The idea that women regularly use their sexual wiles to gain control over men has long been central to the Men’s Rights Movement.
In the seminal MRA tome The Myth of Male Power, Warren Farrell famously declared that secretaries have “miniskirt power, cleavage power and flirtation power” over their male bosses; the latest edition of his book features a shapely female posterior on the cover, sans clothing, to illustrate what he sees as the immense power women can exert over men with, well, their butts.
In the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, one Reddit MGTOW takes Farrell’s argument one sickening step further, seeming to suggest that women use this sexy power of theirs to “intice” [sic] men to, well, rape them.
As High-Fruit-Trinity sees it, women have
used men’s nature against them.
They called men pigs & date-rapists. But they were the CAUSE
Of male piggishness and … rape?
They have entire industries just for women to be more beautiful, inticing and sexy. They’re taught everything about manipulating men. Men aren’t taught anything.
Women got away with this because they are the perceived victims, and you shouldn’t blame the victim. So who do you blame?
I dunno, dude, when a man acts like a pig to women, I blame him. When a man rapes a woman, I blame him. Who do you blame, Mr. High-Fruit-Trinity? Do you actually see rape survivors as the real “CAUSE” of rape, and the rapists themselves as the victims?
Apparently so. In a followup comment in the thread, High-Fruit-Trinity approvingly quotes a comment from a Washington Post reader about a famous political sex scandal.
“let’s acknowledge that women also play a role in soliciting sexual attention. Think about John Edwards and Rielle Hunter and how all the blame is focused on Edwards. She could easily cry “sexual harrassment!” as a causative factor; why isn’t a charge of “sexual enticement” just as accurately applied to the situation? “
It’s a bizarre question to ask about Edwards and Hunter, given that no one was accusing Edwards of sexually harassing her; the two had a consensual affair. But MRAs and MGTOWs seem to have some trouble understanding the difference between sexual harassment and mutual sexual attraction, as well as between consensual sex and rape.
In any case, the logic here is pretty clear: in High-Fruit-Trinity’s mind, whenever a man harasses or rapes or does anything sexual to a woman that she doesn’t consent to, it’s her fault, not his, because she must have “enticed” him into doing it.
Basically, this is blame-the-victim on steroids. And yet another reason so many people wish that the so-called Men Going Their Own Way would indeed go wherever it is they are allegedly going, the further away from the rest of us the better.
We’ve both also neglected to mention climate change. So fucking what?
See EJ? I’m not saying “whataboutthemen.” Weir is the one doing what you said, except “whataboutthewomen.”
Why should I explain to you what you already know re women? I’m not hiding or denying or minimizing any of that. It doesn’t hurt a single female victim of rape to give therapy to a male victim of rape.
Actually, it’s thanks to feminism that a very small minority of male rape victims even get recognized. Thank you for helping to publicize and give notice to male victims of abusive Catholic priests. Too bad you don’t give a fuck about the boys when you cannot use them for the culture wars. When I say you, I don’t mean feminists. I mean you sadists on this forum who spend your time deleting references to Karen Straughan on Wikipedia, you who laugh and gloat about suppressing any discussion of abuse by females or abuse of males — unless the molester’s one of your political enemies.
Don’t hide behind feminism. Feminism is about equality, not about a right to rape boys and to shame those who talk about it.: Vous êtes la honte du combat des femmes What you’re doing here is about as feminist as Jodi Arias and Susan Smith. Consider the company you keep.
@Petra
‘Dan, I just noticed that something I said was “mawderated”, so want to clarify that I thanked you for clarifying, and for the good work you do. And I apologized for my err in implying that you were part of the problem. Cheers’
Well, thank you for that, at least. But….
‘…but here in the USA, centers for women and children in crisis have the same policy towards male victims of age 12 and up that is employed by male polygamist cult leaders. Cut the boys off from the family and toss them out in the cold as potential threats. God bless America. And the band played on. That’s part of the story that some of our friends here are laboring so fiercely to suppress.’
This is too vague, too sweeping, hyberbolic, and emotional. Too short on substance to be of any use to me in discerning the validity of your arguments. This is how I would mark it if it had been handed into me:
EBI (Even Better If)…
1) Name your sources, and explain why they are reliable.
2) Quote your source, and explain why it backs up your arguments.
3) Use multiple sources to show that the first source is not a one-off.
4) Explore different interpretations of your sources – is there more than one way the source can be read?
What a vicious pack of lies you’re spewing. I really think you ought to be banned.
