Why is politically correct language so toxic? Please examine how the issue of rape is whitewashed by online magazine Ebony, in the following feminist article, “5 Ways We Can Teach Men Not to Rape.”
1. Teach young men about legal consent: Legal consent tops my list for a reason. Without it, sexual contact with someone is rape…whether you intended to rape or not. A woman who is drunk, unconscious or sleeping cannot give legal consent. And it’s not about a woman simply saying “no,” it’s really about making certain she’s saying yes!
The idea of erotic resistance and a woman’s tendency to resist sex in general is obviously ignored in favor of the politically correct idea that consent is some kind of black and white online submit form where it is always obvious that if she doesn’t want sex, she really doesn’t want sex.
Never mind the fact that rapists will never ask for consent, or that successful womanizers understand and know how to overcome last minute objections to closing the deal, because rape isn’t the actual issue here – instead it is training men how to give more power to women. If men are involuntarily celibate because of the tension killing, erotically sterile, and safe beta mode of asking permission to rip the clothes off a woman in your room – well, that’s not a woman’s problem, now is it?
2. Teach young men to see women’s humanity, instead of seeing them as sexual objects for male pleasure: There is a reason why women are shamed into silence and why teenage boys in Steubenville, Ohio are caught on camera laughing about gang raping an unconscious girl at a party. The dehumanization of women spans all areas of American life.
Oh, the humanity!
Quick question – if a woman is driving drunk and crashes into someone else, how come defense attorney’s cannot use the defense of “she was drunk and therefore could not consent to crashing her car?”
And what about men’s humanity? If the girl is drunk and the man is drunk, why is it only the girl who is unable to give consent?
But see, there’s no need for asking tough questions, because the goal of political whitewashing is to interpret events in such a way it fits a political agenda, which is, in this case, of men oppressing women. For example, in the Ohio story – she wasn’t gang raped. She was fingered without consent by boys a little less drunk than she was. Ooops – that’s too complicated. Let’s just call it a gang rape and preach about woman’s humanity.
Remember – you’re not human until you’re blacked-out drunk and pissing all over your friend’s carpet.
The young men in Steubenville aren’t monsters. They did something monstrous and criminal but perhaps we should begin to stop repeating the notion that “criminals” are the ones raping 1 in 5 women. No, it’s our husbands, boyfriends, acquaintances, relatives, and friends and they rape because they are not taught to see women as full autonomous human.
1 in 5 women are raped? Yeah… I’ll let the above paragraph speak for itself.
3. Teach young men how to express healthy masculinity: “The question that’s being asked about what women can do to prevent violence against them is the wrong question. It’s not what can a woman say or do that can prevent being attacked. We need to turn that paradigm upside down. We need to focus on the messages that men are getting and about how they relate to women.
I have no idea what the hell healthy masculinity is, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t involve being afraid of making sexual advances on a woman lest she claims you raped her. In fact, I have no idea what the above paragraph says, but rest assured that this politically correct language is being foisted upon hundreds of thousands of college students every year in America.
4. Teach young men to believe women and girls who come forward: The vast majority of women do not report their rapes to the police and many more only tell one or two people in confidence. That is a result of our proclivity towards victim blaming. What were you wearing? How much did you drink? Why were you there in the first place? When we hear about a rape case in the news or when we hear about one in our own lives, the first reaction should be to believe and support the accuser.
Because females never lie, right? And even if she was lying, it’s not a big deal, right?
Teenager Falsely Accused of Rape Beaten to Death by Gang:
Luke Harwood, 18, was punched and kicked to death by the gang, who planned to slice off his fingers and pull out his teeth so the body could not be identified.
The victim, who was 5ft 7ins tall and weight just seven stone, had the misfortune to move into a council house when Alice Hall, who made the false allegation, was there, the Old Bailey heard.
[…]
Mr Denison said two years before Alice Hall had made a complaint to the police about the victim.
“She initially claimed that he had raped her.
“But when what she was saying was examined more closely by the police it was clear that she was not in fact saying he had raped her and no further action was taken.”
In the politically correct world, the female is always right — always a pure being full of humanity — so naturally stories of men being harmed by false accusations are just misogynistic propaganda.
5. Teach males about bystander intervention: Both Men Stopping Violence and Men Can Stop Rape have bystander intervention workshops for men of all ages. “It’s about community accountability,” says Pandit, “We require men to talk to other men in their lives and tell them about these programs. It is important that we have community networks that hold men accountable.”
No emasculation article can be complete without a white-knighting clause. Because at the end of the day, women are weak, hapless creatures who need men to do their bidding or else they are left like infants, stamping their feet until they get their way.
Of course – attractive, young hot women will never be found having sex with a white-knight, but instead can be found at your local frat party getting blasted with all the men who do not respect her humanity yet she choose to hang out with.
By the way, this is a picture of the feminist propagandist:
Would you bang?
Read More: 3 Signs She’s Making A False Rape Accusation
Number one is rather amusing. An ex-girlfriend and I used to wake up in the middle of having sex during the night about once a month. If a girl is sleeping naked with me, she better be ok with that happening.
I am pretty sure the girl was not naked until she was stripped – after passing out.
This whole issue of teaching men not to rape clearly shows the delusion and entitlement these people have. Feminists want to be strong and independent but are clearly asking to be treated like children here.
Exactly. They rely on hypo-agency (a gender role that promotes women as weak, helpless and most importantly not responsible for their actions or the actions they motivate in their proxies) when it is convinient for their agenda and switch to promoting agency in women when its not.
For instance, rape culture: Two drunk people having sex; the man is at fault because he is hyper-agentic and is thus responsible even for events that he has no control over. Hell, men are held responsible even when drugged and raped themselves.
Another play on hyper-agency in men and hypo-agency in women is ‘Only men can stop rape’, where women are helpless and unable to practice even basic risk management, and where men are obligated to act as vigilantes and white knights to step in where there is even a hint of a woman being uncomfortable.
Hypo and Hyper agency are two of the dirty little secrets that Feminists deny the existence of in gender studies. You can see it all around you if you look at responsibility through this lens. I don’t want to threadjack, but I strongly suggest you look these terms up as they explain so much about why men are held responsible for everything in our society and why women are held responsible for nothing (Girlwriteswhat youtube videos are a good place to start).
Thank you for that.
(Don’t forget, this is all tied to why they ran male teachers out on a rail. Supposed Hyper con-textualising.)
Ive seen a very mental privileged uni student pull this crime. On someone she was almost stalking, whom she pushed drinks on at a party ( leftist marxist. go figure ). Then crawled into bed, forced him. He wouldn’t date her. She went mental.
He had to MOVE to another state.
Don’t think it won’t happen to you. Man up. Please.
Teach your younger friends.
“teach men not to rape” pisses me off more than words can express, and on my college campus I hear it ALL THE TIME. The obvious implication is that all men are naturally rapists, but with training can overcome it. Otherwise they would go around teaching murderers not to murder as well, instead of understanding that these criminals are not going to be stopped with words. And every dude on campus goes along with it.
Of course in reading something like that, the correct thing to do is the exact opposite.
Who initiates sexual…well anything between a man and woman? Men. Why? Women still follow old dating social norms it’s literally programmed into them. If I don’t go for the kiss, caress, and beyond, I KNOW the woman won’t do it. So what the fuck do they want to happen? They are not initiating sex. And they are not telling women “How to initiate sex with a guy”. They can say yes, then halfway through a session say no. There is too much vague bullshit they can fall back on. Fuck. Men are not intimidated by women. If anything, we are afraid of going to prison over a courting gesture that is FORCED on us because women can’t take responsibility for their own well being. If we can’t escalate for fear of committing a crime they sure as hell won’t because socially they are still acting old fashioned. And lastly, you can’t tell a person who may not be a criminal now, that he should not be a criminal. They tend to do what the fuck they want. That’s why there’s laws and if they break one obviously they don’t give a fuck about the law. We have seen what happens to the accused whether the law wins at the end or not. This is not Minority Report.
Here’s one that will work, as opposed to this drivel: Teach women to not put themselves in positions where men have the opportunity to rape them.
And here’s another one: Teach men that are fathers, brothers and uncles that if their daughter, sister, niece has sexual relations outside of their consent, for any reason, the girl they spent a decade and a half of their hard work and resources on raising, just went from being the most valuable being in their life, to some pile of worthless trash worthy of a session of stoning at best. Then arm these guys to the teeth and get rid of any gommiment funded thugs the guy who raped her gets to hide behind. Problem pretty effectively solved.
Butterface!!!! XD
As men we are the romantic sex. Period point blank. On another note: I’m willing to bet 50 shades, and Twilight is on her bookshelf. Which makes all of what these women say null and void.
Are you saying that a woman who reads 50 Shades of Gray and Twilight has no right to say no to sex….?
Did I say that specifically in my comment? No. So am I saying that? No. But ill answer.
They have the right.
What I implied in my comment, which interconnected to the first part of “As men we are the romantic sex.” It’s not about saying no, its who they will say yes to, for the exact same behavior as the one they would say no to. A man who even comes slightly close to the demographic of the fictional characters in said books would more then likely get a yes. And while they are fictional, some variation of those men by their perception must exist to them because if not then would women hold out for them?
Point is: There are men who get a yes for the very same behavior most men get a no for. For example, men with game.
