Another day, another threat – sorry, prediction – of impending violence towards women from someone on The Spearhead. This time from a fellow called James, in his twenties:
The OLDER MEN simply do not understand what it is like to be a young man today.
I will say one thing though- a very big percent of young men of my generation do not believe in this feminism or white knight bullshit, and they have very little tolerance towards it.
Older men will allow themselves to get ass raped in divorce courts, but the younger men of my generation have no such tolerance.
So if the younger women think they are going to treat the younger men with the same level of hatred that the older women do to the older men, they have a big surprise waiting for them.
1. Either the men will just entirely boycott the younger women
or
2. They will actively fight for their rights, even with force, if it requires it
What I mean by that is, the younger generation of men are much more violent than the older generation. So in plain English, if women think they are going to treat the younger generation of men like shit, then we are going to see a huge increase in violence against women.
In short, the men of my generation are not as willing to tolerate the abuse from man hating women as the older men are. Young women would be very wise to take note of this.
Unfair quote-mining on my part? Not exactly. James got 72 upvotes for this bit of wisdom on The Spearhead, and only 8 downvotes.
Meanwhile, our old friend at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog highlighted James’ comment in a post of his own, quoting the whole thing, and adding his own spin:
The younger you go on average you will find less tolerance for anything pro-female. This is not surprising. Even looking at my own life, I have been dealing with feminism since I was in elementary school especially if we define feminism correctly as feminine-ism. I remember (female) teachers being pro-female and anti-male going back to first grade. As bad as I had it, it is worse for men younger than me. They’re not going to listen to lies about how women are oppressed because all they have seen with their own eyes are the opposite. …
By 2020 the balance between men who are currently old vs. men who are currently young will have shifted. There will be less old men who remember life pre-feminism. There will be more young men who have spent their entire lives under the feminist jack boot. There will be more men who are completely fed up with women. Around 2020 there will be a lot more men willing to take radical direct action against feminism.
“Radical direct action against feminism?” What does this mean? Generalized violence against women, as James seems to suggest? Firebombing police stations and courthouses, as MRA “martyr” Tom Ball urged in his manifesto? Like most of those in the Men’s Rights movement who like to talk ominously about what they hope will be a massive anti-feminist backlash, the PMAFT blogger is vague about what exactly this might entail. But it’s not hard to connect the dots here.
Protip: MRAs, if you don’t want people to see the Men’s Rights movement as a hate movement — you need to stop posting, stop upvoting, stop even tolerating this kind of hateful shit.
@Holly
In that case, you have my vote for SCOTUS 🙂
You bet I did. It was great.
>>>I want a situation where men don’t want to have sex with drunk women because they’re afraid to, and they’re the ones saying “whoa now, I don’t know you that well, let’s hold off on this until you’ve sobered up a bit.”
Agreed. If she wouldn’t do you in the morning, well, I do think that consent you claim was there is pretty much invalid…
Cue the dudebros saying this means if they wake up to a ‘uggo’ after blacking out drunk it’s rape. Well, yeah, kind of. I think the example doesn’t really work because most of the time they’re not *actually* uninterested in having sex with a girl that’s not traditionally attractive, it’s just a “saving face” excuse, but if some woman is *actually* using the fact you’re drunk out of your gourd to have sex with you, it’s pretty much rape, yes.
@Kendra
So impressive! so jealous!
Why am I not surprised Emma is defending racists as well now?
You clearly have not been a person in this situation either. As a poor person who has moved into more wealthy spheres (though I’m still poor by many people’s estimations, I am a law student which is a very rich coded situation), you are expected to attack your people and your community. You are expected to think yourself better and more exceptional than them, to not look at the number of times when you had to get lucky and you did by others did not, to buy into bullshit notions of meritocracy and think that the people who raised you and who you grew up with were less than you and less than the rich. A refusal to behave this way will get you a ton of hatred and will get you labeled a radical so fast your head will spin. There is a constant pressure to betray your people and a never ending system of ways in which a refusal to do so will go a long way to making you poor again or keeping you from moving up.
Also, there’s no such thing as a “beta”. Just fyi.
QFT.
And Holly, I agree 100% with what you said. Blackbloc, you too. There’s too much emphasis in this culture on “getting your tip wet at all costs”.
So, Holly’s right of course, about consent, but I want to add that the “girl has a drink, has sex, and then cries rape because of regret” narrative is a total red herring. It’s a way of changing the subject/confusing the issue/whatever, when people try to focus on criminal acts — lo and behold what’s this? Now we’re talking about the victim.
