Categories
evil women idiocy MRA PUA rape reactionary bullshit violence against men/women

MRAs respond, predictably awfully, to the arrest of IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn

There have been some strange, but hardly surprising, reactions in the MRA-verse to the arrest of IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn on attempted rape charges.

On The False Rape Society blog, Pierce Harlan seems bothered that the police would arrest such an important man, citing an assortment of articles saying that Strauss-Kahn’s arrest will likely have a big effect on markets and on the global economy.

Harlan titles his piece: “So rape claims aren’t taken seriously? Reuters says the claim against Strauss-Kahn could impact “the well-being of the global economy.”  After quoting from an assortment of news stories that suggest that, yes, Strauss-Kahn’s arrest has already affected markets and could affect the global economy, Harlan ends with this petulant conclusion:

All because of a disputed rape allegation. Right now, that’s all it is. I have no idea if a crime was committed, and neither do you.

But I know one thing: the entire world is taking very seriously — and perhaps way too seriously — the word of an unnamed maid it knows nothing about.

First of all, just as we don’t know whether or not Strauss-Kahn is guilty of this alleged attack, we also don’t know what evidence the police have. What we do know from other media accounts suggests that there is more to go on than the “word of an unnamed maid” – including DNA and other evidence at the scene, footage from the hotel’s security cams, injuries suffered by the maid, who was treated at a local hospital. There may well have been witnesses too; we simply don’t know. (Also, the maid has now been named in the French press. Wonderful.)

Second, and more importantly, why should the fact that the arrest has affected world markets have any bearing whatsoever on the case? By this logic, no important political or financial figure should ever be arrested for anything.

To make myself perfectly clear here:  Harlan does not say explicitly that DSK is too important to be arrested on the word of a lowly maid, but that seems to be the implicit suggestion of his post, the whole reason to quote several articles about the effect this is having on the world economy, all because of  “the word of an unnamed maid [the world] knows nothing about.”  I have asked him to clarify what exactly he did mean, and he has refused. In a followup post he asks rhetorically “Have we handed an unnamed maid too much power to destroy a presumptively innocent man?” and answers himself by saying “The question scarcely survives its statement.” Which I will take as a “yes.” He goes on to say:

We reported yesterday what the world press is saying about the sexual assault claim against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. About how it could impact not only the IMF he heads, and France where is a presidential hopeful, but the global economy itself.  It is widely believed that Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s reputation has been marred beyond repair, regardless of the outcome of this affair.

To say this is morally grotesque does not capture the evil of what is happening to a presumptively innocent man. …

If there is a running theme in this blog, it is this: we have handed anonymous women and children far, far too much power to destroy the lives and reputations of presumptively innocent men before even a scrap of evidence has been introduced to prove their guilt.

If I am reading this correctly — and please correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Harlan — he is saying that ALL men are too important to be arrested on sexualk assault charges based on the word of “anonymous women and children.”

Again, let me ask you, Mr. Harlan, is this what you mean? I invite everyone here to read the two posts in question —  the first one here; the second one here — and tell me what you think he is trying to say.

Mr. Harlan, if you want to clarify what you mean here, I will put that clarification up without comment as a post, under a neutral headline (Pierce Harlan clarifies what he meant in his posts on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn arrest”).

I would also like to point out, again, that the police seem to be going on a lot more than the “word of an unnamed maid,” including surveillance tapes, statements from those who spoke to the maid immediately after the alleged incident, DNA evidence in the room. There may also be DNA evidence on her clothing; that we don’t know. But it seems fairly clear that there is evidence beyond the maid’s testimony.

Meanwhile, over on In Mala Fide, a guest blogger from Human-Stupidity.com, an MRA site that devotes a lot of its attention to railing against child porn laws, attacks the accuser and dismisses the charges. It’s hard to know what in the post is sarcasm and what is simply astounding stupidity. But as far as I can figure it, Mr. Stupidity is far more distressed by reports that the maid accidentally walked in on a naked Strauss-Kahn than he is by the possibility that he sexually assaulted her:

The story is very strange, and dominated by clear mistakes and screwups committed by the accuser. A five-star hotel maid trespasses into a naked client’s room?  Unforgivable. …

This is not supposed to happen in a high-class hotel. Were the sex roles inverted, were a male employee to walk in on a prominent female guest, like Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the male employee would be fired and arrested for sexual harassment.

Mr. Stupidity then goes on to suggest that such a powerful man would never try to rape anyone because, you know, powerful men don’t do that sort of thing.

