Well, it took them a little while, but the folks at Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men have finally figured out an angle on the Trayvon Martin case. According to regular AVFM contributor August Løvenskiolds, the whole thing can be blamed on a woman — specifically, Rachel Jeantel, the friend of Trayvon Martin who was on the phone with him just before he was killed.
According to Løvenskiolds, who seems to know more about what happened that night than it is in fact possible for him to know,
During a post-trial interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, Rachel Jeantel, the reluctant phone witness who was talking to Martin just before Martin assaulted Zimmerman, finally revealed that she had warned Martin that Zimmerman might be gay, or even, a gay rapist preparing to approach Martin.
This isn’t news; Jeantel said in her testimony that she told Martin she was afraid the man following him might be a rapist. But Løvenskiolds moves quickly from “sworn testim0ny” to “making shit up.”
Martin freaked out over the idea that Zimmerman might have sexual designs on him or his family, and this seems to have precipitated the attack on Zimmerman – which, of course, would make the attack a violation of Zimmerman’s human rights as a (purportedly) gay man, and make Jeantel the proxy instigator of the attack.
Yes, that’s right, the whole thing was “violence by proxy” instigated by an evil homophobic woman.
Would you like some armchair psychoanalysis to go with your unfounded speculation?
So, Trayvon Martin was killed in the act of gay-bashing (in Jeantel’s and his own minds, anyway). The fury of Martin’s sudden turnabout attack is now explicable (he had been avoiding being followed up to the point of the introduction of the gay rapist idea) and it indicates the degree of Martin’s revulsion that he went from flight to fight mode in so short a time.
And this of course makes it all All About The Menz Rights.
The men’s human rights issues related to a woman (Jeantel) being held blameless for using gay/rape threats to precipitate man-on-man violence ought to be obvious.
It’s always a woman’s fault, isn’t it?
Elsewhere in the post, Løvenskiolds seriously suggests that when a police dispatcher told Zimmerman that “we don’t need you” to follow Martin, that was Super Seekret Man Code for “we actually DO need you to follow him.” No, really.
Such negative suggestions are as clear to savvy men as this: “Honey, you don’t need to buy me roses for Valentine’s Day” – meaning, of course, “if you know what is good for you, I’d better get flowers AND chocolate AND jewelry AND a nice dinner AND…”
The fact that the dispatcher further expected Zimmerman to meet with officers – drafting Zimmerman into the militia, as it were – made it clear to Zimmerman that his continued pursuit of Martin was expected by the police as well.
The societal expectation of militia service by all able-bodied adult males is certainly a men’s human rights issue and an indication of inequality between the genders that needs to be redressed.
MRAs may not be good at much, but they’ve got mental gymnastics down to a science.
EDIT: I added a graf after the first quote from Løvenskiolds clarifying that Jeantel says she did in fact tell Martin that she thought Zimmerman might be a rapist.
Effing blockquotes.
RE: Unimaginative
Yeah, socialkenny’s just batting zero on the history today. CLEOPATRA lost her empire, not him. But hey, that conniving woman totally ruined everything, am I right?
Those conniving women always do. You know, trained from birth and designed by evopsych biology as they are.
Also completely missing: any acknowledgment that the evil beasts mentioned in the bible (snake, leviathan) almost always had the same imagery of contemporaneous goddesses. Yeah, the garden of eden snake was TOTALLY a dude.
I never understood why I was supposed to be mad at Eve in that story. She is the reason human beings can tell the difference between good and evil. Give me ethics over Eden any day.
I was very confused by that as well. I can remember reading the Garden of Eden story in Sunday school probably around age 5 or so, and my takeaway at the time was that, because Eve chose the apple, history happened. If she hadn’t done that, it would have been just Adam & Even in the garden, forever.
So, flash forward to my early twenties, I started learning about feminism, and a shocking number of the books I was reading opened with a story of the author’s pain, her whole life long, at being punished for Eve’s sin. Literally punished. I’m still boggling, twenty-something years later.
Rogan – I loved your comparison (think it was yours and not Mac’s) of masculinity to the big fierce-looking dog that runs yiping into the distance the minute anyone looks at it. Perfect comparison.
