Over on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, cheester warns all of us dudes about an especially insidious form of anti-male oppression: the racks of women’s magazines that lurk near the checkout counters of grocery stores everywhere!
can I get some feedback on womens magazines at the grocery checkout? Every issue states “new tricks he doesn’t know in bed” and shite like that. It’s obvious porn for the gals but why is it so accepted by everyone that it has carte blanche to be within a two foot reach as I pay for my food? If a magazine for men had on the cover: “20 Ways To Make Her Squirm Like A Fish”….there would be a national outrage.
Yeah, it’s not like Men’s magazines ever run anything like that.
Church groups and womens rights would say it demoralizes women and have the publication banned or put behind censored racks in seedy smoke shops.
Yeah. It’s not like this ever happens to women’s magazines.
But the womens mags are right there as a last shop item in the flourescent lit, sterilized, family atmosphere where every mother parades her toddlers and kids right past the 3 letter word in big black block letters;SEX on the cover of every flashy colored womens mag that comes out each month.
Not only is this oppression of men, it’s oppression of all toddlers who can read and know what the word “sex” means.
Also, feminists have never criticized women’s magazines in any way. “Ten Ways to Make Him Squirm” articles are the distilled essence of feminism! And most of them are written by the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.
NOTE: Does this even need a “sarcasm” tag?
Aww….so now mean words excuse beating the shit out of someone, namely women?
and what is “nagging” exactly? nagging is DV now? my grandmother still nags me when I see her and I’m an adult, is she committing DV against me?
No wonder NWO wants to repeal VAWA. He’s wants the freedom to beat women when he feels they get out of line by “nagging” because telling someone to do something is exactly the equivalent of punching someone in the face!
Fuck you disgust me NWO.
Oh my god, I’m … really sorry about that. I DON’T KNOW MY OWN POWER.
Off topic, but I like RocketFrog’s name.
RocketFrog: Just to clarify, because I did choose poorly my words, I know men are not wild animals. I was pointing out the need to use misandry to justify misogyny.
NWO: Yeah: I think you covered that already, feminists control the FBI, the government, the justice system, every therapist, the magazines and, I can tell you know, even the cows. Because actually we control everything that is female and we’re out to get you. Bouh.
Meller: so your point is that you don’t trust any study that agrees with us. Thank you, that’s good to know. It doesn’t matter what we say, your own paranoia will scuttle discussion because you believe that we are all in cahoots, lying through our teeth and so is everyone who isn’t on your “side”. There is no argument, no study, no paper, legal discussion or document that we can put forward that you will consider acceptable. Mockery really is the only possible way to deal with you.
You have made an argument that blames the victim, claiming that men only abuse because women “push their buttons” and that this in turn causes men to “lash out” and that if women didn’t button push there would be no domestic violence. What you fail to understand is that reasonable, civilized people do not respond to words with physical violence. The appropriate response to words is more words, NEVER violence. There is no excuse for it and no verbal insult, no nagging, no belittlement so horrible that it compels a physically violent reaction.
Ultimately men who abuse do it because the enjoy it. They enjoy the sense of power it gives them and they enjoy watching their partner’s self image deteriorate under the abuse. They enjoy watching a self confident, capable woman turn into a nervous wreck because of their treatment and most of all they love watching her blame herself for the abuse because she wasn’t “good enough” to figure out what he wanted so she could give it to him. I learned that from spending more than fifteen years working in battered women’s shelters, talking to them, supporting them and helping them put themselves back together and I’m sick to death of listening to your victim-blaming, your paranoia and your bullshit.
Klopbop:
You’re more than welcome!
DKM: Too stupid to skim over a few blog posts and notice that they contain recent blockquotes from him, before accusing the other poster of having written the post weeks ago.
DKM: Too stupid to learn a nine-letter, five-syllable name, and too stupid to know that it, like any other name on the internet, can be spelled Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.
DKM: Thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room.
Has anyone noticed that DKM also stands for Dunning-Kruger Man?
If I was wearing a hat, I’d be taking it off and doffing it extravagantly right now.
“By law, if he calls the police he will be arrested as the predominant aggressor. If there is yelling heard from their home, most States have a mandatory arrest policy, he goes to jail.”
NWOslave. “Bullshit Study of Domestic Assault Laws within the U.S.” [i]NWS’ Ass.[/i] Parent’s Basement, Dec 3 2011
There ya go dude. Helped you with your oft missing citation.
