CDC: MRA claims that “40% of rapists are women” are based on bad math and misuse of our data
Feminists often complain, with considerable justification, that Men’s Rights Activists try to turn every conversation about women’s issues into a game of “what about the men?” You’re talking about female rape victims — well, what about the male rape victims?
The trouble with this strategy, from the point of view of the Men’s Rights Activists anyway, is that this little “gotcha” is much less of a “gotcha” then they’d like it to be.
In the case of rape, for example, feminists are well aware that men are raped as well: the “Don’t Be That Guy” ad campaign, which sent so many MRAs into hysterics, focused on male victims as well as female ones. The emergency room rape advocate organization that a friend of mine volunteers for provides advocacy for victims regardless of gender.
So many MRAs have started playing another game: trying to twist the conversation around in order to cast women as the villains. Rape is a bit tough for them here, since the overwhelming majority of rapists are male. So MRAs talk about the alleged epidemic of female false accusers instead. Or they change the topic entirely and make dead baby jokes (see my post yesterday).
Recently, MRAs have tried a new strategy, seizing on data from The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, a massive study conducted in 2010 under the aegis of the Centers for Disease Control, to claim that “40% of rapists are women.”
This is a claim repeated by numerous MRAs on numerous websites; see, for example, this post by A Voice for Men’s Typhonblue on the blog GendErratic. Here’s the same claim made into an “infographic” for the Men’s Rights subreddit.
Trouble is, this claim is flat-out false, based on an incorrect understanding of the NISVS data. But you don’t have to take my word for it: the NISVS researchers themselves say the MRA “interpretation” of their data is based on bad math. It’s not just a question of different definitions of rape: the MRA claims are untenable even if you include men who were “made to penetrate” women as victims of rape (as the MRAs do) rather than as victims of “sexual violence other than rape” (as the NISVS does).
I wrote to the NISVS for clarification of this matter recently, and got back a detailed analysis, straight from the horse’s mouth, of where the MRA arguments went wrong. This is long, and a bit technical, but it’s also pretty definitive, so it’s worth quoting in detail. (I’ve bolded some of the text below for emphasis, and broken some of the larger walls of text into shorter paragraphs.)
It appears that the math used to derive an estimated percentage of female rapists … is flawed. First, we will summarize the assertion and what we perceive to be the basis for the assertion.
According to the web links, the “40% of rapists were women” was derived from these two steps:
1) Combining the estimated number of female rape victims with the estimated number of being-made-to-penetrate male victims in the 12 months prior to the survey to conclude that about 50% of the rape or being-made-to-penetrate victims were males;
2) Multiplying the estimated percentage (79%) of male being-made-to-penetrate victims who reported having had female perpetrators in these victims’ lifetime with the 50% obtained in step 1 to claim that 40% of perpetrators of rape or being-made-to-penetrate were women.
None of these calculations should be used nor can these conclusions be correctly drawn from these calculations.
First the researchers clarify the issue of definition:
To explain, in NISVS we define rape as “any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.”
We defined sexual violence other than rape to include being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences. Made to penetrate is defined as including “times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.”
The difference between “rape” and “being made to penetrate” is that in the definition of rape the victim is penetrated; “made to penetrate” by definition refers to cases where the victim penetrated someone else.
While there are multiple definitions of rape and sexual violence used in the field, CDC, with the help of experts in the field, has developed these specific definitions of rape and other forms of sexual violence (such as made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences). We use these definitions to help guide our analytical decisions.
Now the researchers get into the details of the math:
Regarding the specific assertion in question, several aspects of mistreatments of the data and the published estimates occurred in the above derivation:
A. While the percentage of female rape victims and the percentage of male being-made-to-penetrate victims were inferred from the past 12-month estimates by combining two forms of violence, the percentage of perpetrator by sex was taken from reported estimates for males for lifetime (a misuse of the percentage of male victims who reported only female perpetrators in their lifetime being made to penetrate victimization). This mismatch of timeframes is incorrect because the past 12-month victimization cannot be stretched to equate with lifetime victimization. In fact, Table 2.1 and 2.2 of the NISVS 2010 Summary Report clearly report that lifetime rape victimization of females (estimated at 21,840,000) is about 4 times the number of lifetime being made-to-penetrate of males (estimated at 5,451,000).
B. An arithmetic confusion appears when multiplying the two percentages together to conclude that the product is a percentage of all the “rapists”, an undefined perpetrator population. Multiplying the percentage of male victims (as derived in step 1) above) to the percentage of male victims who had female perpetrators cannot give a percentage of perpetrators mathematically because to get a percentage of female rape perpetrators, one must have the total rape perpetrators (the denominator), and the number of female perpetrators of this specific violence (the numerator). Here, neither the numerator nor the denominator was available.
C. Data collected and analyzed for the NISVS 2010 have a “one-to-multiple” structure (where the “one” refers to one victim and the “multiple” refers to multiple perpetrators). While not collected, it is conceivable that any perpetrator could have multiple victims. These multiplicities hinder any attempt to get a percentage of perpetrators such as the one described in steps 1) and 2), and nullify the reverse calculation for obtaining a percent of perpetrators.
For example, consider an example in which a girl has eight red apples while a boy has two green apples. Here, 50% of the children are boys and another 50% are girls. It is not valid to multiply 50% (boy) with 100% (boy’s green apples) to conclude that “50% of all the apples combined are green”. It is clear that only 20% of all the apples are green (two out of 10 apples) when one combines the red and green apples together. Part of the mistake in the deriving of the “50%” stems from a negligence to take into account the inherent multiplicity: a child can have multiple apples (just as a victim can have multiple perpetrators).
D. As the study population is U.S. adults in non-institutional settings, the sample was designed to be representative of the study population, not the perpetrator population (therefore no sampling or weighting is done for the undefined universe of perpetrators). Hence, while the data can be analyzed to make statistical inferences about the victimization of U.S. adults residing in non-institutional settings, the NISVS data are incapable of lending support to any national estimates of the perpetrator population, let alone estimates of perpetrators of a specific form of violence (say, rape or being-made-to-penetrate).
E. Combining the estimated past 12-month female rape victims with the estimated past 12-month being-made-to-penetrate male victims cannot give an accurate number of all victims who were either raped or being-made-to-penetrate, even if this combination is consistent with CDC’s definition.
Besides a disagreement with the definitions of the various forms of violence given in the NISVS 2010 Summary Report, this approach of combining the 12-month estimated number of female rape victims with the 12-month estimated number of male victims misses victims in the cells where reliable estimates were not reported due to small cell counts failing to meet statistical reliability criteria. For any combined form of violence, the correct analytical approach for obtaining a national estimate is to start at the raw data level of analysis, if such a creation of a combined construct is established.
So you’re going to need to go back to the drawing board, MRAs.
