Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Discussion of the day: The Feminist Chair-drag of Doom

Here's an enlightening little discussion going on currently on the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) forum. Under the misleadingly jaunty title "Funny Feminist antics at work" Junior MGTOW Member lovekraft describes a horrific new feminist abomination against men: chair dragging! CHAIR DRAGGING!!

Here I am at work, concentrating, when suddenly we hear the loud scraping noise of metal chair legs being dragged across the workfloor. For about a minute this goes on.

The dragger is an old Feminist who likely wouldn't have thought how irritating this noise was and how easy it would be to just ask a man to carry it for her.

But being the feminist, this thought never crossed her mind and instead everyone had to be irritated.

spidey weighs in with this observation:

That's what seperates men from women. We can show consideration for others and we like to do things efficiently

dontmarry, a keen student of human nature, offers some possible explanations for her behavior:

Over here where I work, office chairs can be easily carried by the weakest human being. The bigger ones have wheels beneath, so you push them over a carpeted floor.

Unless it was some kind of exceptionally heavy and unusual chair, all I can say is that she's a cunt deliberately trying to annoy everyone else in the office. That time of the month? Her man didn't call? Someone she desired didn't add her on Facebook?

But it is garvan -- his name perhaps a misspelled tribute to the legendary Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute? -- who offers the most carefully reasoned explanation for the chair-drag:

She knew exactly how annoying it was, and did it for the attention.

When a woman's looks no longer get attention, she'll annoy the fuck out of everyone to get it.

Don't believe me? ... Look to the Wal-Mart whales that make a public display of their lack of child rearing skills by having their child cry as they yell and belittle their kid in front of every other customer to see. Look to every "strong" feminist woman who's every action is to annoy the "patriarchy" by growing underarm hair, and yelling about how oppression is everywhere.

An old lonely woman with only cats as friends will scrape that chair across that floor because of her attention starved natured, and when everyone looks up with a grimace due to her actions, inside a little part of her will be validated. She feels like she almost exists in this world once more.

Let the lonely cunts suffer in their own prison. Had they went through the efforts of learning how to be a decent person when they were younger, they'd actually have friends and people who'd want to spend time with them. Instead they had to be a worthless annoying cunt.

The reality is this: No one wants to be friends with a bitter person who blames their problems on others ...

Hold that thought, dude. That last bit might be truer than you realize.

Somehow I'm thinking the women of the world aren't missing much as a result of these particular men "going their own way."

76 comments:

  1. "Had they went through the efforts of learning how to be a decent person when they were younger, they'd actually have friends and people who'd want to spend time with them"

    He certainly never bothered to learn how to be a decent person.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @David,

    "Somehow I'm thinking the women of the world aren't missing much as a result of these particular men 'going their own way.' "

    You are right about that!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pots Kettle

    "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience." Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52..

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eoghan, both are wrong. You seem to be of the mistaken belief that both are right.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I dont really understand what you're saying Sandy.

    The point was that whatever rhetoric a minority in comments sections mens movement pages are generating, it is not generating the sort of organised and deliberate dehumanizing and hateful rhetoric that modern feminist leaders have.

    ReplyDelete
  6. MRA leaders have plenty of organized and deliberate dehumanizing and hateful rhetoric against women. Not just against feminists, but women in general. PLENTY of it. Pot kettle.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cristine

    Firstly you made that up and have not got any evidence to back up your claim, secondly the mens equality movement isnt a left wing Utopian movement that dehumanized the group that are labeled the oppressor class as a matter of course and deliberate strategy as feminism and the other Utopian social moments that went before it does.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My point is that it is important to single out hateful rhetoric, and healthy for any movement to single out and denounce hateful rhetoric. It is not helpful to say "the other side also has hateful rhetoric, so shut up."

    You are mistaken as to the role of hateful rhetoric in feminism versus the role of hateful rhetoric in men's rights.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sandy,

    "You are mistaken as to the role of hateful rhetoric in feminism versus the role of hateful rhetoric in men's rights".

    I dont think so, feminism is top down political ideology that publishes deliberate ideological and hateful propaganda designed to dehumanize the target group, stereotyping them as a group of rapists, wife beaters, child abusers etc.

    The mens movement has no such characteristics, except when bringing to light the fact that women do all the same things that feminism slanders men for doing, and is largely a collection of blogs and rights groups that are reacting to feminisms polemic.

    If you are going to allege that hateful dehumanizing rhetoric and polemic pseudo research is being spread from the top down in an organised fashion by the mens movement leaders, as is the case with feminism, you should provide some evidence of that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If there was evidence, it would be published here instead of random quotes from a minority in comments sections and irrelevant stuff from the past.

    You dont get stuff like this..

    "In a recent television documentary called The Gender War, she proclaimed: “Men are animals.”

    "The documentary noted that the shelter had printed excerpts of an extremist American feminist manifesto called Scum, which stands for the Society for Cutting Up Men. In it, women are urged to “destroy the male sex” and seize the chance made possible by science of giving birth only to females".
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article581663.ece

    outside of organised hate groups and extreme situations like rwanda, nazi germany, US progressive era and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Eoghan,

    All anyone has to do is go to the MRM websites and read the headlines and articles and see that there is plenty of dehumanizing and hateful rhetoric against women. You can deny it, but it's all still there for all to see.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eogham, not only do you see such rhetoric from people who call themselves men's rights activists, you see it from people who call themselves democrats, republicans, and libertarians. Your bias is coloring your view.

