If you ever need proof that Men’s Rights Activists live in a world of their own, check out this, er, argument, found in a posting on A Voice for Men UK, the official British franchise of the American hate site we know so well :
All women are homophobic.
Whether the men being prejudiced against are gay or not is kind of beside the point – after all, ‘homo’ = man, ‘phobia’ = fear, therefore: ‘homophobia’ = Fear of Man – but, if you want to quibble over Greek & Latin etymology, perhaps we can at least agree on this: all women, to a greater or lesser extent, display the ‘symptoms’ we attribute to said condition: overt caution, fear &/or disdain of men.
Yep, that’s right. In order to find an excuse to call women “homophobic,” they’ve invented an entirely new definition for the word not based in any way on the actual etymology of the word “homophobia” (which is of course derived from “homosexual”) but on something they’ve just made up.
By this logic, the word “homosexual” would not mean “of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex” but rather “man sexual.” If we take this to mean “attracted to men,” this would suggest that all straight women with sex drives would therefore be homosexual as well. Brilliant, A Voice for Men UK.
The author of the post then uses this weird logic to make excuses for actual homophobia among straight men:
Female ‘homophobia’ is so normalized in our society that treating every man you meet like ‘Schrödinger’s Rapist’ is considered an ordinary, common sense fact of life – just so long as you are a woman. But if a man feels at all uncomfortable around another man sexually, he is presently branded an evil bigot for behaving the way all women do at all times.
A Voice for Men: they reject your reality, and substitute nonsensical unreality that allows them to say bad things about women.
Kitteh — cuz I didn’t know, that’s how!
And yes P-A:N(C) is serious, and I recommend reading that FBI link for a damned clue wtf he’s on about. Nothing to do with our “corporations have the rights of people” thing, but rather some REALLY FUCKING WEIRD shit about how people’s names, as used legally, represent some uh, shell company and it all gets really sci-fi from there.
Oh for the love of…MRAs, those stalwart champions of the rights of men and boys who’ve been sexually assaulted, are arguing that there’s no difference between having sex at 15 with another teen, and being “seduced” by your mother’s friend at the same age.
Women like it, therefore it must be totally wrong about everything, even this one thing that we ostensibly agree with (adults “seducing” teen boys is wrong)
I give you TWILIGHT WITH CTHULU! http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/team-nchick/50-shades-of-green
Twilight with Cthulhu kind of works.
Hey, if anyone wants to do some statistics crunching, typhonblue seems to be encouraging the misters to brigade their own thread on the gender division of rape victims. Original thread with stats is in her post.
“3) Here’s another study: http://www.ejhs.org/volume5/deviancetonormal.htm The conclusion states, “the evidence presented here shows that as many as 7% of women self-report the use of physical force to obtain sex, 40% self-report sexual coercion, and over 50% self-report initiating sexual contact with a man while his judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol”.”
*twitches* what’s your population that that sample is drawn from, cuz I have serious doubts that 97% of women are rapists.
“Anderson (1998, 1996), presented self-reported prevalence rates for women’s sexual coercion of between 25% and 40% and for physically forced sexual contact between 1.6% and 7.1%. Of perhaps greater significance was the women’s self-reports of engaging in a classic date-rape scenario – taking advantage of someone who was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. When asked about initiating sexual contact with a man when his judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol, between 32% and 51% of the women said that they had. Further, between 5% and 15% of women reported giving a man alcohol or drugs in an attempt to have sexual contact with him.”
Oh, do that’s how you get that. Add the high end numbers — 40 + 7 + 51 + 15 = ummmm, 113% of women are rapists? Yeah, those categories are not mutually exclusive. So pretty much, this is useless as combined data. All you can get out of it is exactly what it says and I find it sketchy that typhonblue is citing a paper citing that data. In any case, the worst thing you could claim without violating the laws of physics and resulting in 113% is that half~ of women have initiated sexual contact with a man who’s judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol.
