Most Men’s Rights Activists who wish women didn’t have the right to vote are savvy enough not to say so outright. Instead, they make up fairy tales about how men’s right to vote (at least here in the US) is contingent on men signing up for the draft.
This isn’t actually true — when the draft was abolished in 1973, men weren’t suddenly stripped of their voting rights. And while it is true that young men in the US have been required to register for the draft since 1980, there is no draft, nor will there be one at any point in the forseeable future, making registration about as much of a burden as signing a pledge that you won’t sprout wings and fly to the moon.
But not every anti-suffragette resorts to this sort of sophistry. Take, for example, the Alt-Rightster and woman-voting-opposer Axel Mckibbin.
In a recent post on his blog The Anti-puritan, McKibbin argues that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they’re a bunch of lazy, emotional, dishonest, irresponsible and irrational cowards who will bring Western civilization crashing down around us if they aren’t stripped of their power, and soon.
In a post with the lovely title “Why women can’t be trusted with voting, free speech, national budgets, or power,” Mckibbin sets forth his case against women.
It’s not a very original one. He starts off by contrasting the rational, data-driven approach he thinks men bring to complicated problems with the emotional, irrational “feminine method.” As he sees it,
Men argue or accommodate information they don’t like, women stifle upsetting discussion with emotional tyranny and censorship, or simply bury their heads in the sand.
This wouldn’t be much of a problem if women had no power whatsoever, but for some silly reason men gave women the vote — and the world has been going down the toilet ever since.
[S]ince women have achieved the right to vote, power has shifted from the masculine to the feminine, and thus, from logic to tantrums, from debate to censorship.
Tantrums, huh? I guess he’s right. I’ve never seen men throwing tantrums when people disagree with them.
Oh wait.
Ok, ok, ladies! Don’t throw a fit about this! Let’s just assume that fellow is an outlier, and move on.
Like the rational, data-driven dude he is, McKibbin then throws out a free-associational list of all the things he thinks the ladies are doing wrongly and badly and femininely. Naturally, he provides no evidence for any of his assertions.
It is not a coincidence that the most challenging academic disciplines and hazardous jobs are male dominated. Women are psychologically, not just physically, weaker than men. They choose the easy road in everything. They censor rather than debate honestly in women’s studies departments. They chose easy majors that pay less. They chose easy low paying jobs rather than dangerous/difficult high paying ones. They lie about wage gaps rather than take responsibility and do difficult work.
Then, without even a pause for a paragraph break, he essentially accuses women of being a bunch of lying false rape accusers.
They believe that regret constitutes rape when they could instead take responsibility for their sexual choices.
And then, again without a pause, he offers what is either a weird, out-of-place dig at Hillary Clinton … or a suggestion that all the women of the world routinely mishandle top-secret material.
The screw up classified emails rather than do a minimum of ass-covering. They hate white men who they disagree with rather than Muslims who rape them.
Dude, I’m pretty sure women do hate Muslims — and Christians, and Hindus, and atheists — who rape them. They’re just a little less likely to blame all Muslims (or Christians, or Hindus, or atheists) for the actions of some Muslims, or Christians or, well, you know the rest.
Whenever a female is given a choice, she will choose the cowardly, dishonest, low agency method rather than the courageous, honest, high agency masculine method.
Yes, this is an actual sentence a human being wrote.
She would rather have handouts than balanced budgets for her children’s futures. She would rather censor than be upset. She would rather falsely accuse men of rape than take responsibility for her sexual choices when drunk.
And he’s back on that false accusation thing.
She would rather get divorced than work through the rough patches. She would rather vote stupidly for Bernie than understand economics. She would rather have a 15 dollar minimum wage than a job.
Uh, maybe because raising the minimum wage won’t actually cost us jobs?
She would rather vote for the wage increase than study the issues.
Or maybe she already studied the issue?
She would rather have alimony and child-support than a lasting marriage.
Or perhaps she would simply like to get out of a miserable marriage. And would like the father of her children to continue to pay some of the costs of raising them.
