>
 |
| Feminist witches have captured Jack Nicholson! |
Today’s tasty helping of antifeminist crackpottery comes from Len Hummel, courtesy of henrymakow.com. In an article titled, for reals, “Satanists Seduce Women With Wicca,” Hummel asks:
Are you aware of the close connection between feminism, lesbianism, wicca, and goddess-worship? It is rampant and getting worse by the minute.
Vast numbers of women today have been seduced into the occult, satanism, and various forms of witchcraft and wicca by the evil spirits behind those movements and feminism. …
Consider these insights from a Christian researcher who has investigated these very disturbing developments among modern-day feminists: …
“Much of what is currently published under the guise of New Age “enlightenment”, is nothing less than Old Age doctrines of nefarious invisible hosts. As in antiquity, so in modern times, those who practice paganism are guilty of worshipping “devils”…
>That's some serious crackpottery going on there.
>I hope you don't think that one person represents the entire anti-feminist movement. If so, I've got a whole litany of quotes here from feminists which are hardly flattering:"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students. "Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'"- Judith Levine"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."- Valerie Solanas, SCUM ManifestoThat's three zany feminist quotes – a win 3 to 1 if I'm not mistaken.Anyway, I have a wage gap debate on my blog if you're willing to take part in it. After all, feminism is right, so you should be chomping at the bit to spread the word – especially in the face of scrutiny.
>Uh, you've taken that Levine quote completely out of context. She's not a man-hating radical feminist; her book is actually ABOUT man-hating — analyzing examples of it, trying to figure out where it comes from, and how to get past it. So that's not really a "zany feminist quote." It's more like a "zany complete misrepresentation of an out-of-context quote from a writer who actually has quite original and nuanced views on many issues related to gender." I was going to put up a description of the book that quote came from, but, hey, you quoted her, so you should probably already know the source of it, right?
>This would have been more accurate."Today's tasty helping of antifeminist crackpottery comes from the same source as the last".Mackow's site seems to be a conspiracy theory and christian site, there are no links from it that are anti feminist or mens rights related…Makow seems the fit the caricature of anti feminism that NOMAS describes on wiki pages that they hijacked.I think that this site and NOMAS insult the intelligence of feminists by taking the likes of Makow and stereotyping every true egalitarian, mens rights person, real feminist and anti feminist out there. Besides, there is no anti feminist movement, anti feminist is a term that Dworkin used to describe any opposition, its a term like infidel or heretic and this site and NOMAS run FOX news style fear mongering and ridicule based on these stereotypes that dont really or only in isolation, exist in the first place.So these people that use deception to bury and hide injustice and legal inequality are really the ones that are in the morally incorrect position.
>So you remember that I did a previous post on Makow but you don't remember me saying pretty clearly that most MRAs don't agree with his crazy conspiracy theories.
>The mra is about legal equality, equal opportunity, civil and human rights not Christianity or some Illuminati. I dont have a vested interest in misleading your readership David, but I will point out the fact that you do.
>@Eoghan – so random quotations from feminists should be What Feminists Believe (TM) but random quotations from a MRA are taken out of context, misrepresentations, not really what MRAs, believe, blah, blah, blah… Hyp-o-crite.
>TecThe "random quotations" you are taking about not random quotations, not the quotes if loan nuts. They are quotes from the most influential women that shaped the ideology and pattern of mainstream feminist though, the quotes that count.Thats a standard flaw in feminist arguments, you dont know the difference between odd and random quotes and important ones.
>Eoghan: I've stated several times that Makow is a nut, and not representative of the MRM. (Though he still does have SOME fans amongst MRAs.) But let's assume you're correct. If I'm quoting "loan" nuts, then who in your mind are the important MRAs I should be quoting instead?
