“Feminists don’t even think of men as human,” and other insights from Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit.
This, oddly, was one of the first results in a Google image search for "hatred of women." So I'm going with it.
Hey, everybody, here’s another massive list of ridiculous comments from the Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit on the subjects of women, feminists and feminism. Some, er, highlights:
Never trust a woman. When you are out and they are around, go the other way. Your life may actually depend on you crossing the street or not taking that elevator or not working late in a office with another lonely woman.
Women are keen to assert all of the benefits that modern society affords them, but at the same time quick to twist their hair into pigtails and play the “I’m just a girl” defense when the traditional benefits of being a woman would suit them better.
Misandrist feminists want gender based apartheid, and the male population culled to lest than 10%
Feminism does NOT create strong women – it creates dependency and a stunted intellect.
In the feminist community, bigotry is met with a groundswell of support, and is very rarely called out.
That last one is just a teensy bit ironic, given that most of the comments above were heavily upvoted – in other words, “met with a groundswell of support.” Further evidence of this irony: oh, just the hundreds of misogynistic statements from MRAs I’ve linked to on this blog.
For links to the original comments in context, see the full list on Reddit. Props to the Redditor known as Squibbling for having the patience to assemble all of this.
Posted on October 3, 2011, in antifeminism, false accusations, misogyny, MRA, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 330 Comments.
So basically we have one resident troll who’s a seething ball of rage convinced that feminism makes people abuse children, another who appears to be a rather loopy elderly gentleman with a fondness for excitable punctuation, and a third who has constructed an entire house out of tinfoil?
What do you mean by running? You mean I don’t sit at the computer for fifteen hours a day? I hate to tell you this, but I have a profoundly active social life…oh, and I do work, so I usually go to bed at about 10pm PST.
@CassandraSays…
Wait. Which one am I?
What do you mean by sticking around? You mean those times you post one or two comments saying the ridiculous gentleman has a point somewhere in all the stupidity that you sit around waiting for our abuse? But okay. You have a profoundly active social life, and also stick around to get abused a lot. Okay.
The tinfoil house sounds somewhat intriguing, actually.
I have a tinfoil hat, admittely. But, a whole house? That is very….WHAT A GREAT IDEA.
Offensive? Fuckit, if that’s his aim I will buy him a beer the next time he visits the city where I live.
Almost all of my friends are guys, my advisor’s a guy, the greats in my field are mostly guys, and I’ve been in a relationship with a guy for the past six years. Guys, as people, are awesome, and I have never said otherwise. That doesn’t mean patriarchy, as a system, doesn’t suuuuuuck donkey dong. I like being able to get a PhD without a maximum quota for women in my department. I love being able to visit a university library without a male chaperon (which how Wedgewood had to research while she was writing The Thirty Years’ War). I can only do what I do thanks to feminism.
It’s time for me to run (ironically). Must put kid to bed. Love you all. Hope to spend another interesting evening together. xoxoxoxoxox <3
I find what you say offensive because what you’re really trying to say is that you’ll refresh the comments waiting for our abuse.
Sorry, magdelyn, I forgot you. You’re the “I’m not like the other girls – I like men! I’ve had sex with lots of them, unlike all you prudes/lesbians/insert anti-feminist stereotype here!” one. Or at least that’s my impression so far.
NWO definitely wins the tinfoil hat award, if only because I’ve never seen anyone try to link feminism to the Rothschilds before. You can’t say he’s not creative.
Cassandra, it’s spelled “Rothchilds.”
Well, not really, but that’s how NWO spells it.
We could always spell it ‘Rothchildren’
But has he mastered the two dot ellipses? I think that’s the new MRA secret handshake.
two dots is “I” in morse code. Is this a clue in tinfoil hat land?
Professorship, somehow, does not keep you from being a douchebag who is disconnected from this plane of reality.
Hilariously, it probably just encourages them…One prof. at the other campus of the school I went to for undergrad (it was one school with 2 campuses) was convinced he was a vampire. He never attacked anyone though, just…lurked.
“Hilariously, it probably just encourages them…One prof. at the other campus of the school I went to for undergrad (it was one school with 2 campuses) was convinced he was a vampire. He never attacked anyone though, just…lurked.”
Fucking HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Seriously? Wow. And I thought some of my professors were out there.
