UPDATE 10/25/16: If you’ve come here after reading about a petition to cancel screenings of The Red Pill, I ask you to NOT sign any such petitions. It’s just free publicity for them. Read more of my thoughts on the matter here.
Dear Cassie Jaye,
Congratulations. You surpassed your Kickstarter fundraising goal yesterday, more than two weeks before the Kickstarter campaign was scheduled to come to a close. You’ve funded the postproduction work on your long-delayed documentary on Men’s Rights activists, and then some.
But I’m not sure that the person I should be congratulating is you. Last night Paul Elam of A Voice for Men – the central subject of your film – was doing his own victory lap online. And no wonder, because he seems to be the real victor here.
In a post on his site that managed to be giddy and vindictive at once, he offered his congratulations to you, then, well, to himself. “Even though the victory goes to Ms. Jaye,” he wrote, in an awkward attempt at modesty, “I have the need to offer up some thanks.”
And then he spelled out why he thinks your “victory” is really a victory for him.
For the past six years AVFM has had mud kicked in its face by a corrupt, left-wing media. Bottom feeders like Adam Serwer, Jeff Sharlet and Mariah Blake have performed endless unscrupulous acts, directly lying to their readers in order to attack AVFM, this movement and me personally.
Their work was not just to harm me, or to damage a website but to make sure if they could that the message we carry never found its way to the larger public. Their intent was and is to paint an indelible stain on all of us so hideous that we would never be taken seriously by enough people to matter.
They have failed, and I can now predict that they have failed miserably.
In other words, Paul Elam thinks he and his friends in what he ludicrously calls the “Men’s Human Rights Movement” have bought and paid for a feature-length advertisement for them.
And it’s not hard to see why Elam – and the other manospherians who’ve rallied around your film in recent days — think this. After all, they are the ones who have rescued your film from oblivion by pouring tens of thousands of dollars into your Kickstarter.
And all it took for you to unleash this torrent of money was an interview with one of the sleaziest figures in right-wing journalism, Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart.
In the interview, posted on Monday, you complained that “I won’t be getting support from feminists. They want a hit piece and I won’t do that.”
There was more than a little bit of irony in the fact that you were saying this to a man infamous for his many hit pieces on so-called “Social Justice Warriors.”
You also complained about an intern on your film who, you said, “had a lot of crying attacks and emotional experiences. She claimed everything I was showing her was triggering her.”
A young feminist “triggered” and crying. This is red meat to the Breitbart crowd, and I have to assume you knew this when you told Milo this story.
To an outside observer like me, this shameful pandering looks a lot like a Hail Mary play on your part. Having failed to convince most potential funders of the film that you would present anything close to an accurate picture of the Men’s Rights movement, you told Breitbart what its readers – and the broader manosphere – wanted to hear.
And it worked. Men’s Rights activists, self-professed “Red Pillers” and other assorted antifeminists rallied around your film, and the money started flowing.
On Reddit, the moderators of the Men’s Rights subreddit “stickied” an appeal to donate to your Kickstarter to the top of their front page, urging MRAs to open their wallets in order to show skeptics that “we can take part in some actual activism and not just post stuff in here.”
Even the regulars in the violently misogynistic Red Pill subreddit agreed to help bankroll your film.
And it wasn’t just Men’s Rights and “Red Pill” Redditors who organized support for your film. One right-wing Red Pill blogger, notorious for his harassment of ideological enemies, pledged to match donations up to $10,000, describing your documentary as “the Movie SJWs Do Not Want You to See.”
Meanwhile, on her blog, AVFM’s “social media director” Andrea Hardie (an internet bully better known under her pseudonyms Janet Bloomfield and “Judgy Bitch”) not only rallied her readers around your Kickstarter but also set up a gofundme of her own, raising money in hopes that it would buy Breitbart’s Yiannopoulos a producer credit in your film. (I hope that is out of the question, even if she raises more than the paltry amount she’s raised for this purpose so far.)
And then there was Elam himself, on Twitter, calling on his followers to, in his words, “Help fund #RedPillMovie because fuck feminists!”
https://twitter.com/AVoiceForMen/status/658700057311506432
Accepting money from these people would seem to be a pretty clear violation of the principles you set forth in your own Kickstarter video, in which you declared that
in order to keep this film non-partisan, and respectfully show all sides to this debate, we won’t accept funding from organizations that inevitably have biased agendas.
