Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Incredibly Strange Antifeminist Bedfellows: Kay Hymowitz defends her attackers

Damn you, you monsters! This scarf does NOT make me look gay!
This is just embarrassing. A bit over a week ago, the Wall Street Journal published a chunk of antifeminist polemicist Kay Hymowitz' new book Manning Up, which argues that young men today have turned into a generation of immature pre-adults as a result (to simplify only slightly) of excessive exposure to Judd Apatow movies and to young women who won't let them step up and be real men. The article stirred up quite a tempest in the tea-pot that is the Men's Right's/MGTOW world online. Completely missing the antifeminist implications of her argument, manosphere men attacked her for impugning the honor of young men and their video games, and for generally being, to quote a few typical comments, a "bitch," an "entitlement whore," a "cunt," "a fugly tranny skank," and someone who "on her best day ... has a face that reminds me a mule my uncle used to own."

Now Hymowitz has responded to all this vitriol by penning ... a partial defense of her attackers for the Daily Beast. While she notes that there are elements of "backlash" and, yes, misogyny in the rage of the manosphere, she's quick to equate this manosphere tantrum with the feelings of men in general (as Amanda Marcotte has already pointed out), and to suggest that there are legitimate reasons for the hate. Which apparently have to do with, er, male frustration with having to ask women out for dates. Yes, that's her real argument. Let's let her explain:

[T]here’s another reason for these rants, one that is far less understood. Let’s call it gender bait and switch. Never before in history have men been matched up with women who are so much their equal—socially, professionally, and sexually. ... That’s the bait; here comes the switch. Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure.

At this point, Hymowitz launches into a tired old litany of male complaints about the alleged horrors of post-feminist dating: OMG, in this crazy mixed-up world of ours, men don't know whether or not to open doors for their dates! Some women want to pay their way on dates, even when they make as much as or more than the dudes dating them  ... and others don't!

Men say they have no choice. If they want a life, they have to ask women out on dates; they have to initiate conversations at bars and parties, they have to take the lead on sex. Women can take a Chinese menu approach to gender roles. They can be all “Let me pay for the movie tickets” on Friday nights, and “A single rose? That’s it?” on Valentine’s Day.

As Marcotte points out, Hymowitz is essentially echoing one of the dopiest of manosphere complaints about the ladies, "that they're all different people, instead of easily controlled sexbots." Indeed, on many manosphere sites, one gets the impression that women are, or should be, a bunch of interchangeable sperm receptacles, differentiated only by how high they score on a "hotness" scale of 1-10. If you think of women this way, no wonder you're confused when women have, you know, actual personalities and shit.

But here's a hint for the angry dudes of the manosphere: once you realize that women are not all the same person inside, you can turn this fact to your advantage, by deliberately seeking out women who are actually compatible with your own personality. Don't like paying for dates? Then find a woman who likes paying her own way! (Just don't be shocked if she finds your retrograde ideas about women repulsive.) I know that this may come as a shock to some of you guys, but there are men out there who actually find women's distinct personalities ... interesting. Stimulating. Attractive.

Back to Hymowitz. As strange as it is to see her parroting some of the dumbest manosphere complaints about women and dating -- some women want one thing, while other women want something different! some say they want good guys but then they date bad boys! -- even stranger is her notion that manosphere rage has its roots in frustrations about dating. Given that she's not a complete idiot, there are only two possible explanations for this strange conclusion of hers. One, she's so eager to find evidence for her thesis that empowered women are the root of male immaturity that she is willing to overlook the crazy misogyny of angry MRA/MGTOW dudes because they, too, blame women for their dating woes. Or two, that she has not actually given the blogs and forums of the manosphere much more than a cursory glance. I think it's a bit of both.

The list of manosphere sites she mentions in her article bear out the second of these theses -- it's simply cut-and-pasted from her 2008 article Love in the Time of Darwinism, and it's pretty clear she hasn't revisited any of them since then. Or, in one case, ever: EternalBachelor.com isn't a Men's Rights or MGTOW site at all. but a skeleton site for a web magazine "coming soon" whose only content at the moment consists of photos of buff, shirtless guys (and a page where you can order t-shirts, presumably to keep the poor fellas from freezing to death). I can only guess that Hymowitz meant to refer to the Eternal Bachelor blog, which has itself been dormant for more than three years.(Another site she links to, Nomarriage.com, is also "under construction.")

Kay, if you read this, please take a moment to peruse some real MRA/MGTOW and related forums, like, say, The Spearhead, and take a look at some of the comments there. For example, this one, about you -- which, last I checked, had gotten 33 upvotes and only a handful of downvotes from the Spearhead peanut gallery:

I wish I could reach through my computer screen and punch this bitch. .... this stupid bitch is using the pain of innocent men destroyed by the same misandric system that publishes her shit to make more money and she is probably part of the feminazi conspiracy to appropriate and colonize the growing MRM. ...

WTF is up with jewish women? They seem to be the most misandric of all. They demand that baby boys get their dicks chopped off and grown men too, I have hooked up with a few and they all got weirdly gitty knowing I was uncut and then sad when they realized I wouldn’t get chopped up and submit to their version of a sky god. I mean, really, WTF? I haven’t read much into the torah but just scanning the feminists and other feminazi loons it’s is obvious that there are a lot with jewish names. ... Really, I don’t get it and am not trying to sound like a nazi but I must be missing something.

Somehow, I don't think the rage in this comment has much to do with confusion over whether or not guys should open doors for their dates. 

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

143 comments:

  1. "...a fugly tranny skank..."

    Whoa!! For a minute there, I thought they were talking about me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Really, I don’t get it and am not trying to sound like a nazi[...]".

    OH WELL THAT'S REASSURING

    ReplyDelete
  3. Any time anyone starts a sentence with "I'm not trying to sound like a Nazi ..." you're in for trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anytime anyone starts a sentence with "I'm not trying to sound like a Nazi..." - you know they're about to sound just like a Nazi.

    Unbelievable. I read that Spearhead article and that comment this morning. My first thought was - I wonder whether David will catch that.

    I read Hymowitz's drivel the other day and just rolled my eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Heh - I just took a good look at the magazine cover. Down in the right hand corner is the caption for the fiction bonus:

    Death Wears a Negligee

    How fitting for the MRA/MGTOW crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  6. God, why do women have to be so DIFFERENT and CONFUSING? How do you know what you're supposed to do on a date with one of them?!

    ...

    Wait... talk to them? Find out about their feelings and opinions? The hell is wrong with you? They don't have penises!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Every generation in history has been convinced that the men of the younger generation are turning all sissy and feminized. Usually there's also concern about young women being too macho, but the "we must man up our boys!" sentiment is as old as Ecclesiastes.

    You think the 1940s was an era when men were real men? You wouldn't have thought so if at the time. More likely, you'd have been reading Philip Wylie's bestselling 1943 book Generation of Vipers, which complained that the young men of the day had been softened by weak, overindulgent mothers and general "momism." You know, the young men who went on to crush the Nazis. Although there was eventually a backlash against Wylie's book, his fear of "momism" survived into the postwar era and fueled many a panic about 1950s housewives coddling their sons into femininity.

    Wylie's a great source for misogynist rants, by the way. MRA guys, next time you're about to take the lazy way out and paste "perfect princesses" into yet another post, I urge you to study the classics and spit out something like:

    "...the child wife, the infantile personality, the woman who cannot reason logically, the bridge fiend, the golf fiend, the mother of all the atrocities we call 'spoiled children,' the middle-aged, hair-faced clubwoman who destroys everything she touches, the murderess, the habitual divorcee, the weeper, the weak sister, the rubbery sex experimentist, the quarreler, the woman forever displeased, the nagger, the female miser, and so on and so on and so on, to the outermost lengths of the puerile, rusting, raging creature we know as mom and sis."

    I tell you, today's young misogynists have grown weak and feminized compared to the robust misogynists of yore.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Man, I read Generation of Vipers (or portions of it, anyway) back in grad school, forgot how crazily over the top it was. I want to meet all those women he's writing about, especially "the rubbery sex experimentist!"

    I may just have to give it another look. And do a post on it, even. Thanks, shaenon!

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is my opinion that if a girl is so Nintendo Hard she'll complain because you can't actually read her fucking mind, you probably shouldn't have a romantic relationship with her anyway.

    Everyone else? Seriously, if you don't know whether you should pay for meals, ASK. If you don't know what she wants for Valentine's Day, ASK. (If you think she likes surprises, ask her best friend. If you don't know who her best friend is, reconsider your relationship.) If you don't know whether to open doors, ASK.

    And men always have to initiate? I wish.

    ReplyDelete
  10. just admit it already. the MRM is gaining steam, no matter how many spearhead articles you peruse in hopes of garnering some more dollops of the only thing keeping this shit rag of a blog afloat (out of context quote mining)

    ReplyDelete
  11. David:

    I like how you're playing Real Scotsman Fallacy with Hymnowitz's "real" dissenters. Some of her dissenters were angry and talked about harming her, true. But there were also plenty of dissenters who weren't so violent - such as the ones who wrote in to this weekend's WSJ editorial page.

    It's getting old, you painting every anti-feminist with the same worn out brush. I mean, it's cool that you want to focus on the more extreme element of the Spearhead and MGTOW forums, but you should be honest and label them as what they are: extreme views. But you try to normalize that voice so that your blog seems more urgent and relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, I did do a post recently on something you wrote. Are you one of the more extreme elements too?

    ReplyDelete
  13. David, entertaining take-down of KH.. really, she is on my last good nerve.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ bar - No, David is not digging up out-of-context quote mining. Most of his quotes come with plenty of context, and plenty of evidence that the quotes are well-respected. And from what I've read, most of the quotes he picks from sites like The Spearhead are very representative of what everyone else writes, and the comments he selects generally receive loads of upvotes. So no, not really out of context.