Why on earth would they think women would want men culled to 10% of the population? That’s… that’s beyond idiotic. Even if you ignore the genocide it would call for, what happens afterward? More than 90% of the female population would never get a mate! And I doubt hooking up would be much of an option either, as the instant the male population drops so much as to become incredibly valuable, the world’s wealthiest and most powerful women would try to have them kidnapped and “housed” somewhere everyday schlubettes would never be admitted to.
Any surviving male human would need to be kept under watch to prevent them from being kidnapped and kept as some crime lady’s personal slave, or even just forced into prostitution. Weekly donations to the local sperm bank would become mandatory, reproduction would require oversight to ensure maximum genetic variation is retained, and many women would be flat-out refused; all men would be cataloged and micro-chipped, and every country’s government would spend huge amounts of money and woman-hours keeping tabs on all of their male citizens 24-7.
Human society would implode. Suddenly the many industries that focus on selling women their products on the claim that it will make them irresistible to the opposite sex will be shit outta luck. With men in such short supply, breeding programs owuld likely be launched in an attempt to try to replenish the world’s stocks; the world would farm baby boys, who would by necessity be raised in a creche system. Also the concept of the nuclear family, with Mommy and Daddy and their little children, would become like a mythical construct to many.
Straight women would have little or no chance of ever getting to have a good fuck with an XY man, much less pursuing a normal relationship with a guy they like — and the men themselves would fare even worse, being kept under constant surveillance and being almost property of the state, plus constantly being at risk for abduction, violence, enslavement, and rape. Plus, with the world population of men being so cataclysmically reduced, the genetic diversity of the human species would suffer greatly, rendering us weaker in the face of disease, epidemic, and environmental stress. The human species itself would be in danger.
I don’t see whose “fantasy revenge scenario” this is supposed to be, since it renders both men and women far worse off than they are now. If you’re going to make wild claims about your rival’s plans for the future, you should at least try to come up with some that sound like it would benefit them enough to be plausible. This sounds more like the plot to some post-apocalyptic movie from the 70s that never got made.
I read it and think “and also monkeys are in charge and humans have lost the power of speech, right?’.
Mine too. She also wants you to know that she has a functioning uterus, just in case you were wondering, just to let you know, because she totally does.
Huh. How peculiar. Personally I’ll be delighted when my uterus finally stops functioning. No more need for contraception, ever? Sounds like a good deal to me.
There are many ongoing internal debates in feminism, but “should we murder 2,710,094,280 men?” is not one of them. Please, feel free to link me to a feminist debate on the pros and cons of murdering 2,710,094,280 men if you happen to come across one. But I’m pretty sure we’re a monolith on this particular issue.
Um… my answer is the question I asked and you didn’t respond to except in MRA KEYWORD USED ACTIVATE STANDARD KEYWORD RESPONSE fashion. If rape accusations are so easy to fling around, why aren’t you in jail?
(Okay, maybe you live in a hole and only come out to self-pityingly repair milk machines, but why aren’t MRAs who use their real names in public in jail?)
I’d love to see a picture of someone in Title IX Police Force uniform. I imagine it as consisting of…
a see-through shirt, no panties, and a miniskirt.
Tell you what, MRA folks. You go right ahead and cower in your tree forts or whatever you have, quaking with fear at the nightmarish prospect of talking to a woman, and I’ll just keep right on enjoying the rich, diverse and fulfilling world of human interaction. Sound good?
Gotta love how feminists always talk about Schrodinger’s Rapist and support programs like She Fears You, which is essentially an anti-male shaming session, yet snort derisively when a man talks about avoiding women for fear of being falsely accused of something. In North America and the Western world at least, I don’t think such fears are unfounded at all.
Schrodinger’s Rapist is a blog post about why many women are uncomfortable being approached in public. It does not advocate avoiding men for fear of rape. Nor are feminist blogs filled with women advising other women to avoid all men for fear of rape.
“She Fears You” is a presentation about stopping rape culture on college campuses. From the about page: “The nationally recognized presentation, She Fears You, identifies for men what they have to gain from ending campus rape – that they are no longer perceived as potential rapists but as individuals capable of entering caring and emotion-based relationships.”