Didn’t Cleopatra cause the fall of the Roman Empire by introducing Caesar to buttsex and undermining his manly man manliness? History, dude, history!
RE: Kittehserf
Yeah. I mean, I’ve seen masculinity NOT done in the yipey-dog way, but it definitely is looking more a feature of the PERSON, not the masculinity.
It’s true. And then Cleopatra turned Ceasar into a beta and got on the alpha cock carousel with Mark Antony, laughing while Caesar cried and sat on a hard chair.
(Never mind that Egypt was among the NICER places to be a woman in, if you were stuck in that day and age. Women could actually own property there.)
Just like the last few times, huh? You’ve been told to knock it off, dude. Do so.
The Garden of Eden story is supposed to explain why people grow up. The Garden represents childhood and the apple the physical and mental (Adam and Eve realize they are naked! And they look different!) changes that occur with puberty. They get kicked out cause time doesn’t go backwards-once you grow up (physically at least-hard to consider mras grown ups) you can’t go back to being a child. The fact that Eve was the one to bite the apple explains why women mature (physically) faster than men and have to suffer pain in childbirth.
Hmm, seems I haven’t fed the blockquote monster lately!
Idk, my only fondness for the garden of Eden story these days is that white wolf borrowed it to make Cain the father of all vampires (by all the gods, no really, all of them, is oWoD, and probably nWoD so much more interesting if you know your myths and religious legends)
LBT — I realize this is a completely different MST, but whichever of you (or the IS folks) was comparing Grey to predatory animals was hilarious.
@ LBT
I both thank you and curse you for introducing me to the G0y subculture. Did you see the (multiple) part(s) where the guy who runs the cockduelling site claims that wanting to perform frottage with other men is part of the one and only True Masculinity? It’s a perfect inversion of classic homophobia – men who don’t want to rub up on other men are now officially unmanly.
This is appropros of nothing, but I just stumbled on a graphic definition of the various forms of asexuality — http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/asexual-spectrum_n_3428710.html?1371648467
…I may have to print that for the next time my psych acts like my refusal to date is some obvious sign that I need massive help for my interpersonal issues. Like, I’m not interested, I am not upset by this, so why is she? (And seriously, there’s a reason I don’t date, I want your BRAIIINNS isn’t a good strategy with most people)
If it’s not bothering you, why is this something that your psych feels like she needs to address? I know I’ve said this before but I think you need a new therapist, because this one seems to have boundary issues.
Because it’s yet another thing that’s probably related to my history of trauma (ok, and so what if it is?)
And yeah, it’s looking like I’m going to need to get all hopped up on Ativan and call the insurance hotline thing (FTR, all hopped up here means 2/3~3/3 my allowed daily dose). The nonsense we discussed over email was kinda the last straw. I mean, I emailed the rantier version to pecunium when I first got back from the appt, and his reply? Do I want him to come up and explain wtf their appt’s do to me (I’m making a habit of coming back from my psych appt’s and doing an emotional dump on him)
In any case, primary sexual attraction and I are rarely in the same room, and I’m fine with having friends and not romantic partners (I am a cuddle slut, but that’s only semi-relevant) and hey, friends! *waves* hi guys!
She seems to want to push you into sink or swim situations in general, and although that’s one way of handling things (person is scared of spiders? make them sit in a room with one!), the fact that it seems to be her method of choice in most situations concerns me.
“…I may have to print that for the next time my psych acts like my refusal to date is some obvious sign that I need massive help for my interpersonal issues.”
Like Cassandra said, you need another psych. This one’s just another bullshit artist.
Fuck her, I’m fifty and never dated, never experienced primary sexual attraction with in-the-flesh persons, and am happy as a cat on ‘nip with that arrangement. Since when does dating indicate mental health? And what’s with the deriding of friendship? It’s like the NiceGuys(TM), like being someone’s friend without sex being involved is some huge horror at worst and just second-rate at best.
Why are so many shrinks unfit to psychoanalyse a flea …
I’m picturing her counseling the Dalai Lama.