Furthermore, I have that “right to say no as well”. And I have exercised that right for signs in their behavior that threw a red flag. And you know what happened? They felt like I did not find them sexually attractive. And they moved on. Which contradicts the human vs.object depiction explained in featured article. With the right guy, in their mind that’s what they want. Sexual validation. What feminists suggest will leave the right men scared to escalate, and the women of whom this will effect whether they agree or not wondering why their man does not find them sexy enough to make a move on her.
Want to know why? …because those guys in those books are good-looking, wealthy, have perfect jobs, monogamous, slobber over their women,jealous to the point they ‘hurt’ them, and worship at their feet. Women don’t fantasize about drunk teens with little pub hair at redneck parties.
Great article, Samseau…spot on. Yes, it is nauseating to see how far the political-correctness aristocracy will go in attempting to preserve their cherished fiction that women are special, delicate snowflakes that need to be protected from the depravity of men. They have also succeeded in eroding the protections of the criminal law to a shocking extent: (1) “rape shield” statutes now prevent a defense attorney from probing into a rape accuser’s (always sordid) sexual history; (2) underage minors are now seen as competent prosecution witnesses, no matter how coached and drilled they are; (3) sex offender registries now exist for even the mildest “sex” crimes, like having “public” sex in the back seat of your car with your girlfriend.
As usual, men in this country do nothing except collaborate with feminism.
The worst feminists are the men who enable them.
2 was kinda unethicql since she bkacked out….if drunk like those guys then its consesual..since both r blitz
strong independent woman yet needs white knights
id bang
Yet in other articles of women advisin men they say dontcask permission….say one thing do another
This one probably didn’t realize she and other women are all part of the same person, so by saying something that disagrees with what those women are saying, she’s causing the monolith known as “women” to contradict itself.
It’s like how whenever there’s a presidential debate, men just can’t figure out whether they’re liberal or conservative. You’ve got Obama over there saying one thing, and Romney saying the opposite – jeez, men, make up your damn mind already!
I honestly think education has the opposite effect on women as it does on men. Because it seems like the more learned a woman is, the more blind to reality and completely delusional she becomes. Men, on the other hand, usually gain clarity with his knowledge. I refuse to believe that it’s an accident in regards to the amount of “educated” women today in correlation to the amount of hamsters running around.
This is not a result of education itself but rather of what is being taught.
“A little less drunk than she was”
Because there isn’t THAT much difference between “conscious” and “unconscious?”
The girl wasn’t doing something dumb while drunk. She was UNCONSCIOUS. She wasn’t doing anything.
go drink some bleach. when the inevitable consequences hit complain that you have been victimized and that to point out you drank the bleach and put yourself in the situation is ‘blaming the victim’. come back to us with the results, ROK is in dire need of articles on ‘bleach culture’.
Intelligent.
Fortunately, I am fully conscious, so no one can pour bleach down my throat and claim I chose to drink it.
And if you’re trying to compare drinking bleach to drinking alcohol… um, alcohol doesn’t USUALLY cause people to go unconscious. Is a sixteen year old supposed to know how much alcohol it takes to make her black out?
what can i say? responding intelligently to an unintelligent post is casting pearls before swine.
16 year olds are supposed to know she’s not supposed to drink any alcohol, or go to a party alone for that matter.
So stupid people have no right not to be raped? Seriously?
Do stupid shit, get stupid shit.
So even using your own meager attempt at logic, it is entirely consistent for 16 year old boys who were supposed to know they weren’t supposed to drink to get the punishment deserved from doing stupid shit.
Yet the boys get 2 years in juvie while the girl gets the white knights feminist parade like yourself to lick her clit.
I imagine that if they were all just drinking, they would have all received the same punishment had they been caught. As the boys violated the girl while she was passed out and there is no evidence she did the same to anyone, the greater crime is what is being taken into account here. The fact that in your ignorant opinion, what the boys did was no big deal simply makes no difference – which should come as no surprise.
So now a boy’s perfectly natural sexual act to a willing partner is “violation”. And before you go feminist on us: she went to a party alone and drank herself to oblivion — she was indeed being a classic young slut willing to get fucked by hot football alphas.
Lol. Your idea of “willing” is simply hilarious – if it wasn’t absolutely psychotic.
What’s wrong? Are you going to tell me that’s not what the lawwwwww says, too?
Well obviously you have no care to what the law says. You just make up stuff based on your own feelings.
Yes, hide behind your socially approved authority like a good woman. Just like the wisest man once said: men use arguments to win the crowd, women use the crowd to win arguments.
…and you hide behind your silly little emotional arguments and vapid generalizations…yawn. You are curing my insomnia. I should be grateful.
get off heartiste’s dick, bro.
The name is Roissy, you white knighting mangina.
he changed it, if you hadn’t noticed. and you never denied that you’re on his dick.
on another note, why are you insisting so much on your right finger passed out girls? do you not have the game to fuck sober chicks?
Why would I feel the need to deny some mangina talking about riding dicks over the internet? Give me an actual logical argument and I will refute it, not some playground insult that even a retard is too smart for.
When did I said what they did was “right”? Do you seriously want to discuss the topic of moral relativism here? Because I will fucking dismantle you in that. I said what those boys did was NATURAL. Just like that girl’s hypergamic impulse to let loose with a bunch of jocks was NATURAL. My point was that in our society men take full responsibility for their sexual nature and suffer greatly for it while women take absolutely none.
lol. you gave up on “logical argument” along time ago, faggot. you are fit only to be mocked.
Game. Set. Match. That’s what I thought, mangina.
This, coming from the mind that thinks “No, I don’t agree with you” counts as a reasoned argument.
Oh, feminists, always giving us such comedy.
Talk about your straw man arguments. Jeez. That one takes the cake.
Looks like Carson is such a pussy he needs to bring in his little sock-puppet to do his fighting for him. I guess that should be expected.
Well, I will in turn admit to focusing on one of your more laconic responses, but it’s not such a bad thing to be reminded that such exchanges ought not to lower the quality of one’s input.
Bitch should assume the responsibilities of drinking when you are fucking underage.
As with all things feminist, this list is pure projection. She can’t imagine that men view women as human because she herself can’t view men as human. We are all just a bunch of monkies, ready to rape women the moment ‘society’ stops telling us not to. Men have to be TAUGHT how to express our masculinity in a ‘healthy’ way, implying that masculinity is inherently unhealthy.
PS I would definitely bang, look at that cleavage, she is definitely asking for it.
Actually, she didn’t say that anywhere. Perhaps you’re “projecting.”
Hmmm, another troll without arguments…how unexpected
She can’t imagine that men view women as human because she herself can’t view men (or women for that matter) as human because she doesn’t view herself as human (which in turn forces others to not view her as human). In short, her mother (figure) is probably a narcissist.
“Three other boys, two of them on the football team, saw something happening that night and didn’t try to stop it but instead recorded it with their cellphones. Granted immunity to testify, they confirmed the girl was assaulted and said she was so drunk she didn’t seem to know what was happening.”
That’s not “a little less drunk than she was.” That’s not “too complicated.” She was almost unconscious, and they fingered and jerked off on her, than took pictures and spread them around without her knowledge. Whether you want to call that “rape” is a matter of semantics.
Nobody’s going to take the “manosphere” seriously if we hem and haw when it comes to blatantly fucked up shit like this.
wowowowow, so it’s ok to be sooooooo irresponsible and stupid to get drunk to the point of dropping unconscious at a party, but it’s so fucked up and evil if some boys then decide to jerk off and have a little fun with someone who obviously had no self esteem in the first place…
if the roles were reversed, people would be laughing at the drunk guy who got exploited by some naughty chicks, they would even call him lucky… you got a loooong way to go before you can preach about what is right and fair jimmy conway, wake up from your guilt ridden stupor of being a strictly oppressed and herded male of the west…
“so it’s ok to be sooooooo irresponsible and stupid to get drunk to the point of dropping unconscious at a party, but it’s so fucked up and evil if some boys then decide to jerk off and have a little fun with someone who obviously had no self esteem in the first place…”
Yeah, I did stupid shit when I was 16, too. I guess I should have gotten raped for it.
“if the roles were reversed, people would be laughing at the drunk guy who got exploited by some naughty chicks, they would even call him lucky.”
Here’s a novel idea: two wrongs don’t make a right.
I guess I can assume you’d be OK with some gay guys putting their fingers up your asshole and jerking off on you while you’re passed out, then taking pictures of it and spreading it around to everyone you know.
Purge the sociopaths from this movement before they eat it from the inside.
By the way: would bang.
If a gay guy did that to me I’d congratulate him for having good taste.
Thanks for speaking up, jimmy. Feminists may be crying wolf 99% of the time they talk about ‘victim blaming,’ but christ, we can’t go the complete opposite direction and literally blame this girl for the fucked up shit these guys did.
(Would bang if she looked like that in real life; I’m afraid that lighting and makeup are be doing her a lot of favors)
That is fine for you, but as a heterosexual male myself, I tend to think I would have a big problem with it.
Can’t fault him for following his gayness if you were dumb enough to put yourself in that situation, though.
It is a good thing the law works nothing like that. With that kind of thinking, you will probably find out some day first hand. I hear it happens much in prison, but perhaps you won’t mind so much – seeing as stupid people have no rights anyway.
Yap yap yap, how do you know a woman lost a logical argument? She mentions the authority and insinuates harm upon her opponent.
…As if there was any “logic” in what you wrote previously.