    Hateful rhetoric is a problem every political group must address. It will not help to close your eyes and yell that other groups hateful rhetoric is more hateful.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @David,

    I check your blog every day, funny stuff. I do like the postings from the comments. Considering that's where the majority of voices from MRM members are heard, it is highly relevant. Very enlightening stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sandy you are deliberately missing the point, the mrm, the rebublicans, democrats or libertarians are not movements that are mainly empowered by depicting a target group as less than human.

    Political movements that do or have done that would be nazism v jews, feminism v men, KKK, muslims v infidels and kafiers, russians v chechens, israel v palistinians etc.

    They all depict their target groups as less than human.

    The mrm, republicans, democrats (these days) or libertarians dont engage in dehumanizing other societal groups, they dont play that type of political game, of course there are extremists in every group, but non of these groups are running hateful polmics.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If you have proof of a libertarian, democrat, republican or mens right political group publishing propaganda or pseudo science thats intended to dehumanize another group on the basis of genetics or religion as part of an ongoing polemic (progressive era democrats excluded) publish it, or else you are just spinning your wheels here.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Christine:

    "All anyone has to do is go to the MRM websites and read the headlines and articles and see that there is plenty of dehumanizing and hateful rhetoric against women."

    Can you provide a couple of links to back this up?

    I would like to see what your definition of "hate" is exactly...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh dear, does someone want to find Eoghan republicans, deomocrats, and libertarians intending to dehumanize another group on the basis of genetics or religion?

    Muslims spring to mind, also "illegal immigrants."

    ReplyDelete
  18. And homosexuals:

    http://www.peoplesworld.org/ny-gop-candidate-engages-in-hate-speech/

    http://boingboing.net/submit/2010/09/republicans-senate-office-hurls-violent-anti-gay-hate-speech-and-gets-caught-via-ip-address.html

    But all sides also makes such statements against each other, dehumanizing rebulicans or democrats in general. And MRAs certainly do this against women. Every political group has this problem with its fringe.

    ReplyDelete
  19. That is to say, every political group has this problem with its fringe, and if it goes unaddressed, the fringe will take over the group.

    That is why it is important to single out and denounce such hate.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @sandy:

    Waiting for those MRM links to back that up...

    I'd like to know how you define "hate"...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sandy,

    Why are you refusing to differentiate between political groups like as you said Republicans, that contain an extremist element and groups like feminism that run deliberately run dehumanizing polemics and propaganda against as a main characteristic?

    And given that you say "That is why it is important to single out and denounce such hate" do you agree that we should be challenging feminism?

    And where is your evidence that the mens movement is running a campaign of dehumanizing propaganda against another group in society from the top down?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eoghan, because just like any political group feminists have an extremist fringe. Why are you insisting on demonizing feminism and holding it to a higher standard than any other political group?

    We should single out and denounce such hate in feminism, the men's rights movement, the political parties, and any other organization we care about.

    Feminsim and Men's Rights has the same problem: fringe elements fueled by hate instead of desire to do good. Men's Rights groups need to start calling out and denouncing these members or they will be taken over by them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Do you or do you not denounce the comments quoted in this post?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Which comments, about the chair? I think its a stupid comment on a stupid thread on a blog.

    Its, stupid but its not in the least bit comparable with top down organised political hate propaganda.

    This is hate

    " MAN: ... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man ..."
    "TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from 'testosterone poisoning.'" from A Feminist Dictionary", ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985"

    Its the same pseudo scientific argument made by racists and nazis and so on, rhetoric designed to dehumanize another group on the basis of their genetics.

    Im not holding feminism to a higher standard than the other groups you mention, feminism is at a lower standard and in a different category of group, the mrm, republicans, democrats and libertarians do not officially publish hate, a foolish supporter might do, bit its not top down hate as it is with feminism.

    If you are going to disagree again, find some evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  25. David can troll the comments sections of blogs all he wants, he will find disgruntled males with no other outlet, he will find the odd idiot being homophobic, but he wont find the sort of organised, dehumanizing, political hatred that feminism is based on (real/equity/liberal feminists excluded)or a group like this one here that believe that victims of abuse and their children other than those of a certain group should be swept under the carpet and excluded from services.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Christine said...
    MRA leaders have plenty of organized and deliberate dehumanizing and hateful rhetoric against women. Not just against feminists, but women in general. PLENTY of it


    This is a feminist lie. What a ridiculous drivel is this.

    Many MRAs are married and have children, MRAs are against biased laws, are against malicious women who explore legal loopholes to extort money from men, companies and public funds.

    Feminism is expensive and non-productive, and good to know, many Western governments do not have money anymore to sponsor this movement.

    See link below

    http://www.tahirih.org/2010/09/tahirih-is-being-tested/


    One example about biased laws, link below, woman was cheating, left the ex-husband and their 3 children, got alimony for life and still 30 years after divorce she is even demanding more alimony...

    MRAs want such crazy laws to be changed. Nowadays idiot-feminists are calling us 'misogynists' for that.

    Strange feminist equality. Give to men as little as possible and take from them as much as you can.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-464722/30-years-divorce-ex-wins-200-000-more.html

    A millionaire was ordered to pay his adulterous wife more than £200,000 - nearly 30 years after they were divorced.
    Builder Dennis North's wife Jean left him and their three children for another man in 1977.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sandy: Feminism and Men's Rights have the same problem: fringe elements fueled by hate instead of desire to do good.