Instead, you have chosen to take money from people who see your film as a chance to say “fuck you” to feminists. You have chosen to take money from the actual subjects of your film.
You are making a film about Men’s Rights Activists, funded to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars by Men’s Rights Activists. You are making a film about A Voice for Men funded in part by A Voice for Men.
Does that not trouble you at all? It should. In your interview with Breitbart, you noted that “films that support one side and act as propaganda do better than those that try to have an honest look.”
You said this, presumably, to set yourself apart from such propagandists. Now you seem to have cast your lot in with them.
Which I suppose makes sense, since the clips of your film that you’ve posted online so far look a lot more like propaganda than they do like any sort of honest look at the Men’s Rights movement,
I felt uneasy about your project from the start, concerned that you had been pulled in by the soothing but misleading rhetoric that MRAs spout when they are trying to sound more respectable than they really are, rather than on what MRAs actually say and do when the cameras are off of them.
But I knew you had a good reputation as a filmmaker, and heard good things from several feminists who knew you better than I did. So I held my tongue and tried my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when you posted clips from your film that portrayed AVFMers as heroic underdogs rather than the misogynists and malicious harassers that they really are.
When I wrote you a little over a week ago with some of my concerns, you assured me in the phone call that followed that the clips you had posted were only part of the story, that you were well aware that the MRAs you had interviewed were on their best behavior when talking to you, and that the real story of the Men’s Rights movement is far less rosy-hued. Against my better judgement, I continued to hold on to some kind of hope that you would live up to your reputation in the end.
And now, frankly, I feel like I’ve been played.
Unfortunately, it looks like you have been played too, much more spectacularly than I have. I suspect you are doing far more damage to your reputation than you even know.
One thing I have learned in five years of watching, and writing about, and dealing with, the Men’s Rights movement, is that if Paul Elam is happy about something, that thing is almost certainly terrible.
I suspect, sadly, that you will ultimately learn this lesson yourself, the hard way.
PS: In our phone conversation, you suggested that if you were able to fund your film, you might be able to finally film the interview with me that we originally had planned to do, but which fell through due to financial and other practical obstacles during the original filming of The Red Pill. At this point, I am sorry to say, that is completely out of the question.
What is it with Ratboys* thinking that they can have an opinion on a topic even if they know nothing about it? That’s basically the opposite of intellectual humility.
If you ask me about stars, I will have an opinion because that’s what my PhD was in. If you ask me about South Africa, I will have an opinion because I’m from there. If you ask me about most other things then all I can do is to repeat the opinions of mainstream authorities whom I trust, because that’s what intellectually honest people do. Anything else is just entitlement.
If you want to talk about a topic, read about it first. Otherwise you sound like someone not worth taking seriously… which in this case is true.
—-
* Neologism. Portmanteau of Rational Boys. You heard it here first.
I first heard of Andrea Dworkin from one of my favourite old law professors. He’d achieved some minor academic fame with a paper called “Dworkin not Dworkin” which somehow tied in Andrea’s work with that of Ronald Dworkin the legal philosopher. I just googled to see if I could find it, and was a bit saddened to find out he’s recently passed away. Cliff was a right old Commie though and I’m glad to see that for his funeral they arranged a trade union march.
http://www.londonmetunison.org.uk/2015/12/cliff-snaiths-final-march/
*sniffle*
I’m still laughing at the troll’s first post feigning shock and horror that we dare say that the Venn diagram of white nationalists and the manosphere pretty much looks like this
Then the second post using Lauren Southern as an example of an attractive feMRA.
@John Devalle
Until you comment substantively addresses David’s reasons for not debating Cassia you opinion on the matter is purely subjective and useless. Point to an object to be useful
Please quote the section where David mentions Trump and support by angry white males. Again I would like to be as objective as possible.
There is a difference between violence by women towards people that are male/men, and violence directed because they are men/male. You do not make this distinction.
Fix these things.
@Jerry Donahue
“…its pointed out that men are massively behind women in every area…”
Literally untrue. Until you can avoid what us hyperbole at best and straight up lies at worst this white male is unwilling to take you seriously.
As for the rest of your piece if you have seen people say the things you paraphrase you have seen people say why they believe such. You should already be talking in specifics about why people patriarchy hurts men but you aren’t. Probably for the same reasons you have to type dishonest things like the above.
Have the courage to quote someone typing or saying the things you claim.
