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.
kladle — that entire comment is a hilarious way to describe NWO, and excellent Alice reference
PsychoDan — idk, but I spent a while looking at that sideways too, that’s why you should use the widest time frame you can though, so one strange year doesn’t skew the math
Also, this part of my statistics is misworded —
3.4039% of perpetrators were men
2.2961% were women
that should be that 3.4039% of people were victimized in those 12 months by a man, and 2.2961% by a woman, I prefer numbers to word problems >.<
Those 12 months look like an outlier, but I'd need a decade's worth of data to tell, and really have had enough math for one day. (And Arks seems to have stuck the flounce)
And I find it baffling that the obvious solution to not getting laid – i.e. making yourself more pleasant and actually taking a genuine interest in potential sex partners as people – seems to be so completely beyond their comprehension.
But I suppose if you really do think that women are little more than animated pieces of meat that’s going to be an almost impossible stretch.
And it’s an even harder stretch if you’ve bought into the crassly reductive alpha/beta/omega classification system, even though it has next to no relevance to or application in the real world.
I love how Arks follows the assertion that we can’t handle the truth with a reassertion of something he has been repeatedly challenged on, to which challenges he did not respond. What a maroon.
Considering the victim blaming that I see with my own eyes on a regular basis, this is incredibly accurate. The threat of rape absolutely controls women’s behaviors and ability to live freely as men do. And the misinformed knowledge that certain behaviors cause rape are what shame women into secrecy when they are raped because they are told they should’ve known better. Even the MRA GWW blames herself for her own rape and says that she “knew better” and takes partial responsibility.
That, and often fiction is an exaggerated version of reality to drive a point home. I was trying to have this discussion on the imdb boards in regards to a few movies I recently watched but that place is a cesspool of trolls and people who are trying so hard to be ignorant it’s not even worth it anymore. Sucks because I really like to read intelligent interpretations of films.
Anyways, in discussing this film The Woman, people were claiming misandry because the only two male characters did horrible things. How can people not differentiate between fictional characters who are being used to tell a very specific story and the writer’s opinion on men in general?
It’s obvious someone judges the treatment of rape by authorities based soley on episodes of Law and Order: SVU.
People do make jokes about men being raped in prison, yes, this happens. Are feminists making these jokes? Probably not as likely as the general population making them who don’t take rape all that seriously in the first place unless it happens to them. Rape jokes are EVERYWHERE! They’re on pretty mainstream tv shows and movies. And I can guess that the reason a lot of these jokes are like, “I can’t go to prison, they’ll rape me!” is because the idea of being raped is so far from a man’s mind in every day life that it only becomes frightening the moment they consider going to prison.
But the triviality aspect is not about male rape, it’s about rape in general. People who say, “I was raped by my taxes,” or the guy on imdb just the other day who said that women rape men in different ways, like when they manipulate them in general, that’s somehow the same as rape. People aren’t saying, “I was prison raped by those taxes.”
Seriously. I fear saying it as an example of how ridiculous victim blaming is for fear that they’re going to purposely choose to forget the bit where I say, “I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS,” but when MRAs who stand up for prisoners who were raped then say things like women need to take personal responsibility for their clothing choices and actions which “cause men to rape them,” I want to be like, “That’s like saying prisoners are asking to be raped for committing crimes.”
How hard is it to accept that women don’t deserve to be raped for any goddamn reason and that nothing justifies it?
I like how Arks tries to talk about the paranoia of other people when everything reads to him to mean that all men are rapists.
Does he not understand how debunking the myth that all rapists are ugly, desperate losers who are very obviously creepy is important? It’s kind of crucial to not trust or dismiss people’s potential for violence based on their outward appearances.
Argenti Aertheri completely said what I had already typed out about the misrepresentation of stats. But one thing that bugs me is that Arks claims that lifetime stats are unrealiable while using a lifetime state (of the amount of men made to penetrate women) to determine how many men were made to penetrate women in the past year. And, of course, as Argenti illustrated, the study also includes the lifetime stat, “The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators,” which you can’t even factor into the last year.
@Argenti Aertheri
“There is no guess work for Schrodinger’s Rapist.”
follows from assumption then that what’s in the box is always a rapist — except that’s not really how philosophy problems get named, the problem was never about a cat, but about how you can’t know if the cat is alive until you check, you can’t know something until you know it to get philosophical (it is a philosophy problem)”
The philisophical question of Schrodinger’s Cat isn’t if there’s a cat in the box, we know there is. The question is, is the cat dead or alive. The philisophical question of Schrodinger’s Rapist isn’t if there’s a rapist in the box, we know there is.
Is there a cat in the box for the philisophical question of Schrodinger’s Cat?