Wow, that’s pretty evil and man-hating, right there. How does
the huge, militant group of man-hating feministsthe one guy who gives this presentation sleep at night?“She’s A Liar” is a presentation about stopping false accusations on college campuses. From the about page: “The nationally recognized presentation, She’s A Liar, identifies for women what they have to gain from ending campus false accusations – that they are no longer perceived as potential liars but as individuals capable of entering caring and emotion-based relationships.”
And now we come to it. Abortion is how feminists are destroying men. Considering that around 20% of pregnancies naturally end in a spontaneous miscarriage, that means….GOD IS A FEMINIST.
Ozy, regarding the Wiki hate, I’ve seen it in tinfoil circles (I have a close friend who is unfortunately obsessed with that stuff and forwards me all kinds of crazy nonsense). Basically, Wiki is run by “them.” Choose whichever “them” you want — it’s generally all the same. “They” control access to information through Wiki. I’ve even seen discussion of how Wiki is run by the Jews, and that’s…..well, that’s real bad. Surprisingly, when I point out the rabid bigotry and racism that runs through these circles, my friend just shrugs and puts her blinders on.
By men. Because men are potential rapists. Why would you leave that part out?
Actually, that’s precisely what it does. It paints men as potential predators, creatures around whom a woman must be on guard at all times.
In other words, all men are naturally abusers and rapists who take part in rape culture, and need to be educated to curb these instincts. Yeah, nothing misandric about that at all.
Funny how we don’t see a “Schrodinger’s False Rape Accuser” or a “Black men, whites fear you” lecture.
The question still stands – if it is reasonable for a woman to fear being assaulted by a strange man and thus wiser to avoid him, is it also reasonable for a man to fear being falsely accused of an offence and thus better off avoiding women?
“She’s A Liar” is a presentation about stopping false accusations on college campuses. From the about page: “The nationally recognized presentation, She’s A Liar, identifies for women what they have to gain from ending campus false accusations – that they are no longer perceived as potential liars but as individuals capable of entering caring and emotion-based relationships.”
Ha! Good one. I wonder when we’ll be seeing that presentation. :)
my friend just shrugs and puts her blinders on
There’s putting the blinders on, and then there’s donning the tin foil suit. I think NWO is in the latter category. The most useful thing I’ve learned from him is that the “Rothchilds” thing that’s a code word for “Jews”. Of course, my favorite conspiracy theory to laugh at is the guy who thinks he proves that science is a mechanism run/influenced by Kabbalah Jews, and that no Christian should believe in it.
Hengist – Rape is a more common problem than false accusations of it. Really, if I’m talking to a guy who says that all the women he’s “slept with” accuse him of rape, I’m going to be pretty wary of him and his intentions. Most women posses clumps of cells called “brains” and even manage to use them, which is more than I can say for you and your “arguments”.
And so in one paragraph we have male-blaming, snark and personal attacks. Ladies and gents, welcome to feminism.
“Rape is a more common problem than false accusations of it.”
What does that mean? That false accusations aren’t a problem because they’re not as common as rape? (That’s not even a given, by the way, with figures for false accusations ranging from 8% to over 40% depending on the source). But even if they were a small fraction, what then? Statistics also say that violent sexual assault is comparatively rare and 85% of rape victims knew their attacker, so Schrodinger’s Rapist shouldn’t be relevant either, according to your logic.
“Really, if I’m talking to a guy who says that all the women he’s “slept with” accuse him of rape, I’m going to be pretty wary of him and his intentions.”
Of course you would, because in your view men are always to blame and women can do no wrong. I don’t think this is a surprise to anyone at this point.
“Most women posses clumps of cells called “brains” and even manage to use them, which is more than I can say for you and your “arguments”.”
Yeah, I’m guessing you said “most” because you aren’t included in that category.
“It paints men as potential predators, creatures around whom a woman must be on guard at all times.”
This just proves your privilege. As a man, how many times are you wary walking by a group of men or been catcalled and/or harassed?
Maybe if we had better education in formal logic in our schools, we’d have more people who can comprehend the difference between “any man could be a rapist” and “every man is a rapist.”
Or the difference between “here’s how to avoid sexually coercing someone” and “you are a rapist.”
I wonder if the latter is related to the idea that rapists are some identifiable species, slavering and lumbering wherever they go, so if you aren’t a slavering beast it’s impossible for you to commit rape, and schools should know better than to impose such education upon nice non-slavering boys, and women should know better than to spend time with slavering fellas.
