Categories
comments policy violence against men/women

>Comments policy: Cool it

>Folks, some of you need to cool it with the gratuitously nasty personal attacks in your comments. I’ve been cutting some people slack because they are new to the comments here, and because I like to practice relatively hands-off moderation, but I will start deleting comments if this continues, and repeated violators will be banned entirely. Regardless of which side of the debate you’re on. If you haven’t already, read the comments policy.

Also not ok: Justifying violence against men or women. For example, this recent comment from witman suggesting it might be “patriotic” to shoot feminist elected officials. (I’ve screencapped it because I will be deleting it, but for now you can go see it for yourself to confirm I’m not making it up.)

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

119 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr. Deezee
9 years ago

>Amused – Your understanding of logic is twisted probably beyond repair, but, as I said, thanks for continuing to operate based on my primer. I should get that shit published and disseminate it in colleges.

Amused
9 years ago

>Oh, "doctor", I can tell you have such sweet dreams — Saudi-style repression, colleges buying your "primer", you being an authority on argumentation … A part of me is tempted to suggest you should lay off the old malmsey, but then, who am I to rain on your parade?

Dr. Deezee
9 years ago

>Amused – Between the two of us, you certainly aren't going to be the authority on argumentation any time soon. Or reading comprehension.

wytchfinde555
9 years ago

>"If the only possible "benefit" you see for a man in marriage is having an unpaid servant, then yes, we feminists have done all we can to deprive you of that "benefit"." –AmusedAnd why should a man be a servant to you? That, and top it off with giving feminist-minded women the "right" to exploit men after marriage with inane amounts of ailmony or enable false charges in children custody and visitation battles. Your cause is an anti-men one and female supremacist. Admit it.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Why should she admit it? What in her comments or in the feminist creed requires a man to become a servant to a woman?

SallyStrange
9 years ago

>Bringing this thread back to its original topic:I had a brief exchange with Witman wherein he revealed that in his perception, the language feminists/women use to describe men is so intensely dehumanizing that he related it to a genocide against men. He is basically creating a fantasy world where the intentions of women/feminists towards men are so dire and malevolent that violence against them is not only justified, it might even be necessary. I mean, if I thought a genocide against a group I belonged to was a real possibility, I'd view violence as a justifiable response. So his comments at the top of the page didn't particularly surprise me. Apparently he truly believes that a genocide against men is, at the very least, a remote possibility. If you accept that premise, his comments make some sense. Wytchfinde's insistence that he can read Amused's mind is in a similar vein. She's an anti-man female supremacist regardless of what she says. He believes it, so it must be true. Believing that a large number of women truly hate men and actively conspire to destroy them and hurt them can justify acting in hurtful and destructive ways towards women. As a feminist, I don't believe men are out to hurt women. There's no vast conspiracy. There's just a lot of cultural baggage and institutional inertia left over from the days when women were not legally considered full persons. Being considered less than a citizen, less than a person, benefits nobody. I'm grateful I live in a time when my personhood is taken for granted. It's just too bad that this basic right comes along with cultural changes that are so disconcerting for so many people. But then the culture was and is entirely fucked up in so many ways–the change, painful though it is, is worth it in my book.

SallyStrange
9 years ago

>As for Dr. Deezee–you assert that Amused lacks logic and reading comprehension. But saying it doesn't make it so. Show exactly where her logic doesn't add up, and what precisely she failed to comprehend. It just makes you look like a person with an inflated sense of his own intelligence.

Dr. Deezee
9 years ago

>SallyStrange -Oh, no kidding? You mean when I say shit it doesn't make it so? Kind of like what Amused is doing when s/he says "that argument is beneath me and not worth refuting?"Fancy that! Amazing!

wytchfinde555
9 years ago

>"Believing that a large number of women truly hate men and actively conspire to destroy them and hurt them can justify acting in hurtful and destructive ways towards women." Sally StrangerThanks for acting as if you know what I think. Your implication would be an insult if I cared.I suppose in your world men are out to get you. Too bad you feel that way. And then you state:"As a feminist, I don't believe men are out to hurt women."Cognitive dissonance, anyone?"Wytchfinde's insistence that he can read Amused's mind is in a similar vein."And you know what believe and think? You're a hypocrite as well."I mean, if I thought a genocide against a group I belonged to was a real possibility, I'd view violence as a justifiable response."So, you're admitting you be violent toward men. You're a bigot, too.

Amused
9 years ago

>Dr. Deezee: You fail to distinguish between a statement of individual attitude and a statement of purported fact — and you claim your "primer" will be studied in colleges? Oh yeah, I bet once they read your "primer", Plato and Hegel will go right the fuck out of print. Everyone will just study YOU — especially after you pepper your "primer" with a few more fifty-cent words. *eye roll*wytchfinde555: I will not admit something that's patently false. The fact that you had to twist my words into a pretzel in order to arrive at your ridiculous accusation speaks for itself.

Dr. Deezee
9 years ago

>Amused -You fail to detect sarcasm and you routinely say in fifty words what could be said in five. Get learned.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Deezee, you routinely say in five words what could be said in zero, so I think she's still ahead of you in the substance arena.

Dr. Deezee
9 years ago

>David talking about substance is like getting your legal advice from Saul Goodman.

wytchfinde555
9 years ago

>"The fact that you had to twist my words into a pretzel in order to arrive at your ridiculous accusation speaks for itself."–AmusedIt's not ridiculous if it's the truth. I don't have to take anything out of context—what you write is proof enough.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Uh, no, wytch, I think by any objective standard you twisted her words.

wytchfinde555
9 years ago

>"Uh, no, wytch, I think by any objective standard you twisted her words."—DavidBy calling her a female supremacist? By your standards or by objective standards?I'll show you that she'll trip up. Give it time.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@David Futrelle:"Uh, no, wytch,…"I shall now bang my head against the wall.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>If any comment deserved an "uh," it was that one.

The Biscuit Queen
9 years ago

>"Because the truth is, it's just another boundary invasion of women by people that think women are owned and have no personal agency. Men that attack the feminist movement just don't want women to have a group identity that they define themselves, or clear boundaries. It's fine that men have otherized us since Eden and look at women as such a separate species they cannot even maintain a friendship with a woman."???Are you serious? DO you really think men are so devious, malevolant, and oppressive that they see women as separate, lesser thing with no souls or minds? What planet do you live on??If you look at the evidence of gender standing in the western world in the last 100 years, you will see a marked advancement of women in every single part of life, and a marked decline of men. The evidence, the statistics on everything from life expectancy to education and job rates to suicide and death rates prove that women are not oppressed. The fact that many men work very long hours in often dangerous jobs they are not passionate about to provide for their wives and children show that this is idea of yours is not the case. You are so out of touch with reality I cannot believe you ever leave the house!MRA's want women to be equal to men. That means if women have the right to vote, they must also register for the draft. That means men have as equal of reproduction choices as biology allows (paper abortion option, more birth control options, laws which make it illegal to withhold paternaty knowledge, assumed access to kids for fathers unless proven unfit in criminal court.) That means that parents have equal treatment in divorce cases rather than blindly siding with mothers. That means in rape cases innocent until proven guilty stands as in every other crime. It means punishment for false allegations. It means taxpayer dollars are spent equitably on both male and female issues (such as cancer and dv)That means that when a woman breaks the law she is treated the same as a man. It means seeking gender parity for fields such as nursing and teaching, which are female dominated and hold a strong "glass ceiling" for men based on unmerited fear and suspicion of all men. Most MRAs want true equality. That means equal rights AND equal responsibilities. Feminists are all on the rights for women, but not so much on the responsibilities.