By David Futrelle
On Wednesday, a Malaysian member of parliament proposed a new kind of “Sexual Harassment Act” to help protect men from being “seduced” into raping or otherwise molesting women and girls wearing too-sexy clothes.
“I propose to the minister that we create a ‘sexual harassment act’ to protect men against the demeanor, words and clothing of women,”
Mohamad Imran Abd Hamid told the Malaysian parliament.
which can cause them to be seduced to a point where they commit acts such as incest, rape, molestation, pornography (sic) and others,
Such a law, he said, would ensure that “the men in this country are safe, and the country is peaceful.”
The proposal didn’t go over well, with Mohd Imran’s own party, the ruling Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), rejecting it outright. And so, on Thursday, Mohd Imran apologized for hurting “the feelings of many women and also men, who feel insulted” and retracted his proposal.
Unfortunately the central assumption behind his proposal — that women are “asking for it” if they behave in certain ways or wear certain clothes — is shared by innumerable men (and quite a few women) around the world.
It’s especially widespread among men of the manosphere, who regularly rail against the alleged seductive power of women wearing yoga pants or short shorts as well as outfits that show a bit of shoulder. (Or even just arm.) Men’s Rights granddaddy Warren Farrell has been warning men for decades about the alleged “miniskirt power” and “cleavage power” of young women.
Meanwhile, our old pal enemy Roosh V, the rapey-pickup-guru-turned-raging-fundamentalist-Christian took to Twitter yesterday to warn against another deadly seductive threat to men: women wearing pants.
Stay safe, men! Emulate the folks in Bird Box and wear a blindfold at all times every time you leave the house.
H/T — to Alan Robertshaw for the story and @Zemyla for the Roosh tweet
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
rv97
What the fuck are you on about. What does that have anything to do with what I said. Are you ever going to address anything someone says to you? how about you learn to use a block quote and fucking respond to what people say to you, you little ass.
I think it’s that centrist argument that sometimes gets made about how pushing too many progressive causes will inflame the far right and spur them into action. Progressive Americans elected a black president and started pushing for “ideological purity” (i.e. criticizing anti-abortion and anti-LGBT Democrats), so conservatives responded with Trump. Centrist Ontarians went ahead and elected a lesbian premier who advanced a fair amount of socially liberal causes, which was a mistake because only a “real” centrist party could have stopped Ford. Anti-Brexit Britons went ahead and struck down Theresa May’s Brexit proposals, so conservatives responded with Johnson. And so on. It’s a shitty and wrong argument on many levels.
Wtf did I just read?
Weren’t you just complaining that religious folks will impose chastity laws on you, and now you’re praising ace folks because maybe they’ll “help” people “put off sexual activites”?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
@kupo
Anyone not straight or cis gender is holly and pure to rv97. Despite all the evidence that they are actually people that rv97 wants to ignore because how else will they push their idea of straight people all evil and lesbian love so pure and beautiful.
@kupo we are powerless, us social liberals
They will come to establish more power, and because they can claim homosexuality and abortion are contrary to the values of their religion(s) with little accountability based on what their texts say, we’re fucked.
@Kupo
I thought rv97 was implying that aces are a Trojan horse for conservatism, by setting an example that can be used as a stick to beat everybody else?
How the fuck, for instance, can we prove to them abortion should be available when they’re convinced (and I admit I am too in some cases) that it’s murdering an unborn foetus? How do we convince them that being gay is not a choice? How do we convince them that having sex outside of marriage shouldn’t be treated like murder?
FUCK.
OFF.
@rv97
We fucking don’t have to. Not everyone has to be convinced on something for it to be good. Some people (incels) should be able to rape any woman they want. No one is gonna grant a law that gives some 12 year old virgin sex slave to incels to have as pets. We don’t need incels to fucking agree with us for them to be wrong. Also fucccckkkk you. An abortion is never a murder to you piece of shit.
Its official Rv97 is an absolute anus.
I would genuinely like to know how it’s not murder. At least from what I’ve picked up, a bundle of cells can be considered “life”. The problem is with abortion, I agree morally with the left but practically with the right. I do agree that restricting abortion is misogyny, but I guess the pressure for me to conform to Catholic teachings and some of my conclusions do make me agree with the right in a few cases.
@rv97
Because when I had a fucking miscarriage it wasn’t an infant suicide. I rolled it up into toilet paper and threw it away in trash. If it gets the same rights as murder, that’s unlawful disposable of a body. But it’s not is it? Fuck off. Catholic teachings don’t make you agree with the right. You do that because your a piece of shit. Both my fiancé and I had those up brings we don’t believe abortion is murder, we don’t believe lgbt are wrong or evil, we don’t believe it’s wrong to have premarital sex. We do that a lot, with many different people, with many different people watching and partaking. What I do believe is that your one bullshit troll who needs to fuck off right to hell.
omg I am NOT HERE for another abortion argument, rv97. I can’t deal with that right now.