I posted a long comment, but it looks like WordPress ate it :( But I think other people have covered all of what I was going to say.
Except that, NWO, why would it be called “She’s a Liar” instead of “He Fears You”?
One in six women are raped. One in six men are not falsely accused of rape.
Also, I’d like to point out that, once again, we are falling into the “false accusations are the male equivalent of rape!” trap. No. RAPE is the male equivalent of rape.
If, that is, false rape accusations were the male equivalent of rape. Which, as other people have said, they’re not.
Holly: Probably! Or even the difference between “every man could be a rapist” (trivially true; every woman could be a rapist too) and “women are socialized into being afraid of men because they might be rapists and, given the rate of rape in our culture, that’s not necessarily unwise.”
The Slavering Beast Theory is a major part of rape culture, I think.
Analogy time! When I use a condom during sex, I am not accusing you of having an STD. I am simply acknowledging that a lot of very nice clean normal-looking people have STDs, and I have no way to know if you do or not.
(I’ve met people who have trouble with this too, but hopefully it gets the idea across.)
@Absinthedexterous
Oh, please tell me what “Kabbalah Jews” are! (or what this guy who thinks he knows what they are). I think it’d be a great laugh.
I’m also amused that the Schrodinger’s Rapist post is “telling women to be afraid of men,” when it starts out: “Gentlemen. Thank you for reading.”
It’s saying that men need to be aware of the signals that they’re sending to women and how they can be interpreted in a threatening manner.
A woman on a favorite forum of mine has a story that clearly illustrates this: she was driving slowly down the road in front of her home at 1 a.m., passing an unfamiliar guy walking a dog. When she got into her driveway, the guy was standing about 4 feet away from the driver’s door.
An unfamiliar man standing over you at 1 in the morning is threatening behavior. Sorry guys…standing over anyone, particularly someone sitting in an awkward position (as in swinging one’s legs out of a car) is a THREAT. And this isn’t just feminism…look at any kind of art during a time of human history that involved war. Notice the cowering figures while a taller (usually armed) figure stands above them?
In short: your body language and actions have meanings. Be aware of them.
To be honest, I think the wording of Schrodinger’s rapist is a bit much at times, but it does have a good point. In terms of situational awareness, I think Schrodinger’s Rapist poses women to be a bit more neurotic than is true. Women are not on high alert at all times. Code red is the step of having identified a threat and taking action. No one lives on that level, because threats are not constant. A lower level of awareness, noticing a potential threat and deciding whether to go up to code red is what happens when an unknown man (idiotically) stands over someone in a threatening gesture. Also, doesn’t happen all the time. We can’t always look at a guy as a potential threat, if there’s nothing else to suggest he might be. That’s where body language, surroundings, clothing, etc. might all come into play.
General situational awareness, like noticing one’s surroundings, where they alleys are, what traffic is doing at any given moment, etc. is where we should all be living. If you can get down stairs and cross a busy street without dying, you’re probably pretty good at it. That level of awareness is probably where most women are, until another factor gets added into the mix.
Ozy – I’m gonna try and write a post on Slavering Beast Theory after I get done with classes today.
And so in one paragraph we have male-blaming, snark and personal attacks. Ladies and gents, welcome to feminism.
You have to admire* the mulishness of someone who comes into a blog calling out MRAdom for frothing tinfoilhat hatred of women, attacks on women and female-blaming, looks around, and sniffs “Feminists are *snarky*!”
Clearly, if we just called on American women to shunt “Ameridicks”, darkly predicted that MRAs secretly wanted to eliminate all but 10% of women and cautioned all women to avoid men because they just want to rape and kill you, we’d be paragons of logic and calm reason.
*Okay, no, you don’t.
Rutee:
And as I’ve said elsewhere, someone writing, in 1971, that (frex) a marriage license was a license to rape, she wasn’t indulging in man-hating, she was stating a fact. I suspect there are a lot of facts mentioned by Daly that make men look bad and that are not currently true. But they were true at the time, and pointing them out at the time was not hypoerbolic misandry by reason of being neither of those things.
Mags:
Not mutually exclusive.
Hengist:
I know, right? I checked http://hengist.tumblr.com and it wasn’t there.