    ReplyDelete
  15. David,

    you're the one who determines your blog's content and theme so you tell me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Chuck, this blog is about misogyny, and I find it where I find it. I tend to find the most entertaining and/or egregious examples on MRA/MGTOW sites. The only "quote-mining" I do is to try to find interesting examples. If I were simply posting every misogynist comment I found on MRA/MGTOW sites, I'd have to post dozens of posts a day.

    I'm curious what non-extreme MRA sites you would recommend.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Asking a MRA to name some moderate MRA voices is always amusing, because inevitably they'll name one or two, and those one or two writers will have a front-page post up about how rape isn't really a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  18. MRA'S ALL EXTREME!!!!


    And yet returning America to having a debtors prison for men never seems to be "extreme" to the feminists who pushed for it and continue support it.

    Tricking a man into supporting a child who is not his, and then forcing him to continue paying for the bastard, is never considered extreme to feminists.

    Putting him in prison for not supporting someone else's child is not considered extreme by feminists.

    Restraining orders based upon just a person's word and nothing else is not considered extreme by feminists.

    False rape accusers not receiving harsh punishments is not considered extreme, in fact feminists claim that if you punish false accurers real rape victims will not come forward. These beliefs are not "extreme" according to feminists.

    In fact false rape is trivial to David that he completely skipped the whole Heidi Jones fiasco.

    Amazing.

    It's seems that extreme speech is wrong, at least when done by MRA'S. But extremist laws, well as long as the only hurts men feminists can't bother to give a shit.

    Truly Amazing.

    Random Brother.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ richard

    yes this blog was conveniently silent on, the hateful misandric false rape accusation by poor innocent heidi jones.

    here we have a woman who feels it necessary to invent a rape out of thin air, and being that shes a racist, blames it on a hispanic man that didnt exist, yet blogs like these dont think that rape shield laws and false rape accusations are a real problem.

    its truly amazing

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tricking a man into supporting a child who is not his, and then forcing him to continue paying for the bastard, is never considered extreme to feminists.

    Actually, we do consider it "extreme" in the sense of "an outlier situation that doesn't happen nearly as often as you'd think if you were just going on how much MRAs whine shrilly about it."

    Restraining orders based upon just a person's word and nothing else is not considered extreme by feminists.

    What's the problem with restraining orders being based on this, exactly? If somebody doesn't want you contacting them, don't. If you plan to respect their wishes in that regard, the restraining order won't hinder you; and if you don't plan on respecting their wishes, the restraining order was necessary.

    This also can't be portrayed as a "women oppressing men" issue without hiding half the truth, which is that plenty of restraining orders are taken out against women as well. There are a lot of cases of female stalkers out there. I have no idea which gender is likelier to be a stalker, but it's not really relevant.

    Yes, I fully acknowledge that female stalkers exist, yet I'm still betting $20 that it won't take more than one or two comment threads before you use the phrase "perfect princesses" again.

    False rape accusers not receiving harsh punishments is not considered extreme, in fact feminists claim that if you punish false accurers real rape victims will not come forward. These beliefs are not "extreme" according to feminists.

    I have yet to see a single MRA explain why rape accusations should be singled out in this way. There are already laws in place to cover things like filing a false police report, slander, squandering emergency resources, etc. And despite MRA claims, women have been charged with filing a false police report in cases related to rape in the past.

    If it can be conclusively proved that no rape occurred at all, women can be convicted under existing laws for filing a police report. What MRAs really want is for every rape charge that doesn't result in a guilty verdict to be flipped around into a conviction of "false rape accusation" against the rape victim, which is complete lunacy. If my house gets broken into and I accuse you, and it turns out you didn't do it, I'm not going to get charged with anything. Why should a rape case be any different?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I have yet to see a single MRA explain why rape accusations should be singled out in this way."

    Probably because it's obvious why. They're guilty of it, or are so afraid of women that they think some from their past will accuse them of it, therefore every.single.rape.accusation must be assumed to be false.

    Or else they might have to grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I have yet to see a single MRA explain why rape accusations should be singled out in this way."

    it should be singled out because of the seriousness of the crime being falsely accused. a false rape accusation. will send a man to prison for a few decades, its completely fair and reasonable to have a rubric to correlate false accusation punishments, with the potential damage done by the crime that is being falsely accused.

    if someone falsely accused you of murder, or pedophilia, and you are prove innocent, is it not appropriate for that person to spend the same amount of time in jail that you would have had you not been able to prove your innocence?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "will send a man to prison for a few decades"

    [citation needed]

    And that means proving it is a common occurance, not that this one dude your best friend used to know heard about it happening to someone once.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "will send a man to prison for a few decades"

    [citation needed]

    are you kidding me?! really?

    you need a citation to discern that a false rape accusation, can send a man to prison for a good part of his natural life?

    at this point you are making a mockery of a very serious issue. if you really need proof, stop being lazy and look up the average time served for a convicted rapist, and then look up examples of the many men that have been exonerated of rape convictions, with the help of the innocence project.

    but i will put no further effort into this

    ReplyDelete
  25. furthermore before i go, the proof you need that it is indeed a common occurrence is heidi jones herself.

    by her admission she made up a lie about being raped. and those in the media never questioned her, where it not for a diligent investigation from the authorities, it would have been taken for fact that a Hispanic man raped her.

    the fact that society at large would have just accepted it as fact, where it not for the thorough investigation exposing her as a liar, proves that we currently live in a society where the accused are considered guilty until proven innocent

    ReplyDelete
  26. Walker Tall, I think he is referring to Dwight Yoakam's Twenty Years song.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "And yet returning America to having a debtors prison for men never seems to be "extreme" to the feminists who pushed for it and continue support it."

    I wouldn't call it extreme, just laughable that you think anybody is clamoring for a 'debtors prison for men.' Sources?

    "Tricking a man into supporting a child who is not his, and then forcing him to continue paying for the bastard, is never considered extreme to feminists."

    If the guy is so sure the child isn't his, why not get a paternity test? It's a little pricey, but most likely cheaper than child support in the long run. Besides, according to the American Pregnancy Association's page on paternity testing, if a couple is unmarried, they have to fill out an Acknowledgment of Paternity form in order to establish the father officially. If this is not filled out, there is no father listed on the child's birth certificate, and the man is not liable for child support.

    It's not like a woman can get pregnant, claim Joe Millionaire was the father, and start collecting child support payments based on her claims alone.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Bar-simply because one male was wrongly convicted does not mean a rape did not occur. I think you are mixing it up. If a woman reports a rape, a guy is arrested and later it is determined he was not the rapist, does not automatically mean that there was no rape. What it means is the wrongly convicted man did not commit the crime.

    If you do think false accusations are so prevalent, what do you think is an appropriate punishment for such a claim?

    Richard-it is standard practice in every court in the US to have verbal testimony. This has been the case for centuries in all sorts of legal forums. And if it was for something like a car accident, you would have zero problem with a person being convicted on the testimony of the witnesses. But since it is a restraining order you think a person's word is not good enough? Are you of the opinion that a person must have a higher burden then even the state does for seeking a restraining order (which are civil, not criminal)? Or are you stating that a person seeking a restraining order must be considered to be automatically lying and must therefore have independent corroborating evidence before an order (again a civil not criminal proceeding) may be issued? Or just a female seeking such order should be considered a liar?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Random Brother: Sending a man to debtor's prison--you're talking about sending parents who are delinquent on their child support payments to prison? I'm against that--that seems extreme to me--unless there's a compelling reason, like the parent is fraudulently hiding money from their children. Making a man support a child that isn't his? Putting him in jail if he doesn't? I'm against that too, unless there's a really compelling reason why I shouldn't be, given the unique facts of a singular case. So we agree with three out of five of the examples you give of extreme things that evil feminists want and brave MRAs are fighting against. And frankly, in the feminist circles I hang out at, I've never witnessed any support for these three positions you say feminists are fighting for.

    We part ways at issuing restraining orders off one person's word. I can see much greater harm resulting from requiring greater proof, frankly, and it seems to me that in balancing everyone's needs and burdens, in the majority of cases, issuing the order wins out over not.

    And we really, really part ways at the false rape accusations. I'll give you this: People who make false rape accusations knowingly and/or maliciously should be punished for filing a false report. The accused should (and does, as far as I know) have civil court remedies available as well. But the typical MRA approach to false rape accusations seems to be that all reports that don't lead to a prosecution must be false: Anyone who later recants, for whatever reason, or who was raped by someone but the wrong person is identified as the attacker, or who is unable to convince a jury of hir side in a xie said/xie said situation--all of those people are LIARS. And that simply is not true.

    Now, it occurs to me that perhaps you, Random Brother, don't think that. Maybe you're only talking about punishing people who provably have lied maliciously and intentionally. So we're back to being in agreement (more or less) again. But the above is (at least in part) why I don't at all support a general MRA view on punishing those who make false rape claims. As to Heidi Jones, it looks like she was sentenced to a year in prison. So, contrary to your implications, it looks like people who file false rape reports are adequately punished. Did I miss the feminist uprising calling for her release from jail?

    ReplyDelete
  30. if someone falsely accused you of murder, or pedophilia, and you are prove innocent, is it not appropriate for that person to spend the same amount of time in jail that you would have had you not been able to prove your innocence?

    No. No it's not appropriate. Which is why it doesn't happen. You don't go to jail for wrongly accusing anyone of anything, though as I've already pointed out, you can be charged with filing a false police report if you report a crime that never actually occurred. But that's not the same thing as identifying the wrong perpetrator. Like I said, this doesn't happen for murder accusations, so why should it happen for rape accusations?

    Your use of the phrase "prove your innocence" points to your confusion over these issues. If someone accuses me of a crime, I don't have to prove my innocence. They have to prove my guilt. You're getting presumption of innocence all backwards, which explains why you think it would ever be appropriate to assume that any criminal case that doesn't result in a guilty verdict must by extension involve a false accusation.

    Put it this way: If a woman accuses a man of raping her, and he's acquitted in court, does that automatically mean that the woman deliberately falsely accused him? Of course not. If you start charging women with a false rape accusation every time their accusations can't be proved in court, you're going to discourage women from reporting real rapes. Oh hey, a man raped me, I should bring him to court. But wait, what if there's not enough evidence? Now suddenly I'm a suspect even though I'm the one who was raped.