I think you’ve officially hit the ‘time to email David and ask for a time out’ status.
Here are two different threads where we talk an awful lot about abortion with a different commenter, perhaps you could start there and read through some of the linked resources.
If abortion was ever considered by law murder, then I think we should also hold infants that kill women in childbirth as murders as well. Have a trail, lock them up for killing their mothers. Put them in minor prison for 18 years and then have murderer on their public record when they get out for jobs and crap. Because that’s equally as ridiculous as calling abortion murder.
@rv97
Is it murder for me to refuse to donate blood to you, even though I’m healthy enough to do it and even if not doing so would save your life?
Denying another already born human access to my organs wouldn’t be murder. Why is it different with a not-even-developed fetus?
Again, FUCK. OFF.
And when both mother and child die during child birth, that’s a murder suicide masterminded by the fetus. Because again, that’s equally as stupid as calling abortion murder.
Are they an infestation? The notion that a community might become more intolerant because of immigrants is quite a fucking take this week of all weeks.
@Allandrel:
My understanding is that the Society of Friends (Quakers) aren’t a hierarchical organization like the Catholic Church so much as a loose one with some basic tenets, an explicitly anti-hierarchical stance, and much of the rest done at the grassroots level more like the original Baptists. (And unlike the Southern Baptists, who have spent generations rebuilding a hierarchical organization while officially pretending they don’t have one.) And of course, they have their own breadth of opinion.
Much of the abolitionist movement was started and pushed by Quakers, even prior to the American Revolution. They were active in this both in the U.S. and the U.K., though they obviously succeeded a lot earlier in the U.K.
On the other hand, Richard Nixon was also a Quaker, and he was a rather less… enlightened personality on many things.
No matter what sort of religion (or lack thereof) a person follows, if they truly want, they will find some way to justify their personal bigotries using it.
This is still going on?
I would like to point out that some religious fundamentalists consider the death of a mother-to-be during pregnancy or from childbirth to be murder-by-God, which is always somehow for the greater good even if we can’t see how. Or, maybe even because he wants another angel or something, even though the bible never implies that humans can become angels.
Sure, it’s arguably alive. But murder is a specific word used to describe the killing of people. Fetuses aren’t people. Taking antibiotics isn’t murder even though it snuffs out billions of ‘lives’. An abortion isn’t either.
I parse this to mean: “
Bigotsconservatives like asexuals, since asexuals don’t fuck.”And going by the logic of rv97, since lesbians are better that straight women because conservatives hate lesbians, therefore asexuals are worse than heterosexuals, since conservatives like them more. Or at least that asexuals are harming the sexually active LGBT community by providing “ammunition” for conservatives. Thanks, buddy. Fuck you too.
And if you did mean to say that asexuals are better than heterosexuals or any other orientation, still fuck you. Orientation doesn’t make someone better or worse than someone else. How about you stop making sweeping value judgements on huge and diverse groups of people, you raging dickwad?
Common Law countries, including the US, always used to use Edward Coke (‘s definition of murder.
Even in Elizabethan times it was accepted that you couldn’t be murdered until you’d passed through the birth canal and taken your first breath.
There’s a discussion of the history of all this in this case;
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970724/gneral01.htm
@rv97
Now how’s that going for you?
I’m beginning to question whether you are a social liberal. You sound more and more like a bigot, just a bigot who tries to use progressive language.
You sound like one of the white supremacists who tries to pretend they care about rape so that they can justify bigotry. Recall this post? You sound like that right now.
And how does saying that one sexuality is better than another make you any better than the bigots you claim to oppose?
A fetus can not survive on its own. For all practical intents and purposes, it is a part of its mother’s body. If a person gets their appendix removed (because it’s diseased, preemptively, whatever) is that murder? If that’s not, how is this any different? An appendix is made of living cells too.
You really do not sound liberal right now.
@Jenora Feuer
Nixon was almost certainly the Worst Quaker ever, though there is a lot of debate over whether the East Whittier Friends Church that he belonged to was Quaker in any meaningful sense. I’m not fond of that argument, as it strikes me as the kind of gatekeeping and No True Scotsman behavior that Quakers try to avoid.
Amazing thing about the Quaker involvement in abolitionism: A number of American Quakers were actually slaveowners during the 18th century, but John Woolman spent years visiting them, staying with them, and one by one convincing them that slavery was morally wrong and violated Jesus’ teachings.
Which is one reason that I hold out hope that even deliberately clueless numpties like rv97 can be reached.
@rv97
Wow, you’re not just doubling down, not just digging deeper, you’re finding all new holes to dig.