New blog catalogs Men’s Rights awfulness!
Yep, that’s right, the “clopping” sound of high heels are a form of “street harassment.” I found the screenshot above on a promising new blog you can find at MensRightsActivism.com. Yep, that’s right. Evidently it never occurred to anyone in the Men’s Rights movement to lock down that domain name.
Oh, this little Reddit screenshot is good too:
How exactly does saying “consent is sexy” mean that male consent is taken for granted? How is it that 59 people thought that comment deserved an upvote?
I can’t answer either question, but there’s lots more hilarious and appalling stuff where that came from, mostly from the Men’s Rights subreddit. It’s going in the “antidotes to boobery” blog roll.
Posted on July 20, 2012, in announcements, anti-MRA information, awesome, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 622 Comments.
In other words, you don’t know shit about statistics or population analysis. Color me unsurprised. Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean only ‘bean counters’ do, unless you define ‘bean counter’ to mean ‘people who understand statistics and population analysis’.
Yes, slightly more commonly than women outside of prison are raped. There are considerably more women outside of prison than there are men inside prison. You can care about whatever you want, but don’t pretend for two seconds that it is more common or likely.
That’s not just argument froma uthority, it’s a dubious authority to boot. What makes you a reliable source to begin with?
You’re seriously equivocating two people in a close relationship, and actually stopping at the first request with no further bullshit, with the majority of acquaintance rape, aren’t you?
And you base this on more rectal data?
So how often do you get stopped by police for being brown, exactly? How often has immigration singled you out as illegal despite speaking in the same southern-tinged midwestern accent as the people around you?
Seriously now, that some white feminists don’t give a shit about racism does not mean we are all white. BTW, for throwing this around, you should check out your precious ‘movement’. The way they fuck around with Trans people is actually worse than TERFs. And the way folks, ESPECIALLY MGTOW but also others, talk shit about gay dudes (to say nothing of gay women) is fucking precious.
In the sense that it has occured as random events, yes. In the sense that white men actually face structural disadvantages,
Oh HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
*gasp*
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
People talking about the shit ‘white men’ have to put up with on grounds of status have almost no understanding of anyone else’s shit.
Not for being dudes, no. Men certainly can be on other grounds, though.
I’m famliiar with four teachers who were arrested, charged, and convicted of statutory off the top of my head.
Once again, an MRA with strong opinions on what VAWA does without knowing what it says. It’s just an all-purpose rape law boogeyman.
I know, right? And he’s still playing the ‘too cool for your lame internets’ schtick too. That was old when I was in high school, it’s just sad now XD
“OK you got me with the Spider Woman in Russia. That is beyond bizarre. OK you proved your point. But to equate this one really weird incident to the same rape and sexual assault threat there is to women is a stretch not even Hollyweird can make. And that one with the 10 year old girl is supremely fucked up.”
I probably could’ve screened those results, point was that you wanted one example and the first page of google results had two. You don’t get to revise your “show me one case” to exclude cases you find bizarre.
You made your point asswipe. It is many times more dangerous for a woman in our society than men when it comes to rape and sexual assault. You seem to like stats so much, how about the one that has 1 in 4 college women being raped in their 4 year term in college?
Is that directed at me? It’s 1 in 5, and I’ve gone over that math with NWO so fucking many times. Have just one example.
What about it? It had small sample sizes. I don’t cite that statistic because of it. If you’re going to invoke Tu Quoque, you should probably at least find osmething I did.
Argenti: MRAs like to pretend that the 1 in 4 thing means all feminists are wrong forver on statistics. It came from a particular, small scale survey of one college campus that got a lot of publicity, but was limited in its sample size. Because I actually am bringing up statistics, he is trying to ‘gotcha’ me. Poorly, as I’ve never cited the 1 in 4 college grad thing, and IIRC the woman who did the survey didn’t make the sweeping claims attributed to her after it (Which is common with media reports on anything science-related anyway).
What’s funny is that despite relying on rectal data, jackassery, and logical fallacies personally, this idiot is probably going to parrot that women are the irrational ones at a later date.
To whom it may concern, a link
http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php
Ah, got it. And this — “Which is common with media reports on anything science-related anyway” — ranks high among my pet peeves.