Also, she’s citing someone citing it, and using the high end as if it were the definitive number. And without a definition for “his judgement was impaired”…yeah, I need the original study on this one, but her use of it is sketchy.
The main point though? It’s all relying on the CDC 12 month data because it has to be more accurate than the lifetime!!11!!! And that one…Ally has a nice concise rebuttal, got a link for it Ally?
Having listened to P-AN:(c)’s rant, I find it illuminating he things all men are incredibly stupid (except himself, of course).
Darn! He ‘thinks’ they are – maybe he’s negging his potential readership in some incredibly apha move…
Argenti, should those numbers (7-40-50) really be added together though? Presumably the same women are answering “yes” to multiple questions?
I am bad with stats, though, and should probably just sit it out. Email me if you need access to anything that’s paywalled and I’ll see what I can do.
Well, the leap of logic they took here is … strange.
*goes back to catch up on comments*
Yes, I did. And I immediately checked him out on IMDB because I’d never heard of him. I found out he was in an episode of Foyle’s War that I haven’t seen, and in a Torchwood miniseries.
I am waiting to see how he does with bated breath.
The second thing I saw was someone saying OMG Ruined 5ever!!
I gotta stop hanging out on Who-hate Tumblrs.
Crud, I forgot, Capaldi was in the Who episode “The Fires of Pompeii,” the same episode that Karen Gillan was an extra in before she was cast for Amelia Pond. So that’s one ascended extra and one ascended guest star for that particular episode.
Four for you, Fires of Pompeii. You go, Fires of Pompeii.
I note that he’s also in World War Z, playing, amusingly, someone known as W.H.O. Doctor.
Falconer – if you want to see Peter Capaldi in action, check out the BBC series of The Adventures of Tom Jones (the one with Brian Blessed as Squire Western). He plays Lord Fellamar and is the last word in skeeviness – great part.
How could I say no to BRIAN BLESSED! ?
Also it looks like I need to check out The Thick Of It.
@falconer
That’s just really…weird. I’m not following the logic they use to get there, and I probably don’t want to.
@kittehs
XD cant stop laughing.
@cloudiah
Oh that sucks 🙁 All the internet hugs that you want from me.
@pineapplecookies
You don’t need to lurk. You could join us on the darkside. We have kittens :3
@Ally
I vote porno. It’s a too hilarious title to be used on an MRA film. Plus not long and boring and confusing enough.
@Ally S
Seconded. Idk about citrus fruit but most sweat I don’t think smells bad. Some can smell quasi nice to me. My only beef with sweat is I don’t like touching people when they’re so sweating they’re dripping.
“Argenti, should those numbers (7-40-50) really be added together though? Presumably the same women are answering “yes” to multiple questions?”
No, because yes, they could (and apparently did, since 113% is impossible). I half want to see the methodology on that, and half don’t care. It’s a, at best, badly worded footnote to a bunch of stuff that only works if you immediately throw the lifetime data out the window because men in particular are less likely to recall traumatic experiences from longer ago. With a citation I have no desire to dig up and was not in any way explained.
Assuming the 12 month data is not included in the lifetime data (which would make sense) then, in theory, the lifetime data could be less than the 12 month data, but it’d take some exceptional weirdness. Either men are really, really, really horrible at recalling lifetime data, or there’s something else up with the 12 month data. Because lifetime data? That’s everything 13+ months ago. Only the MRM would argue that there’s that big a gap in male recall between last year and the year before, that number is MUCH bigger than the lifetime data, which is, of course, why they use it.
Anyone know if there’s another one of those CDC studies available, with the same questions? You’d need at least two sets of 12 month data to tell if it’s recall related or just a really off year.
Am I making sense? Can Ally please link to her rebuttal of using 12 month data?
@Argenti
Here you go: http://mellowness.dreamwidth.org/14991.html
Note to anyone who might be tempted to link to it in a r/mr thread: please don’t. I’m not against criticism, but I really don’t want to deal with trolls.
