>
In a discussion of my “Ladies! Stop assaulting us by dressing like slutty sluts” post, regular commenter DarkSideCat left a comment that really got to the heart of what is so troubling about the CoAlpha Brotherhood and others of their ilk. I thought everyone deserved to see it, so here it is. (I’ve edited it down slightly, broken it into paragraphs and put especially pertinent points in bold; you can see the original comment in context here.)
To set it up: In a previous comment Eoghan had referred casually to the “aggressive flashing of fertility and mating symbols by females.” DarkSideCat replied:
You mean their fucking bodies? Have you so objectified women that you can’t think of their very BODIES as anything other than ‘fertility and mating symbols’? You are thinking of women’s skin as some sort of sexual object for you, rather than their own flesh. … You are assuming that women’s bodies are sex objects or sex acts, they aren’t, they are people’s fucking bodies.
Men show their skin all of the damned time. They even routinely go topless in public places. Because a man taking off his shirt in the heat, or putting on a nice pair of jeans to try and look nice is a person doing stuff, whereas a woman going topless in [the] heat or putting on a pair of jeans to look nice is a filthy slut who deserves to be raped?
Women’s bodies and skin are no more public property than men’s, and, if you can’t manage to see someone in public and find them attractive without thinking they are evil and are asking for you to rape them, you are the problem, not them.
Shit like this is also pretty damned insulting to men. You know, I think more highly of men than this, perhaps that is the difference between me and CoAlpha. I think that men can (and some in fact do) behave like decent human beings, and see women as human beings as well. I do not see male sexuality as so innately out of control and violent that if they see someone sexy, they will feel a burning need to violently attack and rape them.
You want to know why rad fems see all men as rapists? Because they believe the same stereotypes about men as anti-feminists like CoAlpha. If you spend so much fucking time pushing the notion that men can’t help being assholes or rapists, you are going to get some people to believe it, but disagree about the solution.
The quotes here contain direct threats of rape and murder and say that people dressed in certain types of clothes are asking to be raped. Yet, somehow you can’t see how fucked up that is?
Amen.
>Well, that's all a tad melodramatic, isn't it? And like a lot of the other MRAs here, you're arguing against an imaginary enemy that has very little to do with me, very little to do with anything I've ever said here on this blog. Since when have I portrayed myself as Mr. Perfect? I question myself all the time. I change my mind about things. I get things wrong. But I also know that I haven't said anything bigoted on this blog, nothing reflecting some kind of deep-seated hatred against men. Why? Because I don't harbor a deep-seated hatred of men.
>@David Futrelle:"…you're arguing against an imaginary enemy that has very little to do with me…"How can you credibly say that you question yourself while making such a statement of certitude? Is the enemy that non-feminists criticize truly "imaginary?" Have you so much all-encompassing knowledge and omniscience that you can legitimately claim that your detractors are literally mentally deluded, merely imagining things? I concede that ideology can and does exist in the minds of non-feminists, and that it can stoke the imagination, but I flatly reject the notion that there is absolutely zero merit to the claims of MRAs that feminism has motivated policymakers, judges, juries, prosecutors, attorneys, elected officials, opinion leaders and any others in positions of influence to perpetrate — or tolerate — some form of injustice. Feminism has been the vehicle of injustice which remains in place this very day.How can you say that you subject yourself to self-doubt, being human, but at the same time you remain confident of the goodness and infallibility of feminist (i.e. human-made) ideals? Is feminism beyond reproach? Are anti-feminists just imagining things when they associate injustice with feminist ideology?
>David you can see the segregation and bigotry in the advocacy research, legislation and services that most feminists support. If you think abuse is gendered, you are the same as someone that thinks crime is black or that aids is gay. If you support beliefs and legislation that leads to one group having fewer civil and human rights than another, you are a bigot. Most feminists hold beliefs and support legislation that leads to reduced civil and human rights for men. Most are unaware that they support bigotry and feminists that criticize the widespread misandry in the movement or point to the situation males are finding themselves because of feminism are as you have shown dismissed as anti feminists and ostracized. Anti-feminist being the ism's equivalent of heretic, infidel, unbeliever etc.
>Jesus, John, by "imaginary enemy" I basically meant "straw man." You and other MRA/MGTOWs who post here are constantly arguing against things I and the feminists who post here never said, things that feminists don't actually believe, etc etc. All this "proclaiming yourself emphatically innocent, elevating the value of your political views as somehow beyond reproach" shit you're spouting now — you've made that shit up. I've never claimed that I or feminism in general are beyond reproach. But feminism has done a lot more good in the world than bad, by a long shot. And it's a fuckload better than the basically reactionary ideologies of most MRAs. It's a fuckload better than the patriarchy you want to restore.