    Might be, but MRAs are not very supportive to this small group of men.
    Feminists however cheer and support such women even in politics for distributing unreliable data.

    Luckily there are still some honest respected women in high position who are not afraid of feminism.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257981/Harriet-Harmans-unreliable-statistics-rape-scare-victims.html

    Harriet Harman was ordered to stop misleading the public about rape by an official inquiry report yesterday.
    The Equalities Minister was accused of pumping out unreliable figures about the low number of rapists brought to justice, thus discouraging victims from reporting attacks.
    ...
    Lady Stern, a prison reform campaigner and human rights activist, called in her report for 'an end to the widespread use of misleading rape conviction data
    .....
    Lady Stern also said the Ministry of Justice should study numbers of false rape accusations. Because the alleged victim's anonymity is guaranteed by law, critics say false claims can be made with impunity.

    ReplyDelete
  28. So, the hair that grows naturally under my arms is annoying the MRA's.
    That's just precious.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Eoghan:
    David can troll the comments sections of blogs all he wants, he will find disgruntled males with no other outlet, he will find the odd idiot being homophobic, but he wont find the sort of organised, dehumanizing, political hatred that feminism is based on


    This is true, there are some rants by some men who were badly treated by females in the past, but there is no organized all-female-hating literature existing from MRAS - big difference if you compare that with publications from feminists like Solanas, Hirshman and many others.

    The idea of the ideal man is a woman with a dick.
    --- Germaine Greer ---


    At least we can laugh if we listen to Greer's drivel.

    Most MRAs, so far my impression, are interested into changing laws which are (mis)used by certain females against men due to legal loopholes - alimony for life for a healthy young female - just one example.

    Other MRAs have truly problems after divorce regarding their children. they should not be belittled.

    MRM forums also offer a good collection about female criminality, to debunk this nonsense about 'all females are victims' and 'all men are rapists'.

    Of course feminists are against MRM-forums and MRM-blogs, as they do not like to see men talking to each other - Feminists prefer men to be a 'Walking ATM'.

    Men are like tools for feminists, if they are broken or not functioning, they will be considered as trash and forgotten.
    Somewhat a form of slavery, if you ask me.

    Even animals have advocacy groups, but straight men - if they are talking about their rights - are called misogynists and should remain silent?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yohan --

    Is this your blog?

    http://masculistadvice.blogspot.com/

    I'm looking at your MRA links: One site is devoted to the idea that "Ameriskanks suck," others regularly attack "Ameriskanks," another one has a post about how women are STUPID (in all caps), still another calls the US "our Cuntry," still another is full of domestic violence jokes. And then there's MenareBetterthanWomen.com

    Misogyny is utterly rampant in the MRM. Your own links show that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. David, there are a few of you here that are being willfilly obtuse. There is a large difference between a group that contains the odd reactionary extremist and a group like feminism that is an organised polmic pretending to be one thing thats actually doing another.

    And you will never find true hate on a mens rights site.

    This is hate..

    "" MAN: ... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man ..."
    "TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from 'testosterone poisoning.'" from A Feminist Dictionary", ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985"


    The fact is that you are politically correct and the correctness of a message to you depends on whether it comes from a more equal or less equal group. Take your uneven treatment of the pro domestic violence jezebelle article v's pauls anti domestic violence one, or the difference between how you view abuse victims depending on whats between their legs.

    Ill wager you that there is more bigotry and ignorance being published by your friends list than by your enemies list.

    Many in the mrm are appalled by some of the rhetoric thats being generated on the fringes.

    ReplyDelete
  32. If you look at the positions that are being held here by feminists

    Pro education gap
    Anti fathers rights
    Anti male abuse victims rights
    Anti false rape victim advocacy
    Anti male rape victim advocacy
    Anti speech about legal inequalities that effect men
    Pro netative male stereotyping
    Anti free speech about any of the above

    If you look on the other hand at the mens rights people, what they generally want is equal treatment and oppertuinity under the law and to attack the moment that is running a polemic against them, deems them class enemies and lesser beings.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Yohan,
    Many feminists are married and have children. Does that mean that whatever they say that might be construed as hateful towards men simply could NOT be hateful towards men just because they are married and have children?

    Here are a couple of lovely [sarcasm] propositions from an MRA who self-professes to be married with children (female children):

    1) entitled "Communize the Cunt"

    In our economic system women exchange their sexuality for access to power because they are born with two products that men want - sexuality and beauty. Men must design a political or economics system that removes the ability of women to decide who accesses their sexuality. Men must communize the cunt.

    Solution
    All women must be herded into sex farms where all men will have free and equal access. We must communize the cunt. If we don't, our species is doomed.

    2) entitled "Removal of the female voicebox at birth"

    Having raised this as a solution to feminism, I am always surprised that 100% of women disagree.

    100% of men disagree if they are listening to me and the man is with his wife.
    Only 20% of men disagree if they are listening to me and the man is without his wife. Of those men who disagree, most say that they like the idea, but disagree on the silencing mechanism.

    Removal of the voice box, at birth. It is the one solution that will bring peace to the world.

    Now, if you pointed out to me similar proposals made by a feminist about males, and I pointed out to you that that feminist was married with children, would that make what she said any less hateful?

    ReplyDelete

  34. PAM: All women must be herded into sex farms where all men will have free and equal access. We must communize the cunt. If we don't, our species is doomed.

    LOL, who wrote this? Please provide a link.