You mean we don’t see it from feminists qua feminists? Well … no. Why would you expect to?
Unless one is a Warren Farrell devotee, as then one would fall into the ‘unemployment is the male equivalent of rape’ trap.
Wow that’s a lot of ridiculous comments. Poor Squibbling.
We’ve always been at war with East MRAsia?
Which would leave 75% of the remaining abortions to be female embryos.
Super-SMRT engineering math fail.
No wonder Pepsi didn’t hire you.
You also fail to notice that a majority of children raised to full adulthood are done by women.
Super-SMRT engineering stastics fail.
And Super-SMRT engineering demographics fail. Because hey, the world’s population continues to rise even in “feminist” countries.
Cynickal – I think what NWO is saying is:
50% of all pregnancies are aborted. (It’s actually more like 22% – source – but whatever.)
Half of these are male fetuses. Therefore, women kill 25% of all potential men!
However, what he’s failing to factor in is that 25% (er, 11%, but it doesn’t even matter, it’s obviously the same number is the only important part) of all female fetuses are also aborted, So the sex ratio at birth is the same.
By NWO logic, if we stopped abortion, there would be two men for every woman.
What I find most curious about debates on the subject of rape is that MRA’s and anti-feminists are more than happy to characterize the male gender as being predisposed to rape when the logical conclusion is that women should withdraw from public life, stay indoors, be quiet and obedient, and exchange liberty for dubious “protection”. They are perfectly happy to lecture women on how it is women’s responsibility to dress and conduct themselves just right when their point is that rape is a fact of life, and women should just suck it up. They are perfectly happy to argue that rape is solely about sex, and that men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges, for which rape is a “natural” outlet, when the gist of the argument is that women are to blame when men do bad things to them. But suggest that perhaps saying things like that is what we refer to as “rape culture”, which grooms boys and young men to be rapists, and anti-feminists scream bloody murder, because how DARE man-haters suggest that rape is tolerated and rationalized, or even common. That’s why I see the topic of false rape accusations as a red herring: anti-feminists don’t see false rape accusations as a problem, they see all rape accusations as a problem, with the narrow exception of cases where the perpetrator is a socially inferior stranger. They want rape to be a male prerogative, at least with respect to women from more modest socio-economic backgrounds. And to justify that, they don’t hesitate to make mutually exclusive claims.
You want women to not have to be wary around men due to fear of rapists? How about you stop victim blaming then. If you tell a woman she needs to do X, Y, and Z (not wear short skirts, not walk at night, not have had consensual sex before, not drink, etc.) or she is asking to be raped, what do you expect but a cautious attitude towards worrisome encounters. If a woman walks alone at night, drunk, and is raped, the MRAs will be the first to enquire as to why she wasn’t more cautious. So what do you lot expect but caution from women? If she is cautious, she is a man hating bitch, if she is not cautious, the rape is partially her fault for not taking greater care, no woman can win in MRA rape apologism land.
Amused, your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Don’t quote me on this, but I’m pretty sure that the term is one used by racists in the English-speaking world to differentiate the Jews of the Old Testament, or “Israelites,” (good, our spiritual ancestors) from modern Jews, “Kabbalah Jews” (evil, etc etc etc). I’ve heard “Torah Jew” to mean about the same thing, used in the 19th century.
Amused – The two positions are semi-coherent if you believe that rape is only done by Bad People, who are easy to spot (they have glowing red eyes and fangs) and only commit violent stranger rape.
Women should stay inside and dress modestly because they might run into a Bad Person. Bad People are monsters and have evil in their blood, so only solution is avoidance.
But feminists should not attempt to educate Nice Clean-Cut Boys on rape prevention, as these boys do not have red eyes or fangs, so feminists are just insulting them by implying that they could possibly be capable of the things that Bad People do.
(Note that this also resolves the dichotomy between “she should have known what would happen when she went home with that thug” and “why won’t she go home with me?”–that thug had red eyes and fangs, and the person saying these things does not. The woman could clearly see this, and thus her choice was completely irrational.)
Hold on though; how does that fit with the narrative that we’ve got to cover up lest we provoke Nice Clean Cut Boys to temptation? I think all men are secretly Bad People in this narrative, just women’s malign influence can bring it out of otherwise Nice men. Which is also why, when discussing avoiding DV, it’s the woman’s responsibility (1) not to date a Bad Person (2) not to provoke her Nice Clean-Cut lover/husband.
