Yep, that’s right, the “clopping” sound of high heels are a form of “street harassment.” I found the screenshot above on a promising new blog you can find at MensRightsActivism.com. Yep, that’s right. Evidently it never occurred to anyone in the Men’s Rights movement to lock down that domain name.
Oh, this little Reddit screenshot is good too:
How exactly does saying “consent is sexy” mean that male consent is taken for granted? How is it that 59 people thought that comment deserved an upvote?
I can’t answer either question, but there’s lots more hilarious and appalling stuff where that came from, mostly from the Men’s Rights subreddit. It’s going in the “antidotes to boobery” blog roll.
OK 1 in 5 women. I’m talking to so many at once I lose track of who said what. But I was arguing with some dude who was trying to tell me he was in fear of being raped by some crazy Russian woman. But ok I’ll go with your stats. It clearly shows my point that women face a real rape/sexual assault danger, whereas men , unless they are in the joint, have nothing to worry about.
Aside from the fact that it’s wrong, what’s actually wrong with the 1 in 4 figure (assuming you’re not going to be using potemkin math to claim that it means 100% and therefore obviously impossible)?
“But I was arguing with some dude who was trying to tell me he was in fear of being raped by some crazy Russian woman.”
WHAT?! You wanted a case, just one, where a woman was arrested for raping a man, I typed that into google and the top hit was an unlikely case involving spiders. Absolutely fucking no one said that was particularly common, or that they were afraid of that happening to them — you wanted one case, I gave you one case, that it doesn’t meet other, unstated, requirements…well that makes it time for Spot That Fallacy!!
Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
And you should really check that CDC data, or even the link you provided, nearly 1 in 10 men is raped.
One big masquerade party, huh?
Men raped by men, yes. Not women, unless they were at Spidery Lady’s place in Russia
Hershele — his “point” seems to be that men only get raped in prison, while 1 in 4 (or 1 in 5) women are raped, thus men “have nothing to fear”. Ignore me if you wanted a statistical analysis, I haven’t read the book in question and can only speak generally on books as primary sources. (And NWO decided it meant 115% btw)
“One big masquerade party, huh?”
*points to avatar* Yep (I’m an androgynous ninja, which is half true)
“Men raped by men, yes. Not women, unless they were at Spidery Lady’s place in Russia”
Seriously, check that CDC data, rape and made to penetrate are two categories, the majority of the latter is perpetrated by women.
He doesn’t have a coherent point. He’s just bouncing around to try to play gotcha. Poorly, I might add. It’s really bizarre, but kind of amusing.
Ok I’m not going to argue with you. I’m an old man from another generation. And the thought of a woman raping a man is just something I can’t get my head around. I will agree that men are at greater risk of violent crime , such as murder, aggravated assault and so on as born out in FBI stats. I know that most rapes are not reported and that women who report rapes face a tough road. The boys in the Sandusky case were reluctant to speak out. The countless former alter boys raped by Roman Catholic priests over the last 2000 years kept their silence. But American culture has always placed girls and women above boys and men. You can argue that it’s not fair or not right, but it is what it is. Going to Vietnam was not my idea of a fun time, but I did what was expected of me, as did many others. Maybe that way of thinking is not relevant today, but it was for my generation and many, many more before me. And perhaps the next generation on the way will differ from today’s culture. Only time will tell.
It’s not complicated unless you think only the penetrator does something in sex.
Which is why it denied them a vote for more than a century, and continues to pay women like shit, treats things that are feminine-coded as undesirable (Such as the actual work of child rearing)…
Not to belabor the point, but putting aside that women have wanted in on the military for millenia before you were born, and when permitted fight just as tenaciously, but you realize that dudes, as a class, got perks for going to vietnam, right? Even unwillingly.
grampmk: For the love of all things holy would you please either say at the beginning who you’re replying to (like I did here), or quote the part you’re replying to? Because you’re making it really hard to figure out just who you’re addressing our asshole remarks to.
“dudes, as a class, got perks for going to vietnam, right? Even unwillingly.”
Perks? Having employers tell me they didn’t hire combat vets because we were all crazed killers? Yeah employers did that in the late 60’s. Unlike the WW2 vets that fought in the so called good war, we were vilified even by asswipes like John Kerry. No, your books and Google can’t help you here, I was there and lived through this shit.
I’m sorry. This blog is brand new to me and I was losing track of who I was talking to. My last post was to Argenti. Again sorry for the confusion. In the future I’ll address who I am speaking to.