A hitherto well behaved, civilized man, suddenly goes crazy? Just because he was naked, he wanted to take advantage of her and rape her?

A man pictured on the covers of magazines, admired by millions of women, who could get any woman he wanted with a snap of his fingers. A man from a country with legalized prostitution who could afford two luxury prostitutes per day, if he happened to be a sex addict. And this guy, exactly the moment the woman walks in, illegally, incorrectly, grabs her and rapes her?

Never mind that other women are coming forward with stories of assaults by Strauss-Kahn, suggesting that he may not be quite so well-behaved as Mr. Stupidity assumes.

So what does Mr. Stupidity think really happened? After raising the possibility that this is all some political setup, he ends the piece suggesting that the maid – who, he says “committed a serious professional lapse, almost a crime” by accidentally walking in on Strauss-Kahn – simply made up the story in order to protect her job. Because maids are instantly fired for accidentally walking in on guests? Because never ever in the history of hotels has a maid walked in on someone naked? (A quick Google search suggests not only that this is relatively common, but also that it’s a sexual fantasy of quite a few men.)

Meanwhile, Ben Stein – not, as far as I know, an MRA, but a neocon and a bit of a dick – has offered his own highly problematic defense of Strauss-Kahn, which boils down to, well, envy:

this is a case about the hatred of the have-nots for the haves, and that’s what it’s all about. A man pays $3,000 a night for a hotel room? He’s got to be guilty of something. Bring out the guillotine.

More on this as it develops. And it’s developing fast.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

146 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pecunium
9 years ago

Ion: If someone is being a disturbing creep, pointing it out isn’t creepy. That’s the “mean words are ad hominem mistake. It’s not shaming, per se.

Now, you may think that’s not what happened. Your perogative. But flinging “that’s shaming language” at me isn’t going to get you much. I think the concept is nonsense, and I explained why. It’s a non-substative response.

As to what you admit to thinking of me… again, it peirces me to the very soul to realise you have little, if any respect for me. I may have to go and pine.

As to the “your creepy because of how you made me feel…” The shoe fits. If I think someone is creepy… I think they are creepy. It’s going to be things about them which makes them creepy. Heck.. the MRA school of rape prevention is all about making sure women don’t seem “slutty” and so “ask for it” (see NWOslave and his ideas on how women dressing in ways that turn men on is causing rape).

Creepy is subjective. Telling someone they are being creepy (or an asshat), is perfectly acceptable. Saying that telling someone they are being an asshat is unacceptable, because it shames them… well maybe they should be ashamed.

Care to cite references for the actual substance of my comment, regarding the claim you made that such questions are, “reasonable (and therefore not creepy) because feminists have made it so all male female interactions can be called rape”?

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
9 years ago

I can’t even believe that this “shaming tactics” thing is for real. I mean, it implicitly acknowledges that these guys realize that they’re being complete assholes and that they SHOULD feel ashamed of how they’re acting. If anti-feminists truly felt their cause was justified, it would never even occur to them to devote so much energy to categorizing so-called “shaming tactics,” because they’d hardly ever feel ashamed.

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

Yep. There’s such a “mommy will punish you for having impure thoughts” to the whole thing. I wonder if they’re aware of that?

Pierce Harlan
9 years ago

No, David, I’m going to sue the shit out of you, for libel.

Plymouth
Plymouth
9 years ago

Pecunium – That link to notanodalisque was awesome and very much along the lines of what I was thinking in terms of “grey areas”. Excellent reading, including the comments. Thank you!

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

Oh David how could you! How could you libel that poor poor man!? He’s going to sue you now! I’m so afraid for you.

Pierce Harlan
9 years ago

OK, thanks, David.

Pierce Harlan
9 years ago

Snowy, let’s have a few laughs. Define “rape” for me, Snowy.

Come on, this ought to be fun.

What is “rape,” Snowy?

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

Well, here’s wikipedia’s definition of rape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape which seems pretty straightforward to me. Not sure what you wanted to have a laugh about there.

Laughing gull
Laughing gull
9 years ago

Snowy, I think his definition of “libel” is good for a laugh.

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

FTW Laughing gull!

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

Ah, the last resort of a miserable coward: the threat of litigation. Go ahead, “Pierce”, sue me for calling you a miserable coward. I will send you reams of discovery demands and take a nice, long, looooong deposition. Have you ever been deposed? Bet not. Had you had any experience with this, you’d think twice before screaming libel when people quote your own words. (Also — expressions of opinion, no matter how unfavorable, aren’t libel.) And in the course of this litigation, I will make sure that word gets out to all those people that you have baselessly accused of being liars, criminals, etc. so that they can sue you for libel. Also, being as you are so in love with litigation, look up this one: malicious prosecution.