    I think this is a nice reply to the statement of
    Rose DiManno, a radical feminist:

    “Men are from another planet, sent here by spaceships to copulate with female earthlings and propagate the species—a task for which science has rendered them all but redundant. We need keep only a handful of donors on a sperm farm for that purpose, where they can subsist on pizza and beer and Playboy magazine.” (Toronto Star, January 11, 1999, p. 31)

    -----

    Other feminists are not so nice to us:

    “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” (Andrea Dworkin, Ice and Fire, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1987)

    ReplyDelete
  35. David Futrelle said...
    Yohan --
    Is this your blog?
    http://masculistadvice.blogspot.com/
    ...
    I'm looking at your MRA links: One site is devoted to the idea that "Ameriskanks suck," Misogyny is utterly rampant in the MRM...


    Yes, this is my blog, David - thanks for visiting, sorry for you but not much activity there, unfortunately I am a very busy man, I have many other things to do everyday.

    About misogyny, do you know what this word really means?

    It means 'hate against all women', it does not mean, that any man who had bad experiences with American feminist-minded grrls and was ripped off financially and dislikes them because of that is automatically a misogynist.

    Feminists always try to change the meaning of some certain words significantly, but indeed many MRAs like the idea to create a family or have already a family. They do not hate all women as you suggest. Exactly the opposite.

    However, MRAs do not encourage a private relationship with any female in the USA and in some other countries out of various reasons.

    The risk is too high for a man.

    In USA any woman can bring any man behind bars for months and even years out of her bad mood.
    It should not be like that.

    Maybe USA could learn something from Germany, family law reform 2008. Just one thought...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Pam

    Your quote doesn't appear anywhere online except on a radical feminist blog, having posted with feminists for some time now, its my guess that it was written by a feminist and attributed to an mra.

    I guarantee you that you will not find organised political hatred in the the mrm but you will find it throughout feminist ideology and pseudo academia.

    This is organised political hate
    "We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men..." Elizabeth Stanton, One Woman, One Vote, Wheeler, p. 58 "

    A unconscious man and woman wont see it as hate unless men is swapped for blacks, jews, homosexuals, women or another genetic group.

    See for yourself Pam

    "We are, as a sex/race, infinitely superior to men/blacks/jews..." Elizabeth Stanton, One Woman, One Vote, Wheeler, p. 58 "

    ReplyDelete
  37. Look to every "strong" feminist woman who's every action is to annoy the "patriarchy" by growing underarm hair...

    That is an incredibly bizarre thing to think. How self-centred do you have to be to conclude that someone's decision to not shave their underarms is due to their need for your precious attention?

    ReplyDelete
  38. "In USA any woman can bring any man behind bars for months and even years out of her bad mood."

    This is patently false. A woman can try, but they have to make a criminal charge stand up in court, which is by no means easy.

    For example, in my community an activist was brought up on rape charges that seemed really fishy, and politically motivated. The DA has dragged him through multiple trials, and a jury has found him not guilty. The entire time he has been supported by the local activist community, who attended the trials, held press conferences and made supportive statements in the media--including lots of feminists and women whose views are presumably objectionable to MRMs.

    So here's a case where a man is falsely accused and feminists are working to defend him.

    http://www.ucimc.org/content/third-trial-black-activist-patrick-thompson-under-way-not-guilty-verdict-delivered

    False rape accusations matter to people who are concerned with human rights in general.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Joe, you should read an article called "Feminist Gulag, no prosecution necessary".

    Here is another good source about the feminist erosion of civil rights and the inversion of the humanitarian premise of innocent until guilty.
    http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm

    Governance feminism is responsible for the largest roll back of civil rights since the Jim Crow era, http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20091013/OPINION03/710139998

    ReplyDelete
  40. Of course, once a target group has been stereotyped as evil and dehumanized through propaganda, the gullible public start to believe that taking their civil rights is the correct thing to do and that they deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "A newer and more militant force helped create the “carceral state.” In The Prison and the Gallows (2006), feminist scholar Marie Gottschalk points out that traditional conservatives were not the prime instigators, and blames “interest groups and social movements not usually associated with penal conservatism.” Yet she names only one: “the women’s movement.

    While America’s criminalization may have a number of contributing causes, it coincides precisely with the rise of organized feminism. “The women’s movement became a vanguard of conservative law-and-order politics,” Gottschalk writes. “Women’s organizations played a central role in the consolidation of this conservative victims’ rights movement that emerged in the 1970s.”

    Gottschalk then twists her counterintuitive finding to condemn “conservatives” for the influx, portraying feminists as passive victims without responsibility. “Feminists prosecuting the war on rape and domestic violence” were somehow “captured and co-opted by the law-and-order agenda of politicians, state officials, and conservative groups.” Yet nothing indicates that feminists offered the slightest resistance to this political abduction.

    Feminists, despite Gottschalk’s muted admission of guilt, did lead the charge toward wholesale incarceration. Feminist ideology has radicalized criminal justice and eroded centuries-old constitutional protections: New crimes have been created; old crimes have been redefined politically; the distinction between crime and private behavior has been erased; the presumption of innocence has been eliminated; false accusations go unpunished; patently innocent people are jailed without trial. “The new feminist jurisprudence hammers away at some of the most basic foundations of our criminal law system,” Michael Weiss and Cathy Young write in a Cato Institute paper. “Chief among them is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.”


    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/2705-feminist-gulag-no-prosecution-necessary

    ReplyDelete
  42. and Joe, your example of feminist supporting the falsely accused was politically motivated... it wasn't done out of a humanitarian desire to advocate for the falsely accused in general.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @David.

