Categories
antifeminism evil women further reading lying liars MGTOW MRA Uncategorized

Factchecking a list of “Hateful Quotes From Feminists”

 

Making a list, checking it twice.

Periodically, in the comments here, someone will post a dubious list of “evil feminist quotes” they have found on some Men’s Rights or antifeminist website. These lists are always faintly ridiculous, filled with decades-old quotes from a handful of radical feminists (most notably, Andrea Dworkin), most of whom have been soundly criticized by other feminists and whose ideas have been rejected by the majority of feminists today. The lists also tend to be very sloppily put together. When I’ve gone to check the accuracy of these lists, I’ve invariably run into problems — one quote may have come from a character in a novel, another may be a quote that doesn’t reflect the author’s own point of view, and so on.

Recently, one of the antifeminists who regularly comments here (Cold) posted a link to one such list, helpfully titled “Hateful Quotes From Feminists.” It’s fairly typical of these sorts of lists: many of the quotes are decades old, there are ten quotes from a single radical feminist — yes, Andrea Dworkin — and the list is sloppily put together.

I decided to give this list a fairly thorough fact-checking. And the results were, well, more or less what I expected, which is to say that the list was a sloppy mixture of truth, half-truth and outright falsehood.

The story, in brief: Some of the quotes I checked were indeed accurate — or mostly accurate. But several quotes were simply imaginary, or uttered by fictional characters; one was a complete misrepresentation of what the author was saying; two were paraphrased, which is to say, words put in the mouths of feminist authors by feminist critics; some were from obscure or anonymous sources, and in a few cases it wasn’t clear if those quoted were feminists at all; several were improperly sourced. There were a number of quotes that didn’t specify where they were from, and which turned out to be impossible to check. And then there were a couple of quotes which were not actually hateful at all.

I didn’t check everything in the list, but –if you have the patience for it — let’s go through what I did check, as a sort of case study in the shoddiness of much antifeminist propaganda.

Let’s start off with the very first quote:

“In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, p. 129.

We’re off to a bad start here. This is not a quote from MacKinnon. The words were in fact written by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, the actual authors of “Professing Feminism,” a polemical book critical of feminism. They purport to summarize the views of MacKinnon and Dworkin, though, as Snopes points out in its debunking of the false quote, both M and D have specifically stated that they don’t believe intercourse is rape. Apparently the quote was attributed to MacKinnon in a column by right-wing columnist Cal Thomas, which is evidently how it entered the land of antifeminist mythology. Somewhere along the line, Catharine had her name changed to Catherine.

Then there’s this alleged quote from Andrea Dworkin:

“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.”

According to Wikiquote, this quote is quite literally fictional:

The first appearance of this quote is from P: A Novel (2003) by Andrew Lewis Conn as a quote from the fictional feminist “Corinne Dwarfkin”. The original reads “In capsule form, my thesis is that heterosexual intercourse is the pure, distilled expression of men’s contempt for women.” In the slightly altered form given above, the quote is attributed in several books to Andrea Dworkin. Neil Boyd, in Big Sister (2004) attributes the quote to Letters from a War Zone, however, this quote, nor any one with similar phrasing, appears in that work.

Indeed, our listmaker seem to have a lot of trouble quoting Dworkin correctly. A bunch of the quotes are taken from her book Letters From a War Zone, which I happen to own. The first quote I checked was this one:

“The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape.” Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 114.

It’s a weird quote, which sounds a lot like it’s coming from the the middle of a complicated argument. That’s because it is. And when you read what precedes it, it becomes clear that  it’s NOT a statement of Dworkin’s own beliefs. She was in fact summarizing (in her own words) the beliefs of “male supremacist” sociobiologists like Edward O. Wilson. It may or may not be a fair summary of their views, but that’s not the point: it’s NOT what she thought. Later in the paragraph, in fact, she compared these views to Hitler’s.

The other quotes from the book are more or less accurate. Words are missing, moved from one sentence to another, verb tenses are changed; they’re very sloppy transcriptions, but at least they aren’t complete and utter misrepresentations of what Dworkin wrote.

There’s also quote from Andrea Dworkin that’s listed as being from “Liberty, p. 58.” Dworkin never wrote a book called Liberty. But I found the quote in what seems to be a scholarly work; it’s evidently from Dworkin’s book Our Blood.

