>
 |
| From In Mala Fide |
The reaction of the “manosphere” to Lara Logan’s reported sexual assault in Cairo has been highly revealing, to put it mildly. And what it reveals about the assorted Men’s Rightsers, Men Going Their Own Way, pickup artists, and others who make up the manosphere is pretty ugly.
Take, for example, Ferdinand Bardamu’s posts on the subject. On Tuesday, Bardamu, whose antifeminist blog In Mala Fide is widely linked to in the manosphere, spat forth a snide, sarcastic rant that attacked Logan for having the temerity to even set foot in Egypt. He started out dismissive:
Apparently, a CBS lady reporter got raped while covering the revolution in Egypt. For some reason, we’re expected to feel sorry for her.
Then turned up the sarcasm:
Oh, what a symbol of courage Miss Logan is! What a beacon of determination and grit and…no, seriously. I can’t go on.
Fuck Lara Logan. Fuck her and the shit-for-brains idiot who thought it was a good idea to send a WOMAN to report from a war zone. …
Of course, Bardamu ignores the simple fact that is is dangerous to send ANY reporter, male or female, into the midst of a revolution — indeed, the Committee to Protect Journalists has documented more than 140 attacks on journalists in the Egyptian unrest so far; one journalist was shot and killed. Despite this fact, it is an undeniably good thing that some reporters (male and female both) are willing to risk their lives to cover wars and revolutions and other dramatic, dangerous, and important events. No one has suggested that the attacks on male journalists mean that men should not be covering these events. No one is mocking the male journalists who were attacked. (Well, almost no one. Bardamu refers in passing to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, also famously attacked while covering the events of Egypt, as a “twinkle-toed pansy [who] couldn’t handle the heat on the streets of Cairo.”)
For Bardamu, though, Logan’s story is one of a woman foolishly trying to make her way in a man’s world:
You send a chick into a situation like the one in Egypt, you might as well hang a sign around her neck that says “FREE FUCKTOY”. I don’t care how many disaster areas she’s reported from, how many awards she’s won, it was going to happen eventually. …
Sucks that Lara got raped, but she had it coming. [Emphasis in original]
To Bardamu, this case is evidence not only that women journalists should not be sent to cover the Egyptian revolution but that they should not be allowed to leave their home country at all:
[O]f COURSE Lara shouldn’t be sent on another foreign assignment again! She, nor any other women should be allowed to be a foreign correspondent for their own safety.
And then, after arguing that Logan “had it coming,”and that any western woman who has the temerity to leave her hotel room and step out into the streets of Cairo should expect herself to get raped sooner or later, Bardamu then suggests that Logan may be making it all up:
There’s a non-zero chance that she didn’t get raped at all, and that she made the whole thing up to garner attention and sympathy from the weepy, chivalrous masses. …
I have no evidence that she’s not telling the truth, only a tiny feeling in the pit of my stomach that’s been growing year by year, with every venal vixen who falsely accuses a man of rape because she wants fame, or she feels like a slut after sleeping with the guy, or she’s mad that he slept with her best friend the day after, or whatever else.
Naturally, in the comments, many of Bardamu’s fans agreed that women women who trespass into male spaces deserve whatever happens to them. According to “John”:
Women do not belong in men’s locker rooms, Mike Tysons apartment at 2:00 a.m., drunk in a bar bathroom with the Steelers quarterback, and they sure as hell don’t belong “reporting” in the middle of a revolution. Women should not go to Frat Parties dressed like sluts and get drunk with the expectation that “nothing will happen.” …
This woman, Laura Logan, is not just an idiot – she is an adulterous whore. She shares this unfortunate circumstance with tens of millions of others of her sex, and deserves no pity whatsoever.
For some, the case was not just another excuse for “slut shaming” but evidence that the very notion of equality between the sexes is wrong. As Brett Stevens put it:
American women are rape targets worldwide. They are known to be clueless, friendly, and most of all, sexually easy. If a woman chucks her sexual favors out the door at the drop out of a hat, why not just go the extra mile and apply pressure? … We take these girls from comfy suburbs and send them into war zones and riots and wonder why they get gang raped. Amazing cluelessness, arising from our insane idea of “equality.”
