The Daily Beast takes on the Men’s Rights movement — and takes down A Voice for Men’s John Hembling
John Hembling, possibly lying about something
The bad publicity bonanza for Men’s Rights activists continues — and it couldn’t happen to a worse group of people.
Yesterday, the Daily Beast published a long-awaited piece on the Men’s Rights movement, and it’s a doozy. If you’re a regular reader of this site, trust me, you’ll want to read the whole thing, like now. The piece, by R. Tod Kelly, is long — some 6000 words — but worth it.
It’s mostly on the money, but with a few notable flaws.
Here’s what it gets right:
1) It captures the pervasive misogyny of the Men’s Rights movement in general, and of A Voice for Men in particular.
2) In an extended section, it profiles AVFM’s John Hembling, and tears apart some of his most blatant lies — including the now legendary box-cutter incident, in which Hembling claims to have stared down a mob of 20-30 feminists brandishing boxcutters.
As Kelly notes:
Vancouver police records show that there was indeed an altercation in September of 2012 between Hembling and others seeking to tear down men’s rights posters. However, according to the police, Hembling was arguing with two or three people, not being accosted by a “mob” of any size. When questioned by the authorities, neither Hembling nor witnesses mentioned seeing any weapons. …
Curiously enough, Hembling actually videotaped the events and had his AV4M Radio partner Karen Straughan post it online. The discussion with the police has been conveniently edited out, but the rest of the video clearly matches police records and not Hembling’s story. There are only a few young men taking down Hembling’s posters, and the video shows them choosing to ignore him except when he engages them in conversation. One of the men is seen using a box cutter to take down the flyers, but at no time does he use it as a weapon, raise his voice, or threaten Hembling in any way.
Kelly found some troubling, er, discrepancies in another story told by Hembling. Kelly writes:
According to Hembling, sometime around 1995 he was on his way home at 2:00 am after working a night shift when he came upon [a sexual] assault in progress. He says he used his steel-toed boots as weapons to chase off the perpetrator. When the victim was too distraught to speak with him, Hembling says he contacted the police, waited until they arrived, and then quietly left without speaking to them. He says they later tracked him down at his home, where he gave a statement.
It’s hard to know whether this event actually occurred or not. There is no record—at least, not in the Vancouver police files—of Hembling being a material witness to a rape, and police blotters from that time period do not show a crime that matches Hembling’s description. However, this does not necessarily mean the event did not occur. Vancouver police did not fully computerize their data until 2002, and it is possible the police never reported the incident. Hembling claims the incident took place at a specific hospital, where he says he worked as a contractor for 18 months. The address he gives, however, is for a different hospital in a completely different part of the city. This raises the curious question of whether Hembling forget the name of the hospital he contracted with for 18 months, or whether he forget what part of the city he worked in for that same period of time. The real truth of the matter is anyone’s guess, because Hembling wouldn’t comment to The Beast on that or any other matter.
In other words: Cool story, bro.
3) Another thing the story gets right: it makes clear just how little the Men’s Rights movement does to actually help men — and how in many ways it can actually be terribly damaging to men who need real help. As Kelly writes,
the movement’s radicals might … do … immediate damage to those who most desperately need the MRM to succeed.
“When we talk about recovery from trauma and abuse, there were two things that helped me,” says Chris Anderson, executive director of the male-victim advocacy group Male Survivor and a sexual abuse survivor himself. “The first was realizing that I’m not alone; the second was hearing that recovery was possible.” Anderson is quick to dissociate himself from the men’s rights movement: “In [the MRM] people get that first message, that they’re not alone. I don’t know that they ever get the second message. And when they don’t get that second message, it turns into an endless feedback loop and eventually they say, ‘Oh my God, all of society is f**ked.’”
Indeed, Kelly writes:
It is telling to note that of the professional male-victim advocacy organizations I spoke with, every single one specifically asked that I not allow readers to think they were in any way related to the MRM.
But there are also some things that I think the article gets wrong.
1) I think it gives Men’s Rights activists way too much credit for their supposed good intentions. While there are some MRAs who do seem to be motivated at least in part by a sincere desire to help men, most of the MRAs I’ve encountered in the 3 years of doing this blog have clearly been motivated primarily by anger and hatred of feminists — and women in general. They don’t really seem to give a shit about doing anything to actually improve the lives of men — and the paucity of their accomplishments reflects this. In its relatively brief lifespan, AVFM has raised many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Has it set up any shelters or hotlines or helplines for men? Not a one.