    Ameriskanks.

    Yes, Yohan is pointing at American women, not all women.

    That does not make him a woman hater, at worst, it makes him an American woman hater.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Joe,

    "This is patently false. A woman can try, but they have to make a criminal charge stand up in court, which is by no means easy."

    You are absolutely right about this. I've worked in the system for several years and while there are some things the MRM have right about how the system works, they are wrong about far more than they are right about, which is why it's difficult to take them seriously when they start spouting off about how the system works. They should spend some serious time in the courts and observe before they pretend to be experts on these subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Cristine

    You never back up your claims here, the mras posting here are much better sourced than the feminist posters as is usual in debates between mras and feminists.

    Tell me this, if the accused are so well protected there, how do you have one of the highest prison populations in the world, its up there with Iran and China.

    Truth is, feminist jurisprudence has eroded civil rights in that country to well below what is the norm in western countries.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Its Jim Crow all over again...

    "Criminalization of social problems has led to mass incarceration of men, especially young men of color, decimating marginalized communities."
    Ms. Foundation for Women".

    African-Americans for VAWA Reform is a national organization of women and men, community leaders who have united to inform their fellow Americans of the devastating effects of the Violence Against Women Act on African-American communities.
    http://www.aavreform.org/

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Eoghan, Gottschalk herself said that conservatives were responsible for MOST of this situation and that blaming it on the right explains MOST of the situation. Her argument is that many political movements in the US did not resist this form of incarceration culture to the extent they did in other countries, but rather colluded in it. Gottschalk argues that the progressives are partially responsible for this problem because of failure to resist and failure to properly incorporate these issues into their movements, not that they were the root or even primary cause. This is hugely different than the position you are trying to attribute to her. Even if you accepted her claims, your conclusions are not hers. An effective counterargument to her position is the role of the overthrow of Jim Crow, that the drug felony laws were used to reinstate the social status quo that was threatened by Brown v Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, explains why these population increased dramatically after the sixties. Before the sixties, black people did not need to be incarcerated to be denied the vote or advancement, Jim Crow accomplished that to a huge extent and the US of the mental institution as a form of prison in the north had similar effect. As Jim Crow was unique to America, as opposed to modern Europe (and even South Africa, as in South Africa, the oppressed blacks were a majority, rather than a minority, and, while colonized, were not subjected to the same lengthy slave systems), this also effectively explains the discrepancy between cultural events at this time. This is the mainstream historical and sociological interpretation of the rise of felony disenfranchisement, and, Gottschalk is not a historian or even a socialogist, she is in political science (which is known for less rigorus methodology and more speculation).

    " the distinction between crime and private behavior has been erased; the presumption of innocence has been eliminated; false accusations go unpunished; patently innocent people are jailed without trial" If you are talking about the US, like Gottschalk is, this is all false. The US has a long history of legislating private behavior, consider our porn and sexuality laws, for example. The burden of proof in criminal and civil trials for rape and assault (or battery, different terms are used in Torts and Criminal law) has not changed. The right to a trial by jury has not changed, it is, in fact, in the US Constituion and has not been amended. There is no good evidence that false accusations of violent crime drive the US prison industry (on the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that convictions of drug crimes drive it). Failure to get a conviction is not the same as proving a claim by a victim false. However, making a false statement to police, making a false statement in court, and filing malicious suits are all against the law and can be punished,the former two in criminal courts. A person who believes they were falsely accused of rape may sue their accuser for libel, defamantion, harassment, and many other things, as could a person falsely accused of theft. There are both criminal and civil remedies for false accusation under US law, the thing is that most people crying out 'she's lying' can't prove it to even the lowest burden of proof under US law. Again, I am only referring to US law because you specifically cite an argument about US history as your sole source.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Eoghan,

    More than 307 million people live in the U.S. Our prisons have under 1.7 million people in them - a high number, but a very small percent of our overall population. You can check those numbers in the links below. Other than that, and as I've said before, I speak of my personal experiences and observations in my daily work. I work with crime victims, their families, and with the families of homicide victims - mostly victims of domestic violence crimes. There's an incredible amount of very real violence backed up with evidence that has to be dealt with in our courts. I have precious little personal time online and I'm not spending it arguing with you about whether these assault and homicide cases I see are real, are false, or anything else. I will say that there are far too many serious cases for the courts to be fooling around trying to frame innocent people. I think the biggest difference is in the view points - many people who use violence do not see it as criminal but as justified. There are several comments I've seen by MRA's who know the violence is against the law, but don't think it should be. Here's an example of an MRA comment from Binxton from the debate:

    "There should be NO domestic violence laws. Period.

    Male physical force has always been one of the social control mechanisms necessary to enforce good behavior from women. That DV laws outlaws male physical force is one of the main reasons we see our women out of control today."

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/10/25/a-debate-on-domestic-violence/

    Just because someone says they were "falsely accused", doesn't mean they were. Lots of people come before a judge claiming to be falsely accused who did exactly what they're being accused of. In many cases, it would be more honest for them to say that they don't believe that what they did should be a crime, instead of claiming to be falsely accused. Based on my personal experience, I would want to see the evidence before I took someone's word on that.

    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/

    ReplyDelete
  49. Christine said...
    More than 307 million people live in the U.S. Our prisons have under 1.7 million people in them - a high number, but a very small percent of our overall population.