As I have said in other places, democracy is the ethnic form of government of white males. It is designed for high agency individuals of relatively equal capacity and relatively high intelligence. It simply does not work for low agency people.
Ah, racism. It’s about time you showed up. It wouldn’t be a true alt-right rant without some racism to go with all this misogyny.
To a male the state is a series of threats, to a female a series of benefits. Women cannot be drafted (yet), they are arrested at much lower rates, and given shorter sentences for the same crimes.
Hey, he managed to work the non-existent draft into the equation!
Men are arrested much more often than women, it’s true; they also commit many more crimes. The best way to reduce the number of men arrested for bullshit charges? Get the cops to stop racial profiling. And end the war on drugs.
Women do tend to get somewhat shorter sentences for the same crimes. This is partly because the men committing the same crimes tend to have longer criminal records. It’s also because some male judges are more likely to treat women more leniently. Female judges tend to be more egalitarian in their sentencing.
Despite men being victims of domestic violence, only women have state-supported domestic violence shelters.
Most shelters get only a small portion of their funding from the government. Many if not most also provide shelter for men in the form of hotel vouchers. There’s nothing stopping Men’s Rights activists from building shelters for men. Aside from the fact that they’re Men’s Rights activists, and MRAs don’t actually do crap for men.
Only men can be successfully prosecuted for raping women, despite the fact that women also rape men. Women get preferential treatment and custody in family courts. Men are essentially guilty until proven innocent in affirmative consent states.
None of this is true. Women are prosecuted — successfully — for rape. It doesn’t happen a lot, but it happens, and will almost certainly happen more in the future.
While more women than men get custody, that’s not the result of bias. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it’s because that’s what the divorcing parents agree to out of court. When men do go to court to ask for custody they often get it.
“Affirmative consent” laws apply to colleges, not criminal law, and they actually go a long way to clearing up anxieties about consent between partners. If you get an enthusiastic “yes” from a partner who is’t wasted before having sex, well, you know you have consent.
Men are taxed at higher rates.
If they earn more, yes.
Women receive benefits that men don’t. Since only women get custody, only women qualify for welfare. Even WIC means Women Infant Children program.
WIC is designed to provide assistance so poor kids don’t starve to death. Despite the name, WIC provides food vouchers and nutrition classes to men responsible for kids getting fed. True, it doesn’t provide cis men with the same benefits it provides pregnant and breastfeeding women, but that’s because cis men do not get pregnant.
The state treats males as disposable in war, letting them die homeless on the streets while paying females with five baby daddies to get pregnant at the taxpayer expense and receive food stamps.
Yes, it’s terrible that the government provides minimal assistance to keep babies and young children from starving. A quick Google search would have told you that men and women without children can also get food stamps.
It attacks marriage and men with alimony and child-support. The state is nothing but threats for men and benefits for women.
You know, rich women can end up paying alimony just like rich men. Fathers raising kids are entitled to child support from their exes, just as mothers are. And again, child support is designed to support children.
This is why women cannot be trusted with national budgets. Even if a woman possesses the courage to engage with uncomfortable facts she still has a disincentive to defend her national interest.
Er, what? Is it somehow in our national interest to let kids starve?
Combine with low agency she works to destroy her society, letting in rapugees, voting for handouts, creating guilty until innocent rape laws, censoring males in the workplace, filing bogus sexual harassment charges, and on and on. Here, low agency and incentives make her nothing but a threat to civilization.
Or at least to that portion of civilization that thinks it’s hilarious to make awful sexist jokes at work.
Her right to vote is a right to destroy other’s rights with redistribution, censorship, and false rape accusations, to bring in hostile raping refugees while attacking the conservative men who defend her as racists, even though Islam is not a race!
Yeah, it’s just a big coincidence that so many of the people the alt-right hate tend to be black or brown.
She will get a Muslim America in the bargain for her efforts. Women will never take equal responsibility, have equal agency, or be equally courageous. Strip them of power before they destroy civilization.