Finally, there are a few other alleged quotes from Dworkin; they don’t have sources listed for them. I found the quotes elsewhere online — but only on dubious “quote pages” and other iterations of “evil feminist” lists. They sound Dworkin-ish, but given the listmaker’s track record I have no faith that they are actually real, correctly transcribed Dworkin.

It’s bizarre. How hard is it to find hair-raising quotes from Andrea Dworkin? Dworkin was so radical that most feminists disagree with her, sometimes violently. You could practically pick a sentence at random from almost any of her books and chances are good it would offend somebody — including me. A number of her writings are available online. How lazy and sloppy do you have to be to fuck up your Dworkin quotes like this?

Let’s now turn to Marilyn French’s famously fictional quote:

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983

Oh, the quote is real — she wrote it — but it is not a statement of French’s beliefs. Nor did it originate in People magazine. It is a line of dialogue from her book The Woman’s Room. Wikipedia, take it away:

Following the rape of Val’s daughter Chris, Val states (over Mira’s protests), “Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes” (p. 433). Critics have sometimes quoted Val’s dialogue as evidence of French’s misandry without noting that the passage is only spoken by one of many characters in the novel.

Now, it’s true that this sentence was quoted in People magazine — in the issue of Feb 20 1979, not Feb 20, 1983 as claimed. It’s not clear from the rather sloppy People article that this is a line from the book, but it is.

In the article, French notes that the book is partly based on her experience — drawing on the emotions she herself felt after her own daughter was raped.

“Sometimes I felt so violent about it and how the courts treated her,” French admits, “that there seemed no recourse but to go out, buy a gun and shoot the kid who did it, and the lawyers too. I couldn’t help my own child.” Plenty of that rage made its way into The Women’s Room. “I’m less angry now. Being too deep in anger corrodes your interior.”

So, again, it is very clear that the “all men are rapists” quote is meant to reflect a character awash in rage and pain; it is not an ideological statement of misandry.

The “Hateful Quotes” list also contains a bunch of quotes from people I’ve never heard of; they’re obviously not major feminist figures, and may not even be feminists. Gordon Fitch? Never heard of the guy, and can’t find anything about him online.

Hodee Edwards? Never heard of her either, and I can only find a handful of mentions of her online, but she’s mentioned in the footnotes of a Catharine MacKinnon book, and it looks as though she is, or at least was, a feminist with Marxist leanings. But there is no way to even find out what the source of the quote is — a book, an essay, a quotation in a news story? — much less actually find the source and confirm that the quote is real.

EDITED TO ADD: I’ve been contacted by Hodee Edwards’ granddaughter, who tells me that her grandmother never said or wrote the quote attributed to her; while Edwards was indeed a Marxist and a feminist, she was not anti-sex. (The faux quote in question claims that all sex is rape.) Edwards has recently passed away, and her family members have been, the granddaughter tells me, “very distressed to learn that this quote has somehow been linked to my grandmother’s name on the Internet.”

Then there’s Pat Poole:

Melbourne City Councilwoman Pat Poole announced her opposition to renaming a street for Martin Luther King: “I wonder if he really accomplished things, or if he just stirred people up and caused a lot of riots.”

Who the hell is Pat Poole? I looked her up, and yes, she was a city councilwoman in Melbourne, Florida, but I was unable to find out much beyond that. Is the quote accurate? I don’t know. There’s no source given, and I can’t find the original quote online. Is she actually a feminist, or is the author of the list simply assuming she is one because she’s a woman?

And then of course there is the anonymous “Liberated Woman” whose quote ends the list. She definitely sounds like a feminist. We just don’t know for sure if she or the quote are real.

Moving on, I can’t help but notice that a number of the allegedly hateful quotes are in fact not hateful at all. Take, for example, Barbara Ehrenreich’s quote about the family, which is in fact part of a sharply written essay on “family values.” You can find it here.

Here’s another distinctly non-hateful quote:

“Women take their roles of caretakers very seriously and when they hear of someone who’s taken advantage of a child, they react more strongly than men do.” – Kathleen C. Faller, professor of social work at the University of Michigan

Faller, if she did indeed say this, may or may not be correct, but it’s hard to see how this is “hateful.” Women on average spend much more time caring for children than men do and it may well be that, on average, they react more strongly than men. I couldn’t find the quote in question — again, this is because the listmaker didn’t actually provide the source — but her faculty web page is here.

Then there’s this “hateful” quote on religion:

“God is going to change. We women… will change the world so much that He won’t fit anymore.” Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions.