    No, 1.7 million people in prison is NOT a very small percentage of the overall population.

    It's world record.

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1529685/us_prison_population_is_the_largest.html?cat=9

    Currently in the United States, 1 in every 31 adult persons is either in jail or prison or on parole or probation. That amounts to 7.3 million Americans and a cost that exceeds $68 billion annually. This figure does not include juveniles accountable to the U.S. correction system.
    .....
    The total number of U.S. citizens accountable to the American correction system is the highest in the world. It even exceeds the combined Soviet Union and China prison population during the height of their dominate Communist Regime. Are American citizens really that bad?


    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/pris-m04.shtml

    A study released this week by the Pew Center on the States delivers a staggering statistic:

    7.3 million Americans-or 1 in every 31 adults-are in the nation's prison system. This figure includes those in US jails and prisons, on parole, on probation, or under other forms of correctional supervision.

    No other country comes close to matching this number. If these individuals were grouped together, they would number more than the entire populations of Israel or Honduras, or all of the residents of Washington state.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Yohan,

    There is lots of crime in the U.S. No question about it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. November 4, 2010 9:43 AM
    Joe said...
    False rape accusations matter to people who are concerned with human rights in general.


    Yes, we know, they are called MRAs.

    And it's not only about false rape allegations, it's about violence from women against men in general.

    Violence from women to men exists and only an ignorant radical feminist will deny that.

    The question is however what is next? What happens with this woman who was deliberately accusing an innocent man for a crime which never took place?

    Answer: Nothing...

    ReplyDelete
  52. @Yohan,

    I've never heard any one claim that women are never violent against men. The police arrest women for violence against men every single day. Those crimes are on the news and in the newspapers. There are women are in jails and prisons for the crime. I don't really understand the repeated claim that people deny it exists when no one is denying it exists.

    You also misunderstood Joe's point. Joe's point is that some people care about all victims, all humans, male and female. I don't see MRA's advocating for human rights, they only advocate for men, and they advocate against women.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Communize the Cunt

    Removal of the female voicebox at birth

    "its my guess that it was written by a feminist and attributed to an mra."

    Oh right, of course, an MRA would never use deliberate dehumanizing and hateful rhetoric against women [roll eyes]

    If Rose DiManno, Andrea Dworkin, Elizabeth Stanton, etc., are/were married/married with children, they couldn't possibly use/have used deliberate dehumanizing and hateful rhetoric against men. My guess is that it was written by an MRA and attributed to them.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Christine...There are women are in jails and prisons for the crime. I don't really understand the repeated claim that people deny it exists when no one is denying it exists.


    Let me say, now are so many violent women, that it is impossible to deny they exist.

    MRAs are very active to point out that women are violent, too.

    What is the next step for feminists to protect their female criminal co-horts?

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23388859-womens-prisons-should-all-close-within-a-decade.do

    Women's prisons 'should all close within a decade'

    All the women's jails would shut within the next decade, and could instead be converted into prisons for men.


    Christine, I recommend you to read also the follow-up comments of this article.

    Christine: I don't see MRA's advocating for human rights, they only advocate for men, and they advocate against women.


    MRM is an advocacy group for men. Why should 'ordinary men' not advocating for THEIR human rights?

    There are plenty of human rights organizations, which advocate human rights for women only, for example UNIFEM (for women), or UNICEF (for children and women), AI (Amnesty International doing research for rape in Sweden) etc.

    There are a lot of private organizations, receiving public funds for presenting women rights only (Tahirih for example, now cut down).

    Of course there is support for gay men, lesbian, transgender... all is about human rights for a certain group of people.

    There are even 'human rights' for apes.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2008/0627/spain-to-grant-some-human-rights-to-apes

    And there are rights for other animals, whales for example and even for lobsters (check out PETA)

    And now tell me do you know any organization for 'ordinary men'?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Pam said...
    Communize the Cunt
    Removal of the female voicebox at birth
    "its my guess that it was written by a feminist and attributed to an mra."


    No, these are threads written by idiot-trolls straight from the loony bin.

    Most MR-forums I know are closing such crazy threads quickly to prevent follow-up comments, moving them with a disclaimer to a special section for isolation (called trolleville, the outer limits etc.) and restrict this 'member' to post only into this 'troll-only' section.

    I can only recommend the owner of this forum to create a rule how to deal with such troll postings. I agree, that such idiotism-threads should not be mixed up with regular threads in any MRM-related section of a forum.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Those comments are on a par with feminist rhetoric. The Spearhead shouldnt leave them up there is a problem both extreme commentary from damaged individuals and with feminists trolling mens sites as extreme mras.

    Feminist troll or mra troll, its idiotic and I'd rather see the spearhead closed down than see it allowing commentary like that.

    As I keep saying to you here, extremists in a movement that the movement doesnt really want are not the same as an extreme movement fuelled at its core by hate.

    Ive actually taken a few of them to task over there about commentary, that end of the movement will stay online and hinder the progress for the rest of the movement. There is a blief among a minority that the hate should be mirrored straight back at feminism. I disagree and identify with the mrm/equity/real feminism end of the movement.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I suspect that the extreme feminist site I found it on is behind it, the same deranged level of hate is directed a white heterosexual men on there, and the communize the cunt piece could easily have come from the same mind.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "and Joe, your example of feminist supporting the falsely accused was politically motivated... it wasn't done out of a humanitarian desire to advocate for the falsely accused in general."