There really is an xkcd for everything huh? (That isn’t even the one I was looking for, but it’ll work)
“One in Four college women report surviving rape (15 percent) or attempted rape (12 percent) since their fourteenth birthday. (1)
In a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease control of 5,000 college students at over 100 colleges, 20% of women answered “yes” to the question “In your lifetime have you been forced to submit to sexual intercourse against your will?” Thus, one in five college women has been raped at some point in her lifetime. (2)
…
A survey of high school students found that one in five had experienced forced sex (rape). Half of these girls told no one about the incident. (5)”
1) a book
2) behind a pay wall
5) Behind a pay wall and has a tiny sample size
Maybe you’d like to check the link I gave above? It leads to CDC data with a large sample size, random sampling…and fuck it, you won’t understand why it’s good data anyways, why am I bothering…
Books are definitely not good data sources though.
Amendment — books are not good data sources as primary sources. (Unless we’re suddenly discussing literature I guess? That’s entirely not my field though)
http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php
So you reject any source you don’t agree with out of hand? You know I have no idea who is who on this blog. I don’t know who is male , who is female or anything in between. Would you mind identifying yourself?
Yes, you provided that link already. None of the relevant sources are available to the public, not without a trip to the library anyways, whereas the CDC data says 1 in 5, is valid statistics, and is available, in full here.
The gender of anyone here is irrelevent to this “discussion”.
“So you reject any source you don’t agree with out of hand? You know I have no idea who is who on this blog. I don’t know who is male , who is female or anything in between. Would you mind identifying yourself?”
No, citations 2 and 5 could well be valid, but without the full text it’s impossible to know, and I’m not going to the library to find more citations saying the same thing the CDC does. As for the book, yeah, I rather laugh at the idea of a book as a primary source for statistical data…it’s one of those “things only bean counters understand” I guess. (Simple version? Books are not peer reviewed, you can say whatever you want in a book)
As for my gender, yeah, I would mind, it isn’t in any way relevant. But fuck it, we’ll go with “anything in between”. (If you simply want to know what pronouns to use, I’ll take zie/zir, or whatever you feel like using)
OK 1 in 5 women. I’m talking to so many at once I lose track of who said what. But I was arguing with some dude who was trying to tell me he was in fear of being raped by some crazy Russian woman. But ok I’ll go with your stats. It clearly shows my point that women face a real rape/sexual assault danger, whereas men , unless they are in the joint, have nothing to worry about.
Aside from the fact that it’s wrong, what’s actually wrong with the 1 in 4 figure (assuming you’re not going to be using potemkin math to claim that it means 100% and therefore obviously impossible)?
“But I was arguing with some dude who was trying to tell me he was in fear of being raped by some crazy Russian woman.”
WHAT?! You wanted a case, just one, where a woman was arrested for raping a man, I typed that into google and the top hit was an unlikely case involving spiders. Absolutely fucking no one said that was particularly common, or that they were afraid of that happening to them — you wanted one case, I gave you one case, that it doesn’t meet other, unstated, requirements…well that makes it time for Spot That Fallacy!!
Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
And you should really check that CDC data, or even the link you provided, nearly 1 in 10 men is raped.
One big masquerade party, huh?
Men raped by men, yes. Not women, unless they were at Spidery Lady’s place in Russia
Hershele — his “point” seems to be that men only get raped in prison, while 1 in 4 (or 1 in 5) women are raped, thus men “have nothing to fear”. Ignore me if you wanted a statistical analysis, I haven’t read the book in question and can only speak generally on books as primary sources. (And NWO decided it meant 115% btw)
“One big masquerade party, huh?”
*points to avatar* Yep (I’m an androgynous ninja, which is half true)
“Men raped by men, yes. Not women, unless they were at Spidery Lady’s place in Russia”
Seriously, check that CDC data, rape and made to penetrate are two categories, the majority of the latter is perpetrated by women.
He doesn’t have a coherent point. He’s just bouncing around to try to play gotcha. Poorly, I might add. It’s really bizarre, but kind of amusing.