And to think MRA’s never stop with this refrain about “shaming language”, even while they try to bully people into silence by making frivolous threats of litigation. What an utterly contemptible crowd.

Laughing gull
Laughing gull
9 years ago

See, Pierce, David is highly supported here. Maybe if your remark didn’t sound like classism and you were also against women being falsely accused or actually raped, you would have the support of the feminist too. That would make your movement more legit. Instead you sound like we have some kind of conspiracy to take down any man we can.

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

“So “creepy” is shaming, but implying that your opponents are childish whiners isn’t? ”

Hey, I learned from the best. That’s like the #1 feminist response to anything a male says. Check out pretty much any feminist blog (surprisingly not this one, Dave has actually shown himself to be a pretty fair and reasonable guy, and so have most* commenters), but any female-run and -dominated feminist blog. I guarantee you that the top five responses to a man saying anything that sounds even remotely like disagreement will include the words ‘crybaby’, ‘whining’ and “waaaah!” which by the way is a Code Blue.

* with some notable exceptions

I can’t even believe that this “shaming tactics” thing is for real. I mean, it implicitly acknowledges that these guys realize that they’re being complete assholes and that they SHOULD feel ashamed of how they’re acting. If anti-feminists truly felt their cause was justified, it would never even occur to them to devote so much energy to categorizing so-called “shaming tactics,” because they’d hardly ever feel ashamed.

I can’t even believe that this “slut shaming” thing is for real. I mean, it implicitly acknowledges that these women realize that they’re being complete sluts and that they SHOULD feel ashamed of how they’re acting. If feminists truly felt their cause was justified, it would never even occur to them to devote so much energy to talking about so-called “shaming” because they’d hardly ever feel ashamed.

see what I did there? har.

Lyn
Lyn
9 years ago

Ion, how is acting like a sexually available woman and being an asshole the same thing? I’ll give you a hint. They are not similar at all.

That’s called a Bad Analogy (thanks Pecunium for the link – super helpful): http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#analogy

Moreover, pretty well EVERYONE in the interwebs (irl too) uses shaming language, often in the comments sections of blogs where it’s all nice and anonymous. It’s an argumentative tactic. Feminists didn’t invent it. And by the by, the MRM engages in so much shaming language it’s unbelievable. Mangina, anyone?

darksidecat
darksidecat
9 years ago

@Snowy, unless you have seen what legal codes like that look like in practice-i.e. so terrible that screaming and crying or being verbally threatened with death from a hidden weapon are not taken as good enough evidence that one was threatened. Not to mention that in rapes that are not stranger rapes, threats are often more subtle (physical imposition) or may not be of “death or serious injury” which is what some legal codes consider a coercive threat in many other situations (such as in a coercion defense to murder). In practice, modeling one’s penal code in this way increases the rape rate and lowers the conviction rate. Imposing a “no means no” standard where the rule that negligently having sex with a nonconsenting person is enough and a verbal expression of non-consent is considered negligence per se has much more consistent results, can actually apply to most rape as it occurs in real life, and has been demonstrated to actually lower the rape rate in states where it is imposed.

Comrade Svilova
Comrade Svilova
9 years ago

I wonder what Harlan thinks should happen when an “anonymous woman or child” accuses a man of rape.

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

darksidecat, I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re saying are you talking about the wikipedia link I posted? Or some other comment I made?

Jen
Jen
9 years ago

I don’t think he is being unjustly brought to court. The evidence David spoke of in his post (DNA, witnesses, and so on) is enough probable cause to arrest him. But he is naturally innocent until proven guilty, as are all in the American justice system. He is also not being held without bail. Another point for sticking to the rules, Justice System.

I simply fail to understand all of the howling outrage from the MRAs. All of the legal boxes are being checked off. I’m sure if proven guilty, he’ll have a chance to appeal. If they had simply thrown him in prison and charged him right then and there, that would be a serious miscarriage of justice. Also arresting him only on the “word of a maid [the world] hardly knows” would be a miscarriage. But they didn’t. They have evidence.

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

Ion, how is acting like a sexually available woman and being an asshole the same thing? I’ll give you a hint. They are not similar at all.