“I guess I can assume you’d be OK with some gay guys putting their fingers up your asshole and jerking off on you while you’re passed out, then taking pictures of it and spreading it around to everyone you know.”
That’s not the issue he was arguing.
Equality is about men and women having the same social and legal rights and privileges.
If a group of men fondling and masturbating on an unconscious woman is rape and unacceptable, yet a group of women fondling and masturbating on an unconscious man isn’t rape and isn’t unacceptable, what do you have? Unequal social and legal rights and privileges between men and women with women having the higher social and legal rights and privileges compared to men.
The issue you brought up was about equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
The outrage a lot of men in the manosphere have I think is a product of feminists picking and choosing what legal and social rights they want to be equal with while retaining those social and legal rights were inequality favours them. What does this produce, inequality in social and legal rights in favour of women.
(Do I think a man aggravatingly raping a woman is worse than a woman aggravatingly raping a man? Yes. But that’s because I accept that men and women are different and hence granting them unequal social and legal rights and privileges is just. I am consistent in my thinking. Feminists aren’t. Feminists propound equality in theory but deliver inequality in practice because they are an evil and hypocritical ideology.)
Apparent it was too much logic for you, Miss That’s Not What The Law Sayyyyys.
Yes, Einstein. Way too much for me. Lol.
Thanks for that admission.
Where have feminists supposedly ever argued:
…or is that just something you made up?
A person’s actions speak loudest.
Feminists NEVER address the norm in the culture above. They never advocate, agitate or proselytize against it. But they will do all that and more for the opposite situation.
Another one feminists NEVER address is reproductive rights for men. If a woman conceives, she can; abort, adopt, abandon, raise on her own or with coerced support from the biological father or community.
A man conceives he can; do whatever the woman wants.
When men have the reproductive CHOICE to determine their parental responsibilities after conception, the same as women, then you will have equality in reproductive rights. Only one feminist I know of has ever argued for this and her reasoned and consistent thinking on this issue has been shouted down and out by the gender feminists in academia.
http://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/
“Some maverick feminists agree with this view. Karen DeCrow, an attorney who served as president of the National Organization for Women from 1974 to 1977, has written that “if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support … autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.”
Yet, by and large, feminists and pro-choice activists have not been sympathetic to calls for men’s reproductive freedom. “If there is a birth, the man has an obligation to support the child,” says Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center. “The distinction with respect to abortion is the physical toll that it takes on a woman to carry a fetus to term, which doesn’t have any translation for men. Once the child is born, neither can walk away from the obligations of parenthood.” (Actually, a woman can give up the child for adoption, often without the father’s consent, and be free of any further obligation.)
Indeed, on the issue of choice for men, staunch supporters of abortion rights can sound like an eerie echo of the other side: “They have a choice — use condoms, get sterilized or keep their pants on.” “They should think about the consequences before they have sex.” (The irony is not lost on men’s choice advocates or pro-lifers.) Yes, some admit, it’s unfair that women still have a choice after conception and men don’t, but biology isn’t fair. As a male friend of mine succinctly put it, “Them’s the breaks.””
I suppose that will happen when men start to carry babies as women do. Sorry, but it is the woman who carries the baby for ~9 months. She is always going to have the final say so as to what happens – as it should be. Women are not baby making slaves to men in that regard. I don’t think you have thought through the logic as to the fundamental reason why the law is logically asymmetrical. It is like you think pregnancy affects men the same way it affects women. It differs in very pertinent and physical ways that are simply too unavoidable to ignore.
Secondly, are you going to answer my question above or are you just trying oddly to change the subject?
“I suppose that will happen when men start tocarry babies as women do. Sorry, but it is the woman who carries the baby for ~9 months. She is always going to have thefinal say so as to what happens – as it should be. Women are not baby making slaves to men in that regard. I don’t think you have thought through the logic as to thefundamental reason why the law is logically asymmetrical. It is like you think pregnancy affects men the same way it affects women. It differs in very pertinent and physical ways that are simply too unavoidable to ignore.”
What you are arguing here is that men and women are different and therefore should have unequal social and legal rights and privileges Yet feminism is based on an equality of social and legal rights and privileges between women. This is a contradiction.
“Women are not baby making slaves to men in that regard.”
Nor should they be. Neither should men be labour-making slaves, pack mules for women and her children, children they never consented t having.
” It is like you think pregnancy affects men the same way it affects women. It differs in very pertinent and physical ways that are simply too unavoidable to ignore.”
I’m not arguing women should be forced to have children, what I’m arguing for here is men have the same CHOICE to abort their parental and financial responsibilities, the same as women do, anything less is unequal.
” I don’t think you have thought through the logic as to thefundamental reason why the law is logically asymmetrical.”
I have thought through the logic, I have clearly set it out in every post.
1) Feminism is about women and men having the same social and legal rights and privileges.
2) Women have the social and legal right to choice when and where to end their financial and parental responsibilities after conception.
3) Men don’t.
4) Thus we have an inequality in social and legal rights and privileges between men and women in this instance.
5) Feminists don’t give a shit about this inequality, therefore one must infer that feminists aren’t pro-equality, they are pro-inequality in favour of women.
“Secondly, are you going to answer my question above or are you just trying oddly to change the subject?”
I did answer it, it was the first paragraph I wrote.
Now you might say, “mwraaagh!i said show proof of a feminist makignt hat exact argument other wise your prior argument is false!”
Well first off, my prior argument was that feminists argue for the condition of inequality in favour of women, that condition will be satisfied if feminists only agitate in favour of removing inequalities that disadvantage women and never in favour of inequalities that advantage women, which is the general case.
Furthermore, your reasoning used in your above post, arguing for unequal social and legal rights and privileges is in itself evidence of that general case.
“Yet feminism is based on an equality of social and legal rights and privileges between women.”
Should be
Yet feminism is based on an equality of social and legal rights and privileges between men and women.
I think you are being a bit naive. Nobody – feminist or otherwise is arguing that there is no physical/biological difference between men and women. The law should apply equally – except where these notable distinctions take place and are germane to the laws at hand. It would be ridiculous for a man or a woman to argue that men should have the final say as to a fairly common biological function that goes on in a woman’s body – that is specific to being a woman. You are looking for some kind of contradiction that nobody who has any basic logical sense would argue against.
Most social and legal situations have nothing to do with pregnancy. If a man litters and is punished then a woman should be held to the same standard for committing the same offense under the law, however, pregnancy by its own nature is asymmetrical in the most simple fact that men do not bear children. It would be foolish to argue as if the distinctions between men and women would not be significant in that case. I have never seen any feminist argue that woman and men are physically exactly the same and significant differences such as pregnancy should be ignored – that does not mean that a woman does not have the same Constitutional rights as any man would have. Don’t be ridiculous.
If that were the case, would you ever use protection during casual sex? Responsibility has to start somewhere. Right? You can’t just get a girl pregnant and then say – oops. Ma bad. And then walk away with her left to raise the baby or abort it (maybe you throw her some cash), simply because you are on record against the live birth.
Logically leaving the ultimate choice to the woman is a way to make sure men who do not want babies are more responsible at trying to take reasonable measures to prevent conception in the first place.
And before you say the woman has responsibility, that is a given – as she will be the one who has to go through the birth or abortion, which has its own costs – mental and physical.
If men were able to have the final say on whether an abortion occurs, then men would be absolved of every consequence to their action while the woman goes through all of the trouble. There has to be some give and take to the law.
“I think you are being a bit naive. Nobody – feminist or otherwise is arguing that there is no physical/biological difference between men and women.”
But they still argue for equal social and legal rights and privileges between men and women.
“The law should apply equally – except where these notable distinctions take place and are germane to the laws at hand.”
Hence men and women should have unequal social rights and privileges in some instances. Hence contradicting the earlier (universal) statement for equal social and legal rights and privileges between men and women.
My, and I believe alot of people in the manospheres anger is over the fact that where such inequalities are allowed to exist in social and legal rights and privileges they are to women’s advantage and men’s disadvantage. Yet in all instances where such inequalities in the social and legal rights between men and women are to a man’s advantage they are under assault by the feminist establishment. If you start from a position of inequality, where each side has rights and privileges that the other side does not, and you only seek to remove the advantageous rights and privileges of one side, then you aren’t in favour of equality, you are in favour of inequality favouring the side of those whose unequal advantages in rights and privileges you do not remove.
“It would be ridiculous for a man or a woman to argue that men should have the final say as to a fairly common biological function that goes on in a woman’s body – that is specific to being a woman.”
I am not arguing that. Women should have the final say in abortion. Instead, what I am arguing is that equality in reproductive choice in this instance can be achieved by giving men the option to remove all financial and parental obligations and rights should they choose to do so before the continuation of the pregnancy It is called a “paper/financial abortion”.
No. That is not an acceptable response. You are merely trying to argue that because “feminists” argue for asymmetrical legal consideration towards pregnancy, then they must think the exact same way about “a group of women fondling and masturbating on an unconscious man isn’t rape and isn’t unacceptable”. You have done nothing at all to support that ridiculous argument.
But that is unequal and contradicts the statement of feminism being for the social and legal equality in rights and privileges between men and women.