2) It wildly exaggerates the importance of Hembling to the MRM – especially ironic given that Hembling has been more or less AWOL in recent months, producing only a few short videos and one article for AVFM.
3) It paints a picture of The Spearhead’s WF Price as a Men’s Rights “moderate.” Really? While it’s true that Price is not an AVFM-style hothead given to rants about “fucking your shit up,” his views are anything but moderate. This is a guy who thinks higher education is wasted on women, who blames the epidemic of rape in the armed forces on women, who celebrated one Mothers Day with a vicious transphobic rant, who once used the tragic death of a woman who’d just graduated from college to argue that “after 25, women are just wasting time.” He published posts on why women’s suffrage is a bad idea. Plus, have you met his commenters?
I was, however, kind of amazed to learn that Price is married … and to a feminist. No, really.
4) The article, while solidly researched, contains some small errors and simplifications that will no doubt give MRAs and others the excuse they need to dismiss the whole thing. Kelly refers to Reddit subreddits as Reddit “threads!” He refers to Matt Forney as an MRA! Oh no!
Still, whatever its flaws, this is an important piece, and one that tells a lot of truth about the Men’s Rights movement. Again — go read it!
Posted on October 20, 2013, in a voice for men, are these guys 12 years old?, johntheother, lying liars, misogyny, MRA and tagged a voice for men, antifeminism, daily beast, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, R. Tod Kelly. Bookmark the permalink. 1,986 Comments.
No. Positive claims incur the burden of proof.
‘There is a rape culture’ (positive claim)
‘There is not a rape culture’ (negative claim)
The burden of proof rests with he who makes a positive factual statement. Your attempt at flipping this, by turning a negative claim into a statement that is semiotically positive, is classic Christian apologetics 101. Old hat, try harder.
I would of course apply the same scepticism to your assertion that there is a fraud culture.
Goddamn, you don’t know ANYTHING.
Is 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men not common enough? No? Perhaps once every two minutes?
Fibinachi: Thanks.
I just too special snowflakey for numbers, I guess :)
Asshole McGee:
Rape culture means what I say it means, and I say that because some women can manage to make it through the day without being raped, there is totes NO SUCH THING as rape culture.
Also, rape totally just happens, y’all. It’s like the weather, it’s regrettable and a shame when it’s humid out and my hair gets all frizzy, but what can you do? There are certainly no common myths and misconceptions and deliberate obfuscations used to excuse the violence perpetrated by a set of determined predators, and there couldn’t possibly be a body of study devoted to exploring the way that certain myths, misconceptions and deliberate obfuscations are used to explain away and excuse such violence, because I’ve never read such a body of scholarly work, so ipso facto presto chango, it must not exist!
Also, feminism means what I say it means, and I say that because *reasons* you all are TOTES not allowed to call yourselves feminists!
Nope: you made a positive claim: You assert a fact exists (i.e. rape culture is not a thing)
See if I were to assert that Obama isn’t the President of the United States, I’d have to prove it.
If i were to assert this isn’t the Month of October, I’d have to prove it.
If I were to claim the Allies didn’t mean to bomb Dresden, I’d have to prove it.
Because I positively stated those were true things.
That’s what it means to make a “positive claim”, it’s to assert the truth of a position.
But lots of dishonest people try to pretend that merely casting a statement of fact in a negational phrasing means it not a positive claim.
So, either you don’t logic, and don’t grammar, or you don’t honest (well, could be all three…)
Nope.
Positive claim = there is a rape culture, or there is not a rape culture
Negative claim = I don’t know/ not enough evidence
Take the question “is there a god(s)”. The positive answers would be yes and no(theism and atheism). The negative ones would be I don’t know, I cannot know, or there’s not enough evidence(agnosticism).
That’s why agnostic atheists are called “negative atheists” sometimes.
Also:
Endless And And – Pop Rock
Fearmongering Stream – Indie Folk
Out-group Cultivation – Electronica
Absurdly Nature – Indie Folk
Rancid Cultivation – Metal
Noooo.