>@David Futrelle:"Jesus, John, by "imaginary enemy" I basically meant "straw man." You and other MRA/MGTOWs who post here are constantly arguing against things I and the feminists who post here never said, things that feminists don't actually believe, etc etc."Okay, then. If you think that feminists might be willing to be the allies of men's rights activists, then let's put that premise to the test. What laws have a significant quantity (i.e. a majority) of feminists attacked on behalf of males? When have a significant quantity of feminists demanded that males be portrayed with more richness and complexity (and less often as bumbling fools or violent threats)? And what about reaching out to male victims? Domestic violence shelters constantly lowball their estimates of male victimization from partner violence because only 5 percent of their clients are male victims. But if you visit the Web sites of these organizations, you'll see that the outreach efforts to male victims are either non-existent or sorely inadequate.Maybe you'll justify your lack of action on the above items by saying that they're not the mission or agenda of this blog. Maybe you'll justify the lack of action by a substantial quantity of feminists on these items by saying that their mission is to focus on inequality as suffered by female victims, on the assumption that male privilege should be sufficient for male victims to rely upon. In either case, your inaction and feminists' reaction to male vulnerability and pain are sorely lacking. Under these conditions, we MRAs will never be able to look to feminists for assistance; in fact, whenever we try to correct injustices against males in law or in culture feminists fashion themselves into our opponents. I wish it were otherwise. I can give you specific examples of lobbying battles in California where feminists blocked male victims of domestic violence from receiving public services unless the male victims were homosexuals. Or feminists denying the very existence of parental alienation and attempting to legally prohibit its acknowledgment as a factor in weighing child custody evaluations. Or their lobbying advocacy to block state legislatures from establishing of a Commission on the Status of Men yet maintaining the public funding and ongoing existence of such commissions for women. I could go on. You feminists are not helping men; you only help women and gay men. In order to build consensus on the need to ACT on behalf of men, there must first be a recognition by feminists of male suffering and vulnerability. Only MRAs are talking about that, and while we do so, feminist guys like you act like it's your job to tell us to "settle down now."
>@David, I'm flattered that you thought so highly of my comment. Right now I am just sitting back and basking in the irony of Dias' "When have a significant quantity of feminists demanded that males be portrayed with more richness and complexity (and less often as bumbling fools or violent threats)? " in his derail of a thread regarding a comment where I criticized CoAlpha for assuming men were all consumed with uncontrollable, compulsive needs to rape women who weren't wearing burkas (and criticizing Eoghan's defense of said comments).
>'criticizing' in the last sentence should have been 'criticized'. I criticized CoAlpha and Eoghan's defense of CoAlpha, in case my wording was not clear.
>DarksidecatI was actually critical of that "Co Alpha" site, I just pointed out that there was more to it than the foolish comments that david picked out and misrepresented. Later on I spoke about the sexual dysfunction of the comments that david picked out.If you weren't in such a hurry to paint people as rapists you would have realised that I wasn't defending the comments relating to rape and misogyny.
>Eoghan, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE A RAPIST.You did, however, say there was stuff on that site you liked. You didn't specify what that was.
>Davidyou are a feminist, feminists, despite logic, are conditioned to believe that men collectively share responsibility for the actions of rapists, abusers, psychopaths and the oppressive systems that have been put in place by the ruling class.A large portion of your movement is based on that fallacy."Jews collectively caused the depression" or "black men rape white women", in another package.
>I AM a feminist. I do NOT believe that "that men collectively share responsibility for the actions of rapists, abusers, psychopaths and the oppressive systems that have been put in place by the ruling class." But if you want to continue making up shit about what you think I and/or feminists believe, I suppose that's your right. But it is getting rather tiresome to listen to you repeat the same bullshit over and over here. I won't call you a troll, because I think you actually believe what you say, but your continued repetitive, off-topic, straw-man comments are pretty much spam at this point. Seriously, start your own blog. If you want to keep posting comments here, stop derailing threads with off-topic bullshit.
>David, feminism rabble rouses on the basis that men are collectively conspiring against women and that domestic abuse and rape are part of that conspiracy.Have you seen the feminist campaign "only men can stop rape"?Same thing as saying "only blacks can stop crime", "only women can stop child abuse" or "only gay men can stop aids" but thats aok with feminists and promoted on many feminist sites.
>"Have you seen the feminist campaign "only men can stop rape"?Same thing as saying "only blacks can stop crime", "only women can stop child abuse" or "only gay men can stop aids" but thats aok with feminists and promoted on many feminist sites." Uh no. Unless you are being uber-literal and nitpicky…only men can stop rape… by ceasing to rape. Not rocket science, and I'm pretty sure the women in the Congo would appreciate it if the men got it…doncha think?
