Feminism or death?

Lovely website. They quote the fictitious “40% of all rapes are false allegations” line, but then when I follow one of their citations, I find:

http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/

A certain percentage of rape complaints are classified as “unfounded” by the police and excluded from the FBI’s statistics. For example, in 1995, 8% of all forcible rape cases were closed as unfounded, as were 15% in 1996 (Greenfeld, 1997). According to the FBI, a report should only be considered unfounded when investigation revealed that the elements of the crime were not met or the report was “false” (which is not defined) (FBI, 2007).

This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, “unfounded.” That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser’s statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.

They should read their own source material before linking it, since it actually proves that they’re full of shit.

“I’d urge all manboobz readers to do the same – it will brighten up your day!”

It really did, though probably not for the reasons you hoped…

Hengist – So you enjoy weird quasi-sexual fantasies about women being subjected to unsettlingly specific torture?

Despite the tremendous damage it does to the already hilariously thin “we’re not against women, we’re just for men!” facade?

Funny how feminists have no problem resorting to hyperbole and sarcasm when attacking others, but when subjected to those same things, they suddenly lose all capacity to understand them.

I do think that it was a “joke” in the sense that he doesn’t intend to actually do it (for one thing, the irregular shape of potatoes means the cannon would probably throw unpredictable wobblers or jam altogether), but in no others.

I also have to point out that feminists, despite the “well everyone knows they’re just as bad as us” common wisdom in the MRM, actually don’t share violent revenge fantasies about their political opponents all that often. (Yes, I’m sure you can find one. Oh hi there, That One “Dear Men” Essay, haven’t seen you around in several minutes. But you can’t find them on a “must be Thursday” basis, that’s for damn sure.)

shaenon:

like reading the class notes in the University of Assholes alumni magazine.

Totally stealing this.

Holly:

It’s possible to disagree with, even dislike, someone, and still not potato-torture dislike them.

…you’re supposed to learn that in kindergarten.

That’s where they start the process of brainwashing men into being manginas who don’t rape people, right?

Fatman:

Yes, as a feminist, I recognize the right to existence of people who are not feminists. I do not understand how stating that puts me on the spot, nor how that statement nails me to that spot.

Leo may be half-right about this. The conversation is supposed to go
MRA: Do you support the right of non-feminists to exist?
FEMINIST: Well, I’m not advocating putting them in prisons or death camps, so yes
MRA: And yet you’re trying to convince people to become feminists, you hypocrite!

Or they’re more delusional than I realize. I suspect I have now thought longer and harder about it than everyone on the thread David linked to combined.

kmcakes:

I keep trying to figure out who Fidelbogen reminds me of with his laughably trying-waaaay-too-hard-to-be-pretentious buffoonery. Then it dawned on me. He’s totally Ignatius from the book “A Confederacy of Dunces”.

A bunch of them are like that. Samuel too, I think

Shora:

Seriously, the only people who would look at a question like this an say “Ooooh, that will put them on the spot!” are the kind of people who feel put on the spot when asked if they disagree with violence and murder.

Like redlocker said, show me the MRA who can unequivocally condemn Marc Lépine or George Sodini with no hedging or justification.

I am certain that one of the core values of the MRM is violence, which is why they refuse to condemn even the most egregious examples of it. To even say any kind of violence is wrong is to violate one of their core principles. Unless, of course, it is the rarest kind of violence, women on men, then they are baying hounds for justice.

Indeed, I should have included that as well.

“A) Randomly includes people who have committed no crime other than “we don’t like them and they’re poopyheads”

Which ones are those?

B) Includes lots of women who actually weren’t proven to be false accusers, which means that it’s exposing and advocating harassment of rape victims because they were suspected of lying.

Funny how the feminists were eager to jump on the “guilty” bandwagon in cases like Duke or Dominique Strauss-Kahn, though. Double standards anyone?

Seriously, how would you like it if someone started “register-him.com” and made a big messy list of actual sex offenders, suspected sex offenders who weren’t actually convicted, suspected sex offenders who weren’t even charged and are chosen just on the basis that they might be sex offenders, and a bunch of MRA leaders who “well, they’re like sex offenders, haw haw!” With photos and personal information?

Don’t they already have those, AKA dontdatehimgirl.com and its ilk?

Funny how the feminists were eager to jump on the “guilty” bandwagon in cases like Duke or Dominique Strauss-Kahn, though. Double standards anyone?

From what I’ve seen, it’s not that feminists jump on the “guilty” bandwagon, rather than “even black strippers and hotel maids shouldn’t be raped; also French millionaires are not above the law; and if a rape occurred, it’s the responsibility of the rapist, not the raped” bandwagon. Funny how you MRA’s just don’t comprehend that — or realize how hypocritical you are being when you address rape accusations not on facts but on the idea that the definition of rape should be narrowed so as to practically legalize it, and all women are dirty dirty liars and whores who deserve it, anyway.

Mary Kellet? Just off the top of my head.

…”She has distinguished herself by prosecuting numerous cases of rape and domestic violence against men within her community based on no evidence, suppressing exculpatory evidence, and in 2011 – apparently participating in witness tampering.

Doesn’t say she committed a crime… only helped others.

From what I’ve seen, it’s not that feminists jump on the “guilty” bandwagon, rather than “even black strippers and hotel maids shouldn’t be raped; also French millionaires are not above the law; and if a rape occurred, it’s the responsibility of the rapist, not the raped” bandwagon.

Now you’re just muddying the issue. Do I really have to recall Amanda Marcotte’s reaction to the Duke case, which was subsequently taken down? The point is that feminists automatically assume a man accused of rape is guilty and treat him as such, sometimes even after he’s exonerated, while false rape accusers are always given the benefit of the doubt. Do you deny this?

She has distinguished herself by prosecuting numerous cases of rape and domestic violence against men within her community based on no evidence, suppressing exculpatory evidence, and in 2011 – apparently participating in witness tampering.

That is itself a lie, that comes from an MRA blog. Which illustrates the point: they are simply harassing and tarnishing someone they don’t like, making shit up about her. By the way: the case over which MRA’s are saying she should be disbarred is one where the appellate court specifically found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the defendant guilty.

Now you’re just muddying the issue. Do I really have to recall Amanda Marcotte’s reaction to the Duke case, which was subsequently taken down? The point is that feminists automatically assume a man accused of rape is guilty and treat him as such, sometimes even after he’s exonerated, while false rape accusers are always given the benefit of the doubt. Do you deny this?

Yes, I do deny this. Not automatically assuming that the victim is a liar or deserved to get raped isn’t tantamount to assume that the accused is guilty. Moreover, believing that the accused did it is not the same as claiming that there is legally sufficient evidence to hold him criminally liable. I know this is a distinction that MRA’s ignore, but then, MRA’s aren’t the brightest knife in the drawer (nor are they ever honest).

I knew notorious feminist stronghold dontdatehimgirl would come up!

But you think that’s a bad thing, right? You hate it, right? You think it’s totally unfair for private citizens to be exposing people who weren’t convicted of crimes to ridicule and possible harassment?

So why is it any fucking better when you guys do it?

Unless you think dontdatehimgirl is a super spiffy idea (and I don’t, for the record) shouldn’t you be arguing that nobody should be compiling public hit lists “registries” on people they don’t like?