What is especially distressing here is that the NISVS data could have been the starting point for a serious discussion of male victims of sexual assault by women, which is a real and often overlooked issue. Unfortunately, MRAs have once again poisoned the well by misusing data in an attempt to exaggerate the purported villainy of women and score cheap rhetorical points.
NOTE: A regular in the AgainstMensRights subreddit approached the NISVS researchers with this same question some months back. Unfortunately, the statement they got back from the NISVS contained an incorrect number. The statement I’m quoting here corrects this number and adds more context.
I can provide contact info for the NISVS representative who got back to me on this to any serious (non-troll) person who requests it.
Posted on October 29, 2013, in all about the menz, antifeminism, evil women, misogyny, MRA, playing the victim, rape, rape culture, reddit, sexual assault, TyphonBlue and tagged anti-feminism, antifeminism, cdc, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, NISVS, rape, rape culture. Bookmark the permalink. 990 Comments.
Here’s some assorted responses:
>And no, you cannot draw conclusions about perpetrators from a study about victims.
Allright. Do you dispute MRA claims that men “forced to penetrate” ought to be counted as rape victims? And if they are, do you dispute that the percentage of male and female victims is at least much closer to equal than commonly believed?
>The “Don’t Be That Guy” posters focused on male rapists because, yes, the majority of rapes are committed by men.
Yes, but the writer specifically pointed out that campaign having “focused on male victims”, which is a lie.
>And nobody is using the NIPSVS to determine the percentage of rapes committed by men.
Fair enough.
>Alex, learn to HTML. While you’re at it, learn to logic.
Sorry, would you care to teach me? Some sites use the >, some use
>My favorite has to be that since the study asking people if they’d been victimized cannot say anything about perpetrators, that makes all 120~ pages useless.
That wasn’t my point. The paragraph I was responding to seemed to be saying that the study’s data couldn’t even be used to gauge the number of victims. That struck me odd because it seems like it’d be, y’know, something a sexual violence survey would try to do.
>I’m beginning to hope they do release it, because damn would I enjoy watching MRAs realize they have no idea what to do with hundreds of thousands of data points.
Would you, personally?
I’m sure we could find someone.
>I don’t think you can reason with people who think there is a mass conspiracy to suppress data about female (or male) rapists, but maybe I’m just blinded by my misandry.
I do think that data about male victims is being suppressed, but I don’t think it’s caused by conspiracy. There doesn’t *need* to be a conspiracy.
I’ll try to illustrate: In the time when homosexuality was still classed as a mental disorder, I don’t think there were many surveys asking homosexuals how much they loved their partners. Because the very idea didn’t even occur to people. Homosexual sex was thought of as this mindless, bestial act. The idea that homosexual love was *real* love took decades for people to even be able to consider.
So, back to the topic at hand, there are people out there right now who literally have no idea how a woman can possibly rape a man. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen that question asked. Sometimes in disbelief, sometimes with incredulity. Men are always up for sex, right? Only a faggot would turn down sex, right? And women aren’t as sexually aggressive, right? And you can’t rape a penis with your vagina, right? The general public, if they are aware of male rape at all, either think it’s all just gay rape in prison, or that it happens in such miniscule numbers compared to female rape that it’s not even worth getting upset over. So, yes, I do think that solid data on male rape victims (and female rapists) is being suppressed. Not by a willful conspiracy, but by cultural norms. A question that can’t be conceived of can’t be asked.
I don’t think feminists are causing the suppression, but I do think their focusing almost exclusively on female victims enables it to continue.
(And yeah, I also think it’s pretty likely that, just in general, people asking for grants to study ideas that make politicians uncomfortable tend to get turned down.)
1) (blockquote) encapsulated by angle brackets to start the quote, (/blockquote) in angle brackets to end it.
2) I get the distinct impression that you are not impacted by that slur you used, so you can fuck right off with using it, particularly the way you have here. By all means, speak out against the widespread and reprehensible idea that straight men cannot be raped by women, because they want sex all the time. You can do that without implying that the most tragic use of a word that has been used as a weapon against queer men for a very long time is its misapplication to straight men. You also managed to completely erase queer male victims of rape by women, or at least show a total lack of concern for them. And you’ve ignored the ways that the stereotype of men as always ready for sex impacts queer male victims of male rapists.
Bullshit! If you want to blame someone other than the rapists for the lack of empathy or attention given to male victims of rape, try starting with other men.
Go campaign on mens’ websites. Go campaign on men’s rights websites. Stop trying to make feminists feel guilty. We see through you.
Oh, and by the way, Alex, try reading through the thread before commenting. Most of your comments – they’ve already been made and answered. You’re too late to the party.
I doubt there’s some conspiracy by the NEH or other grant-awarding institutions; the more likely explanation is that scientists are subject to the same biases and assumptions as the general public about male rape. MRAs should try launching an educational campaign, you know, like feminists did back in the days it was assumed that rape was just something that made dating “exciting.” (These days, most people who aren’t Warren Farrell don’t think that anymore!)
Also, on stats, we actually do have our own in-house resident stats expert; zie’s named Argenti. Your problem is that you have a bunch of people, like typhonblue, who think they know how to deal with statistics and datasets, but actually don’t. You all don’t know enough to consult experts, and when you do and they say something you disagree with, you fly into a frothy rage and pretend there’s a coverup.
If that “would you, personally?” means “would you do the stats” the answer is no. Because I know what sort of software you need to work with that kind of data, and I don’t have it. As for the counts of victims, you have them. If you want the counts for the cells where they’re too small to be statistically reliable, try asking the CDC, those they might release.
Thanks cloudiah :)
Now, I have a fish tank issue to deal with, I think that noise is just he sump saying it needs more water.
Reynard: Allright. Do you dispute MRA claims that men “forced to penetrate” ought to be counted as rape victims? And if they are, do you dispute that the percentage of male and female victims is at least much closer to equal than commonly believed?
1: We’ve said that for quite some time. We also had (in this comment thread you didn’t read) a long conversation about it.
2: Yes, I dispute youre claim that the rates of victimisation in rape is anything close to the level of nearly equal (and also note that 60/40 isn’t actually nearly equal, one of those “halves” is fifty percent larger than the other).
Bullshit (well, no, a lie
Here is the quotation (which you didn’t dare include) In the case of rape, for example, feminists are well aware that men are raped as well: the “Don’t Be That Guy” ad campaign, which sent so many MRAs into hysterics, focused on male victims as well as female ones.
Included might have been a better word, but the implication you made, that Dave said males were the focus, instead of sayin they were a focus is disingenuous as best; that its idiocy was redundant, well your ire is predictable, as is the lack of reading the comments, because that line of attack as been asked and answered.
I’m beginning to hope they do release it, because damn would I enjoy watching MRAs realize they have no idea what to do with hundreds of thousands of data points.
Would you, personally?
I’m sure we could find someone.
I’d love it.
Here’s how I see it going.