@Philip Fairbanks
Are you aware that you have not quoted a strawman? Identify who you are responding to
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/mlp/images/4/48/Fluttershy_stops_her_Stare_S4E07.png
wut
I hope that during all the hubabaloo everyone had a moment to appreciate Niles’ comment (just before John Davalle’s first) where he suggests this site be renamed as the “Cuckistani Goof Agency Newsletter.” I love it. If it was only absurd and not also racist I would be incorporating it into my ‘nym right now.
I saw that too. It was glorious. I wish he’d come back. I want to ask him if he thinks we’re an agency of Cuckistani goofs or if thinks there’s a Goof Agency with bureaus all over the world and this is the newsletter from the Cuckistani branch.
@wwth
Re: page 18
If this post is linked somewhere and attracts periodic trolls it does not come up in Google search results. It could just be irrational people used to being socially dominant who can’t stand to see their social opponents get the precious last word. The multiple trolls could be planned back-up or seeing fellow travelers getting criticism.
@Viscaria
I saw it. It would have been fun dragging the things they could only express with insults out of them. They are all feeling and no substance but that one is categorically different. If I get some weed in my system later I may try something.
@Scildfreja
?
Me or version #7548 of the usual representitives of social bigotry.
@Brony, my dear, that was not at you! Just more of a “oh gosh this thread again” comment. You’re as incisive and accurate as ever!
@Phillip Fairbanks,
(Procedural note before I begin: when you reply directly to someone via email instead of following through, it makes it incredibly hard to follow. Your posts don’t show up properly in the Recent Posts list, and it messes with the general flow of things. If you’d like an actual discussion on something, it’s best to just use an @ in front of the persons’ name you’re talking to (for clarity) and to wrap any quotes in blockquote tags.)
Hello! Welcome! I’m gonna reply to a few slices of what you’ve said here. I’ll try to be brief; soul of wit and all that. Also, we’re all busy people, so I’ll try to respect that.
First, accusations of you being a troll. So far you haven’t written anything that hasn’t been written before by your average “both sides are wrong” troll, so that’s why some people have called you a troll! The typical entry is:
a) “I’m new to this whole ‘mra/feminism thing’,”
b) “Looks to me like you’re as violent and angry as you’re accusing them of being,”
c) Some mention of something being a strawman argument (not sure why this is always there, but it is,)
d) “I’m not against women’s rights, but they have good arguments too.”
I’m not suggesting that you didn’t come to these positions honestly, and that you’re lying! I am suggesting, though, that we’ve seen this an awful lot. It’s generally a pattern of someone who recently discovered MRA figureheads and are starting to swim with those fish, as far as I’ve seen.
Specifically, you ran across a link in an MRA blog as you were reading through, came across this site, clicked through, and then dug in. My duck, this is not the way to come to a good opinion on something! If you are a journalist then you must hold yourself to a higher standard of skepticism and objectivity – an impossible task considering how the brain works, but still you need to do this!
Let me peel apart some of the layers of this onion we have here. A few of your lines;
Yes! We do! Specifically, we believe that family courts must consider the needs of the child first and foremost! Mothers and fathers should be considered equally beneath those needs. Case in point, I have a guy friend who is going through a messy custody battle right now – and I’m thrilled to say that he’s won full custody! He won this by guaranteeing that his child is guaranteed to go to school, have regular and healthy meals, have to do chores, have interactions with other children, and have a good relationship with his father while under his care.
I’m not suggesting that you don’t provide those things; not all courts are good or equal. But we, as feminists, think that this is the way to go. Equality between parents, beneath the needs of the child.
http://i.imgur.com/O6OYgsM.gif
You’re right, we agree! The distinction between these things can be tricky, and egos often get tangled up here. Feminists acknowledge that men have issues! Quite often, those issues are due to the same social structures that oppress women! It’s also important to recognize that women participate in those patriarchal structures, too. The terrible wheels of society keep grinding along, and everyone’s crushed under them.
One side in the MRA/Feminism divide has a robust, testable, time-tested and diverse theory on why these discriminations and biases happen to both men and women. That theory is supported by studies and literature that goes back almost a century, with a deep and diverse body of thought and active participation amongst its various branches. Can you guess which one it is?
(also, that’s not a false equivalency you’re protesting, that’s a zero-sum equation :D)
Interesting you accused us of arguing with a strawman argument, scarcely a paragraph about this one. So much delicious linguistics here! I could write a thesis on it.
