Un-PC Men Are Attacked By Bitches for No Reason.

[posting tulpa]

yep. nothing like the right of men to rape passed out, vomit covered,
unconscious girls. you're looking good defending that, while i'm just some whining, mewling feminist.

yep, you guys have made me feel real ashamed of myself.

I don't think I have ever come close to advocating anything remotely a sinister as this.

But I did comment on the tact at bringing this conversation to light. Do you think relating this to "men's rights advocacy" (is such a thing even necessary?) with a broad statement is entirely fair?

It looked more like you were painting all men to be this way, which is categorically unfair.

[Truth4Youth]

As long as we're waiting around, I wanted to briefly comment on this.

But it's also true, in the same sense, that lots of rapists claim the sex was consensual and that lots of women who report rape are discredited on the grounds that they're just doing it because they're predatory, dishonest and devious whores.

The only world in which that part of the story speaks for itself so well that no further explanation is necessary is one that holds the proposition that lots of women are predatory, dishonest and devious whores to be true, as supported by so much data that it amounts to common knowledge.

Women have brought that view upon themselves by not standing up to the bullying and bullshit of certain so-called "feminists" (I wouldn't call them that) in a crusade to force all women to accept their belief systems. These feminists would probably get along well with the Reagans- both nearly destroyed the porn industry in the 80s.

In theory, I think we probably stand on more common ground than a literal response to the above would suggest, T4Y, because I'm not totally sure what you're talking about.

If you're saying that women who subscribe to the idea that pornography is misogynist are not subscribing to an idea that empowers women, I agree. In fact, I'd say they lose more than they gain, since any sexually repressive environment hits women harder than it does men. I also am a lot less concerned by what goes on in the realm of imagination than I am by what goes on on the ground. The professional porn industry, such as it is, is historically pretty fucking abusive to its stars. And especially its female stars. But it seems to me that's more directly attributable to the fact that it's a business run by brutal mobsters than it does with any of the big-picture cultural discrimination against or violent abuse directed at women that it occasionally reflects or depicts. In any event, the depiction of an abuse is not, per se, an endorsement of it. I would say that sexual fantasy was a beautiful thing, if it were a thing. But it's not. It's a fantasy. Sexual fantasies, like all compelling fantasies, might be used either for good or for ill. But at that point, they would become things, and would have to be assessed as such. So when that's not happening, as far as I'm concerned, there is no problem.

Also, I'd like to see both prostitution and pornography go fully legal and legit. Until they do, they'll always pose a threat to a some people, including some really serious threats to some very vulnerable people.

Mistaken as I think it is to oppose pornography in the interest of feminism, though, I don't see the cause-and-effect link between the anti-pornography movement of the '80s and the blanket assertion that women have no one to blame but themselves for being commonly regarded as predatory, dishonest and devious whores.

If you really meant to say that, could you please elaborate?

I'd agree that there are problems with the porn industry. Although I feel the problems are oft-times exaggerated a bit. Most people only listen to the Linda Lovelaces that have left the industry to speak out against it. Others who have spoken in defense of the industry such as Lydia Lunch or Julie Strain are ignored.

I think it's important that I make clear that I'm not writing off the testimonies of women like Lovelace as being untrue or unfounded. Actually I'm pretty sure that some of Lovelace's story has been corraborated. That said I don't think that this issue (the porn industry) is as black and white as some have painted it.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Reagan, except that he was in movies with little in the way of plot or realism.

Two words: Meese Commission.

This thread is starting to stink of '80s beer-sweat after an Andrew Dice Clay show.

Admin sez: sexism is as ugly as racism, and is just as unwelcome here.

Agreed. I do think this is an important topic and as such should be treated seriously.

[blanc]

how can there be a worthwhile discussion under the current thread title?