    But of course, that's exactly what MRAs want, isn't it? (Yes.)

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Bar-simply because one male was wrongly convicted does not mean a rape did not occur. I think you are mixing it up. If a woman reports a rape, a guy is arrested and later it is determined he was not the rapist, does not automatically mean that there was no rape. What it means is the wrongly convicted man did not commit the crime."

    this has nothing to do with the fact that an innocent man is still being accused of rape. also in the case of Heidi jones, the mere fabrication of a rape that did not occur was never questioned. she admits she made up the story.

    we punish drunk drivers that kill others severely, and they wherent even intending to due harm. we punish them because their negligence causes the death of another while driving drunk, even though they had no malicious intent. and these people can go to jail for years.

    therefore if a person maliciously (such as the duke lacross or hofstra university instances) accuses others of rape then they should be punished harshly for such a crime. they should be punished as harshly as a rapist.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ triplanetry.

    the presumption of innocence doesnt factor into it.

    here are the facts.

    if a woman accuses a man of rape, shes automatically branded as a victim not an accuser.

    the courts then (without proof that the accuser was indeed raped) take proactive action to treat the accuser as a victim.

    how do they do this?

    by using rape shield laws, so that the "victim" does not have her name released to the media, and does not have to face her accuser.

    meanwhile the accused, has his name released to the media and is convicted in the court of public opinion.

    having the right to face, and examine the accusations of your accuser, is a necessary prerequisite for a fair trail.

    also you wrote

    "No. No it's not appropriate. Which is why it doesn't happen. You don't go to jail for wrongly accusing anyone of anything, though as I've already pointed out, you can be charged with filing a false police report if you report a crime that never actually occurred. But that's not the same thing as identifying the wrong perpetrator."

    it most certainly is appropriate if the false accusation, can mean that an innocent person may be deprived of their freedom. also you are making the assumption that these false rape accusations are never malicious. you are implying that they are simply mixups. many of them are not.

    the most famous examples such as duke lacross consisted of a woman admittedly lying about being raped, she has admitted that she lied about it, and so the fact that there is a flaw in our legal system that allows a woman to send men to jail, in such a fashion that only exonerates these men when inconsistencies in HER story prove the men innocent is by definition an act of treating the accused as guilty until proven innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So you think that if the person convicted wrongly was later exonerated, the accuser should go to jail?

    And in the Duke La Crosse case, you think that accuser should spend twenty years in prison for a case that was later dismissed completely?

    ReplyDelete
  34. ""will send a man to prison for a few decades"

    [citation needed]

    are you kidding me?! really?

    you need a citation to discern that a false rape accusation, can send a man to prison for a good part of his natural life?"

    No, we need a citation that a false accusation *will* send a person to prison for a good part of their natural life. Will <> can.

    There's a big difference between "life isn't perfect" and "life is always unfair." Men going to jail for rapes they didn't commit is a very bad result of a good but not perfect justice system, not a commonplace and premeditated result of a system that is deliberately set up to punish innocent men as a matter of course.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Bar-the woman who makes an accusation of rape has her name shielded from the press for a reason. A person who is raped has been violated and apparently you think she should not only have her name published (with the attendant mudslinging at her name-see the Kobe Bryant rape accusation) but thrown in prison if the man she accuses turns out to be a case of mistaken identity.

    So if your mother was walking down the street, a man leaps out of the bushes and rapes her, she tells the police, they find a guy who looks like the dude who raped her...he goes to jail, turns out he was NOT the guy...your mother goes to prison for twenty years based on your beliefs here.

    See why this is a bad idea yet?

    ReplyDelete
  36. "So you think that if the person convicted wrongly was later exonerated, the accuser should go to jail?"

    if it can be proven that the accuser was malicously trying to wrongly convict the accuse, of a crime as serios as rape, then yes she/he should be locked away for as long as possible. decades if possible.

    why?

    because making up rape accusations, in which the accused can go to jail for twenty years or more, is equivalent to an act of enslavement. the acused is deprived of his liberty, and freedom, which is the definition of slavery.

    in the duke case, OF COURSE she should spend twenty years in jail, these men arent rotting away in jail right now, only because she was disproven!

    she didnt have the decency even to admit she was lying about something as serios as rape, which means she was okay with depriving innocent men of their freedom. i cant think of many more evil things than that.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Bar-the woman who makes an accusation of rape has her name shielded from the press for a reason. A person who is raped has been violated"

    there it is you just did it... listen to what you have done.. you have acknowledged that her rape has not been proven in a court of law by saying this:

    "woman who makes an accusation of rape"

    then you have in the span of a sentence convinced yourself that somehow it has been proven by saying this:

    "has her name shielded from the press for a reason. A person who is raped has been violated"

    she has been ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED.. ALLEGEDLY!

    in any free and open society the burden of proof rests not on the accused to prove that he did not rape her, but on the accuser (or the prosecution)to show that he did.

    I have to go for now, but this is the exact reason we need to end rape shield laws

    ReplyDelete
  38. So essentially if someone makes a claim, it is shown to be false, they should spend an equivalent time in prison when the accused is not convicted of the offense so we have no actual knowledge what that time would have been but that accuser deserves to go to prison for as long as possible.

    All because you think making a false claim is worse then rape.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Would you be happier if a woman who makes such an accusation stays in jail (just in case of course!) until the accusation is proven beyond a reasonable doubt or is it okay for her to be let out of jail?

    By the way-the accuser still has to show up in court. There are zero laws saying that the press has any right to know who does an accusation.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @ elizabeth

    if it is shown that the accuser did so with malicious intent absolutely.

    and yes false rape accusations are a worse crime than rape. it is much worse of a crime to imprison an innocent person. its a form of modern day enslavement.

    i consider enslavement to be a worse crime than rape.

    ReplyDelete
  41. No it is not a modern day enslavement. It is a very bad thing but it is not enslavement.

    And what do you consider malicious intent? You just said you wanted the Duke La Crosse accuser to be sent to prison for a very long time, yet there was no evidence provided to the press or you personally that she did this with malicious intent. What evidence was provided was that this was a very disturbed young woman mentally and she needed some psychiatric help.

    So either it is malicious intent or you think all women deserve prison time for making an accusation that may have been found later to be inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "No it is not a modern day enslavement. It is a very bad thing but it is not enslavement."

    it isnt?

    -accuser knowingly makes false rape accusation

    -innocent accused goes to jail, where they are deprived of the freedom to leave.. they are falsely imprisoned.

    that is a form of slavery

    malicious intent would mean that the accuser, knowing that no rape occurred, still upheld the accusation.

    the duke lacrosse accuser knew from the beginning that she had never been raped, and still continued to accuse them. she eventually recanted, but this does not matter, as any period of knowingly continuing to make false claims, is an attempt at depriving an innocent person of their freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  43. People don't serve that long for rape. Found this in wiki really quickly.

    Prison sentences for rape are not uniform. A study made by the U.S. Department of Justice of prison releases in 1992, involving about 80 percent of the prison population, found that the average sentence for convicted rapists was 11.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years. This follows the typical pattern for violent crimes in the US, where those convicted typically serve no more than half of their sentence [1].

    It's the stigma that is issue with even being accused, though. The accused should also be anonymous. But I personally believe that sex crimes against sex workers should carry a slightly stiffer penalty to raise awareness about that problem. And men can joke to themselves about where they're going to shove broomsticks. And any worker even coerced into doing one fucking thing extra or not on the menu on a porn shoot can sue the company or exploiter into bankruptcy...ahhh my perfect world.

    ReplyDelete
  44. There is definitely a problem, but the problem is not with people who believe they have been a victim of a crime; it's with the justice system as it currently operates.

    When people are accused of crimes, not just rape but most serious crimes, they are not treated as though they are presumed innocent. If they do not have a ready source of $$, they will probably wait in jail for quite a while before their trial, they will most likely be represented by inferior council, they will be pressured to plea bargain by prosecutors who are more concerned with clearing cases than with discovering the truth. Even if they are later found not guilty, they will have most likely lost their job and be in debt for the cost of their defense.

    It would be interesting to see the MRM get behind the judicial reform movement, especially since the injustice mainly affects men. I think y'all could get a lot done.

    There is an excellent book about this, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness, if anyone is interested.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hello David.

    Remember me: your "favorite critic" of the MRA/MGTOW garbage?

    I am curious: Did you hear Darth Elams crap radio show last night, and if so: what did you think of it?

    Playing games does not make you childish David. Adults have been playing games since games were invented: scrabble, yahtzee, sports. The fact that the modern era has "games on TV screens" does not make playing them childish.

    Randomly stomping in a mud puddle while shouting "weee!": that makes one childish.

    That was related to a comment you posted previously. You seemed to consider yourself childish simply because you play video games.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @ triplanetary

    triplanetary said: "Actually, we do consider it "extreme" in the sense of "an outlier situation that doesn't happen nearly as often as you'd think if you were just going on how much MRAs whine shrilly about it.""


    What does that have to do with whether the situation is fair or not? Oh, nothing. Just an attempt by a female worshiping mangina to muddy the waters.

    trip said: "What's the problem with restraining orders being based on this, exactly? If somebody doesn't want you contacting them, don't. If you plan to respect their wishes in that regard, the restraining order won't hinder you; and if you don't plan on respecting their wishes, the restraining order was necessary."

    Are you fucking daft? What if the restraining order based on nothing includes where you work? What if you work in the same office? Where you live? Are you supposed to up and buy a new home just like that? How is that a harmless thing in those cases?

    trip: "I have yet to see a single MRA explain why rape accusations should be singled out in this way."

    Rape? You mean the crime so devestating that they allow "victims" to remain anonymous to protect themselves, a rarity in our justice system? You really aren't smart enough to grasp the difference?

    trip: "There are already laws in place to cover things like filing a false police report, slander, squandering emergency resources, etc. And despite MRA claims, women have been charged with filing a false police report in cases related to rape in the past.