“I find it funny that”, when found in an argument or debate, is an immediate flag for “I have no support for the thing I am about to say,” my duck. It’s a form of weasel word that is meant to lend ambiguous support to the thing that follows. In this case it also tries to lend a sense of superiority or aloofness to the speaker so as to give the statement greater strength.
“anti-anti-feminist” is also an interesting choice of word. As a journalist, you do know that those two negate, leaving just “feminist” right? And by including the double negative you are trying to make implications which your evidence does not support?
I won’t even bring up the use of “so-called,” that’s a weasel word by definition.
Words are important! You should know that. That said, I’ll ignore those and get to the meat of your intention.
I’m quite sure you’ve been trawling through a website that has been trashing this site and its commentaria. That’s why you feel comfortable saying how hateful and violent we are. About how much we hate men, and how we ignore men’s rights. That’s been your source for information on this site, and it’s why you’ve comemnted here and not on a front page article, like the recent one about Cassie Jaye.
Philip, my egg, you’ve swallowed their opinions whole, and uncritically. It’s true that we do get angry here. We also absolutely prevent any of that anger from turning into calls for violence.
The screencaps you’ve seen. Go dig them up in our backlog of articles and read them. You’ll find two things:
1) justifiable anger at horrible treatment of women (e.g. ‘i hope they step on legos!), and
2) notes from David about occasional violent comments being removed for being against the comments policy, surrounded by this very commentariat calling out the original poster for doing so.
That shit does not fly here.. MRA blogs will catch those angry comments before David can get to them and will post them as evidence of how we’re all terrible – when we catch those people as soon as possible and tell them that we don’t support their beliefs. This is cherry-picking by definition.
(You’re also doing something called tone trolling, i.e. complaining about how something is said instead of what’s being said. It’s an elision used to cover for a truth one does not want to confront.)
Whew! That was longer than I wanted it to be. I’d tackle the other things you’ve said, Phillip, but goodness me it’d take all day. I’ll just point out one thing here:
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/mlp/images/3/35/Fluttershy_coy_smile_S4E16.png
If I can gently suggest it … if you are admittedly new to all of this, and don’t know the major players or what they’ve done, perhaps you should not so quickly accuse us of being unjustifiably angry? Perhaps you should consider that your first judgement was formed on not-enough information and should be discarded as such?
Maybe, just maybe, we aren’t all hyperbolic harpies, and we might have actual good reasons for being upset?
Just a thought.
Final bit of evidence on that one – many of the MRA “leaders” have become alt-right proponents, support Trump, and a number are proto-fascist. This doesn’t mean that every MRA is bad, but it does mean that anyone who choses to align with the MRA movement and doesn’t speak out against it is supporting that shift.
And no one’s really speaking out about it. So, there’s that.
Anyways, sorry if this has come across as heavy or sarcastic or mean – I’m being critical of you but I’m being sincere. I hope you can understand that we do actually have real actually really real issues as well, and that the MRA positions are heavily skewed. Tah!
I swear, this thread is gonna be nothin’ but Fluttershy’s. Wall to wall butterfly ponies.
Please stop referring to the Cuckistani Goof Agency.
We are the Cuck Liberation Army.
The Cuckistani Goof Agency and the Cuckistani Goof Agency (Marxist-Leninist) are splitters.
@Scildfreja
I thought that was more likely. Still the hypervigilent instinct just had to make sure it was just post order.
Are you by any chance willing to share your expertise? I could use some criticism by someone professionally involved in brain science. It has to do with a readily accessible conceptualization of feeling that can be used to tie perception to memory and recall. This is ground work for outlining emotion in text.
I also have a way of representing attention that allows social affordances and central pattern generators to be more readily explainable. I want to make sure I’m not missing anything.
I’d be happy to help, @Brony! I’m only tangentially involved in brain science, but I’m happy to comment on whatever you’ve got!
@David
Hang on. The Cuckistani Goof Agency split off? When did this happen? It wasn’t in the CLA newsletter. I did hear about the Goofican Cuck Fighters, but no one took them seriously to begin with.
@Scildfreja Unnyðnes
You adapt knowledge about the workings of our meat computer into products. That’s amazing to me. Additionally I can think of many places where you have relevant perspectives. I’m working on generalized useful knowledge about how brains make minds, as far as I’m concerned everyone present has relevant perspectives. The trolls just have the additional value of being useful in practice and role-modeling. Honestly most people have little idea of the language they would need to dispense with if they truly wanted to act consistent with what we are. Most of the time now I’m interested in “sniff test” level things that make me look at what I know more carefully. I have very specific biases that I have to be careful about and that blog has poked at something very new and needing thought before posting. Honestly my biggest advantage in what I do is that I was born at a time when I could read about how my mind is shaped. Everyone should have that ability. Thank you.