No, but that’s already been answered repeatedly and you’ve ignored it everytime.
Also please explaing why you’ve not been falsely accused of murder since you interact with thousands of people over your lifetime and the average murder per capita is 4.8 per 100,000 in the US.
Using Hengist logic you should have been accused of being a murderer by now.
VoIP – Well, first of all, it’s not a perfectly consistent worldview, being bullshit and all that.
But secondly, it does include the idea that Nice Clean-Cut Boys are still capable of harming women when they’re pushed. This doesn’t mean that they become Bad People, only that every human being has their breaking point, right?
It’s interesting how, in MRA Land, it’s always the evil feminists who are painting all men as violent rapists. The only person in my life who’s ever given me a “men are only after one thing and you can’t trust them” lecture is my father, and his beliefs are hardly feminist.
“Don’t quote me on this, but I’m pretty sure that the term is one used by racists in the English-speaking world to differentiate the Jews of the Old Testament, or “Israelites,” (good, our spiritual ancestors) from modern Jews, “Kabbalah Jews” (evil, etc etc etc). I’ve heard “Torah Jew” to mean about the same thing, used in the 19th century.”
BAH! That’s a lot less amusing than I wanted it to be. I was hoping for a conspiracy of some sort. I was trying to figure out how the heck the scientific method could become an encoded reference to the sphirot on the Tree of Life or as a reference to the four worlds. I was thinking way too hard, apparently.
The hilarious thing is that I don’t think that most modern Jews know a friggin’ thing about Kabbalah, outside of what Madonna calls Kabbalah. Most Kabbalistic references seem to have been well edited from the average siddur. And on the off chance that some reference survives (references to four levels of an issue, the names of the sphirot, or less-known names of God embedded into acrostics) not many people actually recognize them for what they are.
Re the False Rape Accusation thing – one of the reasons the MRA crowd give for those accusations being so very very common is this:
1) A woman sleeps with a man, consensually.
2) She’s worried someone might call her a slut.
3) She accuses him of rape.
Which, logically, would lead one to think that maybe if sexually active women weren’t afraid of being called sluts, the number of false rape accusations would decrease. And all anyone has to do is stop calling women sluts. It’s win win.
NWO, Hengist — your thoughts?
@ Graham – Would you like the internet which you have just won delivered via UPS or FedEx?
I don’t really understand why they think women would just go to false rape accusations right off the bat. Surely, a much easier strategy would be:
1) A woman sleeps with a man, consensually.
2) She’s worried someone might call her a slut.
3) She doesn’t tell anyone she slept with the man.
It’s a sensible strategy, and one that is probably very much in use already by women who don’t want to be viewed as sluts.
Hengist: Funny how we don’t see a “Schrodinger’s False Rape Accuser” or a “Black men, whites fear you” lecture.
Interesting: You are saying you think false rape accusations are a real threat? YOu are also saying that you think black men are a real threat to whites.
Or are you arguing that men aren’t a real threat to women?
Maybe you don’t understand the issues. Maybe you don’t understand the analogy.
So, against my better judgement, I’ll take a stab at making them plain (not that I really expect to convince you, but there may be others who stumble upon the problem).
In Schrödinger’s cat problem the cat is either alive, or dead. One can’t know until the box is opened.
In the same way some unknown number of men are rapists. Until one of them does something one can’t know that he isn’t.
so far, so good.
The idea is sound, the tricky parts are the explanation and the understanding. You seem to think it says, “all men are rapists,” when it actually says, “any man might be a rapist”
Now lets look at the flip-side.
You allege that all men need to worry that all women are capable of falsely accusing them of rape.
This is a true statement. The next question becomes, what is the real risk? That is, how likely is it in the first place, and what are the repurcussions.
The answer to the first question is not very likely. The answer to the second question is also not very much. Why? Because the elements of the case are such that making a plausible explanation requires more than just a woman saying, “I was raped. He did it.”
Even in what look to be clear cut cases of rape the results are often acquittal (google “De Anza College rape”). Is it a hassle? Yes. So too is any case of being accused of a crime one didn’t commit (I’ve been arrested for shooting at someone’s house. I wasn’t home at the time the crime took place. The cops did piss-all for investigating, and the next day I was, “identified”, and hauled away. Cost me a small amount of money [lost bail] and put aspects of my life on hold, because I was, in theory, being investigated for a felony).
