So pickup artist and rape legalization proponent Roosh V has, he says, filed charges against a woman who allegedly threw beer in his face outside a Montreal bar on Saturday night. That’s his right, of course.
But reading the statement he says he gave to police, I was struck by the tone of wounded innocence that runs through it. In the forum post on the subject, sounding a teensy bit like a stereotypical 19th century Southern belle overcome with the vapors, he complains about being “attacked” by the woman and her friends “after I was seduced by a young woman.”
In the statement he says he gave the police, Roosh affects a tone of indignation at the allegedly deceptive behavior of this young Jezebel.
I talked to one girl of the group who gave me the name “Jennifer.” She complimented my beard and general attractiveness and asked me to come outside with her for a cigarette. She is approximately 23 years old, shoulder length hair, brown hair, brown eyes, and slim build. She has a piercing between her nose like farm bulls have.
It’s called a septum piercing. You do live in the 21st century, do you not?
I went outside and sat next to her. She began sensually rubbing her legs against mine. Her skirt was short.
That hussy! Getting him all hot and bothered with her “sexy legs” before tossing a drink in his face.
After the beer-toss, Roosh reports, the alleged assailant and her friends followed him down the street,
yelling vulgar language. One girl yelled, “Eat my cunt.”
Heavens to Betsy! A woman referred to her delicate vagina flower using a very rude word!
Apparently, in Roosh’s world, only men are allowed to use that word. He and his followers certainly use it often enough.
A search on his blog for the word “cunt” returns 305 results.
In a post entitled “The True Nature of Women,” for example, Roosh writes that
within every woman on this planet, regardless of her education or background, is a bitch, a cunt, a slut, a golddigger, a flake, a cheater, a backstabber, a narcissist, and an attention whore that is dying to get out … .
In one called “It’s Your Fault That American Women are Winning,” he demanded of his readers
When was the last time you put an Americunt in her place?
He seems to like that particular portmanteau. On his site Return of Kings, he published a post titled “A Perfect Example Of The Americunt.”
Meanwhile, a post on RoK titled “American Women Are Only Good For One Thing” declares that
[m]ost of today’s women are bitchy, masculine, selfish cunts with inferiority complexes that make them think they want to dominate men.
The sad truth is that decades of feminism has reduced women to nothing more than three holes and a set of tits who are only as good as the orgasms they provide men.
In “Why You Should Avoid Dating Girls Who Claim They Were Raped,” another RoK writer informs us that
[e]ven the most manjawed cunt secretly harbors fantasies of locking down a good man, marrying him, and thereby trebling her disposable income. Chicks will cry rape if it means endless, adoring attention with zero associated cost. But they won’t if they think getting raped renders them unattractive in the eyes of men.
In other posts, RoK writers complain about “empowered femcunt doublespeak,” “Sheryl Sandberg-clone femcunt[s] …who have brought into the myth of office-cubicle empowerment,” and the sad fate of men who have “a cunty controlling bitch of a wife.”
I could literally spend the rest of the day providing more examples of “cunt” usage from Roosh and his friends from his two main blogs. If I started searching his forum as well, I suspect I could be at it for the entire week.
In other words, I’m pretty sure Roosh has heard the word before.
Were any woman to post a police report like the statement posted by Roosh, she would quickly be accused of “damseling” and worse by dozens if not hundreds of MRAs and PUAs and other assorted misogynistic woman-pesterers online.
And they’d call her a cunt, as well.
BUT HE’S A FEMINIST YOU GUYS.
If I were to demand that people give me money because they did something I considered wrong, or, alternatively, took those people and locked them away somewhere for an extended period of time, people would say that I was an extortionist and a kidnapper. How come the courts can force people to pay fines or even imprison them?! Just because of something they did in the past? The past is over now and no justification for taking any action against someone else! Ever! /Sarcasm
Wheeee I can make false equivalencies too!