The original point was that guys know they should be ashamed of themselves, which is why they talk about ‘shaming language’, which is BS. I turned it around and showed the same thing can be claimed in women’s case about ‘slut shaming’. In both cases, they are the defined by the shamer as something bad. Whether you don’t agree that being a slut is bad is up to you, just as some men don’t agree with the negative connotations of the shaming charges brought against them, which is what the shaming language catalogue is about. Shaming language is nothing but another form of personal attack, meant to cast aspersions on the character of the author and silence him/her, rather than answer their points. I can’t believe I have to spell this shit out like I’m talking to grade schoolers.

Moreover, pretty well EVERYONE in the interwebs (irl too) uses shaming language, often in the comments sections of blogs where it’s all nice and anonymous. It’s an argumentative tactic. Feminists didn’t invent it. And by the by, the MRM engages in so much shaming language it’s unbelievable. Mangina, anyone?

Hmm, so we go from “we didn’t use any shaming language but MRAs use it, like, all the time!” to “everyone uses it!” and so the circle is closed.

I will give you ‘mangina’, though. That is shaming language. Just like ‘flounce’, ‘mansplaining’ or ‘creepy’.

Amnesia
Amnesia
9 years ago

You know, if some guys are so offended by people calling them assholes, maybe they should just, you know, stop being assholes? I mean, is being an asshole such an integral part of their personality and self-image that they can’t bear to give it up?

The thing about slut-shaming is that, according to society, woman are supposed to be ashamed of having sex, while men are supposed to be applauded for getting some. Being an asshole is abhorred in anybody, regardless of gender-identification.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Ion: Yes, we saw what you did there. You said that being insulting, abusive and derogatory (MRA sorts of comments which tend to get, “shaming language” used on them) i.e. interactions with another person (which is the same, actually, as the questions about, “what can I do that won’t be called rape”…, an interactive action), and dressing in some way someone else finds offensive, i.e. that is an action which isn’t interactive (even though it may be public).

You compared apples to oranges.

Flounce isn’t shaming language, it’s mockery. Someone says, “Ok, I’ve had enough, I’m not coming back to this thread/site, ever again.”

Then they do. That’s a flounce. It’s stomping off in a huff, and then coming back, and it’s worth mocking. You want to leave, leave. You want to make a dramatic statement and leave, fine.

But don’t come back. You’ll be mocked. anit said s/he was done, and hasn’t come back. No mention of flouncing has come up. Why? Because it wasn’t a flounce. And flouncing is a gender-neutral behavior. Anyone can do it,.

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
9 years ago

“Shaming language.” Indeed. It’s a very silly concept.

See, when feminists talk about slut-shaming, they’re not complaining about the existence of “shaming language.” They’re just pointing out that being a slut isn’t a bad thing.

When MRAs talk about “shaming language,” they’re not actually making the argument that being an asshole, or a misogynist (big overlap there, though they aren’t always the same thing), isn’t a bad thing. That’s the revealing thing to me. If anything, they go out of their way to reject the misogynist label, while still acting like misogynists, and also simultaneously demanding that people stop telling them that they’re misogynists. Because “you’re a misogynist” is “shaming language” and “shaming language” is bad.

It’s just like with racism (again, I keep harping on this, but that’s because it’s true): people who act like racists hate it when you call them out about it. They act like being accused of racism is a far, far worse offense than actually being racist towards someone. That way, they get to continue acting like racists, while avoiding feeling bad about it. “You’re a racist” is “shaming language,” just like “you’re a misogynist” is. In point of fact, both statements are factual, descriptive statements which will not inspire shame unless the listener feels that racism and misogyny are things worth being ashamed of.

Feminists aren’t arguing that “shaming language” is a universally bad thing. It’s only bad when applied to things of which one shouldn’t be ashamed. MRAs aren’t making that distinction, because they don’t really seem to own the conviction that they have nothing to be ashamed of.

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
9 years ago

Being a slut doesn’t cause harm to anyone (provided you always practice safe sex). Being a misogynist does.

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

You’re missing the point, Ion. Feminists work to reclaim words like “slut” and “bitch”… that’s what the slutwalks are about, for instance. There’s nothing wrong with being sexually free or assertive. MRA’s know that there’s no way to reclaim “creep” or “perv” or “misogynist”. And deep down, they know that these epithets are true. And they are things to be ashamed of. Hence, the defensiveness and the whining.

Really, what other option is there if you’re ashamed of yourself but unwilling to change? The hatred gets turned inward and turns into self-loathing. MRA’s know that they are “creeps”… and in vain, they try to hide from this knowledge… and project their self-loathing onto women.