Honestly, the biggest threat to civilization right now is named Donald Trump, and women are a good deal more likely to vote against him than men.
I say, let’s keep women’s suffrage, at least for now.
@Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
That’s four words, dummy. You just proved everyone’s suspicious that women can’t do math as well as men, especially the ones that go in for bullshit like gender studies.
The VAWA ACT only theoretically covers male victims, it’s not very practical.
Did Jason just accuse of infanticide?
We do? This is news to me. Citation needed, please.
Ruined how? Here’s what the FBI has to say about false rape accusations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#FBI_statistics and RAINN’s studies show that only 3% of accused rapists spend a single day in jail https://rainn.org/news-room/97-of-every-100-rapists-receive-no-punishment
Please dig them up. I’d love to see this.
Also, VAWA helps men, too. http://www.ncdsv.org/images/FAQ_VAWA%20and%20Gender.pdf
Also, seriously, “women bruise pretty damn easy”?! Are you seriously saying this like it’s a valid defense for violence?
You know what? I can’t even with this guy. I’m so tired of MRAs like this, I can’t with them anymore. This is just a pre-emptive excuse for why he ‘accidentally’ beat the crap out of some woman left to his nonexistent mercy. “Women bruise so easily, I didn’t know I was really hurting her, officer, I swear!” For fuck’s sake, Jason, I just can’t even. Respond or don’t respond, I’m so done with you. I’ll let the rest of the commentariat tear you apart. Ugh. So fucking done.
I thought you’d left us, Dustin?
Dustin, I think you’ve still got a few evo psych questions left to answer in the other thread.
Dustinzeit
Umm SFHC said “a ‘J’ word” as in the word “just.” The others weren’t “J “words. Or did you think all 4 of those were? Maybe you should worry more about your language skills than other people’s math?
I …
I just can’t. I’m sorry, everyone! I started reading, uh, that and my eyes glazed over. I can read white papers dense enough to make a German lexicographer blush, but that’s just to incoherent. Jason, pick one thing, and say it clearly!
I have been sparring with too many MRAs lately, I need a break!
http://iambrony.steeph.tp-radio.de/mlp/gif/115195__UNOPT__safe_fluttershy_animated_putting-your-hoof-down.gif
Citation needed.
If they’re fraudulent, then you should be able to prove it.
And if lesbian feminists (why specifically them?) were the ones behind it, I’m sure you’ll be able to prove that too.
But, of course, we both know you’re pulling this out of your ass, so I can already tell this is going to be great.
Citation needed again.
In fact, there are plenty of untested rape kits lying around, so there’s lots of proof that rapes happened! The only problem is the police aren’t testing them because they literally believe that women just “regretted sex” when they report being raped, so they don’t fucking bother to do an investigation.
Of course we do. We’re people. Everyone lies, cheats and manipulates at some point in their lives.
However, I don’t see how this is some sort of proof that women specifically aren’t to be trusted. I mean, if we go by your logic that a person isn’t to be trusted because they lie, cheat, and manipulate others, then we shouldn’t trust you at all, because you’re obviously full of shit.
http://media1.giphy.com/media/6OWIl75ibpuFO/giphy.gif
We don’t think that we should be believed “by default” or “with no evidence”. We just want women to be listened to without people immediately assuming we’re lying, or we just “regret sex”, or with a whole litany of questions searching for a way to blame us for being assaulted. (“What were you wearing?” “Where were you going?” “Were you drinking?”)
If you were assaulted and went to the police and they just said you were lying, and insisted you were making it up because you were drinking and wearing a low-cut top, you’d be pretty fucking upset too.
Story Time (Trigger warning for those sensitive to abuse): I was sexually abused as a kid. Over the course of two years. And every time I tried to get help, every time I told someone what happened, it was always my word against my abuser’s. And the people I talked to wouldn’t even go get me checked despite my insistence that I should be checked before they took his side and did nothing to help.
He was even caught in the act by his mother, who then tried to silence me by saying that if I spoke up, I’d be sent away to a girls’ delinquent home and I’d never see my family again.
