Feminism or death?
Here’s the entirety of a recent post by an MRA who calls himself Snark:
Uh, dude, I think you’ve confused “feminists” with “Daleks.”
Our new friend Fidelbogen thought this was such a brilliant idea he devoted a post to it himself, declaring:
Such economy, such concision. …
Really now, we wouldn’t go far wrong to make our rhetoric revolve around this above all, and very little more. The saying is deceptively simple, for it goes deep and reaches into many corners.
It puts them on the spot, and nails them there.
I knew Fidelbogen was a bit of a pompous doofus, but this is a whole new level of stupidity for him. I don’t even know what to say about something this idiotic.
Also, check out the comments to Snark’s piece. There’s something about potatoes you kind of have to see to believe.
Posted on September 22, 2011, in antifeminism, idiocy, MRA, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 1,516 Comments.
Make a rape complaint that fails to get a conviction and the woman is supposed to be sentenced to the maximum possible sentence the accused man could have gotten.
I actually don’t agree with this. She should be charged with perjury if the complaint was made maliciously, otherwise (mistaken identity etc) just compensate the man.
Because nothing is more heinous than to have a charged with rape, and then acquitted, while the lying bitch gets off scot free.
I wonder if you’d maintain the same cavalier attitude if you had your career and life ruined by a false rape accusation, where even after you were acquitted some people still believed you did it and your ‘reputation’ preceded you everywhere.
She has distinguished herself by prosecuting numerous cases of rape and domestic violence against men within her community based on no evidence, suppressing exculpatory evidence, and in 2011 – apparently participating in witness tampering.
That is itself a lie, that comes from an MRA blog. Which illustrates the point: they are simply harassing and tarnishing someone they don’t like, making shit up about her. By the way: the case over which MRA’s are saying she should be disbarred is one where the appellate court specifically found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the defendant guilty.
Now you’re just muddying the issue. Do I really have to recall Amanda Marcotte’s reaction to the Duke case, which was subsequently taken down? The point is that feminists automatically assume a man accused of rape is guilty and treat him as such, sometimes even after he’s exonerated, while false rape accusers are always given the benefit of the doubt. Do you deny this?
Yes, I do deny this. Not automatically assuming that the victim is a liar or deserved to get raped isn’t tantamount to assume that the accused is guilty. Moreover, believing that the accused did it is not the same as claiming that there is legally sufficient evidence to hold him criminally liable. I know this is a distinction that MRA’s ignore, but then, MRA’s aren’t the brightest knife in the drawer (nor are they ever honest).
Hengist: People who did it are frequently acquitted, so there is nothing wrong with “some people” believing that you are a rapist. You are not entitled to a universally positive public opinion of you. Lots of people despise me for being a woman and a Jew; I don’t go around demanding that they should be jailed or executed.
I knew notorious feminist stronghold dontdatehimgirl would come up!
But you think that’s a bad thing, right? You hate it, right? You think it’s totally unfair for private citizens to be exposing people who weren’t convicted of crimes to ridicule and possible harassment?
So why is it any fucking better when you guys do it?
Unless you think dontdatehimgirl is a super spiffy idea (and I don’t, for the record) shouldn’t you be arguing that nobody should be compiling public hit lists “registries” on people they don’t like?
Obviously I’d like everyone to be a feminist, same as I’d like everyone to be anti-racist, gay-friendly, tolerant of other religious beliefs, cool to handicapped people, etc. But I’m aware that bigots exist, they have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they don’t physically attack the objects of their hate, and my opinion of them has zero bearing on their lives. So, yeah, I guess I recognize the right to existence of people who are not feminists.
There’s a weird magical thinking here, isn’t there? Like if I didn’t recognize someone’s “right to existence,” they’d wink out of sight and rematerialize in the Fringe universe or something.
Hengist: It says she has abused her office, violated the canon of ethics for the bar, broken federal law on Brady (that would be withholding exculpatory evidence), engaged in witness tampering…
Those are accusations of lawbreaking.
The point is that feminists automatically assume a man accused of rape is guilty and treat him as such, sometimes even after he’s exonerated, while false rape accusers are always given the benefit of the doubt. Do you deny this?
I do. In part because what you call, “false rape accuser” is often merely, “he wasn’t convicted”. Which is a very different thing.
As to the first part, there is nothing which requires anyone to think someone didn’t do it, just because no charges were filed, or because they were acquitted, by way of example I offer O.J. Simpson (whom, let it be said; for the record, I think did not kill his ex-wife, or, if he did, he cannot have acted alone; even in the latter condition is true, there is no way a jury of honest people could have convicted him, based on the evidence presented).