The quote is real; Goldenberg is indeed a feminist theologian. But here’s a little newsflash: There are lots of people in the world, feminist and non-feminist, who do not believe in traditional notions of God. Or in God at all. Nietzsche famously said “God is Dead,” Richard Dawkins says God is “a delusion,” and about 80 zillion internet athiests (many of them not feminists in the slightest) regularly compare belief in God to belief in unicorns, fairies, and Santa Claus.

I checked out a few other quotes on the list. The Hillary Clinton quote is accurate; the source is here.  The Barbara Jordan quote appears in a Texas Monthly article here.

The quote from Catherine Comins — a favorite “evil feminist quote” amongst MRAs — has its origins in a Time magazine article, but it is not actually a quote from her; it is someone else’s summary of what she told Time in the article in question. Nor do we know the full context in which she spoke.

I don’t have the time or patience to fact-check the rest of the list. If anyone out there happens to have time and/or patience, or happens to own any of the books that are cited as sources, feel free to fact check it yourself and post your findings. (EDITED TO ADD: triplanetary has risen to the challenge, and has factchecked the rest of the list, as well as offering some excellent commentary on the alleged “hatefulness” of many of the quotes. You can find the post here.)

The numerous errors in this list — some minor, some huge — say something not only about the creator of this list but about all those who’ve distributed this list without, clearly, bothering to check anything in it .  (Or, in the case of Cold, to contine to distribute a list he’s pretty sure is less than reliable.) Is this the result of laziness, or dishonesty? A bit of both, I imagine.

But I think this list is also a symptom of the tendency of many in the Men’s Rights movement to inflate the evils of their opponents. So many MRAs are so determined to prove that their supposed oppression is worse than that of women, and so determined to blame it all on feminism, that they need to make their opponents larger than life and twice as nasty. Given that the feminism they fight is largely a paranoid fantasy, bearing very little resemblance to feminism as it actually exists in the world today, it’s hardly shocking that a number of the quotes on this little list are fictional — and that none of the MRAs posting this list here and there on the internet seem to have even noticed (or, if they have noticed, to care, or at least to care enough to stop distributing the list). When you’re fighting phantoms in your own mind, the truth doesn’t really matter, does it?

Given how poorly this list held up to my fack-checking attempts, from now on I will consider this list and others like it spam, and delete any comments that  link to them.

If any of you antifeminists still feel the desire to post “evil feminist quotes” in the comments here, you may do so, but only if you (or the list that you link to) provides clickable links to the original sources of the quotes in question.  If you can’t provide a link to the source, I’ll delete it.

When I quote from MRAs and MGTOW-ites and other misogynists on this blog, I provide links to the sources. What’s so hard about that?

EDIT: Fixed links, and a few verb tenses.

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

282 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cold
10 years ago

>The feminism we fight is quite real and the accurate quotes help illustrate this. The new list under construction will be thoroughly vetted and will contain a whole bunch of new quoted nastiness, will all sources hyperlinked to either the original sites or to cached pages since the real gems have a tendency to conveniently disappear when they start attracting attention. Before you even go there, yes I know that Amanda Morcotte claims that one was lost due to technical issues. A likely story but I can't prove it to be false at this time, not that I bear the burden of proof on that claim.

Cold
10 years ago

>Oops, above should have said all ONLINE sources hyperlinked, since accurate quotes from copyrighted printed works will still be in there, even when the work isn't available online.

booboonation
10 years ago

>I would like to point out that the people that posts links to these lists know they are complete bullshit and post them anyway. So therefore, Cold, you have NO credibility. Instead of saying, look at this, I posted a bullshit link and David completely handed me my ass… you deflect to this new nonsense "coming soon" to a fantasy-feminism hate site near you. Feminism has been around for a long time and you should be able to have entire web sites dedicated to quotes just like manboobz does. But no, it's the anti fems who have the most hateful horrible murderous quotes in the movements. You people need to give it up, seriously. I love the end of the post here, it's exactly what these people need to hear. All the fake spammers, basically liars, can say here is…oh there are new ones somewhere. Well what about the fact that YOU posted OLD ones that are crap and YOU KNEW IT? Nobody should take these people seriously. Also, people are always trying to dance around Andrea. You know what? Show me ANY example of a manifestation of something she has said. ONE MANIFESTATION. ONE. I dare you. But yet, this entire blog is a manifestation of your MRA bullshit. Some posts document some manifestations that are down right murderous and dangerous. You guys need to come off it.

