find a new way to sell them to a furious public. You have no idea how much you resemble the miserable turds of the Frankfrt School, who tried to re-assure the German public with increasingly stupid rhetoric against the backdrop of an increasingly insane and brutish National Socialist regime.
“Most of all, can we humble ourselves to accept when a rational idea originates in the mind of a disagreeable person? Can we accept, for example, that while we see a net economic benefit from immigration, that this benefit is never felt by the poor and disadvantaged and, therefore, can we empathise with those who question the logic of letting migrants re-settle poor communities already under immense social and cultural strain?”
Now that is a good point. Which is why Social Justice activists never think of it; few people have more contempt and disdain for the poor and marginalised than them. It’s why they treat them like cattle to be exploited and used up.
“With the very concept of masculinity up for renewal it is extremely important that we do not, in our virtuous attempt to make overdue space for marginalised voices, inadvertently set up an esoteric talking shop that sneers at the very thought a man (white or otherwise) may have an opinion on his place in this new plural society.”
This whole silly article has been one long panic at the thought of men doing the unspeakable act of talking back to you punks. And why white or otherwise? Wasn’t one of the groups SocJus claims to represent gay men? Are they not men now either?
“We cannot allow a small, obtrusive, strain of activism that views the male as an obstacle to progress pervade leftist politics because there is no progress unless a majority of men (white or otherwise) are on-board. This is surely a practical conclusion to draw as opposed to one overly-steeped in idealism. It’s easy to stay in your own conversation and lose sight of how your politics actually plays out in the real world.”
Small obstrusive strain? If this kind of politic does not define the left, then the rest of the left is so painfully silent that it might as well not exist. Unless of course they are the very people you have classified as ‘cultural libertarians’. And given that you have already decided that their ability to speak about progressive dogmas (misogyny, rape culture, the progressive stack) is itself a problem, how do you plan to bring them on board? Why would they support your politburo that you admitted was averse to argument and evidence? Who would willingly be interogated by the Stasi?
“This new tribe is advancing because they promote a worldview where the men don’t have to change: this is where they are most deluded. Still, they absorb disaffected men in droves every single day by offering a world view where they can be the good guys. All while we focus on nationalists and take our position on the political spectrum for granted.”
Seriously, you sound like a church wife. Men need to change for the good of society: how traditional church-wife is that? And thanks for admitting they can’t be good guys to you and your verminous cohorts. We won’t be your punching bags any more than we intend to fill your pews.
“Much like the Unionist politicians and press not so long ago, we may find ourselves totally supplanted by this new, taboo and altogether simpler way of thinking – with nothing but our petty sense of entitlement to blame.”
What is more simplistic and stupid than blaming societal problems on a bio-group? That’s all progressivism is: men are responsible, men are to blame, men have to fix it (and change themselves), and there is no redemption, because then you would have to go away.
And nothing is more entitled than identity politcs, twerp.
“We have forgotten how to engage with opposing ideas in a respectful and constructive way. At least, in the public’s eyes we have and this is what counts ultimately. This lack of self-awareness, coupled with a right-on, slightly trendy, cowboys and Indians world view, which otherises the darker aspects of human nature in favour of moral posturing, is driving people away from us and into the arms of a movement which is sure to find political expression soon enough. And mark my words, we’ll be the first thing they come after.”
And not a moment too soon. You are the most repulsive threat the West has faced since 1945. Opposing you has become a moral imperative.
“We need to become champions of freedom of expression as well as arbiters of social justice and we have to reflect on which of our mutually exclusive, non-negotiable, principles are incompatible with each other – free speech and insidious political correctness I’m looking at you. We do not have to agree on everything but we have to respect people with other ideas and remain mindful of the young men our all-inclusive echo-chamber nonchalantly excludes.”
I consider this impossible. You have no ability to even talk to men of any age. You have no ability to consider them as anything other than a problem that requires continuous correction. And you especially have not made the critical realisation – that malfunction in men is not caused by their own substandard nature but by what you social bullies and torturers devote your little lives to doing to them.
It’s why I consider it a privilege to cause you unrest. You’re just…so evil you don’t even realise it…
“Whether we like it or not young men, as a social group, wield such a level of potential force in society. It doesn’t matter if that is fair or not it’s simply a fact. We absolutely must handle this evolving issue with care and understanding and be ready to reign in the zealots in our own ranks who allow personal prejudice to fuel their politics under a veil of social inclusion.”
Without that, you have no job. You have no place in politics. Your time has run out.