>@Eoghan"The "random quotations" you are taking about [are] not random quotations, not the quot[ations] [o]f [lone] nuts. They are quot[ations] from the most influential women that shaped the ideology and pattern of mainstream feminist though[t], the quot[ations] that count.That[']s a standard flaw in feminist arguments[:] you don[']t know the difference between odd and random quot[ations] and important ones. "Actually, the quotations to which you refer, were influential in shaping radical feminism. The real problem is you think feminism is a monolith when it clearly isn't. Did you even try to read through the website I recommended previously? Obvy not.On feminisms: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/12/faq-why-do-some-people-talk-of-feminisms/Also, since you don't bother to read through the FAQs:" No one person represents the whole feminist movement, or all feminisms. Not this feminist, not any other feminist.Often both the people asking this sort of question and the responses conflate two separate arguments:1. Did the person actually commit the alleged offensive/stupid/crazy/evil action? 2. Does committing that offensive/stupid/crazy/evil action reflect badly on feminism? …Feminists don’t have to defend any alleged offensive/stupid/crazy/evil actions of someone in order to defend the positive social movement of feminism.Or should we conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by Fred Phelps reflects badly on all one-time civil rights lawyers, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act of Dick Cheney reflects badly on every father of a lesbian, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil song of James Blunt reflects badly on all one-time officers of the Household Cavalry Life Guards Regiment?""the way that a person’s actions may reflect on their own character and the way that a person’s actions may reflect on any larger social group/movement they belong to are two separate arguments."Wait – isn't this your argument, Eoghan, when David posts about prominent members of your group? Wow, it's almost like you're applying a double standard…(sarcasm) Oh actually, that's right, your arguments are usually defending them… On the other hand, several of us feminists here have said that those feminist quotations are heinous and disgusting and do not agree. You know, because feminism isn't a monolith with a single set of beliefs… despite what you like to present and believe. http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/faq-some-feminist-saiddid-something-offensivestupidcrazyevil-so-isnt-feminism-a-failure/
>Oh wait, did you mean "loan" as in "on loan"? I thought you'd just mispelled lone….Where are they on loan from? 😛
>Hey David, what happened to my other comment? :-/
>It's the opposite of loan sharks
>Tec, spam filter is action. Your comment is up now.
>When logical arguments fail, correct typos and spelling errors, you go girls!
>" No one person represents the whole feminist movement, or all feminisms. Not this feminist, not any other feminist".This is meaningless drivel, not one person represents any movement.1. Did the person actually commit the alleged offensive/stupid/crazy/evil action? 2. Does committing that offensive/stupid/crazy/evil action reflect badly on feminism? What reflects badly on feminism are the reductions in legal, civil and human rights, the organised hate, the stereotyping of a whole group with the actions of an extreme minority, the polemic research, the revisionist history, the protection of abusers and hiding of victims, the exploitation of abuse victims to further its agenda, its ability to frame hate as correct in the minds of its followers.. and so onFeminism reflects badly on feminism. (real feminism excluded).
>Good job only reading the first sentence of the webpage. "What reflects badly on feminism are the reductions in legal, civil and human rights," Yup, trying to compaign for women's rights is a real "reduction" of rights. "the organised hate"What organized hate? Again, radical feminism /= all feminism. Are you refering to the whole women = people thing? Yeah, I guess that's hateful to misogynists…" the stereotyping of a whole group with the actions of an extreme minority,"Actually, this is rape culture. If women are responsible for rape/sexual desire, then men are simultanously not responsible, and therefore, cannot control themselves. Rape culture sets men up as the perps when there is victim-blaming. Victim-blaming, decidely unfeminist."the polemic research,"wtf? I'm not sure what you mean by this – that research is controversial? If that's the case, then the studies where the researcher doesn't even think what MRAs use for propaganda could certainly be considered polemic… but the propaganda spewed by the MRAs, not the research itself. Or perhaps you mean that it refutes patriarchial beliefs? "the revisionist history"Yup, patriarchy isn't steeped in history. Oh wait it is. Again, prove the Romans weren't patriarchs." the protection of abusers and hiding of victims"That's funny. I was just reading a feminist blog about male victims of rape and the importance of breaking down gender barriers…"the exploitation of abuse victims to further its agenda"Oh yes, building DV shelters and doing volunteer rape counselling is SO exploitative." its ability to frame hate as correct in the minds of its followers.. and so on"Again, what hate? Oh I guess teaching men and women that women are actual people is "hateful" apparently. (I think you're just confusing this with anti-feminism perhaps?)"Feminism reflects badly on feminism. (real feminism excluded)."Real feminism? Is that (TM)ed? Eoghan, you don't know anything about feminism so please stop proselytizing about What Feminists Believe (TM). The more I engage with you, the more I am thoroughly convinced you are just relying on stock phrases and "Feminism bad" memes, that are clearly wrong and easily debunked.