When you look at studies on rape, what becomes very clear is that rapists are planners. They are methodical. They rape repeatedly. So the issue is really not, how did the victim feel? But what did the rapist do? Most of the time, the rapist has planned to find someone who is incapacitated to the point where he (for the sake of simplicity, I’ll use the male pronoun) can rape her (same here — I acknowledge of course that any gender could rape or be raped) without her fighting back.
The story about the girl who cried regret-sex-rape? I’m not gonna say it has never happened, but it’s pretty much a ruse to get people to stop focusing on the methodical planning of criminal acts by the rapist.
Seriously.
More than that, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to just go ahead and have sex anyway if there could be a possibility that one of the partners will regret it the next day like uncertainty, alcohol or drugs involved, peer pressure or other kinds of coercion.
I mean, I’d like to be remembered fondly after an intimate act, even if it was just a one-night stand with no strings attached. Which can only happen if everyone’s up front and certain that their partners are in a place where they say yes without coercion (and yes, Emma, badgering someone for sex IS a form of coercion) and willing to respect each other’s boundries.
I find it so hard to understand why the slightest doubt/demurring is not an immediate red flag, prompting the non-demurring partner to stop all sexual advances at once and say something like “It’s fine if you’re not ready, let’s not do this at all until we’re both completely comfortable and agreed on what we each expect out of this.”
Is that REALLY such a fascist requirement? Because I tend to think it’s quite reasonable.
Following up on Shadow’s point…that really is the easiest way to resolve the whole “what’s too drunk to consent?” issue. Why not wait until the morning when everyone has sobered up? If the person actually was willing to freely consent to sex, they’ll still be willing when they sober up. If you suspect that they won’t be willing when they sober up and that’s why you’re pushing for sex while they’re still drunk…guess what? You’re thinking like a rapist.
wow you really are fucking retarded I mean with feminists pushing for bigoted rape laws and guilty till proven innocent for men accused of crimes by women a revolution against a corrupt system like the one in which we live is possible. And god forbid anyone defend themselves from oprression.
No offense but why do feminist find murdering men so funny yet when men swear to defend themselves you guys cry foul ball and bitch?
Derek: who here laughed at the murder of men?
Try English instead of your puling whatever that was, Derek. Please don’t come in here and beshit our rug with ableist terms and your sub-par language skills.
No one here thinks anyone being killed is funny. Perhaps if you cold read, you’d know that.
Interesting approach, Derek.
Post #1
Post #2:
@Derek: I never cry foul ball.
I only ever cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war!
I was just re-reading The Sandman, and this little oration to the “Collectors” rang out like a frickin’ bell:
Now leave.
Hmm. I’ve been reading Holly’s posts about consent and I’m conflicted. On the one hand, sure, it makes sense, especially when I think of all the douchebro frat boys in the world who could use a little more reflection when it comes to this kind of thing. (Also worth noting, there’d be a whole lot more female rapists if her system was implemented, since women are given almost complete license to “push” because it’s seen as harmless… not that this means much, just interesting to think about).
So I think that it might do some good in a general sense. But at the same time, I’m thinking of my incel friends. This could be EXTREMELY damaging to them, especially the young guys. Many of them are overthinkers, and good people, and would become (even more) terrified to approach women for fear of committing rape in some theoretical sense. I mean, how is the initiator supposed to know if the woman (or man) has had one drink? What if both parties have? Either way, one drink is barely perceptible.
And so really what Holly is criminalizing is approaching itself- that is, the initiator is the rapist, because in most of these cases both parties have been drinking- and that’s a problem, I think… not to mention basically impossible to prove because it turns into a he did/she did sort of thing. Just my 2 cents.
hey have you seen the Forum by Feminists recently http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SxGji-o2LU! Eugenics, genocide against men, and mass murder of men oh my! If you honestly think feminist hate will not start this then you are all dumber than I gave you credit for. I also noticed you filter your YouTube comments while any MRA does not. Congratulations on bitching about a few typos. As for feminist finding the murder of men funny well that how you all explained away the SCUM manifesto, and the attempted murder of Andy Warhol at the hands of NOW’s hero of feminism” Valerie Jean Solanas
Hey, everyone, it’s Zombie Solanas time! She’s back and she’s piiiiiiiiiiiiiissed.
Congratulations, Derek, on bring up something happened 40+ years ago, is hardly relevant, and has been roundly criticized. Please keep beating this dead horse.
Do you know of any current feminists? Or will you be bringing up Dworkin and Daly next?