Its almost like they’re rationalizing shitty behavior…spin hamster spin! 😀
It’s perfectly obvious why Arks wants to exclude the lifetime stats, and use the ones from one particular year only – that’s the only way that he can get the stats to say anything remotely resembling what he wants them to say.
The really ridiculous thing about Arks’ assertions is that if you end up with results that are so wildly counter-intuitive – not to say completely unbelievable – it very much behooves you to check, double-check and triple-check your figures, your sources and your math.
Because the more unlikely your results are, the more likely it is that you’re the one who’s screwed up somewhere.
For a good example of how to do this kind of thing properly, see the scientists who thought that they’d discovered that neutrinos move faster than light in certain circumstances. Quite correctly, they treated their findings with extreme skepticism (unsurprisingly, as they were more than merely counter-intuitive: they actually challenged one of the core principles of physics), and openly encouraged other people to examine them in forensic detail.
Conversely, I don’t believe that Arks did a lick of checking – he was clearly so thrilled about his “discovery” that he decided to treat it as indisputable fact from the start. Which simply made him look all the sillier (and the more contemptibly dishonest) when its shortcomings were exposed in detail.
Thanks for the statistics lesson, Argenti. That study has come up before and it was good to see it discussed in detail by someone whose brain doesn’t melt at numbers.
@Dracula
haha…in the example section on wiki for rationalization, this is one of them:
“It was the patient’s fault. If he wasn’t so (obese, sick etc), this error wouldn’t have caused so much harm.”
switch it up a bit…
“It was the woman’s fault. If she wasn’t so (slutty, drunk etc), this rape wouldn’t have happened and caused so much harm.”
Classic manosphere rationalization. Yet only women rationalize according to those bozos. Actually I would even omit “caused so much harm”. I don’t think MRAs think rape is even that harmful. More like a minor inconvenience from the way they so easily dismiss it.
I’ll also note that Arks did not come up with the whole bit about 12 month data being more reliable than lifetime data. Another MRA visitor to Manboobz who managed to sound far, far less like the crown of his head is glued to his appendix than Arks has a whole article about this CDC study going over such points. I wish I could remember a name or website. All I remember is something about him using the article as a convenient linkable resource in debates.
Tugley — no brain melting, I’m a math geek, I kind of enjoy having bad statistics to tear about. I’m glad that insanely long comment wasn’t just an annoyance.
There’s definitely something strange in the difference between lifetime and 12 month data here, but it’s not obvious from the data. Could just be an anomaly, could be an actual change in something (though, that would basically mean the MRM is pleased more men are being raped because it proves women are violent…which makes feminism’s “stop raping” messages still better >.< )
Yeah, I prefer math, you can do it wrong, but you can really only do is so wrong, not the sort of mind boggling looking glass logic NWO uses.
Arks — ice cream protects you from the flu if correlation is causation, did you want that explained?
Absolutely not – I was hoping someone would go over Arks’ figures in that kind of forensic detail, and I’m very glad that you did!
@Quackers
I dunno, I’ve always thought it would be fun to be The Tick. Blissfully ignorant, but indestructible enough to get away with it 😛
Because only women are at fault if they can’t find a partner. And women are at fault if a man can’t find a partner. Basically, it’s just easier if you remember that women are *always* at fault, in every situation, in every point in history.
@Argenti: *waves hand eagerly* I’d love to hear the ice cream flu thing! (Humanities nerd, does understand correlation not causation!).
kladle–(slow clap)
Really, that was awesome.
*Also waves hand* Ooh! Ooh! Also a humanities nerd, but let me try on the correlation and causation! Okay, how’s this: you rarely catch the flu when you’re eating lots of ice cream. This isn’t anecdotal, there’s widespread correlation: flu season is that time of year when people are least likely to be eating ice cream. Therefore, ice cream protects you from the flu!
OK, going back to read the rest of the comment thread now.
My ice cream repels tigers.
I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Male privilege! Boys being given candy bars, girls denied the candy bars!
[NSFW PICTURE DELETED; ANTZ IS NOW ON PERMANENT MODERATION FOR POSTING IT WITH A DELIBERATELY MISLEADING COMMENT –DF]
Uh, guys, don’t click on Antz’s link. I have no idea what’s going on there, but there’s SO MUCH BLOOD. o.o
Also, it’s NSFW. The hell did you find this, Antz, and what on earth is going on in it?
Also, underage children.
TRIGGER WARNING on Antsy’s picture. It’s graphic.
Apparently Antsy has
descendedascended to the level of people who paste pictures of aborted fetuses to posters and hold them up outside of Planned Parenthood and/or schools.What’s it about, Antsy? Circumcision?
Antz, you know there is a growing movement *against* circumcision, right? Even some women support it!