Argenti: I’m curious; how can the lifetime data be lower than the 12-month data? Do you mean that the per-anuum rate acquired from the lifetime data is lower than the rate from the 12-month data (or, to put the same thing the other way, that the lifetime rate estimated from the 12-month data is higher than the rate from the lifetime data)?
Sovereign Citizens are like ceremonial magicians, looking for the cheat codes to Reality. “If I use this typeface and these phrases, the universe will bend to my will!” It would be entertaining to watch one in a courtroom: “That is an Admiralty flag, and I am only bound by the common law!” expecting the judge, attorneys and bailiffs to wilt like vampires before a crucifix.
Which, I bet, is not what happens.
Falconer – Brian Blessed is THE BEST in that series. He’s at full rant a lot of the time and I fall over laughing every time I watch it. It also has the wonderful Frances de la Tour as Aunt Western – they’re perfect together.
I got the title wrong – it’s The History of Tom Jones, not the Adventures.
And OMG I just saw Sylvester McCoy was in it! Didn’t recognise him under the wig. Doctors past and future!
Is it a wig that incorporates bird poo? Because his Radagast wig has an enormous poo streak and I am so not into that.
@Robert – “Sovereign Citizens are like ceremonial magicians, looking for the cheat codes to Reality. ”
Whereas what they really need is a code to return to reality.
Not unless bird poo was a component of the powder used on wigs in the 18th century …
Katz — if recall drops off sharply enough, and close enough to “one year post incident” then it could happen, but I’d still expect the numbers to be fairly close. E.g. if ~80% recall the incident at 11 months and ~20% recall it at 13 months then it’s possible the numbers could come out fairly close, or the lifetime a bit lower. But it’d need pretty much no recall of incidents more than a year or two ago.
Let’s see if I can work out an example?
Assume, for argument, that 12% of men are raped via forced penetration annually, this is table across their lifespan, and only ever occurs once (yeah I’m seriously oversimplifying here). So that’d be 1% monthly, we can assume that incidents from the last month would have nearly 100% recall, but after that? Totally pulling this out of my ass here — but let’s say it drops 5% monthly, that is, for every month that passes since their rape, 5% less men recall it.
So 2 months later 95% recall it, 3 months 90%, etc. 5 * 12 = 60 so a year later only 40% of men recall it. Ok, that’d work out to…8.7% of men reporting a rape within the last year. If the recall rate somehow magically starts dropping 20% monthly at the 12th month, and 12 month data isn’t included in lifetime, then no men would recall rapes from 14+ months ago, and less than 1% would recall rapes from 13 months ago.
And men would have really strange recall abilities.
In reality land, it should always be higher unless something really fucked up happens, like, if war breaks out and rape is used as a weapon of war, then the data for the first year of said war could well exceed lifetime data. But, uh, nothing remotely like that occurred.
The other option, and I’m going to get shit for saying this, but the extreme drop in recall ability, down to next to nothing in under two years? It’d make sense for non-traumatic events, or rather, events that aren’t traumatic enough to linger long. Now, obviously not all men find rape via penetration a forgettable occurrence, to the lifetime data would be approaching zero.
TL;DR // too much math — the lifetime data could be lower if recall drops to nearly zero, such that 12 month data means more like 3 month data (that is, if the time IMMEDIATELY before the survey is recalled with WAY WAY better clarity than things in the not so distant past, it’d make sense)
For a completely shitty example, ever trip over your shoelaces? Unless it was recently, you just shrugged right? Clearly not comparable the tape, but should make the point I’m trying to get across about recall ability.
Why men’s memories would be so shitty…either testosterone impairs recall, or rape via penetration isn’t usually traumatic enough to be remembered long term, or something really fucking wonky is going on.
Completely OT, but I just found something out and I had to share it with you guys.
I was looking up coccyx pain and its causes and treatment and look what I found:
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/coccydynia/hic_coccydynia_tailbone_pain.aspx
http://www.wikihow.com/Alleviate-Tailbone-Pain
FIVE times more common in women! Tom Martin is FULL of it. (As if we didn’t know that already).