I wasn’t criticizing your spelling, I was criticizing your stye that reads like a howler monkey on meth.
Uh, the MRM’s mainstream is misogyny. Their ‘moderates’ disguise calls for violence (poorly). There is no ‘silent majority’ waiting to redeem you. There may be a few individuals who identify with you idiots and are only average misogynists, but they are crowded out by idiots like, well, you; misogynists who think they’re clever or new.
The one that talked about violence against women wasn’t misogynist? Really?
When the shit did Orwell write a dictionary?
Was your point that you are terrible at writing, or that you are an apologist for racism when the need strikes?
No, I applied what you said to another thing you said. I didn’t have to put a whole lot of effort into it, just read
Ignoring pedantic technicalities, yeah, I would; and you and everyone else would just jump tot heir defense because they weren’t racist-to-the-bone and didn’t have KKK memberships, and I would just sign in disgust at how far we are from equality. Yes, that would be racist, because it would be another brick in the mortar of the road to shit that non-white people walk while existing in MErika (Or pretty much anywhere else with a political majority that is white)
So basically, you’re going to play HOW DO YOU KNOW about hypothetical people you know no better than me, but miss the irony that you are pretending to totes know them.
That’s beautiful, you conflated civil with criminal law and civil charges with criminal ones in one neat little sentence. That is efficient jackassery right there. Nobody is for this, as a criminal matter, and the standard for evidence was always lower in a civil trial.
Ahaha, really? You do realize you just claimed ‘common sense’ for your point, which is no better than Britain’s Star Court did in making more or less the same bullshit claim centuries ago.
I don’t think much special about treehouse climbers anymore. A post on Yo, Is This Racist actually helped there.
See, I’d believe you idiots were honestly concerned about innocent men if you cared about something besides rape; like say, drug charges, or the plight of black men in the justice system… but focusing on rape? Yeah, that kind of lets the rest of us know you don’t care about innocent men. You know why? Because not only is it blazingly unlikely for someone to be charged with rape (if an accusation gets to the police), it’s even less likely that they’ll lose in court. No, you just want to prevent rape law; people concerned with non-guilty parties don’t focus on rape.
Dude, I know this is going to sail right over your empty head, but lowering the standard for evidence in a civil case is what happens with pretty much everything else. You guys need to stop boogeymanning over VAWA, for reals.
Waaaahahahahahaha.
I mean it is, but it’s not one that’s against men. You idiots think not being handed the world is oppression isn’t it? Oh, to be stupid again.
Statement assumes facts not in evidence
LAshing out at random women isn’t ‘defending yourself’.
Satire; one apparently beyond you. And for how much you guys complain about that shit, it was a dude who published it, well after the author’s death.
You know, even a cursory glance at that would tell you it’s not what you want; she was pissed at Andy, and it had nothing to do with anything bigger than “I think he cheated me out of my god damn work as a writer”. I don’t know or really care whether he did, because it doesn’t matter at all about her response (It’s not like him stealing from her would have justified shooting him). I also know it has literally nothing to do with feminism.
Didn’t see that coming 😎
And now, let’s play round #652 of “Ima act like some random rad fem on an obscure radfem forum is just as important to feminism as WF Price, Elam etc”. Never gets old that.
Aw dogs of war, I can’t stay mad at you!
Pfff. I stare at your dogs of war and they run away.
No one is expected to be a mind reader. I’m not sure why people assume they simply have to know things when they approach a stranger or they’ll fail. If you’re at a party or a bar and the woman has a drink in hand, assume she’s had at least one drink or even better ask her if that’s her first drink. Then talk to her. Ask her how her evening has been. Ask her how she knows the host(s) of the party or if she’s at the bar with friends. Ask what kind of work she does or what her favorite drink is. Get to know her first.
Or him if you’d rather date a guy.
And then, I guess if you really want to sleep with that person that night, broach the subject at the end of the conversation. Is she going home with someone that night? Would she be interested in going home with you or letting you visit her at her place?
If you don’t want to sleep with them, but find that you’d like to see them again, ask them if they’d like to meet again sometime. Exchange emails or phone numbers or plan a meeting at a coffee shop or favorite book store or other public hang out.
It’s scary approaching strangers and meeting them cold. But don’t ever assume that you need to read that person’s mind in order to know what’s going on. Talk to them. Communication is the best way to figure out what’s going on.
katz: Dear merciful God, he’s a TEACHER? That or a researcher who’s working on something to do with artificial wombs. That’s what he said was his spare time project when he first showed up.