Now where to start? What I think I’ve been doing over the last several months is trying to find a basic symbol system to effectively compact a bunch of information into a useful narrative. Additionally I have to think about the ethics of trying to explain how social predators do what they do responsibly. While accounting for how and why I’ve been reading what I’ve been reading.
I am also probably going to have to fight with this knowledge so I’m thinking about the ways that what I read will need to be conveyed both for general readers and trolls. So I’m trying to do my work in advance, but social OCD symptoms. When to stop and write? This is going to help. The last time I mentioned anything about it around here I was mentioning using angle brackets, “”, to show the presence of emotional content. The snag I hit is that this needs to be unpacked into what emotion is.
My current efforts are focused on getting as close to general purpose knowledge as possible so I’m going with the concept of a frame rate to consciousness within a one second time frame and a means of conveying what feeling is when it comes to raw anatomy. I need to transform the word emotion into a process that is tangible to everyone present, and then unpacking feeling of emotion into a program that we run in response to what we perceive as we try to maintain homeostasis (at multiple levels including social). The fact that Tourette Syndrome research involves this sort of thing is very, very convenient. I need to be able to talk about what emotion is to be able to convey what aggression in text is. I don’t feel text the way that I feel other social interaction. I know that’s true of everyone but It’s kind of powerful getting even a little bit of a sense of why that’s true for us and how that impacts what I’m trying to do.
I need really good teaching aids that are personal, visceral, accurate and useful. It’s kind of intimidating actually.
Objects are detected in terms of “Where” at about 0.2 seconds. What we feel about them occurs at about 0.5 seconds. After that is the response that flows out from the brain to the body in terms of actions and other responses, “How” (instructions from storage sites of responses based on previous experience, every action we take at every moment physical and mental) and “Why” (the stored embodied feeling states associated with previous experience that contribute things like goods or badness, or intensity). In that 0.3 second space our brain turns “Where” into “Who/What”, which are really the same but humans frankly need special language that makes us objectively separate from what we usually convey when it comes to objectification in a social sciences sense that conveys moral concerns about our current behavior.
I think “When” is a kind of “Where” but I’m still working on that one and this if the first time I’ve mentioned it to anyone online. People find it interesting at work though.
Are you familiar with the Two-Streams Hypothesis? That’s a way of representing how information seems to flow in terms of anatomy and function from a visual system perspective.
Currently I’m cramming the anatomy that I need to be able to describe humans from a segmentation perspective. The frame rate of consciousness involves a continuous cyclical flow of information from senses to body maps that represent current status and position of our physical selves. Emotion is perception>memory>reaction if I strip it down to the essentials. Currently I’m thinking about how to represent basic movement (“towards”, “away”, “around”, etc…), and interaction (playing an instrument, writing a program…), valance (good/bad, positive-feeling/negative-feeling), and intensity in a useful way.
I should probably stop there. To process in nothing else. I’m a bit bottled up and it’s like I want to vomit a library but I mentioned “sniff tests”.
@ brony
Are you familiar with the OODA Loop? That’s ‘Object, orientation, decision, action’. It was originally developed by the Air Force for fighter pilots, but it’s something we use a bit in self defence (one concept being that if you can initiate a new input every 0.2 seconds, then your opponent won’t be able to process the information and thus be able to react).
There’s a related concept called Hick’s Law. That postulates that the more choices you have the longer it takes to ‘decide’ how to respond at an exponential rather than linear rate.
Don’t know if this is the sort of thing you’re after, but if so, it’s all pretty interesting.
@Kopo.
I think it’s obvious from the replies of Tizio and Manatee that they are being dismissive and sarcastic. That’s no way to discuss anything.
@John
I think it’s obvious you’re unwilling to listen to the content of their arguments. Or pay attention to people’s nyms, for that matter.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument
A
You gonna address anyone’s points, John? Or should I take your continued tone trolling as evidence that you are unable to refute anything I said. If you want to concede defeat like this, fine with me. But don’t you at least have enough dignity to try?