Again from above;
“My, and I believe alot of people in the manospheres anger is over the fact that where such inequalities are allowed to exist in social and legal rights and privileges they are to women’s advantage and men’s disadvantage. Yet in all instances where such inequalities in the social and legal rights between men and women are to a man’s advantage they are under assault by the feminist establishment. If you start from a position of inequality, where each side has rights and privileges that the other side does not, and you only seek to remove the advantageous rights and privileges of one side, then you aren’t in favour of equality, you are in favour of inequality favouring the side of those whose unequal advantages in rights and privileges you do not remove.”
It is an exception, but not one inconsistent with logic.
The logic is right there, of course it is inconsistent.
1)Universal claim.
2)Particular instance negating universal claim.
3)CONTRADICTION
If I am not mistaken, the “Universal claim” is your own construction.
Then you agree that feminism is not about equal social and legal rights and privileges between men and women, because the only way for such a statement to be true is for it to be universal.
Again, the “universal statement” is your own construct. I would prefer that you quote a real feminist argument instead of your own to begin with.
Secondly, the subject of pregnancy is something that cannot be treated equally as one person has to physically carry the child and the other does not. The fact that it is a reasonably exceptional case does not negate the viability of the argument that men and women should be treated equally under the law in most or perhaps every other instance.
No. I don’t agree. I don’t think a single reasonable exception invalidates the general idea. You can’t (without reason) yell “fire!” in a crowded theater, but you still have a general right to free speech.
Thus you agree that feminism is not about equality between men and women in social and legal rights and privileges. Instead it is about inequality.
It is unequal in one sense – as it should be – that does not invalidate the rest of it as you seem to believe.
“I don’t think a single reasonable exception invalidates the general idea.”
In logic it does.
In logic it does.
No. It doesn’t. Not if the general idea at hand is a rigid straw man of your own creation.
It is basic logic, A single counter-example contradicts a universal claim.
But I have to say, I’m glad you finally agree with me that feminism isn’t about equality.
It shows great courage and intellectual character on your part. I’m proud of you.
No it does not. By that reasoning, there would be no freedom of speech, because we cannot libel/slander someone or that all men are not created equal – because we are not all the same. These are rhetorical generalities – and I might add – your own construction.
The universal claim in this instance being a straw man.
Rhetoric isn’t logic. In fact, since the time of ancient Greece, rhetoric has been maligned as the tool by which sophists mislead the masses. Glad to see you coming around to the manosphere point of view.
I’m proud of you.
No. I don’t agree with you. Sorry.
“Feminism is about the legal and social equality in rights and privileges between men and women.”
The statement is only a strawman if I misrepresent the opponents position
The only way for me to logically misrepresent the opponents position is for feminism TO NOT be a universal claim to equality about the legal and social equality in rights and privileges between men and women.
Thus proving my point.
It either is a universal claim or it isn’t.
And the thing about universal claims to equality is something can ONLY be equal or unequal.
Look it’s not your fault.
Open up to me. Let me love you.
No. You have a basic misunderstanding of logic. A strawman is an argument that there is no evidence a person has made, it has nothing to do with the negation of that argument – one way or the other.
I don’t watch random youtube videos.
I’m going to go by the definition presented in wikipedia as it’s an open source for everyone to observe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1)Person 1 has position X.
2)Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y.
3)Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
What I am arguing is that in order for Person 1 to have Position X, it has to be something other than Position Y (which is my initial argument).
Now Position Y is a universal claim as to equality. For Position X to be something other than Position Y it can’t be a universal claim as to equality.
Now the logical concept of equality is binary. Something is either equal or unequal. Even just a little but unequal is still unequal. And there is no such thing as a little bit equal, it’s still unequal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equality
Thus for Position X to be something other than Position Y, and Position Y is a universal claim to equality, then Position X must be something other than a universal claim to equality, and since logically speaking equality is binary, Position X must be a claim to (some instance of) inequality.
Which is what I’ve been arguing all along.
Thus the only way for you to prove your argument that my claim is a strawman is to demonstrate that the position I’m misrepresenting is something other than universal equality between men and women, which is what I’ve been arguing all along!
“I like women and I think they should have the same rights as men under the law in most instances.”
Thus in other instances they will have different rights. Hence inequality.
Considering we have demonstrated that what you call “universal equality” is not even possible, I consider the entire point to be moot.
In those instances there will always be inequality as when two people have a conflicting interest, one will win and one will lose. It is a moot distinction.
My original assertion was that feminism wasn’t about equality, which I think I have proved in argument.
I did provide an example of inequality about rape, but I declined to follow up on establishing the truth value of that example since the effort expended to establish such truth was rather high. Thus I switched to the example of reproductive rights as the effort expended to establish the truth value of that example was much lower.
The fact that I switched which examples I went on to prove in the bigger picture doesn’t really matter.
If my argument retained soley to the rape examples than yes, my decision not to establish it’s truth value would be problematic, but that was not my argument. The rape example was merely used to attempt to elucidate my initial argument that feminism isn’t about equality in social and legal rights and privileges between men and women. Due to the fact that this argument is a universal claim to equality the mere fact that I choose not to prove the truth value of one counter-example to it doesn’t matter as long as I can come up with another counter-example which I do prove. Which I did with the reproductive rights example.
FFS Post Dammit
My original assertion was that feminism wasn’t about equality, which I think I have proved in argument.
I did provide an example of inequality about rape, but I declined to follow up on establishing the truth value of that example since the effort expended to establish such truth was rather high. Thus I switched to the example of reproductive rights as the effort expended to establish the truth value of that example was much lower.
The fact that I switched which examples I went on to prove in the bigger picture doesn’t really matter.
If my argument retained soley to the rape examples than yes, my decision not to establish it’s truth value would be problematic, but that was not my argument. The rape example was merely used to attempt to elucidate my initial argument that feminism isn’t about equality in social and legal rights and privileges between men and women. Due to the fact that this argument is a universal claim to equality the mere fact that I choose not to prove the truth value of one counter-example to it doesn’t matter as long as I can come up with another counter-example which I do prove. Which I did with the reproductive rights example.
And I am saying that you are trying to hard to point to an obvious and accepted exception to try to disprove the larger point that is apparently valid – that women should be largely treated as equally under the law as possible, paid the same amount for working the same job and not treated badly from a social perspective. I don’t think you have done anything to take away from that overall message, which I think is worthwhile and definitely about equality.
“If that were the case, would you ever
use protection during casual sex? Responsibility has to start somewhere. Right? You can’t just get a girl pregnant and then say – oops. Ma bad. And then walk away with her left to raise the baby or abort it (maybe you throw her some cash), simply because you are on record against the live birth.
Logically leaving the ultimate choice to the woman is a way to make sure men who do not want babies are more responsible at trying to take reasonable measures to prevent conception in the first place.
And before you say the woman has responsibility, that is a given – as she will be the one who has to go through the birth or abortion, which has its own costs – mental and physical.
If men were able to have the final say on whether an abortion occurs, then men would be absolved of every consequence to their action while the woman goes through all of the trouble. There has to be some give and take to the law.”
Don’t you find it ironic that the exact same arguments were used against the legalisation of abortion? Read the Salon article I linked.
And all of this doesn’t change the fact that feminism isn’t about equality between men and women in social and legal rights and privileges All you are arguing here is that such differences in legal and social rights and privileges are necessary.
Not only are they necessary, but they are unavoidable. Therefore using them to demonstrate supposed inequality is futile. If the rules were the opposite, they would still be unequal (in favor of the other side) and there is no practical middle ground.
I think that is what makes the argument so pointless. For the lions share of law, gender equality is achievable and practical.
Equality of choice with respect to whether one is obligated to take up financial and parental responsibility. Men having a one off chance once being notified of the pregnancy to have a “paper/financial abortion”. This would achieve practical equality in reproductive choice between men and women.
“who may have a conflicting interest, one will win and one will lose.”
Be careful, you’re heading to the dark side here. There is no such thing as right and wrong only power! and all that stuff.
Then you agree with me that feminism is not about equality between men and women in social and legal rights and privileges.
I’m proud of you. Come here and let me hug you!
Just say, “feminism is not about equality” and I will stop and agree with you.
Or better yet say “feminism is about inequality favouring women.”
I agree with all those messages. Women should be largely treated as equally under the law as possible, paid the same amount for working the same job and not treated badly from a social perspective.
(In fact, you could probably characterise me as an equity feminist.)
What I am arguing per se is that feminism is not about equality. And there are instances were feminists will push for (or not against) unequal social and legal rights and privileges that are unfair to men.
Then you’ve never lived.
So if a man doesn’t want the responsibility to be a father, he just signs a piece of paper and perhaps pays some money. What about the real and potential physical damage to the woman? What about the emotional problems/pain? The loss of work regardless of whether she decides to keep it or not? I can’t help but think you are just shifting around the inequality and possibly creating a situation that leads to many more abortions and perhaps much more bastardy.
So feminism isn’t about equality in social and legal rights and privileges between men and women?
(Just say yes….)
Why don’t you ask a feminist? I think feminism is about equality. I just don’t view it as some sort of absolute.
Those exact same arguments can also apply to men who have no say in whether a woman aborts his baby but they don’t seem to hold water there.
Also, she could always just adopt the kid off.
And it still doesn’t change the fact that she has choices of her autonomy that the man doesn’t, and she can legally enslave him into servitude for 18 years, something he can’t do to her.
” I can’t help but think you are just shifting around the inequality and possibly creating a situation that leads to many more abortions and perhaps much more bastardy.”
Actually I think it would lead to less abortions and bastardy.