Eventually, someone did listen to me, and I was taken to a rape crisis center, and an investigation was done where they got enough proof to put my abuser in prison, where he belongs.
After two of the worst years of my life. However, I’m one of the lucky few girls who actually was (eventually) believed and was able to put my abuser on trial.
So, no, people don’t just believe women or girls when they say they were raped. People will believe literally ANYTHING ELSE before they believe a woman or a girl who says she was assaulted.
You’re right. If someone does falsely accuse someone of a crime, they should be charged, because that’s a waste of police time and taxpayer dollars.
However, so many women are pressured by people to drop charges, regardless of if they were telling the truth or not, that this just isn’t feasible. If a woman drops charges, people will assume she’s lying, and then, by your standards, she should be arrested for the crime of not wanting to relive trauma or being pressured to just shut up and not make a fuss because then it’ll cause trouble for her rapist.
NO IT’S NOT. (And why are you specifically going off about the ‘lesbian feminists’ again?)
When a woman says “[Man] did something to me”, there should at the very least be an investigation instead of people going “eh, she probably just wants to get back at him for something/just regretted sleeping with him” and doing nothing, and both parties should be given reasonable doubt, and reasonable belief.
And that doesn’t fucking happen. Women are constantly not believed, because it’s easier to believe, as you do, that we’re just lying to hurt a man than it is to believe that a man hurt us.
So thanks for being walking, talking proof of why we still need feminism when it comes to rape victims.
Lewis’ Law in action.
(David, can we ban this Fungus Slushie? He’s boring, and quite frankly, I’m not in the mood for PRATTs.)
Oh, Dustin is here, too? Gosh, it’s almost like they’re looking for strength in numbers or something.
Not in, like, mathematical numbers. That would involve statistics and, like, evidence and stuff. Numbers-of-persons! ‘Cause you prove things by being louder, right?
Boys, really, you need to go through your statements and provide some citations – not youtube clips, actual sources. Books and papers.
Real sources have a set of references, a bibliography if you like! This allows the serious reader to follow the trail of references back to the original source. Otherwise it’s all just baseless hearsay!
We have these things for our positions! If you have some, I’d love to see them. Otherwise, please, no more yelling :s
Men who want tax breaks.
Hey Dustin and Jason…why don’t yall go volunteer at a few rape shelters and some rape crisis hotlines and then get back to everyone.
RAINN even offers college internships.
There’s no better cure for internet ignorance than actual real world experience.
I’m curious to know why lesbian feminists would push an affirmative consent law to trap men. They’re not sleeping with men. They’re sleeping with other women. If anything, Trolly Baby should be thankful that the lesbian feminists are trying to entrap other lesbian feminists with these affirmative consent laws, since Trolly seems to be so anti-lesbian-feminist.
Where’s Jason?
Uh, Dustin, this is a forum on the internet. We don’t know where Jason is or what he’s doing unless he tells us.
If you’re trying to imply “Ahmigah he been banned”, no, that’s not the case. When David bans someone he leaves a message on the thread to tell everyone why that person was banned.
I’m sure Jason is thoughtfully considering the conversation and will return when he’s finished his research!
@Dustin
Just press X a few times, he’ll show up.
I thought it was Alt-F4? 😮
EDIT: … it was not Alt-F4.
Shorter Jason: “How dare women make me afraid of the consequences of my own bad behavior.”
What probably happened to Jason:
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-25-2015/vWOP3m.gif
@sparkalipoo
Sorry that I missed this until weirwoodtreehugger pointed the troll out in another post. I stopped checking the thread.
I completely agree, there is a kind of “self/other” division that exists and is copied for use at the group level for “self-group”/”other-group” related issues. It is hard for many of us to self-analyze and hard to analyze one’s own group in ways that I suspect are similar. Atheists have a hard time analyzing one’s self and one’s group as a general pattern from my experience.