@ Chief Manatee
First citing a shortage of male politicians, top CEO’s etc is rubbish as they are a tiny percentage of society and women refuse to commit to the workaholic lifestyles necessary. The problem is only a tiny number of women going into these areas, much as they avoid stem subjects at Uni. Preferring arts, communications, (media is dying) gender studies, ensuring that they work at starbucks, so of course they earn less than men.
Also men without degrees work much longer hours of heavy dirty dangerous or technically demanding work than women. Work, women would never do even if you payed them double.
Also statistically men don’t spend the money they earn. 80% of retail is female, (when was the last time you saw a man spend a $1000 on a bag or pair of shoes).
When they crunched the figures 20yrs ago in California (the worlds 6th largest economy) the top 2 percentile were majority female, (heiresses like Heinz, celebrities, self made in real estate and a large percentage of CEO widows) so these perceptions are wrong.
The bulk of the street homeless are male 90% but the off street homeless, tend to be more female (there has been a big jump in older single homeless females here in Oz due to high rents) but there are more shelters for females, (were they require women to say the are in fear of domestic violence even if they don’t have a partner as it helps inflate the DV figures for the feminists).
In one area you are right. In Marxist societies they have lots of female engineers, doctors and construction workers because they are forced to. But statistically the freer and more affluent a society is the less women will do that work (Norway since the 60’s has had a huge drop in women in those areas).
And no. All attraction to the physical body is objectification as you are attracted to the object of the body. And yes if men are very very lucky they can be sex objects too.
I think if we lived in a balanced society Cassies work would be treated exactly the same as any other, people would be able to make up their own mind. But the insane aggression used to shut her down (especially in the Oz media, were all the interviewers admitted they hadn’t seen the movie, but were incredibly angry) shows something else deeply troubling is going on.
Body’s aren’t inanimate objects. Is this really so hard to understand?
That’s really easy for someone who isn’t treated like sex object instead of a person to say. You can claim men aren’t privileged all you want, but only someone with a ton of privilege would ever say that want to be subjected to street harassment or compared pieces of meat.
Maybe you should set up a dating profile as a conventionally attractive woman and see how long you last. This guy only made it a couple of hours before the onslaught of creepers scared him away.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/man-poses-as-women-okcupid-quits/
Are John and Jerry tag-teaming, here?
@Jerry Donohue
Retail includes things like groceries. Women spending money doing the shopping is not women spending money on themselves, it’s women spending money necessary to take care of themselves, and if they have one, their family/dependents.
This is also a task that disproportionately falls on women. Women need to keep the house running.
Re – bag or shoes – How much does a nice TV, sound system, and gaming rig cost? Or is it okay for people to spend tonnes of money on things typically coded male?
A new car? (I know someone who impulse bought a car. They are a cis-guy. I was not impressed.)
A new phone?
Also, sneaker heads are a thing. Like, people will line up for new shoes, just like they would for anything they’re excited about. Not a thing I get, but if that’s where people want to spend their money, who am I to judge?
I believe this is because many women are hounded out of STEM fields. On the other hand, I have an art degree, and make good money. So it’s not like STEM fields are the be-all and end-all of degrees. What would we do if everyone was a computer programmer? Who’s going to create the UI for that program?
You know who makes fun of people who use safety gear? Men. You know who, once again, makes ‘heavy dirty dangerous’ workplaces hostile to not cis-men? Men.
These things are part of toxic masculinity, and something that just shouldn’t be a thing. You can be a man however’n’th’hell you want to be, I don’t care. That’s kind of the point.
No. Attraction to someone is not objectification.
There was a good coming on everyday feminism that applies, I think. It’s about queer women wondering if they are objectifying women when they are attracted to them, and the differences. Not a straight up comparison, but you might like to read it to get a different view of this.
The only way to have a proper, productive discussion is to pout and sigh endlessly about how your conversation partners have presented their arguments.
I got a 503 error when I tried to post this the first time… Here goes nothing.
I bet they drew straws to see which one would do the tone trolling and which one would do the Gish galloping.
I just realized that Jerry is saying both that all physical attraction is objectification and that men would be luck to be objectified. Implying that men aren’t objectified. That means that no one is attracted to men.
Damn.
I know it’s common for misogynists to think the whole world revolves around their boner and its preferences, but this is taking that to a whole new level. He’s not attracted to men. Therefore men are not attractive to anyone at all.
I don’t know why I sometimes Google image search for hot guys in kilts. I thought it was because that is attractive to me. I guess not.
Maybe it’s time for a pictures of hot guys thread?
Misandry!
So much misandry!