1: They get the data.
2: They look at it in baffled confusion, because it looks like nothing they expected.
3: They fail to find anyone who can do the stats; in part because this is an amount of data that takes months to crunch, in part because one has to figure out what one is looking for, determine the models needed to map the data, cull the data for the information which applies to the model; run the formulas, determine the need for regresssive analysis, apply the regressions, and then… map the results to the model and interpret it for meaning.
Ideally it ought to be tested against other studies, and the modelling methods compared; so that one can map trends; see glaring mistakes.
You know what that generally requires? Expertise and money.
I’m sure you can, “find someone”.
I don’t think feminists are causing the suppression, but I do think their focusing almost exclusively on female victims enables it to continue.
Rubbish. It’s the guys who say, “only a fool/an idiot/etc. would turn down sex” who are doing what you complain of. It’s the morons who are all up in arms about how evil consent is. Its fuckheads who prented “don’t be that guy” is evil because it doesn’t blame women for rape by not pretending women are “as likely to rape as men are”.
It’s every lackwitted shit-for-brains who looks at all of that, being done by men, and blames women for it.
It’s fools like you.
Argenti: It never occured to me that he was asking you. That would require him to accept your analysis.
Like that was gonna happen.
Isn’t it crazy how the scientists and doctors at the Center for Disease Control don’t feel like they need to provide their raw data to every random frothing conspiracy theorist on the Internet?
And yeah, fuck off, Alex. You can’t be bothered to fucking read for fucking comprehension. If you did, you would know that this is an ongoing conversation that you’ve plopped into, and that everything you’ve said is old and has already been addressed. You’d also know that many of the posters here did disagree very strongly with the CDC’s classifying “MTP” and “rape” separately; that MTP is rape; and that all forms off sexual violence are bad. You’d also pick up the fact that the CDC’s classification of different types of sexual violence wasn’t meant to be a value judgement but a classification of different kinds of sexual violence. And that matter what you call it, it doesn’t change the fucking numbers.
But yeah, take your slurs and fuck off.
Oh, I think they’d find someone. Kind of the way they “found someone” to design the new AVfM logo. They’d find someone who thinks they know what they’re doing (but doesn’t), and start from their conclusions and work backwards to try to shoehorn the data to fit those.
Alex, don’t learn to HTML. The carats give your comments a charming early 90s email forward look.
Pecunium — true enough!
So about four of you have pointed out that I haven’t read all the comments here. Well, I apologize, but I don’t have time to. On the other hand, I’m not *forcing* any of you to reply back to me. If I ask something that’s already been answered, you can ignore it.
>(blockquote) encapsulated by angle brackets to start the quote, (/blockquote) in angle brackets to end it.
Thanks very much, Viscaria. But Katz insists I keep the old method.
>I get the distinct impression that you are not impacted by that slur you used, so you can fuck right off with using it, particularly the way you have here. By all means, speak out against the widespread and reprehensible idea that straight men cannot be raped by women, because they want sex all the time. You can do that without implying that the most tragic use of a word that has been used as a weapon against queer men for a very long time is its misapplication to straight men. You also managed to completely erase queer male victims of rape by women, or at least show a total lack of concern for them. And you’ve ignored the ways that the stereotype of men as always ready for sex impacts queer male victims of male rapists.
I empathize with your offense, but I don’t acknowledge any of your accusations as valid. I chose the word ‘faggot’ because that is the word these rape-deniers use. That’s the only reason why; because it’s an honest reflection of their ugliness. I didn’t imply that was the most tragic use of the word: that was your assumption. I didn’t erase anything by not happening to specifically include it in that paragraph: that was your assumption. My only intention was to show the shaming that I’ve seen happen to male rape victims. It’s painful for a straight man to have his sexuality questioned because he didn’t want to be forced into sex, and I’m sure that would be unimaginably more painful for a closeted gay man in that same position. I would have brought up gay rape victim shaming, but that wasn’t the topic I was speaking about: I was speaking specifically about society not comprehending male-on-female rape.
And if we’re not allowed to use the language of the ignorant to show their ignorance in context, then we’re just adding to that word’s power and taboo. The only two ways to take power away from a hurtful word are to mock it, or to overuse it until it’s completely worn out.
>Bullshit! If you want to blame someone other than the rapists for the lack of empathy or attention given to male victims of rape, try starting with other men. … Stop trying to make feminists feel guilty. We see through you.
Blame isn’t inherently either/or. Rapists will always deserve the most blame for their actions. Men deserve blame for hiding male rape victims through masculinity contests and shaming. Feminists also deserve blame for having about four or five decades to include male victims in the national dialogue about rape and failing to do so.
>I doubt there’s some conspiracy by the NEH or other grant-awarding institutions; the more likely explanation is that scientists are subject to the same biases and assumptions as the general public about male rape.
That’s a perfect summation of the argument I made.
>MRAs should try launching an educational campaign, you know, like feminists did back in the days
If we did, feminists would steamroller it purely because it was us saying it. C’mon, you know you would. We’d have a rally about myths of male rape, and over the horizon would come the chanting: “Racist, sexist, anti-gay! MRA! Go away!”
>Yes, I dispute youre claim that the rates of victimisation in rape is anything close to the level of nearly equal
That’s not what I asked. I asked whether you’d concede it’s closer to equal than the general public currently believes. Because right now they think 1 in 4 women (or is it 3) are victims, and, if they’d read the CDC report, that men are 1 in 71.
>Included might have been a better word, but the implication you made, that Dave said males were the focus, instead of sayin they were a focus is disingenuous as best; that its idiocy was redundant, well your ire is predictable
Allright, let’s try this: “The cast of recurring Charlie Brown characters focused on black characters as well as white ones.” See how that statement is dishonest because there’s only one black character, Franklin, who is ever shown? Just like only one DBTG poster showed a male victim?
>1: They get the data.
2: They look at it in baffled confusion, because it looks like nothing they expected.
Yeah, because we’re so dumb. DURRR HURRR WE DON’T KNOW NUMBERS BECAUSE WE HAVE WIENERS BETWEEN OUR LEGS. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
>Rubbish. It’s the guys who say, “only a fool/an idiot/etc. would turn down sex” who are doing what you complain of.
Yes, that’s true. Your other examples are exaggerations, but this one is true. And it’s ALSO true that feminism is ALSO to blame for the public being ignorant about male rape victims because of the choice by many feminist researchers and authors to not include male victims while they were raising consciousness about female rape myths.
>Isn’t it crazy how the scientists and doctors at the Center for Disease Control don’t feel like they need to provide their raw data to every random frothing conspiracy theorist on the Internet?
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but when I asked for their raw data, I did so in a snarky comment on an internet forum, which they likely did not see. If I actually asked them directly, they might very well have a link to it, or something similar. My request, you see, was not meant to be taken literally. But rather it was a sarcastic way to say that rather than huffing and puffing at MRAs for getting the numbers wrong, they could instead do the calculations themselves, or allow someone else do them.
