I found this illustrating a typically incoherent rant about “The Aphrodisiac of the False Rape Claim” on What Men Are Saying About Women, the blog of the infamous MRA double period. Whoever made it needs to stop making Demotivational posters because he doesn’t understand how these posters are supposed to work. Or how to communicate a coherent message to other human beings using language.
VoiP, I don’t mind telling you, I’m a bit of a fan. Your Grandpa Simpson post the other day made me do a spit take.
BROFIVE
Never heard of Bell Hooks until now…and she talked about child abuse by women? That’s great!
Huh…how long did it take to find an example to counter Chuckeedee? 0.5 seconds on Google? Or is because he lives in an alternate reality?
Now I’m just imagining every single woman on Earth with the “I lied!” face: http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/005/882/I%20lied.jpg?1305927805
Because we love pathological lying and mustache-twirling.
Considering that women generally spend quite a bit more time with their children than do men, the increased incidence of child abuse is not surprising. The question is: do women have a higher rate of child abuse as a function of time spent with kids? I don’t know if anyone has ever done a study on that, but it would be very interesting to find out. But simply saying that women are more likely to abuse their children than men, in isolation, is pretty meaningless.
chuck, do you think that it’s only women who lie? Or do you think that all survey data is inherently useless?
redlocker: bell hooks is a SERIOUSLY cool feminist. She is almost always 100% right on. I recommend Feminism is For Everybody as a good starting work by her, to get a feel for her style, and Feminism From Margin to Center, and of course We Real Cool is very important for everyone who wants to think about race or masculinity or the intersections between them, and she wrote some books on love and teaching that are just BRILLIANT, andandand…
“When someone says something like “Out of women I’ve talked to about rape, nearly 100 percent have been raped,” why do you bother? We must remember that, even when telling “sort-of-half-truths”, many women are self-indulgent creatures who love to work themselves into a lather, especially when they are drawing attention to themselves – and if there’s a grain of truth, like some dude looks at her in a rapey kind of way, that becomes rape, and froth for the lathering process.”
Yeah, you’re right, chucky. Rather than the thought out explanation I gave, earlier, what I really meant was: “Hey gang, my observations of reality are based in sort of half truths, at best. Hey, can you help wipe off my drool here? I am a woman, and thus incompetent to do anything myself. Thanks.”
You stupid piece of fuck.
Come to think of it…if there was no data in a MRA world that is accurate simply because they say so, and that becomes true…wouldn’t that destroy 95% of the worlds inventions that people take for granted, if that?
It would destroy everything.
I’m not going to make any claims here about whether there’s any “really real reality” out there independent from our perceptions of it or whether or not we can actually “prove,” beyond the shadow of a doubt, that one event caused another event, but independently of those issues, like Bee implied right above me, everything we do is based upon an implicit trust in the consistency of phenomena and our ability to receive data about them.
If chuckadee were right, forget polling, half the human race wouldn’t be able to interact with its environment on the most basic level.
chuck, can you tell me what the MRM has done to try to combat child abuse? Any programs you guys have set up? Any money raised? Any volunteer work done? Specifics, please. If you’re critiquing feminists for not doing anything, you guys surely must be doing something about it, and you should have the facts right at your fingertips.
Or is this just something you drag out to derail discussions about rape and to try to show that women are eeevil.
Excellent point. Her perspective does indeed count… in proper, rational discourse with a receptive audience. But this is not what feminism is about, and feminists do not provide said receptive audience. Even in this very forum, it seems as though many feminists haven’t even heard of Bell Hooks. Clearly, if it is disadvantageous to feminism, then feminists will ignore it, as they do the topic of child abuse.
It’s not me that disregards what Bell Hooks has to contribute, but feminists.
It’s the same with women abusing women. If it is contrary to the interests of feminism, then feminists will give it the silent treatment. Feminists want to sustain the illusion of hessian-wearing earth-mothers gathered around a campfire singing Kumbaya, and so anything contrary to that illusion gets the cold shoulder. Consider, for example, Phyllis Chesler and her treatise on Woman’s inhumanity to woman.
Feminists will turn on their own should they fall out of line and dare to question the established dogma.
And consider the topic of relational aggression, which is a girl-thing. How many in this forum know what it is? Come now, don’t cheat… before we look it up on google, do we know what it is?
David, I mentioned once before that I do not regard myself as an MRA… nor do I belong in any other pigeon that you or anyone else might wish to slot me into (mgtow or otherwise). Having said that, though, can we really expect a collective of people still in the formative stage of trying to establish unity, identity and direction, to directly take on tangential issues such as child abuse? Everyone is taking on the issue of child abuse, if perhaps indirectly, whenever they make a stand for fairness or justice, because the positive seeds that they sow now go on to impact on how we raise our children… what goes around comes around.
chuck, you do realize that your link shows that Chesler’s book got lots of supportive blurbs from prominent feminists.
A friend of mine, a feminist, wrote a well-regarded book on competition amongst women called “Catfight.”
http://www.amazon.com/Catfight-Rivalries-Women—Boardroom-Delivery/dp/B000C4T1Q8/
She wrote an earlier book on slut-shaming that talked a great deal about girls being the primary “slut shamers” amongst high schoolers.
Feminists talk about this stuff all the time.
And what on earth are you talking about with regard to bell hooks? How does the fact that women in this forum brought her up and talked about how important she is to them offer proof that … she’s being disregarded by feminists?