@Catalpa:
And yet that’s pretty much the argument of sovereign citizens and various other folks who think taxation isn’t real. It takes all types in this world…
Had to be Said? Gotta be trollin’. Know what really has to be said?
FUCK OFF, TROLL.
@Buttercup,
Your poster is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen. You should send a copy to Roosh V to memorialize his Victory! Given his ego, he may not understand that it’s mocking him.
Also, less than 3 dozen guys ≠ “close to 200”, and getting chased out of a bar by a mixed crowd all calling you a piece of shit, after a mere woman has dumped a beer on your wig, in a district where every bouncer has been alerted to your skeezy presence, is NOT a stunning victory.
You know who else once threw a beer? Yeah, that’s right HITLER!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch
Well, ok, he actually started shooting in the beerkeller; but that’s the same thing right?
All,
Fair enough. I will alter the hypothetical scenario to match the known facts more closely.
BACKSTORY: A feminist activist wrote in her blog that she once had sex with a man who was so drunk that in another jurisdiction the sex might have been considered rape. She expressed no remorse for having sex with a very drunk man. This activist had a day job writing dating advice for women that was criticized by MRAs for being manipulative and portraying men as interchangeable objects to be exploited. She also once wrote an essay — received by many of her readers as a Swiftian satire — stating that women cannot rape men and therefore should never be charged with that crime.
Angered by her writing, a group of male and female MRAs formed a plan to confront her in person. The MRAs found her at a bar and they:
–Deceived her by acting friendly to gain her trust.
–Then turned on her and threw beer in her face while repeatedly yelling at her, “You’re a piece of shit!”
–Then formed a small mob and hounded her all the way to the door of the condo where she was temporarily staying.
–Then immediately bragged about their actions online and posted the condo’s street address for all to see, with a note explaining that their target was hiding out at that address at the present time.
So now all of these actions are fine?
A text doesn’t become “Swiftian satire” just because you say it is. Jesus fucking christ.
It’s already been acknowledged that she shouldn’t have posted the address. Stop being stupid on purpose. You’re already plenty stupid by accident.
@Had To Be Said:
A couple more additions:
This was after Roosh tried to pick her up, and tried that whole “kino escalation” thing. It wasn’t like the woman followed Roosh around and approached him just for the purposes of throwing a drink in his face, she just recognized him when he approached her.
The woman posted her comment with the address in response to Roosh’s post. She didn’t “immediately brag about [her] actions online.” Posting the address was bad and she shouldn’t have done it, but this part is still describing the situation wrong. She was clarifying what had really happened in response to Roosh’s mischaracterization.
In general, your description of your hypothetical seems to paint the drink-throwing MRA as someone who had specifically targeted the feminist, as if he had planned out everything from the drink throwing to the following and doxxing ahead of time and went to seduce the feminist for that purpose. That’s not what really happened, and it’s pretty telling that that’s how you think things went down.
It’d be much simpler for you to say “what if the genders were reversed?” But even then you’d have to reverse genders for the rest of society to make the situation truly identical. By then, you’ve pretty much lost any point you were trying to make with the hypothetical, since the hypothetical is no longer distinguishable from the original in any way.
@Had To Be Said
No, because she wouldn’t be a feminist because she fucking raped someone. Rape of ANY KIND is so ANTI-FEMINIST that a feminist who has raped isn’t a feminist.
Had to be Said, are you trying to make it into the NBA? Because that reach is impressive.
Okay, she’s No True Feminist. And neither is any self-proclaimed feminist who has ever had sex with a very drunk person. Granted.
Does she deserve what she got, or does the scenario still have to be altered in some way?
I think your main problem, Has To Be Said, is that you’re treating ideological acceptance (feminist or MRA) as the most important factor here, as if we think tossing Beer at Roosh was fine simply because he is an MRA, and unrelated to any of his actions or personality. That’s just not what we care about here, so your hypothetical is pretty much necessarily going to fail, especially since you seem to think that making the “feminist” in your hypothetical abhorrent to us would strengthen the comparison. It doesn’t.