>And yeah, fuck off, Alex. You can’t be bothered to fucking read for fucking comprehension.
Fuck fuck fuck fuck! I can say fuck too! And unlike using a slur, it’s apparently not offensive to say “fuck off”! Fuck fuckety fuckfuckfuck! :D
>You’d also know that many of the posters here did disagree very strongly with the CDC’s classifying “MTP” and “rape” separately; that MTP is rape; and that all forms off sexual violence are bad.
I’m actually extremely glad to hear that. Try to understand this; my goal here isn’t to be your enemy. My ultimate goal when I talk about anything related to gender or abuse, is maximizing help to victims who need it. If you and I are enemies, it’s because I think the good intentions of feminism sometimes blind it to seeing when its methods are ineffective.
>You’d also pick up the fact that the CDC’s classification of different types of sexual violence wasn’t meant to be a value judgement but a classification of different kinds of sexual violence. And that matter what you call it, it doesn’t change the fucking numbers.
Of course it does. How could you possibly say that!? They’re the ones that came to the conclusion that 1 in 71 men are victims of rape, instead of being honest and adding, “but if you factor in MTP, it’s actually a much different number.”
>Alex, don’t learn to HTML. The carats give your comments a charming early 90s email forward look.
Because you asked so politely, I will.
And yet, whining that CDC hasn’t made the raw available, and insinuating the CDC’s calculations of their data is somehow suspect; while the MRA’s have, indeed, completely misused and misinterpreted and twisted the findings to support their own ideology. Fucking fail.
But the CDC isn’t feminism. Please remember, this is research done by the CDC. Fucking fail.
Oh yes, please do tell me how classifying “MTP” as rape will magically change
the number of men who have been victims if MTP violence? Fucking fail.
Really? Please, do tell how MRA’s have actually helped male rape victims, rather than using these victims (who are people, who have been the victim of a crime) as a stick to beat up straw feminists with? Fucking fail.
Aww, was our delicate widdle ears burned by the swear word? But don’t see any problem throwing out a slur against homosexual men? Then backtrack when called on it? Fucking fail.
Don’t have time to read the discussion you barge in on, but do have time to talk out your ass about that which you have no idea about, and make assumptions about the views of the commenters here? Fucking lazy, fucking arrogant and big ol’ fucking FAIL.
So yeah, fuck off, Alex.
Well, if you’re just looking for an excuse not to do anything to help men, I suppose you can just make shit up to pretend that the mean feminazi under your bed made you not do it. If that makes you feel better. Me, I would be willing to take some heat if it were an issue I cared about, rather than making excuses for why I’m not doing anything, but that’s me.
Keep beating up those straw feminists, Alex.
“Because right now they think 1 in 4 women (or is it 3) are victims, and, if they’d read the CDC report, that men are 1 in 71.”
And if you’d read it you’d see that it says 1 in 6~ women will be raped at some point in there lifetime.
“>1: They get the data.
2: They look at it in baffled confusion, because it looks like nothing they expected.
Yeah, because we’re so dumb. DURRR HURRR WE DON’T KNOW NUMBERS BECAUSE WE HAVE WIENERS BETWEEN OUR LEGS. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)”
Aw, pecunium, your maths need some work because you have a wiener…wait, where’s this dashund that I’ve never met!
No, genius, he was saying that he’s seen what went into the survey here, and that was a hell of a lot less data, and that, given the MRM track record on doing things, nobody would realize they haven’t the skills to handle that sort of data.
Reynard: So about four of you have pointed out that I haven’t read all the comments here. Well, I apologize, but I don’t have time to. On the other hand, I’m not *forcing* any of you to reply back to me. If I ask something that’s already been answered, you can ignore it.
Bullshit.
You will respond to that with, “I see you can’t refute me”. It’s one of the reasons dishonest actors tend to refuse to read comments, and why they come to threads which are older, they hope to get the last word and, “claim victory”.
So, it’s nice to know you are upfront about being a weasel, and that you aren’t here in good faith.
More evidence of your bad faith. One person says, “keep the old method”, while you admit to four tell you to pull your thumb out and read the comments. Her you listen to (because it makes your life easier, or you otherwise want to, and because you can use her as a stick to beat others with), those who were being substantive, you ignored.
Got proof?
If we did, feminists would steamroller it purely because it was us saying it. C’mon, you know you would. We’d have a rally about myths of male rape, and over the horizon would come the chanting: “Racist, sexist, anti-gay! MRA! Go away!”
Unh… right. See the reason that’s nonsense is it ascribes willful malice against men to feminism. Want an example of messenger shooting? You, going on about “don’t be that guy” not talking about male rape.
You are ignorant of things you refuse to read, such as the comments here (and not just in this thread), where you would see feminists talking about male rape… but you are too busy to read about that; nope, you have to spend the time to type out 1,280 words of blather about how mean the feminists are while blaming something done by a group which isn’t actually feminists [though there are probably feminists who belong to it], on feminists: The people shouting at that rally were anti-facsists, not feminists. But you lot see anyone who opposes you as feminist. Clever that. Then you abuse us for not doing something we are already doing.
Your problem is we aren’t doing the one thing you really want… kissing your ass and telling you how important you are, just because you are a man.
Sensitive much? Tablature data from studies isn’t just numbers, it’s arrays of numbers, with values. To make it into functional data requires having models to relate one set of values to another. Then it requires formulae to convert those relational values to other values, so they can be plugged into tertiary formulae.
One has to know which formulae, and which functions are useful to test the theories in play. When one has large enough numbers of data points, with multiple variables, one has to decide which results need regressive analysis, and which regressive models to use.
It’s not numbers, any more than understanding Proust is just letters, it’s understanding the way the numbers stand in for things, and then manipulating the things (the way that words stand for things, and Proust manipulated those things,and played with the underlying connotations of words, and sentence structures; it’s knowing how to use synecdoche, where a word looks like one thing, and is doing at least two different things at the same time).
It’s not stupid, it’s trained.
That you didn’t know that (even when I expanded on just what the issues are), that’s stupid
Really… because it was a short list, and pretty narrow, I chose to refrain from hyperbole; lest you take a stab at being intentionally obtuse and pretend I meant anything I exaggerated for effect as literal.
But these, . It’s the morons who are all up in arms about how evil consent is. It’s fuckheads who pretend “don’t be that guy” is evil because it doesn’t blame women for rape by not pretending women are “as likely to rape as men are”, you call exaggeration?
When someone says, “it’s too hard to get consent”. or, “Just because she’s been drinking doesn’t mean she’s not able to consent”, or, “consent is implicit”, those guys are making it harder to make campaigns against rape, because they are blurring the lines on rape.