Edit: Except for the Straughan bit, which is a lie, but isn’t a particularly vicious one. Interesting that it would feature on your list of made up crimes between not giving a fuck about boys and suppressing stories of abuse. One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn’t belong…
In fact, if our society actually gave a fuck about boys, girls would be safer too. (and feminism is not the problem here, unless you count Eve Ensler, and I don’t, since a lesbian who cannot distinguish a vulva from a vagina scarcely deserves to be called a feminist.)
If the Western Newspapers had given a floundering fuck when Boko Haram started invading the schools, and burning all the boys alive, they never would have started kidnapping girls in mass. But terrorists are about getting attention, and they only turned their sadism to girls when they realized that Americans and Europeans didn’t care about hundreds and hundreds of boys being taken from school and burned alive. So instead of letting the girls go, they started taking them and raping them. Mission accomplished. They have attention now. See, all your ignoring the plight of the boys (and Eve Ensler IS to blame in that focus, being directly involved in the distribution of attention and resources in central Africa), ended up turning those 200 innocent girls into objects of cruelty and repeated rape.
Fair enough, Dan. If it turns out I’m not banned per Viscaria’s fatwa, I’ll dig in and source whatever you like.
I’ve never had a fatwa before! I actually had to look it up. Google says it’s “a ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority.” Cool! So does that mean I am now a recognized Islamic authority?
Haha, I’m kidding. You know me, I love the jokes. Of course it means that Petra is an islamophobe in addition to everything else.
VIscaria calls me a liar, and Dan asks for sources.
Viscaria better hurry to get me banned, because you’re obviously not used to arguing against someone whose sources are liberal and international.
Here is a credible source on the most damning claim that I made — that the west’s ignoring boys being burnt alive is what led to Boko Haram kidnapping girls. That your live and let die attitude towards male victims led directly to one of the greatest misogynistic calamities of our millenium.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-did-kidnapping-girls-but-not-burning-boys-alive-wake-media-up-to-boko-haram/
Sigh. Like Mark Twain said, the best cure for bigotry is travel.
Freaking Americans and their cultural illiteracy. OK, grok this. From a conceptional point of view, Jihad, Crusade and Kampf mean the same exact fucking thing.
From that perspective, a “fatwa” stripped of Viscaria’s islamophobic assumptions, simply refers to a scholarly authority issued to laypersons, to form the basis of acceptable behavior or required action. If there was a word in English that described such a thing, I’d have used it, but the word Fatwa is used so often in your media that I thought everyone would know it by now.
If you read outside the US media, you’ll see there are actually fatwas against what you foolishly call patriarchy.
@ Petra
Judgment, ruling or finding are all acceptable synonyms for Fatwa. It’s just a legal term after all.
The only undocumented immigrants that I know that voted illegally in the US election, voted for Trump. Yeah, I was surprised too. And sorry, I can’t source that. It’s not part of my argument, just part of my surreal experience.
Thank you. While those terms cover the juridical interpretations of fatwa, but not the applications to what in our culture would be called social science. Which is increasingly an ideological pronouncement based on the authority of science, but not based on any of the rigor of social science.
I guess I could have said “pronouncement.” But then we wouldn’t have had the fun of V assuming that any use of an Arabic word signifies islamophobia. Because heaven forbid the Arabs actually have something we can actually use to understand our world, eh? Like the number zero?
I just discovered Straughan 3 days ago and the podcasts I’ve seen tripled what I knew about this topic. So yes, my contempt for those of you who bury Straughan is very much related to my disgust for the way you try to bury any discussion of abused males denied resources, 12 year old boys turned away from shelters like they are from Plig colonies. (yes, I just used an epithet; I’m pligophobic.)
@Petra
Thank you for the source; which proves why sources are necessary, because this source displays inherent bias. It continually asks the question ‘why does the media ignore THESE Boko Haram attacks, but not these?’, yet does so whilst using other media sources that DID report on the very incidents you – and the source – are claiming were ignored.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26353622
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nigeria-violence-idUSBREA1P10M20140226
What you are quoting is not a news piece, it is an opinion piece by a conservative writer based on the news pieces you are claiming don’t exist because ‘the left ignores violence against boys’, apparently. In the hands of a different author, with a more ‘liberal’ bias, it could equally have become an opinion piece about why ‘the west ignores violence in Africa’; it would have been equally biased, but because it would not tie in with your own pre-existing interests, you would be less likely to notice it.
Given that there WAS information in the western news about the incident, will you now retract the statement that the west ignored boys being burned alive, on which the rest of your argument rests?