There were other comments even worse than these — e.g., this one — but I don’t have the heart to post them here.
But Bardamu’s retrograde notions were also challenged in the comments — mostly from those who saw his noxious post linked to on feminist sites and on Twitter, but also in a few cases from actual fans of his blog.
This reaction inspired Bardamu to post a second piece on the Logan story, one even more narcissistic and self-righteous than the first. After taking on some of his critics (most notably Molly of Progressive Blogic, whom he labeled a “premenstrual whiner”), and casually referring to Logan as “an unwilling cum dumpster,” Bardamu tried to pretend that it was him, and not the feminists, who had the best interests of women at heart.
Lara Logan had no business being in Cairo, or anywhere in that part of the world for that matter. All of you leftie feminist tossers screeching about “rape culture” have her blood on your hands. How many more have to suffer before your lies are discredited?
Sorry, but a guy who refers to any women, much less a woman who has been raped, as a “cum dumpster” pretty much forfeits any right to be taken seriously on the subject of what is best for women.
About a week ago, Bardamu reported that he’d taken a Psychopathy Test on OkCupid, and had scored an impressive 31 points, which put him in the ranks of the “True Psychopaths.” His posts on Logan — full of narcissistic rage and utterly lacking in basic human empathy — seem to bear out this diagnoses all too well.
—
If you liked 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.
>To Mr. Bardamu's (perhaps minimal) credit, at least he addressed the subject of male reporters getting assaulted or hurt in that region, which is something a lot of MRAs (I recall hearing something like this in one of the comments on your last post on the subject) have complained about.Then again, considering his reference to Cooper as a "twinkle-toed pansy," it's not really much of a credit to the MRAs (or "fellow travelers on the MRA road; since Ferdinand doesn't call himself an MRA, but he's close enough) that they don't seem to care much more about their fellow men than they do about women.That said, while I won't argue in his defense, an OKcupid test is a pretty poor assessment of anybody's mental state. And I don't really see how his post is that narcissistic, either–callous, insensitive, and provocatively offensive, sure, but he doesn't seem to be going much on talking about himself or self-aggrandizement.
>"Lara Logan had no business being in Cairo, or anywhere in that part of the world for that matter."When I first saw this, I read it as "or anywhere in the world for that matter." Something tells me that's not far off from what this guy really thinks.
>At least some of the posters are fighting back.
>turns outshe wasnt raped after all.. of course this biased feminist blog wont speak of it though.
>turns outshe wasnt raped after allReally? First time I've heard of that. Not saying you're wrong, but if you could link us to a recantation or something that'd be nice.
>I heard she was sexually and brutally assaulted, meaning beat up with some degree of sexual interference without penetration. I never read on any mainstream press that she was raped. In fact the first time I heard that she was gang raped was on mra blogs. I ASSUMED that mra’s would not make her out to be more then a victim then she already was. I guess they did. Not sure what they gained by making those claims.
>There hasn't been a recantation. We don't yet know the details of what happened. The CBS statement referred to "sexual assault," which is sometimes legally distinct from rape, but did not give details. Given that we don't know the details I referred to it as a "reported sexual assault." I don't personally doubt it happened. (When later in the piece I refer to Bardamu as referring to a "a woman who has been raped" it's because the specific (awful) language he was using in that context presupposed a rape.)
>So let me get this straight… The MRAs hate Logan because she was attacked in a dangerous situation. They also hate women because they feel like there's a great feminist conspiracy to convince men to go to war in our place. MRA: Fueled by hate!
>Surely the elephant in the room is that kick-ass, war-reporting female journalists wouldn't be there if it wasn't for affirmative action. The market for you-go-grrrl reporters is an artificial one propped up by government incentives and fake propoganda. By contrast, if the natural laws of supply and demand held sway in the career journalist market, Lara Logan would almost certainly never have been sexually assaulted in Cairo. She was assaulted because of affirmative action. And that's why playing the victim-card pisses a lot of people off. You want "equality"? Then accept the consequences.