When a group goes around saying, “don’t be that girl” and implying that women who make accusations of rape are “date rape is just buyer’s remorse they are making it harder to focus on men who are raped; because they are encouraging men to rape, which means efforts to look at victims have to take a back seat to focusing on preventing men from perpetrating rapes.
And the MRM is all over making men think rape is just, “drunk sex”.
Then you are stupid. Not because that’s not a laudable goal, but because you could have saved yourself a lot of time if you actually read comments to pieces like this one (or gasp, read actual feminist writing), because we aren’t the enemy bubbeleh. Feminism (contra the MRM) is working to minimise rape, across the board.
Conset is sexy/yes means yes, isn’t a gendered campaign. “Don’t be that guy” was aimed at men; in a specific sort of way, but it was also about teaching people to spot the signs of a rapist. If women are engaging in that sort of behavior, a guy who has (to borrow a term from Military Intelligence) “been sensitised” is more likely to spot it being done, and work to prevent it.
But you, you are high on the horse of your moral indignation, and to busy getting off on “taking the fight to the feminists” to actually look at what they are saying (instead of what you are being told they say) and waste your time, our time, and so keep the day when victims can be the focus, just a little further away.
Good job.
So…you admit that you have no idea what this conversation has been about and that your contribution will most likely be irrelevant.
But you feel the need to say it anyway.
I propose we, from here on out, recall that Reynard has said this:
So…you admit that you have no idea what this conversation has been about and that your contribution will most likely be irrelevant.
But you feel the need to say it anyway.
Necro-trolls and first-trolls in a nutshell.
“It’s not numbers, any more than understanding Proust is just letters, it’s understanding the way the numbers stand in for things, and then manipulating the things”
You made me smile at that. The universe is math. Obsenely complex math, but math.
Know how to manipulate those things the right way and you can end up with desalinization, or the atomic bomb. Or, by Jove! This weird little device and system we’re currently using for communication! (I promise not to go Victorian Time Traveller right now, I need to feed myself, and puff)
I understand the idea of math, even if I can’t really do it.
You quite clearly get the principles, and really, I think you’re better at it than you give yourself credit for.
Aww…kitty is suckling my brother.
I know from type because I used to do journalism. I’ve done layout, and paste up. I’ve even set lead type.
Is that strange to you, Alex? O_o
I’m now mentally reading Alex’s posts in Hugh Grant’s voice. It almost makes them entertaining. Almost.
He sounds like Bernard Black to me, but without the wit.
I’m also baffled by the “fuck” thing. How the hell is “fuck off” on the same level as a slur?
This was originally humongous, and I’m going to have to cut it down. If you made a point to me and I didn’t reply to it and you wanted me to, I apologize.
>But the CDC isn’t feminism.
I never said it was.
>Oh yes, please do tell me how classifying “MTP” as rape will magically change
the number of men who have been victims if MTP violence?
It won’t, and I didn’t say that it would. I said, specifically, that acknowledging victims of MTP would change the “1 in 71″ statistic. And if that happened, there’s a slim chance that people might pay more attention to male victims. That would help them, and it wouldn’t be magic.
>Really? Please, do tell how MRA’s have actually helped male rape victims
For one example, I’ve seen male rape victims tell their stories on the r/mensrights sub, and receive positive comments and links to supportive organizations. And we’re also trying to raise awareness that male rape victims exist. For now, until we have more members and more funding, there’s not much more we can do than talk.
>Aww, was our delicate widdle ears burned by the swear word? But don’t see any problem throwing out a slur against homosexual men? Then backtrack when called on it? Fucking fail.
You seem to believe that when you are directly and intentionally insulting to me, that’s less wrong than when I unintentionally offended someone by using a slur to show condemnation of that slur.
>Don’t have time to read the discussion you barge in on, but do have time to talk out your ass about that which you have no idea about, and make assumptions about the views of the commenters here? Fucking lazy, fucking arrogant and big ol’ fucking FAIL.
How can I barge in on an open public forum? And where have I made assumptions about commenters here?
I’m not insulted by your overuse of swear words. I just think it makes you look like a bully.
—
>Well, if you’re just looking for an excuse not to do anything to help men, I suppose you can just make shit up to pretend that the mean feminazi under your bed made you not do it.
Oh, I’m not saying we won’t do anything. I think it’s a great idea having an MRA rally to showcase myths about male rape. But don’t try to act like I’m “making shit up”. That’s a DIRECT QUOTE that was chanted by counter-protestors at an MRA event in Canada. It didn’t matter that some of the MRA speakers were women, or homosexual. The counter-protesters called the MRM those things without having heard a word of what was actually being said. And to be honest, I’m fine with that. I hope that when the MRA does more public events, more people show up shouting “Racist, sexist, anti-gay! MRA, go away!” because it makes them look ignorant and cruel. And we look good in comparison. In general, it seems like the more hatred I see directed towards the MRM, the more the mainstream media acknowledges our existence.
—
>Keep beating up those straw feminists, Alex.
If you can prove me wrong by showing me instances of mainstream feminist articles or PSAs or awareness campaigns that treat male victims as equally deserving of help and compassion as female victims, then please do. I welcome it.
Because from my viewpoint, I am currently being told by feminists that all sexual violence is important to address. And that’s true. But when I think back on my own life experiences, the only time I can remember a sympathetic portrayal of a man raped by women is in a single Law & Order SVU episode. Other than that, if I’ve seen media where women sexually abuse men, it has been played as comedy. And every anti-rape ad I can remember has shown a world starkly populated by female victims and male monsters. Even if that’s what happens a majority of the time, surely that’s no excuse to *never* acknowledge male victims. Surely they deserve a minority of the attention instead of none. Like I said, it seems like a lot of people still don’t know that it’s even possible for a woman to rape a man. Feminism is in the best possible position to combat that ignorance. It has huge numerical backing, many organizations, government support, and more funding than the MRA could ever dream of. So, am I not seeing results because I’m looking in the wrong places, or are they simply not there?
—
>And if you’d read it you’d see that it says 1 in 6~ women will be raped at some point in there lifetime.
I’m aware, but I was describing what the general public believes. The CDC study says 1 in 6, but I’ve seen 1 in 4 in a lot more places. Sorry if I wasn’t clear about that.
>No, genius, he was saying that he’s seen what went into the survey here, and that was a hell of a lot less data, and that, given the MRM track record on doing things, nobody would realize they haven’t the skills to handle that sort of data.
How can you make that assumption? How do you know there’s no MRA statisticians? Or that we couldn’t hire someone or some organization to sort the data?
—
>Bullshit. You will respond to that with, “I see you can’t refute me”. It’s one of the reasons dishonest actors tend to refuse to read comments, and why they come to threads which are older, they hope to get the last word and, “claim victory”.
If you don’t comment at all, I have nothing to reply to. True or false?