Cold
10 years ago

>Oh, and of course it's not so hard to link to an ONLINE source. I don't see you posting about the contents of copyrighted books that are not available for free online, at least not legally.

booboonation
10 years ago

>Cold… you mean…"oops I should have apologized for posting complete fucking garabage."

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Well, I hope you do a better job transcribing these quotes from printed works than the person who made the list here, and that you make sure to quote material that actually represents the author's opinion, instead of being a summary of what someone else believes.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Cold Oh, and of course it's not so hard to link to an ONLINE source. I don't see you posting about the contents of copyrighted books that are not available for free online, at least not legally. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to get at here. Could you clarify?

Cold
10 years ago

>Hey David, in case you weren't aware this booboonation character has co-opted the name of your blog for use in her "Manboobz TV" video series. If you gave her permission for that then fine, but she is also using my friend Patrick as the mascot without his permission.

Cold
10 years ago

>Oh, the segment in question begins at 2:10 in that video.

Cold
10 years ago

>To clarify, you said:When I quote from MRAs and MGTOW-ites and other misogynists on this blog, I provide links to the sources. What's so hard about that?Well, obviously nothing when it's an ONLINE source. That list, made about a decade ago at a time when the Internet wasn't so prolific, had to rely on references to printed works and was much more prone to being mislead.

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>You know, you could always take screencaps of the "hateful quotes" just in case they get taken offline. It's not ideal, of course, since people can claim you just doctored them, but it's still better than a link that leads to a 404 or nothing at all.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Cold, again, if you knew the list to be unreliable, WHY DID YOU POST IT?

Sandy
10 years ago

>In this thread Cold forgets we had internet in 2001 and claims list posted to the internet was made before the internet was a thing.Also admits it might be hard to find crazy quotes from the last decade.

booboonation
10 years ago

>Well, I don't have a TV series, but If I cover something from this blog I link to it.

booboonation
10 years ago

>BTW cold… does your friend Patrick use other people without their permission? Because… if people on you tube freely use each other's material and such, then it's fair game. And it's interesting you would bring that up. I am sure David is already aware that some MRAs have the tactic of publishing private information on people that they want to intimidate, and these are the people you are in with. We don't need to bring that here to the blog. I think that you're deflecting because I aggressively pointed out your dishonesty. Yes, there is much more I could say. But I have learned something about MRAs you and Patrick DO NOT REPRESENT them. In fact some have been so kind as to suggest to P to help the movement more instead of focusing on harassing women…their words , not mine. David's blog has helped me meet more MRAs I am happy to report they are not out to ruin women's lives that they don't like. Some day Patrick will likely be arrested for what he uses without permission, if you get my drift. And that's all we should say here.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Yes, NO POSTING OF ANYONES PERSONAL INFO here. Any comment containing personal info of anyone will be deleted. If someone does it more than once they will be banned.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>I found some quotes in support on this very blog! I had to do some editing, but I think the general sentiment is still succintly conveyed. "In my opinion. [Men] should never be allowed to hold degrees in soft sciences. And there should be no degrees in regards to soft sciences.Just because a [man] holds a degree to some cheap laden science or bad science. It doesn’t make [him] smart, but in fact it has an opposite effect. it makes [him] downright stupid.There’s different between knowledge and wisdom. And today’s lacks both of them. Only thing [he’s] good at is being worthless."That was published in October, you can read the whole entry here. Or how about:"I have come to the conclusion that it's not enough to avoid romantic relations with [men]. A [woman] should take extra precautions to avoid even the most casual contact. Regard them as nuclear waste or a highly contagious disease,"and "[Women] are lovable humans, unlike [men]. [Women] are the greatest ever treasure of gold, whom [men] worthless could never compare to or ever hold a candle to. … the [female] sex is ever superior to the weaker [male] one. [Women] in India are mistreated vis-à-vis [males], to get the bitches feel dignified. This is against nature. … [Women] are taken advantage of by bitches (the [man] race). … Woe betide [men]. I hate them too much, [boys] too,"both of which you can easily find hereAnd then the crowning quote:"In my opinion [men] are malleable,gullible and lack vision.The statements they make are ludicrous,they are therefore stupid, driven on by one thing and one thing only-their sexual power. The day someone creates a pill that desexualizes them in our eyes, then that is it. It is over. I don’t for a single second believe that the nature of [men] has transformed over the ages. Go back in time and the same nonsense will be as visible then as it is now. … women are this way by nature. The good thing is,they have demonstrated, to their everlasting detriment, just how bad, irrational, and ridiculous they really are. Time to stop pandering."You can find the unedited version of that one here. I'd continue, but I think my point has been made.

