The contest for the Most Ironic Use of the Term “Nice Guy,” When Applied to Yourself –otherwise known as the MIUTNGWAY Award – is heating up. The previous front runner – the Tumblr guy who compared his inability to get laid to the Holocaust – now faces a serious challenge from a Redditor calling himself DogmaDog.
The other day Mr. Dog wandered into a discussion of the SlutWalks in the Feminisms and offered his two cents: he declared them “stupid,” and suggested that they won’t really help victims.
And then he started in on his own tale of woe.
I know I’m going to be shit on for saying what I’m about to say, but please hear me out.
Not a promising start, Dog.
I’ve never raped a woman, and I’m the ‘nice guy’ who never took advantage of a woman.
Do you want an award for this?
But a girl I was infatuated with in high school blew me off and treated me disrespectfully. She ended up being raped one night, while intoxicated. I do not know how I am supposed to feel about it.
As Don Draper would say, “what?”
How do you think you’re “supposed” to feel? Did you accidentally dislodge the part of your brain responsible for basic human empathy?
Apparently, the answer to that is “yes.”
[H]ow do you suppose I am supposed to feel about this woman I knew who got raped? I mean, I’ve never taken advantage of a woman, but I don’t understand how my ‘friend’, this girl I went to high school with, could go out and party all the time, and in turn treat me, her classmate, as though I were an inferior person for not enjoying the atmosphere of drunkenness at high school parties.
As it turns out, you’re an inferior person for an entirely different reason.
That girl was a mean girl, no? And by being disrespectful toward men, and prejudiced toward men, wasn’t she asking men to behave badly toward her? The only men she gave attention and physical affection to were the ones who hurt her back.
So let me see if I get this: she didn’t go out with you, a “nice guy,” so she was therefore “asking” to be raped?
Naturally, this being the Feminisms subreddit, and not The Spearhead, some of the regular commenters took exception to Mr. Dog’s victim-blaming and his complete lack of empathy for the victim – especially strange, since Dog, who says he is suffering from an (unspecified) mental illness, considers himself “a victim, in my own way,” of prejudice towards those with mental health issues. This experience, alas, has not given him any sympathy towards other vicitms.
Indeed, it seems that DogmaDog didn’t misplace his sense of empathy after all; rather, he threw it out of the house and got a restraining order against it. Responding to someone who suggested he show a little empathy, Dog lashed out:
Your empathy can go suck a dick. Empathy does nothing to help my situation. I suppose that is just the excuse people give themselves so that they can feel like they are actually doing something.
You basically called me an inferior human being because I can’t or won’t empathize for my friend who was raped. Well, ask yourself this, smart-ass, have you ever really wondered what good your empathy does? It does nothing. …
In reality, you are doing nothing but attacking me, and I may or may not have a ‘complex’, even though I don’t know what that is, but I can guarantee you, I HAVE NEVER RAPED ANYONE!!!
The sound you hear is me banging my head, ever so softly, on my desk. Empathy is what connects human beings to one another, what allows them to understand one another on a deep level.
When people are suffering – as you are, Dog, in dealing with your mental illness – a little bit of empathy from someone else can make all the difference in the world.
If you can’t feel even a little bit of sympathy for this woman you were once “infatuated” with, you’re not a nice guy at all; you’re an even bigger asshole than those drunken high school partiers you disdain. You may never have raped anyone — as you’ve repeatedly insisted, as if this should win you a prize – but “in your own way” you’re thinking like an abuser. Your lack of empathy for the victim, your continued bitterness towards her for turning you down, your sense of wounded narcissism; none of this is healthy, for you or for anyone who comes into contact with you.
You need help, dude. Please, please get it.
This whole situation with child custody is real easy. For the next 40 years fathers get default custody and keep the family, if women want equal custody they can fight for it in court. We’ll go by todays percentage and they’ll lose 83% of the time. For welfare, fathers get the children and the welfare, housing and what ever else goes with it. This way women will get to persue their careers, they’ll no longer be held back. It’ll be great, women will no longer be victims.
If women, particularly feminists don’t enthusiastically agree we’ll know they speak with a forked tongue. C’mon ladies, for about 10K a year you can be free of the burden of primary caretaker. My guess is womens prison population would explode while mens would decline dramatically. Remember, if it doesn’t sound fair regendered, that’s because it isn’t. Any takers? The State always give women whatever they want, make it happen.
“Aren’t you feminists the ones who always allege some sort of male conspiracy to rape women and call it “The Patriarchy” or “Rape Culture”?”
No.