And please don’t make assumptions about my motives. It’s frighteningly easy for it to go from “I think these are your motives” to “it’s a fact that your motives are…” I’ve already said explicitly what my motives here are. If you want to say otherwise, then just call me a liar directly.
>So, it’s nice to know you are upfront about being a weasel, and that you aren’t here in good faith.
Wow. I had actually written that last paragraph before seeing this one, and I couldn’t have asked for better proof. You make assumptions about me, then treat those assumptions as if they’re fact. And as if I’ve already agreed to them! Don’t you dare lecture me about good faith when you use tactics like this.
>More evidence of your bad faith. One person says, “keep the old method”, while you admit to four tell you to pull your thumb out and read the comments. Her you listen to (because it makes your life easier, or you otherwise want to, and because you can use her as a stick to beat others with), those who were being substantive, you ignored.
You say I ignored her, when I addressed AT LENGTH the substantive points she made. I’ve done my best to respond to people’s substantive arguments here. It’s not good strategy to lie when the proof is still visible.
Also, how is the formatting of my replies relevant to the CDC or rape victims or anything that we’re actually talking about? I reply like this because it’s more compact than having big blocks of floating white text; there, that’s my motivation.
>You are ignorant of things you refuse to read, such as the comments here (and not just in this thread), where you would see feminists talking about male rape
People talking in blog comments is different than mainstream media sources treating male rape as either comedy or nonexistant, and feminist organizations not challenging that even though they have the resources to.
>The people shouting at that rally were anti-facsists, not feminists.
Then why did they chant “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re feminists, we’re fabulous”? They explicitly self-identified as feminists.
>Your problem is we aren’t doing the one thing you really want… kissing your ass and telling you how important you are, just because you are a man.
…Um. I categorically deny that I want any of that.
>When a group goes around saying, “don’t be that girl” and implying that women who make accusations of rape are “date rape is just buyer’s remorse they are making it harder to focus on men who are raped; because they are encouraging men to rape, which means efforts to look at victims have to take a back seat to focusing on preventing men from perpetrating rapes.
If you really believe that the amount of people who have those opinions has such a massive effect on our culture as a whole, that they should be blamed first instead of centuries-old gender roles and decades-long, well-funded feminist campaigns focusing almost-solely on female victims, then there’s nothing I can reply to that.
>And the MRM is all over making men think rape is just, “drunk sex”.
That is a lie.
>Feminism (contra the MRM) is working to minimise rape, across the board.
What concrete actions has feminism done to minimize male victims of female sexual violence?
>“Don’t be that guy” was aimed at men; in a specific sort of way, but it was also about teaching people to spot the signs of a rapist.
Then why were none of the rapists in the posters women? You go on to say that men will be able to spot these behaviors in women too. Don’t you think it would be easier for them if the posters showed women exhibiting those behaviors? Or maybe if the title of the campaign hadn’t heavily implied that rape is a male behavior? I think you’re defending the indefensible.
>But you, you are high on the horse of your moral indignation, and to busy getting off on “taking the fight to the feminists” to actually look at what they are saying
I’m sorry, but what you say to me is not as persuasive to me as a lifetime of observation showing me that feminism focuses almost-solely on female victims. Have you ever heard the phrase “Actions speak louder than words?”
—
So…you admit that you have no idea what this conversation has been about and that your contribution will most likely be irrelevant. But you feel the need to say it anyway.
Yes, that’s accurate. Sometimes I comment just for my own sake. I would imagine many people do. I don’t expect or demand anything from anyone else here.
—
>Is that strange to you, Alex? O_o
Yes, that is strange to me. Honest answer.
—
>How the hell is “fuck off” on the same level as a slur?
I used a slur to demonstrate how it’s used to hurt people. My use was trying to show the word’s ugliness and my disapproval of it. I directed it at no one. Whereas “fuck off” was directed at me personally. In my opinion, an insult is always worse than a neutrally-used bad word, because of the intent to hurt someone.
—
Also, I find it kinda interesting that I sound British to two of you. I’m not trying to. I’m actually from Michigan.
“How can you make that assumption? How do you know there’s no MRA statisticians? Or that we couldn’t hire someone or some organization to sort the data?”
I’ve seen their ability to recruit a logo designer, and that is far easier than working with the size data sets the CDC produces. You’re talking a six figure salary statistician working for little to no pay. Good fucking luck with that.
Still is.
“I used a slur to demonstrate how it’s used to hurt people. My use was trying to show the word’s ugliness and my disapproval of it. I directed it at no one. Whereas “fuck off” was directed at me personally. In my opinion, an insult is always worse than a neutrally-used bad word, because of the intent to hurt someone.”
This is just stupid. A slur is inherently offensive. An insult aimed at you personally might sting, but it’s not harming others or perpetuating harmful cultures. Also “fuck off” isn’t even an insult. It’s just an abrupt way to tell someone to leave and that you don’t like them. You’re equating your own hurt feelings(which were deserved) with oppression. I’m sorry sweetie but you are not that important.
Reynard: How can I barge in on an open public forum? And where have I made assumptions about commenters here?
Asked and answered.
The counter-protesters called the MRM those things without having heard a word of what was actually being said.
Or, yanno, they might have read what they had said in the past.
Take an example, I don’t need to go to a Sarah Palin, or a David Duke rally to know what they are.
As to the rest, and what we think feminism ought to do (i.e. what we would do at such a rally)
Asked and answered.
If you can prove me wrong by showing me instances of mainstream feminist articles or PSAs or awareness campaigns that treat male victims as equally deserving of help and compassion as female victims, then please do. I welcome it.
Asked and answered.
How can you make that assumption? How do you know there’s no MRA statisticians? Or that we couldn’t hire someone or some organization to sort the data?
Have you seen what AVfM did to get a logo?
Do you know how much work, time, and money, it takes to crunch the data in a study the size of the CDCs? I have a pretty good idea. I’ve designed a study, (a small one) of about 12 questions.
I got about 60 respondents. It took me the best part of a week to draw out my conclusions; and I wasn’t required to be rigorous.
If you don’t comment at all, I have nothing to reply to. True or false?
False.
If you want to say otherwise, then just call me a liar directly.
Oh, I’m sorry. Fuck. I thought my opinion of you was plain. I see I overestimated your wit.
I think you are a liar. That you aren’t engaging in honest argument, and that given half a chance you will try to twist the words of those who disagree with you. Let me see what I said before.
Ah…, yes, here it is, I called you a liar in the first comment I made to you… so, asked and answered.
That you think I can’t read motivation from several thousand words of reply… well as I said, I overestimated you. I’ll try not to do that in future.
I’m sorry, but what you say to me is not as persuasive to me as a lifetime of observation showing me that feminism focuses almost-solely on female victims. Have you ever heard the phrase “Actions speak louder than words?”
Yes, I’m looking at your actions here. They are revealing.
Have you ever heard the words, “confirmation bias”?
That is a lie.