richard
10 years ago

>@ DavidDavid states: "Let's now turn to Marilyn French's famously fictional quote:"All men are rapists and that's all they are." Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983Oh, the quote is real — she wrote it — but it is not a statement of French's beliefs. Nor did it originate in People magazine. It is a line of dialogue from her book The Woman's Room. Wikipedia, take it away: Following the rape of Val's daughter Chris, Val states (over Mira's protests), "Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes" (p. 433). Critics have sometimes quoted Val's dialogue as evidence of French's misandry without noting that the passage is only spoken by one of many characters in the novel. . .In the article, French notes that the book is partly based on her experience — drawing on the emotions she herself felt after her own daughter was raped. "Sometimes I felt so violent about it and how the courts treated her," French admits, "that there seemed no recourse but to go out, buy a gun and shoot the kid who did it, and the lawyers too. I couldn't help my own child." Plenty of that rage made its way into The Women's Room. "I'm less angry now. Being too deep in anger corrodes your interior."So, again, it is very clear that the "all men are rapists" quote is meant to reflect a character awash in rage and pain; it is not an ideological statement of misandry."*************Interesting. So a woman in pain lashes out at men in her wrting and it is not an ideological statment of misandry, somehow she's not a misandrist. Yet, the men who are in pain and lash out online against feminists and the policies that harmed them are misogynists regardless of their treatment at the hands of hairy legged feminism.Nice. You gals do talk out of both sides of your mouth so well.Random Brother

girlscientist
10 years ago

>@Richard: Marilyn French worked on her her pain and got over it. You guys stew in it and spend your entire lives vilifying women who, for the most part, have never hurt you.Also, that quote was by a character in a fictional work. Or do you also think that J.K. Rowling would casually kill an infant because she wrote Lord Voldemort? That Shakespeare would rape, torture and mutilate because he wrote Coriolanus? That George Orwell was a writer by day and an oppressive dictator at night because he wrote Big Brother? That Stephen King has done unspeakable things to people because of all the horror stories he's written? Writers write all kinds of characters, a lot of whom are not pure as snow. These characters are complex and sometimes downright evil, not because the writer is evil, but because they used their imagination. They've thought about times when they were in pain, and imagined a character who would lash out because of it. In summary, just because Marilyn French's character is a misandrist doesn't mean she is.By the way, I can't believe that I just had to explain all that. I know that you're trying to argue your case and that you're not above overblowing one detail and to twist it to make a woman look bad, but would it kill you not to use an argument that doesn't make you look like an utter moron? This kind of strategy didn't work for GWB in the long run, and it won't work for you either.

Joe
Joe
10 years ago

>> So a woman in pain lashes out at men in her wrting and it is not an ideological statment of misandry, somehow she's not a misandrist. Yet, the men who are in pain and lash out online against feminists and the policies that harmed them are misogynists regardless of their treatment at the hands of hairy legged feminism.Whoosh …

Sandy
10 years ago

>>> So a woman in pain lashes out at men in her wrting and it is not an ideological statment of misandry, somehow she's not a misandrist. Yet, the men who are in pain and lash out online against feminists and the policies that harmed them are misogynists regardless of their treatment at the hands of hairy legged feministYes, it is not an ideological statement because she does not actually believe it. A character in her book said it because at one point she felt it. If a man said "at one point I felt as if all women X because of trauma and pain, but now I realize that is wrong" it would not be an ideological statement of hatred.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>She wrote a novel that said this. Had she written 50 novels saying the same thing, your idea would have some merit Richard. However she did not. She is apparently a writer and this is how she dealt with her anger.Same goes for a guy who has a blog-he writes a few posts here and there about how mad he is at a woman or women for something? Not a misogynist. A guy who writes a blog for years about how horrible women are? Yeah. He is.