“Partitioning ourselves off from the complexity of the male experience and ignoring the implications of pursuing non-rational, ideologically driven, politically correct solutions to male violence and misogyny will only suffice for so long. If we continue engaging in our own exclusive conversations, where people must agree with certain non-negotiable precepts or be excluded, then don’t be surprised when the young men we inadvertently shun eventually find another tribe.”
Male violence is as coherent a term as black crime, female child abuse, and Muslim terrorism. It is a weasel term to tie a socially disliked behaviour to a socially disliked group. And misogyny…well, that would require others to assess misogyny empirically. And since in our eyes, the worst misogynists are you guys, you may want to drop it soon.
“And be even less surprised when they return to the debating village one day with fire torches – and it won’t be to perform a juggling show.”
They might surprise you – by showing you that you were the malfeasant one all along. That the problem was you and your self-serving fabrications. You might as well stomp on your hat now; you will never be the hero you so crave to be.by
Robert, it’s good to see a post from you.
Yeah good to see poisoning the well and ad hom tactics against Roosh such as “‘Completely understandable and necessary’…scum like you would have murdered Oscar Wilde on the spot if you ever heard him.”
Glad you liked it. Stick around.
Just so you know Loki attacked Roosh. Mr. Crayle just stated he had not read Roosh, nor did he care to.
Comparing that pathetic, straight boy, pussy hound Roosh and Oscar Wilde, the gay icon – well done on reaching the depths of idiocy.
A very well-written takedown of the article. Great work!
I will add one criticism (of the article, not your rebuttal) though that I think you missed; Loki package-dealt “the dark enlightenment” with libertarianism, but these are separate ideologies. A libertarian enlightenment-modernist outlook is incompatible with “the dark enlightenment,” which is just another term for neoreactionary (i.e. the biological-determinist evolutionary-psychology-obsessed secular-ish form of traditionalist conservatism that typically encompasses things like Human Biological Diversity and/or “race realism,” and centers itself around critiques of equality and democracy).
In addition, cultural libertarianism isn’t the same thing as libertarianism broadly; its a narrower stance. I think refusing to distinguish the two is also a sleight of hand trick, intended to poison the well somewhat by insinuating that cultural libertarianism must come with economic libertarianism (a stance which Loki’s target audience would obviously view with distaste).
The fact is, Loki made some very good observations about the abuse of the concept of “privilege” and the toxicity of SJW culture. But honestly, we know what will happen; he and his article will be dismissed by SJWs as “just another cis white male demanding we adhere to cis white male ideas of logic and reason.”
I think there’s a lot of evidence to support the idea that SJ isn’t merely a political philosophy… its a therapy cult that attracts many extremely neurotic and damaged individuals who are using the philosophy’s ideas to make themselves feel better. Loki is probably one of those who is more dispassionate about it, which would explain his reservations about the toxic activism and the like, but someone who is a damaged neurotic using SJ therapeutically would not be able to see his critique as anything but an attack on their self-worth.
I will point out another thing where Loki is also clearly projecting:
“Still, they absorb disaffected men in droves every single day by offering a world view where they can be the good guys.”
And SJWism doesn’t do this? ALL ideologies promote themselves/their adherents as the “good guys.” And SJWism absolutely does this too; the disaffected male can “renounce his privilege” and become a male feminist and campaign for SJ and thus show that he is a protector of women, the ‘one good man’ etc. Not only does that mean he can become a good guy, he can become better and more enlightened and even better at fulfilling his traditional gender obligations than other men.
The article is flawed. Death rates from war were around 50-60% for most of humanity’s lifespan. CHeck out Pinker’s “The Better Angels of Our Nature”. Not only are the men the cause of all death and destruction, but he also references Andrea Dworkin and other feminists in his work on how women have been tortured sexually and subjugated since dawn of time, and how men are always the evil.
On every page, it talks of male violence and females as victims, while profiling statistic after statistic of how violence, rape, and so on have rapidly decreased over the years. He not only is honest with stats, but still manages to point the finger of violence and rape towards the gender that most commits these acts; men.
So yes, a man deprived of tribe will come back to burn it down. That’s because humans are and always have been inherently violent.
Women throughout history have been victims of spouse rape because they aren’t supposed to say no. I doubt there was ever a woman prior to the 1800’s that wasn’t raped at least multiple times.
I am unclear as to your intent. Are you agreeing with Mr. Crayle or Loki with your statement?
My intent is to see if you can discredit A 700 page book written on the history of violence and rape and subjugation of women.
My intent question was a response to your first post because I was unsure as to the intent of that rather rambling post. However, I am now clear as to your viewpoint.