    If it can be conclusively proved that no rape occurred at all, women can be convicted under existing laws for filing a police report. What MRAs really want is for every rape charge that doesn't result in a guilty verdict to be flipped around into a conviction of "false rape accusation" against the rape victim, which is complete lunacy. If my house gets broken into and I accuse you, and it turns out you didn't do it, I'm not going to get charged with anything. Why should a rape case be any different?"

    1. You shouldn't claim as fact that person X broke into your house when you don't know that for sure.
    2. Rapists are the lowest form of life in most prisons. Many men accused of rape in prison are the targets of rape attempts. Deliberately placing someone in a place where there is a high likely hood of them being raped seems to me to warrant a severe penalty not the slap on the wrists and probation that most false rape accusers get.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  47. @ walkertall: "Probably because it's obvious why. They're guilty of it, or are so afraid of women that they think some from their past will accuse them of it, therefore every.single.rape.accusation must be assumed to be false.

    Or else they might have to grow up."

    See Heidi Jones.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Bar-anyone who has access to a dictionary knows that slavery is very different then someone who was not guilty of a crime and was convicted anyway.

    And if you are saying that being falsely accused of a crime like rape is worse and deserves more severe punishment then a person who actually commits the act, then do you also believe a person who claims, falsely, they were burglarized by a person should go to prison for an equivalent time?

    In the Duke La Crosse case, you are again, assuming without having been there, that the woman was maliciously pursuing this. The prosecutor involved who reviewed the evidence stated "Our investigators who talked with her and the attorneys who talked with her over a period of time think that she may actually believe the many different stories that she has been telling.

    And in reviewing the whole history, there are records under seal that I'm not going to talk about, but we believe it's in the best interest of justice not to bring charges, and we have made that decision, as well."


    Yet you want to chuck her into prison for the next twenty years or however long a person not convicted of any crime would have received because without knowing all the facts the prosecutor knows, you think she is guilty and think a long prison sentence is appropriate.

    So apparently you would be fine with throwing a woman in jail until such time a conviction for an accusation of rape is made. That would certainly teach her!

    ReplyDelete
  49. it most certainly is appropriate if the false accusation, can mean that an innocent person may be deprived of their freedom. also you are making the assumption that these false rape accusations are never malicious. you are implying that they are simply mixups. many of them are not.

    You act like I could just point my finger at someone, accuse them of a horrible crime, and have them imprisoned just because I don't like them. The legal system doesn't work that way. The police won't so much as arrest them without probable cause. Then a judge and/or grand jury has to decide that there's enough evidence to warrant a trial. These safeguards exist to protect people from false allegations. So there's no need to toss people in prison for making incorrect accusations, whether deliberate or not (and the near impossibility of telling the two apart is another reason that would be a terrible idea).

    I certainly don't think that most false rape allegations are "mixups." Rather I think most "false" rape allegations aren't false at all but just cases where there wasn't enough evidence to convict, prompting the MRA to jump all over the situation and accuse the woman of being a malicious bitch without any reasoning beyond that she has a vagina.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "See Heidi Jones."

    That's the best you can do, huh. One woman lied therefore ALL women lie? One women = all women?

    See what I mean? They're terrified of growing up.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Spam filter David

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  52. "I certainly don't think that most false rape allegations are "mixups." Rather I think most "false" rape allegations aren't false at all but just cases where there wasn't enough evidence to convict, prompting the MRA to jump all over the situation and accuse the woman of being a malicious bitch without any reasoning beyond that she has a vagina. "

    That would be exactly what's going on. As richie-poo just proved - they think all women are exactly the same. Therefore, one lies, they ALL lie. In exactly the same way about exactly the same things.

    What they actaully want is women imprisioned for making the accusation. That'll teach the bitches to stay silent.

    I've heard feminists say before that men hate themselves more than they claim feminists hate men and I never understood what that meant. I'm starting to now.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @ Amnesia

    1. There already is a debtors prison. No one has to "clamor" for it. If you are assigned child support and or alimony beyond your means and can't pay, you can go to prison. THAT IS DEBTOR'S PRISON.

    2. About paternity, you don't know what you're taking about. In many states if you don't establish you are not the father within a very brief period of time then even if you show with DNA evidence that you are not you still have to pay. Also, most men don't believe that their wives would do something so horrific to them sadly, many are wrong. Why should the wife be rewarded for deception?

    Hell, you can even be dating a woman who has her own kid from a previous relationship and if you take the kid out, get the bastard some toys, you have then acted like a father and the mother can sue you for child support. And ANY TIME men have fought against any of these fucked up laws it the feminists who rise up and screech till they get their way. I have no idea why any man or decent woman would support shit like that.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  54. @ walkertall

    So Heidi Jones was actually raped according to you? Even though she recanted, right?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  55. Proof please Richard. I disagree with putting a man in prison for not being able to pay. A man who willfully refuses to pay on the other hand...

    However, I have yet to see you provide proof that a couple of toys means that you have acted like the father and are now forced to pay. What I have heard is stories of men who did raise a child for ten years that was not his own and had no ability to have access to the kid after the break up. That is unfair.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @ walkertall

    There are studies that show up to 40% of rape claims are false.

    And agreeing with moron feminist does not equal growing up.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  57. *watches Richard completely miss the point as usual*

    ReplyDelete
  58. @ Elizabeth

    Lets start with Frank Hatley

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/15/georgia.child.support/

    Here's another child support nightmare.

    http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07.19.06/paternity-0629.html

    Think any guy who goes through this is going to be pro feminism?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  59. @Hide and Seek: I was not addressing you. I was not asking for a link either.

    I was asking David if he heard Darth Elam's radio show: and if so: what he thought of it.

    I have already heard the show.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @ Elizabeth

    Elizabeth said: "So you think that if the person convicted wrongly was later exonerated, the accuser should go to jail?

    And in the Duke La Crosse case, you think that accuser should spend twenty years in prison for a case that was later dismissed completely?"

    Yes I do. Her intent was to imprison those men for life. She tried to put them away for life. It was an attempt to harm them. How is it that she can just stroll away and have nothing happen to her? She deserves 20 years for sure!

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  61. @ Bee

    We are pretty much in agreement, except with regard to how long a false accuser should be in prison.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Elizabeth, in the US, the names of victims of violent crimes (with the exceptions of minors in certain districts) are not legally sheilded from the press or public. They are, in fact, a matter of public record. It is considered a violation of journalistic ethics to reveal the names of victims, but it is not illegal. The only possible way it could ever be actionable would be in a civil case for "invasion of privacy" and it would still be a damned hard case to win.

    When bar says this "by using rape shield laws, so that the "victim" does not have her name released to the media, and does not have to face her accuser [sic]." He is absolutely and unconditionally wrong under US law. No district may exempt the victim from testimony and all indictments and trials make the victim's identity and statements at trial a matter of public record. Rape shield laws within the US do what bar claims they do. The victim can ALWAYS be forced to testify, even if they are in witness protection and even if they are a minor. Rape shield laws in the US ONLY affect evidence admission. What they do is make the victim’s past sexual history be presumed to be substantially more prejudicial than probative. In EVERY district of the US that has a rape shield law, the accused need show only, at most, that the evidence of the victim’s past sexual history is more probative than prejudicial.

    More on misunderstandings of US law here!

    1) What a person is being jailed for when they violate a child support order is “contempt of court”. Other civil cases where a person refuses to pay the money from the judgment can also result in jail for contempt. Debt is actually a constitutionally protected defense to contempt for failure to pay. However, the defendant (usually) has the burden of proof in such a matter, with such burden being preponderance of the evidence . The court may impose other alternatives, such as community service or mandatory job searches. So, the person who actually cannot pay child support due to debt will not be jailed if they properly assert it as a defense and present evidence of required job searches.

    2) Legally, slavery requires considering a person chattel and is a civil matter. Criminal punishment is never slavery unless it imposes a chattel status. Imprisonment and forced labour by the state pursuant to the sentence is never considered slavery under US law.

    3) A false conviction does not result in false imprisonment. Do not confuse “unjust imprisonment” with “false imprisonment”. They are legally distinct matters.

    4) Burdens of proof only apply to the jury not to public opinion. Members of the public may decide their opinions in any matter they wish. The court is not obligated to cater to or protect against public opinion.

    5) States that have laws of presumptive paternity require either marriage or assumption of responsibility. So, you are not being “tricked” into legal responsibility for your spouse’s children in a state with a clear law that states you have such legal responsibility for your spouses children. There is no fraud here. While it may be nice of your partner or spouse to inform you of relevant state laws if they are more knowledgable or to not take advantage, it is your own duty to understand the legal obligations incurred by your actions. As they say “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. (Also, said laws carry advantages for these non-biological parents if they seek legal rights. It is, in fact, to protect the rights of non-biological caretaking parents that most districts that have such laws create or maintain them.)

    ReplyDelete
  63. In the first case-this is not a case of willful failure to pay. Which means that the guy should not have gone to jail and there should be mandatory paternity testing as soon as there is a request to have the court order child support.

    The second one shows why you never fail to show up for court. The window should be longer as there is merit in what the Court of Appeals said about the difference between a financial and actual parent/child relationship.

    What I did not see from either of these articles is a breakdown of how often this happens that the non-biological father is being forced to pay.

    If it is 1 out of 1,000 cases, shutting down the system is an overreach. If it is 1 out of 100 there is a better case for it. Neither article shows the number of times this occurs so until then, stop putting those who lose their jobs in jail but keep putting those who are willfully refusing to pay in.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Her intent was to imprison those men for life."

    The federal sentencing guidelines gives the maximum sentence as 17.5 years. Correct me if I am wrong (people who know NC law better than me), but my understanding is that rape is a class C felony in NC (as is attempted murder resulting in serious injury) and has a maximum of 17.5 years.

    So, only if the victim is as much of an ignoramus about law as richard would even an intentional false accusation be good evidence of an intent to get the accused a life sentence.