>The market for you-go-grrrl reporters is an artificial one propped up by government incentives and fake propoganda.[citation needed]Seriously though, a lot of men watch the news because they like seeing cute reporters. Ms. Logan was appealing to that demographic–the corporation hired her due to that fact, not because of "affirmative action," unless the pursuit of profit in a free market counts as "affirmative action."
>So you are saying that if a woman wishes to be a reporter, she should just accept the consequence of sexual assault?After all, that is what manly men do right?
>And I don't really see how his post is that narcissistic, either–callous, insensitive, and provocatively offensive, sure, but he doesn't seem to be going much on talking about himself or self-aggrandizement. FWIW, one of the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, according to the DSM-IV TR, is lack of empathy or concern for others' feelings–which is pretty clearly on display in his rant. Admittedly, that's not usually the first thing a lay person thinks of when the word "narcissistic" is mentioned.
>If you really look at what I'm saying, Elizabeth, is that affirmative action (legally enforced discrimination based on sex) should be dismantled, because there are longer term consequences thereof. You cannot enforce sexism in favor of women and against men, and then expect egalitarian nirvana, with everyone linked arm-in-arm around a campfire singing Kumbaya.
>If you really look at what I'm saying, Elizabeth, is that affirmative action (legally enforced discrimination based on sex) should be dismantled, because there are longer term consequences thereof. You cannot enforce sexism in favor of women and against men, and then expect egalitarian nirvana, with everyone linked arm-in-arm around a campfire singing Kumbaya. Your argument would be a lot stronger if you provided an actual example of government-enforced affirmative action in the news media, instead of just building strawmen (or straw women). We'll wait while you get on that.
> The CBS statement referred to "sexual assault," which is sometimes legally distinct from rape…In Canada, "sexual assault" is not distinct from rape, but encompasses rape along with other assaults of a sexual nature. Logan was assaulted. The assault was sexual in nature. Whether or not there was PIV penetration is a detail that is kind of creepy to debate over.
>Marissa, I agree completely. I'm just keeping with the language being used in CBS's statement, because that's all we know at this point. Misogynist assholes like bar are using the vagueness of the statement as an excuse to dismiss the whole thing.
>Captain Bathrobe said:"Your argument would be a lot stronger if you provided an actual example of government-enforced affirmative action in the news media, instead of just building strawmen (or straw women). We'll wait while you get on that."Wull wait wol you get on thut! Us librals are sooo much smorter thun conservativs and edumacated. Hu! Hu! Hu! Um a geniuuus cuz Uv learnt how to duvert threads by deny-in self evudent stuf. Are you denying affirmative action exists?Or just denying it exists in the news media?Behold a liberal who doesn't believe in affirmative action! And you call yourself a liberal! Ha! Ha! Ha!
>Chuckeedee said… Surely the elephant in the room is that kick-ass, war-reporting female journalists wouldn't be there if it wasn't for affirmative action. The market for you-go-grrrl reporters is an artificial one propped up by government incentives and fake propoganda. By contrast, if the natural laws of supply and demand held sway in the career journalist market, Lara Logan would almost certainly never have been sexually assaulted in Cairo. She was assaulted because of affirmative action. And that's why playing the victim-card pisses a lot of people off. You want "equality"? Then accept the consequences.Elizabeth said… So you are saying that if a woman wishes to be a reporter, she should just accept the consequence of sexual assault? After all, that is what manly men do right?Funny, I don't see the MRA's also saying men that enlist in the armed forces or work dangerous jobs should take the consequences of their actions. Why save trapped miners? They chose that job so let them die in the collapsed mine, amirite? I think I have the MRA values down, don't I?
>Are you denying affirmative action exists?Or just denying it exists in the news media?Behold a liberal who doesn't believe in affirmative action! And you call yourself a liberal! Ha! Ha! Ha! Chuckee said that affirmative action was the proximate cause of Lara Logan being raped. I asked him to provide examples that would support his argument (i.e., women being hired and promoted in the news media due to government-mandated affirmative action). So far, he has not done so. Perhaps you can, instead?And, no, asserting that government-mandated affirmative action occurs elsewhere does not really count as evidence in this case.
>Also, evilwhitemale, laws that bar discrimination based on gender are not evidence of affirmative action.If it's so self-evident, then Google should turn up quite a few examples, yes?
