So for some reason the fellas on the Men’s Rights subreddit are discussing an article by Australian newspaper columnist Clementine Ford in which she expresses her desire to see more dongs on television.
As she notes, there are plenty of boobs on display on HBO shows like Game of Thrones, yet “rarely are we treated to the visual smorgasbord of a well stocked meat platter. ” Ford is sick of it. “So bring on the parade of wangs, willies and woodies!” she demands. “I’m fond of a wand and I’m not ashamed to say it.”
I’m not terribly familiar with the writings of Clementine Ford, but evidently she’s not big on subtlety.
Anyway, the fellas in the Men’s Rights subreddit aren’t having any of it. Nuh uh. They ain’t buying it, ladies! You may write columns about how you want more wang on TV. You may talk about it with your friends. You may have gigantic collections of peen pics hidden away on your hard drive.
But the MRAs of Reddit know better. It’s all some devious feminist ploy, as Steampunk_Moustache helpfully explains.
Huh. That took an odd twist at the end there.
But it’s our old friend Giegerwasright who provides the real answer, in the form of a wall-o-mansplainin’ so giant that I had to shrink the text to even screencap it.
Huh.
So why exactly are women pretending to be interested in seeing more penises on television? So they can point at them and laugh?
Women are such an enigma, especially if you just assume that nothing they ever say is true and that it’s all part of some weird plot to screw with men’s heads.
(H/t to r/againstmensrights for pointing me to geigerwasright’s lovely comment.)
Yup, I reckon bringing “Tom” into the “Cruise” would put the “Death” into “Boner”!
RE: kittehserf
It’s true. His… spirit… would never rise again.
::sporfle::
::snort::
::guffaw::
And regarding the rising of the Holy Spirit… *clears throat, lowers phonograph arm*
“Mine thighs have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord,
“He’s taught me all the fetishes that He has most adored,
“And gone through all the jars of lube that I can but afford
“His spirit rises on!
“GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!”
::dies::
Dammit man, I”m at work here! Plus I have a husband reading over my shoulder!
Well then, I’ve obviously just made your job a lot more interesting, now haven’t I?
And it’s okay. Mine’s reading over my shoulder too. He’s immensely proud of me.
Yes you wretch, and I have to wait hours’n’hours to get home and get to bed this side, then cross over!
😀
Mine just said the same thing. He’s patting my back and laughing under his breath.
David — it’s this study — http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf — starting on page 20~. They insist on using the 12 month data instead of lifetime data, which is weird as the 12 month data has all sorts of issues because of the time limitation, but the lifetime rate is half that of women. Which is way more than “very rare” and plenty to prove that male victimization is actually fairly common (I mean, assuming those CDC numbers line up with 1:5 women being raped, that means 1:10 men are raped, but they have to blame women so they use the less valid number to claim a 1:1 ratio instead of 1:2 ratio >.< )
OT: Things that make me sad. Overhearing the following at work but feeling like I can’t speak up about it: “What’s with this spy who says he’s a woman? What is wrong with him? What a goof.”
🙁
Argenti Aertheri: The lifetime ratio is more like 1:3/1:4, depending on additional assumptions (e.g. how many of those men who were forced to penetrate were also penetrated).
Whether lifetime or 12 month numbers are more relevant has to do with the exact question asked. They’re less accurate in some way, more accurate in others. For example, it seems plausible that men will, over time, be more likely to forget what happened or later think they consented or that it was their fault, as it goes against the standard narrative. Supplementary evidence is that men recall attested instances of child sexual abuse at a lower rate than women do. Furthermore, incidence rates of sexual violence are not fixed in time; lifetime numbers are influenced by what happened twenty years ago, twelve month numbers are not. If, for example, the instances where a man forcibly penetrates a women become rarer each year while the number of instances of women forcing a man to penetrate stays the same (or decreases at a lower rate, or even increases), both numbers would be very different . And there are a couple of other factors that might influence the results: Men in the (stratified and actual) sample were younger (as they are in the population), men who experience sexual violence might die earlier (this is pure speculation) and so on. Interestingly, the pattern for the gender-neutral categories of sexual violence is similar: large differences in the lifetime numbers (two-three times the number of victims), much smaller or even inverted differences in the 12-month numbers.
Of course I don’t want to say that the lifetime numbers should be ignored, but ignoring the twelve month numbers seems quite bad as well.
David: I’ve seen a lot of discussion about these numbers. I haven’t seen a convincing rebuttal yet. It all boils down to some assumptions:
1) Rape is sex without consent, not just penetrating someone without their consent. If one does not agree with this, the whole logic falls apart.
2) Twelve-month numbers are more relevant, because of memory and other issues. This is certainly a debatable point. The best guess is probably that (in relation to one another) the lifetime numbers are too low and the 12 month numbers too high; Other interpretations seem also reasonable enough. It would be best to have more research.
If one accepts 1) and considers 2) to be a valid way of looking at the data, if not necessarily the only one, then, in ~2010, fifty percent of victims of attempted or completed forced sex were men. Most rebuttals deny either or both of those two.