triplanetary
10 years ago

>Yet, the men who are in pain and lash out online against feminists and the policies that harmed them are misogynists regardless of their treatment at the hands of hairy legged feminism.Sometimes when people are extremely angry they lash out at an entire group. In the heat of the moment it's forgivable, as long as that anger doesn't solidify into a lifelong bitterness at that whole group. It's common for people, after a bad breakup, to feel anger at the entire gender of their ex. I generally don't sympathize, I just expect them to snap out of it eventually, so I go easy on them.Two key points here. One, French's anger wasn't based on the actions of one man. It wasn't just the rape – it was the treatment her daughter received from police and courts, the whole system that's supposed to protect people and provide justice. French didn't feel that her daughter was receiving justice. Given the rape culture that we live in, that's likely. She saw her daughter suffering at the hands of the entire, patriarchal, rape-excusing institution, so her anger is far more justified.Second, the anger and bitterness of MRAs varies with regard to motivation, but it's always aimed at an imaginary version of feminism. Feminists don't believe the things MRAs say they believe, and they don't oppress men the way MRAs say they do. And our society is not pro-feminist or pro-woman in the slightest, not legally or by custom. So the anger and bitterness of MRAs is irrational, unlike the anger of French, who tried through legitimate means to find justice for her daughter and couldn't.Demonizing feminists, and making up all sorts of scary stories about how they want to systematically castrate the male population, is sexist. MRA claims about feminist misandry are factually bullshit, so we can only assume that you're lashing out in anger at feminists for daring to stand up for women's equality in a society that has a long, long history of patriarchy. We see this in every arena – racists make up stories about rape-hungry blacks and gold-hoarding Jews, patriots thrive on propaganda about enemy nations. When your criticisms of a group are vacant of truth or facts, it's because those criticisms spring from hatred.'Kay?

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Joe: To be fair, I *am* a hairy-legged feminist. Richard: People who are victims of violent crime or who are close to someone who was victimized are often really, really angry about it. That's perfectly understandable. French took her experience and used it to enrich her fiction. And she clearly made efforts to GET BEYOND this anger, as she explained to People. Very few of the MRAs/MGTOWs I've run across have experienced anything as brutal as a rape at the hands of women and/or feminists. I confess I don't completely understand where all their rage comes from.

Daran
10 years ago

>Before you even go there, yes I know that Amanda Morcotte claims that one was lost due to technical issues. A likely story but I can't prove it to be false at this time, not that I bear the burden of proof on that claim.Irrespective of the cause of that post going AWOL, and irrespective of what Marcotte may have said about it, it is definitely not the case that the quoted passage disappeared in a server crash. The passage had already been deleted from the post and replaced with a disclaimer.I blogged about this here. A cached copy of the post (before sanitisation) can be found here.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Daran, it is possible for people to honestly come to different conclusions about the guilt or innocence of people charged with crimes. How a case fares in our legal system is not the final say on the subject. There are people who have been convicted and jailed who are innocent (see the innocence project), and innocent people who have been found not guilty (OJ). The fact that someone disagrees with you does not necessarily mean that they are "libeling" someone.

triplanetary
10 years ago

>I confess I don't completely understand where all their rage comes from.It's easy for us feminist men to forget just how much our society compels many men to feel entitled to possess women. It's encoded in our cultural expressions and idioms, so to people immersed in patriarchy it seems like the natural state of affairs that men should be able to control women's bodies and constantly police their purity. Why do you think MRAs are so often opposed to abortion? Given how many of them want to GO THEIR OWN WAY anyway, why should they care if women are aborting babies left and right?Because the idea of a woman owning her own body and exerting control over it without male permission burns them up, that's why.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>I should have added something along the lines of "in my opinion and the opinion of many who have examined the evidence in detail" to my sentence mentioning OJ.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>@ Richard:Please, show me any website on the Boob Roll where any moderator or maintainer, past or present, has said something along the lines of, "I'm less angry now. Being too deep in anger corrodes your interior."

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Lady V:Actually, our pal Yohan once said:"About hate, it should be said, hate is really bad for your health"http://www.manboobz.com/2011/02/i-dont-hate-women-i-just-want-them-all.htmlBut then again, also in that post, he doesn't seem to regard the following as "hate,""I want them to live to see how lonely and suicidal they,ll become when they find out all the men have dumped them forever in the feminized world. I want them to live and suffer without men or the attention they receive from us. …"I have turned out just a little vengeful towards women for the treatment I have received from them throughout my life. Just seeing an AW maybe lying on the sidewalk after a drunken suicidal depressive drinking binge after being dumped and cheated on would brighten up my day."