    Learn the fucking law. Do it now, or shut up please.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I know that the names of accusers are public record but that does not mean the press has an automatic right to it-I should have said that there are zero laws saying that accuser names must be released to the press-they have to at least file a request for it.

    Richard-you are assuming a person can show up at a local police precinct and the person they accuse goes immediately to prison. Therefore a person who makes a false accusation is deserving of prison time. Unfortunately (and fortunately for the rest of us) that is not what happens.

    ReplyDelete
  66. And that is "unfortunately for you Richard who thinks that false accusations require long prison sentences."

    ReplyDelete
  67. Richard, your comment is out of the spam filter. (Anyone following the discussions with Richard should scroll up to read it.)

    notanmra -- I listened to part of Elam's show. He was his typical melodramatic self; the attempts at humor were pretty lame; some of the others featured on the show sounded like creepy weirdos. I didn't get to the call-in portion, may listen to more of the show later.

    Someone mentioned stalkers a while back in this discussion. I've seen studies suggesting that the majority of stalkers are women, but when it comes to the issue of violence, male stalkers are far more likely to harm or kill the women they are stalking. A significant amount of DV occurs AFTER women have tried to end the relationship, and it is men who do the most violence.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Learn the fucking law. Do it now, or shut up please. " Okay, sorry about that. It was unecessarily harsh. Though Richard shows a deep and profound lack of understanding of even the basics of the legal system, it was rather mean. I stand by the rest of what I said, but feel free to write that bit off as the result the short fuse of a sleep deprived law student.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Dark-after reading the released post, I think it was just harsh enough.

    ReplyDelete
  70. @David: I wish you would provide more concrete examples.

    I found most of it to be contemptible: Darth Elam's usual anti-feminist rhetoric: to lure men in: quickly followed by his other agendas: atheism and feminism.

    I really hate him. For very different reasons than you do no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  71. notanmra -- Huh? Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong, but you think Elam is promoting feminism?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Yes David. Perhaps not the entire feminist spectrum, but a good portion of it.

    Look past the anti-feminist rhetoric I mentioned.

    If you grab the entire wave file and cut out all the anti-feminist bullshit, you'll see that what remains has nothing to do with anti-feminism, or even "mens rights".

    Here are some good quotes:

    "The more men and women are finally prompted by social forces to start treating each other as equals, the more respect long absent will come into play"

    Sound familiar? I am guessing that I could dig up an old feminist book, and find that exact quote.

    Here is another:

    "I was talking before the break about feminism among other things, its a subject we're going to discuss a lot on this show in the future so I'm not going to dwell too much on it tonight".

    That triggered my bullshit-o-meter. Darth Elam is a feminist: like many of his followers. Listen to the callers: many were born and raised by feminist women. Leopards do not change their spots.

    He rambles on and on about how bad feminism is, but he never describes why. In the beginning, he even goes so far as to claim that his show will destroy it: then, he says, "I'm not going to dwell on it".

    Yeah, I can hear Darth Elam destroying feminism already by "not dwelling on it".

    Another:

    "...the men in this movement, they are the ones that have used their big head..."

    feminist philosophy #2: men think with their dicks.

    Want me to go on?

    I have picked apart his entire show: I plan to make a youtube video on it.

    I expect it to be flagged to death by MRA's: a group of people who are simply taking the place of the radical feminists from the 60's.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Rapists are the lowest form of life in most prisons. Many men accused of rape in prison are the targets of rape attempts. Deliberately placing someone in a place where there is a high likely hood of them being raped seems to me to warrant a severe penalty not the slap on the wrists and probation that most false rape accusers get."

    Prison rape is wrong. Period. Doesn't matter how guilty you are or of what.

    However, the reason rapists are often at the bottom of the pecking order is because they have made a habit of picking on people who are weaker than they are, young or old or otherwise defenseless, usually one-on-one, often with a weapon, and they get away with it for a long time because our society doesn't like to label men as rapists.

    When rapists face men who are routinely violent with other men, men who come at them in groups, men who don't have to convict them to punish them, the rapists' luck has run out.

    The very fear you have of being in the shoes of a rapist in prison is the fear women have of rapists out on the loose in society.

    ReplyDelete
  74. A while ago, one of my friends wrote an anthropological article analyzing the beliefs of one of the more popular conspiracy theorists, a man whose delusions are strikingly similar to schizophrenic delusions, which makes it likely that the individual in question is reporting hallucinations as fact. In any case, after my friend's article was published, he started being contacted by all sorts of people who take the fellow's claims seriously, people who had read but failed to understand my friend's article, and who assumed he knew their guru personally and could shed special light into his claims. They had evidence to share, such as carefully analyzed youtube videos that they contended revealed the truth of their conspiracy theory, but that, alas, on examination, revealed only that people greatly invested in seeing something as true are especially prone to pareidolia. Upon finding oneself in possession of what appears to be evidence of a hidden conspiracy that matches one's secret and widely repudiated beliefs, one may wish to examine that evidence closely to be sure that it is not a trick of the light instead of a slitted pupil.

    I provide this anecdote for whatever good it may do anyone reading.

    ReplyDelete
  75. The very fear you have of being in the shoes of a rapist in prison is the fear women have of rapists out on the loose in society.

    Added to the list.

    To even attempt to compare being locked in closed quarters with violent men who thing you are a rapist with being a free woman out in society where there are a few rapists on the loose but where you can choose where you walk, are allowed to carry weapons, and have the vast majority of men bending over backwards to protect you just reeks of hate and misandry. Your empty words about prison rape being wrong earn you no points.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Really Cold? If I was walking along the road in a well lit area that has the lights go out suddenly and my gun jams, you would rush to my rescue if some asshat decides now is the time to get sex?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Rachel, reptilian shape shifters?

    They are very evil, but you can always defeat them by luring them into someplace cold. As they are cold-blooded, this immediately makes them very sleepy. Either that or lay out a big bowl of bugs. That always distracts them.

    notanmra, your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    ReplyDelete
  78. You mean my blog?

    notanmra.blogspot.com you already know it?
    Is that what you are referring to?

    I have a youtube channel too:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/notanmra

    It will take a while for me to compile my exact thought on Darth Elam's lams ass radio show.

    ReplyDelete
  79. bar said...

    @ richard

    yes this blog was conveniently silent on, the hateful misandric false rape accusation by poor innocent heidi jones.




    That is certainly what a blog about MISOGYNY is supposed to cover,"misandric false rape accusation". Futrelle better fix that snafu real quick.;-) How I adore the lulz in this comments section.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Elizabeth, I see that your reading comprehension remains as poor as ever. "Vast majority" doesn't mean all; I was part of the vast majority for a long time but no more. I won't help any woman under attack unless she is a trusted friend or family member, not because of any kind of hatred but because I don't want to turn myself into a suspect.

    Your scenario is also ridiculously far-fetched and paranoid, however if it was you specifically who was being attacked then I would definitely have other reasons besides the legal one to not bother risking my neck for you. There would still be plenty of other white knights to do it, however.

    ReplyDelete
  81. To even attempt to compare being locked in closed quarters with violent men who thing you are a rapist with being a free woman out in society where there are a few rapists on the loose but where you can choose where you walk, are allowed to carry weapons, and have the vast majority of men bending over backwards to protect you just reeks of hate and misandry

    I'm curious. Do you actually believe that these simplistic, dark-spooky-alley images of rape represent the majority of real-life rape cases, or are you being deliberately obtuse? Most rapes aren't perpetrated by some shadowy figure dressed like Freddy Kreuger. Most of them are performed by people known to the victim, people who have gained the victim's trust and the sympathy of the victim's friend and family.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that here in the real world, not every villain can be confronted with a gun.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I won't help any woman under attack unless she is a trusted friend or family member, not because of any kind of hatred but because I don't want to turn myself into a suspect.

    How convenient that your deeply held social philosophy helps you justify and even feel self-righteous about being a complete coward.

    ReplyDelete
  83. In other words-a woman gets attacked and you will just stand by staring at her being raped.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I'm curious. Do you actually believe that these simplistic, dark-spooky-alley images of rape represent the majority of real-life rape cases, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

    I'm well-aware that stranger rape is the exception and not the norm. It case you didn't notice, I was responding to someone who was speaking as if it was the other way around.

    How convenient that your deeply held social philosophy helps you justify and even feel self-righteous about being a complete coward.

    More shaming language from a feminist tool; how quaint. So not wanting to become a rape suspect and acting accordingly makes me a "complete coward"? Tell me more.

    In other words-a woman gets attacked and you will just stand by staring at her being raped.

    More assumptions on your part. I never said I wouldn't call the police, just that I wouldn't personally intervene. Why can't strong, independent women(TM) defend themselves anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Not to comment on the rest of it but I do not like to accuse people who are not willing to jump into a fight of being cowards. YES, if you do not feel capable of physically helping you should call the police, but everyone has different reactions to fear and shouldn't be demonised for not feeling confident in such a situation.

    I also don't like the idea a man should be more obligated to help because they are just as likely as a woman to be seriously harmed in situation.

    I, being a woman, believe I would jump in, whether or not that's the smartest move. My (male) partner definitely would because he has stepped into situations with multiple people attacking someone on the ground. But we are both physically confident people who fight (muay thai) for fun, and I would never put this expectation on anyone else.

    Not to say Cold isn't a douche, of course. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  86. Christ. "-be seriously harmed in SUCH A situation." Typing fail.

    ReplyDelete
  87. @richard

    1. All right, I will give you some credit for explaining what you meant by 'debtor's prison.' However, it would not be limited to just men. There are cases of women paying alimony and child support, if the man is taking care of the kids and/or the woman is better off financially than he is. So, if any of those women were to stop paying, she would also be locked up.

    2. Well, if you would rather believe MRM campfire stories about feminists and roast misogynic marshmallows in your mancaves than find out what the law actually says, that's your business. Just don't expect me to take you seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  88. FWIW, I know a guy who owes about $14k in child support, whose greatest ambition in life is to either run a cult in the middle of the desert or be the dude playing the guitar on a street corner. He has absolutely no intention of paying (not on any moral principle, he's just kind of a dick), and is not being threatened with any kind of jail time.