You know I’m right about this.

darksidecat
darksidecat
9 years ago

@Snowy, the wikipedia link, because it goes into a rather old fashioned formulation of rape as having to be due to force or threat, which may seem an okay way to set up a legal code, but really doesn’t work so well when put to the test.

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

No, your basic argument is still “women can call men names because they’re true! so it’s fine and not shaming language!” So I guess that when someone calls you dumb in an online debate, your first thought is: “Hmm, I wonder how I can improve my intelligence so people don’t rightfully point out my dumbness anymore”? Agree to disagree.

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

A weak comeback, because you don’t really believe that. No, Ion, I’m saying that the names sting because you know that they are true. Insults have only the power that you let them have. You calling me a “mangina” wouldn’t sting, because I know that it’s nonsense. I laugh it off. Whereas MRA’s compile lists of insults to whine about, because the insults do sting. With reason. Again, you know that I’m right about this.

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

darksidecat, I don’t know if I agree with that. I know wikipedia is pretty changeable but as of right now it says:

“Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person’s consent. The act may be carried out by force, under threat, or with a person who is incapable of valid consent.”

I read that as saying that the lack of consent is the main issue, and that force or threat *may* be involved but doesn’t *have to* be part of it for it to be defined as rape.

I do of course agree that no means no and the laws should reflect that, I just don’t see how the wikipedia article is not saying that.

Do you have a better definition I could link to if the subject were to come up again? I’m not particularly attached to wikipedia’s definition, it was just the first thing that came up on google when I was invited to define rape and “have a few laughs” with the distinguished Mr Harlan.

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

mediumdave: That’s an interesting comeback. I’ll be sure to use it next time someone reacts to being called names by me. I’ll tell them they are reacting because deep down they know it’s true. Muhahaha.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Ion: No. Once more unto the breach:

Not all insults are false. Is it fair to let any accusation of perfidy stand, just because the accusation has been made? No.

But that doesn’t, ispo facto make all such accusations false. Is false shaming a bad thing? Yes.

But… this is the part you refuse to admit, honest shaming isn’t always a bad thing.

That you use shaming tactics in your arguments is pretty strong evidence you agree with the latter point.

Which means we are just arguing the question of reasonable justification, for which you seem to be arguing that no use of “shaming language” by feminists is justified.

Which is an unreasonable position, and rightly rejected by people who believe in equality.

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

But how do you tell the difference between false and honest shaming? Someone called my comments ‘creepy’. I didn’t think they were, and saw it as an attempt to shame me into silence. This is not, by the way, ‘because I knew I was wrong’. In fact ‘shaming language’ means precisely ‘trying to make the target feel that their comment is wrong or unacceptable somehow, even if it’s not’. So who’s right? Who decides when shaming language is justified? One side can say it is, while the other doesn’t have to agree. Here, it seems that the majority decides.

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
9 years ago

Ion:

Being called a slut doesn’t bother me. I don’t feel that there’s anything wrong with enjoying sex and having lots of it, possibly with lots of different people. But I do think it’s wrong and damaging to try to use “slut” as an insult, and it does fool people into thinking that there’s something wrong with having lots of sexual partners.

So, what about “creep”? Creep is an insult that, like slut, is sort of a gloss for a series of behaviors. A creep is someone who tries to manipulate people into giving him what he wants without asking for it directly and taking the risk of an honest “no.”

If you really feel that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that sort of behavior then you need to reclaim “creep” and explain why there’s nothing shameful about trying to get around issues of consent and honest communication.

Trying to make “shaming language” into a universally Bad Thing is silly, unless you’re a 100% moral relativist. It reveals the bankruptcy of your objection to being accurately identified as a creep, asshole, misogynist, or other characterizations that are widely viewed by non-sociopaths as unflattering.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Creepy is subjective. You take it, and move on.

You can decide how much you care about not being “creepy” to that person, and change; or not, as it suits you.

But you don’t get to tell them they are wrong about how they react to what you said/did.

Others are less subjective. When someone says, “All men are sexist assholes”, they are being sexist, and they can be called on it.

Same is true when someone says, “all women are conniving bitches who want to soak men for everything they can before moving on to the next victim”.

That’s sexist.

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
9 years ago

If you really feel that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that sort of behavior then you need to reclaim “creep” and explain why there’s nothing shameful about trying to get around issues of consent and honest communication.

Alternatively, you could try to explain how you were misunderstood, and you really aren’t into that sort of behavior.