“There is a rape culture.” (positive claim)
“I’m not convinced there is a rape culture.” (negative claim)
“There is no rape culture.” (positive claim)
This is why smart atheists, though we’re quite capable of demonstrating that the god as represented in the bible doesn’t exist, at least not as represented in the bible, simply state that we find the claims being presented to be without merit. Again, skeptic fail.
Goddamn this person doesn’t know dick about science for somebody demanding scientific proof of something (and then squatting and shitting out a totally made up set of fulfillment criteria)
He’s clearly one of those atheists who watches the rest of us debate the religious, then copies our statements without bothering to understand the rationale behind them. It’s cargo cult skepticism. :P
Good grief. This is what happens when you piss away your youth in a gender studies class rather than studying something useful like mathematics or chemistry. Your ability to think logically is obviously indelibly compromised.
Look here, sunshine
‘Obama is NOT the president of the US’ is the *opposite* of the *positive* factual statement ‘Obama IS the president of the US’, so it follows, logically and inescapably, that the first statement is the *negative* of the second statement. Statement #1 says ‘no’, statement #2 says ‘yes’.
The burden of proof rests with he who says ‘yes’. In this example, the person who says ‘yes’ will have an easy time proving his case, but the original burden of proof still rests with him. The person who says ‘no’ does not have to prove anything, until and unless he has been confronted with compelling ‘yes’ evidence.
Argenti, I hate to break this to you, but your going to have to stop doing those handy statistic break downs. The troll doesn’t think you know math.
The irony is strong with this one.
Also, I’ll admit, I’m not getting the whole ‘burden of proof’ with yes/no statements. I think Pencunium’s definition was good. But it’s not something I really know much about so I’ll ignore that part.
Ps: troll please respond to the damn studies Argenti Aertheri linked you do.
ahostileworld, you are an idiot.
Null hypothesis does not mean what you think it means. It refers to whether you have enough evidence to support a claim. Hence, the proper null is “there is little evidence to support the hypothesis that rape culture exists”, not “there is absolutely no rape culture”.
The former is the null. The latter is a claim.
Of course, it’s not as if Wikipedia can’t tell you the nuances of null hypothesis, or did you think that your degree from the University of Google made you better than everyone else here?
I’m speaking as someone who’s taken a few stats classes, and is studying for a STEM field.
ahostileworld: Nope, now your just trying to twist out of actually trying to prove yourself.
pecunium, auggzillary and Athyrwren are correct.
So where is your proof?
Also, RE burden of proof: I’m aware that you can’t prove a negative, so we have to prove the positive. We did. We already did our part in providing you our burden of proof on whether rape culture exists. You have refused to acknowledge our evidence.
This doesn’t make you smart, it makes you look like an even more idiotic dumbass.
“You’re” not “your.”
I’m giggling too hard to type correctly.
Oh it’s okay, I majored in a “soft science” — psychology. (With a minor in that oh so subjective field of “studio arts”, I’d have commented, but art theory bores me and color theory goes over most people’s heads)
Now, as for this positive claim confusion…Spot! That! Fallacy!
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
That says, rather literally, that the burden of proof is on he who says it, not he who negates it. No mention of having to make a claim that something is true, claiming something is false is still a claim.
Oh, good, I should go back to my alma mater and return my PhD in Mathematical Logic. Not only am I not a feminist, I am apparently not a mathematician or logician either. @ahostypost says so.
I’d ask him to prove it, but he could’t prove his way out of a paper bag.
I don’t see how you couldn’t study both gender studies and chemistry. Also gender studies is useful. It’s sociology dealing with gender. It’s useful for understanding how societies treat gender, so it also helps us understand how we can stop the bad things that society does based on gender.
Also learning about gender and society requires logic. Logic isn’t limited to math.
And really, you fail at skepticism. So stfu.
On the positive and negative thing…
Ugh god… Did you even read what I wrote? Even the technical names for atheist and agnostic prove my point.
No, no dear. You clearly have mistaken the grammatical negative (the use of the word “not” in that sentence) with a propositional negative. The sentence “Obama is not the president of the United States” may have a negative grammatical construction, but it does not contain a propositional statement that can’t be objectively and conclusively proved. It would be simple, really. There are a set of criteria for establishing who is the president of the US, and a very simple set of questions could be asked to determine the truth value of that statement.
Even if you say that there is no such thing as rape culture, there have been numerous studies which establish that for established criteria, rape culture does in fact exist and its effects are palpable and measurable.