The percentage of female perpetrators requires some additional assumptions that are more speculative, but not completely unreasonable.
See Tamen’s discussion here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/08/14/the-equal-treatment-fallacy/#comment-8208 The following exchange with ildi is also interesting.
Tamen used to comment here (e.g. http://manboobz.com/2012/01/25/quiz-how-did-reddits-atheist-community-responded-to-a-womans-account-of-rape/comment-page-4/#comment-119862); if you have questions about specific parts in the NISVS argument he should be able to answer them.
I actually don’t care about the numbers that much; I would support* a campaign to educate people about male rape victims whether they are raped half or twice as often as women, and no matter who is raping them. (Don’t the CDC numbers completely ignore prisoners?)
Just don’t insist feminists have to drop everything and run that campaign, and don’t pretend that women are worse than men, and we’re fine.
*In fact, I do support this. I donate to Just Detention.
I’ve just looked up A Room with a View on the IMDB and see that it was “unrated” in the US.
Is this because it was never submitted to the MPAA, or because they wanted to give it such a ridiculously restrictive rating on account of a scene with admittedly prolonged but totally nonsexualized frontal male nudity that the distributors thought it was better not to bother with a rating at all?
For the record, it was a PG in Britain, and the equivalent of PG or G pretty much everywhere else in Europe (some countries don’t bother recommending “parental guidance” – either a film’s OK for kids or it isn’t).
“Don’t the CDC numbers completely ignore prisoners?”
I believe so.
I don’t know how much women are, as a group, aroused by the view of a turgescent penis but it’s clear that western women have seemed far more interested the last fifty years by their vaginae : they painted them, they pictured them, they made them talk, they conversed with them and they even deified them to the point that a feminist can now claim that the tissues of her sacred vagina are so sensitive that a sexist joke can easily hurt them and throw the vagina’s owner into depression for six months (it’s not a bad thing when women think with their pussies) without fearing ridicule.
Jean Genet wrote entire books on how much he loves muscular dangerous men and their big sweating phalli during a time when homosexuality was surely more repressed than women’s sexually is at present and I can’t recall the name of a female artist who had painted or wrote an erotic depiction of a cock. It’s certainly because I’m a little bit ignorant but what is sure is that if a TV channel decided to broadcast in prime time in some country of the Anglopuritansphere Jean genet’s un chant d’amour, the churchgoers wouldn’t be the only one to consider that any depiction of a penis is unwelcome, offensive and unsolicited. Maybe the blog’s owner who banned me one day because I posted a Femen’s video saying “there’s plenty of other places in the web to show tits you dissolute pervert” will agree with me.
All joking aside, there’s a real question here : does teh patriarchy try to hurt women’s by trying to force them to watch threatening dongles, depiction of dongles and even snow dongles or does teh patriarchy banned all depiction of penises and repressed women’s desire for seeing dicks in order to make them understand that a woman can’t be anything else than a Male Gaze’s slave?
You’ve forgotten your french acent, Brz.
@Brz: I think the real question is whether or not you even understand what the patriarchy is and how it operates. Or it would be, if you didn’t make the answer so obvious.
Why is “forced to penetrate” used? It makes the male rape victim sound like an active partner, when he’s probably in a state unable to do anything (sleeping or very drunk &c). That why I think rape by envelopment makes a better description of the crime.
talacaris — because the FBI only acknowledge it as possible last year or so? Idfk, but I agree with your logic. (And thank you for not returning to trolling)
Though, while it’s entirely possible he’s in no state to do anything, if he is able to protest it’s no less rape (clarification for the sake of it)
Brz — go away, our troll quota for the day has been met
” I can’t recall the name of a female artist who had painted or wrote an erotic depiction of a cock. ”
@ Brz- Anais Nin?
I’m not going to even try the block quotes thing.
What’s going to happen next? Are we going to start getting more wang on TV because women control everything? Or is the media going to know that no matter what women claim, they don’t REALLY want to see them, and not change anything? Either way, it will be more proof that women are in charge.
Am I the only one who gets the feeling that first guy is trying really hard to compensate for something?
One kind of rebuttal I’ve heard from MRAs about porn-loving females is that they’re frauds. As the Shitty Webcomics tumblr said, if a woman can’t enjoy “2 Girls, 1 Cup” then she is not a true porn fan and is a liar. Also that man-smut fans are “sadists” for what they put and force the guys into. But they’re also frauds since gay smut is mainly aimed at other men.
You could argue they’re “joking”.
Well then, I say if straight guys don’t like Artifice, then they’re not real porn fans.
@crazyladyblues
True, her erotic stuff was co-written by Henry Miller though and it was all for the money and in my opinion the description of the penises in her short stories didn’t impress me as much as the ones of Jean Genet’s novels.
@entropistanon
Me not able to read and understand patriarchy’s definition on 101 feminism blogs because me have the staff of patriarchy between my legs which prevent me to challenge meuh privilege so I need some post-teenager daddy’s girl liberal student to enlighten me and teach me how to not rape women, how the earth revolves around the sun and stuff.