Apologies to anyone reading who was personally affected, or who knows anyone personally affected, by this or similar incidents.
@Alan,
Well, sure, but they don’t quite have that same… sting, for or some mysterious and unknown reason. Can’t quite put my finger on it. (Just kidding, yes I can, and I already did.)
@Petra, for the record, I haven’t emailed David to ask if he would ban you, and I won’t unless you do something really egregious. I have simply expressed my hope that you will be banned sooner rather than later. Also for the record, I’m not American, not that it really matters all that much.
@ Petra
Well technically that’s the only interpretation of fatwa; it’s a specific piece of legal terminology. Of course sometimes it gets used in a colloquial sense; usually though misinterpreted as meaning something akin to ‘sentence’. That’s a throwback to the Salman Rushdie case, which is where I suspect most people first heard the word.
Whilst I’m in legal nerd mode, a fatwa is what Common Law jurisprudence calls persuasive rather than authoritative; in that they’re not binding.
There’s also that weird sharia thing where you can’t cite it until the proclaimer is dead. Oh no wait, that’s British law.
(There’s a rationale behind that, it avoids the potential embarrassment of the author saying “That’s not what I meant at all”)
Viscaria, my apologies for calling you an American. Thank you for clarifying re banning, and also that I have not, in your … “judgment, ruling or finding,” 😉 done anything particularly egregious. In that case, I’ll simmer down, and assume I’m not going to get kicked out just because someone couldn’t refute me.
@Dan:
If anyone else thinks any part of Dan’s questions are worth asking, in good faith, I’m willing to take another look at the question. Mediaite, like most of my news sources, has a well known liberal slant. WIth the exception of WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kidnapped-boys-of-boko-haram-1471013062 TEN THOUSAND kidnapped boys of Boko Haram.
Of course, Dan asks for sources, and then claims that any source proves that the west did not “ignore” the matter. Because if anyone in the whole fucking west was aware of it, that means that we didn’t neglect the boys in any way, eh? Frigging cannibalistic plig-daddy enabler.
Read a funny story called “Persuasive Authority” where an attorney cited Mad Max beyond Thunderdome in court because opposing counsel misunderstood something the judge had said.
@ Alan, my understanding was that Fatwas are binding on people’s lives, and not just on Sharia Courts. For example, in Khomeini’s Iran, where anyone with an 18 year old penis and a Koran can render judgment, I can’t see the boy-judge referring to centuries of scholarship. Khomeini said he only needs a Koran.
So when Khomeini issues his Fatwas re cheating westerners at every opportunity, or killing Rushdie, or selling the goats you fucked to the next village (surely I can be anti-khomeini without being islamophobic), I had the impression he was telling yokels what to do and what not to do, not giving guidance to learned judges.
There’s only one thing more offensive than lying about what someone said, and that’s lying about what someone said and actually putting it in quotes:
What I said was that the west ignores violence against boys. (“ignore” in context, is obviously relative to the attention westerners give to violence against women and girls).
I understand that on Dan’s map, that the west is on the left side of the map, but I don’t think that was why he falsely represented what I said. Dan, please get your hand out of my ass. I am not a sock puppet.
@Petal
I’m afraid I wasn’t previously aware of Mediaite as a website, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. As you claim, it may very well have a ‘well known liberal slant’, but the author of the piece, Noah Rothman, very much seems to identify as a conservative, based on the other articles of his I looked at before I replied to your post. The website’s own affiliation is irrelevant – the article is a conservative one, by a conservative, with a particular bias.
I understand from your reply that you were not referring to ‘the West’ merely reporting on the events, but actually intervening in them to prevent further incidents. That is what I think this means:
“Of course, Dan asks for sources, and then claims that any source proves that the west did not “ignore” the matter. Because if anyone in the whole fucking west was aware of it, that means that we didn’t neglect the boys in any way, eh? Frigging cannibalistic plig-daddy enabler.”
Well, the BBC website is a pretty well read one, and therefore there will be a sizeable number of people who read it, and at least some will, I’m sure, have been spurred to action. But I would like you to clarify how you would like ‘the west’ to show it is not ‘ignoring’ the matter. What
would have satisfied you that there was no ‘live and let die’ attitude?
Protests in the streets? I’d have certainly attended one if I’d known about it?
Unilateral military action? Not always a good idea, as the last two decades have shown, from Bosnia to Syria.