Of course you know this, which is why you set your patently ridiculous ‘only on odd numbered Tuesdays when the moon is full and everyone with an AB+ blood type is standing on their left foot’ set of criteria. You don’t want to accept that there is a common set of myths, misconceptions and outright obfuscations that are used to explain away and excuse rape, so you declare the established criteria invalid and pick your own.
But putting on a paper crown does not make you the king of Luxembourg, baby, so get over yourself.
Logically positive is not semantically positive.
“There is not” is a positive statement when used as an indicator of a possibility to be explored scientifically (Mentally “And here is why” to your statement and see how it makes sense).
“There is not…. and here is why”
(Further: “There is not a rape culture, and here is why…”)
“There is…. and here is why”
(Further: “There is a rape culture, and here is why…”)
“There is not” is a negative statement when used to talk about things that aren’t there.
There is not a lot of understanding of positive and negative statements in the quoted section above.
If positive and negative worked as you described here, with the burden of proof always on the person who says yes, at all times, it’d be utterly impossible to convince anyone of anything they did not want to agree to, because anyone could just say “Ah, but no”. Also, some proof has already been supplied.
Also-also:
26) Good Grief Gender Studies! (Environmental Pop)
27) Mathematics, Indeliby Compromised (8bit retro music)
28) Class Ability (Newwave)
29) Piss Away (Death Metal)
30) Obviously Compromised Youth (Really angry punk)
31) Logically, You Happen (Pop)
32) Rather Good (Really smug pop)
Also-Also-Also:
33) Miscommunicating Positivism (One man band by a depressed scientist)
(The technical names for atheist and agnostic are “positive atheist” and “negative atheist”, I forgot to add this sentence in for some reason).
Yeahyeahyeah, you’re totes studying a STEM subject. You do realise that consistent lack of evidence results in the rejection of the hypothesis? Yes? So if I claim there is a teddy bear under my bed and people have a look and they don’t see one, they will conclude that there is no teddy bear under my bed? Right?
Claim: ‘There is a god’
No compelling evidence
No compelling evidence
.
.
.
No compelling evidence.
Conclusion: ‘no compelling evidence has ever been delivered in support of the claim “there is a god”. Hence, the claim must be rejected, which is to say: there is no god.’
The agnosticism of the null hypothesis is relevant for cases where the jury is still out. The jury is not out where the ideologues and Christian apologists simply make claims without evidence. Claims without evidence are rejected.
In order for me to believe that the thing under my bed is a teddy bear, it’s gonna have to fulfill these criteria.
1) It must make me feel safe and good about myself.
2) It must be an actual living bear.
3) I must be correct.
“Conclusion: ‘no compelling evidence has ever been delivered in support of the claim “there is a god”. Hence, the claim must be rejected, which is to say: there is no god.’”
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The only thing a lack of evidence proves is that there’s not enough evidence. Nothing more.
You have been offered evidence, sweetcheeks. Lots of it. We aren’t theorizing about the existence of a stellar teapot but about a social force with definitive, measurable and well documented effects on the lives of real people.
The avoidance two step is a nice dance, and you are really good at it, but don’t think that we don’t notice that every time you can’t formulate a “winning” response to a particular point you skip to another one.
I am finding it hard to believe that Asshole McGee (or whatever we’re calling him these days) has the intellectual wherewithal to tie his own shoes. But good on the rest of you for staying on him.
Exactly. But if you weren’t being wilfully ignorant, you’d see that you’ve been given evidence. And, since we have evidence for our positive claim that there is a rape culture, and you have no evidence for your positive claim that there is no rape culture, then we can reject your claim.
“There is no evidence of a rape culture” is a negative claim. “There is no rape culture” is a positive one.
Where did you get your STEM degree, so that I can cross it off the list of schools to potentially send my nephew and/or eventual children to?
(I’m just going to assume, since the only people who make snide comments about Gender Studies tend to be STEM, MBA or Economics majors, and only the STEM majors have any leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about BS degrees.)
@ahostileworld
People have given you buckets of evidence, fool. You just chose to ignore it.
Yep, you don’t have anything, do you ahostileworld? You keep ducking the question and bringing up random shit.
So far you have not provided us with anything to support your claim that there is no rape culture.