    ReplyDelete
  89. LOL, another feminist calling me a douche without even bothering to explain how I am supposedly being one. Keep on providing me with the cheap laughs...

    ReplyDelete
  90. Not to comment on the rest of it but I do not like to accuse people who are not willing to jump into a fight of being cowards.

    Oh I agree. I don't judge anyone for not jumping into a violent situation in an attempt to protect the victim. I can't say with certainty I would (I'd like to think I would), and I can say with certainty that if I did I wouldn't be much good, physically.

    No, the issue with Cold is that he uses rationalizations and victim blaming to not only justify his stance, but even to feel morally superior about it. He says it's actually those bitches' fault that he wouldn't step in to help them.

    His cowardice isn't rooted in his avoidance of a physical confrontation, it's rooted in his avoidance of his own moral bankruptcy.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Moral absolutism from a feminist tool; what a shock. Would you care to quote me where I blamed the victim and said it was their fault that I wouldn't step in to help, or did you pull that out of your ass as per usual?

    ReplyDelete
  92. @ Lady Victoria von Syrus

    And how does that erase all the men who cannot pay and are in prison?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  93. @ Darksidecat

    DSC said: "1) What a person is being jailed for when they violate a child support order is “contempt of court”."

    So what? The end result is that a man is told to pay money he doesn't have and he ends up going to jail/prison. You can call it "contempt of court" or "happy, happy fun time" it doesn't matter, he's still going up the river.

    DSC: "Other civil cases where a person refuses to pay the money from the judgment can also result in jail for contempt. Debt is actually a constitutionally protected defense to contempt for failure to pay. However, the defendant (usually) has the burden of proof in such a matter, with such burden being preponderance of the evidence ."

    If there's one thing you actually answer from this post, I'd hope it would be this question.

    If you are imputed more than you can pay, how is one to find the money to pay for a lawyer to help prove that you can't pay?

    DSC: "The court may impose other alternatives, such as community service or mandatory job searches. So, the person who actually cannot pay child support due to debt will not be jailed if they properly assert it as a defense and present evidence of required job searches.'

    No. If the person who cannot pay can somehow afford a proper defense he may not be jailed. But again if he is poor and already in debt, how is he to do this?

    DSC: "2) Legally, slavery requires considering a person chattel and is a civil matter. Criminal punishment is never slavery unless it imposes a chattel status. Imprisonment and forced labour by the state pursuant to the sentence is never considered slavery under US law."

    Again, more lawyer speak. You want to revisit Clinton and tell us what is is?

    DSC: "3) A false conviction does not result in false imprisonment. Do not confuse “unjust imprisonment” with “false imprisonment”. They are legally distinct matters."

    I'm sure the innocent man in prison appreciates the difference.

    DSC: "4) Burdens of proof only apply to the jury not to public opinion. Members of the public may decide their opinions in any matter they wish. The court is not obligated to cater to or protect against public opinion.

    5) States that have laws of presumptive paternity require either marriage or assumption of responsibility. So, you are not being “tricked” into legal responsibility for your spouse’s children in a state with a clear law that states you have such legal responsibility for your spouses children. There is no fraud here."

    You don't consider lying to your husband/boyfriend about the paternity of your child fraud? You really are a feminist.

    DSC: "While it may be nice of your partner or spouse to inform you of relevant state laws if they are more knowledgable or to not take advantage, it is your own duty to understand the legal obligations incurred by your actions. As they say “ignorance of the law is no excuse”."

    All you do is make the MGTOW stance stronger as you basically confirm that women are lying sluts enabled by the law. And that they don't have to be 'nice' and tell you the truth. Repulsive. And here you are cheerleading this behavior. Typical man hating feminist. Of course you'll claim fucking men over like this isn't hate.

    DSC: " (Also, said laws carry advantages for these non-biological parents if they seek legal rights. It is, in fact, to protect the rights of non-biological caretaking parents that most districts that have such laws create or maintain them.)"

    Such bullshit.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  94. @ Darksidecat

    Darkside cat said: "The federal sentencing guidelines gives the maximum sentence as 17.5 years. Correct me if I am wrong (people who know NC law better than me), but my understanding is that rape is a class C felony in NC (as is attempted murder resulting in serious injury) and has a maximum of 17.5 years.

    So, only if the victim is as much of an ignoramus about law as richard would even an intentional false accusation be good evidence of an intent to get the accused a life sentence.

    Learn the fucking law. Do it now, or shut up please."

    How about I learn the law, and you learn some fucking morals.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  95. @ Elizabeth

    Elizabeth said: "Richard-you are assuming a person can show up at a local police precinct and the person they accuse goes immediately to prison. Therefore a person who makes a false accusation is deserving of prison time. Unfortunately (and fortunately for the rest of us) that is not what happens."

    You are overstating it. However, anytime you call the police on anyone. Anytime you bring someone in contact with law enforcement and or "justice" system in the role of a criminal you are risking their life. You don't know how that police officer will react/treat to that person. A knee in his back? A gun to his head? Taser? Beating? A false accusation of rape doesn't even have to go pass the police officer showing up and it could be extremely bad for the man accused, becuase you could get some white knighting jackass cop who wants to teach someone a lesson.

    You don't know how he'll be treated in jail and yes men have been raped in jail even if they were only there for a short period of time. All of these negative things can happen and that is before he's imprisoned.

    Not exactly related but here's a little tale about what happens when women bring cops into the lives of their men

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/02/01/wife-has-cops-beat-the-crap-out-of-husband-to-hide-affair-audio-of-incident-emerges/


    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  96. @ Amnesia

    The law can say a trillion things, that doesn't matter nearly as much as what actually happens to men when they are put into this system. You have what the law says. I know what actaully happens in reality.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  97. "Also, said laws carry advantages for these non-biological parents if they seek legal rights. It is, in fact, to protect the rights of non-biological caretaking parents that most districts that have such laws create or maintain them." This is true, richard. These laws are regularly used by non-biological parents to maintain custody and other legal rights over children. Regardless of what you seem to think, not all people in a child custody issue are eager to ditch the kids and never have to financial or otherwise support them. There are plenty of male parents who, in fact, actually want to continue raising the children they have been taking care of. These parents loose their kids in states with biological paternity laws. There are, in fact, many loving fathers who would be extremely hurt by removal of these laws (do a google search for "father custody non-biological" and you will see that this is a common issue). So, do presumed paternity laws sometimes give responsibilities to those who do not want them? Yes. However, they also give rights to those who do. Responsibilities are the flip side of rights. You MRA lot like to claim that you support father's rights, yet you steadfastly ignore the ways in which these laws do advance the rights of fathers. We could argue as to which legal structure would have the best cost-benefit analysis, but you do not want to discuss the merits of parental status under various systems, you want to claim that women are evil and you want a system where men have all of the rights they want but no responsibility.

    Also, the irony of accusing women of a multitude of crimes while whinging about how being accused of a crime is so very terrible is rather priceless. A criminal conviction of fraud can in some cases result in a sentence of over 20 years. So, yes, you have just made an accusation that, by your standards, warrants you being put in jail for at least 20 years. So, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass Go...

    ReplyDelete
  98. I think it's worth pointing out that Richard's two examples of men who had unjust child support judgments pinned on them are BOTH cases in which it was the state, not the children's mothers, who were looking for money.

    Hatley and Jones were each caught up in situations where they were named as fathers because state law required such a declaration when their ex-partners sought public assistance. Neither was sought out for support by those exes directly, and neither was forced to pay a dime in such direct support. All the money they paid, and all the money they were asked for, went straight into the state's coffers.

    So these aren't cases of feminist campaigns to force men to give money to women, as the MRAs would have it, but of state governments that are disinclined to devote resources to support for the poor looking for ways to recoup those costs.

    And the villains in the stories aren't the women -- who were, again, REQUIRED BY LAW to provide the names of the men they believed to be their children's fathers -- but the government bureaucracies that didn't provide these guys proper due process.

    ReplyDelete
  99. @Richard. It's impossible to get a restraining order just based on somebody's word. It's actually very difficult to acquire one because the court requires significant evidence. I tried for months to get one against the man who sexually assaulted me, then harassed me, for months. And I thought I had plenty of evidence. No such luck.

    The police chief in my university town actually looked me in the face and told me my abuser would have to track me and physically hurt me. Again. That's what it would take to get one.

    So I'd advise you to limit your sad attempts at argument to something you actually know anything about.

    ReplyDelete
  100. AnthonyBSusan, your comment sounds like the something I ever heard a male judge say to a plaintiff seeking an injunction.

    In my state, at the time, it was a series of harassing events and he said that one rape was not a series of harassing events. Every other female judge in the room (paraphrasing here) said "you moron, you ask 'did he touch you more than once? yes? Granted!'"

    Cold-then you are changing your stance of just standing there staring as a woman is raped and will help her out even if it is nothing more than calling 911. So why claim otherwise? And before you go saying "you idiot...of course I would!" You were not saying that. You were saying you would refuse to help any woman outside a very small circle and calling 911 is at least some help while avoiding getting your own ass beat.

    Richard-you are making wild assumptions based on little more then conjecture from watching too much TruTV. Here is an actual DV police report from an incident that has the entire political community aflutter. Neither party was mistreated by the police and I am not going to comment on either party's behavior subsequent to this. This is an example of what actually happens when someone makes an accusation.

    Do you see him being thrown immediately into prison? No.
    Do you see any evidence that he was beaten half to death by the cops? No.

    You keep making assumptions that have nothing to do with reality and more to do with what goes on on TV.

    ReplyDelete
  101. So I'd advise you to limit your sad attempts at argument to something you actually know anything about.

    And Richard was never heard from again...