[GM Citizen]

This was taken from an earlier post of mine, which I believe best indicates where I was coming from with regards to 8bit's posting in another thread, before c2w jumped in, apparently in an agitated state:

The problem as I see it is that once/whenever a (new?) source of info is found it is subjected to a rigourous test of "does it hold EVERYTHING near and dear to a leftist's heart" fully intact, while the person/organization shares some info with us. The standard (arguably) items that come to mind quickly are, in no particular order, imo:

- racism (applied selectively, ie., caucasions must never utter anything that can be remotely considered racist)

- religion (christians are fair game, and Muslims to some extent, but nobody else is)

- abortion rights (must be pro-choice)

- gay rights (must be neutral at the very least)

- human rights (must be pro, unless Israel is the violator in which case an anti position is acceptable)

- environment (must be green-leaning)

- gender equality (as long as their position favours females)

I'm sure there is much more. If any source violates any of the above principles, it would appear that any info they may have, valid or not, gets chucked overboard. The baby goes out with the dirty bathwater. We automatically assign motives to them, right or wrong, because after all, rhetorically speaking, if they get one of these things so wrong, how on earth could they have good intentions about something else so totally unrelated?

This assures their data is never held under a critical light, but is automatically dismissed.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... highlight=

And so without watering down this thread with some of the issues listed above, I'll keep to the women-as-victims-only issue.

We have seen by the response to 8bit's post, that some folks are ready to pounce on anything that might digress from the leftist principle that women are victims, and that if a woman was a perpetrator, well hell she was probably provoked and had a good reason. There are numerous studies out there, certainly in the US, Canada, and other "western" nations, that prove that females are not only real perpetrators, but that they hold their own in numbers compared to male perpetrators in terms of violence, assault, etc. If I remember correctly, violence within a lesbian relationship exceeds the rates of violence in hetero relationships, but is quickly dismissed for some reason. The discussion is usually turned by a phrase akin to "yeah, but men commit MORE violence",etc., as if that dismisses lesbian-partner violence.

And then we get to the issue of rape. One of the greatest number of victims of rape are pretty much left without a significant voice. Male victims of rape in prison. Apparently, we just don't care about them as a society. After all, they are criminals, and probably deserve it anyways (note sarcasm).

Kanin noted the high incidence of false rape claims. From what I recall reading about some cases in the US, where a woman was found to have made a false rape claim, the worst she might face is a misdemeanour charge. The guy could have been locked up, beaten, even raped, for many long years. She might get 6 months, and often with a recommendation that she get mental help. Hardly fair, really.

Strauss noted the high levels of violence by women. Yet men do not have shelters to go to, or any viable support system, for the most part, unless possibly if they are gay (local gay community resources).

And then there is divorce, and the tried and true tactic of making false accusations against the father, often such as child molestation, etc.

And forget about the media telling you any truth anytime soon. With the propogation of the "rule of thumb", and "more women are assaulted during the Super Bowl" myths, we will not be getting anything substantive to deal with the overall violence problem, from the media.

By the way, the title of this thread is hardly conducive to decent discussion. Perhaps a better one might have been "Why is it PC to paint the woman as victim almost exclusively?"

[GM Citizen]

how can there be a worthwhile discussion under the current thread title?

Maybe that wasn't what was intended by selecting that title.

[GM Citizen]

.And GM Citizen can prove it by pointing out that when I say that he does not support the assertion in the subject line with any data, that constitutes limited proof, of which he can provide more, given the right forum. For those just tuning in:

I never mentioned un-PC men, or used the term bitches. Those are your words and descriptions. I have no idea of anyone's gender in here. It really doesn't matter to me.

[GM Citizen]

so all of you 'male rights' advocates should be thrilled at this outcome. just make sure any women you fuck are too passed out to yell 'rape' and (as looks likely) you have friends and family in high places, and your way will be smoothed.

Now why did you phrase your paragraph like you did? If that isn't hateful, then I truly do not know what is.

[compared2what?]

how can there be a worthwhile discussion under the current thread title?

I'm out for most of the day, but I'm with you. I would actually like to start afresh by stating a few affirmative premises, since this is genuinely a much more painful subject for all people than it has any reason to be. Or at least any reason that helps anyone other than, as always, those who are helped by divisiveness among groups less powerful than they, the too-powerful-to-be-affected-by-bias.

I'll retitle when I return, but if one of the mods wants to make some interim adjustment, I'm fine with it. I was momentarily annoyed by what struck me as GM Citizen's exploitation of forum decorum as a means of getting the last word. But that's a very small thing, and was a very transient impulse.

And, btw -- GM Citizen****, please come in and expound upon your views. I am not armed or dangerous or out to getcha. I believed what you wrote to be unjustified by any reality known to me, and would like to amend the assertion that it was hateful to this one, which is more truly representative of my meaning:

The statement you made is unjustifiable by any reality known to me. I'd like respectfully to ask for your justification of it. Because absent one, it is, unfortunately, very handy for use as a club wielded by hateful people who wish to break the heads of men and women both by any means available to them.

Lunarose -- I was too hard on 8bit. I'm trying to make amends to him, and said so over on the other thread. He may have badly misspoken, but if so, it was not out of viciousness or any ugly motive. That was apparent to me when I read his post to begin with, and I should have acknowledged it in my first response to him.

Posting Tulpa -- Hello, my man! I've been waiting for you. And, seriously, that is intended as a gesture of good will and good faith. I'm not interested in being right. I don't like power. I just want justice. For all.

**** ON EDIT: Obviously, when I wrote this, I had not yet read anything below the post to which I was responding. So I apologize for not addressing GMC's intermediate remarks, which I hadn't yet seen, and omg, I really have to go now, and I will get back to them.

[compared2what?]

how can there be a worthwhile discussion under the current thread title?

Maybe that wasn't what was intended by selecting that title.

Stipulated, as stated above. You are correct. I was acting out of annoyance, and take full responsibility for my contribution to the exchange that occasioned it . Please accept my apologies.

ON EDIT: There's really a little more that needs to be said than that, I think, but I will just have to say it later. I hope that this serves as an adequate place-holder for the moment. It's true in spirit, but not totally in letter.

[barracuda]

This was taken from an earlier post of mine, which I believe best indicates where I was coming from with regards to 8bit's posting in another thread, before c2w jumped in, apparently in an agitated state:

She was likely hysterical. I'm one of those who consider sexism (and racism, to some extent) so ingrained into our culture that our very language is at odds to formulate words to describe the depth at which it exisits. Most words one can find to support this case are strictly male-hegemonic words for largely gender neutral images, rather than misogenist specific words such as hysteria. One need only look back at the presidential campaign of Hillary to find endless examples of the most intense woman-hating bullshit veiled by the complicity of words formed just for that purpose through eons of patriachal dominance.

The problem as I see it is that once/whenever a (new?) source of info is found it is subjected to a rigourous test of "does it hold EVERYTHING near and dear to a leftist's heart" fully intact, while the person/organization shares some info with us. The standard (arguably) items that come to mind quickly are, in no particular order, imo:

- racism (applied selectively, ie., caucasions must never utter anything that can be remotely considered racist)

- religion (christians are fair game, and Muslims to some extent, but nobody else is)

- abortion rights (must be pro-choice)

- gay rights (must be neutral at the very least)

- human rights (must be pro, unless Israel is the violator in which case an anti position is acceptable)

- environment (must be green-leaning)

- gender equality (as long as their position favours females)

I'm sure there is much more. If any source violates any of the above principles, it would appear that any info they may have, valid or not, gets chucked overboard. The baby goes out with the dirty bathwater. We automatically assign motives to them, right or wrong, because after all, rhetorically speaking, if they get one of these things so wrong, how on earth could they have good intentions about something else so totally unrelated?

This assures their data is never held under a critical light, but is automatically dismissed.

It strikes me that every item on your list carries with it a huge amount of patriarchal gender bias to the degree that within the scope of these issues women are treated as manifestly inferior to men. Of course this should be plainly self-evident, from the scourge of virulent sex-trafficking to the institution of housewives which exists even within the realm of working women; the fact that in great swaths of our world, women are held as chattel or less, colors each of these issues in a way that is sometimes difficult to see, partly due to the nature of language and upbringings associated with male-dominant culture, e.g., Condi aside, is there anyone lower in the social economic scale of inequalities than a black lesbian? I doubt it.

We have seen by the response to 8bit's post, that some folks are ready to pounce on anything that might digress from the leftist principle that women are victims, and that if a woman was a perpetrator, well hell she was probably provoked and had a good reason. There are numerous studies out there, certainly in the US, Canada, and other "western" nations, that prove that females are not only real perpetrators, but that they hold their own in numbers compared to male perpetrators in terms of violence, assault, etc. If I remember correctly, violence within a lesbian relationship exceeds the rates of violence in hetero relationships, but is quickly dismissed for some reason. The discussion is usually turned by a phrase akin to "yeah, but men commit MORE violence",etc., as if that dismisses lesbian-partner violence.

This argument is close in nature to the "blacks commit more crimes and why can't they behave" idea, which I hope you'll agree, is absurd. The institutionalized nature of the supression of women's rights through history (and in the present) is glaringly clear, and all discussion of present-day notions of feminism (the critique of a society along gender lines which favor the male sex, and attendant campaigns to rectify this situation) derive from that fact. Any violent action of a female taken against a male cannot be understood without this realization. In a similar manner, a discussion of black "gangsterism" mustt proceed from the fact of black slavery in this country, and its insistent reverberations to this day.

And then we get to the issue of rape. One of the greatest number of victims of rape are pretty much left without a significant voice. Male victims of rape in prison. Apparently, we just don't care about them as a society. After all, they are criminals, and probably deserve it anyways (note sarcasm).

Translation: men get raped too, what about our needs!?! I am tempted to say, how does the shoe feel on the other foot, so there, I said it. Entire countries of women in Africa are being systematically raped as we speak, so excuse me if, in the context of this discussion I don't get to worked up about what is, admittedly, a pretty horrifying thing. One which has been a way of life for women since the invention of fire.

Strauss noted the high levels of violence by women. Yet men do not have shelters to go to, or any viable support system, for the most part, unless possibly if they are gay (local gay community resources).

That's because you are a man, and your culture, your language, your clothing and shoes, your buildings and laws all are constructed so that you come out on top in a contest between yourself and a woman. Now you want a "shelter" too? Fuck'sake. Don't worry, you'll probably get one, but the funding will just come out of the money that goes toward battered women's shelters. The oldest conspiracy in the world is the one of men against women, much older than the (oldest) profession which that conspiracy eventually engendered.

And lunarose is as right as rain.

[Endomorph]

Best. Snarky-ass thread title. EVAR.

I raise my glass to compared2what.

[nathan28]

@ barracuda:

You know, if every man on the planet is getting so much out of "the patriarchy," that really doesn't explain why so many of them are fucking indebted, in prison and enslaved. I even probably agree with most of your points but find the aesthetics of them repulsive. In my more cynical moments I suspect that "gender studies" and "[race] studies" were invented to keep the children of the not-quite-rich and the upper-middle class tied up in shibboleth-loaded parlor games. Who is more oppressed, a Manhattan attorney black lesbian or a redneck ex-con making $9000 a year? You can't criticize anyone for making sweeping generalizations about "women" then drop a shrill diatribe about the "eons" of male "conspiracy" against women.

@ all the white males out there feeling oppressed because some frat boys get charged with rape and sometimes are even found guilty:

there are violins out there playing somewhere, probably at the country club

[American Dream]

I just want to point out that this whole topic is an emotional minefield. Many, many women have strong feelings because of the ways they have been directly hurt by institutional oppression, which is as personal and real as, what?, around one out of four women being raped, among other things.

Speaking as a man, I think I hear a theme in the mens' comments which translates down to, "Don't hate me and be mean to me, because I'm a good person". Fair enough, but that doesn't erase the reality of institutional power and how it affects men differently than women.

I hope that we can individually and collectively process the emotional baggage attached to these issues in order that we can communicate respectfully one to the other, and I truly hope this discussion can help us move things forward, towards that elusive goal of "Justice for all".

[JackRiddler]

You know, if every man on the planet is getting so much out of "the patriarchy," that really doesn't explain why so many of them are fucking indebted, in prison and enslaved.

What most men get out of the patriarchy is a falsely inflated sense of self within a life of constant insecurity. (And if it works out all right, someone who does dishes, fucks, and takes care of any resulting children.) However, it seems to work like a charm.

[GM Citizen]

This was taken from an earlier post of mine, which I believe best indicates where I was coming from with regards to 8bit's posting in another thread, before c2w jumped in, apparently in an agitated state:

She was likely hysterical. I'm one of those who consider sexism (and racism, to some extent) so ingrained into our culture that our very language is at odds to formulate words to describe the depth at which it exisits. Most words one can find to support this case are strictly male-hegemonic words for largely gender neutral images, rather than misogenist specific words such as hysteria. One need only look back at the presidential campaign of Hillary to find endless examples of the most intense woman-hating bullshit veiled by the complicity of words formed just for that purpose through eons of patriachal dominance.

Eons of patriarchal dominance...the phrase reminds of "the devil made me do it"...we never have to be held responsible for our own words and actions if we can blame it on something. I am not a believer of eons of patriarchal dominance. To me it has always been wealth versus poverty, and neither is gender specific.

It strikes me that every item on your list carries with it a huge amount of patriarchal gender bias to the degree that within the scope of these issues women are treated as manifestly inferior to men. Of course this should be plainly self-evident, from the scourge of virulent sex-trafficking to the institution of housewives which exists even within the realm of working women; the fact that in great swaths of our world, women are held as chattel or less, colors each of these issues in a way that is sometimes difficult to see, partly due to the nature of language and upbringings associated with male-dominant culture, e.g., Condi aside, is there anyone lower in the social economic scale of inequalities than a black lesbian? I doubt it.

I disagree with everything you say in the above paragraph. I believe the black male, soon to be supplanted by the Muslim male, fares worse economically than the black lesbian.

Also, the second you start using catch-all words such as patriarchy, you automatically turn the conversation to one of women being downtrodden, which is exactly what I claim happens when women are referred to in terms other than "victim". It's almost misogynist in that it doesn't allow women to be seen as being in control of themselves and their lives. Because if a woman is a victim, then you can help look after her, no?

This argument is close in nature to the "blacks commit more crimes and why can't they behave" idea, which I hope you'll agree, is absurd. The institutionalized nature of the supression of women's rights through history (and in the present) is glaringly clear, and all discussion of present-day notions of feminism (the critique of a society along gender lines which favor the male sex, and attendant campaigns to rectify this situation) derive from that fact. Any violent action of a female taken against a male cannot be understood without this realization. In a similar manner, a discussion of black "gangsterism" mustt proceed from the fact of black slavery in this country, and its insistent reverberations to this day.

I don't see it that way at all, and I fail to understand how you can logically come to that conclusion. Equating my view of society's preferential viewing of women as victims, with racist ideology simply escapes me.

Translation: men get raped too, what about our needs!?! I am tempted to say, how does the shoe feel on the other foot, so there, I said it. Entire countries of women in Africa are being systematically raped as we speak, so excuse me if, in the context of this discussion I don't get to worked up about what is, admittedly, a pretty horrifying thing. One which has been a way of life for women since the invention of fire.

Ah well, what I was thinking of...pointing out that some men get raped....shit, sorry...I mean women are getting raped, so who gives a shit about the male victims, right? you are turning it back to women again. Everything you say paints a picture of women as victims, and conversely that men are not, and if they are, well then too bad. Correct me if I am wrong.

That's because you are a man, and your culture, your language, your clothing and shoes, your buildings and laws all are constructed so that you come out on top in a contest between yourself and a woman. Now you want a "shelter" too? Fuck'sake. Don't worry, you'll probably get one, but the funding will just come out of the money that goes toward battered women's shelters. The oldest conspiracy in the world is the one of men against women, much older than the (oldest) profession which that conspiracy eventually engendered.

Your presumptions and assertions pretty much sum up your take on the issue. You prove my points.

And lunarose is as right as rain.

Then let's hope we get a dry spell of common sense and respect.