And who says bastardy is a bad thing. As a bastard I take offence at that!
(You do realise all of your argument here also reduces down to “the end justifies the means?”)
I’m asking you.
Don’t you have an opinion?
I think it is about equality. I just don’t think it is absolute in the sense you are taking it. I don’t think it is presented as such either.
I disagree. I think your proposed change to pregnancy choices would be unfair to women. There is no position in my opinion that would be completely equal to either. I should also note that fair and equal are not interchangeable words.
If it is not universal, then it is not equality, because equality is binary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equality
If it is not equality, then it is inequality.
Thus feminism is about inequality.
MY LOGIC UNASSAILABLE!!! RAWR!!!
So feminism isn’t about equality?
If 99% of the mission is dedicated to equality and 1% is not able to attain equality due to its nature, then you cannot claim that the entire group is about inequality. It is a blatantly false conclusion.
Solely in regards that single exception, that might be a fair statement, but it would be erroneous to claim on the whole.
Uhh no.
If it is not universal, then it is not equality, because equality is binary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…
If it is not equality, then it is inequality.
Thus feminism is about inequality.
Re: Reproductive rights
The best legistlative solution for this is a term developed in the MRM called ‘Legal Paternal Surrender’. Essentially a man gets the 1st trimester of the pregnancy or 2 weeks after he is informed of his paternity to legally cut off all rights or obligations to the fetus. He can never claim a link to the child, but is not listed on the birth certificate or obligated to pay child support. Because the child is still a fetus and thus legally does not have status as a ‘person’, no human rights are infringed. Essentially, men use the same loophole that women use in Roe vs Wade to duck out of obligation before the fetus is considered a baby.
The idea behind it is that women get to know whether the man will be in the picture to help support the raising of the child (financially and ostensibly, emotionally) and still has time to make a fully informed abortion decision.
The concept has received strong support from the MRM and a very lukewarm response from equity feminists. Radfems obviously go batshit.
states the one asking for proofs from his opponents but not doing so himself when asserting such an outrageous claim. Anyone reading this blog and many others in the manosphere knows of trillions of examples showing how feminism is about anything BUT equality.
You can try preaching on Jezebel, but nobody here will believe that kind of propaganda.
If I drank myself unconscious at a party full of gay men, I’d consider myself to have gotten off lightly.
A woman can abort a child that is just as much someone else’s child.
The man has zero rights in that matter. Why is it legal for a woman to kill a child that is ONLY HALF her’s ? Because she bears the child doesnt make it anymore hers.
That is logic.
Feminism isnt about equality.
Chris>Ratatata..Chris wins..
Ratatata goes back to jezebel with tail between legs.
Why doesn’t the man just abort (or give birth to) the half baby that is in his own body? That would solve everything. Oh. Wait. The entire baby is in the woman’s body? Really? That might make things a little bit more tricky. Think about it for a few minutes before making a further fool of yourself.
Ever see anyone passed out drunk get magic marker all over their face, funny clothes and positioning applied, and then pictures taken? I’ve seen that before several times. No one went to jail for it.
Yeah, because there really is no difference at all between marking somebody up with a marker and sexual assault. Is there? SMH…
Fool.
I know a man who has been raped- he passed out, drunk, and a woman had sex with him. He thinks it’s funny. His friends think it’s funny. I thought it was almost something he should be proud of (he got lucky)- and laughed.
In contrast, that would mess a lot of women up emotionally.
Consider men and women as evolved animals. You think women would have evolved to find rape emotionally the same as other sex? Such as sex with a dominating man you are not in terror of? You have no idea how upsetting it is to be sexually assaulted, because you don’t have the biology to be distressed like that. Men can be wonderful, men can be “dangerous” even as they’re fundamentally safe. Or men can be scary. Please tell me the last time a woman terrified you?
I’ve been blackout drunk before. Parties are fun times with friends and sometimes, especially when young, you drink to excess. So what? There is an innocence- a trust of men you’re acquaintances with to not physically abuse you (though you can’t trust them by default in dating and mating- like, trying to lie their way into your panties- obviously, but that’s so different), that would be damaged so much by being treated like that girl was. She hung out with those guys, talked with them, felt safe enough to be that vulnerable (drunk) with them. Then they treated her like garbage. … Your comment is legitimate “slut-shaming”. Getting blackout drunk makes you deserving of sexual abuse? And then they bragged about it. You make feminism look good, man. Those idiots just got one point in my eyes.
Feminism needs to be brought down (and only men like those who make these websites can do it) but not for thinking those guys don’t deserve legal reprecussions for that.
Lastly, a very good read is “The Better Angels of Our Nature:Why Violence has Declined” by Steven Pinker; one chapter in it describes the decline in rape and battering in the West. He’s about as reasonable as an academic can be, it’s based solidly in history and evolutionary psychology, and I think anyone interested in the feminist attack on normal gender relations, economic structures (the old ‘rape is about societal power differences’; that’s why we need to have a wealth transer, etc., to end rape), using rape and violence against women propaganda would find it very interesting; it’s a good background on those things, charting earlier times to the present day politically correct descriptions of rape’s origins, etc. … It made me indescribably grateful for the “original” women’s rights movement and grateful to be alive now. It might give you some perspective, too.
The views you express are the views of the past. Men here probably would have agreed with them in the past. Pinker supposed the idea that they’re the views of men, who cannot get how rape affects women. Quote:
“The callous treatment of rape victims in traditional legal and moral codes may come from more than the ruthless exercise of power by males over females; it may also come from a parochial inability of men to conceive of a mind unlike theirs, a mind that finds the prospect of abrupt unsolicited sex with a stranger to be repugnant rather than appealing. A society in which men work side by side with women, and are forced to take their interests into account while justifying their own, is a society in which this thick-headed incuriosity is less likely to remain intact.” That women can’t understand that men like sex objects also helps explain the PC “rape isn’t about lust” dogma. I already figured that one out myself, having bi tendencies, and so viewing women as sexy “objects” myself, radically different to how I react to men, but the idea in the quotes above was a new idea to me.
Anyway, this was way too long. That is all.
2 years, that’s 1/8th of their lives thus far — gone for fingering some drunk slut at a party. LOL wtf society.
Yeah. What kind of society do we live in where drunk sixteen year old boys can’t finger an unconscious, drunk girl at a party with impugnity? Madison must really be rolling over in his grave.
What kind of society we live in that a girl feels perfectly okay to get blacked out drunk alone at a party with a bunch of horny boys then lock those boys up for 2 years for being drunk horny boys. Your vagina is showing, feminist.
I am pretty sure the charges don’t read “2 years for being drunk and horny”. It is telling that you feel the need to trivialize this.
Drunk and horny boys don’t sit around and sing kumbaya, do they. Nope, drunk and horny boys fuck girls. And just like a typical feminist, you are excusing the girl’s hypergamic sexual impulse while rushing to condemn the boys for following their sexuality.
How exactly is opposing drunk 16 year old boys from fingering/raping an unconscious girl supposed to make me a “feminist”?
You are not doing yourself any favors by euphemistically characterizing your argument in terms of boys “following their sexuality”. I can’t think of anything more insulting to men than that we are simply unthinking beasts who have no responsibility for our actions at all.
You either must be a woman, a fag, or a no-testosterone-having-omega-male (might as well be a feminist) to think that it’s not in men’s sexual nature to fuck young, fertile pussies that are laying out in the open.
At least I would oppose being gang-raped by homosexuals. I suppose I have that going for me. I wonder what that makes you? Not that there is anything wrong with it. Lol.
Once again, once you fail in a logical argument, you make up random stuff for a comeback. Typical woman behavior.
Lol. I love it when you describe what you write as “logical argument”. It is so cute.
Cute? I find it quite amusing your attempt at emasculating your superior, woman.
I find it even more amusing that you think you are superior to anyone. 🙂
” it’s not in men’s sexual nature to fuck young, fertile pussies that are laying out in the open.”
If consensual sex isn’t in men’s nature, why do you have game at all? Why does the huge majority of porn show women *enjoying* sex? Why do the men who rape have something wrong with their brain (as can be seen in brain scans)? And they didn’t even fuck her…they fingered her. Is it in men’s nature to finger a “young, fertile pussy laying out in the open” rather have sex with it?
Yeah they were drunk, but they still fucked up. That’s a human life. The analogy to McDonald’s food disturbs me…we are talking about a person. If I choose, while drunk, to get behind a wheel and end up killing somebody, I still have to take responsibility. Yeah, the girl got drunk, put herself in a dangerous situation, and the idea that girls *should* be able to do that without worrying is a little naive. But how is what she did *worse* than what the guys did?
Is it because men are “following their sexual nature”? You really think all men are NATURALLY rapists…?! I’m pretty sure that’s what the feminists want you to think.
1 out of 5 women orgasms or report stronger orgasms than normal while being raped. The huge majority of porn show women enjoying rough and forced sex, in which they are in a highly submissive and helpless position. Look up Porn Star Punishment. Or look at the 50 Shades Of Grey phenomenon.
It is in men’s nature to fuck fertile pussy and to pick the path of least resistance to get it. It’s not about consent when it comes to girls, it is about resistance. The girl put herself in a position where she was unable to resist the boys’ natural advances should she wanted to. Her fault.