Or you could try to modify your behavior.

But don’t try to tell me that calling a creep a creep is intrinsically wrong.

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
9 years ago

Anyway, let’s not forget that Ion is a dirty low-down liar who spreads lies about feminism.

Yes, Ion. That’s shaming language. You should be ashamed of spreading lies.

I have factual information–direct quotes from you, in conversation with other people–that will back up my characterization of you as a liar.

This is not an attempt to silence you. It’s an invitation for you to be honest, explain why you decided to spread lies about feminism, apologize, and promise not to do it again.

Though I suppose, if you insist on clinging to your falsehoods, I will eventually resort to telling you to STFU and go somewhere where there’s a more sympathetic audience for your lies.

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

Ah. I think we’re getting down to basics here. Ion, I’m not naïve enough to think that you’ll change your attitudes overnight, but trust me, there is a way out of this trap.

It begins with being honest with yourself, and admitting that there is a problem. Women mistrust you, and most men think that you’re “weird”. This is not because they are wrong… it’s because you have mistaken ideas of what it is to be a man. And I have some sympathy for that… I’ve struggled with it myself.

The important thing is to move beyond blame, and see that the capacity for change is within you. No one can stop you unless you let them. Admit that women are not out to get you, and that (as Sally says) feminists are not evil. You know this. Stop listening to the liars (that you know are liars) and you’ll be on your way.

Lyn
Lyn
9 years ago

Speaking of feeling like you’re talking to a grade schooler…

I said: Moreover, pretty well EVERYONE in the interwebs (irl too) uses shaming language, often in the comments sections of blogs where it’s all nice and anonymous. It’s an argumentative tactic. Feminists didn’t invent it. And by the by, the MRM engages in so much shaming language it’s unbelievable. Mangina, anyone?

Ion said, in response: Hmm, so we go from “we didn’t use any shaming language but MRAs use it, like, all the time!” to “everyone uses it!” and so the circle is closed.

I said feminists didn’t INVENT it. Not that they didn’t USE it. Words: they, like, mean things. I was saying that making out like it’s exclusively a dirty feminist tactic is silly. Because everyone uses shaming language – it’s an argumentative tactic not a feminist one. You can challenge individual applications of shaming langauge, if you like, but making out like it’s the worst thing in the world to use shaming language and that ONLY feminists use it is not sustained by evidence.

titfortat
9 years ago

Colourful conversation, I wonder if it would be the same if we were all having a pint together?

Roving Thundercloud
Roving Thundercloud
9 years ago

Ion, you deliberately mischaracterized what I said (a liar’s technique, I’m afraid).

I didn’t call you creepy or even call what you wrote creepy. I was agreeing with others that a particular MRA behavior (constantly questioning how do you know you’ve gotten consent from a sexual partner) is creepy because of what it implies–a legalistic and rather punitive mindset that, at its base, believes that it’s too much trouble to bother with consent at all.

Laura
Laura
9 years ago

Ion, creepy or not, is there any need to be so fucking obtuse??? You really can’t fathom how it would disturb someone that you had to ask how not to rape them?

Maybe with a little child, you will teach them “never touch someone if they don’t want you to. always make sure someone is happy before you think about having sex.” but a grown man?

I’ve had a lot of great sex when I was tipsy. When I was raped, I was drunk. I was confused, vomiting and not sure where I was, or who with. Do you see the difference now? Do I have to spell out the Mysterious Code of Not-Raping again? Most of the population seem to manage it just fine.

Other tips: try and avoid people who you would consider sex with without consent. Try and keep a friend with you at all times.

I’m not accusing anyone of being a rapist, I’m saying this level of ignorance about human sexual autonomy is shocking and definitely ‘creepy’.

Seraph
Seraph
9 years ago

Colourful conversation, I wonder if it would be the same if we were all having a pint together?

Quite frankly, there are people on this thread that I hope to never meet in real life. And if I did, I would immediately switch to something non-alcoholic, and advise everyone with me to do the same.

Xtra
9 years ago

Ok, I think I get it. Shaming tactics used against an MRA=bad. If used by an MRA=good.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Xtra: No, you don’t. If a woman/feminist/mangina says it, then it’s shaming tactics. If an MRA says it, then it’s, “speaking truth to power.”

Intent you see, the MRA isn’t trying to “shame them into silence,” but rather show them the error of their ways, so they can better understand the harm their words cause. If they don’t at least other people (the one’s who are wise enough to understand) will see what’s going on.