*Sigh* there goes NWO making shit up again. Someone needs to teach him the difference between fantasy and reality.
bionicmommy:
I’ve seen them completely covered in a grocery store near me in Brooklyn. It’s a Hasidic neighborhood, though, and (to my surprise) I see some in there at times.
VoIP:
Maybe he dropped the “Eastern religion” and took up Nietzscheanism?
Pecunium:
I wonder if he somehow feels that’s not “blaming.” Like, he’s still acknowledging the abuser is chosing to do bad things, so he’s not letting the abuser off the hook, which is what he claims to think he’s being accused of.
DKM:
You’re actually questioning whether saying “this is a result of her actions” constitutes blaming her?
ozy:
Because he doesn’t know what it means. And like everything he doesn’t know (and there’s a lot), he assumes it’s an attack on men in general and probably him personally in particular.
Here’s a fact for you, NWO: I am hoping to become a psychologist, and the sort of practice I would have would be an appropriate place for victims of emotional abuse. I’m also a woman and a feminist, shock horror. I’m nowhere near trained enough to say anything for sure, but I can try to predict how I would run therapy from what I have learned so far and from my own conscience. If a male victim of emotional abuse came in, I would treat him much like a female victim in the following ways:
1) I would create a safe space where he would feel free to speak without risk of judgment.
2) I would try to rebuild his self-esteem, and help him see how his abuser had manipulated his sense of self and of acceptable behaviour.
3) I would try to learn about him as an individual, and about the specific circumstances of his relationship, and try to tailor our discussions to best help him.
4) I would try to help him find a way out of the situation, and (if he chose to continue therapy) help him adjust when he left.
5) I would offer to refer him to another therapist that would be more suited to him if there is any reason he feels uncomfortable with me. That may mean referring him to a male therapist if that is his preference.
There are also some things I would do for him that I would not do for a female client:
6) Help him to understand that being a victim does not make him less of a man.
7) Help him to deal with the lack of social support for male victims.
And then there’s all the more specific stuff that I haven’t learned yet. Not that it matters, since I’m sure if NWO read this all he got was “blah blah men should suffer blah state violence blah blah ZERO-SUM GAME.”
By the way, here’s an article on women being arrested as a result of primary (“predominant” doesn’t even make sense) aggressor laws:
http://www.batteredmen.com/batapwmn.htm
@Viscaria: Actually, I think your answer falls under the “emasculate him and make him cry” flag: it’s the woman who calls the police and gets him immediately arrested and thrown into prison who is using the STATE for violence.
I admit it’s hard to tell with NWO, and no doubt if the term “boundaries” even comes up once in your discussion, then OFFWITHYOURHEAD!
/attempt to apply NWO’s skeevy logic
I have repeatedly said, for instance, that violence, or the threat of violence, is not only unethical and wrong, but totally ineffective even from the abuser’s point of view! A mate or a partner terrorized or beaten into obedience is NOT going to give the responses of love, eagerness, happiness, willing and submissive compliance that a woman (or pet, for that matter) who is treated with love, gentleness, and patience will.This is so self-evident, and so much conforming with universal experience, that It should answer your objections to my alleged support (???) for such misbehavior then and there!
Other than two posters here(Darksidecat and Pecunium) who get fixated on one–and only one–particular point, namely, “Meller wants to enslave and terrorize the world’s women”, and just want to see their allegations, and probably their names, in print and nothing else, There is no reason to believe them now, and every reason to see that they are focusing after almost a year of such demagoguery, on one small, tangential point, to wit, a paragraph or two in a post regarding “cybercuties” and “wifebots”, posted almost a year ago, discussing a hypothetical situation on what may happen if the gender-wars provoked by your feminism reach an apocalyptic conclusion after a century or two…
It has little or nothing to do with the many other posts where I discuss other, more timely issues, and really doesn’t even have all that much to do with purely hypothetical scenarios on likely consequences of your–and their–feminuttery run amok!
I have rarely returned to it, nor is there any reason to!
Again, the suggestion of giving sexually overactive women a chance to live out their preferred lifestyle in environments of personal security, good hygeine, and even prosperity offers such advantages over what they have anywhere in the world today, that I would think that they, to say nothing of their families, would jump at the chance!
Would these sexually overactive floozies have the “opportunity”, to “walk the streets” as live prey for every kidnapper, rapist, or jack-the-ripper wannabe whom they had the misfortune to encounter, especially if the streets were privately owned, and owners had fullresponsibility for what transpired on their property?