Feminists call men rapists because subconsciously, they themselves want to be raped. But feminists are mistaken in thinking that men can’t control their desires — 99.99% of men can. And you’re right, these boys technically did not “rape” this girl, they were just having some fun with her. In that, they showed great self-control and should’ve been commended instead of punished.
First of all, women report having orgasms while giving birth. It is not necessarily linked to enjoyment of the act – as it is with men. You are projecting.
Secondly, you are basing your views of sexuality based off of porn – which largely caters to male ideas and male fantasies about sex. Sure some women like rough sex and some are curious about it, it is just idiotic to generalize like you do about all women based on such skewed data points.
You have to be pretty young to have the views you do or maybe you have just never been with an actual woman sexually.
50 Shades Of Grey is not male porn, woman. You guys have orgasms while giving birth? You sick fucks.
You really should look into a reading comprehension course. It would do you a world of good.
Says the dumb cunt who couldn’t understand the difference between a joke and factual statement.
You shouldn’t be so hard on yourself.
Standard Feminist Shaming Attempt #17: “you can’t get laid lol”
…as if that actually meant anything substantive. So you see, feminists are not just illogical but also unoriginal. Surprise surprise.
You must be new to the conversation. I am just responding in kind. Keep on with the boring generalizations though. It is interesting that you somehow feel the need to put people into groups. I guess it beats thinking.
“Just responding in kind” is no excuse for bad argumentation, you either take responsibility for what you write or you lose credibility…your choice.
Anyway, if you’re not a feminist I’ll take your word for it, but the thing to remember here is that I can very well point out a flaw in your thinking without thereby co-signing everything your opponent’s written…if there’s one capacity we need more of in this discussion it’s that which pertains to nuance.
I see. You are apparently some kind of coward. That’s fine with me. You can overlook the countless times I have oddly been called a “cunt” on this board to pretend as if you know how I think. I suppose your attempt at strangely mind reading me is some kind of example of high minded debate, when it is just as cheap as anything else I have seen written here. I suppose you are not so interested in credibility yourself.
So I’m a coward for expecting you to stand behind what you wrote instead of trying to clumsily fumble responsibility onto someone else? As I said, surprise surprise.
But just to reiterate, other people’s choice of rhetoric doesn’t absolve you from making a fallacious argument (“lol lyk u dont have sex”). If you can’t understand a simple facet of discussion such as this, and prefer to reflexively resort to ad hominems yourself, it speaks volumes about the value of your contributions.
Maybe the next time you decide to parachute into a thread and patronize people as to how to engage in a discussion, you can try to actually practice the very principles you at least ostensibly seem to espouse.
I’m still confused as to why it’s “her fault” when she was following her nature, as you’ve stated, but the boys bear no responsibility for following their nature (but, allow me to repeat, they weren’t really following their nature as you’ve said, since they didn’t even have sex with her).
Not sure if you’re aware of the outcome of the case, but the boys bore ALL of the responsibility for their sexual nature and the girl bore NONE for hers.
It was her fault as in: if she did not want the boys to act out their sexual nature, then she should never have followed hers.
No passed out drunk slut = no finger in vagina.
But if they stopped it they would be white knight betas!
Exactly. This article was spot on except for trying to pass off the Steubenville incident as something that wasn’t horrible. That whole situation was fucked up and to say otherwise makes it easy for feminists and manginas to gloss over the other good points in this article. How are we supposed to show that we’re actually in the right when we laugh off or defend shit that is blatantly wrong?
I agree with you Jimmy, As much I think those guidelines in the article are stupid, we shouldn’t act like the way things went down in Stubbenville was messed up.
Chick shouldn’t have drank herself into a stupor but noone should have put hands on her like that.
i think we can agree that the guidelines are ludicrous without acting like it wasnt as big a deal as it was made.
youre missing the point. to feminists, this is a black and white story about how men are amorphous blobs ready to be shaped by their culture, and that they are trained to view women as inhuman. if only we would let the gentle hand of feminism sculpt us blobs into men with ‘healthy masculinity’, incidents like this would cease. but the woman herself is not in any way responsible for what happened.
what the boys did was worse. the girl merely did something foolish, but the boys did something violent; and that is why they will go to jail. but just because the greater portion of blame goes to them does not mean she didnt bring about her own misfortune. feminists dont want to admit that because they dont actually care about preventing rape: they are using it as a tool to push their ideology.
the reality that women are sometimes their own worst enemy and not just innocent victims nailed to a cross by ‘rape culture’ or ‘patriarchy’ is the reason this is ‘too complicated’ for feminists, not because it was ok.
PS everyone is threatening that if we dont buy into their narrow vision of what the manosphere should be, that we will die off: at this point the only thing certain to kill the manosphere would be if the internet quit working, you shouldnt believe the empty threats about if we dont accept this or that commonly accepted viewpoint we will go extinct or ‘lose’.
I agree with you 100%. And to further your last point, such threats (that if one doesn’t conform, one will “die” or be “expelled from the group”) are an offshoot of the same “Politically Correct” nonsense proliferated by those who find it easier to make ad-hominem arguments instead of acknowledging the autonomy and freedom of the individual to express themselves and their own autonomy as separate from the group they identify with. In short, they’re female, or men endowed with (too) much (in my opinion) of the female element. But alas, I’m (sexist, hypocritical, and) biased!!
In any case, I believe we should celebrate everyone’s view especially in those instances where there is no task to be completed/deadline/agenda, and we’re caught up in the rapture of “being for our-self”.
If the roles were reversed and a boy had gotten sloppy drunk and been sexually violated by a group of girls nobody in the cunt media would have called him a ‘rape victim’, nobody would have called the girls ‘rapists’ and the girls wouldn’t even have been charged with a crime let alone have their names and faces publicly exposed in a lynch-mob circus fashion.
The fact that you even call the sloppy drunk slut a RAPE victim speaks volumes about how brain-washed you are by our always-place-the-burden-on-men-and-never-hold-women-accountable feminist culture. Rape should have a very strict and specific definition of penis insertion into the vagina or butt hole. Anything short of that is NOT rape.
The biggest lie here is how clueless you are to the complete joke as this case would be treated if the genders of the sexual violator and sexually violated were reversed. I’m just here to expose your weak-minded feminist hypocrisy which you share with this society and cunt media.
Stay classy!
Why hasn’t this Troll been banned yet?
Good question, but you would have to be a very selective reader to single out old Muktar.
There was a CDC or NIH study that showed that a large majority of women have rape fantasies. Google, the corporate white knight, appears to have buried it. It used to be prominently visible now I cannot find it anywhere. If someone can find a link to it, please post it below.
Every time a man is falsely convicted, he faces at least a decade in prison and assault from other prisoners for the simple crime of being a man.
Honor, integrity, and fidelity are masculine qualities women cannot relate so they trample them underfoot. Yet, we have handed nature’s most amoral creatures the keys to our kingdom. We have given them the right, the means, and the motivation to destroy honorable men with vicious (and false) accusations while hiding behind shield laws and a phalanx of manginas.
We owe it to our sons, our brothers, and ourselves to expose and eliminate the misandrous evil of false rape accusations.
So if women do indeed have rape fantasies, would that make all rape okay? I would think that even the rapists in such scenarios are idealized/romanticized in some way. Do rape fantasies come anywhere near rape realities either?
Have you ever had any dangerous/violent fantasies? If so, would that violence and danger be somehow justified in real life?
1 out of 5 rape victims report achieving orgasms and stronger orgasms than normal. Now digest that, feminist.
That’s probably a much higher ratio than you have ever experienced. 😉
Once again, in the face of facts and logic, you hide behind your ad hominem and conjectures.
Lol. You seem to believe you have some sort of special dispensation to give out ad hominems, conjectures and I will add generalizations. You can dish it out, but when it is returned, you complain crying like a little child.
You seem to be implying that such a statistic and the similarly idiotic point you made above about having rape fantasies somehow validates sexual assault. For one thing, cite your source if you’re going to throw about such stats! Secondly, if the orgasm stat is valid (and I have a strong suspicion that your reporting of it and/or the actual study is flawed), I suspect the same may be true of men who get raped. Therefore, if you’re going to argue that women somehow ‘want” rape citing 1 in 5 having orgasms, you’d have to say that men want anal rape too. Good luck with that one.
Apologies as you (Carson) weren’t the one who posted about rape fantasies. My mistake, but my point about careless use of stats still stands.
It doesn’t even matter if the study is flawed or not. The conclusion drawn is based on premises that don’t support said conclusion.
Orgasm is not a completely controlled bodily function in fact it takes a lot of practice in order to control orgasm effectively. If a women orgasms during rape it does not imply that she wanted it that is just being ignorant of biology.
Women and men want to be raped like they want to be dominated against their will… hur durr durr durrr If you want to fulfill rape fantasies then you should use safe words in a controlled environment.
Google is your friend. Look it up for yourself.
LOL @ thinking men can cum from getting ass raped. Go learn human anatomy, retard.
Who gives a shit, her body was obviously turned on enough to cum. Women’s consciousness rarely, if ever, agrees with their natural/sub-conscious sex-drive the way men are.
Carson, some men very much DO ejaculate during anal rape. You need to Google THAT.
http://voices.yahoo.com/sexual-arousal-male-victims-rape-1504019.html?cat=7
Why do you think men can’t ejaculate from anal rape but women can orgasm from vaginal rape?
Those guys were obviously faggots.