Eh, at this point NWOslave’s comments are just static to me…
Magpie, thanks for the link! I do envy the Brits’ nimbleness with language sometimes. I’d never be able to pull off creative insults like “ratty hamster-killer” without sounding ridiculous.
“Bernard Chapin, the unpleasant maker of many idiotic videos, once stated that “almost all MRAs make between $20k and $75k a year”. For once I’m prepared to believe him. Now, given that they are on such low wages …”
The average American wage is $44,410. The median wage is $33,843. $20k to $75k per year is not “such low wages”, except in the head of a feminist, where everyone else has so much money except for the poooor dears who were born with the “right” gender — life is soooo unfair to them, sniff sniff.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000
hey, look at that. The first time AZ sources something, it has nothing much to do with any of his bullshit arguments, but actually has a basis in reality.
So if the average wages are not so low, there should be no problem in paying child support, right? Heck, even you admit that when there is an income disparity, the higher income should chip in.
Now try sourcing some of your other claims.
Someone upthread asked about growing up in joint custody? My parents didn’t split custody 50/50. Luckily. The reason they divorced is that my dad was paranoid my mother was cheating on him all 12 years they were married. Frequently hit her. Yelled in her face. Insulted her in front of my sister and I. Once or twice threatened both her, and then the three of us (mom, sister, and i), with the business end of his 12 gauge. All mom said to him (told us after the fact), was: FiletofSwedishDad, you’d better bury me where the girls will never find me. He frequently verbally abused my sister and I, and my mom had to stop letting him be in charge of punishing us. He got carried away with the corporeal punishment. The last time before they divorced, my mother had told my dad she couldn’t take it anymore, and moved to an apartment across town to begin divorce proceedings. He went over there early one morning and nearly beat her to death. She came to three hours later with a broken foot, part of her eye socket fractured, covered in bruises and bleeding. The police told her she deserved what she got.
In spite of all this? Illinois family court mandated that he have the lowest child support possible at the time. I think it amounted to about 200/month. So, $100 per kid, per month. They also mandated that he get every Wednesday evening beginning at 4pm, and every other full weekend with us. And we were expected to keep this up even when my mom had a restraining order against the man, because he nearly killed her. I was 12 to about 16 at the time, and even in the same town? It was a huge hassle. We had friends of my mother’s dropping us at his house sometimes, and sometimes, mom had to have us wait in a parking lot, while she waited several hundred yards away where she could see us, to help my dad not violate the restraining order.
Still in spite of this? My dad stopped paying child support. Once I got to be 16, I got too busy really for visitation, with high school and extra curriculars. My mom never went after the arrears until well after i turned 18. And guess what? He never went to prison, not once, even though he was earning money most of the time he wasn’t paying. While my mom had to go on food stamps and Medicaid.
So, no, MRAs. This is some embezzling scheme. I knew SO MANY families in my very rural, poor hometown where abuse was absolutely the norm. And their divorce and child support dealings went just like this.
*not some embezzling scheme. Sorry.
Actually, my parents filed for joint custody after their divorce, and it worked fine. Of course theirs was a fairly amicable divorce, with no domestic violence involved. In fact, most divorces in the U.S.involve some kind of joint custody.
The problem with the MRAs proposal is that it’s one size fits all. They also assume that the only barrier to successful joint custody is women wanting to deny contact to the father. Although this certainly happens, it is by no means the only, or even the primary, barrier.
*Just kind of stares at NWOSlave*
You seriously believe that the reason so many men are incarcerated in this country is because they’re behind on their child support payments? Seriously? Nothing to do with “the War on Drugs”, or racism, or violent crime? I mean, if you were arguing that the disparity between the number of women in prison and the number of men (is there one? Anybody know?) was because of child support payments, that would make sense, even if it’s wrong. But to argue that the male prison population would plunge if it was women who paid child support…are you sure you don’t want to walk that back a little? Maybe got caught up a little in the heat of the moment there? Because that’s so far removed from reality that, as the scientists say, it’s not even wrong.
I think that’s the defining characteristic of NWO on these threads: he’s not even wrong.
NWO Slave
What does your profile name mean??
Sigh.. Family Courts decide on a number of different criteria how custody is decided, in the UK at least. If a parent is working, they can’t care for a child. The UK Family Courts are slow, frustrating and bureacratic, but they don’t have a gender bias.
MRAs are very simple in their outlook; The UK and US have feminist governments. The police enforce a feminist agenda. Women can say they are abused and ruin a man’s life (via the police and government). Therefore “Western Women” can’t be trusted and men are abused.