And you’ve been given plenty of evidence that there is, and have yet to speak to that.
Also, address the links we gave you for evidence. Arguing about this doesn’t even matter, since you’ve been given loads of evidence.
You have been offered evidence, sweetcheeks. Lots of it. ‘We aren’t theorizing about the existence of a stellar teapot but about a social force with definitive, measurable and well documented effects on the lives of real people.’
You have not. You just have not. You like your own imaginary friend better than other people’s imaginary friends, but it is still just that: an imaginary friend.
@ahostileworld
RESPOND TO PEOPLE’S LINKS, YOU DISIGNEOUS SHIT!
I’m not even religious. Wtf.
The willful ignorance is strong in this one.
WTF my comment with links disappeared. :(
Also, biochemistry ain’t STEM anymore? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
All the ‘evidence’ I have seen is the following:
1.) Rape happens
2.) It is neither particularly rare nor particularly common.
3.) There are people (not clear how many) who seek to justify rape.
Now is there are single crime out there that does not fulfil those exact same criteria?
OH DUDE THEY THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, NOT RAPE CULTURE
omfg this is amaaaaazing just how out of touch do you have to even BE to just do that
Marie gave you a ton of links on the last page, oscars gave you a few at the top of this page, and Steubenville, maryville, Rehtaeh Parsons, etc.
@ahostileworld
Follow the liiiinnnnkkkkksssss. That argent kindly posted for you? That link to studies?
And don’t come back until you do your reading.
Also, Asshole McGee, we know you have eyes. We know you can see things. Your willful ignorance of anything we say doesn’t make you look smart. And it doesn’t make your University of Google degree look any more prestigious. ;)
hostiley you are too much
Google Scholar is our imaginary friend?
You’ve been offered both scholarly works and anecdotal reports from, you know, actual real people who have been raped and explained how the myths, misconceptions and deliberate obfuscations that fall under the rubric of rape culture have affected their lives.
You know that you are not in fact living in the Matrix and that there are in fact real people on the other end of teh interweb machine, right? I know it must be hard to hear through the rustling of the straw feminists in your head, but there are real people out here with real lives and real experiences which, though they may differ from your own, are nonetheless valid.
“It’s still a cat, it’s still a cat, it’s still a cat, it’s still a cat, it’s still a cat, it’s still a cat, it’s still a cat, it’s still a cat, it’s still a cat, it’s still a cat, it’s still a cat.
LALALALALALALALALALALA!
YOU CAN’T MAKE ME BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!”
1 in 6 to 1 in 4 women is common. Ditto with 1 in 33 for men. Most women do not report their rapes, and very few result in jail time. Idk stats for male reporting and conviction but it’s probably not good.
Yes.
But Fynster makes me feel good about myself, and more welcome in the world, plus it has great advice on band names
34) Better Imaginary Friend ( Super Cheery J-Pop )
I’d rather have that than a hostile world
q:
So, what specific evidence would you like? We’ll dig it up. Hell, I’ll do it. Give me some specifics for what you’ll take as my “imaginary friend”, and our “imaginary friends”, and I’ll find you the sociological, economical, psychological or socio-biological studies.
‘Course, if you’d rather continue living in a hostile world…
35) Other Imaginary Friends ( Nerdcore )
Also, explain why this happened.
TRIGGER WARNING FOR LINK: Male rape victim was harassed by the entire community after reporting that he had been sodomized by three members of wrestling team. His father, the principal, was fired from his job, and the rapists were only given a one day suspension.
As, troll meltdown in progress and pecunium // sunshine isn’t back yet.
And YES WE DID.
Hell, if you actually cared to form an opinion based on more than “I disagree so it can’ the true”, then I gave you enough reading to last an hour, easy. Have fun with your reading, my little peddler of fish.
Speaking of fish! *flails* TWELVE!! I’m getting a head count of 13 wee wittle fishies!
Also, 1 in 6 isn’t a large enough number for you? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?
*12 not 13
Nice typo
Hostile World, a Johnny Hollow spin off band
Yay for having a dozen little fishies!
Hmm, 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men is not common? Interesting.
I mean, roughly, that’s 20% of the population, including men. Back on page one or two you claimed that feminists do not want to offer help to men who suffer in the same way the try to offer help to women who suffer.