    You don't have the foggiest idea who you're talking about.

    http://www.communitycourtwatch.org/

    http://www.communitycourtwatch.org/taping-police.shtml
    http://www.communitycourtwatch.org/sentencing.shtml
    http://www.communitycourtwatch.org/equal-protection.shtml
    http://www.communitycourtwatch.org/no-jail.shtml
    http://www.communitycourtwatch.org/public-defender.shtml
    http://www.communitycourtwatch.org/police-review.shtml
    http://www.communitycourtwatch.org/tasers.shtml

    This is an organized, active group that is advocating for fair treatment by the courts on many fronts, and has had a significant impact locally, including the following:

    http://www.communitycourtwatch.org/about.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  59. Oh Ok Joe, I jumped to a conclusion based on the few details you gave.

    Sound like this groups need to be attacking feminist jursipridence.

    http://www.mediaradar.org/

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Most MR-forums I know are closing such crazy threads quickly to prevent follow-up comments, moving them with a disclaimer to a special section for isolation (called trolleville, the outer limits etc.) and restrict this 'member' to post only into this 'troll-only' section."

    Please show me examples of this. Many if not most MRA sites/forums I've been to are filled have lots of these sorts of topics.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Well, maybe not as bad as those two in particular, but I see stuff about, say, taking away a woman's right to vote. The same guy who posted the "communize the cunt" post also posted one on the spearhead about taking away women's right to vote, and found a lot of people who agreed with him:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1716

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Yohan

    "This is true, there are some rants by some men who were badly treated by females in the past, but there is no organized all-female-hating literature existing from MRAS - big difference if you compare that with publications from feminists like Solanas, Hirshman and many others."

    Interestly, you're able to excuse these men. Do you not realize how many women in the feminist community have been raped, sexually abused as children, or been battered?

    Resorting to hatred isn't right in either case. But somehow it's a double standard in your mind. Which begs the question: how come in your mind said men get a free pass and excused but women who were seriously abused don't? What messed up thought process is behind that little jump around the truth?

    And I might also point out that feminism is an academic pursuit that's what? 40 years old? Anyone giving a cursory glance at feminism would realize that there's no singular view. Most feminists I identify with are sex-positive.

    How many feminist blogs do you read? Since the most common ones I know of are like Feministe, which is a pretty sex-positive blog, so it seems rather specious to focus on anti-men/porn feminism as "What Feminists Believe"(TM) since it does it even seem to reflect current mainstream feminism, which is sex-positive. Or maybe just all the blogs I read are...

    I would honestly like to see MRA blogs that didn't engage in hateful rhetoric, if you can suggest any.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "I would honestly like to see MRA blogs that didn't engage in hateful rhetoric, if you can suggest any."

    Me too.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @ David: Please show me examples of this.

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/
    Opposing Views
    Trollville

    http://antimisandry.com/forums/
    Feminist Flipside

    ReplyDelete
  65. TEC: I would honestly like to see MRA blogs that didn't engage in hateful rhetoric, if you can suggest any.

    I would honestly like to see feminist blogs that didn't engage in hateful rhetoric, if you can suggest any.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Yohan, the "nice guy" forum is overflowing with guys attacking "skanks," "manginas," "pussy worshipers," and of course "c*nts." Sometimes all in one comment.

    Check out these search results for 128 more examples of c-word usage, in just one of the site's subforums, to start.

    This sort of casual misogyny won't get you moved to "trollville."

    Antimisandry is actually a less obnoxious than the other MRA forums I've been to, but it's far from perfect. See here.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "I would honestly like to see feminist blogs that didn't engage in hateful rhetoric, if you can suggest any."

    You could start with the several dozen in my "friends list." I challenge you to find posts on any of them that are hateful, or hateful comments that aren't called out and criticized by other commenters.

    I will grant you that that one thoroughly obnoxious post on Jezebel that was discussed here recently. What else besides that one?

    ReplyDelete
  68. TEC: Do you not realize how many women in the feminist community have been raped, sexually abused as children, or been battered?

    Do you not realize how many men in the MRM-community have been victims of false rape and DV allegations, sexually abused as children, or been battered? Cheated by their wives at home while as soldiers in combat, victims of paternity fraud, financially bankrupt and have seen their house gone while living in a van?
    Taken their children away etc. etc. etc.?

    You are talking as violence is only from men to women. What a nonsense. You are a dreamer, I cannot even call you anymore to be ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  69. David: You could start with the several dozen in my "friends list." I challenge you to find posts on any of them that are hateful, or hateful comments that aren't called out and criticized by other commenters.

    OK, David, just one example out of your 'friends list'....

    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/10/explainer-whats-mra.html

    So are MRAs concerned about anything other than raping and beating women?
    Oh, sure -- they also don't want to pay child support...

    ReplyDelete
  70. @Christine, you are wrong that over incarceration in the US is not a serious problem. It is. Except what MRAs can't seem to understand is that violent crimes make up a very small percentage of the US prison population. Only 4.5% of US prisoners are there for sex crimes (including sex crimes against children). For homicide, aggravated assault, kidnapping, and sex crimes taken together the percentage is 7.3%, whereas drug crimes are 51.5% and immigration offenses are 10.9%. http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp Throwing out bullshit about 'false rape' does nothing to explain the bloated US prison system.