Pam
Pam
10 years ago

>It's encoded in our cultural expressions and idioms, so to people immersed in patriarchy it seems like the natural state of affairs that men should be able to control women's bodies and constantly police their purity.And it's no surprise that these cultural expressions and idioms, and the rise of patriarchy, started occurring when men began to realize that they played a role in procreation…and when they DID, they believed that the male seed contained all the genetic components needed to create the new life, females provided ONLY the fertile "soil" in which the seed "germinated" and grew. Women were, quite literally, walking incubators only, providing no genetic material to the new life, just the nutrient-rich soil for the new life to grow in. Men owning women's bodies was thus no different than men owning a tract of land for planting and harvesting crops.Funny how the notion of male ownership of female bodies hangs on long after science has proven wrong the original theories of procreation.

triplanetary
10 years ago

>Men owning women's bodies was thus no different than men owning a tract of land for planting and harvesting crops.Definitely. Particularly amongst the aristocracy, for whom a wife was basically an heir-producing machine.

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>Definitely. Particularly amongst the aristocracy, for whom a wife was basically an heir-producing machine. An MRA might ask, though, what's wrong with that? What does a man need from a woman aside from heirs? Literally the only two things women can do that men can't are give birth and lactate. Why should men have any regard for women outside of those two purposes?This isn't (necessarily) to say I believe that, but it's the response many of the more earnest MRAs would give. Pretend I'm Cold or Wytch or somebody if you choose to answer that question. 🙂

wytchfinde555
10 years ago

>"Second, the anger and bitterness of MRAs varies with regard to motivation, but it's always aimed at an imaginary version of feminism."–TriplanetaryNope. It's what I've experienced from feminists themselves—the reality of it. I used to believe feminism was actually about equality for both men and women. Then I woke up.

Aydan
10 years ago

>I am a feminist under the age of twenty-five. I have never read Dworkin, I've read a little MacKinnon, and I've read some Steinem. I don't think myself any less of a feminist for it. These authors, like Dworkin and MacKinnon, are/were terribly important in the ideological sense, but if you ask me about the leading lights of feminism now, I will not give you their names. They are not terribly relevant to my feminism.I'm never asked to respond to misandrist things Susan B. Anthony, Mary Wollstonecraft, or Emmeline Pankhurst may or may not have said. So what is the amount of time necessary to pass before people realize that ideological movements, well, move on? We don't generally go around asking Republicans to repudiate racist things their predecessors said during the civil rights fights.

wytchfinde555
10 years ago

>"Why do you think MRAs are so often opposed to abortion?"And are you supportive of men's choices in reproduction as well? I await your answer; hope you are honest.

keiko44
10 years ago

>"And are you supportive of men's choices in reproduction as well? I await your answer; hope you are honest."What choices? He cums in a woman and, if he says he wants the baby, she has to go through pregnancy and labor because his (tiny) sperm fertilized her (gigantic) ovary? Sorry, but men should never be able to force woman to birth their babies. The amount of effort he went through compared to hers is nothing. After the baby is born, then yes, the father has rights.

triplanetary
10 years ago

>And are you supportive of men's choices in reproduction as well? I await your answer; hope you are honest.Absolutely. If a fetus is growing inside a man, he has every right to abort it.

shaenon
10 years ago

>An MRA might ask, though, what's wrong with that? What does a man need from a woman aside from heirs? Literally the only two things women can do that men can't are give birth and lactate. Why should men have any regard for women outside of those two purposes?Why should a man have any regard for other men? After all, men can't even perform those two useful services. They're total loads.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>"And are you supportive of men's choices in reproduction as well? I await your answer; hope you are honest."Of course! Men have a variety of options to ensure they don't have children they're not ready or able to care for. I support every man's right to inexpensive condoms and cheap vasectomies.

Valerie
10 years ago

>"Fighting phantoms", that's an excellent way to put it.

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>But the MRA would respond that men can do literally everything necessary for survival and the maintenance of civilization, whereas women either are unable or less competent. In almost every respect outside of an ability to lactate and give birth a man's body is (generally) far superior to a woman's. The stronger, faster sex can hunt, carry heavy loads, endure hard labor, etc. etc. etc. while women would have far more difficulty with all of these tasks (even if we grant they are mentally the same as men) due to their lack of muscular development, comparatively underdeveloped cardiovascular systems, etc. etc. etc., with few exceptions. In short, men can do literally everything reasonably well except for birthing and lactation. Women, on the other hand are superior to men *only* in these two respects and inferior to them in almost every other respect. Again, the question remains, from the MRA's perspective, why shouldn't we accept this 'division of labor,' so to speak? Men are better at pretty much everything, therefore men should be valued simply for being men. Women are only capable/remotely competent at birthing and lactation; therefore, these are the only two things they should be valued for.