    ReplyDelete
  102. @ Richard:

    No, seriously - he's couch surfing in a trailer, and goes to play his guitar on a street corner when he needs money. This is all he really wants to do with his life. The $14K comes from when he was drawing a regular paycheck as a laptop mechanic - he decided not to pay child support out of that money, and it kept adding up and adding up for the years he worked there. He's pretty much the dictionary definition of deadbeat - a guy who just can't be arsed to care about his kids. There's no way he can pay even a fraction of that on a homeless beach bum's income, and the scenario you're suggesting is that Teh Evul Feminists will descend upon him and throw him in jail for failure to pay.

    Really, all that's happening is a bunch of bills being sent to his old address (where a friend of mine currently lives, which is how I know about this). I suppose if he ever gets another real job, his paycheck will be garnished, but that'll be about the worst thing to happen.

    Now, of course, we can move on to discussing the fact that there are three human beings in this world who have been pretty roundly rejected by their father.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Would you care to quote me where I blamed the victim and said it was their fault that I wouldn't step in to help, or did you pull that out of your ass as per usual?

    Okay.

    I won't help any woman under attack unless she is a trusted friend or family member, not because of any kind of hatred but because I don't want to turn myself into a suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  104. That's blaming the system, not blaming the victim. It's not the victim's fault that the system allows women to get away with false rape accusations and that other women take advantage of it, unless the victim herself is one of those women but I'm not making that assumption here.

    Trying to equate what I said to victim blaming is highly disingenuous and, if I was a moral absolutist like you, I would say that it was indicative of moral bankruptcy on your part. Since I'm not one, I'll settle for saying that it is yet another example of the intellectual dishonesty of feminists and their lackeys.

    ReplyDelete
  105. @ anthonybsusan

    anthonybsusan said: "@Richard. It's impossible to get a restraining order just based on somebody's word. It's actually very difficult to acquire one because the court requires significant evidence. I tried for months to get one against the man who sexually assaulted me, then harassed me, for months. And I thought I had plenty of evidence. No such luck.

    The police chief in my university town actually looked me in the face and told me my abuser would have to track me and physically hurt me. Again. That's what it would take to get one.

    So I'd advise you to limit your sad attempts at argument to something you actually know anything about."

    Interesting

    im·pos·si·ble (m-ps-bl)
    adj.
    1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.
    2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.

    Again for clarity anthonybsusan said:

    "@Richard. It's impossible to get a restraining order just based on somebody's word."

    Impossible.

    So if I could show just one case. Just one case. One case. One. I could disprove all the bullshit that you wrote.

    Here you go toots.

    Attorneys for David Letterman are fighting a temporary restraining order leveled at the Late Show host by a New Mexico woman who claimed that Letterman wants to marry her and employ her as a co-host.

    In a request filed Dec. 15, Colleen Nestler of Santa Fe claimed that Letterman has used code words to express his desire to marry her and train her as a host on his show. Nestler said Letterman has forced her to go bankrupt and caused her "sleep deprivation" and "mental anguish" since 1994, the Associated Press reports.

    Nestler's temporary order, which she is trying to have made permanent, states that Letterman must stay at least three yards away from her and not "think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and hammering."

    A state judge granted the temporary order, but attorneys for Letterman are seeking to have the order quashed.

    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1143004,00.html

    So somehow, this woman managed to get a restraining order with NO FUCKING EVIDENCE. But wait, you said that was impossible!

    Oops!

    Thanks for playing.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  106. @ studentactivism

    The question is who defends these policies when men try to change them? The answer is feminists. So feminsts ARE to blame because they ensure the policies stay in place.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  107. @ Captain Bathrobe

    Captain Bathrobe said: "Yip, yip, yip, yip, yip, yip, yip, yip!"

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  108. @ Elizabeth

    You are trying to compare the treatment of a state senator (a man who by definition has wealth and power) with the vast majority of domestic violence cases, which is unfair.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  109. @ Lady Victoria von Syrus

    I don't understan why that guy stolls around free, when others who can't pay get shafted.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  110. @ DSC

    Those laws are for homosexuals, not duped dads. Stop trying to conflate the two.

    A fair system would allow the man upon discovery of the fraud to decide whether he wants to be responsible for another man's children.

    Random Brother.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Richard, Arizona state legislators get a salary of $24,000 a year. For those who do not own their own businesses, they mostly are poor. One of them lost his house after being appointed to the State Lege.

    They are not, by definition, wealthy.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Cold: Although intent has some relevance, your morality is defined by your actions, and the kind of man you are as demonstrated by your real-life choices -- not the kind of man that you claim you coulda, shoulda, woulda been, maybe, if only the world made it easy for you to do the right thing. In fact, I would say the lowest level of immorality is represented by someone who knows the difference between right and wrong, deliberately does wrong, and then goes on to rationalize it.

    That said, there is nothing remarkable in rationalizing one's choice not to get involved on behalf of another, your anger at feminists and women in general being just slightly less legitimate than "I was late for work and didn't have the time" and slightly more legitimate than "I didn't help because I was upset about the situation in Honduras." The truth is, however, that people usually don't get involved because they are afraid the have the shit kicked out of them; if they aren't so afraid and stand by because they want to make some sort of a statement, that kind of conduct merely confirms everything that the people they are angry at have been saying about them. Your comments, for example, confirm the feminist charge that the patriarchy regards violence against women, or a threat of such violence, as an invaluable means of social control. In other words, you'd (supposedly) leap to the defense of "your" women, but if anyone else gets attacked, her victimization is just deserts for the fact that women can press charges. Being supposedly afraid of a false rape accusation is a red herring here, since you are far more likely to have the rapist sue you for assault (that actually HAS happened), but evidently, it's not a concern to you. The message is clear: if a woman doesn't want to be raped, she'd better live as you say she should live -- rely on the benevolence of men if they choose to "protect" her, and suck it up if they choose not to. On the other hand, if you are afraid that in the process of rescuing a woman from her rapist, you might inadvertently stick your dick in her, perhaps you are right -- you SHOULD stay away.

    ReplyDelete
  113. @Cold

    You know, I can understand why someone wouldn't want to get involved in an attack for their own safety. What makes you a coward is that you fear the victim more than you fear the attacker.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Cold has trusted female friends?

    I call bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  115. @Amnesia

    The attacker can only harm me through direct physical force, against which I am able to put up strong resistance. The victim, on the other hand, can ruin my life by simply pointing a finger at me and it is much, much more difficult for me to defend myself from the corrupt, misandrist legal system and media. Fearing the person who is more dangerous isn't cowardice; it's simply being rational. But please, keep using this shaming language and helping to fill out the list. In addition to quoting misandry from prominent feminists, there is also a section for random misandrist commenters and a special section for stuff quote-mined from this very blog (payback's a bitch, David).

    ReplyDelete
  116. @Richard: First, allow me to make something clear. You don't call me toots. Ever. Again. It's highly disrespectful and furthermore, it distracts from any legitimate point you might ever make against feminism. Why should I take your opinions seriously if you're going to insult me? You're not doing yourself or your movement any favors here.

    Second, perhaps the law varies from state to state. I probably shouldn't have made a generalized statement. However, you made one as well regarding restraining orders, and seemed to completely lack an understanding of how the process of obtaining one actually works. I don't know why the judge granted that particular woman an order and frankly, neither do you. You really haven't proved anything.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Cold, are you actually saying that you think it's likely that if you stepped in to help a rape victim she would accuse you of rape?

    ReplyDelete
  118. @ Amnesia, Cold, David

    In response to this whole refusal to help issue, let me give you a couple of examples from my life.

    When I was about 11, 12, I was sitting on my front steps. I lived in a lower middle class black neighborhood and a dirty looking couple was walking down the street arguing up a storm. One thing led to another and the guy started beating the shit out of the girl. Ms. Badass Mouthy Sista wasn't so bad ass anymore. Then some dude comes up screaming. "Yo, what the fuck you doing man!" The wanna be superhero and the "abuser" start beefing with one another, and then they start fighting with each other in the middle of the street, with Ms. Badass sitting on the sidelines screaming. Well something must have snapped in little princesses head because halfway through the fight she JUMPED ON SUPERHERO'S BACK AND STARTED BITING HIS NECK.

    Now I don't knnw whether this chick was a druggie (they looked like druggies) or insane or just more fearful of her abusive boyfriend/husband/whatever he was, but the end result was the tide of the fight was turned and superhero ended up laid out on the ground. Then the two left, bickering all the way.

    Now my question is what would have happened if the police had shown up? The druggies would likely have stuck together, leaving Mr. Hero having to deal with the cops. Cops who may not give a shit who's right or wrong, they simply might want to arrest someone. Or hell, and I've seen this, the cops just arrest everyone. The woman refuses to rat out her boyfriend and they all get taken to jail. Or what if he had managed to fend off both of them and the cops show up and they claim he attacked them?

    You're telling men to get involved in these situations when there are dozens of things that can go wrong for the man who intervenes. Even cops don't like getting involved in domestic disputes and they have the power and training to deal with them.

    Another wonderful tale is far less riveting, but shows how stupid white knighting can get you in trouble. I had moved to that shithole state Maryland, and in my apartment complex someone knocked on my door. I look out and it's a little girl. She said that her mommy needed a phone. I had this feeling that something wasn't right, but I saw this cute little girl and thought what could be wrong here. I rationalized someone ran their minutes up and needed to go somewhere or get something important and that was the issue. So I grabbed my phone and followed the little girl to her apartment. I was maybe 6ft behind the little girl when she turned into her apartment. I was about to go in after her when I heard "Bitch, Imma fucking kill you."

    I promptly turned around and went to back to my apartment.

    Imagine me walking into some fucking man's apartment with a phone in my hand, just begging to be shot. Even if I had went in there, been peacemaker, or beat the guy down, I'm still in his fucking house uninvited, so when the cops come they're looking at me. I have to hope that I get a cop who understands and will not screw me because of policy, or racial reasons, or hell he's just not having a good day. You think that's a good idea?

    AND THEN YOU WANT MEN TO RISK ALL OF THIS FOR WOMEN WHO ROOT FOR AND PASS LAWS THAT SCREW OVER MEN?