But according to the stats, the incidence of false rape accusation is not significantly greater than for any other crime. Which means, when the rate of prosecution (low) is combined with the rate of conviction (low) the risk of repurcussion from a false rape accusation is about what it was for my alleged, “Shots fired, inhabited dwelling”.
When all is said and done, an inconvenience, and one most men are never likely to be victim of.
And your attempt to disprove that, What does that mean? That false accusations aren’t a problem because they’re not as common as rape? (That’s not even a given, by the way, with figures for false accusations ranging from 8% to over 40% depending on the source). is laughable.
That doesn’t quantify rapes, it quanitfies; at best, specific accusations of rapists. The number of rapes which aren’t pursued to the point of putting anybody into the category of suspect isn’t included in that. Since the most generous figure for prosecution (which is the real worry, being a suspect is meaningless for this purpose; being arrested is what matters), is about 50 percent of reported rapes, you have to assume that 40 percent figure [citation please] to get close to saying the problem is near the problem of rape.
I don’t think you can. I don’t think you can find a reputable source for numbers of false accusation above 10 percent. Which comes back to the disparate effect problem.
Unless you are alleging that any woman, at any time, can accuse any man; with no evidence, then the “Schrödinger’s Accuser” is a strawman, a convenient diversionary tactic to keep the discussion from being about rapists.
And the evidence is that it’s not. All these guys who aren’t in jail are proof. If it were that easy, then all it would take is a small cadre of really angry women to shut up all the people you say they want to eradicate. A quick phone call, and Paul Elam is in jail.
But it’s not happening.
I don’t quite know what to make of the comment about blacks. Are you alleging that whites have a legitimate reason to fear them, and not having a campaign about it is wrong? Or that having such a campaign would be justified, because of the risks you think blacks pose to whites.
Good luck defending that. Not because “oh my god, he said bad things about blacks,” but because, as with the “false rape” issue, the stats don’t support it.
Funny. MRAs are often the ones who think of feminists- or even women as a whole- as not being human (or being of less worth than their male counterparts). When they say things that make women out to be demons, it’s obviously dehumanizing them.
Fucking hypocrites. MRAs don’t know shit.
I keep wondering at the fear of a rape accusation in all these men. I’d had a fair number of partners (not Simon’s, “hundred”), but more than most. I can’t say as I’ve ever worried about any of them, even the one time wonders, saying it was rape.
That’s the part I don’t get. Am I supposed to be afraid that every woman I pass on the street will decide I “spat” on her, and call the cops? How could she? She doesn’t have my name; she’d have to pick a time/place which was plausible, etc.
Which brings us back to the people I’ve actually slept with, and again, I don’t get it.
That’s where the “Schrödinger’s Accuser” falls apart. It requires sex to really work. At that point she has to be really dedicated to it; to sleep with (or at least engineer a situation that would make it plausible) the victim. That means it’s not random.
So I am, again, left to wonder at the way these men, so scared of being accused of rape, are going about it.
I confess, back in the mid-’80s, when “date rape” was being talked about, I was worried. I didn’t know the ways in which my desire might be seen as “forcing myself” on someone. I was afraid that, as Katie Roiphie said, “sometimes you just have bad sex”, might be converted to “rape”. But it never happened. I made my interests plain, they made their interests plain, we did what we felt like doing (or not, depending on who wanted what), and called it a good time.
So I’m confused. What is the seed crystal for all this fear? What are they doing they think might be seen as rape?
“So I’m confused. What is the seed crystal for all this fear? What are they doing they think might be seen as rape?”
That is the question, isn’t it?
Pecunium: Raping people?
@ CassandraSays, re Graham – You also shoulda asked him if he wanted his Internet chocolate-covered!
I love how these MRA geniuses lament the fact that rape laws today prevent men from being men, and that women who wear slutty clothes are “asking for it”, but then get offended by their delusional perceived notion that feminists paint all men as potential rapists.
So I’m confused. What is the seed crystal for all this fear? What are they doing they think might be seen as rape?