Thank you
Yeah, and I bet the same employers had no problem whatever hiring women, and never ever rejected a female applicant on the grounds of “bitches ain’t shit”. Sure, sure. The late 60’s were just an AVALANCHE of employment and career opportunities for women. So much so that a female attorney at that time would have no problem finding a job as a legal secretary — none at all.
grampmk — this comment was at me?
You’ve got such a jumble of points there that I can’t figure out wtf you’re trying to say. You start with how men are more likely to be assaulted than raped, go on to how rape and sexual abuse victims are unlikely to report it (providing examples from men and women victims, thus implying that the lack of reporting isn’t gendered), and then claim that American culture places girls and women above boys and men. By raping more girls and women? How’s that work?
I can only assume the bit about Vietnam is an attempt to say that men got the short stick with the draft, but I know zero feminists who think only men should be drafted.
I agree 100% with you. You are correct, things were very bad for women in the labor force back then. When I went to high school, we had football, baseball, basketball and track. No sports for the girls. Today my 3 granddaughters all are playing or have played softball, swimming and yes also junior football cheerleaders, and the oldest was a high school cheerleader. All are honor students and have made me as proud as I could ever be.
Yes it was to you Argenti. Sorry I forgot to address it to you. Also sorry my writing style lacks proper composition. I have no training in such things. But I was agreeing with you on your last point. I’ll try to do better in the future.
“But American culture has always placed girls and women above boys and men.”
“When I went to high school, we had football, baseball, basketball and track. No sports for the girls.”
How do those work together? Perhaps you’d like to amend your statement about how American culture always “placed girls and women above boys and men”?
No Argenti, I stand by my comment. I was only stating how things were when I was in high school in the early 60’s, I wasn’t trying to put things together. I am not a trained writer as should be obvious to everyone.
So Gramp, are you going to explain what you meant by this?
Can you point me to the specific part of the VAWA where this change occurred? Or are you still pretending you never said that. I can link back to your comments a third time if that would help.
OK Snowy, fair question. I was talking with too many at the same time on a blog I am brand new to and should have slowed myself down. I did read where the VAWA was anti male and make it possible for a woman that changed her mind for whatever reason after consensual sex to calling it rape. Yeah I don’t have the source material and should have before I made my statement. I am no lawyer and am not qualified to give a legal opinion. If I have time tomorrow, I’ll try to find that source and post it. Thanks
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=254095,00.html
This isn’t novel either, although that is about a currently new measure. There are a thousand benefits to men that are frequently justified in terms of who fights, and far more in the past, despite the fact that women are categorically barred from fighting. THat puts aside more direct benefits, such as citizenship in rome, ruling class status for jannisary, (Terrible-but-free) medical care in the USA, and others.
I’m pretty sure Kerry never once did that, though Bush’s ads claimed he did. It was a point against his presidential campaign, if you’ll recall. And seeing as Bush probably won his second election ‘fairly’, likely not an entirely ineffective one.
Yeah, sure, I believe that you are being completely honest with me, and accurate besides.
Hint: You are not the only human being.
A simple measure that will enhance clarity is to put the following before and after someone else’s words
<blockquote> Other people’s words here </blockquote>
Which does what you’re seeing in other people’s posts.
“No Argenti, I stand by my comment. I was only stating how things were when I was in high school in the early 60′s, I wasn’t trying to put things together. I am not a trained writer as should be obvious to everyone.”
You don’t have to be a trained writer to see that your example about how things where when you were in high school directly contradicts your point about girls and women always being placed above boys and men. So I repeat my question — how has American culture place girls above boys, when girls weren’t allowed to play sports when you were in high school?
And considering Steele/Varpole’s rant about how he can’t write because of misandry, I’m going to guess no one here really cares whether you’re a trained writer or not.
Lots of morons have said that, yes. It isn’t true, no matter how many misogynist fools crow about it.
FFS, VAWA can only be said to be ‘anti-male’ in that dudes commit more rapes. The language of the bill is gender neutral, title notwithstanding.
Rutee “I’m pretty sure Kerry never once did that, though Bush’s ads claimed he did. It was a point against his presidential campaign, if you’ll recall. And seeing as Bush probably won his second election ‘fairly’, likely not an entirely ineffective one.”
I hope my form is to your approval. I watched Kerry on the news in 1971 at the Winter’s Soldier’s Meeting when he testified before Congress. It’s part of the Congressional Record. Look it up, it’s all there.