    FUCK NO.

    If all of you superhero's want to run around involving yourselves in some of the most emotinal and explosive situations that arise in relationships, go the fuck ahead, idiots, but please don't tell sensible people, sensible men to throw themselves in no win situations in order to save the next Mary Daly or Andrea Dworkin.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  119. @ Anthonybsusan

    anthonybsusan said: "@Richard: First, allow me to make something clear. You don't call me toots. Ever. Again."

    And how would you stop me?

    See now I want to call you that over and over and over again. However, I'm trying to be nicer on this board so you get a pass on this for now.

    Anthonybsusan: "It's highly disrespectful and furthermore, it distracts from any legitimate point you might ever make against feminism."

    Actually I think it's mildly disrespectful, I haven't gotten highly disrespectfuly, yet.

    Anthonybsusan: "Why should I take your opinions seriously if you're going to insult me? You're not doing yourself or your movement any favors here."

    What does it matter? Feminsts don't change their minds based upon logical arguments. They're told by the higher ups what to believe and they believe it, the end. Just like you believe in "THE PATRIARCHY" and "THE RAPE CULTURE" and countless other stupid ideas. Because in essence your masters told you to believe and you believe, like a cult. The logic I give you may as well be math lessons for a rock.


    Anthonybsusan: "Second, perhaps the law varies from state to state. I probably shouldn't have made a generalized statement."

    Ya think?! Let me summarize this here. I was right and you were wrong. I accept your apology.

    Anthonybsusan: "However, you made one as well regarding restraining orders, and seemed to completely lack an understanding of how the process of obtaining one actually works. I don't know why the judge granted that particular woman an order and frankly, neither do you. You really haven't proved anything."

    I know the process doesn't work the way you say it does. I know it's not impossible to get one. I know you can, in certain places and with certain judges, get one on the flimsiest of reasons and I know that your claim was clearly wrong. That's what I proved.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  120. Elizabeth said...
    "Really Cold? If I was walking along the road in a well lit area that has the lights go out suddenly and my gun jams, you would rush to my rescue if some asshat decides now is the time to get sex?"

    Get sex?

    GET SEX!? Did I hear you correctly?

    RAPE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    IT'S ALL ABOUT POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    RE - MEM - BER!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Well there you are David.

    A feminist female who obviously thinks rape is about sex.

    Better tell her she's wrong. She's not towing the party line!

    Why don't you?
    Is it because she's a wimminz?

    ReplyDelete
  122. The victim, on the other hand, can ruin my life by simply pointing a finger at me and it is much, much more difficult for me to defend myself from the corrupt, misandrist legal system and media.

    You're right, that would be difficult if it were true. Now imagine all the women here in the real world who have to stand up against a corrupt, misogynist legal system and media. But of course that would require you to sympathize with women, so I'm guessing it's not going to happen.

    Ms. Badass Mouthy Sista wasn't so bad ass anymore.

    I like how you relish in the image of the uppity woman being put in her place. It's classy. Stay classy, Richard.

    ReplyDelete
  123. @ triplanetary

    Honesty > Classy

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  124. anthonybsusan said...
    "@Richard: First, allow me to make something clear. You don't call me toots . . ."

    Chill out, toots.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Cold, are you actually saying that you think it's likely that if you stepped in to help a rape victim she would accuse you of rape?

    I've proven that the possibility exists. Risk assessment requires looking at both the probability and the potential damage, and in this case the potential damage is having my entire life destroyed so the probability doesn't have to be high to justify caution. You can feel free to do what you like, of course, just don't come crying to me if you end up being accused.

    ReplyDelete
  126. You're right, that would be difficult if it were true.

    It's true.

    Now imagine all the women here in the real world who have to stand up against a corrupt, misogynist legal system and media.

    Imagining things isn't how we ascertain what is going on in the real world. There's this thing called "evidence" and it shows that the legal system is misandrist, not misogynist, and that the media publish the names and photographs of men accused of men accused of rape while keeping the identity of their accusers secret.

    But of course that would require you to sympathize with women, so I'm guessing it's not going to happen.

    Manginas like you ignore evidence and reality so that you can believe the feminist bullshit and always sympathize with women, even when they are not deserving of sympathy. I go by the evidence, first and foremost.

    I love your penchant for strawman arguments and other forms of intellectual dishonesty. It's classy. Stay classy, Triplanetary.

    ReplyDelete
  127. evil, rape is about a number of things -- like power, desire for control, feelings of entitlement, and, yes, sex. There's no monolithic feminist "line" on rape that says it's only about power, not sex, and I don't tbink any feminist on ths blog has ever claimed that it's only about power. Once again, you're arguing against a straw man.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Richard-let me see if I understand your second scenario correctly...a little girl comes up, asks for a phone and when someone said "bitch I am going to kill you" you immediately left her to her fate.

    Yes, that is not white knighting there-that is letting a little girl be hurt since you automatically assume that any effort (like say knocking on a door and standing away from it if you are that terrified of being shot) will result in your life being made difficult.

    There was no requirement that you enter the apartment to create this imaginary scenario that you have where any police officer would be sending you to jail to get anal raped after smashing your face in.

    And Evil-please, grow up. That was even weaker then Richard's comment on restraining orders showing he knows fuck all about the legal system or how evidence is admitted.

    ReplyDelete
  129. just don't come crying to me if you end up being accused.

    Oh, I don't think you'd be our first choice to come crying to, don't worry.

    On a side note, a link to a MRA blog does not equal evidence. If somebody said to me "prove misogyny exists" I wouldn't just say "manboobz.com QED." That's not an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  130. @ Elizabeth

    The threat was directed at the woman inside the apartment (who I did not see) not the child. And as for allegedly leaving anyone to their fate, had I entered that apartment whatever domestic problem they were having would have greatly escalated.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  131. @ Elizabeth

    I forgot to add something.

    You claim I don't know how the legal system works, the truth is you feminists don't know how it works. You may know what some of the laws say, but not what happens on the ground, so to speak.

    Restraining orders are not impossible to get, in fact depending upon where you are they are given out to women like candy on Halloween.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  132. Restraining orders are not impossible to get, in fact depending upon where you are they are given out to women like candy on Halloween.

    Assuming for a moment that this were true... so what? Are you arguing that men should have a right to ignore women's wishes with regard to contacting them?

    ReplyDelete
  133. You really don't understand how a restaining order could be used as a weapon against a man, espeically in divorce proceedings? Really?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  134. On a side note, a link to a MRA blog does not equal evidence.

    The specific blog to which I linked is chock full of documented cases that showcase the misandry and corruption in the legal system. The bulk of the posts are summaries of cases complete with links to reliable sources to provide more details. Spare me the lame excuses for your intellectual laziness; if you can't be bothered to actually read any of it then just say as much.

    ReplyDelete
  135. You would have a point there if my denial of de jure misandry were based on ignorance. I've seen the "evidence" and "arguments" MRAs use to deny the frankly undeniable existence of patriarchy. Linking me to a blog that rehashes them isn't proving anything, any more than linking someone to answersingenesis would prove the truth of creationism.

    ReplyDelete
  136. frankly undeniable existence of patriarchy

    That, along with comparing actual documentation of actual cases to bible quotes demonstrates that you are a mindless fanatic. You probably wouldn't come to your senses even if you found yourself directly on the receiving end of a false rape accusation and a complete tour of the corrupt, misandrist legal system. You'd probably use some kind of "patriarchy hurts men too" bullshit to avoid any cognitive dissonance.

    ReplyDelete
  137. You're halfway correct in that, were I falsely accused of rape, it would not stop me from being a feminist. As for your blatherings about this imaginary "misandrist legal system" let me just point out that for every instance MRA blogs point out of a man falsely accused of rape, there are many, many more instances of a rapist who gets away with his crime, and of a woman who reports a rape and isn't taken seriously. This is because here in the real world, where men are the privileged gender, the court system is actually pretty damn misogynist.

    ReplyDelete
  138. For all of your babbling about "the real world" you sure are reticent to show any actual evidence to back up your claims. You know, evidence, that stuff that's used to prove that a claim is actually true in the real world and not just in the fantasy world inside your head.

    The blog to which I linked provides many, many documented instances of men who were falsely accused and who were treated as if they were guilty until evidence came up that exonerated them. Since you claim that for each of these there are many, many more rapists who got away with it, you have a lot links to give if you're not talking out of your ass. You'll need to show me a hell of a lot of documented cases where there was sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a rape occurred and yet the rapist was either acquitted or never prosecuted. For each documented case on The False Rape Society you will need at least two cases to counter it in order for your "many, many more instances" claim to hold water. Naturally I won't be holding my breath for such evidence as I'm pretty sure you were talking out of your ass, but feel free to surprise me.

    ReplyDelete
  139. I am reading that blog you cited and on the top story: why are they blaming the woman for the police not doing their job right?

    Every part they talk about is where the police not the woman are the ones screwing up the details.

    She can walk in and make all the claims she wants-that does not mean that the police have the obligation to screw up the investigation. Or that it is her fault when they do that.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Elizabeth, that's pretty typical of the "false rape society" blog, which MRAs tend to cite as if it is some sort of objective source of information.

    The comments there, of course, are even worse. But extremely predictable. Someone could probably write a simple piece of software that could generate MRA comments on allegedly false rape accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  141. You didn't read very carefully, although your intellectual laziness no longer surprises me at this point. They clearly blame both the woman and the police.

    The issue of false rape accusations is my litmus test for distinguishing well-intentioned people who have been misguided into feminism from the real misandrists. To trivialize the issue or to make baseless criticisms of the False Rape Society can only be motivated by hatred of men.

    ReplyDelete
  142. @ shaenon, March 1: "I tell you, today's young misogynists have grown weak and feminized compared to the robust misogynists of yore."

    It's clearly the Pussification of America at work. In the 40s every adult male had to spend time under the care of drill sergeants. Not only didn't those exemplars of American manhood have much use for women, they didn't think highly of most kinds of men, either.

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis