‘We’re here to stay. We’re here to stay. We’re here to stay’

YouTube Preview Image

“It’s offensive to me as a Christian, as a woman, and as someone with a brain.”

“Years of irrefutable scientific evidence go down the drain, when we right-wing Catholics (or evangelicals, like the ones running Hobby Lobby and Mardel) need to prove that women are primarily baby machines.”

“Father Piero Corsi of Liguria said in a Christmas bulletin that the rise in domestic violence in Italy was caused by women serving cold food, not looking after their children, not cleaning their home, acting arrogant, and dressing provocatively.”

“I’ve noticed that people’s interest in discussing or accounting for privilege may be inversely proportional to the amount they possess. Which can be sort of a problem.”

“Women are empowered in the religious wing of conservative thought –” which seems to be more than religious progressives are doing.”

“Proponents of the [Violence Against Women Act] hope to revive the law in the new Congress, starting from scratch, but in the meantime, there will be far fewer resources available for state and local governments to combat domestic violence.”

“No matter how broad the bipartisan support, no matter who gets hurt in the process, the politics of the right wing of their party always comes first.”

“The primary stated rationale for the House GOP’s opposition to a Senate-passed version of the VAWA (as opposed to less seemly, muted rationales involving a general hostility to feminism in any form) was an objection to the extension of rights to people in LGBT couples — who presumably deserve whatever they get after defying God’€™s Law –€” undocumented folk, and Native Americans.”

“The modesty doctrine revolves around the assumption that a man has a right to sex with every woman he finds attractive.”

I can’t put a lot of faith in your good faith.”

“So here I am, days away from my son’s sixth birthday, thinking about how we need to teach our boys not to rape, instead of cautioning our daughters on how not to get raped.”

“This was a medical service that is advantageous for both women and babies, so we thought it should be seriously considered.”

“Last month a woman whose baby had died en utero was coming to the clinic to have it removed. In an awful coincidence, that was the day, Watters said, when the pro-life demonstrators collected a children’s choir on the sidewalk to sing ‘Happy Birthday Dead Baby’ to anyone driving in.”

“I have found the misunderstanding about late-term abortion to be widespread even among many of those in the public health advocacy community.”

“Developments in women’s health care were disseminated via a national game of political telephone, with information about our menstrual cycles, contraceptive options, and pregnancies filtered through the fuzzy interpretation of conservative talk show hosts, religious officials, and candidates for public office.”

“Medical and other experts say some dispense scientifically flawed information, exaggerating abortion’s risks.”

“My real problem, here, is that harmful books like these are still popular in Christian circles.”

“If you’re screening partners for how good they are at modeling future behavior, date statisticians. If you’re looking for someone who cares more about serving you than about showing off their precision of their model of you, date someone who isn’t ashamed to ask about your preferences.”

 

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

The gun undermines the badge
A servant for good
Police, yet again, refuse first aid for man they shot for no reason
Culture warriors have weird ideas about how courts work
  • Water_Bear

    I’d say I can’t believe that the House didn’t pass VAWA, but that’s not true. But I wish I didn’t believe it, and even more so that I didn’t have to. What a disgrace.

  • Ttricksterson

    The Republicans never miss an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot do they?  Not only does this weaken them among women and minorities but it will be re-introduced in the next session when the Democratic grip on the Senate is stronger and their minority in the House is larger.

  • EllieMurasaki

    “Last month a woman whose baby had died en utero was coming to the
    clinic to have it removed. In an awful coincidence, that was the day,
    Watters said, when the pro-life demonstrators collected a children’s choir on the sidewalk to sing ‘Happy Birthday Dead Baby’ to anyone driving in.”

    Oh fuck, that poor woman.  That had to be about as much fun as a gut shot, just getting from the road to the surgery room.

  • Worthless Beast

    Is it weird that I’m also worried about that children’s choir?  Are these kids going to remember doing that when they grow up?  Assuming they decide not to follow in the footsteps of the adults in their lives who taught them to sing that… once they’ve realized what the adults encouraged them to do… the guilt! 

  • EllieMurasaki

    No, not weird at all, and now you mention it I’m ashamed not to have thought of them myself.

  • Lori

    The truth is that young women are empowered in the Religious Right.

    Yes, they are. For certain, very specific, very disempowering, values of “empowered.”

    Jesus wept.

    I’m sure there is a need for better efforts to nurture the political perspective, skills and aspirations of young progressive Christian women. There’s certainly a need to do a better job nurturing every other group of progressive women, so why should Christians be left out? Buying into the utter bullshit that the Religious Right empowers young women is not a good starting point for that effort.

    The Religious Right doesn’t empower women, young or otherwise. It permits a small group of quislings to buy a seat at the table by carrying water for misogynists and sells the rest on the lie that those mean, ugly old feminists want to keep them from shaving their armpits and being stay at home moms. If Ms Merritt would like to see more progressive Christian women become politically active I suspect she’s going to need to start by grasping the implications of that particular reality.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    I’ve noticed, in office environments at least, that the word “empowerment” tends to be thrown around in cases where you really don’t have any power at all. “You’re empowered to make decision X about your job” where X is something that you get to take for granted at better jobs, and what they really mean is you might get to do it if you ask for permission first – but hey, we let you ask!

    It’s like it’s a magic buzzword – they get points for using the word even if it doesn’t actually apply.

  • Carstonio

    Because of my gender, it’s not my place to label Schlafey and Palin and Bachmann as quislings. Similarly, because of my skin color, it’s also not my place to use the Uncle Tom label for black politicians who endorse policies that perpetuate or exacerbate inequality. I can say that it’s defensible for women and blacks to use those labels. But my role in both is mostly limited to condemning the misogynists and racists who claim that Palin disproves their sexism or that Cain disproves their racism.

  • hidden_urchin

    Some of these stories make me feel like I am entirely unwelcome in the U.S. because of my sex. They make me think that maybe after I graduate I will take my engineering degree and accompanying skills elsewhere.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    “I’ve noticed that people’s interest in discussing or accounting for privilege may be inversely proportional to the amount they possess. Which can be sort of a problem.”

    It is very frustrating to realize that a person who refuses to understand the invisible advantages they have probably depends on that lack of understanding to rationalize the way society smooths the path for them.

    “I have found the misunderstanding about late-term abortion to be widespread even among many of those in the public health advocacy community.”

    There is no misunderstanding when one takes the position that abortion up to the moment of childbirth must be permitted in order that a woman’s life be saved if her pregnancy should endanger her.

  • stardreamer42

    Boy, there are some horribly creepy guys (and yes, they do all seem to be guys) in the comments on that last link. I hope none of them have daughters. 

  • http://timothy.green.name/ Timothy (TRiG)

    That last link is good reading, but the comments are flipping scary!

    TRiG.

  • http://readingseisho.wordpress.com/ friendly reader

    I’m debating whether to post this on my FB on Tuesday (the anniversary of Roe v Wade) or whether that would just cause drama, but I know I can say it hear without people getting mad:

    Luther reinterpreted the idea of “vocation” (religious calling) to mean more than the narrow range of priest-monk-nun that was available at his time. He argued that any job, done with Christian love and compassion, could be a divine calling, a service to God.

    And it didn’t matter what the job was, how much it made society despise you, how much you might wish, in a perfect world, that it didn’t have to be performed. The example Luther always used was a hangman: “If you village needs a hangman, and you can be a hangman, be a hangman.”

    From every interview I’ve seen with him, and every story I’ve heard of him, George Tiller (who was Lutheran, and murdered in his church during a service) had reinterpreted that to its modern analogy: if your state needs someone to perform late term abortions and you can perform late term abortions, perform late term abortions. And if you do it with Christian love and compassion, then that’s a calling from God.*

    My parents were only a few hours away at the Central Synod Assembly when
    he was murdered, and it brought it all horrifyingly close. His death is what made me go from being grudgingly pro-choice to very pro-choice, because it made me wake up and hear what people were saying about women, about doctors, and in the case of Tiller a fellow brother in Christ.


    *I know some people may not like the analogy of hangman to abortion service provider, and I agree that society is better off without capital punishment – though our prison system isn’t always better than a swift neck-snapping. But I think it’s also the case that we’d be better off without abortion – that is, in a world where every pregnancy was planned, wanted, and healthy to term. Let’s work towards that too, but let women make the tough decisions without bureaucrats and protestors giving them hell.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    If you’re screening partners for how good they are at modeling future behavior, date statisticians.

    This isn’t really fair to statisticians. My statistics professor was actually a really awesome guy. He emphasized what statistics are and what they aren’t, and he had us read some excellent statistics articles that taught us a lot more than statistics. For instance: men married to feminist women report much higher levels of satisfaction in their sex lives in marriage than men married to not-feminist women. Which, duh. But it was nice to see it mapped out like that. He’s married to a women’s studies professor, and I have a feeling they have a great sex life.