But seriously, the key word in that article was “can” in the hypothetical sense. I have yet to come across a statistic or testimonial of a straight male who orgasmed or even had an erection while being anally raped. My search on the female equivalent, however, yielded page after page or results.
Also that last question showed me that you need to study basic human anatomy just like the other person who asked.
Your implied reasoning here lost me. While this is true, what you are implying is vile, and wrong. Even if your goal is just to anger feminists, you are also losing any integrity you started with.
And the 4 out of 5 that remain? Oh right, you’re talking out your ass.
SOME women may fantasize about being raped, which does not mean that they want to be raped in reality. And then, what about the ones who don’t fantasize about being raped – oh, right – this statistic says some percent of women do, so you don’t count. Or you don’t exist. So according to that, every woman wants to be raped, after all, she can’t prove to anyone what she does or doesn’t fantasize about.
Not that it matters. No one (male or female) should be subjected to rape, no matter what they fantasize about.
Also, if it’s okay to rape a person because they fantasized about rape, is it okay to charge someone with murder because they fantasized about killing someone?
Nobody here has implied that. Nice reading skills…
What do you think Mark meant by conflating ideas that women enjoy being dominated and somehow frequently falsely convict (non-)rapists? Are you able to form any inferences on your own?
Are you able to use your brain to realize that other inferences can be made from those two ideas or that the fact that they were in the same post not does mean that a third idea should be inferred from combining those two?
I am only concerned with the inferences that I make. I can’t make the ones that someone apparently without a functioning cerebral cortex like yourself would not make.
how can you be so willfully obtuse? what is the rhetorical point then!??? “woman secretly want it?” seems to be the only possible inference
Why should he, when this argument has degenerated into farce?
Nice strawman argument you’ve got going there, Miss MouseMouseMouse.
Women love to be dominated sexually. Women know this, red pillers know this, most judges and politicians do not. When a woman screams date raaaape or sex by surprise, blue pillers take her word at face value and slam the jailhouse door on the hapless man who did no such thing.
Revealing women’s scientifically proven natural preference for sexual domination will help dispel the myth of female chastity. Feminists like you with your fantasy masculinized moniker do not want anyone to reveal what’s behind the curtain.
Also, quick proposal, we need to stop playing the feminist’s game:
First step: stop calling unmarried women Ms (it’s Miss); and married women are Mrs. If she’s married, use her husband’s last name; no double-barreled names like Rodham-Clinton.
Being “dominated sexually” with consent and being “raped” are two different things. If you can’t figure that out, I am sure you will unfortunately learn it in prison. I hope you figure it out before then.
PS You may want to look up the word “straw man”. It doesn’t seem to mean what you think it does.
Miss MouseMouseMouse. I know exactly what it means and you just did it again with your chick logic. Address the real argument; don’t invent one then knock it down.
You’re a lesbo; you don’t enjoy the company of men so you equate sex with assault. But you don’t have penis you will never experience what it’s like to make a woman go wild the natural way. Your anger and frustration are evident.
I did not “invent” an argument as you claim. I originally just asked you a few questions. No straw man anywhere in my first post that you complained about. Perhaps you should quote where you believe I misrepresented your argument and save us some trouble. Thanks.
You are an emotional alarmist. You are not here to debate, you are here to raise strawmen non-arguments you pulled out of your ass. Nobody on here said anything close to the bullshit you keep imagining you feminist cunt. As usual, this bitch is projecting your psychotic fantasies onto men.
No need to get hysterical, Chris. Calm down and take your meds.
Yes, your questions were not oriented at all and not written in such a way as to imply that he believed rape was okay because women have rape fantasies… That’s where the straw man was. The fact that you’re unable to see it or admit that the way your questions were framed was basically to misrepresent Mark’s position is telling…
You also imply that “being ‘dominated sexually’ with consent and being “raped” are (not) two different things” is somehow the jist of Mark’s post when in fact his post has nothing to do with such an assertion. You basically write what you write for absolutely no reason other than to misrepresent Mark’s position. Once again, that is the textbook definition of a straw man (you obviously are really confused about the meaning of that expression so I would advise YOU to look it up…).
Again. you have no apparent idea what a straw man is. Asking someone to clarify their stance is not a straw man. You may not have read that in the poster’s remarks and you may be an amazing mind reader for all I know, however that does not make asking questions some form of straw man.
I think the fact that the poster was either uninterested or unable to answer the questions without throwing a tantrum and making the false claim of a “straw man” all the response I needed.
Thanks.
You are using “faulty reasoning” in your arguments (which, among other things, to my mind, leads me to believe you are a female; do women often visit sites like these?). Straw man arguments happen when you oversimplify or distort someone’s position so that you can easily attack it (or in the case of women/feminism, garnish support for your ideology over and against competing perspectives and world views. Similar to this are Red Herring arguments which happen when you raise an completely irrelevant issue during an argument (Ann Coulter is famous for this: And she’s a woman! Go figure.).
You are just using some of the language of reasoning without actually bothering to make a decent argument. You make vague claims of some supposed “straw man” without demonstrating how you think I have used them. You make vapid generalizations and weak analogies about women. You seem to think that my gender has anything to do with my argument – which is just ad hominem nonsense. Your post is simply a mess, but I will give you a “like” out of pity.
“Being dominated sexually with consent and being raped are two different things.”
That is valid, at least based on the definitions I understand.
No one has claimed being dominated sexually with consent is the same as rape so yes, Ratatatat you are using a straw man argument.
yes you did.
“Being dominated sexually with consent and being raped are two different things.”
No one said they were the same.
Stop being a fool.
i’m confused, why did he bring up women having rap fantasies at all?
i have a philosophy degree and you have no idea what a strawman arguement is, you just know how to play FALLACY BINGO in internet debates. you are committing what is called “the fallacy fallacy” (even though you wrongfully identified ratatatat’s argument). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
what point is casually alluding to the fact the CORPORATE WHITE KNIGHTS GOOGLE BURIED THIS RAPE SURVEY have to do with anything? what’s the whole point of his first paragraph is not to imply “but most bitches want it/only complain after the fact”. It’s an obvious rhetorical device, and your feigned ignorance of “oh you stupid slut, learn to read and take some logic classes!” is disgusting.
also the “oh you’re being emotinoal” and “chick logic”, “Miss MouseMouseMouse” are just too funny, too obviously parodic. how old are you that you’ve never heard of the band ratatatat? 8? 80?
This is a SERIOUS issue.
How dare you trivialise it into a power game, for your own selfish emotional gratification.
Innocent men are being jailed due to lies. Innocent boys are taught their own nature is flawed.
Take it from a woman then-
your not fooling anyone with your attempts at rhetoric. These are educated men, who understand classical dialectical /rhetorical argument.
You will learn-men have been taught how to battle for far longer than women, and they at least, have a sense of what is a fair fight.
If you think a woman , especially a woman with no reason can beat this, with emotional games, your in for a serious well deserved reality check.
She will no doubt, now complain how abusive you are, after she spits on having a fair, unbiased discussion.
Someone hasn’t read her history on war. She deserves what she gets.
They do. (And if I had any sense, I’d keep quiet.
I just want to support justice. Sorry. )
If you understood the terms, you would never ask for “a decent argument.”
I’ve noticed this about Google too and mentioned it here and elsewhere. We all need to put such stories in our favorites and post links whenever possible.
Googling up stats without knowing the source of the study- who did it, how they did it, the direct results- means any stats can be cooked up. They prove nothing without direct understanding of how to do this, also.
“Honor, integrity, and fidelity are masculine qualities women cannot relate so they trample them underfoot.”
I really do despair for someone who would seriously make such a statement with conviction. I won’t really bother to ask how you came to the conclusion that those qualities are solely masculine (instead of human) and that women, by virtue of being women, cannot relate to them. One thing I will ask though is this: how would you expect anyone of sound mind, adequate education and intellect to not think you a deluded victim of ignorance for making such a baseless and clearly irrational statement?
I will lend weight to the original statement:
“Honor, integrity, and fidelity are masculine qualities women cannot relate so they trample them underfoot.”
Women are amoral, and therefore, by nature, incapable of honor or integrity or fidelity.
Sucks, but that’s life.
The only thing that matters to her is, does her offspring survive better? And it’s not conscious. It’s the reptilian Id.
Don’t ask why fire burns…
A look at history shows, men are the originators of the source of these, usually embodied in a society to support and teach them to other men. Freemasonry is a example.
Women have only been enslaved by their biology, up to recent times. For the most part, almost all cultural restrictions on women have been because of a biological fact, women bear children. Because women are valued.( Yes, there are crimes against women, but for the most part women have been protected, by MEN for good reason.)
Men, thru history have been enslaved by other men, used as war fodder, while always unselfishly supporting the continuance of the human race.
Men created the societies that Honour these values for a reason. To make other men better.
Honour is a male virtue. It is because of good reason. To truly understand Honour ( and attendant values ) one must be a MAN.
These have been upheld by men, because of THEIR own biological enslavement.
If you can’t grasp this as a women, you do not understand the role of Testosterone in men’s biological makeup, nor a large part of history and why it is such.
It is a hidden truth, men are the oppressed sex.
Still.
Feminists breathe the Teacher, Rules, Tattling meme in everything they write. The recent Adrian Richards affair is a classic example.