I think that a lot of them have a mentality where sex always consists of holding down a girl who’s staring dully into the middle distance, and the only difference between sex and rape is whether she secretly wanted to do that or not.
I think a lot of them–maybe especially the young’uns–have never had or seen what genuinely enthusiastic sex looks like. I’m not saying they’re rapists (some women do actually want that and a lot–especially the young’uns–are willing to tolerate it), but they don’t have any idea that sex can be completely unrapey.
I also think that some of this just comes from thinking that women are space aliens, and who knows why a space alien does anything? If you believe that women’s decisions are literally random and not subject to human motivations, there’s always the chance she might randomly accuse you of rape.
Is an ideology where it’s adherents must justify themselves that they don’t want to kill 45% of the earth’s human population – that means an ideology where this suspicion justifiably arouses – not an ideology that should be seen with extreme precautions and distrust?
@Allie Gill:
I love how these MRA geniuses lament the fact that rape laws today prevent men from being men, and that women who wear slutty clothes are “asking for it”, but then get offended by their delusional perceived notion that feminists paint all men as potential rapists.
Well, we have to see this in the right context. The original xkcd comic that caused all this uproar and was the reason the word “Schrödinger’s rapist” was coined, wasn’t about a woman that dressed slutty with the intent to get raped but about a girl who brings her new netbook along to get the attention of a boy she likes.
So what’s the “it” in “asking for it”?
If it’s “being raped” than it would be surely hypocritical.
But if “it” is less than “hitting on somebody” then I fail to see the hypocrisy…
I’d had a fair number of partners (not Simon’s, “hundred”), but more than most.
!?!?! Hundred?
To follow up on Holly’s point, here’s an actual transcript, as close to verbatim as I can manage, of a conversation I had a couple of years ago with a guy who was worrying about being falsely accused of rape:
Me: You know, if it helps, there’s a really easy way to make it very nearly certain that you will never be accused of rape (and even more certain that if you are so accused, nothing will come of it) – only have sex with people who clearly want to have sex with you.
Him: How am I supposed to do that?
Me: …what do you mean? It’s generally not hard to tell if someone wants to have sex with you. They will do things like, y’know, saying, “I want to have sex with you!”
Him: Okay, but what if she’s not that into it but goes along with it anyway?
Me: Um. I’m not sure why you would want to have sex with someone you knew wasn’t into it in the first place. But if you want to make sure nothing you do could be construed as rape, I’d really suggest not browbeating people into having sex, or trying to have sex with someone you know is reluctant, or generally ever having sex with someone who is just “going along with it” rather than being enthusiastic about the whole having-sex-with-you thing.
Him: But then how would I ever get laid?!
Me: *gapes at him silently*
I don’t even know where to begin with this mentality, but it’s real and it’s out there and it disturbs the heck out of me.
Amused and Darksidecat, I’ve wondered the same things myself. For MRAs that accuse all women of thinking that all men are rapists, they reinforce that belief by telling women not to dress like sluts because they’ll be more likely to get raped by some guy who can’t control his urges.
So MRA’s believe that there are guys out there who would do anything for sex, including raping someone? and that there are so many of them that all women should not show any skin anywhere for fear of tempting these men?
Sounds to me like MRAs believe that men are more likely to rape than women do.
I also don’t understand why MRAs get angry at feminists and people overall for speaking against rape and rape culture, when you’d think they would get angry at rapists instead for making all men look bad. I don’t think that male rapists reflect men as a whole, nor does anyone I know. But MRAs are so committed to thinking that feminists and women do so, so why dont they go after the rapists who are supposedly making women scared of every potential man they meet and be all “hey, would you stop with the raping thing, you’re making us look bad”
Even moreso, how about speaking out against PUAs, whom many don’t believe that “no means no” and use predatory and manipulative tactics to obtain sex?
And on the topic of false rape accusations, Why can’t they be discussed separately from discussions that are specifically about rape victims and rape prevention? I’m starting to see it as nothing but a tactic to shut feminists up about discussing and preventing rape. Any decent human being would speak out against rape, yet again MRAs always throw themselves into these discussions and make themselves out to be the victim of this supposed “false rape epidemic”
By this reasoning, we should really distrust the Jews.
Right. That’s why the point WASN’T “the boy is a rapist,” but “she can’t be certain the boy isn’t a rapist.”
That’s a really, really different thing.