It’s odd. I’m not at all religious myself, but I find it very difficult to be derogatory to religion without reason, and other people doing things without reason is not enough. There needs to be more, like it harming me in some tangible way. Too many people are willing to bash on other groups because of simple difference and can’t point to a legitimate harm that personally effects themselves. Religion is not a mental illness and pretending that it is such should require a citation from the DSM-V from whoever wanted to make the claim.
@Jason
Wow! We hit the jackpot with you didn’t we? You have a couple of problems.
1) YOU CAME HERE. We did not go to wherever you normally talk to other people. Because of that the tone you set when you arrive determines the social flow. You chose social aggression. That has consequences.
2) If you are challenging us you have to be able to back your shit up when it comes to your assertions. You have to be able to get specific about posters, text and other things you are criticizing. Otherwise all you have is mere emotionally laden opinion which is the most basic and boring “coin of the realm” so to speak. Not the emotion, I believe that is authentic. The characterizations of what you are criticizing that are connected to the emotion. Non-literalisms and impressions are like the telephone game and you sound “phony”.
Citation required or stand a social coward. You seem to be referencing quite a few features of this and these are things that can be referenced:
*Lesbian involvement.
*Reports by feminists and the religious.
*The definition of a “destroyed marriage”
*The definition and nature of consent with respect to this topic and how it is functionally implemented.
I’m sure you have:
*Citations that discuss the judicial decision and legal context in the Ghomeshi case with respect to the accusers and lies/withholding evidence.
*Citations that discuss the desire of feminists to modify the justice system to include collusion, lies and withholding of evidence.
1) Citation needed about lesbian inspired rape statistics.
Wow but you are paranoid about lesbians.
2) As a temporary measure a logical argument about the statistical nature of each claim of rape is needed within what we know about rape right now. Anything else is evidence that you are simply a terrified wretch that can’t handle shit.
So how does this extend to all women lie, cheat and manipulate all the time? That seems to be your conclusion based on the evidence so far, since you present this textual feces like it’s somehow relevant to whatever else is in here.
Cite your source on this. Everything I have read is about:
1) Supporting claims of rape the way we would support claims of shoplifting or other theft. We tend to believe people’s claims, but if the courts demonstrated otherwise…
2) Supporting claims of rape within a culture that does a shitty job of investigating rape. This bullshit has to be corrected and to do that society has to focus on something more than others.
The whole point to bigotry like racism and sexism is it’s irrational nature. Believing things about individuals in a group and characterizing a group without reason or logic. There are data about rape, data you have yet to get specific about and that I’m happy with my opinion on until you are willing to support your challenges here.
So far I have no reason to think that you are anything else but a rapist that likes to troll the internet for places where rape is being supported. Don’t like that characterization? Too fucking bad, start supporting your characterizations and assertions and I’ll back off on mine.
I love women. I love their breasts. I love their vaginas. I love their lips. I love their hips. I love their thighs. I love their ears. I love their hair and I love their rears. One such woman gave me life. No – I wasn’t attracted to her sexually.
Women chose men on looks, wealth and power. Men choose women via looks alone. This makes women inferior to men. Men don’t care about women’s wealth or power – we only care about their looks.
This alone explains why women have no right to vote.
How? This is not actually a logical construction. As a syllogism it is nonsense – you have at least 5 terms here – and your propositions have no reasonable connection to one another. For instance, I only care about you for the entertainment value you can provide; therefore, you have no right to vote? There’s no connection there.
@Jason
Fuck your opinion on your mother. It’s irrelevant.
1) Cite your sources on how women and men choose partners
2) Logically extend the information in those sources to why you should treat those people differently as a group
3) extend that that to the effects of allowing women the right voting you cowardly ape.
A human that is unable to explain why something is a threat is a human worth ignoring.
“How? This is not actually a logical construction. As a syllogism it is nonsense – you have at least 5 terms here – and your propositions have no reasonable connection to one another. For instance, I only care about you for the entertainment value you can provide; therefore, you have no right to vote? There’s no connection there.”
Women only care about power and money. Men only care about illusions, esthetics and enchantments. Men are better than women.