And not in a good way. I mean “schoolgirl heaven” and all that…
“4. Teach young men to believe women and girls who come forward:”
Given that 99.9% of women in the west openly condone perjury if a man actually BELIEVES a womans story without evidence then he is a fool. Women lie their heads off in the family courts and ALL the other women know about this perjury.
When was the last time you saw a woman demand a woman who committed perjury was punished? That’s right. NEVER in the west.
“5. Teach males about bystander intervention:”
Why don’t women teach other women about bystander intervention when women are using children as weapons against their fathers to destroy the fathers life? Oh? No…we don’t want to talk about THAT bystander intervention.
My wife committed the crime of perjury on November 8th 2007. TENS OF THOUSANDS of women know about this crime of perjury. TENS OF THOUSANDS of women are “bystanders” to that crime. How many have PUBLICLY CONDEMNED my ex, Jennifer Toal, for her crimes of perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse.
ZERO.
How many women have PUBLICLY APPLAUDED the fact that she was given 95% of assets in a clear crime to attempt to stop my project of re-introducing the rule of law into Ireland and Australia. THOUSANDS.
How many women have committed the further crime against me of slander?
THOUSANDS.
And western women wonder why I label them as liars and hypocrites in the 99.9% majority. I sure wish a few young men would assist older guys like me who are standing up for THEIR FUTURES. After all, re-introducing the rule of law will most benefit young men. You have longer to live and longer to benefit from the re-introduction of the rule of law. And certainly your fathers and grand fathers don’t care about you and have betrayed your futures by not holding women accountable for their crimes.
It is up to young men to hold women accountable for their crimes or you are VERY likely to become one more victim of the crimes of women such as the lad above killed because of a false rape allegation. Do not be thinking your mothers or you father care about you one little bit. Tens of thousands of your mothers and fathers have been directly asked to sit on new juries in new courts to hold criminal women accountable for their crimes. They won’t do it in any numbers at all. They have betrayed you young men and it is about time someone like me pointed that out to you.
So you young men have to decide for yourselves. Will you live in fear of being criminally victimised by a woman? Or will you agree to sit on new juries in new courts and hold women criminals accountable for their crimes? Will you agree to be peace officers and seize the property of convicted criminals so as to make remedy payments to men who are victims of crimes? If you will not do these things like your cowardly fathers and grand fathers? Then you can have no complaints about being criminally victimised by lying women.
All women have to do to emasculate a man (most of them) is to give them sex. That’s it. I’m dead serious that sex, the better it is, the more it clouds a man’s judgment. And maybe he likes it like that, some others don’t.
It’s hard to deal with being being lied too so much that you eventually don’t even know what the difference is between a truth and a lie. Men will eat it up if a woman who’s giving them good sex professes their love and appreciation for them. Way too easy
Thanks a lot for this article.
Feminism is not a moral movement (it hasn’t been one since suffrage ended), it is a pragmatic amoral movement, where every calamity and controversy is an avenue towards more power to their side. It’s why Limbaugh calling a woman a “slut” is translated as a “declaration of war” on women. It’s why “drunk boys fingering a drunk girl” is “animals in the body of men raping a drunk innocent little girl.” It’s why joking about f*cking (forking and dongling) women in a private conversation is translated to sexual harassment. It’s why the fact that men dominate STEM fields is primarily due to SEXISM, yet the fact that women dominate the fields of psychology and social services is due to PROGRESS.
Feminism is pure propaganda, plain and simple, no wonder they choose empathy and victim-hood over logic and reason, which are the only tools human beings have to combat propaganda and expose deception and misdirection. Under the rules of empathy and victim-hood, whoever is the most emotional (whoever has the best propaganda) has the upper hand and has to be bowed down to. Under the rules of logic and reason, it is whoever has the most proof which is in-sync with reality, who has the upper hand. Thankfully, logic and reason always beat out victim-hood and empathy; we as men, just have to stay loyal to them and we’ll see the results for themselves.
In the end, this will only stop when we pick up guns and start shooting. Just sayin.
It’s just another creeping attempt at associating anything bad done by some men, to all men.
Meanwhile, if a woman suffers someplace, then it’s magnified as misogyny against all women (which is the fault of all men).
would def. bang
It is in women’s mating strategy to emasculate men. It is how they know which one is alpha and which is beta. Feminism is just a giant shit test on the social scale. And a great deal of our brothers are failing.
The faggots who say “would bang” must’ve never been touched by a woman before. Jesus Christ.
Then again, you seemed to embrace the idea of being gang raped by homosexuals. I suspect you have a little bit of a different view of sex from the rest of us (purely) heterosexual males.
I guess my logic WAS too much for you, for not once did I embrace “being gang raped by homosexuals” so much as sexual responsibility — action and consequences — something dumb feminists can’t seem to grasp.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t care that you are apparently unopposed to receiving gay sex. It just means your view of whether you find a woman attractive or not does not carry much weight with me. I am sure you understand.
Wow. Typical feminist, unable to recognize a joke even when it’s slapping her right across the face.
Even if I was being serious, notice how nowhere in that sentence did I embrace the act of being raped by homos. Is this reading comprehension fail or logic fail? Or both?
More like a typical heterosexual – again. Nothing wrong with homosexuality if that is your bag.
I can see your vagina from here, feminist. You can’t fool me.
Good for you, sport.
You’re one step closer to finally admitting that you’re a woman trolling on the grounds of men. Come on, you might as well do it already.
You’re obsession over gender is a tacit admission that you have no argument.
How desperate are you feminists to pretend like you’re a different gender to attempt to troll people who are far more intelligent than you? Don’t you know that the deluded hamsterizing of your kind is extremely recognizable to us?
Weren’t you just crying about ad hominems and personal attacks? Have you no sense of irony? I love to read your posts by the way. You are so funny – even if it is apparently unintentional.
Your vagina wet’s because I’m completely dominating you.
Well you do have good taste, but no thanks. I am straight and conscious. The first one excludes you, the second one would seem to exclude me.
Stupid article but she is very pretty lady.
Chapelle said it best:
Whoops that wasn’t the chapelle vid…
A drunken women is diddled and it’s a tragedy. A guy gets raped, it’s comedy:
” The dehumanization of women spans all areas of American life.” No it fuckin doesn’t!
This is why more and more nice men are taking the red pill – because they are under appreciated and being compared to hard criminals. Would bang.. with a car.
Man: I would like to push you against the wall and make-out passionately with you then proceed to intercourse. Please confirm your consent with a passionate yes.
Woman: Yes! I consent to what you have just stated. You may proceed.
— A Romance Movie if written by Zerlina Maxwell
All these dudes saying they would bang this broad have got to be trolling or old horny dudes with no game. While she is admittedly more attractive than the typical fat, man jawed, pale, bull dyke looking feminist, this particular female does not pass my boner test.
4.5/10- Would not bang.
5 ways we can teach criminals not to murder
1. Teach criminals the difference between murder and manslaughter
2. Teach criminals about which states execute murderers
3. Teach criminals to see their victims humanity
4. Teach criminals how to channel healthy expressions of homicidal rage
5. Teach criminals about concealed carry laws and cctv
The fact that you are calling them criminals before they actually commit a crime is exactly what these women are doing when they call men rapists who have never, will never condone, and more then likely will never commit “a crime”. Let alone rape. Furthermore, if they are in fact “criminals” then what makes people think they give a fuck about the law? To be a criminal means you have been caught breaking the law.
‘”A woman who is drunk, unconscious or sleeping cannot give legal consent.” … The idea of erotic resistance and a woman’s tendency to resist sex in general is obviously ignored … .’
So you classify unconciousness as erotic resistance?
I dont have time to read it now; but clearly its biased. I wonder if you dont you know that nobody for any cause will be able to descredit masculinity? xD (and surely Im not taking about the version of masculinite that you can have)
I will give you a good definition of masculinity. Its what is necessary to protect and provide for your family; what is necessary to keep your wife in her pleace and maintain an integrate family for all your life.
number 4 is bs…sometimes they lie to get sympathy and manipulate u….one lied to me to fuck with my head as a teen
Feminist stuff or not, you must never forget that in a court of law, legally, if either person is drunk, they can not legally give consent for sex. Therefore, rape. So when you and your wife get blasted on New Years and have drunk sex before passing out, you’ve both legally, technically raped eachother. Dumb, right? But legally speaking, especially if you’re hitting up chicks in clubs, always remember that. Wouldnt’ want to end up in court with a rape charge just because you were dumb enough to bang a drunk chick.
“Quick question – if a woman is driving drunk and crashes into someone
else, how come defense attorney’s cannot use the defense of “she was
drunk and therefore could not consent to crashing her car?””
Because she is the perpetrator in this scenario?
Yes, I’d bang… With dynamite. 😀
Shove it in with a lit fuse… Who wants dark meat?
(Yeah, I might get banned, but it’s tongue-in-cheek.)
You guys are f’in scary, delusional and possible offenders yourselves!
Targeting innocent young men and boys, by “Teaching them how not to rape” ( as I found is a major campaign “idea” online )
is victimising and utterly obscene. My god.
How NOT to rape. Its a crime of violence. Not sex!
What about the women who do it?! I KNOW they do, because Ive been privy to tales by someone close. You never hear about this, never. Its criminal.
Men feel they can’t speak up, because the witches will literally, RUIN their lives. No one believes them.
Insanity. Totally unfair. Inhumane.
And I speak as someone who has. I know how it feels to be silent about it.( Disability, esp. mental issues can mean you have no voice.)