>"Your argument would be a lot stronger if you provided an actual example of government-enforced affirmative action in the news media"Fair point. We can begin by conducting some rudimentary analysis of our own. … things like number of scholarships targeting women, and so on. Five minutes ago, my search phrase "scholarships for women in journalism" yielded 55 hits, while "scholarships for men in journalism" yields "no results found". Not a scientific study by any means. But a certain bias is evident and without surprise.But what is much harder to prove is systemic affirmative action. In other words, the pressure placed on employers when, confronted with hiring a man or a woman of "equal" standing, they will be obliged to choose the woman. The statutes often spell out as much should a hirer be faced with this kind of ambiguity.Does the number of female versus male news reporters on our televisions represent the proportions trained in journalism? Or, more specifically, does it reflect systemic biases in the workplace that are routinely encouraged in the culture of affirmative action? The gold-stars that are routinely awarded to companies for hiring women over men has become standard practice that goes unchallenged. If in doubt, choose the woman. Furthermore, the promise of a public-relations coup and the guaranteed gold stars for government-approved agencies will always eliminate the doubt, no need to fear accusations of sexism. It's a freebie for women and an incentive that is entirely without risk to the employer (questions of competence and efficiency notwithstanding).What was the story of Jessica Lynch if not the sort of public relations coup that most any contemporary organisation would covet (were it not to blow up in their faces with inconvenient truths)? It looks to me like the promising Lara Logan public relations coup blew up in their faces with a most inconvenient sexual assault upon her person. For this, they (her employer and the government) should be held to account.
>Chuckee, I appreciate your response and will meditate on my reply, if any. For now, I'm off to bed.
>chuckee. It's sad how the women in journalism that we see as anchors might not represent the most qualified. For example look at Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. How many more women are like her, but there is no place for them because news organizations want ex beauty pageant winners that could just as soon do the weather on any given day? Also when you're talking about visual representation in the media it's important to represent the population, not the imbalanced ratio of who could get a college loan and stay out of the work force (for the most part) to achieve the degree. I've heard lately anyway that there are MORE women in college than men, so maybe it is representative number wise. Also many scholarships are privately funded. So women's groups may sponsor them. It might be illegal at this time to target MEN for scholarships exclusively, so that might be something we change if that becomes imbalanced (or is already). We should not take the scholarships away from the women, but allow organizations to offer them to men as well. What I find silly is this pretending that patriarchal society did not establish these other categories of people and then oppress themin the first place. For example, being black in America is a big deal because of oppression and being otherized. Now as soon as we deal with them as a group that HAVE been otherized, then suddenly the white male calls foul. So they can only be group together for neg purposes, but never the other way around. Women have been otherized and burdened since Eden with cultural expectations that catapulted the white male forward, but now we cry foul when dealing with these patriarchy made groups as groups? Come on. I take issue with that. Having said that… both genders should be eligible for gender targeted scholarships, not just one. It's an easier topic than the race topic.
>The necessary but absurd premise underlying chuck's argument is that woman=incompetant. If we do not assume that the hiring pool of women is less qualified and less competant than the hiring pool of men, the argument falls apart. Even if there were a systematic privileging for women in hiring (in reality, the opposite is generally the case), that would mean that the staffing would be primarily full of women who were, on average, as competant as the men, on average. But, no, chuck isn't assuming that women get hired over men, he is assuming that if women do get hired over men, then the resulting hires will be of automatically less competant people. If you assumed that women and men were equally competant, then, provided you have about equal degree earning percentages, half should be women if you hired in a gender neutral manner. Logan, in particular, is extremely qualified for her position. She has more than a decade of experience reporting in war zones. She first moved into war reporting when she managed to convince an embassy to give her an expediated visa to Afganistan immediately after 9/11, making her one of the first available to cover the events. Since then, she has won numerous awards and has reported on several high profile news programs. There is zero fucking evidence that she is anything but a highly qualified journalist at the top of her field. The notion that, if only qualified people were hired, Logan would automatically not have gotten her job is fucking absurd.
>Dark Side Cat… thanks so much for your comment, really really good. I have seen that assumption in almost any kind of affirmative action discussion. Sigh.