Ok I’m not going to argue with you. I’m an old man from another generation. And the thought of a woman raping a man is just something I can’t get my head around. I will agree that men are at greater risk of violent crime , such as murder, aggravated assault and so on as born out in FBI stats. I know that most rapes are not reported and that women who report rapes face a tough road. The boys in the Sandusky case were reluctant to speak out. The countless former alter boys raped by Roman Catholic priests over the last 2000 years kept their silence. But American culture has always placed girls and women above boys and men. You can argue that it’s not fair or not right, but it is what it is. Going to Vietnam was not my idea of a fun time, but I did what was expected of me, as did many others. Maybe that way of thinking is not relevant today, but it was for my generation and many, many more before me. And perhaps the next generation on the way will differ from today’s culture. Only time will tell.
It’s not complicated unless you think only the penetrator does something in sex.
Which is why it denied them a vote for more than a century, and continues to pay women like shit, treats things that are feminine-coded as undesirable (Such as the actual work of child rearing)…
Not to belabor the point, but putting aside that women have wanted in on the military for millenia before you were born, and when permitted fight just as tenaciously, but you realize that dudes, as a class, got perks for going to vietnam, right? Even unwillingly.
grampmk: For the love of all things holy would you please either say at the beginning who you’re replying to (like I did here), or quote the part you’re replying to? Because you’re making it really hard to figure out just who you’re addressing our asshole remarks to.
“dudes, as a class, got perks for going to vietnam, right? Even unwillingly.”
Perks? Having employers tell me they didn’t hire combat vets because we were all crazed killers? Yeah employers did that in the late 60’s. Unlike the WW2 vets that fought in the so called good war, we were vilified even by asswipes like John Kerry. No, your books and Google can’t help you here, I was there and lived through this shit.
I’m sorry. This blog is brand new to me and I was losing track of who I was talking to. My last post was to Argenti. Again sorry for the confusion. In the future I’ll address who I am speaking to.
Thank you
Yeah, and I bet the same employers had no problem whatever hiring women, and never ever rejected a female applicant on the grounds of “bitches ain’t shit”. Sure, sure. The late 60’s were just an AVALANCHE of employment and career opportunities for women. So much so that a female attorney at that time would have no problem finding a job as a legal secretary — none at all.
grampmk — this comment was at me?
You’ve got such a jumble of points there that I can’t figure out wtf you’re trying to say. You start with how men are more likely to be assaulted than raped, go on to how rape and sexual abuse victims are unlikely to report it (providing examples from men and women victims, thus implying that the lack of reporting isn’t gendered), and then claim that American culture places girls and women above boys and men. By raping more girls and women? How’s that work?
I can only assume the bit about Vietnam is an attempt to say that men got the short stick with the draft, but I know zero feminists who think only men should be drafted.
I agree 100% with you. You are correct, things were very bad for women in the labor force back then. When I went to high school, we had football, baseball, basketball and track. No sports for the girls. Today my 3 granddaughters all are playing or have played softball, swimming and yes also junior football cheerleaders, and the oldest was a high school cheerleader. All are honor students and have made me as proud as I could ever be.
Yes it was to you Argenti. Sorry I forgot to address it to you. Also sorry my writing style lacks proper composition. I have no training in such things. But I was agreeing with you on your last point. I’ll try to do better in the future.
“But American culture has always placed girls and women above boys and men.”
“When I went to high school, we had football, baseball, basketball and track. No sports for the girls.”
How do those work together? Perhaps you’d like to amend your statement about how American culture always “placed girls and women above boys and men”?
No Argenti, I stand by my comment. I was only stating how things were when I was in high school in the early 60’s, I wasn’t trying to put things together. I am not a trained writer as should be obvious to everyone.
So Gramp, are you going to explain what you meant by this?
Can you point me to the specific part of the VAWA where this change occurred? Or are you still pretending you never said that. I can link back to your comments a third time if that would help.
OK Snowy, fair question. I was talking with too many at the same time on a blog I am brand new to and should have slowed myself down. I did read where the VAWA was anti male and make it possible for a woman that changed her mind for whatever reason after consensual sex to calling it rape. Yeah I don’t have the source material and should have before I made my statement. I am no lawyer and am not qualified to give a legal opinion. If I have time tomorrow, I’ll try to find that source and post it. Thanks
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=254095,00.html
This isn’t novel either, although that is about a currently new measure. There are a thousand benefits to men that are frequently justified in terms of who fights, and far more in the past, despite the fact that women are categorically barred from fighting. THat puts aside more direct benefits, such as citizenship in rome, ruling class status for jannisary, (Terrible-but-free) medical care in the USA, and others.