It seems to be coming up over and over, but shit, I will never understand the logic that goes:
“Feminists do X, which is disgusting. Therefore, I fully support MRAs who do X!”
Even if feminists actually did X, which 90% of the time isn’t true anyway, it’s still so broken.
True story: I had a 14 year old girl tell people I was stalking her.
Mind you, I didn’t know who she was. She said that, in a public event we both worked, where there were thousands of people, and a dozen or so in the group she performed with, I spent weeks showing up to pressure her,and steal kisses; all when no one else was around.
There were people who believed it. There was one I thought was going to physically attack me (this was how I found out about it). It cost me friends (or perhaps people I thought were my friends, or perhaps some of both). I spent a few years wondering who, among my acquaintance might have heard of it, who might believe it.
I heard stories of things I was supposed to have done. I was asked, for a number of years, to not work the event.
Guess what, I still believe what I said above.
Obviously I’d like everyone to be a feminist, same as I’d like everyone to be anti-racist, gay-friendly, tolerant of other religious beliefs, cool to handicapped people, etc.
If you aren’t a feminist are you against feminism? I don’t think so. It could be the case that you just don’t care. What about those people?
But I’m aware that bigots exist, they have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they don’t physically attack the objects of their hate, and my opinion of them has zero bearing on their lives. So, yeah, I guess I recognize the right to existence of people who are not feminists.
Just not to “physically attack” but everything else is ok?
“there is nothing wrong with “some people” believing that you are a rapist.”
If that’s what you really think, I don’t see any point to continuing this.
At least he was magnanimous enough to boil the potatoes first? Or does part of his nefarious plan include making the woman in question peel and boil the potatoes herself first? What if there’s a potato famine? Would yams be substituted? Or apples? Or, in the case where food in general is scarce, tennis balls? Can one submit suggestions for the projectiles? Like, if I put in a petition and get enough support, can it be lightly steamed broccoli? Or gelatin-free jello? Does she get a turn pelting him afterwards?
That is an example. One. Can you prove this is a widespread thing in the movement?
We can wait.
So I looked up this Vladek Fuller case that Kellett prosecuted because after a Google search of her name this appears to be the main case that MRAs are angry about, and I’m confused about how this constitutes flagrant harassment of this man and suppression of evidence:
You got that? The prosecutor moved to have the custody dispute barred from the case, and the JUDGE ruled on it. Furthermore, it was the defense attorney who again brought up the custody dispute during his closing arguments, which left the door open for Kellett in her rebuttal to say that there was no evidence of a custody dispute. So again, how is it prejudicial for a prosecutor to rebut something that the DEFENSE brought up??? That’s kind of how court works, folks.
http://bangordailynews.com/2010/10/04/news/high-court-grants-retrial-in-gouldsboro-rape-case/
Hengist:
Among feminists, rape accusers are generally given the benefit of the doubt, if you want to phrase it that way. I’ve never seen any protection or encouragement specifically given to false accusers. If anything, feminists come down quite harshly on women who falsely claim to have been raped. Your confusion stems, I think, from the definition of “false accusation” many feminists use. It’s narrower than the one MRAs often use, in that it excludes simple acquittals.
Blitzgal: Don’t bother. None of them read any court decisions in this case, despite their availability online for free. They prefer to just read each other’s blogs on it. Next thing you know, it’s a “fact” that Kellet’s favorite dish is roast baby.
@Holly
Nah, he gave that up after we kept poking him with sticks.
And by “poking him with sticks” I mean “requesting he back up his arguments with facts, studies or even some sort of coherant logic that isn’t ‘wymym iz ebil!'”
He also made a challenge here, to me, and then ignored it, for about two hours, while he was vigorously defending other points in the cosmetics thread. It seems that women letting men harass them is more important than stopping false rape/malicious prosecution of men.
Perhaps that’s because he know the one happens more than the other.
@Shaenon
As an atheist, do I haaaaave tooo?
I’m confused about the whole concept of “right to existance.” (Existence? Spell check does not object to either spelling.) I don’t think anybody has a “right” to existance. They just… exist. Or they don’t, in which case it doesn’t really matter, does it?
Rabbit – I think it’s supposed to mean “right to not have their existence terminated.”
Which I believe murderers have, so fuck, non-feminists? Ask me a tricky one, like people who fart in elevators on purpose.
I know, and I’m sure the facts are just going to be ignored anyway, but it’s frustrating to see such blatant lying without responding to it.
““Feminists do X, which is disgusting. Therefore, I fully support MRAs who do X!””
Really, this makes sense if one recognizes the core of MRA philosophy: “Man = Good, Woman = Eeeeeeeeeeeevil and lazy yet somehow in control of everything.”