    I also have to call out this: I thought it would be a good time to call out one similarly destructive secular and sex-positive model

    Sex-positive means something very specific. It does not mean “yay sex let’s all have sex sex is good all the time wheee”. At all. Sex-positive activists talk a lot about how harmful the traditional crappy rom-com model is.

    Also, while media can tell us some things, using stories as guidelines for sexual behavior, or expecting them to be guidelines for sexual behavior, is silly. Stories are stories, not handbooks. They’re usually more interested in either how hot things look from the outside, or in character development. Every character is not going to suddenly become a perfect model of the bestest clearest sexual behavior and speech ever. When they’re the only models of sexual behavior, and kids aren’t given good, thorough sex educations, then there’s a problem. But we are capable of telling the difference between fantasy and reality.

    the BDSM community [has] shown it’s possible to have community norms of talking to your partner and then having sex

    What? Unless you’re gagged, why would talking stop with starting sex? That’s ridiculous and completely unhealthy. (And also, what? Who has sex in silence?) Consent is not a switch. It is an ongoing process. AND I always talked with my partners before and during and after sex, about sex, before I was into BDSM. 

    Anyway, I think my high school must have had a really excellent sex ed program, comparatively speaking. Because it emphasized the necessity of being clear about what you want and don’t want, and about talking talking TALKING.

  • http://readingseisho.wordpress.com/ friendly reader

    I don’t know if you followed through to the article she linked (which you should, and read all of her “Cosmocking” series because they’re hilarious), but the “talk and then have sex” refers to the opposite model we tend to have depicted in media, “have sex and then talk.” I.e. sex has to be totally spontaneous, no talking until something goes wrong. It doesn’t mean “stop talking once you’ve had sex,” just “talk first, the sex will go better.”

  • Jenny Islander

    Yes, this.

    The poisonous corollary to this is the tendency for teenagers raised in certain subcultures to go without birth control because if you talk about birth control before having sex, you’re a slut, but if you are ~swept away by desire~ then you are a helpless victim of the way that sex “really works” and you are guiltless.

    They’re having just as much sex as their “slutty” agemates; they’re just having more dangerous sex.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    the BDSM community [has] shown it’s possible to have community norms of talking to your partner and then having sex

    What? Unless you’re gagged, why would talking stop with starting sex? That’s ridiculous and completely unhealthy. (And also, what? Who has sex in silence?) Consent is not a switch. It is an ongoing process. AND I always talked with my partners before and during and after sex, about sex, before I was into BDSM. 

    I get the feeling here that what they are getting at is that talking about sex before a given act is the norm in the BDSM community, rather than each partner simply assuming that they know what the other wants which may be the norm elsewhere.  

    So for example, someone who has very firm ideas of what gender roles are like will probably just assume that their partner wants something from them and will react a certain way.  However, as we know there is a lot more variety and granularity to human sexuality than simple gender.  A subculture in which partners talk about respective desires and boundaries before any sex occurs is therefor notable in contrast.  

    As for the talking during sex, that certainly happens, but that changes a great deal depending on the context established by the pre-session discussion.  I am guessing someone is less inclined to detail desires in the middle of the act if being in a certain “headspace” is part of the desire to begin with, for example, and the discussion might pull them out of the moment.  Regardless, the discussion of desire before sex happens is the distinguishing factor.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Sex-positive means something very specific. It does not mean “yay sex let’s all have sex sex is good all the time wheee”. At all. Sex-positive activists talk a lot about how harmful the traditional crappy rom-com model is.

    Glad to know I’m not the only one who noticed that.

  • Kiba

    A comment from the last link: “You should both understand your body does not belong only to you but to your spouse as well.”

    Maybe this is why I’m still single but, no. My body belongs to me and no one else whether I’m married or not. Sharing my life with someone, having sex with someone, does not mean that my body no longer belongs to me. I don’t suddenly become a time-share. We can discuss things like health issues, body modification, what have you but just because I’m maybe willing to discuss things with you does not mean that you in anyway own/share my body.  

    Father Piero Corsi of Liguria said in a Christmas bulletin that the rise in domestic violence in Italy was caused by women serving cold food, not looking after their children, not cleaning their home, acting arrogant, and dressing provocatively.

    The fuck?

  • Ttricksterson

    Transllation:  If you did what we told you we wouldn’t have to beat you.

  • Kiba

    When I was a kid I was physically abused by my mother and her 2nd husband and I never bought their bullshit self-justification statements then and I don’t buy other peoples’ now.  

    Food cold? Heat it up. Issues with partner’s cooking? Learn to cook. Issues with state of house? Get off your ass and help clean. Kids? They are your responsibility too. 

    As for “acting arrogant, and dressing provocatively”? Oh no! She has opinions.  Get over it. Dressing provocatively? I don’t see the problem. I’m guessing they didn’t have much of a problem with it before they got married so why now? 

  • Jenny Islander

    “Your body doesn’t belong only to you” is Paul’s advice to married couples, which is specifically worded to include women’s equal rights over men’s bodies, and followed immediately by directions to discuss when there will and won’t be time for sex.

    As for Father Corsi: Someone in another forum suggested that his problem is that there is no longer a group of local women who are willing to cause food to appear on his table and get down on their knees to polish away his footprints.  Poor baby.

  • Kiba

    “Your body doesn’t belong only to you” is Paul’s advice to married couples, which is specifically worded to include women’s equal rights over men’s bodies, and followed immediately by directions to discuss when there will and won’t be time for sex.

    If I’m married or in some form of relationship where sex occurs we can discuss all sorts of things, including when there will and wont be sex, but that still does not mean that my body does not belong to me or that theirs belongs to me. My body is mine, regardless of the relationship I’m in, and the only person that gets to say what I do with it, who I share it with, when I share it with them, is me.

    Both parties can discuss when there will and wont be time for sex without either thinking that they no longer completely own  their own bodies. 

  • Lori

    This particular passage is basically Paul’s version of Dan Savage telling people that their partner does not give up the right to want sex just because they, for whatever reason, have decided that they do not. Obviously Dan’s solution is rather different from Paul’s, but the underlying issue is actually the same. It’s not OK for half of a couple to make unilateral decisions about sex and simply expect the other person to fall in line. In Paul’s time the issue was married people essentially taking vows of chastity because they thought Jesus was coming back any minute now (2k years and still counting, so they were a little off there). In Dan’s case the issues tend to be a bit more hot button.

    The problem with both Paul’s & Dan’s advice is that trying to talk in generalities about this almost always gets you into a bad area really quickly. No, your partner doesn’t own your body in any sense. No, it is not OK for your partner to expect sex from you when you do not want to have it. No, it is not OK to decide that since you’re not into having sex any more your partner needs to give it up too. No, it’s not OK to use having or withholding sex as a reward or punishment to manipulate your partner. Yes, it’s totally legitimate not to feel like having sex with someone when you’re mad at them. And on and on.

  • Kiba

    I think my problem is the starting premise. I think the argument can and should be made but not start off with the premise that “Your body doesn’t belong only to you”. That phrase is just incredibly problematic on many levels for me.  

  • Lori

    I agree. Paul is definitely not the guy I’d go to for marital advice. I’ve always thought there was something off about the fact the the scriptures preserve so much blather about marriage and women from the proudly unmarried guy, while the apostles who we know were married had nothing to say on the issue. Just try bringing that up in fundie Bible class though and see what it gets you. We must never question the almighty Paul or the appropriateness of the canonical scriptures.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     

    No, your partner doesn’t own your body in any sense. No, it is not OK
    for your partner to expect sex from you when you do not want to have it.
    No, it is not OK to decide that since you’re not into having sex any
    more your partner needs to give it up too. No, it’s not OK to use having
    or withholding sex as a reward or punishment to manipulate your
    partner. Yes, it’s totally legitimate not to feel like having sex with
    someone when you’re mad at them. And on and on.

    Even this has some difficulties. From a practical perspective, the difference between “I am withholding sex to punish you for not doing the dishes” and “The thought of a sink full of dirty dishes is a real mood-killer for me” is rather subtle. Likewise “Here is some sex as a reward for doing the dishes” and “Having a clean living area makes me feel good and more interested in doing fun things”

  • Lori

    The distinctions can be subtle, which is why speaking about it in generalities is such a problem. I think it behooves anyone in a long term relationship to know themselves well enough to recognize the difference, act accordingly and be honest about it. I don’t think it’s the kind of thing that an outsider can judge with any great accuracy.

  • banancat

     If any person decides that they will not participate in any sex, then yes, they absolutely do have the right to make that unilateral decision.  Nobody has any obligation to have sex with anyone, ever.  If a married person takes a vow of chastity because they believe the world is going to end, then they still have no obligation to have sex with anyone, ever.  It doesn’t matter how silly or serious the reason is.  If someone has decided to stop having sex, then they get to stop having sex.

  • Lori

      If any person decides that they will not participate in any sex, then yes, they absolutely do have the right to make that unilateral
    decision.  Nobody has any obligation to have sex with anyone, ever.  If a
    married person takes a vow of chastity because they believe the world
    is going to end, then they still have no obligation to have sex with
    anyone, ever.  It doesn’t matter how silly or serious the reason is.  If
    someone has decided to stop having sex, then they get to stop having
    sex.  

    Please go back and reread what I wrote.

    No, your partner doesn’t own your body in any sense. No, it is not OK for your partner to expect sex from you when you do not want to have it. No, it is not OK to decide that since you’re not into having sex any more your partner needs to give it up too

    I’m not sure what was unclear about that. I did not say that a person is not allowed to make a unilateral decision about having sex or not having it. What I said, and will stand by, is that half of a couple does not get to make a unilateral decision for both halves of the couple

    IOW, if you decide for whatever reason that you aren’t going to have sex any more that’s fine, but you can not demand that your partner remain sexless with you. You can ask, but you can’t demand. That’s a major change in the relationship and your partner has the right not to agree. Not agreeing means working out an open relationship or ending the relationship, not demanding sex when you don’t want to have it.

  • SisterCoyote

    It seems like one of those things that, taken out of context, is a totally clobber-verse thing, when in reality, it was meant to be freeing, not further restricting. Men and women being equals in the body of Christ, something that terrified some men back then… and apparently, still terrifies them today.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Maybe this is why I’m still single but, no.

    Your body belongs to you alone. Not your spouse. Your spouse has the amount of input over what you do with your body that you choose to allow them.

    I’m married and a sub, and even for me, my body “belongs” to my husband/dom precisely as much as I choose to say it does. I can retract any of it at any time. Anyone who claims marriage means your body belongs to your spouse is wrong.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Categorically and for everyone, regardless of how they might feel on the matter?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Dunno about Lliira, but from my view, yeah. I own my body. I can, if I and they choose, share my body with anyone I choose. I can even do a lifetime BDSM scenario in which I’m my dom’s slave (not that I would, not my kink, but I could). But the moment I retract consent to or otherwise end the situation that involves me not being full owner of my body, my body is wholly mine again.

  • Nirrti

    ” Father Piero Corsi of Liguria said in a Christmas bulletin that the rise
    in domestic violence in Italy was caused by women serving cold food,
    not looking after their children, not cleaning their home, acting
    arrogant, and dressing provocatively.”

    Sooo…..

    Italian ices and Caesar salads make the menz go crazy. I’ll remind myself to avoid restaurants if I ever visit Italy.

  • Kiba

    Italian ices and Caesar salads make the menz go crazy.

    Evidently so does dust and clutter which means, I guess, my place is off limits to Italian men since my cleaning routine is rather lack luster. 

  • Carstonio

    Men are not allowed to see themselves as objects of desire,
    to consider themselves attractive or to enjoy the idea of sex with an
    initiating woman. The corollary to accepting that sex isn’t about having
    a right of use for another person’s body means enjoying the experience
    of having a woman express genuine interest in you.

    For a long I assumed that I wasn’t attractive because women didn’t seem to be treating me as though I were attractive. Sort of how money in a ledger or statement doesn’t seem as real as currency in a wallet. At the same time, I might have been afraid if a woman had indicated obvious interest. Partly from inexperience and partly from the fear that often arises when anyone wants anything from me , the fear of consequences if I don’t meet others’ requirements or expectations. But this could be simply a variation on the mindset that Sierra describes.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    For a long I assumed that I wasn’t attractive because women didn’t seem to be treating me as though I were attractive.

    I’ve actually heard this from quite a few men. All of them attractive.

    Patriarchy screws over everyone.

  • vsm

    The first time a non-drunk off her ass woman expressed her attraction to me, my first, panicked thought was that she must be a Soviet spy. This happened more than a decade after the fall of the USSR. Some self-esteem problems there, I think, along with too many Bond films during formative years.

  • Carstonio

    If I didn’t know the woman well and she was trying to get me into bed, my inner dialogue would have sounded more like Woody Allen – what if she’s trying to get back at her boyfriend? What if she’s newly pregnant and wants to trap me into marriage? Not that most women would do either of those. It’s about fear of people in general.

    Why would the lack of intoxication be relevant? Is that supposed to be a variant of the sexist concept of “beer goggles.” I strongly suspect that’s a myth anyway. Alcohol lowers the inhibitions, but if one isn’t attracted to the person in the first place, i don’t see how intoxication would make one attracted to hir.

  • vsm

    I added the part about balance-wrecking intoxication for historical accuracy. I did not suspect Soviet involvement during the first show of attention, which now that I think about it was actually a mild sexual assault.

  • Paul Durant

    No matter how ass-headed the reason for opposing it, the Violence Against Women Act was a terrible law and it’s good that it wasn’t renewed. Its entire basis is a model of domestic abuse that simply isn’t true: the Duluth model upon which it is based states that domestic violence is a form of patriarchal terrorism by which men exert privilige to oppress women, when domestic violence perpetration is symmetrical

    It defines the “primary aggressor” as whoever is bigger and stronger (ie, the man) regardless of who actually perpetuates the violence, which leads to the situation where a man who calls the police to report domestic violence against him isthree times more likely to be arrested than the woman abusing him (scroll to page 831). 

    It imposes gender restrictions on offering aid to the victims of domestic violence, providing shelters, renumeration of legal fees, and advocacy to women victims of domestic violence and shit-fuckall to men victims. An update to the law provides funding and incentives to any work aimed at preventing domestic violence against women and, again, shit-fuckall for anything that concerns the other 50% of victims. It promotes policies viewing men as the only ones capable of domestic violence and then (in Part U, Sec. 2101) provides monetary incentives to implement mandatory arrest programs. It continually refers to DV as something that only women are victimized, and orders the commission of experts and research and panels into violence against women and ignores the other 50% of domestic violence.

    It was a horrible, sexist law and I don’t give a shit if the Republicans opposed it because they thought it was a means for the Reptoid takeover of Earth, it should have been repealed. A law that protects half of the victims of a crime while specifically excluding the other half of the victims is a bigoted law. And go ahead and cue the angry, self-serving outrage from people who see “opposes VAWA” and immediately conclude that I hate women without reading the goddamn post I made, I don’t care about that either. It’s the truth.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I would like to propose that we NOT HAVE THIS ARGUMENT AGAIN, because it went so well the last time you started it.

  • Paul Durant

    I’m not going to ignore the truth and allow lies to perpetuate because certain people get extremely shitty, aggressive, and self-righteously uncomprehending when the truth is brought up. You would not allow someone to say to you “Let’s not argue about how what I do harms gay rights because it made an unpleasant argument the last time my horrible behavior was brought up,” why should I allow the same argument to stop me?

  • EllieMurasaki

    certain people get extremely shitty, aggressive, and self-righteously uncomprehending when the truth is brought up

    Gee, that doesn’t sound like you at all.

    I’m done.

  • Paul Durant

    One of us backs up their statements with citation of scientific studies, and one of us refuses to read them and treats their refusal to do so as evidence of their invalidity. 

  • Lori

     

    One of us backs up their statements with citation of scientific studies,
    and one of us refuses to read them and treats their refusal to do so as
    evidence of their invalidity.    

    Both of these people are figments of your imagination. We have been over this and really have no desire or need to go over it again. If you want a welcoming audience for your MRA crap you’re going to have to peddle it elsewhere.

  • Madhabmatics

     You know, isn’t his posting style a bit like a 9/11 or sandy hook truther

  • Lori

    IDK. At least on this issue AFAICT it’s MRA boilerplate. I have no patience for it.

  • P J Evans

     PIECE. OF. CRAP.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Anderson, K. L. (2002).  Perpetrator or victim? 
    Relationships between intimate partner violence and well-being.  Journal of
    Marriage and Family, 64, 851-863.  (Data consisted of 7,395 married and
    cohabiting heterosexual couples drawn from wave 1 of the National Survey of
    Families and Households .  In terms of measures: subjects were
    asked “how many arguments during the past year resulted in ‘you hitting, shoving
    or throwing things at a partner.’  They were also asked how many arguments
    ended with their partner, ‘hitting, shoving or throwing things at you.'” 
    Author reports that, “victimization rates are slightly higher among men than
    women and in cases that involve perpetration by only one partner,
    more women than men were identified as perpetrators .”)

    Given the relatively low percentages and how close they are I’m not sure what great revelation is supposed to come from this.

    Also, 7395 couples means 14790 people which is a pretty small sample from a population in the hundreds of millions. While it’s unlikely the sample size is that biased I would believe this more if the chi square test result were included.

    Archer, J. (2000).  Sex differences in
    aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. 
    Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680. (Meta-analyses of sex differences in
    physical aggression indicate that women were more likely than men to “use
    one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” 
    In terms of injuries, women were somewhat more likely to be injured, and
    analyses reveal that  62% of those injured were women.)

    The  numerical result given contradicts the MRA-based assertion in the previous sentence. Conclusion: Men, being stronger, can defend themselves more easily. Corollary: the odds already favor a man even in a defensive fight.

    Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1983). 
    Violent intimacy: The family as a model for love relationships.  Family
    Relations, 32, 283-286.  (Surveyed 461 college students, 168 men,
    293 women, with regard to dating violence.  Found that 15% of the
    men admitted to physically abusing their partners, while 21% of women admitted
    to physically abusing their partners.)

    Sample size issues.

    And so on.

    The point being, that while taken as a whole, that bibliography may support the “men and women use violence about equally” assertion used by MRAs, there are weaknesses in the individual data points.

    You also cannot extrapolate from this to another major problem, which is that the frequency of rape lies far over on the woman-as-victim side.

  • Paul Durant

    Your discounting of the first and third studies are meaningless; you claim “not enough sample size” (which you would do no matter what the numbers were) when the first at least has more than enough for a statistically representative sample (it’s seven times the amount of likely voters that need to be polled for such a sample!), and adding an “and so on” to ignore the fact that hey, maybe the fact there are 280 of these studies indicates these aren’t statisical outliers!

    But your discounting of the second study perfectly encapsulates every single thing wrong with how you and the others here respond to this information. It is shameful and embarrassing and you aren’t even aware what an ass you just made of yourself. Nobody else will call you on it, because all of you are making the same error.

    You saw that I opposed VAWA and instantly you stopped paying attention to what I actually said. You thought “This person opposes VAWA, so they must be an MRA, which is the same thing as a misogynist.” Then you mentally substituted your funhouse-mirror distortion of what an MRA must be arguing in place of the words I actually said.

    The fact that the ratio of seriously injured women to seriously injured men in domestic violence incidents is 38-62 does not in any way discount what I said. It does not undermine the point I am making (“VAWA is a wrong and bigoted law”) or the point of those research papers (“perpetration of domestic violence is symmetrical”). It is not a counterargument to words I actually said. It is only a counterargument to the person you imagined as soon as you saw I opposed feminism. Men being more likely to seriously harm women in the domestic violence incidents both sexes perpetuate with equal frequency does not justify denying victim services to men and it does not justify arresting men who call the police to complain they are being domestically abused and it does not justify forcing domestic violence treatment and response to act in accordance with a model that treats it as an expression of male power over women and hatred for womankind. But you brought it up as a counteragument because you could not be bothered to understand the thing I was actually saying. Just like every other time I bring up things that oppose feminism that are also objectively correct and backed by facts, you don’t engage with what I say AT ALL. You engage with someone you imagined.

    It is fucking shameful.

  • P J Evans

    Don’t just tell us that we’re wrong when we don’t support your (biased) views. Admit that women are abused far more frequently than men, or SHUT UP about it.

  • Paul Durant


    Don’t just tell us that we’re wrong when we don’t support your (biased) views. Admit that women are abused far more frequently than men, or SHUT UP about it.

    I provided a massive list of scientific papers stating no, women ARE NOT abused far more frequently than men. You interpret this as me merely claiming you are wrong because you don’t support my views. You demand that I “admit” something for which I have provided overwhelming evidence of its falsehood.

    You aren’t wrong merely for disagreeing with me. You’re wrong because you ignore scientific evidence

  • P J Evans

     When you can produce papers based on a large sample, that are in peer-reviewed journals, and haven’t been retracted. then you can qualify to claim that men are more abused than women.
    Until then, remember that white male is the easiest level there is, and stop whining about how hard your life is. Because most people aren’t white or male, and they know more about life than you.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    To be fair, I doubt they’ve all been retracted. The other thing is that there are substantial variations in the violence-reporting rates. Example:

    Ackard, D. M., &
    Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2002).  Date violence and date rape among
    adolescents: associations with disordered eating behaviors and psychological
    health.  Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 455-473.  (A Minnesota statewide
    school sample of 81,247 students in the 9th and 12th
    grade responded to the question of whether they ever experienced date related
    violence.  Over 90% of students reported never experiencing dating
    violence.  In terms of grades, 3.3% of 9th grade girls and 2.8% of 9th
    grade boys reported experiencing violence, while 5.5% of 12th grade girls and
    2.3% of 12th grade boys reported experiencing violence.  In terms of
    ethnicity, American Indian boys and African American boys reported
    experiencing higher rates of dating violence than American Indian girls
    and African American girls ).

    That’s actually a rather large sample size, but the violence-incidence rate is much lower than in some of the other reports.

    Given that this actually represents 81247 / 371600 = about 20% of the total sample size quoted by the compiler, this would suggest that given sufficiently large populations with no prior selection, the violence-incidence rate, while equal, also becomes relatively small instead of the much higher percentages reported for samples of less than 1000 people each.

    (which suggests some sort of systematic effect not captured in the summaries.)

  • Paul Durant

     When you can produce papers based on a large sample, that are in peer-reviewed journals, and haven’t been retracted. then you can qualify to claim that men are more abused than women.

    Point one proving you didn’t read: I didn’t say men were more abused than women. I said they were equal. You imagined I said men were more abused, because you wanted to imagine someone who was more morally satisfying to yell at.

    Point two, I already did that and you refused to acknowledge their existence. You came up with that “peer reviewed, not retracted, large sample” thing because you assume that, even though you made no effort to look into the facts I provided, they MUST have been wrong so they MUST have failed one of those criteria. 

    Here’s another one! This is a meta-analysis, in the peer-reviewed journal “Aggression and Violent Behavior”. It cites numerous studies that are themselves rigorous enough for citation. It also cites the “evidence” of the “patriarchal terrorism” paradigm and states why it is incomplete and faulty. 

    http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Dutton_GenderParadigmInDV-Pt1.pdf 

    You are going to make up some reason this does not count. Your reason will be idiotic and in all likelihood not even accomplish what you want it to.

  • Water_Bear

    Not that I agree with him, I do support VAWA, but the Journal of Marriage and Family is a peer reviewed academic journal and a 14,000+ person sample size is absolutely gigantic for these purposes. I haven’t looked at their statistics or methodology, so it’s entirely possible it’s a BS study, but I’m not comfortable making that judgement sight-unseen.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Whenever I see someone acting like you are right now I always imagine someone squinting like Mr. Magoo hopping up and down flapping their arms like a caricaturedly-angry cartoon character.

    You might stop to realize that for all that what you say about social perceptions of female-on-male violence is true, and the tendency to stereotype domestic violence as male on female is true, the way you’re carrying on from that to broadly slam the entire body of lived experiences of women in general, to the point of claiming that laws with the express intent of combatting misogyny are themselves misogynist–

    — and doing so with such fervor that I imagine myself wiping spittle off my monitor afterwards when I read your words

    You might want to do what men like to tell women to do, and take a chill pill.

  • Paul Durant


    the way you’re carrying on from that to broadly slam the entire body of lived experiences of women in general,
     

    Show me where I have done this. Right now. Back up your claim or admit you are making things up because you do not care enough to determine what I am actually saying.

    Feminism is not synonymous with womanhood, by the way, so that isn’t going to fly.

  • Lori

     

    Show me where I have done this. Right now.  

    Have you paid any attention to the number of times that you say this? You’re like a belligerent drunk in a bar, or a spoiled child. It’s pathetic.

  • Paul Durant


    Have you paid any attention to the number of times that you say this? You’re like a belligerent drunk in a bar, or a spoiled child. It’s pathetic. 

    No, I am someone who is continually blamed for things that his opponents imagined, and every time I challenge you to substantiate your allegations, you fall back to attempting to ridicule and shame me. 

    Because you cannot actually substantiate your allegations. 

    Because they didn’t happen. 

    Because you are arguing with someone who lives inside your skull.

    So when I challenge you to show me where I have done the thing you accuse me of, remember that I actually can see that “you sound childish for asking this” means “I cannot actually substantiate this accusation, but I don’t want to admit I am accusing you of things I imagined.” So stop trying to dodge like that.

  • Lori

    No, I am someone who is continually blamed for things that his opponents imagined  

    What do all the situations in which you are continually blamed for things that your “opponents” imagined have in common Paul? Is it the opponents, or is it you?

    So when I challenge you to show me where I have done the thing you
    accuse me of, remember that I actually can see that “you sound childish
    for asking this” means “I cannot actually substantiate this accusation,
    but I don’t want to admit I am accusing you of things I imagined.” So
    stop trying to dodge like that. 

    Your powers of projection are truly awesome.

  • Paul Durant

    What do all the situations in which you are continually blamed for things that your “opponents” imagined have in common Paul? Is it the opponents, or is it you? 

    Uh, the situations have YOU in common. The plural you. Like, the people, here, on this comment section, responding to me, and being continually dishonest about it. It’s usually the same handful of people, socially cued by each other to react to me as though I am a Bad Person Who Should Be Shamed. You reinforce your membership in the Elite And Morally Righteous Group by attacking what you imagine as a bad person who hates everything good and is dumb and so goddamn crazy. 

    Your powers of projection are truly awesome. 

    Would you cut out this “ha ha everything you say is projection” horseshit? You’re the one projecting, as in that is actually what you are doing in actuality, and yet I’m not hammering that nearly as much as you, who just takes every claim I make about the people dishonestly and thoughtlessly attacking me and say “ha ha you are talking about yourself” no matter how little sense it makes.I said you are not substantiating your accusations, and you said it was projection. Despite the fact that I am the only person here who is providing scientific citations for his claims.

    How does this make any fucking sense? I don’t avoid questions by attempting to ridicule and shame the person posing them, I address those who have substance, and those that don’t, I say “Show me when this actually happened” to demonstrate that the person cannot show that because they allegation has no substance. My entire problem is not allowing any of these compulsively dishonest accusations to go unaddressed. That’s why I keep hanging out in here with disgusting self-righteous hypocrites like you. For everyone’s sake, even if you’re not going to STOP being a disgusting self-righteous hypocrite who bullshits as naturally and thoughtlessly as mammals breathe, for fuck’s sake at LEAST hold back on the “you are projecting” horseshit for claims where it might THEORETICALLY make sense.

  • Lori

    I address those who have substance  

    No, you don’t. People have now repeatedly told you the problems with the Scientific Studies That You Alone Are Citing. Everything you link to has problems. They don’t all have the same problem and not all the problems are equally large, but they all have problems. You are obviously highly motivated on this issue, so if those are the best that you can come up with it ought to be fairly clear what the problem is.

    Obviously it is not clear to you, in spite of the fact that it’s been explained more than once. Your lack of comprehension is not our problem.

     

    My entire problem is not allowing any of these compulsively dishonest
    accusations to go unaddressed. That’s why I keep hanging out in here
    with disgusting self-righteous hypocrites like you.     

    Of course. There can’t be any reason other than compulsive dishonesty for people not wanting to deal with you.

  • Paul Durant


    No, you don’t. People have now repeatedly told you the problems with the Scientific Studies That You Alone Are Citing.
     

    No. People repeatedly ASSERT that there are problems, and therefore should be dismissed, but there have only been two instances in which someone actually tried to substantiate them. I responded. You saw one of them in this thread. The claim of “problems” did not invalidate the research; he looked at three papers, claimed a study with a gargantuan sample size wasn’t big enough, and claimed that since the second contradicted some claim I never made and he imagined, it didn’t count. Facts matter. Him saying “there’s problems” is not sufficient to discredit them, when his claim is insufficient. Me saying his claim is insufficient, and why, is not a failing on my part.

    Of course. There can’t be any reason other than compulsive dishonesty for people not wanting to deal with you.

    Compulsive dishonesty is not an imagined reason not to deal with me. It is the behavior directly shown here wherein I am continually accused of things I never said or did, ascribed values I do not hold, attacked for motivations that are not mine, and blamed for the behaviors of my opponents.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Actually, I looked at the entire list. If you seriously think I’m going to quote each and every single one when I can tell from looking that the majority involve sample sizes of less than 1000 people and have fairly noticeable fluctuations in violence-incidence rates from one paper to the next, you’re guilty of what you accuse me of doing: selective reading.

    Drawing the conclusion that the gender balance of violence-incidence is equal may be valid, but given considerable fluctuations in the percentages I would be a lot more inclined to weight the results by the sample size involved.

  • Paul Durant


    Drawing the conclusion that the gender balance of violence-incidence is equal may be valid, but given considerable fluctuations in the percentages I would be a lot more inclined to weight the results by the sample size involved.
     

    And were I citing them to give a concrete percentage of how many relationships, overall, contain domestic violence, this would be a valid concern.

    But they all say that, regardless of the proportion of relationships which they found to be abusive, men and women commit abuse equally. You can weight them by sample size, and they say the same thing: gender perpetration of domestic violence is symmetrical.

  • Lori

     

    And were I citing them to give a concrete percentage of how many
    relationships, overall, contain domestic violence, this would be a valid
    concern.   

    So the studies you cited were not intended to back up your repeated claims that men and women are equal victims of abuse?

  • Paul Durant


    So the studies you cited were not intended to back up your repeated claims that men and women are equal victims of abuse?

    You should read the very next sentence in the post you quote.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    I’m not going to bother engaging with the misogynist troll, but for Invisible Neutrino and others who might be interested:

    The claims made by MRAs that there’s an even split between the sexes for DV rates is based on studies done using the Conflict Tactics Scale originated by Murray Straus and Richard Gelles.  But the CTS doesn’t make any mention of context or result.  So it makes no distinction between initiated violence and self-defense, or defense of children.  It doesn’t even make a distinction between play-fighting and actual attempts to injure.  And, as originally written, the CTS didn’t include sexual violence at all.

    Gelles and Straus have actually been quite critical of MRA misuse of their research.  Richard Gelles says:

    “[W]hen we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of “battered” men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men…[T]here are very few women who stalk male partners or kill them and then their children in a cataclysmic act of familicide. The most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out primarily by men.

    Indeed, men are hit by their wives, they are injured, and some are killed. But, are all men hit by women “battered?” No. Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered men. A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or partner and has not physically struck or psychologically provoked her.”

    (more here:  http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/faq-but-doesnt-evidence-show-that-women-are-just-as-likely-to-batter-their-partners-as-men/)

    There are some good debunkings of the MRA claim here (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2004/06/26/on-husband-battering-are-men-equal-victims/) and here (http://manboobz.blogspot.ca/p/not-so-great-debate-on-domestic.html).  If you scroll down, you’ll notice that both include a lot of links with sources and further reading.

  • Lori

     

    Compulsive dishonesty is not an imagined reason not to deal with me. It
    is the behavior directly shown here wherein I am continually accused of
    things I never said or did, ascribed values I do not hold, attacked for
    motivations that are not mine, and blamed for the behaviors of my
    opponents.  

    So it’s obviously true that we all disagree with you because we’re socially cuing off each other and signalling that you should be attacked, but the fact that you use all kinds of MRA speak is totally coincidental and it’s wrong of us to form any opinions about your motivations based on their usage? Because you are the last honest man, fighting a lonely battle for truth and justice against the enormous power of the arrayed forces of feminism, right?

    Sure, that totally makes sense.

     

    You saw that I opposed VAWA and instantly you stopped paying
    attention to what I actually said. You thought “This person opposes
    VAWA, so they must be an MRA, which is the same thing as a misogynist.”
    Then you mentally substituted your funhouse-mirror distortion of what an
    MRA must be arguing in place of the words I actually said.   

    No Paul, I saw your reasoning for opposing the VAWA and said, “Here comes Paul’s MRA crap again. I wonder if we can head it off at the pass ? That shit was seriously a waste of time that last 2 or 3 times he dragged a thread through it and it’s getting old.”

    I said that because this is not your first trip down MRA lane. Stop trying to act as if each round of bullshit is some totally new thing, unconnected to our previous experience with you.

  • Paul Durant


    So it’s obviously true that we all disagree with you because we’re socially cuing off each other and signalling that you should be attacked, but the fact that you use all kinds of MRA speak is totally coincidental and it’s wrong of us to form any opinions about your motivations based on their usage? Because you are the last honest man, fighting a lonely battle for truth and justice against the enormous power of the arrayed forces of feminism, right?

    I use MRA speak because I am a gender egalitarian and that incorporates the MRM as well as actual sane advocates for women’s rights, whether or not they associate themselves with the name of feminism, who recognize that gender roles hurt everyone and cannot be unravelled without being understood. You think this is an instant well-poisoning dismissal because you, literally, have absolutely no idea what the MRM is or what it wants. You “know” it is full of neckbeards and fedoras who hate women and feel entitled to sex and etc etc etc because that is what feminists tell each other and they think that it must be true because, after all, anyone who thinks men might be disadvantaged in any capacity must be an evil misogynist. 

    In response to me saying this, you will find the examples of crazy misogynist MRA’s (and of course they exist) and say this is proof the whole movement is rotten. And then I will respond by bringing up the insane misandrist feminists who advocate for culling the male population or say that all hetero sex is rape or say transwomen are evil infiltrators from the patriarchy to destroy womynkind. And you will scoff at me and say “they aren’t real feminists, they don’t represent the group!” and won’t even realize the irony.

  • Lori

    I use MRA speak because I am a gender egalitarian and that incorporates
    the MRM as well as actual sane advocates for women’s rights, whether or
    not they associate themselves with the name of feminism, who recognize
    that gender roles hurt everyone and cannot be unravelled without being
    understood.   

    Being a gender egalitarian in no way requires using MRA-speak.

    Beyond that, you’re full of shit. You know how I know? We actually talk about the ways that gender roles hurt everyone with some regularity and yet you insist that we’re all brainwashed feminist robots. You rarely, if ever, have anything constructive to contribute. With you it’s all spittle-flecked rants about men being equally abused and feminists hiding your male birth control. That isn’t gender egalitarianism, it’s just MRA bullshit.

    In response to me saying this, you will find the examples of crazy
    misogynist MRA’s (and of course they exist) and say this is proof the
    whole movement is rotten. And then I will respond by bringing up the
    insane misandrist feminists who advocate for culling the male population
    or say that all hetero sex is rape or say transwomen are evil
    infiltrators from the patriarchy to destroy womynkind. And you will
    scoff at me and say “they aren’t real feminists, they don’t represent
    the group!” and won’t even realize the irony.

    You either have a very rich and full fantasy life or a counter-factual belief in your own ability to see the future, because you keep telling me what I’m going to do. It’s stupid and annoying and doesn’t make you seem cleaver or  oh- so-put-upon. It makes you seem like an ass.

    To deal with the substance (such as it is) of your latest whine,  the difference that you refuse to acknowledge is that the nasty misogynists are the mainstream of the MRM, while the man-haters actually are the fringe of feminism. I’m not in charge of policing who is and is not a real feminist, so I have nothing to say on that. The fact that you don’t understand the difference speaks poorly of you, not of me.

  • Paul Durant


    To deal with the substance (such as it is) of your latest whine,  the difference that you refuse to acknowledge is that the nasty misogynists are the mainstream of the MRM, while the man-haters actually are the fringe of feminism.

    No, they aren’t the mainstream. They really, really aren’t. The MRM is more fractious than feminism to begin with being as it started mostly on the Internet which promotes people going into their own little enclosed communities where their views and righteousness can be reinforced by each other, which makes it a lot more of an archipelago. But the informal “leader” of the movement online, such as it is, is a bisexual mother of three who is hardly a misogynist. The published authors that constitute what little “canon” there is are Warren Farrell and Christina Hoff Sommers, neither of whom is a misogynist by any honest standard (“opposes feminism == misogynist” is not an honest standard.) There’s a huge presence on Tumblr of MRA’s and gender egalitarians who incorporate the MRM, the most notable of which is here, and the majority of those blogs, last I checked were run by cis women or transpeople, and only a couple are misogynistic (who nobody really likes). The-spearhead is misogynistic as all fuck,  but only really linked for news reports and other factual, not-opinion things. Even /r/MensRights is mostly about judicial bias against men, and news stories about women hurting men that don’t get a lot of outrage with “hmm what do you think would happen if this was a man doing it to a woman” commentary; any entitled talk about women’s sexual availability I saw there was responded to derisively. TGMP was way, way too focused on fitting it’s advocacy into a feminist paradigm despite that paradigm being provably wrong, and AVFM is… stuff where the subject is something that is true, but some article authors address in a misogynist way, and the main guy behind the site has some weird-ass problems of his own.

    The radical gendercidal feminists are not the core of feminism either, but they are a lot more motivated than the “mainstream,” benefit from the “mainstream” covering for them, they’ve caused a LOT more tangible harm than the radicals of the MRM (the MRM has not passed laws that exclude half of the victims of any crime getting treatment, nor has it encouraged laws that persecute the transgendered), and the mainstream of feminism has a lot mroe to do with radfems than the mainstream cares to admit — radfems are the ones who take feminism’s ideology to its natural and abhorrent conclusions, while third-wavers take the ideology but discard the really obviously insane things it comes up with (without noticing “hey, maybe an ideology that arrives at insane conclusions is not a good way to view the world”.)

    And if you disagree, how are you going to propose to define the mainstream, if not by efficacy?

  • JayemGriffin

    Warren Farrell? Like incest advocate Warren Farrell, who claims there’s nothing wrong with fathers being attracted to their underaged daughters and acting on that attraction? You understand that presenting him as a reasonable MRA is not making you look good, yes?

  • Lori

    Presenting Christina Hoff Sommers as reasonable doesn’t make him look good either.

  • Paul Durant


    Presenting Christina Hoff Sommers as reasonable doesn’t make him look good either.
     

    Oh, so you changed your argument after the fact from “the mainstream MRM is misogynist” to “the mainstream MRM isn’t composed entirely of people I agree with all the time.” Good to know.

  • Paul Durant


    Warren Farrell? Like incest advocate Warren Farrell, who claims there’s nothing wrong with fathers being attracted to their underaged daughters and acting on that attraction? You understand that presenting him as a reasonable MRA is not making you look good, yes? 

    The whole “Warren Farrell supports incest” smear is based on an interview in Penthouse in 1977 (back when it was trying to be Playboy interviewing interesting people and having excerpts from acclaimed novelists), taken grotesquely out of context by feminists who cannot engage an argument substantively so they must fabricate a reason why their opponent is a bad person who must be shamed. 

    Yeah, that behavior is completely out of left field, I’ve never seen feminists do that before.

    The most often abused quote is the one about “incest [being] part of the loving family lifestyle”. Which sounds bad unless you can see the rest of the sentence, in which case you would see he is repeating the description given to him by 6 of 200 interviewees and the people pretending he is offering his own opinion on incest are fucking shameless liars. His “crime” of “supporting incest” is interviewing people about it and saying that those speaking about it should use neutral language for the benefit of those who have been subjected to it

    Also, have you noticed how if a feminist says something clearly stark raving fucking insane or heinously selfish, it doesn’t count, it doesn’t impact the validity of their views in other areas, and if it was more than 5 years ago it was all in the past and you shouldn’t be bringing it up any more? But if someone who goes against the feminist orthodoxy ever said anything that someone could lie about and turn into something terrible, even thirty years ago, that means they are irreparably tainted and forevermore marked as a bad person who must be shamed? You probably have, and you probably think it’s perfectly reasonable.

  • JayemGriffin

    Because nobody who calls themselves a feminist has called Margaret Sanger out on her eugenicist beliefs or Andrea Dworkin on her issues with sex, to name two off the top of my head. 

    If you want to claim him as a leader, either acknowledge that he said some seriously problematic shit, or adopt that position as well.

  • Paul Durant


    If you want to claim him as a leader, either acknowledge that he said some seriously problematic shit, or adopt that position as well.
     

    I’m not going to “acknowledge” things that didn’t happen. I like how you ignored the whole “he didn’t actually say that” bit in favor of making this about some kind of team identity thing.

  • JayemGriffin

    If you can’t see the problems with saying that “boys don’t seem to suffer, even from the negative [incest]” and attributing the HUGE gap in how fathers viewed incest (60% positive) vs. how daughters viewed incest (85% negative) to either social norms or selective reporting without even CONSIDERING the possibility of abuse, I honestly have nothing more to say to you. 

    Troll-feeding ceases now. Sorry everybody.

  • fraser

     And who also claims 80 percent of rape charges are made-up. And that being cockteased is the equivalent of rape.

  • Lori

     

    Uh, the situations have YOU in common. The plural you. Like, the people,
    here, on this comment section, responding to me, and being continually
    dishonest about it. It’s usually the same handful of people, socially
    cued by each other to react to me as though I am a Bad Person Who Should
    Be Shamed. You reinforce your membership in the Elite And Morally
    Righteous Group by attacking what you imagine as a bad person who hates
    everything good and is dumb and so goddamn crazy. 

    So this is the only place that you’re “continually” blamed for things you didn’t do? Nowhere else? Or are you saying that it happens in other places where the people happen to be just like us?

    You need to rethink your notion about the common issue in either case.

  • Madhabmatics

     He’s been run of RPGNet, Somethingawful, and some My Little Pony fan communities, so we are apparently in good company

  • Lori

     There are times when I really wish Fred was a bit more free with the ban hammer.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    And you think that makes you correct to belligerently jut your jaw out, metaphorically speaking, and type “Show me where I have done this. Right now.”?

    You’re as mulishly tone-deaf to human interaction as Rayford Steele is, because the way you act it’s your way or the highway.

  • Paul Durant

    And you think that makes you correct to belligerently jut your jaw out, metaphorically speaking, and type “Show me where I have done this. Right now.”?
    You’re as mulishly tone-deaf to human interaction as Rayford Steele is, because the way you act it’s your way or the highway.
     

    “Okay, people are making accusations against you that are completely unsubstantiated because they are imagining wrongdoings to ascribe to you, but really, let’s focus on how this is your fault, because you’re too belligerent when calling people out on the fact they are openly lying about you in an attempt to shame and ridicule you and justify their continued support of bigotry!”

  • AnonymousSam

    Here’s an accusation that’s not unsubstantiated: You’re a fucking asshole whose constant martyr card bullshit and vitriolic repugnance at this community would make you unwelcome regardless of what message you had. Take a hint and piss off.

  • Lori

     

    You engage with someone you imagined.

    It is fucking shameful.

     

    Tell it to your mirror Paul, because that’s the only place it needs to be said.

  • Lori

     

    the first at least has more than enough for a statistically
    representative sample (it’s seven times the amount of likely voters that
    need to be polled for such a sample!),   

    Do you actually not realize that statistically significant sample size for the kind of study you’re linking to has little to nothing to do with statistically significant sample size for a poll of likely voters?

  • David Starner

    I find it interesting that that article about privilege, after talking about privilege in general, goes on to the type of privilege the author lacks. Which I think would be more honest then talking about amounts of privilege; everyone is willing to talk about the types of privilege they lack, but I don’t think white women are better then white men about talking white privilege, and statistically blacks seem worse then whites in talking about cis privilege or Christian privilege.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Incidentally that thing linked by Durant is a valid journal, printed under the Elsevier aegis.

  • Lori

     

    Also, “The feminist cannon”?

    Come on, dude. Spell check!

     

    You don’t understand, the feminist cannon is clearly the weapon women are using to abuse men.

  • Carstonio

    Heh. I imagined Thelma and Louise mounting it to the roof of their Thunderbird.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    You don’t understand, the feminist cannon is clearly the weapon women are using to abuse men.

    Is that anything like the Friendship Cannon?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    Is that anything like Pachabel’s Cannon? That can be abusive too, after about eleven thousand times.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Fished from the archives, by the way. Paul Durant is more interested in bludgeoning his way to being deemed correct than in engaging in any meaningful way.

    Hint: Pooh-pooh-ing “Schroedinger’s Rapist” is standard MRA dogma, because it goes part and parcel with their tendency to claim that women, en masse, “friend-zone” Nice Guys, “trap” men with pregnancies, and make false rape claims by the trainload.

  • Paul Durant

    I like how you cannot engage substantively with with what I say, so you bring up past incidences in which I was also unambiguously right and also belligerent in attacking your constant dishonesty, and then claim an imagined reason WHY I would say those things, and therefore say I must be dismissed.

    You do this very consistently. You and most of the other commenters here who shit on me for their self-righteous high. I say things backed up by facts, you act as if the facts don’t exist, I keep hammering them, and then you attack my motivation, or invent a motivation and attack it, so that you don’t have to talk about the facts.

    Hint: Engage with the facts, you lying piece of shit.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You won’t get an argument from me that female-on-male domestic violence is generally underreported for sociologically explainable reasons that originate in sexual dimorphism and perceptions of relative strength or weakness emanating thereof.

    I mostly quibble with the notion that every single study is equally reliable in the massive bibliography you quoted, but that isn’t the real meat and potatoes.

    What is, is that you will get an argument about your tactics and how you choose to behave around this here blog when you get motoring on about feminism.

  • Madhabmatics

    Hey you evil feminists won’t believe my totally unbiased research

    *cites a guy who refers to feminists as “Worse than Mao,” talks about them having brainwashing camps, was fined 12,000 by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for sexual harassment and then blamed it on feminists*

  • Paul Durant

    Go back to WDDP.

  • Madhabmatics

    hey would you, the “author” of an rpg about little girls, like to praise sexualizing them again

  • Paul Durant


    hey would you, the “author” of an rpg about little girls, like to praise sexualizing them again

    hey would you, a genuinely repulsive human being, like to substantiate your allegation? or will you admit that you just imagined it because here, in this “discussion” were you are attacking someone for opposing feminist orthodoxy, you thought it appropriate to throw in “plus you like a thing that’s for girls, that means you must be a creeper or pedophile!”

  • Madhabmatics

    Yo it’s not the “I’m into a thing for little girls” that is bad, it was “I am into little girls” plus |I threatened to kill myself if I couldn’t talk about little girls on an rpg forum” plus”I am into Loli fetish sex and if you aren’t then you are hitler” and also “I think drawn child pornography is fine” – you know, those four things you did, on the internet.

  • Paul Durant

    That third one is something you made up, completely, because you are a liar. Ever notice how the only thing you do is introduce things external to the argument in an attempt to shame me? And the things you introduce are usually made up or grotesquely out of context?  Because you’re a terrible person. 

    Go ahead, tell me again how liking something for little girls means I am a defective person, or how the fact I struggle with severe depression means I should me ridiculed and all things I say dismissed. I would say I anticipate the mental gymnastics Lori and EllieMurasaki would use to justify seeing you do this and not attacking you, but they won’t even try to justify it. The fact that you’re being a detestable human being while attacking me means the whole “detestable” thing will not even cross their minds.

  • Lori

     

    I would say I anticipate the mental gymnastics Lori and EllieMurasaki
    would use to justify seeing you do this and not attacking you, but they
    won’t even try to justify it.   

    I don’t have to justify it. This is between the two of you and it involves places I don’t post and shit I have no first hand knowledge of. There is no reason for me to get in the middle of it.

    I’m not going to defend you because I don’t know the truth. Same reason I’m not going to back Madhamatics up.

    However, because I can read I do know that Madhamatics did not accuse you of being a pervert for liking something for little girls.

  • Paul Durant

    However, because I can read I do know that Madhamatics did not accuse you of being a pervert for liking something for little girls.
    Actually he did, when he said that “into something for little girls” and “into little girls” were the same thing. Also, there’s the part where he was obviously shaming me for it, and the part where he mocked me for past struggle with depression, which are both plain as day. And you don’t care. It does not even register to you that this is behavior you would be utterly outraged at if it was not directed at someone you already disliked. 

  • Madhabmatics

     See, only because you have a persecution complex do you think “Being a brony” is the reason I am calling you out for sexualizing children. Instead of, you know, defending child pornography and melting down because someone criticized loli fetish stuff.

    defending child pornography while being hella focused on children is kinda obvious what’s going on dude, even if we aren’t counting your rpg

  • Paul Durant


    See, only because you have a persecution complex do you think “Being a brony” is the reason I am calling you out for sexualizing children. Instead of, you know, defending child pornography and melting down because someone criticized loli fetish stuff.
    This is a thing you imagined. You imagined it because you wanted to imagine something that would make me more fun to attack. (Also, you very obviously brought up the magical-girls thing to shame me and dismiss me, you don’t get to get out of that by saying “well technically I never explicitly linked them, I was calling you a pedophile based on a different thing that I made up!”)

    Having a discussion on civil liberties where I explicitly compare things that are gross but should not be illegal to the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, and everyone involved remains pretty level-headed, is not “melting down because someone criticized loli fetish stuff.” Stop lying, and while you are at it, seriously, go back to WDDP.

  • Madhabmatics

     Wait, you defended it by comparing it to skokie, too? The meltdown I was thinking of the one where you went to bat to defend sexualizing children with this quote:

    ” It is, in fact, crypto-fascist, because you are, in fact, judging
    people for their private thoughts and intimate actions. You just don’t
    want to admit to doing it because it sounds bad when phrased that way.
    The moment you accept one of these horseshit “your kink is bad for
    society” statements as valid, you’re saying “Pat Robertson, I totally
    agree with you that we should be monitoring people’s inner lives and how
    they express their love for each other because I think the ways some
    people do it are bad, I only disagree with you about what specifically
    we should be condemning.””

  • Paul Durant

    Wasn’t that a discussion about adults roleplaying with each other?

  • Madhabmatics

    Yes, and out of all the (multiple!) fetishes people were talking about (including people with those fetishes), you melted down to defend the one about pretending to have sex with children. Enough that you got banned for melting down in the posts immediately after that.

    And then you got banned from a my little pony forum for defending child pornography

    which makes all your other obsessions with children (and women dressed as children) creepy as hell

  • Paul Durant

    Yes, and out of all the (multiple!) fetishes people were talking about (including people with those fetishes), you melted down to defend the one about pretending to have sex with children. Enough that you got banned for melting down in the posts immediately after that.
    And then you got banned from a my little pony forum for defending child pornography

    Yeah, neither of those things happened. I was banned for SA months later for telling Zeitguest, in an incredibly non-aggressive way, that his “I will start The Feminism Thread with all my rules and I will be the lord of it and it will be perfect” was a bad idea and wouldn’t lead to a good thread. Zeitguest is a turd and the mods would later agree that his whole scheme was terrible, but wouldn’t reverse the punishment for anyone who did so earlier, because A: they’re the SA mods and they don’t admit being wrong and B: the guy who specifically got the ban for me was killed in Benghazi so it’s not reeeeally something to revisit and go “oh, person who was literally killed by terrorists, looks like your decisions on internet forum moderation were wrong!” The “defending child pornography” thing was a lie, and everyone knew it was a lie, and everyone acknowledged it was a lie, but I got banned because a certain admin didn’t like how often I was telling others to stop acting like such fucking goons all the time.

  • Madhabmatics

    seriously the guy he is citing is crazier than he is, look at reviews of his book in peer-reviewed journals

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Sorry, who?

  • Madhabmatics

     Dr. Don Dutton, the writer of the article Huitzil here linked. He’s completely bonkers, and it’s easy to see where Huitzil gets his “Feminsts are in control of Western Society and using it to make men slaves” conspiracy theories once you read one of his books that is 2% scholarship, 98% talking about how communism is absolutely liberating compared to the hellish feminist conspiracy.

  • Paul Durant


    He’s completely bonkers, and it’s easy to see where Huitzil gets his “Feminsts are in control of Western Society and using it to make men slaves” conspiracy theories
    Yeah, this is another thing you made up, because you are a liar. You’re not even like the others, who do so reflexively because they so strongly associate the ideology of feminism with Always Being Right that when presented with evidence to the contrary they automatically fabricate a reason why the evidence is wrong and the person presenting it is a bad person who should be shamed. You’re just an incredibly goony asshole.

    Go back to WDDP.

  • Madhabmatics

     dude you literally spent the last thread you melted down in arguing that there was a feminist conspiracy in the sciences to cover up male birth control

    in what world is that ~not~ a conspiracy theory

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Apparently he was accused of sexual harrassment.

    He says he treated her as he had dozens of other graduate students over
    the years. He offered tea and wine. He lit candles. He played some
    music. A fire burned in the hearth.

    Honestly? That seems a little bit inappropriate, especially for what should have been done in his office or, if reasonable privacy was called for, over lunch at a restaurant on campus.

    Also, given that I’ve heard anecdotal examples before (rateyourstudents blog, for example) of older white male professors getting a little “handsy”, I’m going to provisionally assume he crossed a boundary, even if it was down to a cultural misunderstanding of when men may touch women.

    That being said, it also strikes me that Dutton may be a bit of a darling of the MRA movement because he was legitimately excused and an admission of a false accusation was proven.

  • stardreamer42

    DNFTT.

    (Kinda late now, but still. Especially since he’s a known troll.)

  • Water_Bear

    Umm, ok, I missed something. Why is everyone piling on this dude? It’s actually kind of weirding me out…

  • http://dumas1.livejournal.com/ Winter

     They’re piling on because this is not the first time he’s done this.  Almost any time feminism comes up at this blog, there he is with the rants and accusations and it’s pretty much the same stuff every time.

    And, you know, the nature of the internet. For all each poster knows, their next post is the only response to the target and they see the stuff this guy spews as something that needs to be refuted or condemned or debunked or whatever.

    And what in the seven hells is WDDP and why would anyone go there?

  • Paul Durant

    Your first link’s argument  is something that is already addressed and debunked comprehensively in this paper I am now relinking. Your other two links do not work. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    People seriously need to learn how to hand correct URLs.

    Chris Hadrick was like this. He couldn’t figure out how to hand edit in the browser URL bar one accidentally introduced comma to make a URL work.

    http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/faq-but-doesnt-evidence-show-that-women-are-just-as-likely-to-batter-their-partners-as-men/

  • Paul Durant

    Yeah, I was coming in to say I found it, it’s just adding parentheses, I didn’t even notice before.

    The arguments made by Alas a blog and the “manboobz” turd are essentially the same as the one you excerpted: the CTS scale is not adequate and the people who made the CTS scale regret it being used to advance the idea of gender symmetry in DV perpetration. Therefore they all get covered by the same debunking: the massive amount of evidence showing DV symmetry does not rely exclusively or even primarily on the CTS scale.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The paper YOU linked to depends heavily on CTS and the results obtained from it.

  • Paul Durant

    It uses the data made available by the CTS and CTS2 in reporting of domestic violence to break down specific trends but points out, rightly, that it is not only CTS and CTS2-using surveys that report gender symmetry.

  • http://beholdconfusion.wordpress.com/ beholdconfusion

    I am in the middle of writing a two-part response to one of the Her.meneutic post that Walking Toward Jerusalem notes as a reason to drop said blog from their blogroll.   When I read the Her.meneutics post about why women shouldn’t buy a vibrator, I almost hit the roof.
    http://beholdconfusion.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/oh-you-brassy-hussy/

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Upon reading it, I think any woman who has a vibrator doesn’t need to be told by Her.meneutics that there’s a difference between a vibrator and a human being. O.o

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    That Her.meneutic post is going to make me furious, isn’t it?

    I have lots of sex toys. (I got most of them free in return for reviewing them.) They have helped my sex life, not hindered it. They’re just toys — and sometimes necessary medical devices. Anyone who thinks otherwise has serious problems with reality. And I’ve noticed that the anti-sex toy jackasses are the ones who think a bit of silicone could substitute for a human being. They are ignorant and severely creepy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    I just like the name “Brassy Hussy”, great name for a grrrl band, or an Irish pub.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Riastlin-Lovecraft/100000678992705 Riastlin Lovecraft

    Necessary medical devices? My curiosity has been peaked. How did sex toys aid in your treatment?

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    First: sexual pleasure is a necessary thing, physically and psychologically, except for asexuals. (That does not mean anyone has a right to sex with another person, but everyone does have a right to do what they can for themselves, alone.)

    When someone’s back goes kerflooey to the extent that mine has, with discs impacting the spinal cord, they usually get something called “saddle numbness”. For males, Viagra is often prescribed. For females, it’s vibrators. And they really have helped me a ton — I’m lucky that I had some excellent ones already when my back went kerflooey.

  • AnonymousSam

    Does this mean you’re finally getting treatment for your back? I remember you saying something awhile back about the PPACA getting you a surgery you otherwise couldn’t afford…

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    First appointment in a few days. The other stuff was self-treatment from finding it online.

  • Lori

    Oh, so you changed your argument after the fact from “the mainstream MRM
    is misogynist” to “the mainstream MRM isn’t composed entirely of people
    I agree with all the time.” Good to know.  

    Paul,
    go somewhere and learn some basic logic skills. At this point your
    style of “argument” is just a waste of everyone’s time, including yours.

    In all the great, wide internet there must be somewhere else for you to go. You seem to derive some satisfaction from feeding your persecution fantasies by having this same stupid “fight” over and over and Fred isn’t likely to add to your list of bannings. That’s really not a good reason for you to hang out in a place populated by people you hold in such contempt.

  • spinetingler

     “That’s really not a good reason for you to hang out in a place populated by people you hold in such contempt.”

    and the converse.

  • http://kivikettu.blogspot.fi/ Rakka

    I know there are other Finns in here… anyone else reminded of Basic Finns’ party line of “we say we kick out all racist members, but our members who say racist things are all quoted out of context or joking so they’re not racist”. It’s like these people are sort of aware that shitting on someone’s kitchen table and wiping their ass on the curtains is considered rude, so they’re claiming their damnenest to have been fed laxative during their grand speech delivered sitting on someone’s table, so it’s the laxative-feeders fault, obviously.

  • vsm

    I just a read an interview with some higher up True Finn who was getting really sick of their members’ racist bullshit. He obviously also blamed the media a bit, but didn’t try to explain away any of their comments. It was refreshing.

  • fraser

    The guy quoted in the one story who explains most miscarriages are the woman’s fault due to”environmental conditions, prior drug use, length since off the pill,
    alcohol, rest, physical activities such as running, diet, dieting, etc. ” creeps me out. There have been multiple cases of women confined against their will because they weren’t “taking care” of themselves during pregnancy, and a woman in Utah charged with murder because one of her twins was still-born after a Caesarian. I suspect this is going to grow because it fits in so well with the grand dream of forcing women back into the home (“Don’t you know computer radiation can affect your baby? You can’t work here now!”).

  • http://kivikettu.blogspot.fi/ Rakka

    Are they even noticing they’re saying women are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, especially the “rest or physical activities” bit. What? Just… what?

  • fraser

     Not a bug but a feature, I’m sure. If everything a woman does puts their child at risk–including making perfectly legitimate decisions that having a C-section is not optimum–and if they’re held responsible for the outcome, then it’s perfectly reasonable to have other people take away their decision-making power for The Good of the Child.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Only reasonable if the Good of the Fetus matters more than the good of the human being whose body that fetus is dependent upon. 

    Basically, they’ve criminalized being a fertile female. They are only able to do that because our culture already treats pregnant women as incubators.

  • fraser

     Pretty much yep. My reasonable was meant to be sarcastic.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Can we ignore the MRA child rape-apologist? I hate to think that every thread on women’s rights is going to become this now. It will mean I’ll have to avoid threads on women’s rights. 

  • Paul Durant


    Can we ignore the MRA child rape-apologist?

    Fuck you. The fact that you dislike someone does not make all negative things true about them. Also, fuck you.

  • http://twitter.com/mcclure111 mcc

    This is a spectacularly unconvincing way of presenting your argument from the perspective of someone who has just walked in

  • http://somuchshoutingsomuchlaughter.com/ suzannah | the smitten word

    this soundtrack is perfection. thanks so much, fred.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X