It’s not (and before you demand evidence to support my denial, it’s been asked and answered)
…Um. I categorically deny that I want any of that.
Of course you do.
What concrete actions has feminism done to minimize male victims of female sexual violence?
Asked and answered
Then why were none of the rapists in the posters women?
Asked and answered
I don’t expect or demand anything from anyone else here.
Liar.
@Alex
You haven’t read the thread and yet you seem determined to debate the CDC report, the Toronto rally, the Edmonton DBTG poster campaign, feminism and rape in general, all at once. Some focus might help.
I was imagining the swearing scene in The King’s Speech.
Oh gods yes, that scene! :D
FORNICATE!
Aww, poor widdle Awex. Guys! I’m bullying poor widdle Awex with my fucking f-bombs.
Yeah, as for the rest of that wall o’ text? Asked and answered.
Alex, dude. Brevity is the soul of wit. If you can’t be bothered to read the thread then at least be succint in your attempts to restate topics that have already been addressed.
This is me avoiding PHP, because I have NO IDEA wtf is up and am going to have to patch together one of the core themes and mine until it breaks to figure it out.
Good news is that I can do it locally and not make a mess all over the Borg.
Things way more interesting than this guy — doesn’t look like nearly all 20 fry have survived, but I’ve got a couple ones nearly big enough to graduate to big kid food!
What do baby fish eat?
RE: Alex Reynard
I think it’s a great idea having an MRA rally to showcase myths about male rape.
LOLZ. You seem to think that the MRM actually CARES about male rape survivors. As one of them, I have seen no such indication — and I have challenged MRAs previously to show it.
It didn’t matter that some of the MRA speakers were women, or homosexual.
Dude. Gay people can be homophobic. Women can be sexist. The chant had plenty of problems — which we discussed in another thread — but your complaint is still wrong.
“It didn’t matter that some of the MRA speakers were women, or homosexual.”
I missed this, but what LBT said. Being a woman or an LGBT person doesn’t make your opinions on gender automatically correct.
Yeaaaah, it’s amazing how many people don’t realize this. But then, I’ve spent waaaay too much time up to my eyeballs in the g0ys and Cockrub Warriors of Mars.
“What do baby fish eat?”
In the wild, itty bitty algae and trolls…no wait, I mean planaria and similar tiny organisms. In a tank, fry food. It’s powder. First few days after they hatch, cories anyways, still have yolk sacs they feed off of, after that I’m fond of hikari first bites.
Alex, what concrete actions has the MRM done to minimize female victims of male sexual violence?
I lost my ability to take anything here said seriously when this happened:
Me: If you don’t comment at all, I have nothing to reply to. True or false?
Them: False.
I look at that, and all I can do is just shrug. You can’t even concede something that’s objectively true. You’ll deny reality just to disagree with me. No explanation given.
No explanation given for most of the points I brought up. Just “asked and answered.” You couldn’t summarize? Maybe give me a link? You seem to have no desire to try convincing me that you’re right. I’m just supposed to already know everything you do. I wonder, how do you get anyone to join you?
There was also this line:
“You’re equating your own hurt feelings(which were deserved) with oppression. I’m sorry sweetie but you are not that important.”
So… I deserve it when one of you deliberately intends to insult me. Because I made use of a slur to demonstrate my disapproval of that slur.
Your feelings are important enough that I have to respect them, but I am not important enough to deserve the same.
Do you really not understand why that’s so surreal? Do you not understand why that’s a perfect example of “It’s okay when we do it, because we’re us, and it’s evil when you do it, because you’re them”? By that logic, any bully tactic you use on me is okay so long as you don’t use certain words.
I oppressed no one. You’re insulting actual oppression to call it that. Especially in light of the trigger warning at the top of this very page.
Being here reminds me of the time I decided to post on the Atheism+ forum. I’d heard MRAs talking about how it was an Orwellian nightmare, and I thought “It can’t possibly be that bad.” I decided to go there, bring up some points of disagreement, and do so civilly, always obeying all of their forum’s rules. Over the next four days, they pretty much broke me. I stayed as long as I could, but the atmosphere there was so toxic, it literally brought me to tears. And not even while I was there; it was in public, hours later. I’m pushing a grocery cart and suddenly start crying uncontrollably. No one else has ever done that to me. I’ve been in countless arguments and flamewars. I’ve had the vilest threats and insults thrown at me. People have told me I deserve to die. I’ve had someone stalk me for over a year, doxxing me, posting photos of my house online, threatening my friends. I’ve had someone post drawings where they brutally murder me, and they included my real street address. None of that hurt me the way the people at Atheism+ did.
I bring that up because I see the same things beginning to happen here. Misinterpretation of my arguments. Nitpicking details of my speech instead of directly addressing my points. Refusing to concede a single thing I say, even if it’s objectively, provably true. Absolute silence in reply to points where I prove someone wrong. Changing the conversation from topics of substance to assumptions and accusations about me personally. Finding any way possible to take what I’ve said in offense, while openly and intentionally being offensive to me and defending that behavior. And most of all, selectively condemning me for behaviors which I haven’t done to others here, but which others have openly done to me.
Being openly bullied for a sustained amount of time by people who attribute all their own malice onto you is a feeling like having your nose pressed into vomit. I’m not going through it again. I know my words are hitting solid glass and bouncing off. I know you will find ways to convince yourself that I am the bad guy, that you are the good guys, and I cannot be right, and you cannot be wrong. I don’t care.
I would be ashamed of myself if I treated anyone like you do. Not all of you, but some of you. I don’t pity you, but I pity the people around you in your real lives.
Have you taken a religious vow that every comment must be at least 2000 words long or something?
RE: Alex
You couldn’t summarize? Maybe give me a link?
We did. IN THE THREAD.
You seem to have no desire to try convincing me that you’re right. I’m just supposed to already know everything you do. I wonder, how do you get anyone to join you?
THEY READ THE THREADS.
Seriously, why would we want anyone to join us… when they don’t read anything we’ve written before?
You’re seriously going to ask someone else to summarize?
Reynard: It’s false because “silence = assent”.
It’s argumentation 101. That you pretend you don’t understand (when the comment to which you made reply said that very thing), is one more reason to point out your mendacity.
Dude, that is what you said to do, just ignore you and you’d take it as read. I went so far as to let you know that it’s been done. You said don’t expect or demand anything from anyone else here.
You lied.
You seem to have no desire to try convincing me that you’re right. I’m just supposed to already know everything you do. I wonder, how do you get anyone to join you?
I have no desire to repeat myself in this thread (yet again) because you don’t have the common decency to catch up, while imposing on us with 4,411 words; on this page alone.
Do you really not understand why that’s so surreal? Do you not understand why that’s a perfect example of “It’s okay when we do it, because we’re us, and it’s evil when you do it, because you’re them”? By that logic, any bully tactic you use on me is okay so long as you don’t use certain words.
