Here are a couple of, well, let’s just call them very intriguing questions asked of me by a Men’s Rights Redditor. Since I can’t respond to them on the Men’s Rights subreddit — I’m banned — I thought I’d respond here:
Mr. Levelate, allow me to answer your serious questions with some equally serious questions of my own:
I’ve wondered for a long time how people like you react to the men’s rights mantra of ‘all women are wombats’, when you see a woman who isn’t a wombat, how do you explain this?
Also, many MRAs advocate turning all squirrels into bologna, what makes you think squirrel bologna would taste better than regular bologna, and what would the world do with all those extra uneaten nuts, were it ever to come to that?
Here’s the thing, Mr. Levelate: those things you think feminists believe? FEMINISTS DON’T ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEM.
That “all men are rapists” quote from Marilyn French you guys like to pass around? That was from a character in a novel.
The number of radical feminists who seriously want to get rid of men, or a significant number of them, you could probably count on your fingers. I’m not sure how many MRAs want to make squirrel bologna, but the numbers are probably similar. And, fyi, there are actually more than a few MRAs who fantasize about breeding certain types of women out of existence, like this dude on The Spearhead, and a small army of MRAs and MGTOWers who pine for the imaginary future where babies are gestated in artificial wombs and women are all replaced by sexy sexbots.
Listening to MRAs talking about feminism is a bit like sitting in on a book club in which no one has read the book.
Argenti Aertheri – make that thirded (or fourthed? including cloudiah). Condoms are much more effective prevention not just for HIV, but a number of other STIs. And I can think of a certain religious organisation active in that part of the world that disseminates a whole lot of totally fucked-up lies about their efficacy.
The whole “religious freedom” thing is always kind of debatable when it involves another person’s bodily integrity. For example, should a religious fundamentalist pro-lifer be able to stop YOU from getting an abortion because of THEIR beliefs? Should a Jehovah’s Witness be able to dismantle our medical establishments because of their beliefs that no one but God can make you well?
Same thing about circumcision- if you are getting circumcised as a way to signify your pact with God, that’s one thing. But if you are circumcising your children before they can consent to making that pact, then that is infringing on their freedom to religious belief and practice.
So I do think it’s perfectly ok to generally outlaw it for any reason other than religious ones, and in that case, it must be the religious believer themselves who is enacting said thing on themselves.
Because, let’s face it, it’s pretty messed up for people to force religion on other people without their consent.
Nanasha —
“For example, should a religious fundamentalist pro-lifer be able to stop YOU from getting an abortion because of THEIR beliefs? Should a Jehovah’s Witness be able to dismantle our medical establishments because of their beliefs that no one but God can make you well?”
When the not-themself person in question is their minor child, they generally do have that ability (eg parental consent for abortion) — perhaps the problem here is more that religion is opposed to the rights of children?
“Same thing about circumcision- if you are getting circumcised as a way to signify your pact with God, that’s one thing. But if you are circumcising your children before they can consent to making that pact, then that is infringing on their freedom to religious belief and practice.”
Because the timing of it is A Big Deal, that’s not going to go over well with more orthodox Jews, but it seems an acceptable compromise to me — adults can consent, newborns cannot.
“So I do think it’s perfectly ok to generally outlaw it for any reason other than religious ones, and in that case, it must be the religious believer themselves who is enacting said thing on themselves.”
Ehhh, no? Outlaw it except for consenting adults, it doesn’t matter so much why they want it, so much as that they want it. (And this risks sliding into an “are you Jewish?” test, those don’t have a very good history)
“Because, let’s face it, it’s pretty messed up for people to force religion on other people without their consent.” — Agreed, but trying to enforce that would cause outrage.
Yeah, require the informed consent of the adult having it done, and figure out wtf to do about the general issue of religious beliefs conflicting with the rights of children.
– http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20070233,00.html
– http://firewitchrising.blogspot.com/2006/11/yes-its-you-rapist-checklist.html
Why do male supremacists seem to think that “you can’t tell a rapist by looking” and “shit that doesn’t trigger you can trigger others” are completely ludicrous statements? From where I’m sitting they’re common fucking sense. Of course, from where I’m sitting, hating an entire gender just because is stupid, so what do I know?
Of course, from where I’m sitting, hating an entire gender just because is stupid, so, what, do, I, know,?
Factfinder’s People link is broken. I would follow it, but then again the other two links he’s posted recently have fuck all to do with anything so I don’t think I will. Didn’t he used to at least think he had to try to make some kind of point using grammar and logic?
For the fragile flowers.
With love,
IR
Oh, here we go. Now try to make an actual point, FactFinder.
Go on, you can do it if you try.
Have you tried copying and pasting it? I’d explain how the WordPress autolinking process sometimes fudges up links, but it would go over your head.
Pointing out things that can be done to a woman that constitute rape =/= hatred of all men. Also known as fucking duh.
And you’re the one who dreamed up Preggo Punchout, asshat. Don’t even try to pretend you’re not the hateful one in this conversation.
ideologuereview — You also haven’t made anything that could constitute a point, either do so or make your random links about cats or something.
So Laura thinks that if a man and a woman are both drunk and have sex, a rape has occurred and the man alone is the rapist. Well, feminism is a dogma…
Somehow I doubt he’s going to shut up, so I’ll go ahead and redirect the conversation for him.
KITTENS
(Possible trigger warnings for mentions of suicide. Also vomit.)
Factfinder: Here’s the rest of the paragraph you quoted from:
Did you get that, FF? She was angry BECAUSE HER DAUGHTER WAS RAPED. And evidently the rapist was acquitted. Back in 1972, rape was prosecuted even more ineptly than it is today.
Much of that anger went into the novel. But she worked through her anger, because, as she says at the end “Being too deep in anger corrodes your interior.”
Something that MRAs, who have a lot less to be angry about, might want to learn one of these days.
I would copy and paste, but that would involve a few seconds of work for dubious payoff. Making fun of you is more fun than trying to puzzle out if you actually have a point to your random links or not.
Sorry, Preggo Punchout, were you strawmanning? I couldn’t hear you over KITTENS.
@Tulgey I know feminism casts your sadism as a virtue, so I can see where you are coming from.
KITTENS PLAYING PATTYCAKE
“So Laura thinks that if a man and a woman are both drunk and have sex, a rape has occurred and the man alone is the rapist. Well, feminism is a dogma…”
Okay so you got the context of #3 enough to understand the woman is drunk too, but not enough to get that you’ve either found her drunk, or gotten her drunk, decided to have sex with her anyways, and then gotten yourself drunk. That you need booze to rape doesn’t make it less rape.
This would apply regardless of the genders, but logic isn’t ideologuereview’s strong suit. Does he really need to be told that deciding to have sex with someone too drunk to consent is wrong?
Apparently.
But then, this is also the guy who wanted to make a video game based on punching pregnant women. So I’m not surprised.
“I know feminism casts your sadism as a virtue, so I can see where you are coming from.”
That sentence more closely resembles word salad than a sentence, could you please rearrange that so it makes sense?
>.< Ignore me, I got distracted by small kittens and read "casts" as "cats" — he can at least still string a sentence together, even if making a points continues to elude him.
How does one “get” a woman drunk? I always thought people got themselves drunk, but then feminism is about reducing women to the level of children. Maybe they think the ladies are being held down force-fed or something.
Even reading the sentence correctly, it still makes no sense. I mean, the words should work together, but much like all of his arguments, it’s utterly nonsensical.