What can I say? Hang out around crazy enough, and you start to get it. Not “get it” as in, “I agree with them!”, more like, “Ok, this is nuts…but it’s not longer confusing.”
As an atheist, do I haaaaave tooo?
As an atheist myself, I count non-belief in there.
“Ask me a tricky one, like people who fart in elevators on purpose.”
They shouldn’t exist, right up there with people who don’t signal when changing lanes.
And you know what? Amanda Marcotte’s response to the Duke Lacrosse thing is perfectly okay. She thought they did it. As far as I know, she still thinks they might have done it and is sorry that the awful mishandling of the case ensured that we’ll never find out what really happened. She was and is entitled to an opinion.
It cracks me up that the Duke Lacrosse case is held up by MRAs as an example of the intolerable suffering that men can go through if falsely accused of rape. So the worst-case scenario is that you get off before the case even goes to trial, your accuser is tarred as a liar, you go back to your comfortable life, but there might be one hardcore feminist out on the Internet who doesn’t feel bad about suspecting you? Yeah, I can see where that’s so horrible we might as well just legalize rape–but not other crimes, because there’s no stigma attached to being falsely accused of theft or battery or murder.
Seriously, it sucks to be accused of a crime you didn’t commit. But to jump from that to “…so people should be discouraged from reporting crimes!” is effed up.
Yeah, I never understood why the Duke LaCrosse case is trumpeted as The Worst Injustice Ever. As you said, Shaenon, the accused were exonerated, the accuser was branded a liar, and the prosecutor was fucking disbarred! Seriously, how often does that happen when some poor African American is railroaded on to death row (not that that ever happens…)?
As you said, it sucks to be falsely accused, and I wouldn’t want to minimize their suffering. But for the falsely accused, it doesn’t get much better than the outcome of the Duke LaCrosse case.
Wouldn’t the UN get on your case if you fired hot potatoes at someone?
“Seriously, it sucks to be accused of a crime you didn’t commit. But to jump from that to “…so people should be discouraged from reporting crimes!” is effed up.”
Haven’t you heard, Shaenon? Jumping to conclusions is a manly thing to do!
Now if you excuse me, I will crack open a Budweiser and watch Spike Channel.
Not only would the tennis-ball gun almost certainly jam or throw wobblers if it was loaded with potatoes, I’m not convinced hot potatoes would even hurt that much. A potato is a pretty poor conductor of heat. Leaving hot potatoes on a person might hurt them, but if the potatoes are just bouncing off, I doubt it would burn you. (Hey… come to think of it, this is another thing I learned in kindergarten; remember playing “hot potato?”) Even mushy boiled potatoes would probably slide down your body and lose their heat fast enough to not seriously hurt you. You might end up with bruises if the potatoes are thrown hard enough, but there’s really no reason for them to be hot potatoes.
…I’d like to say that this proves the MRA’s intent was harmless after all, but I just think it proves I thought about this a lot harder than he did.
You know, weapons of mash destruction.
It’s not that they don’t want rape to be reported, but only “Real Rape”®. The problem is all those whiney women, overreacting to not Real Rape®, and getting innocent men suspected of being rapists.
That’s just the most horrible thing in the world.
But then again they don’t even want to actually admit what the consider “Real Rape”®.
Well, non-boiled potatoes are rather hard, they could do a lot of damage at high velocity. Boiling the potatoes would likely lower risk of injury, however, it would also create more issues with getting them to fire properly.
Boiled potatoes, would mash, and stick; they would be steaming, so total depth burns are possible.
Torture fantasies in Snark’s thread: 2
Total comments: 13
Torture fantasies in Manboobz thread: 0
Total comments: ~100
Irony: priceless
Yeah, I don’t even know any of their names. But I know hers.
Oooh, here’s my very juiciest revenge fantasy, and this is not a joke:
I think MRAs should be invited to reasonable discussions in which they are encouraged to question their beliefs and presented with alternate points of view.
…while seated in comfortable chairs.
Get…THE COMFY CHAIR!!!
You know, weapons of mash destruction.
I hate you.
While they’re all saying “the comfy chair”, here’s part two of our special sound quiz.
(Sorry, that quote has been stuck in my head forever, and it needed to come out).
“What famous person is this getting up in the morning?”
Yes, it was the film director Visconti. Five points. ‘An Italian film director’ is not sufficient.
As a veteran potato salad maker, no. Those suckers retain heat pretty well, and if we’re talking about just out of the pot boiled, they’re really fucking hot. I’ve been burned by a potato for trying to take it before it was cool enough to handle.