“So, you said that you’re a monk and that means you don’t have sex, nor do you attempt to date women. Is this about your mother? Was she very cold to you when you were a child?”
*shakes head in amazement*
If I remember my Roman history correctly (and it’s been thirty years since I studied classics, so I may have become hazy on the detail) the republic had been in trouble long before Cleopatra came on the scene. While the senate didn’t like Julius having so much power they put up with him until there was a viable alternative. They needed him and they needed his military genius and they needed his wealth. Julius didn’t “lose” his “empire” because of Cleopatra, he never had one in the first place. When Octavian showed up he was just what they were looking for. He was Julius’ heir, was an equally brilliant general and had bags of personal charisma. After Actium they begged him to become (I think the term was) Pater Patrii and gave him the title of Imperator as weasel words to avoid calling him king (they really didn’t like the idea of an hereditory monarchy) I’m sure Octavian had organized the whole show but the Senate accepted him, even if they had reservations. The ironic thing is that in trying to save the republic the senate was instrumental in destroying it and giving total power to one man. Augustus, for his time seems to have been a reasonable person and a good leader. They weren’t so fortunate in succeeding generations.
The republic would have fallen with or without Cleopatra, who, to me, seemed to be doing the best she could to protect Egypt’s independence and not some kind of evil femme fatale, luring men to their downfall. She was certainly a complicating issue but to suggest that 1. The Roman republic was Julius’ empire and he could somehow lose it is just silly. He was powerful but he was never emperor or that 2. She somehow managed to destroy the (non-existant) Roman Empire shows that SocialKenny has no clue about Roman history and, if genuinely interested should probably seek out a reputable history of the period, rather than relying on movies and NatGeo specials. There are many good texts out there and they aren’t hard to find.
And to compare her to Ms Jeantel is equally silly. She was on the phone with him and was afraid for his safety. A fear that turned out to be perfectly justified.
Agenti Aertheri said:
“…I may have to print that for the next time my psych acts like my refusal to date is some obvious sign that I need massive help for my interpersonal issues. Like, I’m not interested, I am not upset by this, so why is she? (And seriously, there’s a reason I don’t date, I want your BRAIIINNS isn’t a good strategy with most people)”
If you aren’t interested and are fine with that why is it any of her business? There isn’t a problem as long as your happy with the state of affairs, or lack thereof!
Cassandra – I find myself wanting to have a session with this alleged psych just to mess with her head.
I shoulda known y’all would jump all over socialkenny and his historical misperceptions.
I wish I could say that his notions are bizarre, but sadly they’re very common.
I would just like to add that Julius Caesar didn’t have an empire, and Cleopatra didn’t bring it down. The empire was Augustus’.
RE: CassandraSays
I’m afraid the g0ys have stolen my snarky heart. I haven’t looked at the Cockrub Warriors guy since, really. I’m totally unsurprised though. They are incredibly self-righteous and self-conscious about their preference in sexual acts.
RE: Seranvali
Pretty much. I mean, Rome isn’t my strongest point (I mostly wanted to learn about Carthage, Egypt, and Judaea) but from what I’ve read, Cleopatra was pretty much desperately trying to juggle everything to keep Egypt out of Roman hands. Considering she had at least two siblings who wanted the throne, plus Roman intrigues, PLUS varying levels of support at home, I think she was pretty clever to have lasted so long. She was dealt a bad hand at the start, and she played well, but there’s only so much you can do in that kind of situation. Egypt was the bread basket of the ancient world; keeping the Romans away was pretty much a doomed enterprise.
Seriously, socialkenny probably couldn’t have chosen a worse subject in history, except for maybe contemporary Judaea.
You guys are forgetting that Kenny is a PUA, therefore he believes that if he states any sort of ridiculous nonsense in an authoritative enough way women will be fooled by his manly alpha confidence into assuming that a. he knows what he’s talking about and b. we should offer him a blow job. Because alpha, that’s why.
The reception he’s getting demonstrates why, if you’re a lonely guy in search of dating help, PUA is really not the smart way to go.