It’s actually hilarious to watch this meaningless wretches at work.
@Happy Anti-MRA:
He’s a slave of the New World Order! Didn’t you get the memo?
@NWOSubbie:
“Remember, if it doesn’t sound fair regendered, that’s because it isn’t. Any takers? The State always give women whatever they want, make it happen.”
You know, if it doesn’t sound fair regendered, it could also mean it isn’t true. In cases where the spouses actually dispute over custody, custody is split about 50/50. Men just don’t dispute custody very often. So to get your little hypothesis working, we’d need to get women to stop wanting to keep their kids, and make men want their kids more.
This has been told to you I don’t know how many times. But here’s something new. The three most common crimes for men in prison? Traffic, drugs, and assault (at least in 2000). How you’re getting the idea that men are in prison because of child support… Well, I guess it’s par for the course for you.
source
@Happy Anti-MRA
I think it stands for ‘New World Order’ but feel free to make up your own mocking definition. Perhaps ‘Normally Witless Oaf’ will suffice.
“You seriously believe that the reason so many men are incarcerated in this country is because they’re behind on their child support payments? Seriously? Nothing to do with “the War on Drugs”, or racism, or violent crime?”
No. The number of fathers is small, compared to the total.
There are 50,000 fathers behind bars for child support non-payment, compared with an overall prison population of 2 million. The proportion of the overall prison population that are fathers in prison for child support non payment, compared to the total, is very low.
However, we MRAs argue that:
1) ABUSE: Fathers behind bars are brutalized more than hardened criminals. Prisoners who do not know how to defend themselves are much more likely to be victimized by violence or other abuse. We have no data to prove this. There are no studies, no money for studies, and feminists would cry foul if anyone tried to do studies, so there never will be any real facts. It stands to reason, however. If feminists would stop attempting to derail MRA attempts to support the first academic male studies institute in the history of the world, the “Male Studies Foundation” in New York, maybe we could provide more answers. Keep in mind that there are almost 700 women’s studies departments in the United States, funded by tax payer money (compared to one male studies program that is entirely funded by private money).
http://www.malestudies.org/events.html
2) MORAL WRONG: It is morally wrong to send even one father to prison for late payment. It is morally wrong to threaten fathers with prison for late payment, even if none were sent. The law itself is morally wrong. A law that is morally wrong, is wrong if it is applied 50,000 times, 1 time, or never. It is simply wrong.
3) DILUTION: The fact that the US has an absurd number of men behind bards dilutes the meaning of that number, “50,000”. Keep in mind that 50,000 fathers behind bars is half the total prison population in Britain. It is more than the total prison population of Spain or Italy. It is a HUGE number of people suffering horribly for nothing, other than feminist hate.
4) COST: It is absurd to ask tax payers to pay 6 billion dollars per year to keep these fathers behind bars, for no reason. Add in the lifetime of lost income tax revenue, since a criminal record means no work for life in this country, and you see that the system is entirely bizarre and unworkable.
No. The number of fathers is small, compared to the total.
well, that’s not what you typed.
“I think it stands for ‘New World Order’ but feel free to make up your own mocking definition. Perhaps ‘Normally Witless Oaf’ will suffice.”
Ha, and here I always thought that it was a typo and he meant to say NOWslave.
When both parents want to raise their children and divorce on good terms with each other, joint custody arrangements are the norm. These amicable divorces usually have the child custody decisions made in mediation. If there is too much conflict, or one or both parents have a history of substance abuse and domestic violence, the custody arrangements are made in family court. You have overlooked a common cause that more mothers than fathers have sole custody of the children in non contested custody cases–some fathers do not want any custody of their children at all. They want to cut all ties with their first family and start another family with another woman.
There are also plenty of men who impregnate women and do not want any responsibilities for raising the child. The woman that is raising the child alone will probably need money from the father to make ends meet. Since the man helped create the child, he can help pay for him or her. Why should the taxpayers pay for his irresponsible behavior? If he goes to jail, that will be an excellent detterent for other men who want to be deadbeat dads. The money paid on his jail time will be well spent, because it will scare other people into paying their child support orders. I have the same opinions for the reverse situation, where deadbeat mothers won’t pay custodial fathers child support.
Anthony Zarat – where do you get the 50,000 number? I’m curious because I think you have been asked a couple of times on this post to point to someone who has been imprisoned for failure to pay child support, and you provided the name of a man who killed himself because he believed that he was going to prison…but so far you have provided nothing that shows how many men are imprisoned for failure to pay child suppport. Do you have something to back up this assertion, because if you do I would really like to read it.