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>I support every man's right to inexpensive condoms and cheap vasectomies. Condoms break and vasectomies are (often) a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Many MRAs, from what I've seen, would much prefer the abolition of all child support requirements if abortion is legal for women (for instance, this is Paul Elam's position, IIRC).

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Vagrant, which is, of course, inaccurate.

cactuar-tamer
10 years ago

>Well, to differ a little bit, as I'm a childfree person myself, and I realize that it is possible for both genders to be 'oopsed' … Manipulative boyfriends sabotage BC, Manipulative girlfriends stop taking it…. and I'm very against forced parenthood of any kind… I do think, if it is at all possible to do so fairly, we should set up a way in which a man could opt out of parenthood rights, say, if he filed for it early enough in the pregnancy (after all, women's opt-out, abortion, also has a limited window of time)I mean, it's obvious he should have no say in whether or not she can/should get an abortion, but I don't think it's unreasonable to give him a say in whether or not he wants to have parent-responsibility. No getting out after the fact, but a window early on where he could 'terminate' his fatherhood. All this, 'he had the choice to have sex' just smacks of the same judgmental bullshit people us on women who have abortions.

cactuar-tamer
10 years ago

>And to be clear, since it was suggested while I was typing that, I don't support eliminating child support. Just giving the man a window early in the pregnancy to 'terminate' his fatherhood.

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>Vagrant, which is, of course, inaccurate. Er, what is? The condom/vasectomy thing or the female inferiority thing?And to be clear, since it was suggested while I was typing that, I don't support eliminating child support. Just giving the man a window early in the pregnancy to 'terminate' his fatherhood. Wow. This is more or less exactly what a lot of MRAs want to hear. I doubt it'll convince the ones 'round here that feminists aren't pure evil, but I suppose it's a start, lol.

Kave
10 years ago

>I believe men should be able to opt out of a child's life unless he has made the choice to opt in. It's not the same as an abortion window because there are a small minority of "dads" who do not have knowledge of the preganacy. Also amoungst the poor in the U.S I believe that women cannot receive welfare unless they name a father. This cannot be put on feminists, this is the government trying to cut down on welfare payments.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>Re: oopsing… this is why it's on every person's own shoulders to take responsibility for preventing a pregnancy. Don't want a pregnancy, and you're a woman? Get on the Pill and be insistent about condoms. For men? Same thing. Be proactive about condoms. Don't put the responsibility for your own fertility on the shoulders of someone else. And when it comes to abortion/opting out of fatherhood, there's one glaring hole which MRAs conveniently choose to ignore. If a woman gets an abortion, yeah, technically she's opting out of parenthood… because there is nothing to parent. There is no resulting human being. In the opt out of fatherhood scenario, there is still a tiny human in the picture, with needs and wants and rights.

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>Be proactive about condoms. Don't put the responsibility for your own fertility on the shoulders of someone else.What about the MRA horror stories where women lie about being on the pill and then fish out their lovers' used condoms from the trash and inseminate themselves that way? Yes, yes, I'm sure you'll say women don't do that IRL and it's just another MRA horror story, but hypothetically, in that situation, why should a man NOT have the right to "opt out of fatherhood" if he did everything correctly and was only suckered into fathering a child due to his lover's deceit? Again, for the purposes of argument let's pretend there's at least a kernel of truth in this MRA sob story.If a woman gets an abortion, yeah, technically she's opting out of parenthood… because there is nothing to parent. There is no resulting human being. In the opt out of fatherhood scenario, there is still a tiny human in the picture, with needs and wants and rights. Well, not necessarily. It's only a "tiny human" the moment it pops out of the birth canal, right? In the above example, we're talking about abandoning fatherhood responsibilities while the woman is still pregnant–i.e while there's no "tiny human" in the picture yet (only a bundle of cells). Why shouldn't he be able to opt out of parenthood in that case? if he does and the mother can't take care of the child, there's still plenty of time for her to get an abortion in that case.

1 2 3 6