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?
Meller, you’re a ridiculous gasbag. And way to not answer the speculation.
And that’s wrong because …?
Normal people agree with the above, Meller. By which I mean non-abusers agree.
Nope. Sorry to burst your bubble, Meller – you’re the only person here who loves violence and abuse.
Zhinxi–December 6, 2011 @ 2:15 pm
These opinions, like many in regard to abortion, are still evolving, as new information, and new perspectives, become available. The essential point of your question relates to the point that in the first trimester (approximately) the “personhood of the developing baby is still nascent, and not yet completely clear. The development of the life concerned is still at a proto-human level, without a viable nervous system, blood circulation, beginnings of immune system, lymphatic system, sense organs, etc. As these develop, the “babyhood” of the new life growing inside the woman becomes more evident, and the termination of the new life becomes, if not an act of “murder”, certainly more reprehensible and evil!
This flies indeed, in the viewpoint of those who, perhaps dogmatically insist that “human life begins at conception” on one hand, and the opposite opinion of those people who see the developing baby as a type of “parasite” that the mother-to-be has every “right” to eject!
I am, I suppose, trying to form an opinion of abortion that accounts for both sides as humanely and consistantly with human rights as possible. There are, of course, objections to my suggested points of view here, but there are larger and more intractable objections to the viewpoints of both the “baby-killers” on one hand, who support unlimited access to abortion, and the “unborn-life worshippers”, who demand complete and unilateral prohibition, on the other.
The sociological aspects of this, such as “is the pregnancy of a sexually loose floozie somehow ‘less valuable’ than one of a good woman, or Fathers’ rights in the fate of mother and child, while interesting, are too involved to go into here, and will have to wait for anther time to be explored…
I can only eat meals one mouthful at a time, and the same considerations come into “digesting” ideas. One issue at a time, please!
@bee
i thought about writing the same thing, but here’s the thing- there are obviously situations where some sort of provocation may mitigate the use of violence, i think most people can agree on that.
now, dv is not one of those situations, because you’d have to be totally ignorant of the dynamics of dv to think its about being provoked by your victim. but dkm is totally ignorant, and he’s demonstrated multiple times over the past couple of days that he is completely resistant to becoming educated about what dv actually is. so arguments like that are never going to make sense to him.
side note: i have to go observe temporary protective order court tomorrow afternoon for a class assignment. based on what i’ve heard from other students, i am steeling myself for an afternoon of losing faith in humanity.
@dkm- you actually hit on an important point there. in fact, one of the key arguments in roe was that the greatest thinkers of our civilization can never give a definitive answer to when ‘life’ begins, so legislative attempts to define it are inherently to be viewed with skepticism.
And again – please explain why the abuser does not bear full responsibility for his own actions. Why are you so determined that it must be partly the fault of the victim? As Bee says, that’s not a position generally taken by anyone who isn’t an abuser themselves.
More victim blaming from Meller. How bloody surprising.
I’m still super freaked out by the fact that his response to “do you have a criminal history?” was “I bet you’re a false accuser!”
RED FLAG RED FLAG RED FUCKIN’ FLAG.
serious question, dkm: as a libertarian, does this not resonate really strongly with you? do you want legislatures addressing issues we can never be sure theyre competent to address?
Oh wow, I am totally surprised that DKM is a woman beater… not. He only hits all the talking points of justification that they go through.
@ Holly – And he expected me to get defensive too. Except people who don’t have anything to feel guilty and defensive about don’t do that, so…
Meller: Her passionate and singleminded insistance that the abuser always bears FULL and UNILATERAL responsibility for his actions, regardless of what his victim(s) may have done to lead up to the explosion
I’m with Cassandra.
DKM, that’s a unique new way of not answering the fucking question.
Also, totally shitty to accuse a group of people, many of whom have survived rape and abuse, of making false accusations.
the “baby-killers” on one hand, who support unlimited access to abortion, and the “unborn-life worshippers”, who demand complete and unilateral prohibition
That’s the first time I’ve heard someone be smugly dismissive of both pro-lifers and pro-choicers in the same sentence.
These opinions, like many in regard to abortion, are still evolving, as new information, and new perspectives, become available. The essential point of your question relates to the point that in the first trimester (approximately) the “personhood of the developing baby is still nascent, and not yet completely clear. The development of the life concerned is still at a proto-human level, without a viable nervous system, blood circulation, beginnings of immune system, lymphatic system, sense organs, etc. As these develop, the “babyhood” of the new life growing inside the woman becomes more evident, and the termination of the new life becomes, if not an act of “murder”, certainly more reprehensible and evil!”