Multilateral military action? Technically that’s what the UN is for, and a glance at their website indicates they are doing some good work there:
http://www.ng.undp.org/content/nigeria/en/home/presscenter/articles/2017/04/01/bringing-women-at-the-centre-of-de-radicalisation-efforts-in-north-east-nigeria.htm
‘Frigging cannibalistic plig-daddy enabler’. Well, I’ve never been called that before, but you’ll have to do a lot better if you want to insult me as totally and colourfully as some of my year 9 students. I don’t know what a ‘plig-daddy’ is and neither does the Urban Dictionary, which is my usual go-to for modern day terms. Please could you clarify? Ta.
Mistaking my nationality is worth an apology, but saying we don’t care about abused children is not. Okee doke.
I’m grading on a damn curve. I absolutely think you’ve said awful things, and I absolutely hope that you will be banned and gone. Damn it, I am just so angry, and I need to back the hell away from this thread. Apologies, everyone, for posting excessively.
@ Petra
Well that’s the same with any legal ruling. Say for example our Court of Appeal decided the law means you can’t buy cigarettes until you’re 18. Then that’s binding on the lower courts, but also on the general population.
Theoretically anyone can pronounce a fatwa. But that’s like saying anyone can make a statement as to how they think a law should be interpreted. If you’re an esteemed professor of jurisprudence with a distinguished record of writing about a topic then your words may carry some weight (subject to the ‘being dead’ qualification referred to above). If you’re some bloke in the pub, perhaps less so.
Same with sharia. Legal experts have the title ‘mufti’ but there’s no formal qualification. Basically it’s just by reputation. Which is the same here of course. And there’s not just one sharia. Basically you’re only bound by a fatwa if you voluntarily acknowledged the authority of the mufti pronouncing it. Hence lots of Islamic legal scholars at the time denouncing Khomeni’s ruling.
@Petra
There’s a bit of a time lag to my comments, for which I would again like to apologise. Just caught the ‘sock puppet’ comment.
The comment ‘the left ignores violence against boys’ was intended to represent, very quickly, my interpretation of the views of Noah Rothman, based on having actually read the article you so kindly sent me. It was not intended to be a direct quote from yourself. I think you probably already knew that, but just in case…
I’m going to actually go and do some work now, but I think the following quote from the UN site I linked above is worth reading.
(TW for mention of rape at the bottom)
“Boko Haram perpetuates in the cracks of northeastern Nigeria society, recruiting new insurgents from some of the most vulnerable communities across the Lake Chad region. For Ngileruma, this revolving door of new recruits can be stopped at the home because that’s where women are in charge.
“What if the women were educated, and then allowed to educate their own children?” she asked. “Socialization starts at home and when you educate women, you educate the whole.”
Many of the 20 women participants of the workshop agreed that there can be no resolution to this ongoing crisis without including those hit hardest by the conflict.
“The government can have every plan available, but if they don’t include women, they can never achieve peace,” Ngileruma said.
Women bear the brunt of the conflict with Boko Haram insurgents. They are vulnerable to gender-based and sexual violence. According to UNFPA, 6 out of ten women in northeast Nigeria are survivors of GBV and of those cases, rape constitutes 85 percent.”
Statements by Western leaders (like the stuff from the White House re the kidnapped girls) referencing the hundreds of boys burned alive.
Tweet campaigns comparable to those about the kidnapped girls.
Any discussion on this site by folks you would consider liberals addressing that concern.
Frankly your denial, and V’s blank accusation of “lies” without addressing the boys, makes you look, well, kind of like the Catholic middle hierarchy in dealing with certain scandals. Deny deny, accuse, scapegoat, obfuscate, oh look, a bird!
I say that THE WEST is ignoring the problem and that Boko Haram wanted attention, and you think two western internet references to the story disproves it? In your neck of the woods, does The West signify BBC, or does it signify the governments and peoples of the Western World?
Yes, when BH figured out that people like you only gave a floundering fuck about the women and the girls, of course that’s where they focused their attention. Don’t you understand, it’s your very live and let die attitutde towards the boys and the men that has rendered you as useless to the women of nigeria as a white knight in a catfight?
I think you know better than your last insulting motive inference, but just in case: No; I would never have responded angrily if I thought you were quoting the article. We’ve already established that I read sources while you read authors. In that respect, your way is probably superior. I’d never heard of that writer, probably because the only conservative source I read regularly is WSJ
And this conflicts with what I said — how exactly? How the fuck would the West striking earlier at Boko Haram because of the burning of boys, have stopped Nigeria from including women?
You’re playing a cannibalistic zero-sum game, where boys have to be ignored and sacrificed in order to help girls. That’s not feminism; that’s Enslerism.