Which makes the hot boiled potato gun thing rather cruel than just funny. That shit would really hurt. Not lethal, but I would certainly consider it horrible.
I made baked potatoes today and I was able to handle them bare-handed (for a second or two at a time) right out of the oven.
However, they were dry and solid; maybe a wet mushy potato would be burnier.
Holly, in their skins, they are hot but it’s not the same as if you stuck your hand into a mashed potato. Add the impact injuries… it’s a really nasty torture.
I know far too much of what makes torture work, and this is a really nasty one.
As a veteran potato salad maker,
YOU MAKE POTATO SALAD OUT OF VETERANS? WHAT KIND OF MONSTER ARE YOU?
I know far too much of what makes torture work, and this is a really nasty one.
I also get the impression that the intent is to leave few visible bruises.
@Holly – yea, because the water in the potato turns to steam on your hands. It’s the same reason that you don’t handle hot pans with wet cloths.
I have given way too much headspace to this potato thing–if they really wanted it to hurt, they wouldn’t boil them or bake them, they’d microwave the snot out of ‘em. The potatoes would keep their shape and be hotter than hell.
I still maintain that potatoes wouldn’t work in a tennis-ball launcher. The kind I know of use two rollers spaced tennis-ball-diameter apart, and I don’t think something non-tennis-ball-shaped would go through it correctly.
At this point I’m honestly wishing they’d just said they’d punch her. It’s more honest and less creepily creative. And it wouldn’t raise all these questions.
What they need is a spud gun.
OK, I’m evil.
Getting off mechanics for a second–the idea of hurting someone “until she recants feminism” is its own kind of horrifying.
What would that recantation have to consist of, exactly?
I know they think it’s a political party and that she could shred up her membership card, but I define feminism as the belief that all genders are equally human. I really, really don’t want to recant that.
But anyway I’d just recant it real quick to get them to stop, then go on my merry way.
…they would let me go on my merry way, right?
…right?
oh god
Even if someone has no moral qualms about torturing someone else, their method of changing someone’s mind is still not effective. After the first potato, I’d tell them anything they want to hear. I’d confess to crimes committed in the Dark Ages. In my mind, though, I’d continue to think whatever I want. It’s impossible to physically force someone to think differently.
It’s impossible to physically force someone to think differently.
Sadly, this might not be 100% true. But when your methods are as crude as “I’m going to throw potatoes at you until you change your mind,” yeah, that’s not going to make a lot of true believers.
Holly: you have just described the “Torturer’s Dilemma”, which the Church resolved hundreds of years ago.
I don’t say they came up with the right response, but they had some logical rationalisations to support the solution they came to.
RE: OP
I don’t get it. How does this a “put [me] on the spot”?
C’mon, I use the brains too, and don’t tell me you’d totally refuse that!
It’s not like Absinthe is using something like the *eyes*, Zombie! That’d be really unreasonable!
nice Jonathan Coulton ref, Molly.
I got freshly-made, hot-out-of-the-pan mashed potato dropped on my hand once. I got a second degree burn. Hot potato torture serious business >:(
It’s not that they don’t want rape to be reported, but only “Real Rape”®. The problem is all those whiney women, overreacting to not Real Rape®, and getting innocent men suspected of being rapists.
That’s just the most horrible thing in the world.
Yeah, because it is so awesome to go to prison for a crime you did not commit and one that never happened. It is not like any innocent men have been imprisoned, tortured, or murdered because some woman made up a story. All those lynched black men were actually chasing down white women and raping them.
I know it is such a fine line between stupid and clever, but you should really learn the difference.
As for potato situation, I would have much preferred my feminist aunt to jokingly fantasize about shooting me with boiled potatoes to get me to accept feminism than have her actually maliciously shove dildos and strap-ons up my ass when I was a child to teach me how evil “patriarchy” is.
I’m sorry that happened to you.
I guess I’d sort of understand you not being able to change your opinion of feminism after that, but for the record, it’s completely unrelated.
Also, and yeah, I feel bad about saying this… you’ve got balls saying that people who make rape accusations shouldn’t be believed and then making a rape accusation.
I do believe you, I really want to be clear about that. I just wish you’d understand that other sexual abuse survivors have just as much right to be believed.
“As for potato situation, I would have much preferred my feminist aunt to jokingly fantasize about shooting me with boiled potatoes to get me to accept feminism than have her actually maliciously shove dildos and strap-ons up my ass when I was a child to teach me how evil ‘patriarchy’ is.”
That’s not feminism, Toysoldier. That’s rape and abuse, and you’re entitled to get help for what happened to you.
toysoldier: Actual false accusations of rape are incredibly rare. Convictions from same are even more rare.