I doubt it,and frankly, I hope not! I don;’t know about Zhinxi, but I realize that liberty requires good judgement and clear thinking on the part of all participants, something that women, especially when in the throes of sexual passion or adolescent rebellion, seldom have! This is even more so in an anarchistic society, where government doesn’t exist, or have the authority to make such decisions for her.
One more reason, by the way to extend statuatory “rape” protections to women in situations where their judgement is–or would be–impaired, regardless of her age, along with extending (male) authority to protect women from exposure to those situations (e.g. being alone in a tavern, walking the streets, especially those of a dangerous neighborhood, in a sexy or provocative manner, approaching strangers, or others where danger lurked..
She has every right to live her life as she wishes, but men have a right to pursue happiness without entrapment by “underage” or “false rape” floozies! My efforts are dedicated to balancing the two, and your feminist “blame-the-victim” demagoguery doesn’t help.
I UNDERSTAND that DV is WRONG!! Happy now? Upon understanding this, where do we go from here? Do we simply do what we always have done, or do we try to understand what there is in the victim’s speech and behavior–while condemning,in the strongest possible terms, the WRONGFULNESS of the abuser’s actions–that leads to the situations that you are trying to prevent! Or aren’t you trying to prevent this, feminists, since after all, if there are more abusers, and there is more DV, you get more funding and more media exposure!
I am sorry for sounding unusually cynical here, but after the way you have treated me on this issue for the past few weeks, extreme cynicism regarding YOUR motives is understandable, if not overdue! Once again–G-d, I sound like a broken record here, but: I KNOW THAT SPOUSAL ABUSE IS WRONG and deeply reprehensible! You won’t get anywhere, however, until women change their provocation as much as their abusers change THEIR misbehavior!
There is a lot to be said for the old-fashioned “how to please your husband” literature that ladies’ magazines and books used to have? Where did it disappear to, and WHO made it disappear? Look in the nearest mirror lately?
DKM, there is no behavior that prompts abusers to abuse. Abusers enjoy exercising power over those they abuse; therefore, even if you do everything right, abusers will find a reason to be angry at you. The proper response to abuse is to leave the relationship ASAP.
What about male abuse survivors? Are they trying insufficiently hard to please their wives? (Let’s not get into the queers…)
My girlfriend is highly amused that Manboobz is planning her typewriter’s party.
Dammit, wrong thread, sorry.
Oh that crap is still around. It’s just worded differently, for example: “40 different ways to give a blow job to your man” is rampant in magazines like Cosmo.
And why the fuck do you think rape is going to just magically disappear if you shove sexually promiscuous women in brothels? Prostitutes work in brothels and since you mentioned Jack the Ripper you should know that he targeted prostitutes and that they are frequently targeted for violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_prostitutes#Licensed_brothels
But what really is stupid about your “idea”…you know, besides the whole sexual slavery thing, is why do you assume a sexually promiscuous lifestyle includes sex 24/7? you are aware that women you target as “sluts” have actual non-sex related jobs and social lives that don’t always include sex? the number of partners someone has doesn’t have an effect on other parts of their lives such as career so why should they be forced to preform sexual services as one?
Learn to spell people’s names, for a start. Second, you can run and tell that in ALL CAPS, but I really don’t think anyone believes you after seeing what you’ve previously written. Getting your name in print, as it were.
If you told me the sky was blue, I’d need a second opinion. That’s how much I believe you.
I have that. It’s called my own home. Do you think because I have sex with more than one person I don’t shower or vacuum?
They’re even letting me have a job these days.
DKM: I UNDERSTAND that DV is WRONG!! Happy now? Upon understanding this, where do we go from here? Do we simply do what we always have done, or do we try to understand what there is in the victim’s speech and behavior–while condemning,in the strongest possible terms, the WRONGFULNESS of the abuser’s actions–that leads to the situations that you are trying to prevent! Or aren’t you trying to prevent this, feminists, since after all, if there are more abusers, and there is more DV, you get more funding and more media exposure!….You won’t get anywhere, however, until women change their provocation as much as their abusers change THEIR misbehavior!
Nope, not happy now, and won’t be until you put the abusers front and center in your syntax: that is, you talk a WHOLE shitload about how the most important thing is understanding “what there is n the victim’s speech and behavior….that leads to situations,” and not very goddamn much about the abusers’ “misbehavior.” Misbehavior.
Misbehavior.