By denying that there is a culture that is extremely damaging to rape victims, you also deny the pain of male rape victims. Why would you do this, if you supposedly believe there are men who suffer and need help? How is denying the culture that would mock him for his rape, deny it happened, or imply that somehow he must have liked it or that he’s weak and therefore deserved it, helping men?
By denying this culture exists, you are essentially gaslighting victims by trying to tell them that their own experiences are wrong.
Again, how does that help men?
@argenti aertheri
Yay for your fishies! :3
Alice, he probably thinks that it has to be over 1 in 2, since then rape victims outnumber non victims. Which is total bs, since minorities can still be significant.
1) The incidence of male-on-female rape is between 1/4 and 1/6 women. That’s pretty damn high, and whether it occurs as often as other crimes is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether society condones and trivializes rape. Even if the incidence of rape was very low compared to other crimes, the concept of rape culture would still be applicable to society.
2) Most people do think that whatever they understand to be rape is bad. Unfortunately, that definition of rape tends to be extremely narrow and attitudes that abet rapists and oppress victims are widespread.
3) “Obviously?” Um, no. First of all, only recently have pro-marital rape laws been abolished in 1st world nations. Second, the majority of rape victims face enormous barriers to seeking justice and often end up never reporting anything to the police. Third, just because something is outlawed doesn’t mean that there can’t be any set of cultural norms that encourages/condones/trivializes it. Sexual harassment, for instance, is widespread and often condoned even though it’s against the law.
You clearly don’t have an understanding of basic terms feminists are using in their discourse. Rape culture doesn’t mean “A society in which everyone thinks rape is totally fine, never condemned, and committed as often as or more than other crimes.” It means “A society in which rape is common, often trivialized and condoned, and sometimes even explicitly supported on a widespread level.” The latter definition is the one that feminists have always used.
If you’re going to argue about whether society has a rape culture, you should understand that rape culture actually means and show that the above criteria you have specified are necessary to determine whether society has a rape culture. You can’t just make up criteria out of thin air and expect everyone to find them important or relevant.
Alice, that link is horrible. That poor kid.. Jesus…. Not that it really shocks me, treating male victims that way is pretty common.
Also how we celebrate or at least joke about prison rape, is an example of rape culture.
1. Rape doesn’t just “happen.” It is a crime committed by one person against another person.
2. I believe others have answered this, but going with the most conservative estimates, 1 in 6 women ain’t enough victims for ya? And I believe the best estimate of male victims of rape is in 1 in 33. Still not enough victims? Tell how many people have to be raped before you thinks its a problem? Better yet, don’t answer that, I have a feeling the answers going to be scuzzy.
3. Right back at ya: How many times has a murder victim been blamed for being murdered? When someone goes to the police and says, “I’ve been robbed,” how many times to the police dismiss that claim as lying, because obviously the victim asked to be robbed in some way? Do we deconstruct what a murder victim or victim of theft was wearing or how much they were drinking or how late they were out? Does the media lament how much someone’s life has been ruined when they go to jail for murder? Are victims of theft routinely accused of lying and making stuff up, that they must have just given away their wallet to that person and now they regret it and are just making up the theft?
Nope. Rape is treated differently.
auggziliary – It made me sad when I heard about it. I have more links regarding rape culture (I did a thread about rape culture on a forum that I used to frequently visit until the MRA infestation became to be too much).
But yeah, it sucks. :(
Because I needed one, I present you all with this fine example of inter species snorgling!
Let’s not forget that hostiley is totally a feminist. Arguing that rape culture doesn’t exist for hours is definitely a thing that a feminist does.
Witchy kitty believes love exists
Oh yeah, also the Sandusky case. And a personal case at my high school involving this case. For homecoming week, we have a different costume theme every day. One of the days was called “predator vs prey”, basically animal or jungle theme. A bunch of boys dressed up as the Sandusky victims, basically wearing their jerseys and having a towel wrapped around their waist. No one called them out. About halfway through the day the teachers just made them change, that’s it. And a bunch of people still whined about how making them change was “stupid” and that it “wasn’t even bad”.
Titianblue, those kitties are adorable! I love black cats!
Would I be a total nerd if I said I thought best part of this whole exchange was when hostility was all like “I’m right because rules of logic,” and everyone else was like, no, that’s not how that works, the burden of proof is on you.
I thought that part was awesome.