I’m pretty sure Kerry never once did that, though Bush’s ads claimed he did. It was a point against his presidential campaign, if you’ll recall. And seeing as Bush probably won his second election ‘fairly’, likely not an entirely ineffective one.
Yeah, sure, I believe that you are being completely honest with me, and accurate besides.
Hint: You are not the only human being.
A simple measure that will enhance clarity is to put the following before and after someone else’s words
<blockquote> Other people’s words here </blockquote>
Which does what you’re seeing in other people’s posts.
“No Argenti, I stand by my comment. I was only stating how things were when I was in high school in the early 60′s, I wasn’t trying to put things together. I am not a trained writer as should be obvious to everyone.”
You don’t have to be a trained writer to see that your example about how things where when you were in high school directly contradicts your point about girls and women always being placed above boys and men. So I repeat my question — how has American culture place girls above boys, when girls weren’t allowed to play sports when you were in high school?
And considering Steele/Varpole’s rant about how he can’t write because of misandry, I’m going to guess no one here really cares whether you’re a trained writer or not.
Lots of morons have said that, yes. It isn’t true, no matter how many misogynist fools crow about it.
FFS, VAWA can only be said to be ‘anti-male’ in that dudes commit more rapes. The language of the bill is gender neutral, title notwithstanding.
Rutee “I’m pretty sure Kerry never once did that, though Bush’s ads claimed he did. It was a point against his presidential campaign, if you’ll recall. And seeing as Bush probably won his second election ‘fairly’, likely not an entirely ineffective one.”
I hope my form is to your approval. I watched Kerry on the news in 1971 at the Winter’s Soldier’s Meeting when he testified before Congress. It’s part of the Congressional Record. Look it up, it’s all there.
“I did read where the VAWA was anti male and make it possible for a woman that changed her mind for whatever reason after consensual sex to calling it rape.”
After sex or during sex? Because if she asks you to withdraw, and you don’t, that’s rape in a bunch of states (and legalese aside, it isn’t ethical and should be considered rape regardless of the legalese of your jurisdiction).
ok so…, this is hearsay once removed on a subject you admit to knowing fuck all about, from a dude who probably knew just as little, and youre presenting something obviously stupid as fact because… you’re a dumbass? is there any other explanation that works?
OK Argenti ” how has American culture place girls above boys, when girls weren’t allowed to play sports when you were in high school? And considering Steele/Varpole’s rant about how he can’t write because of misandry,”
I don’t make any excuses for my not being a good writer or anything else. I take full responsibility for any and all shortcomings. I never knew any girls that wanted to play sports when I was in high school. No, I never conducted a poll either. I am happy that girls can take part in sports today. Back in those days girls and women were respected more than they are today in my opinion.
Kerry stated fact; the USA carried out war crimes in Vietnam. That isn’t up for debate, and if hearing that makes you feel ‘villified’, I have no fucking sympathy for your imperialist ass. Far worse shit was done to the vietnamese than having to hear that their countrymen committed atrocities. But more to the point, he said all of jack shit about peons in general; he wanted to end the war as much to save Meriken footsoldiers as he did to keep us from trampling on the vietnamese, and he says as much outright. He puts far more responsibility on officers, politicians and the like in that speech, and all you hear is “OMG FUCK VETERANS”?
Jesus Fuck, the point of the speech is “LISTEN TO US VETERANS, THE WAR IS USELESS AND BAD, PLEASE END IT”. This is ‘villification of veterans’. One wonders what is supposed to be the horrors that white men face in our society too. Morons.
Argenti ” After sex or during sex? Because if she asks you to withdraw, and you don’t, that’s rape in a bunch of states (and legalese aside, it isn’t ethical and should be considered rape regardless of the legalese of your jurisdiction).”
Yes completely after consensual sex, like the girl in the Hofstra case did for example.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/16/hofstra-rape-student-lied_n_289473.html
FFS, here’s the super-bad-to-soldiers speech in case anyone else is curious.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/2/20/john_kerry_then_hear_kerrys_historic
Jesus tapdancing christ.