>"They are all over the place. To start:"David, you only gave a few minor examples that are not made by high profile feminists and I don't see any other feminist vocally agreeing with what is said in them links. Secondly, one of them links is an article made by you. This doesn't count.For most feminists, they will defend what most other feminists say with the mentality "she is one of us""[Citation please]"To save me from spending time looking at links; are you in denial that one of the biggest rants with contemporary feminism is objectification towards women?Male sexuality can be very visual. Yet, these feminist twits are complaining about it and telling men they are wrong to simply have male sexuality.Sexually harassing women is one thing, but men are entitled to think about sex however they want. If it was men telling women how to think about sex, they would be chauvinists.For a movement that's supposed to be against sexism and is supposed to be about liberation for people; it's ironic that feminism thinks men are wrong for simply being men (sexism) and men should be regimented with their sexuality (anti- liberation)
>nick, clearly you don't know shit about feminism, so it's pretty pointless to discuss feminism with you. Do you actually know the names of any feminists besides Andrea Dworkin, and whichever other radical feminists get included in those "evil quotes by evil feminists" things that MRAs post and repost?Anyway: Susie Bright is high-profile. Gayle Rubin is high profile. Ellen Willis is high profile. As are Pat Califia, Carole Vance, and assorted other names mentioned in that "Sex wars" article you obviously not only did not read but clearly did not even bother to skim.See these links for more:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_pornography#Sex-positive_and_anti-censorship_feminist_viewshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samois
>@Eoghan:"David, feminism rabble rouses on the basis that men are collectively conspiring against women and that domestic abuse and rape are part of that conspiracy.I agree with this. You can see it in the logical errors that feminists make when they talk about the so-called pay gap, with women supposedly earning less per hour than men (the pay gap nearly disappears, however, when you control for other factors such as cumulative experience on the job). But think about it: even if women were paid substantially less than men after controlling for other factors, wouldn't this just make them more employable? If I was an employer, wouldn't I just hire all women in order to save the money that I otherwise would have paid to male employees? Feminists ignore this point and claim that the pay gap is not only unjust (a contention which I dispute), but they also explain the pay gap by calling it the result of misogyny. In the feminist mind, a capitalist is so misogynistic that he'll even waste money in order to hire male workers for a higher wage. There is no better example than that which illustrates the conspiratorial nature of common feminist ideology.
>ahuntonly problem with your logic that only men can stop rape, is that women are doing the bulk of the child abuse and so socializing most dysfunctional and abusive behavior into society as well as doing their share of rape.Feminist logic is the same as that of any bigot claiming that "only blacks can stop crime" or "only gay man can stop aids" and you cant conceptualize there being anything wrong with it.
>JohnI think that the ideology exploits a range of human weakness and emotions – prejudice, paranoia, fear, blaming others, feelings of superiority.. Im sure there are more.I view them as magical thinkers, thats why pointing out the logical flaws in their beliefs is for the most part pointless.
>"only problem with your logic that only men can stop rape, is that women are doing the bulk of the child abuse and so socializing most dysfunctional and abusive behavior into society as well as doing their share of rape."Well by all means…let us turn the socializing of children over to men…immediately! I'm a bit surprised you didn't think of this solution yourself. There can be no doubt that child abuse rates will plummet if men assume the work. No really.Seriously, if you are going to pull the "all social ills are the fault of women because women raise the kids" nonsense, Eoghan…please produce the methodologically sound research that supports your contention. I look forward to reading it.
>ahuntIts pretty well accepted that abusive behavior is socialized in the home and the research shows that women are doing around 70% of the child abuse. Female child sex abuse is considered a still taboo and mainly underreported problem, thats the way it always has been. Dysfunctional behavior and even war in ape societies has been traced back to the effect of maternal neglect and abuse on a certain gene that has been dubbed "the orchid gene".Whoever is the main care giver, regardless of their gender has a large influence in socializing good and bad traits into society.As for asking men to become the main care givers, a quick glance into the family courts will tell you that women would never accept that. Also the distribution of empathic and systematizing brains across the genders suggests that it would be a bad idea, just as it is expecting women to do 100% of the caregiving regardless of their aptitude.
>Here you go ahunt, plenty of references to it in this article. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/7761/1/
>Ah. Catch-22.Women are responsible for creating abusers because they are responsible for the work that men cannot/will not/do not do.Packaged that one up neatly. And yet….the vast majority of rapists do NOT have a background of childhood abuse. This is not to say that links do not exist…merely pointing out the overreach of your argument.Moreover, while women, as the primary caregivers, are indeed responsible for the majority of abuse/neglect cases, it is men who overwhelmingly commit sexual abuse.
>"Ah. Catch-22.Women are responsible for creating abusers because they are responsible for the work that men cannot/will not/do not do.Packaged that one up neatly."Yep, like The Church Lady said, "How conVENient!"A quick glance into the family courts tells you that women would never accept asking men to be the main caregivers because it seems that it's only when the marriage/relationship has broken apart that men make their bid for a larger share of the "caregiving". For the most part, men appear to be quite content for the lion's share of the caregiving to be the woman's responsibility when the marriage/relationship is intact.
>Well of course you are both going to politicize and minimize female on child abuse,ahunt – the majority of violent rapists do report sexual abuse by females in their past. The vast majority of rapists don't because rape, baring 1 – 3 % of it is verbal coercion/non violent rape, which is not the result of child hood abuse or misogyny. PamThe conversation was about protected child abusers, its so typical of feminists to take abuse victims and use them to push some other political agenda, its second nature. You turned child abuse by women into female victim hood. Protect, apologize, minimize, deflect and politicize. You couldn't give two hoots about these victims of child abuse, they are just units of political ammunition.
>"ahunt – the majority of violent rapists do report sexual abuse by females in their past."I'll need a credible cite for this.