Again, no sources for your statements, other than Pinker said so. For example, the page 45 reply is an Inupiak story teller, footnote 39. I found that on google, but the bibliography is unavailable online, so I am unable to check Pinker’s source. Would you care to share it?
Finally, I don’t need to discredit Pinker, your zealotry, appeals to authority, and circular reasoning have done that, and the fact that his book is 700 pages is absolutely irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
Pinker is not a historian. When it comes to history he is a complete dilettante. No one needs to discredit a book simply because someone else is willing to publish it. That’s absurd.
Hey, uh, I can discredit a 900-page book, that sounds exactly like what you’re talking about. Wanna hear about it?
It’s called “FATAL.” Yes, the infamous “Date Rape RPG”. And, as I realized long ago, it should have a warning label on its cover: “THIS IS WHAT FEMINISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE.”
It’s like fucking Scientology, you can’t make this shit up.
1) There is no way known that death rates from war were anywhere near that high. Deaths from disease alone account for too many of history’s fatalities.
2) Andrea Dworkin? The woman who backed up almost all her claims with novels and fictional works?
3) You have the same problem as Pinker: he and you consider female violence impossible. It’s not your fault; no-one cares about women’s violence and men’s vulnerabilities. Have you ever even asked yourself what are the likely numbers of female on male violence, given how much it is not only ignored, but excused? (Look up the Skimmington Ride. Yeah, when you were brutalised by a woman, society punishes you for it, studdley. Still feel macho and powerful?)
4) The inherent contradiction that Dworkin, Pinker, and you can’t answer: you maintain that men are brutal rapacious orcs by nature, yet claim women make them good and “define them into humanity”. This is a paradox. It’s claiming that men both hate and sociopathically use women up with no feeling, and at the same time take their learning and cues from women, which is why women have magically transformed modern men into something vaguely human (discounting the absurd amount of violence in the Western World ever since women started transforming men into real people). Resolve this problem please: do men inherently hate women and are inherently evil, or do men take their cues from women and women just like being brutalised? What was the break? And how can you believe something so puerile and romantically flattering: that men (apart from you, natch) are evil and stupid, and that women are crying out for your heroic liberation, with your powerful power?
No, but female violence is far outpaced by male violence. It is males that go to war and do all the killing. You should pick up a copy of that book and read it. When men go to kill another village, they kill the women and children and then cut off their vulvas and string them on lines, and shove dead animals in women’s vaginas.
I don’t see why you’re ignoring that women as naturally physically weaker have been obviously treated worse over the centuries, as they can’t help being physically weaker and therefore subjugated by thugs.
You think there was any way women could have consensual sex back then, when a husband could just force her into it and its expected?
“I don’t see why you’re ignoring that women as naturally physically weaker have been obviously treated worse over the centuries, as they can’t help being physically weaker and therefore subjugated by thugs.”
Maybe in your narcissiverse; here in the real world physical weakness translates into enormous social potency. You are and always were orders of magnitude more likely to die violently precisely because perceived weakness translates as an increased need to protect said people from harm.
To cut it short: you don’t need big muscles when you have AN ENTIRE SOCIETY of big muscles to protect you. Power is not in the biggest muscles, but in the biggest mob. And women have a long history of frenzied mobs destroying men for the slightest transgression (a lot of which are those “armies” you’re posturing about).
The rest is sick exclusion on your part. Women (and girls) are about the only people who have a possibility of surviving a losing war effort; most of them are focused on wiping out the men and boys and taking all the resources that aren’t too heavy to carry.
Good to see you’re still around. Most people flounce.
But in the book by Pinker, he consistently references how women were treated once the men were killed, women carried off to be sex slaves and pump out babies for the winning M.E.N. of a war, their children by their old male rapists killed, etc.
Ghengis Khan didn’t have 100,000 descendants for no reason. He stole women back then, because women were treated as property, and then raped them all as concubines or sex slaves, which are synonymous.
I don’t see how any of that in historical terms is protecting women.
“Ghengis Khan didn’t have 100,000 descendants for no reason. He stole women back then, because women were treated as property, ”
They weren’t all his direct children, were they?
1. Stop conflating Mongol women and non-Mongol women as if they form some kind of group. The Mongols absolutely did not see them that way. The women were the only survivors of a devastating war. The Mongol women were family while these Iranian women – and you are referring to the Central Asian campaign, whether you know it or not – were prey.
2. Women were not property in Mongol society. Do you have some idea that everything east of where – Greece? – is some huge undifferentiated cultural mélange. That is childishly naïve.
Okay. You need to spit out that kool-aid. Next, document your claims about cutting off parts and stuffing dead animals from a reliable source, wiki and jezebel do not count.