That is to say, the women who, with malice, accuse a man of committing a rape that never happened; not mistaken identity, nor the cops deciding to railroad someone.
Compared to the number of actual rapes that go unpunished, the comparison you are trying to make is specious.
And if you think the lynching of blacks was about false rape, you are either think we are stupid, or know nothing about the actual uses of lynching as a means to keep blacks, “in their place”.
And the abuse you describe, it’s not feminism, it’s abuse. Anyone who does such a thing deserves to be in prison.
@Pecunium
“Actual false accusations of rape are incredibly rare. Convictions from same are even more rare.”
Why lie when it’s quite clear false accusations aren’t rare in the least? The study of that small southern town showed quite clearly, not only the percentage of false accusations but the reasons as well. You further go on to state convictions are even more rare.
Let’s just save ourselves a billions of dollars and loads of time and just lock up every man on a womans word, cause we’re right back to feminism 101, no woman ever lies about rape. Until women, en masse, admit that women do lie about rape, and it isn’t incredibly rare. How can any man have faith in a womans word?
———————–
“And if you think the lynching of blacks was about false rape, you are either think we are stupid, or know nothing about the actual uses of lynching as a means to keep blacks, “in their place”.”
It was exactly about taking a womans word at face value and killing a man. There is no excuse, other than it may taint a womans word, and therefore damage the reputation of women and feminism.
———————-
Compared to the number of actual rapes that go unpunished, the comparison you are trying to make is specious.”
The numbers can’t be compared, Big Daddy won’t cough up the numbers for false accusations. However, a few men of concience have come forward with the actual numbers for their district, and that tells a entirely different story.
————————-
“And the abuse you describe, it’s not feminism, it’s abuse. Anyone who does such a thing deserves to be in prison.”
It sure sounds like feminism blaming the evil patriarchy to me. A man being punished for a percieved abuse in the past that never happened.
The numbers can’t be compared, Big Daddy won’t cough up the numbers for false accusations. However, a few men of concience have come forward with the actual numbers for their district, and that tells a entirely different story
Just out of curiosity, how did they GET these numbers?
I mean, if a false accusation works, then nobody (except the accuser and accused, but one isn’t talking and one isn’t believed) knows it was false. If it doesn’t work, then the system caught it and it’s not this huge problem you’d make it out to be.
And if it gets “caught,” how do you distinguish a malicious false accusation from mistaken identity or someone who actually did commit rape but not “rape-rape”?
I’m really curious how exactly you can get these statistics on false rape accusations, and what situations they actually represent.
Oooh, I bet this question will make NWO absolutely explode:
Hey NWO:
Do men ever lie about rape?
NWO: That is not a man being “punished” in a feminist’s eyes. That is a man being “punished” in an abuser’s eyes — it is not feminism, it is abuse. Just because a person calls themselves a feminist and is also an abuser, doesn’t mean every feminist is an abuser. Pretty simple concept to grasp.
Just because the abuser claims the abuse is some lesson in “feminism” doesn’t mean it actually has anything to do with any real feminist principle — abusers claim a lot of bullshit in attempts to rationalize to themselves and their victims that what they’re doing is “right”. Abusers come with every political/religious/what-have-you view in the world; the one thing they have in common is that they twist absolutely any belief to rationalize their abuse.
It is not a feminist mindset. It is simply an abusive mindset claiming “feminism” as its cover.
Owlslave is incoherent as usual, but it’s not usual I’m aware enough of the thread to see just how much.
I see your “small southern town study” and raise you “multiple peer reviewed studies with sound methodology showing the false accusation rate is between 2-8%”.
So according to you most or all lynchings of blacks in the United States involved rape accusations? Interesting, given that according to wikipedia:
“African-American journalist and anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells wrote in the 1890s that black lynching victims were accused of rape or attempted rape only about one-third of the time. The most prevalent accusation was murder or attempted murder, followed by a list of infractions that included verbal and physical aggression, spirited business competition and independence of mind. White lynch mobs formed to restore the perceived social order.”
This is the part where you dismiss the point in a huff about people being wiki-smart, right?
Wow. The context. You do not get it. So badly.
NWO: Care to discuss the syntax of Russian?
How about the number of vowels?
What about the number of tenses (You have two options, actual tenses, or commonly understood by native speakers)?
Care to explain how it is I said women who perpetrate the abuse Toysoldier says was performed on him ought to go to prison? You can add that to the woman I think ought to be in jail for reckless endangerment with a firearm.
Why, all things considered (your appalling innumeracy, ignorance of biology, inaccuracies on the subjects of alphabets, or language; your provable lies about things we say; and which are in writing for all to see), should we believe anything you say?