Grow up. You used a word to which people took offense. Rather than say, “oh, I see that I offended you, I’m sorry, I won’t do it again”, you said, “tough titties, I didn’t do anything wrong” Then people told you (in strong language) that they didn’t want you around because you were being an asshole you said that “fuck off” was a slur equal to F*****T. That’s dickish.
So tell me why we would want your sort around? Why should we make the extra effort to go back and rewrite things when 1: they have been asked and answered, 2: you don’t demand anything of any of us, 3: you lied about that and are demanding we duplicate our efforts and take time from our lives and amusements to tell you something you will refuse to believe?
That trigger warning, is because shitstains like you refuse to have the decency to take other’s feelings into account.
I’ve had the vilest threats and insults thrown at me. People have told me I deserve to die. I’ve had someone stalk me for over a year, doxxing me, posting photos of my house online, threatening my friends. I’ve had someone post drawings where they brutally murder me, and they included my real street address. None of that hurt me the way the people at Atheism+ did.
I bring that up because I see the same things beginning to happen here.
Sure you do cupcake. It’s so terrible to be told to fuck off. It’s so awful that people who are offended told you about it. It’s so unfair when you were rude to them that they didn’t just lie down and take it.
Must be hell to have to deal with people who expect you be a halfway decent human being.
. Misinterpretation of my arguments. Nitpicking details of my speech instead of directly addressing my points. Refusing to concede a single thing I say, even if it’s objectively, provably true.
If that had happened you might have something to whine about.
Absolute silence in reply to points where I prove someone wrong.
Aw look… just what I said you would do.
Being openly bullied for a sustained amount of time by people who attribute all their own malice onto you is a feeling like having your nose pressed into vomit.
Says the guy who lies about his desires and motives. Must suck to come someplace and have them refuse to play the game you wanted to play.
I would be ashamed of myself if I treated anyone like you do.
I’d be ashamed if I was a obvious, and lousy, a liar as you are. I’d be more ashamed at whining so much when I got caught out, instead of taking my lumps and making a quiet exit.
I’ve gotten plenty of actual rape & death threats on Reddit even though I mostly stay in explicitly feminist subs, and I don’t whine about it nearly as much as Alex. (Who, incidentally, made a comment on Reddit saying that battered woman syndrome was horseshit, but a person could be excused for bashing in the head of a doctor who botched a circumcision. Not that a botched circumcision is okay, but I kind of think systematically battering people is also bad.)
I can’t help but notice he didn’t answer my question, which re-gendered his question to us. I am sure pointing that out makes me a terrible abuser!
Alex, getting told to fuck off because you’re an intellectually bankrupt and dishonest asshat isn’t the same as people threatening to rape you simply because you’re a woman with an opinion on the internet.
Your false equivalency isn’t fazing us.
Also, so apparently being concise is misandry.
I hope this one sticks the flounce. This one has been particularly wearisome.
Doesn’t have time to read whats already been written, but has time to write long essays about it. Deliberately misrepresents what the OP actually said. Accuses CDC if suppressing data. Demands multiple times that CDC should release raw data, then claims such demands were “snark.” Dances the goalposts all over the place. I could go on and on and on.
sparky – I feel this need to go on my computer and do a point by point take down all of a sudden.
Oh, here’s a citation for where he thinks a botched circumcision of someone else is grounds for murder, but a person who is being systematically battered does not have grounds for murder:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1qfcw9/doctors_remove_boys_penis_during_a_botched/cdcd1rd
(I suspect the reasons have to do with who is harmed. If a boy is harmed, murder is allowable. If a woman is harmed, well, we’re not really humans after all, so it couldn’t possibly be an excuse for killing in self defense.)
Alice, you have far more patience than I do. :)
I think the best response to his, “woe is me, I iz O-Pressed! is to quote his own words to him.
You’re not getting disagreed with because of where you are, but because of what you said.
We’re big meanies, check. How you tolerate multiple visits to this site, a haven for big meanies, is a wonder, Alex.
Some of what you posted:
“Oh, I’m not saying we won’t do anything. I think it’s a great idea having an MRA rally to showcase myths about male rape.”
Oh please, present a list to illustrate what you’re talking about, then provide citation that your “list” didn’t originate with straw feminism.
” But don’t try to act like I’m “making shit up”. That’s a DIRECT QUOTE that was chanted by counter-protestors at an MRA event in Canada. It didn’t matter that some of the MRA speakers were women, or homosexual.”
Sorry, I’m going to need to see pictures, images or some audio that proves minorites were overwhelmingly represented in the MRA camp.
” The counter-protesters called the MRM those things without having heard a word of what was actually being said. And to be honest, I’m fine with that. I hope that when the MRA does more public events….”
They won’t…at least not in any mainstream venues. If you don’t understand why, we can’t help you.
“… more people show up shouting “Racist, sexist, anti-gay! MRA, go away!” because it makes them look ignorant and cruel. And we look good in comparison.”
Um, it sounds more like there’s a hell of a lot of people out there who think MRAs are a hate group. Ever wonder why? You look good in comparison? By what standards?
” In general, it seems like the more hatred I see directed towards the MRM, the more the mainstream media acknowledges our existence.”
Yeah, but bad publicity doesn’t equal acceptance, despite what any starry-eyed publicist may tell you.
—
You think a publicist would agree to work with these guys?
Absolutely not, Cassandra. But I notice in movies, when there’s a publicist character, they’re always exclaiming that “…even bad publicity is good publicity.” Alex has obviously watched all those films.
sparky – Well, I’m surprised that I haven’t gotten a brain aneurysm from reading NaturalNews. I should look into mocking whale.to next… :P
I should be doing maths. Damn it.
Oh my… his reddit history is a precious goldmine of lackwittery.
Pecunium — he doesn’t pity us, just the people around us in real life. But if we’re…I’m so confused! Does it even out to pitying us both, or neither of us?!
Argenti: he pities neither of us, because we deserve what we get. But my lovers, he pities them. My friends, he pities them. My co-workers, he pities them.
I’ll be sure to tell them all that they can call on him when they need support.
Oh, the hypocrisy: In a “question” where he posits a need to disprove the idea that epicanthic folds make asians bad drivers he gets all offended that someone called his question r*tar***
“Argenti: he pities neither of us, because we deserve what we get.”
I’m going to take that as solely the cliche, because my brain is breaking trying to wrap itself around the idea that I deserve what I get from you.
You’re way too awesome for me to deserve it.
So, so far we know that he’s sexist, racist, and prone to using violence to solve problems (the thing about beating up an incompetent doctor). What other fascinating forms of bigotry and general assholery remain to be discovered? Stay tuned for the next edition of As The Troll Turns.
Ahaha! He pities my father! I’d pay to see his reaction to listening to my father for, oh, 15. After an hour he’d be homicidal.