@Had To Be Said
She fucking raped someone, the very fucking least she deserves is to have fucking beer thrown at her. She would deserve to go to fucking prison for raping someone.
Roosh raped several fucking women so the least he deserves is a fucking beer in the face, even though what he really deserves is PRISON.
HOW THE FUCK DO YOU NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND THIS YOU STUPID PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT.
Had to be said,
If a well known serial rapist who made a living off of teaching other people how to rape approached someone else in a bar they weren’t allowed in the first place and touched them nonconsensually, I would see that person being justified in upending their drink on the rapist, yelling at the rapist, and doing their best to make sure that the rapist didn’t find an easier target to rape. Posting the rapists location online is the only part of that narrative that I would find objectionable.
If you think that’s a morally reprehensible outlook, you can kiss my shiny metal ass.
If a woman were as creepy and rapey as Roosh, and was a notorious figure online like Roosh is, and was trying to speak in Canada to talk about rapey things, and she approached a dude in the creepy way Roosh did, she might warrant a drink in the face.
However, she would not have the same relationship to men as Roosh does to women and feminism. She wouldn’t represent anything grander than herself. Thus, I don’t believe the group of men in your hypothetical would bother chasing her around or calling her names. If that’s what they did, it would be weird and an overreaction.
Honestly, there might not even be any motivation for this big movement against her being able to enter the country. Again, because she doesn’t represent anything larger than herself. She’d just be one awful person, or perhaps the leader of a small group of awful people that nobody would really care about. Cultural context really can make all the difference.
Jesus Christ, of course Had to be Said returns to defend Roosh V. What a brave maverick.
First off, if you’re busy trying to classify this as a “victory” for Roosh, then you’re part of the problem. It’s a good thing that he’s being dragged into the public consciousness; if you’re honestly worried that he’ll appeal to the average bloke, then you’re underlining how much more work needs to be done.
Second off, bad behavior by group B does not diminish bad behavior by group A. Sure, in a perfect world, no one would have a drink thrown on Roosh V. But in a perfect world, Roosh V. wouldn’t be advocating rape. And let’s make one thing clear here: Pouring a drink on someone is far, far less dire than admitting to rape and spreading rape apologia.
Which brings us to point three: Stop calling his rape apologia satire. Stop even pretending it’s satire, stop even giving credence to the jerk-offs who are calling it satire. It’s not satire for a simple reason: Satire mocks a given argument or ideology by taking it to its logical, ridiculous conclusion. If Roosh V.’s “make rape legal” argument is satire, then he’s lampooning himself and his feckless followers.
How To Qualify For Assault Via Cultural Context
Be considered “creepy”
Be considered “rapey”
“Talk about rapey things”
Represent something “grander than yourself”
Had to Be Said, this is you,
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/steven-universe/images/8/81/Frybo_Dancing.gif/revision/latest?cb=20131127224810
an empty suit pushing someone else’s message, powered by forces you haven’t fully examined, because you are incapable of self-reflection and growth. Your presence frankly fills everyone around you with alarm and concern, and yet you are heedless. The dance is all there is.
Dance, trollboy, dance.
Stupid link mess up my flow.
http://37.media.tumblr.com/dc2f8f9fc1187cf60fb4f5dd1676e920/tumblr_mwnh4yQJgs1r34we5o1_500.gif
Here. This is you. You are ridiculous. Stop it. Go away.
I Formally Accuse You Of Wasting Our Time, Had To Be Said.
@HTBS, your arguments have been shut down, so now you’re just using reductio ad absurdum to pretend you totes didn’t fail to prove your argument. Nice job. *golf clap*
Also, don’t ever fucking say “be considered ‘rapey'” about Roosh V. He is not actually just ‘considered’ rapey. He is an actual, bona fide, self-confessed, out and proud rapist. WTF is fucking wrong with you?