I’ll lay it on the table for myself. I think that the first trimester is where all the big moral questions about personhood come in, and is the most “justifiable” – However I do believe the later fetus, and perhaps the earlier – HAS a right to life. Yes, it does. but NOT one that includes the right to exist on life support in another’s body. You know what I hope? That someday artificial womb technology will find a solution acceptable to all. Very transhumanist and utopian of me. But until then, one right exists, and another that trumps it.
Once again, I’m going to link you to a wonderful piece by Roderick Long, and I hope you read it this time.
http://praxeology.net/RTL-Abortion.htm
Abortion, Abandonment, and Positive Rights:
The Limits of Compulsory Altruism*
I appreciate that you have moral qualms in this area. I do too.
HOWEVER, it would be easier to grant leniency and let you work out your position if you did not throw around “baby killer” so viciously at others. Not to mention the “Soviet Chinese Nazi Libertarian” screed you threw at me not too long ago, when it’s possible I have more qualms on this issue than YOU do.
I am still greatly worried by your apparent notion that a “floozies” pregnancy is in another moral category from another woman’s however.
Regardless, if you are seriously questioning here, I trust you will refrain from such screeds and insults in the future?
DKM, just wait till you hear how passionate and single-minded I am.
I believe that a thief bears FULL and UNILATERAL responsibility for his or her actions, regardless of how careless the victim was with the stolen goods.
I believe that an arsonist bears FULL and UNILATERAL responsibility for lighting things on fire, regardless of how flammable the things are.
I believe that a terrorist bears FULL and UNILATERAL responsibility for committing acts of terror, no matter how antagonistic our foreign policy is.
But Katz, what if the building was taunting you? We have to examine how if it had made itself more soft and appealing looking maybe you wouldn’t have been forced to do that.
Sharculese, I agree with you. It is presumptuous for legislatures, or judges, to “decide” when life begins. That is one reason I tried to formulate an opinion as independently of these “experts’ as I could.
Ozymandias42, I agree that it is, or at least would be, pretty s****y, for someone to accuse a group of people, some of whom have been “survivors of rape or domestic violence”, of false accusation.
I did it precisely to show how nasty it is to accuse somebody of a criminal past in a public forum and to show her how it should feel!
Katz, if I am ‘smugly dismissive of both “pro-lifers” and “pro-choicers”, it is because they have been circling each other with the same arguments for four decades now, and never getting anywhere. I would appreciate more light and less heat! Even my suggestion, liberal policy toward first trimester abortion and more conservative policy toward second, and even more so, third trimester pregnancy terminations. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but it is at least something to work on from here…
But you ARE going to stop screaming at people that they’re baby killers, since you are pro-choice in a way that most pro-choice americans are (more liberal in the first trimester) correct? Or do you assume you’re somehow alone in this stance?
Because nothing says “calmly rational consideration of both sides” like using “baby-killers” and “unborn life-worshipers” in the same sentence.
See, DKM, you keep making yourself the exception to these rules. “Yes, I know it’s a terrible thing to do, but I really want to.” “But they deserve it.” “But I’m just showing them how it feels.”
If it’s a terrible thing to do, you don’t do it. Period.
Even my suggestion, liberal policy toward first trimester abortion and more conservative policy toward second, and even more so, third trimester pregnancy terminations. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but it is at least something to work on from here…
so… you want a return to roe v. wade? because what you just described is pretty much what the court held in that case.
The thing is, Meller, I’ve given you no reason to suspect any of the things you said to me. You, on the other hand, have given us many reasons to suspect that you may have an abusive past given you determined you are to make people believe that victims are partially responsible for the abuse done to them. You’re making a false comparison, and it’s really making you look very silly.
It feels fine. I’ll tell you straight up: my only criminal past is one time I got picked up by the cops for being out after curfew on a military base and I got so scared I barfed on an MP. (I was eight.)
Also I smoked pot like twice in college. Which also made me barf. I have a very barf-intensive relationship with crime.
I have never falsely accused anyone of anything. (In fact I’ve never brought charges on anyone for anything, even when I should have.)
Your turn!