In addition, do you distinguish between the men who wilfully choose to not pay child support when they are able to do so and those men who, due to circumstances beyone their control, are unable to pay? The language of the laws quoted earlier does distinguish between these two cases (although I haven’t done research to determine whether the law is applied as written or is actually applied in the way in which you claim). You say that it is always morally wrong to imprison a father (and presumably you feel the same way about imprisoning a mother) for failure to pay child support…do you think it is morally wrong even when the parent is wilfully failing to pay (meaning the parent has the means to make the payments but just chooses not to do so)?
Finally, I believe that someone asked you previously what your solution would be, and you stated that your solution would be for a presumption of shared custody. However, in some situations shared custody is simply not an option (think abuse). Lets say a parent is convicted of abusing her child and therefore is not awarded joint custody in the divorce proceedings. If it is always morally wrong to put a parent in prison for willful failure to pay child support, what should the state do to enforce the court ordered child support?
“Why should the taxpayers pay for his irresponsible behavior?”
The taxpayers should all, collectively, eat a bit more to pay for everyone’s kids. *Everyone’s kids* . Then everyone benefits, after a generation. This system of individual responsiblity isn’t working; dads withhold billions in support, we have some unique cases that make it a moral quandary, etc, we have this messy enforcement system… just…charge everyone, pay for everyone.
@kirbywarp
” … where the spouses actually dispute over custody, custody is split about 50/50 … men just don’t dispute custody very often …”
The NASTIEST feminist lie of all is that “men get custody 50% of the time when they try”. NO!!! Here are the statistics:
http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm
In summary:
1) A mother is 10 TIMES more likely than a father to be given the “right” to be a parent if the dispute is settled out of court
2) A mother is 4 TIMES more likely than a father to be given the “right” to be a parent if the dispurte goes to court
MRAs often say “the more you fight, the better the odds of custody … but the worse the odds of prison”. Remember that the courts (civil and criminal) are howling mad feminist cesspools, and anything that any female says against any male is automatically believed. This means that some (not all) women use false allegations of abuse etc. to punish fathers who fight for custody. Not because women are “bad” or men are “good”, but because women have POWER and mend DO NOT.
Fathers who fight for custody are MUCH More likely to be the victims of false accusations. One rogue prosecutor in Maine, Mary Kellett, has made her entire career off of supporting false accusations by mothers against fathers during custody disputes.
In other words, EVEN IF WE FIGHT WE USUALLY LOSE, AND WHEN WE FIGHT WE ARE OFTEN THROWN IN PRISON.
It is not surprising, given the limited chance of success, and given the awful consequences of failure, that many men choose to settle out of court. Court is the last place that any man wants to be, especially if a woman is on the other side of the isle.
so, when did you stop beating your wife, AZ?
So… Mr. Zarat, I’m curious at this point about what kind of evidence you’d accept about the feminist stance on this topic. Despite a dearth of feminists saying that they support incarceration for non-payment of child support (and many saying just the opposite), you continue to insist that “feminist hatred” is responsible for this situation. Where is your proof? For that matter, where is there any evidence at all for this assertion?
“The Federal Office of Child Support in the Preliminary Statistics for 2003 reports that $100 Billion in accumulated unpaid support (up from $92 billion in 2002) is due to 18 million children in the United States”
Total Children 115,783
Dollar Amount Owed $366 Million
Collection Rate 16%
http://www.washingtonchildcustody.com/
Once again what we really see if NWA demanding that men be coddled and never have to take on adult responsibilities. Honestly, I’d love to see universal healthcare and daycare for children. But that’s SOSHULISM!!!!! and INDOCTRANATION!!!!
http://www.vxec.com/2011/08/rick-santorum-schools-indoctrinate-our-children-2/
Rutee, I agree that it would be better if the cost of raising children was spread more evenly amongst all taxpayers. However, I don’t think that is politically realistic. Some child free people already protest the child tax credits in place, and they do not like paying for the public educational system and Medicaid for low income children. The tea party activists have panic attacks if the word socialism is mentioned. If those of us in the left started demanding the taxpayers take over child support for deadbeat parents, many voters in the center might be alienated. It’s hard to put a good spin on taking all responsibility away from deadbeat parents.
By the way, I want to mention that plenty of child free people do not mind having their tax money spent on public education, Medicaid, and tax credits for parents. I just know plenty of people have the attitude of “I’ve already raised my children. Don’t make me pay for someone else’s” or “If I choose to not have children I can’t afford, why should I pay for someone else who has children they can’t afford?”
Stuck in moderation hell…