“…males that go to war and do all the killing…” I refer you to the white feather campaign, as well as the Iroquois, where women control politics and provision and if the woman says NO the man is not going to battle. Male violence is frequently instigated and ordered by women.
Women are not special snow flakes among brutish men. Lady Macbeth and Electra to not exist a archetypes for no reason. As for your assertions about marital sex, where do you think the whole concept and practice of Chivalry came from? The subjagation of male desire to female will. As for violence, you do know that 70% of non-reciprocal violence is commited by women.http://newscastmedia.com/domestic-violence.htm. Also, Elizabeth Bathory was a real person,
Yes, males are stronger than women, particularly in the upper body, which is probably why the majority of poisoners are women.
Page 45 Pinkers book:
“The raiders attacked the camp and killed all the women and children remaining there after shoving sheefish into the vaginas of all the indian women they had killed they took Kiti and her baby back and then gang raped her and left her to die”.
Again, do you think Ghengis Khan’s 1000’s of sex slaves (e.g. rape victims) weren’t victims?
Again a source, assuming you have pinker’s book, what is his PRIMARY source? Without a source pinker could have just pulled that out of thin air
Look, Pinker wrote a 700 page book, with 80 pages of bibliography/citations. He’s got a cited idea at least once per paragraph, if not 4 or more times. He tells us about the science behind the sexual+aggressive intertwined nature of males in the limbic system, and how it relates to sadism, wartime violence such as sexual release for shooting a gun and killing someone, and more.
He has written it all in a giant fucking book.
What you people here seem intent on doing is not actually reading his material, the material which probably all new wave feminism rests on. Material like his, which contains mountains of data, anecdotes, scientific facts, on and on, form complete armor plates to all that feminism has been saying.
The complaints of MRAs, the complaints here, the regressive attacking of feminist theories seem like uneducated people who haven’t looked at facts. The human male is sexual and aggressive, and is rewarded for both behaviors in the same part of the brain. The human male does not distinguish between sex and aggression, which is why rape is so seductive to him.
Read pinker’s book.
“Read pinker’s book.”
The way you are pushing this book are you getting a kick back or do you work for the publisher, or is it just zealotry?
” What you people here seem intent on doing is not actually reading his material, the material which probably all new wave feminism rests on.”
Do you know where you are? Andrea Dworkin, men are beasts, and rape culture? Here? Really? What makes you think any participant here, in any way, shape, or form accepts any tenets or claims of 2nd wave feminism or later?
It is not incumbent on myself or any participant at this site to read and believe as you have. It is up to you through clear, logical, convincing, and reasoned argument to convince people that you have a valid point. A single source argument, consisting primarily of “700 pages, Pinker says so, and men are violent beasts” does not meet that standard.
As I said in another reply, spit out the koolaid and, if you are male(to paraphrase), ditch the internalized misandry
Your only responses are ad hominems since you call it “kool aid” and “internalized misandry” Those arent arguments.
Please, one good ad hominem deserves another. You still have NOT answered my reference question, and I went to the trouble to examine Pinker’s work and give you the footnote #39. The bibliography is not online, so dig out your copy or go back to the campus library and share the source, please.
Also, the way you wrote your post Implied it was the Mongols who cut off labia and jammed things in vaginas. You left out that it was coming from an Inupiak story teller. You carry on about the females of societies that were conquered being raped. Yes, they were, but they got to live. Unless you were an artisan or had a specialized skill they wanted, the males were put to the sword.
You have also failed to answer my and another poster’s critique of Andrea Dworkin as a source. I suppose you think the SCUM manifesto is a good idea? or that Agent Orange (radfem hub) just lacked a sense of humor?
Are you familar with the legal concept of “fruit of the poisonous tree?” As soon as Pinker relied on even a fragment of Andrea Dworkin’s work, his whole work became suspect and fruit of the same tree. Modern feminism is a supremacist ideology, and the old “it’s all men’s fault” refrain is codswollop. Cherry picking from aristocratic privilege and ignoring, no WILLFULLY denying, that non-elite males had lives as crappy or crappier than the women is vile.
Finally, there is this. http://energyskeptic.com/2015/13-fallacies-of-steven-pinkers-the-better-angels-of-our-nature-why-violence-has-declined-and-slate-the-world-is-not-falling-apart/
“He has written it all in a giant fucking book.”
Which obviously impresses you no end. He’s not very highly considered in his own field of linguistics. What makes you so sure he’s any good in any others?
I seem to recall this man sharing political discourse of his fellows of the era, and his peers, with his wife. In fact, his enemies published some of these letters to try and shame him.
The man in question?