    And Yohan is at it again with the assertions that male children and gay men are not 'ordinary men'. Tell me, who is an 'ordinary man' to you other than a rich, white, western, heterosexual, able bodied, christian, adul male? Also, wtf is up with the weirdness about animal rights? Animal rights movements exclude men because they are about animals? Last time I checked, the goal of animal rights organizations was not human rights, but rather the rights of non-human animals. Or do you think that the animal rights sect, which regularly contains men in leadership positions, selectively wants only rights for female animals?

    ReplyDelete
  71. All right, that is a legitimate example of something that's not really fair to the MRM. I don't think it's anywhere near as hateful as, oh let's take a completely random example, what MRA sites have said about me.

    But, yeah, that MRA explainer is obnoxious. At the moment I'm assembling a list of general critiques of the MRM, and I'm not including it in the list, because I think it's unfair and basically stupid.

    What else you got?

    ReplyDelete
  72. @Yohan

    That guy epitomizes the Nice Guy (TM) syndrome. Course, he's tamer than the sick stuff I've seen before, but still:
    "Misogynists aren't born- they're made. Be informed: as far as you American chicks are concerned, you have killed-off the nice guy inside me. Got that? You have alienated a formerly respectful and generous person and totally turned him against you! From 2002 onwards, I'm bestowing my respect and kindness strictly on non-American women. Because the American ones do not deserve a single speck of respect or kindness at all. "

    On another "Nice Guy" (TM)
    "that statement deserves highlighting again. 'You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy.' How clearer could the Nice Guy®'s antipathy toward this woman, and all women, be?"

    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/explainer-what-is-nice-guy.html

    As an aside, after I read about the "Nice Guy" (TM) I realized how many guys I had know IRL and online who claimed to be "nice" and then would just say the most awful, horrible things and would try to point it out that it was mean and hurtful, yet they would just go on and on. And I bought it, that they were "nice" - at least at first, but any time spent with them and they would just turn out to be such veritable monsters... anyways, the number of guys who claim to be "nice" but really fit the term "Nice Guy" (TM) so well, it might as well be a custom-made Italian suit that's a one-size-fits-all for misogynists...

    And yeah yeah, I get he's (apparently) only talking about Western Women (TM) so I should just "shut up and put up"...

    And here's an *ahem" "wonderful" post about false rape allegations:

    "That whole sexual history is not admissable shit always bothered me...

    Think about it. If I am a habitual B & E type, it would be prudent for the procecutor to bring my past... say three arrests for B & E up? Of course! It proves that the viability of the newest charges to be oh... I donno... possibly true? Notice I did not say verdicts. I said arrests intentionally.

    It STILL doesn't mean that I AM a thief. It means that I, for some odd reason, have the tendency to be either in the wrong place at the wrong time... alot! Or that I am just good at getting off."

    Here's a woman who was raped in her home by a burglar who she caught on tape admitting he raped her, but whom it was deemed "prejudicial" to bring up his existing B&E charges?
    http://jezebel.com/5676504/how-to-rape-a-woman-and-get-away-with-it

    It boggles the mind that such people can assume innocence of the accused, but don't seem to think that same sentiment should in any way be applicable to the victim....

    ReplyDelete
  73. My last comment was directed at Yohan.

    cat, yours was caught by the spam filter.

    ReplyDelete
  74. @Yohan

    Nice straw argument. Where did I say violence only happens to women?

    Please point that out to me.

    Oh wait, no I didn't.

    But good tactic to avoid: Why do men get a free pass and women don't?

    ReplyDelete
  75. @Tec,

    "Misogynists aren't born- they're made. Be informed: as far as you American chicks are concerned, you have killed-off the nice guy inside me..."

    For a moment there, I thought maybe you'd rubbed up against the infamous Globalman, but no, NiceGuy's comments are far too tame.

    ReplyDelete
  76. So, on the feminist side we have:

    "The majority of rapes are committed by men. Most rapists are 'normal' men who are well-adjusted by gender norms; most women are raped by men who they'd trusted enough to be their friend or lover. Therefore, all men are potential rapists: you simply can't know whether a given man would rape you until he rapes you."

    And on the MRA side we have:

    "This old, ugly bitch dragged a chair across the floor for 60 seconds and irritated me. She must have been doing it on purpose! All feminists are man-hating bitches because she couldn't read my mind!!!"

    Seriously, "about a minute"? Get a fucking thicker skin, you, you... pansy. I've had men talk loudly on the bus about what bitches their wives/girlfriends were for upwards of 15 minutes, even when I had my CD player turned up to full volume. Not a single one of them thought about how it might make other people feel uncomfortable, or unsafe. But, you know, because I expect them to talk about that kind of thing in a private place - or at least quietly, since I'm generally not interested in your conversations no matter what - I must just be a man-hating whore.

    I've also had guys act worse if I ask them to please stop, it's annoying. It's why I didn't ask the guys on the bus to stop: you learn real fucking quick that guys just don't fucking respect you, and they will go out of their way to screw with you. I've had women do this to me all of twice.

    But of course, it's not that you're all crazy, thin-skinned, delusional little cockles: it must be my fault. Because I disagree with you. Funny how I'm expected to assume the best of you while you assume the worst of everyone who doesn't immediately bend over and spread, and then get offended if someone calls you on it.

    FYI, I don't pick chairs up unless I absolutely have to. Unless you bring them to shoulder height, they are awkward to manage, and even then, they are more likely to hit someone.

    It's hilarious that MRAs keep saying that everyone else thinks that "feminism = good, men = bad" when it's actually them thinking "men = good, women = bad, dissenter = bitchslutwhore"

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis