>
From a post on the blog Omega Virgin Revolt:
Most women have never accused me of sexual harassment. While a good number have generally speaking it’s an incredibly tiny fraction of the female population that has.
—
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.
>Most women have never had sex with me. In fact, I've only had sex with 0.000000001% of the female population of the planet! So if we're rounding, I'm still a virgin.
>If anyone has accused you of sexual harassment, it is generally a good heuristic to assume you're doing something wrong. If it was unintentional, perhaps you should find a neutral and more socially adept friend and inquire what behaviors seem creepy, then stop doing that.
>I think it's relatively easy for someone to avoid sexually harassing "some women" by simply understanding that there are certain places (like work or passerby on the streets) or when visiting a person's work (such as going to a bar and hitting on the bartender) that you avoid topics relating to sex, romance, and flirtation. Not leering also helps.I'd think these would be easy rules to follow in order to become the guy who can safely say he's never sexually harassed ANY women instead of just "most".I'm pretty sure someone could compile an easy-to-follow list of things women might find to be sexual harassment, such as "leering at her boobs" or "screaming obscenities on the street" or even "quietly saying 'mmmmm' as she walks past". Yet, certain kinds of men seem shocked when those things are offensive to women.
>Yet, certain kinds of men seem shocked when those things are offensive to women.Given that patriarchal men want to deny womens' personhood, I imagine it's akin to a "You can talk!" moment when your dog suddenly explains to you that he needs your help saving the world.
>To be fair, we don't know what conclusions this poor man is drawing from his…"It’s easy to say that all the women who have accused me of sexual harassment are psychos."Crap. I have to admit, it is easy… -_-If this guy's story were true and there were women who were talking about him losing his job because he was a "single man," then those women are idiots. Ignore them.Focus instead on why "a good number" of women have accused you of sexual harassment. I guarantee that somebody will be posting "Why are you guys focusing on what HE did wrong? Didn't it occur to you that it could be his accusers?"If it were the case that one woman were accusing him of harassment, and every other woman in the office agreed with her despite every piece of evidence to the contrary, he would have a right to complain. As it stands, "a good number" of women have complained, therefore chances are good that he is harrassing his coworkers, perhaps without realizing it.
>It's a notably rare exception!(With notably rare exceptions, I'm confident that everyone who reads this blog will find that Crooked Timber thread to be hilarious. So go read it if you haven't already seen it.)
>Under that standard, BP has a really great environmental record, and Pinochet has a sterling history on human rights. Strangely, the fact that you've managed to do fewer shitty things than not-shitty things doesn't mean you're not shitty.As to his assertion that the women who have accused him are "psychos"–well, obviously it's difficult to come to any kind of reasonable conclusion about what happened when he's given us so little information. But I have to say I'm not totally convinced that a guy who writes a blog called Omega Virgin Revolt wouldn't sexually harass women at work. In fact, if I had to guess what a guy who thinks of himself as an Omega Virgin does when he's around women, sexual harassment would probably crack the top ten.
>Under that standard, BP has a really great environmental record, Actually, that is exactly the rationale Transocean used when giving its top executives unprecedented bonuses recently.Innumeracy was written decades ago, but I bet the author never thought it would get this bad, while the normal populace still managed to muster the dull wit to put their shoes on the correct feet.
>Generally if you have more then one or two people saying you are doing something wrong, you probably are doing something wrong.
>Most people have never accused me of attempted murder. While a good number have generally speaking it’s an incredibly tiny fraction of the population that has.I just thought I'd mention that.
>@ElizabethWith notably rare exceptions, for example, if both Discount and Eoghan tell you you're wrong about feminism.
>Well, at least he is starting to get that approx. three and a half billion people do not all act the same way simply because he has observed a few members of that "group" act in such a way. After so much exposure to MRAs, that feels like progress.
>*snickers* Yep Amnesia.
>Geez, I read his entire post and it was awful. He called the women "false accusers" and then felt hurt that other women didn't take his side. It might be because a good number have accused him. I know I would take the word of several women over the word of a weird guy that makes a blog called "Omega Virgin Revolt", which dedicates itself to hating women.
>And not a single one of his commenters has thought to wonder why "a good number" of women have accused him of sexual harassment.Not just one. "A good number."At the risk of stating the obvious – you're doing something wrong boyo.The mind boggles.
>The average witch hunter in Salem probably had a better sense of ethics and justice than do your commenters, Futrelle. These comments remind me of Franz Kafka's "The Trial."
>And you, Bob, remind me of Moliere's "Tartuffe".
>I assume by this you mean that I am somehow hypocritical or that I feign being a good person in some way. On what objective criteria do you base this? None? I thought so.Meanwhile, your fellow circlejerk of commenters here think that a guilty until proven innocent mob mentality that amounts to "he was accused of it so it must be true" is A-OK. Just like what happened to those boys at Duke university.
>"I assume by this you mean that I am somehow hypocritical or that I feign being a good person in some way."Bingo! Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding."On what objective criteria do you base this? None? I thought so."Hey Bob? If you ask me a question, you don't get to answer for me, mkay? My objective criteria include your ridiculous complaint that we are supposedly persecuting MRA's by quoting what they actually say — and especially since most of what they say revolves around accusing women of the most horrible crimes and flaws (some of which are physically impossible) without any proof whatsoever. I am generally open to hearing different viewpoints, but when you side with people who accuse women as a gender of being sluts and bitches, complaining of women's temerity to believe they are human beings whose thoughts, desires and problems are valid, you lose all credibility on the subject of ethics and justice. Also on the subject of witch hunts."Meanwhile, your fellow circlejerk of commenters here think that a guilty until proven innocent mob mentality that amounts to "he was accused of it so it must be true" is A-OK. Just like what happened to those boys at Duke university."Oh, you mean like when your buddies claim that if a woman had her skull crushed by an ex-husband, she "must have" deserved it? Or when they claim that if a congresswoman got shot by a raging misogynist, women should be held accountable? Or when they claim that if a woman gets raped, she must have had it coming? According to you, the presumption of innocence apparently applies only to men.Also — those "boys" at Duke University were innocent of the rape, but they were neither morally innocent, nor were they "boys". Stop infantilizing what they did. Hiring a stripper and telling her to shove a broomstick up her vagina is a very grown-up thing. And that "joke" about masturbating while slicing a woman's skin off with a razor is a very grown-up "joke", to say the least. If prepubescent girls are held to a grown-up standard of dressing and acting in a way to ensure their own safety from rape, it only makes sense that "boys" who have reached the age of majority are held to a grown-up standard of speaking and acting in a way that ensures their own safety from false rape accusations.
>"My objective criteria include your ridiculous complaint that we are supposedly persecuting MRA's by quoting what they actually say"What is happening right here is that these commenters ARE persecuting someone who was accused of a crime. These commenters are saying that because White & Nerdy was accused, that he simply must be guilty because well, they never really say why. Just like in The Trial, as I said. This is commonly referred to as a Kafkatrap.As an aside, another of my favorite kafkatraps is the "male privilege" canard that I totally just don't get because I just can't *see* my privilege that you won't define or give any kind of actual examples of.By the way, you have not proven ME to be a hypocrite personally so you also have no standard by which to call me one, so your original snarky and clever one-liner was really neither. Sorry."I am generally open to hearing different viewpoints, but when you side with people who…"Guilt by association, eh? Quaint dark ages concept and all but I guess by your logic you then support Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto and countless published books by feminist authors and statements by women's studies "professors" which advocate for gendercide and the like against men and books and statements that malign all men as rapists, and countless other examples including prosecutorial misconduct far worse than what you cite of MRAs saying on Internet blog comment sections. Do you really want to compare who's got the worst people on their "side" or do you want to stop slinging mud and talk as individuals about what's actually happening right here and what people right here are saying.I don't think you want to keep slinging mud though as there is a far greater amount dirt against feminists and feminists who hold prominent positions in our society at that then there are in the cherry-picked comments sections of internet blogs the likes of which Futrelle thinks s/he's clever in "reporting" on. We could do this for a long time but "your side" is going to look worse that way if we tally up the scores at the end.Try a better argument next time, Amused. I see you decided to evacuate your bowels with more guilt by association BS below so I'll skip past that. Stick to the subject at hand next time.
>"Also — those "boys" at Duke University were innocent of the rape, but they were neither morally innocent, nor were they "boys". Stop infantilizing what they did…"Ah… I see, so the Duke lacrosse players although not guilty of any actual crime are in your mind guilty of thought crime and therefore deserved the persecution (even though one of them wasn't even there when the rape didn't happen and so wasn't even "guilty" of thought crime). I hate to tell you, but "1984" was a warning, not an instruction manual. I take that back–I don't even think Orwell could have dreamed the things that are happening today, with feminist fascists demanding the resignation of a well-respected and accomplished doctor and scientist for publishing an offhand comment on semen based in scientific fact as a recent example.I'm sure your opinion on the Duke lacrosse players is shared another commenter here by the name of Amanda Marcotte, even though she tried to delete her blog posts that shares this sentiment you have, some years back. Shame for bigots like you and her that the Internet never forgets, though… There's an ever-lasting record of what she said. Just like there's now an ever-lasting record of what you personally just posted. Isn't that great, my friend?"If prepubescent girls are held to a grown-up standard of dressing and acting in a way to ensure their own safety from rape, it only makes sense that "boys" who have reached the age of majority are held to a grown-up standard of speaking and acting in a way that ensures their own safety from false rape accusations."False equivalency. Are girls who are in your words I'm sure will be something like "dress like sluts" held to any kind of legal standard, persecuted ideologues within the judicial system and lynch mobs that have people like your fellow commenter Amanda Marcotte in them? No.They don't face prison and can't be charged for dressing like that. I'll personally only go as far as to that it's high risk behavior that should be avoided, but I can't say it's their fault they got raped for dressing that way as that's not fair. The criminal who raped is the one at fault ultimately…. but in the case of false rape allegations they happen for a variety of reasons including not wanting to pay a taxi cab fare, not wanting to be found out for infidelity or simply to get attention and so there is no real causal link between obnoxious fratboy behavior and being falsely accused of rape as acting like a fratboy can't be determined to be a cause of false rape accusations. Good try though. You're really good with these logical fallacies. It's funny though how you believe that their persecution was alright because they were fratboy douchebags, though. You've shown you true colors.
>"What is happening right here is that these commenters ARE persecuting someone who was accused of a crime. [etc.]"*Yawn* Bob, we get a dozen wanna-be philosophy "experts" here every week, but I gotta tell you, you'll sound more sincere – and therefore more convincing — if you just drop the pretense. You want to talk about "false equivalency"? Presumption of innocence is a legal principle, not a moral one. It doesn't mean my opinion of who has or hasn't committed a crime must depend on the jury's verdict. Do you honestly believe OJ Simpson is innocent? Hey, the jury thought so, therefore we are all now obligated to believe it, I guess — according to you. Also, expressing an opinion isn't "persecution". None of us have the power to put the accused in jail or to obtain a guilty verdict in circumvention of the process. We are merely exercising our First Amendment right to free speech. Which, note, includes the right to form an opinion without having the government — in the case of criminal prosecutions, represented by juries — dictating to us what we should or shouldn't believe."As an aside, another of my favorite kafkatraps is the "male privilege" canard that I totally just don't get because I just can't *see* my privilege that you won't define or give any kind of actual examples of."You don't see it because part of being privileged is viewing your privilege as a "right" and an entitlement. That's why you hypocritically characterize opinions you don't like as "persecution" while viewing the vilification of women as, at most, "obnoxious", but ultimately harmless boyish behavior."By the way, you have not proven ME to be a hypocrite personally so you also have no standard by which to call me one, so your original snarky and clever one-liner was really neither. Sorry."I don't have to prove shit to you, Bob. Plus, you are being illogical. The fact that it would have been impossible to prove to Tartuffe that he was a hypocrite does not change the objective fact that Tartuffe was, in fact, a hypocrite.
>"Guilt by association, eh? [etc.]"Professors and writers, really? You want to go there, Bob? How about this: the classics of literature, taught the world over and made a standard part of high school and university curriculum, are awash in the most vicious misogyny. As part of my college curriculum, I've read texts calling not merely for the disenfranchisement and dehumanizing of women, but for exterminating us; I've read "classical" texts that state that women have no souls, that a female is a deformed male, that women aren't whole, that women are child-like, that women are unholy, that women are brainless, that the ultimate goal of civilization is to find a way for men to reproduce without women, therefore making the elimination of women possible. I haven't read one text by any "feminist" professor calling for the extermination of men. And when it comes to those texts, we, women, are admonished to get over ourselves and appreciate the literature despite its misogyny. We are expected to act enlightened and above it all, and detached enough to appreciate books that abuse us to the extreme. And you know what? I CAN appreciate all that literature despite its misogyny. I don't want to ban it, and I don't want to reduce everything to the gender struggle. But I find it hard to get worked up over a couple of books that are hostile to men, especially since hardly anyone ever reads them. If a certain text bothers you as misandric, I suggest you adopt the same approach that female readers have been taught to take towards the casual misogyny of the majority of literature: get over yourselves. You are not the center of the fucking universe. Learn to wear the shoe on the other foot."I don't think you want to keep slinging mud though as there is a far greater amount dirt against feminists and feminists who hold prominent positions in our society at that then there are in the cherry-picked comments sections of internet blogs the likes of which Futrelle thinks s/he's clever in "reporting" on. We could do this for a long time but "your side" is going to look worse that way if we tally up the scores at the end."That's bullshit . As an apparent newcomer to this site, you apparently probably aren't aware that David has a standing challenge for MRA's to produce a list of true, accurate, verifiable "hateful" feminist quotes. So far, your side has been unable to do so, but you are welcome to try. But please don't copy and paste — come up with your own list of quotes that are accurate, by people who actually exist, and whose content can be independently verified. When you do, maybe we'll talk.
>"Try a better argument next time, Amused. I see you decided to evacuate your bowels with more guilt by association BS below so I'll skip past that. Stick to the subject at hand next time. "Bob, Bob, Bob. Based on my interaction with MRA's, I suspect you must have some kind of an online "manual" on how supposedly to argue with feminists, and it consists of a dozen or so important-sounding terms like "shaming language", "guilt by association", "logical fallacy", "false equivalency", etc. Thing is, Bob, most of us, feminists, are educated (an injustice as far as MRA's are concerned, I know), and so we see right through your rhetorical woo. Peppering your screed with these important-looking words doesn't make you sound smart; it makes you sound like a pretentious ass. The only women who are impressed by that kind of talk are anti-feminists anyway, who never open their mouths except to praise you, agree with you, or give you a blowjob; and you don't need to convince them of anything — they take your words at face value. With someone like me, it'll take a little more. So try it — but without terminology you don't actually understand, and without kitchen Latin."Ah… I see, so the Duke lacrosse players although not guilty of any actual crime are in your mind guilty of thought crime and therefore deserved the persecution (even though one of them wasn't even there when the rape didn't happen and so wasn't even "guilty" of thought crime)."I didn't say they deserved the prosecution. I am well aware and accept that being scum is not against the law. I just object to MRAs' characterization of them as "boys", "innocent kids", or heroes. They are none of those things. They are creeps. And though what happened to them is indefensible, one way to look at it is that if you are a creep, getting mixed up in a botched criminal prosecution is an occupational hazard. "Are girls who are in your words I'm sure will be something like "dress like sluts" held to any kind of legal standard, persecuted ideologues within the judicial system and lynch mobs that have people like your fellow commenter Amanda Marcotte in them? No. They don't face prison and can't be charged for dressing like that."Right, what they face instead is rape, public vilification and victimization at the hands of those who side with rapists. And that's actual PHYSICAL victimization."there is no real causal link between obnoxious fratboy behavior and being falsely accused of rape as acting like a fratboy can't be determined to be a cause of false rape accusations. Good try though. You're really good with these logical fallacies."And you are really good at stupidity. If you send around violent, misogynistic e-mails, don't be surprised if they are later used as evidence against you in a rape prosecution. If you think that pursuing a reputation as an abuser of women isn't likely to put you at risk for prosecution, you are being really naive. But hey — I don't are what you believe."It's funny though how you believe that their persecution was alright because they were fratboy douchebags, though. You've shown you true colors."I don't believe their prosecution was alright. I just believe that it's more accurate to characterize them as "fratboy douchebags" rather than as "boys".
>"*Yawn* Bob, we get a dozen wanna-be philosophy "experts" here every week"I see. Dismissive language. You can't really refute much of anything so you go on to paint me as some sort of pseudo-intellectual who actually knows the language he's using and the common bad, fallacy loaded arguments that try to appeal to emotion that emotion junkies use, and then go on to say that I must think highly of himself (your perception) while also at the same time going on to claim to be a highly educated individual (women's studies is a legitimate discipline? Education is slippin'!) yourself all while presenting the front of a petulant child flinging dung in the form of baseless personal attacks. Irony. Sweet irony.But please don't copy and paste — come up with your own list of quotes that are accurate, by people who actually exist, and whose content can be independently verified. When you do, maybe we'll talk. The link you posted: "Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog man boobz: misogyny, the men's rights movement and more does not exist." Perhaps fix the link, or did Futrelle yank the entry?That aside, it's really not hard to verify most of these quotes you deny actually took place, such as the 1991 Time Magazine article by a Catherine Comins, then a vice president at Vassar college who said that "men falsely accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." One of the more egregious bits of quotable feminist hate and disregard for justice. But hey, keep denying until the very end when these are all easily verifiable with google and wikipedia as well as, you know, reading the books quoted.You don't see it because part of being privileged is viewing your privilege as a "right" and an entitlement. That's why you hypocritically characterize opinions you don't like as "persecution" while viewing the vilification of women as, at most, "obnoxious", but ultimately harmless boyish behavior.Ah I just don't see it as I said– you can't define it or give examples so I clearly "You just can't see it"– it's like a belief in a religion! And you try to claim it has any legitimacy?)By the way, I characterize "opinions" such as calls to action to stand outside a dorm holding signs as that say "Castrate" as more than mere opinion. That's not a pitchforks and torches mentality at all at play there.And again with another false equivalency. How are obnoxious fratboy douchebags saying a few sexist things equal to unpeaceful protest and lynch mob mentality calling to throw innocents away and castrate them? Oh, they aren't… Oops!It's like you can't form a single argument without getting hot under the collar and resorting to emotional outbursts that temper it so that it makes no sense whatsoever. And this is text you actually have time to think of and type out before you submit. I can only imagine how you'd be in person.