No, the primary focus of work on ending Domestic abuse (whether the abuser is a man or a woman) is understanding and changing the social circumstances in which the VICTIM is blamed for causing the “misbehavior” (calling abuse “misbehavior” is one of the BIGGEST FUCKING RAGING RED FLAGS you wave around). CHANGE the social conditioning which blames women for what men do (which is also rape culture). (One reason male victims are reluctant to come forward is that the culture which condones and at times celebrates abuse and rape would shame a man who admits to being hurt in any way by a woman.)
And every man who condones “misbehavior” by men because they are driven to it by women (or the woman controlled court system, or whatever) is contributing to the continuance of the culture which feminism is trying to change.
I grew up with all those fucking magazines, you slimy little maggot, and abuse existed. It was covered up, everybody ignored it, and nobody tried to help the women (and even less the men), but get this through your pullulating pompous pitiful brain: YOU and others like you are the CAUSE of the social conditions which result in abuse. Domestic abuse pre-dated feminism, and the changes that have taken place over the last fifty or sixty years are primarily because of feminism.
So don’t come here expecting any cookies.
And the idea that somehow people who post about you are doing it to get their names in print…..on a BLOG?……..just shows the limited to your understanding of the rhetorical situation. But that’s not a surprise, is it?
Quackers–December 4, 2011 @ 7:09pm
Jack-the-ripper indeed targeted prostitutes, but he targeted them on the streets! Prostitutes who worked from brothels were, as far as I know, protected, and if they weren’t, they certainly should have been, and would be, in my safe and legal environment.
And it really can’t be said enough, DKM, but there’s a word for a man who only abuses when he’s pushed, a man who only abuses when he’s upset, a man who only abuses when he’s provoked:
Abuser.
Abusers will always find reasons to feel provoked. And abusers will never be worth appeasing.
Oops: “the limited to your understanding of the rhetorical situation.” should be “how limited your understanding of the rhetorical situation IS!”
Should have left that last bit of chocolate peppermint cheesecake until I’d finished proofreading…
Meller: Other than two posters here(Darksidecat and Pecunium) who get fixated on one–and only one–particular point, namely, “Meller wants to enslave and terrorize the world’s women”.
Every time you describe the “ideal” world, it involves forbidding women rights. Be it limiting them to the ‘women’s issues’ on the news, or forcing them to fuck any man who pays a brothel-keeper, or being Gor-type submissives (or killed off in general, with the remnant kept as sex slaves for powerful men), that’s the way you say the world should work.
And while you say violence is a second best to other means, you don’t say it’s really wrong, just ineffective. When asked about it, you say the women are working to make it happen, and that the men were, “pushed” into it, as if they were baeating women against their will.
which doesn’t speak well to making men the masters of all the world; as you say they should be.
As to that “tangiental point”, as you call it, that’s a pretty big deal. You said men would be justified in killing women, if women didn’t give in and let men make them slaves. That’s not minor, and people who come upon your writings ought to know that, at base, your idea of how to treat women is as if they were things to casually exterminate because they don’t please men like you.
If reminding the world about that hurts your little feelings, I don’t care, any more than I care if calling a racist a racist offends him (and btw, you are a racist, and I know it; so we can add that to your list of moral failings).
You aren’t “giving… women a chance to live out their preferred lifestyle in environments of personal security, good hygeine,… because they have that already. If they want to work in a brothel they can do that too. Nothing prevents them.
You, however, are phrasing it as a means of social control. “Keep your legs closed before marriage, or get sent to the stews.” That’s bullshit.
I realize that liberty requires good judgement and clear thinking on the part of all participants
Then take the time to apply some. Because you’ve not yet shown any real evidence of it. You have a gold-fetish, an autocratic idea of what “freedom” means and a desire to force other people to bend to your idea of how to live. You can’t keep a set of coherent thoughts from one idea to the next; abjuring force in one comment, then saying a military coup is the only way to establish liberty.
You can’t keep history straight (saying Jefferson was a peaceful president: he of the embargo and the prosecution of the War of 1812: the man who first said the US needed a powerful navy. Not to mention ascribing Shay’s Rebellion of 1786 to a later period of time so you could accuse the constitution [which you praise Ron Paul for following, “as written”] of being a blueprint for statist power), and you ignore facts.
You SAY you understand that DV is wrong, but the entire thrust of your ideas is to make the abused behave in ways that keep the abuser from committing abuse. That’s a form of slavery. The abuser gets to set all the rules, and the abuser has to change to keep them happy.
That’s not condemning abuse, that’s making sure it continues. If that’s the way you want the world to be run I’m never going to help you.