You’re just making shit up, dude, and most of it doesn;t make any sense at all.
chuck, so your answer on child abuse, then, is “no,” MRAs haven’t done shit on that issue.
I wrote an essay some time ago referencing Phyllis Chesler, quite soon after her book came out, and it was then that feminists were having a hard time dealing with it. I haven’t been following the topic since then. So maybe you’re right… I’ve got a day job and confess to not having kept up to date. I’ll see if I can dredge up a sample of the hostile writeups she received back then.
Or maybe it’s the media moreso than feminists… interesting question.
Maybe I’ve missed some of the comments (I have a day job), and with the likes of Nobbynyamutu spouting his/her/its drivel, I tend to gloss over posts that don’t capture my attention in the first sentence or two. But I’ve not seen anyone commenting on how important Bell Hooks was to them. So perhaps you exaggerate a tad.
@Chuck
Without addressing the veracity of this, I submit that it’s not unique to feminism. Pretty much any group or movement will deemphasize (or “ignore” if you prefer) what’s disadvantageous to them.
I know of no feminist who claims to behave this way.
As for not being an MRA but believing the things MRAs tend to believe … well, that speaks for itself. I suppose it makes sense that MGTOW is by definition not an organized movement, in the same way the Libertarians are by definition not a political party, but I’m not sure how someone can hold MRA beliefs without being an MRA.
“Feminists want to sustain the illusion of hessian-wearing earth-mothers gathered around a campfire singing Kumbaya”
Okay, first, it’s very unlikely that feminists are wearing the citizens of an 18th century germanic country. Points for weirdness. Second, you’re thinking of hippies.
“*bell hooks has, and continues to be, a major influence on my own expression and understanding of feminism and womanism. And I’ve been able to recite Gwendolyn Brooks’ poem We Real Cool, since I was eight. Alternative school.”
That was me, yesterday evening, well before you posted your latest batch of science-y sounding nothing. I’m going to all also call bullshit on your claim to being familiar with hooks’ work since most people who’ve read, and admired her writing, know that her name consistently appears with lower case letters.
“Maybe I’ve missed some of the comments (I have a day job), and with the likes of Nobbynyamutu spouting his/her/its drivel…”
Oh chuckeedee. I imagine you’re used to moving in circles where presenting incoherent and illogical arguments using a lot big words to mask the emptiness and inanity of your rhetoric, is met with emphatic praise, right? I’ll bet you get a lot “Nailed it, it bro!” and “QTF!” don’t you? So sad.
So it’s safe to presume that you cannot answer the serious questions I’ve asked in direct response to your “arguments” and that you can provide no evidence that anonymous surveys are inherently unreliable. You also have presented no evidence that women mistake “rapey looks” for sexual assault and have failed to offer anything that supports or substantiates your “frothy lather” theory.
Does it bother you to be so wholly unoriginal? What about the lack of critical thinking skill? Does that stress you out at all?
I think I can say with great confidence that this feminist does more to prevent child abuse before lunch on any given day than the likes of Chuckee have done in an entire career of pretentious wankery.
@Chuckeedee
“David, I mentioned once before that I do not regard myself as an MRA… nor do I belong in any other pigeon that you or anyone else might wish to slot me into (mgtow or otherwise).”
Wait, have we been putting people into pigeons? Oh, those poor birds… 🙁 Or perhaps you mean “pigeon hole?”
“Having said that, though, can we really expect a collective of people still in the formative stage of trying to establish unity, identity and direction, to directly take on tangential issues such as child abuse? Everyone is taking on the issue of child abuse, if perhaps indirectly, whenever they make a stand for fairness or justice, because the positive seeds that they sow now go on to impact on how we raise our children… what goes around comes around.”
You know, they actually have taken on child abuse. Or rather, defended it. You know, thinking that a split lip is a justified reaction to being licked by your daughter? I’m not sure that fists are the positive seeds you are talking about, but they sure do go around.
BTW, there are many, many self-described feminists who work in mental health and social services with children and their parents. The idea that feminists don’t care about child abuse is just laughably ignorant.
No wonder I missed it.
You had no idea who bell hooks is before yesterday,did you?
NWO: And guess what? Remember how I’ve stated I would risk my life to save a woman from being raped. I now recind that offer to only the women I know. Why the fuck should I risk my safety for someone who might be exactly like the shits that reside here.
Which is what some of us said at the time. You didn’t mean it, and you wouldn’t do it.
Talk, and bluster, lies and folly = NWO.
Maybe I’ve missed some of the comments (I have a day job), and with the likes of Nobbynyamutu spouting his/her/its drivel, I tend to gloss over posts that don’t capture my attention in the first sentence or two. But I’ve not seen anyone commenting on how important Bell Hooks was to them. So perhaps you exaggerate a tad.
While we sit at home eating bon-bons, right?
As to the last bit… So Bell Hooks isn’t important because you don’t see feminists talking about her (except that it was, of course, feminists here who brought her up), but Dworkin, McKinnon, and Solanis are muy importante. They are, so we keep hearing from people like you, so important we don’t have to talk about them.
So…
As per norm with MRAs, feminists are never right, and the MRAs are never wrong.
re hessian, maybe he meant burlap
That, of course, would require a knowledge of textiles, though, which seems unlikely.