>David, If as you say Makow and his kind are not representative of the MRM, then why do you continue to showcase him here?Random Brother
>TecYou clearly dont understand big feminism and take it at face value, gendered abuse is political fear mongering and rape and abuse of women are political and financial platforms. Thats why there is such vested interest in hiding politically incorrect victims and abusers. A humanist approach, with human shelters and equal rights for victims threatens a multi billion dollar monopoly and a financial and political platform of the political left. Abuse victims dont really matter to big feminism, victims of female abusers are buried while victims of male abusers are held up and exploited as political ammunition and income generators. Victims seeking counselling are indoctrinated and told to stay away from men in general, even their fathers, rather than healed, its the same scam that christian groups and scientologists use with their free counselling and personality test services.You are very funny, you ask that we dont judge feminism by its extremists while publishing extremist fanatical rhetoric yourself without even realizing that it comes from the same influential and ideology shaping sources that you are asking us not to judge feminism by.Here, read this http://ideologuereview.blogspot.com/
>Oh yes, thinking of women as people who should have equal rights is soooo extremist and fanatical. (sarcasm) Do you understand what these words mean? Do you even think when you write? Obvy not."You are very funny, you ask that we dont judge MRAs by its extremists while publishing extremist fanatical rhetoric yourself without even realizing that it comes from the same influential and ideology shaping sources that you are asking us not to judge MRAs by."
>TecYou dont represent equal rights for men and women, you represent ideological fanaticism, suppression of politically incorrect abuse victims and roll backs in legal, civil and human rights.
>Tec–Actually, Eoghan is, in part, referencing something that happened to me years ago. I had left an extremely abusive relationship and was looking for therapy. One of my therapists was a woman who was very interested in getting me to attend "groups". I thought it was group therapy, D/V survivors etc. It was not. The group I attended was comprised of a dozen other women and my therapist as the group leader. The groups primary activity was stewing in the evils of men. They elevated men to some archetypal embodiment of satan; characterizing men (all men, no exceptions were made) as abusers of women who foamed at the mouth, ravaged the countryside raping every female they saw, killers of women and girls, not one of us was safe, the evidence of their destruction and hatred was everywhere, to be seen in literature, movies, advertising, fashion, music etc etc. It was sheer insanity. This 'therapist' was fairly insidious in her approach. Before this group, while in private sessions, she made sure she was very welcoming and warm, very concerned and sympathetic to my situation. She made all the right noises to make me feel embraced and safe and supported. She made innuendos about how D/V survivors by default belonged to some sort of 'sisterhood'; like it was some magic fucking club that was omnipotent and special, where dwelt the only people that would ever really understand what I'd been through. Then there came the suggestions about how really no man was safe; how could I ever really feel safe again with a man after what I'd been through? How could I ever have any sort of consensual sexual relationship with any man, given the fact that they all potentially could become my next abuser? She was planting seeds about men, far more concerned, it seemed, with keeping me traumatized and afraid, and expanding that fear, than she was in helping me develop the tools I needed to cope with my existing trauma and move on. She even suggested that I cut off contact with my own FATHER because well, he is a man, and being with him could potentially trigger something for me. WHAT THE FUCK?!?! So by the time I got to this group thing, I was already pretty sure that this was not the therapist for me. I didn't want a group hug from the sisterhood, I wanted to know how to fucking function on a day to day basis. Feminism comes in to play here at the group. There was feminist literature handed out, a schedule of feminist meetings at the local college, a listing of feminist events, etc. These women were not interested in helping me, they were interested in using me, my face, my story to further their mantra that men are individual walking talking mouth breathing anti-christs. And before you go off the rails….YES I realize this is my individual experience, YES I realize that maybe not every feminist group is like this, and YES I realize that this woman was insane….HOWEVER, this IS my experience of feminism. This IS my yardstick. And no, I do NOT think this is as isolated an event you will want to make it out to be.
>DavidThere is a piece up on Paul Elams site that highlights the oppressive system that the mens movement is up against…"I saw the striped scars from shoulder to heal on the back and legs of a 9 year old boy who had been beaten by his mother with an extension cord on multiple occasions. I listened to his mother after she had undergone parent training and counseling tell me in no uncertain terms that if he needed it, she would do it again. I sat with my jaw dropped in horror as I hung up the phone after learning that the judge in the case had sent the boy home to live with her against my recommendations. I often wonder what became of him.In the first case of the boy beaten with the extension cord the boy’s father was in jail, having been convicted of hitting the mother. I read the police report. I read the court testimony. I might as well have been reading an Orwellian novel. The mother was beating the boy, again. She was high on methamphetamines. The father intervened to try and stop it. She then hit him, with the cord. He finally punched, knocking her out. He called the police who then arrested him, not her.The boy was striped from head to tow and removed from her care. She was never charged".Perhaps you could move on from the cheap shots and Henry Makow and write about some of the real issues?
>Henry Makow: There's a real blast from the past!A real topical and frequent contributor to all MRA blogs and forums – – NOT!If you are already resorting to use of this guy for your escapades in Yellow Journalism, you're starting to run out of fodder for your little cannon.