So, gramps, you know that girls didn’t want to play sports when you were in high school because..? You didn’t conduct a survey or anything, but you just know, because…seriously, do you see how you’re creating a tautology here? There were no girls you knew who played sports, therefore you know that no girls wanted to play sports.
This same underlying flaw in logic seems to be at the core of all your arguments.
Yeah, that totally smacks of dudes being imprisoned for ‘regrets’.
You realize that she lied because if she’d only had regrets, it wouldn’t be rape, right?
Cassandra how would you expect a teenage boy to know if girls wanted to play sports? How would anyone that age know? Better to question those in charge of the school district. When we are young we are all told what to do and how to act.
But gramps, you stated that no girls wanted to play sports. Which implies that this is a thing that you knew for sure. How did you know?
Rutee these boys were charged with rape. She recanted after a tape of the consensual sex was shown to her.
grampmk — you do get that the Hofstra case was determined not to be rape, right?
And btw it’s so famous because shit like that almost never happens.
Re: sports — why would women have fought for Title IX if they didn’t want to play sports? Perhaps none of the women you knew did, but that doesn’t mean women in general didn’t.
Re: women beings respected more then than now — even if true, so what? You were making an argument comparing girls/women to boys/men, not comparing women in the 60s to women now. (And you mean respected more but only if they were virgins until marriage right? That problem being one of the things feminism is against)
Are you fucking dishonest, or just inept?
The charges were dismissed. Because VAWA doesn’t do that. Because that is a fantasy of asshole misogynists.
Well Argenti in the 60’s there was no internet, there were no feminists. It was a different time. None of us has any control over the circumstances of our birth. I’m not disagreeing with TitleIX. It wasn’t around then.
(And you mean respected more but only if they were virgins until marriage right? That problem being one of the things feminism is against)
And yes that was before the sexual revolution.
And for the record I respect everyone, no exceptions, until they give me a reason not to.
Cassandra my intent was I knew of no girls that wanted to play. Let me ask you this , how did you know about life when you were a teenager?
You know, when I was a teenage girl there were teenage boys who knew what I liked and wanted to do (like, say, swim), because they fell into categories like “friend”, “boyfriend”, “cousin”, etc. Even back in the 60s those categories existed, so gramps, if you didn’t know what the girls around you were into, it was probably because you didn’t bother listening to them, or didn’t take what they said seriously. Which it seems may be a lifelong issue for you.
“…in the 60′s…there were no feminists.”
*dies laughing* Seriously now, woodstock didn’t have a single feminist there because the internet didn’t exist yet?
I should probably inform my second wave aunt that she doesn’t exist because there was no internet then, that’d amuse her. You mind if I post this sentence to facebook — “ell Argenti in the 60′s there was no internet, there were no feminists.” ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism
STOP BEING WRONG.
In other words, gramps, why would (then or now) a girl or woman share her hopes or dreams with you? You’re not exactly coming across as terribly empathic towards women.
Rutee — at least that wrong was funny wrong, I’m in hysterics over here.
Cassandra there were simply less choices for all teenagers to do back in those days. I married my high school sweetheart at 18
LOL, there were no feminists in the 60s? BRB, gotta go email my granny. She needs a good laugh.
Gramps, less choices existing is not the same thing as people not wanting more choices.
I am laughing so hard I am nearly crying. This thread, I just can’t even…
Cassandra
You’re not exactly coming across as terribly empathic towards women.
My daughter and 3 granddaughters would disagree
Argenti the early 60’s
I feel so sorry for this guy’s granddaughters.
“I’m so happy, I made the soccer team!”
“Back in my day girls didn’t want to play sports”
“How do you know?”
“Well, none of them told me so.”
“Aren’t you happy for me that I made the team?”
“Title IX has ruined America.”
Gramps, less choices existing is not the same thing as people not wanting more choices.
I agree Cassandra
Argenti – no kidding. Not only was my mother a feminist before the internet, so was I. (Or at least, before I knew about or had any access to the internet, which comes down to basically the same thing.) I wouldn’t say it’s fractally wrong, but it is at least a very yummy layer cake of wrongness.
because title ix is about a lot more than sports, dude