Category: rape

Categories
creepy douchebaggery men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny penises rape rapey scott adams sex vaginas

Scott Adams: Male Chauvinist Peg

Sexy!

Oh, Scott Adams! Can you write anything about that whole man-woman business without being a creepy douche about it? In a recent blog post titled “Pegs and Holes” – which refers to exactly what you think it refers to — Adams offers his take on the powerful men who have been in the news lately because, as Adams puts it, they’ve been “tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world.”

After noting that the “current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior” and that this “seems right” to him – gee, ya think? – Adams decides to get all philosophical on us. (When you’re Scott Adams, this is a very very bad idea.) He writes:

The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn’t ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, “Here’s your square hole”?

I’m assuming that Adams doesn’t actually think that baby boys are born with erections, and realizes that it is biology, not society, that hands out penises and vaginas to babies in the first place. I’m just trying to understand the whole pegs and holes metaphor.  Why does he think “round” penises and “square” vaginas are somehow incompatible?  In the context of consensual sex, after all, penises of all shapes and sizes generally fit into vaginas quite nicely.

As far as I can figure it out,  the round-vs-square analogy simply refers to the fact that men can’t simply stick their “round pegs” into any conveniently located “hole” whenever they feel like it. The fact that these “holes” aren’t accessible to any random guy thus renders them “square.”  This seems to frustrate Adams, who goes on to complain that “society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness” and that “society is organized as a virtual prison for men’s natural desires.”

Looking at  Hugh Hefner’s marital history – he’s been married and divorced and just got stood up at the altar – Adams concludes that:

For Hef, being single didn’t work, and getting married didn’t work, at least not in the long run. Society didn’t offer him a round hole for his round peg. All it offered were unlimited square holes.

What does this even mean? I suspect that over the course of his lifetime, Hef has had about all the sex he could possibly want, and then some. Is it somehow unjust that he couldn’t force his latest fiancée to actually marry him? Or that some women are sexually unavailable – that is, square holes – to him?

It goes without saying that Adams’ notions of human sexuality are profoundly insulting to both men and women . On the one hand, he’s suggesting that men are basically all potential rapists walking around with, er, turgid pegs;  and, on the other, he seems to regard women as little more than passive (if stubbornly recalcitrant) receptacles for these male “pegs.”

And so it’s hardly surprising that his grand solution to the conundrum he’s invented is a rather depressing one. After noting that it really wouldn’t be a good thing for men to go around willy-nilly raping women and/or, as he puts it, tweeting their meat, he suggests the real solution is for men to be chemically castrated.  And no, I’m not making that up. Here’s Scotty:

I think science will come up with a drug that keeps men chemically castrated for as long as they are on it. It sounds bad, but I suspect that if a man loses his urge for sex, he also doesn’t miss it. Men and women would also need a second drug that increases oxytocin levels in couples who want to bond.  Copulation will become extinct. Men who want to reproduce will stop taking the castration drug for a week, fill a few jars with sperm for artificial insemination, and go back on the castration pill.

That might sound to you like a horrible world. But the oxytocin would make us a society of huggers, and no one would be treated as a sex object. You’d have no rape, fewer divorces, stronger friendships, and a lot of other advantages. I think that’s where we’re headed in a few generations.

Is he being serious here, or is this all some satirical “social experiment?” Who the fuck knows. Though I suspect if I accused him of being serious, he’d claim he was being satirical. And vice versa. Because that’s just the way he is. 

Also, while I’m at it: the idiomatic expression about pegs and holes posits a square peg and a round hole, not the other way around. Why did Adams reverse this? Why!? Why!!?? Is he trying to drive us all mad?

EDITED TO ADD: Check out Feministe for more on Scott Adams and his peg.

EDITED AGAIN: And Pharyngula as well.

Categories
antifeminism evil women I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men pussy cartel rape rapey reactionary bullshit sluts

Are false rape accusations the fault of feminism?

Holly Pervocracy's SlutWalk sign, which apparently causes false rape accusations.

If you thought the “meat market” guy from a couple of days ago – you know, the one prattling on about the “market makers of pussy” —  was risibly wrongheaded, here’s an even more insidious attempt to reduce the complexities of human sexuality to a question of “supply and demand.” Over on The False Rape Society blog, Pierce Harlan has a new post with the title:

False rape claims: increasingly a tool to skew the current economies of sex, where sex is cheaper than most women prefer

As you might imagine, the post itself is based on some fairly twisty blame-the-victim logic – with some feminist-bashing thrown in for good measure. Let’s wade through the muck here.

According to Harlan, the “cultural tenets governing sexual encounters” have gone all loosey-goosey in recent years, due to birth control, a general loosening of sexual mores and “the feminist-inspired norms that pressure young women to ‘party like the guys.’”

I assume you have all read Mary Wollstonecraft’s classic A Vindication of the Rights of Women to Get Totally Wasted and Fuck Some Dudes.

But, alas, feminists totally don’t understand the law of supply and demand –and that in the market of sex, they are the supply and not the demand  (because it’s not like women ever really want to have sex themselves).  As a result, the feminist-inspired young women of today are totally flooding the market with cut-rate pussy.

As Harlan explains:

The experts tell us that men have a much easier time obtaining sex than they did in days long gone. …  Women who’d prefer to put a higher price tag on their sexuality are finding themselves locked out of the market.

The results are all too predictable.  Women are having sex more often when they secretly are conflicted about it. We’ve frequently reported here about the proven gender “regret asymmetry” where young women have much higher levels of after-the-fact regret than men following sexual hook-ups.  Regret too often is transmogrified into feelings of being used, and feeling used too often metamorphoses into a false rape claim.

Does Harlan have any evidence to back up this hypothesis? Yes. And it comes straight from his ass.

Having studied the false rape phenomenon closely for a number of years, it is my conclusion that young women are increasingly resorting to false rape claims as an inappropriate method of skewing the current economies of sex, which favors men and which makes sex cheaper than most women consciously or subconsciously prefer.

In other words: he has spent the last several years searching out news stories on false rape accusations to post on his blog. Because there are almost 7 billion people on planet earth, he has been able to find a fair number of such stories. So he’s concluded that there is some sort of “false rape epidemic” going on. In other words, his conclusion seems to be based almost entirely on what’s known as the “availability heuristic,” which, as Wikipedia puts it, “is a phenomenon (which can result in a cognitive bias) in which people predict the frequency of an event, or a proportion within a population, based on how easily an example can be brought to mind.”

Were I to start a blog entitled “The Dudes Peeing on Things You Shouldn’t Pee On Society,” guess what? I too could cite many examples, drawn from the newspapers of the world.  Were I to do this for several years, my brain would be stuffed full of stories of men urinating on just about anything that can be urinated on, from prayer rugs to cough drops.  This, through the power of the “availability heuristic,” might convince me that we faced an epidemic of inappropriately urinating men, and that this epidemic was getting worse by the hour. (I mean, before I started specifically looking for such stories I almost never heard about this terrible social ill.)

But back to Harlan and his argument, such as it is:

Women are pressured by feminist-inspired norms to make themselves more available to men than ever, but they have also learned that crying rape after-the-fact is a culturally accepted, indeed, feminist approved, antidote to sex they feel was too cheaply obtained.  Instead of saying “no” up front, they are retroactively saying “no” — with false rape claims — after-the-fact. And society has given this backward state of affairs its imprimatur.

One solution? Women need to stop having so much sex — for the sake of teh menz. Or as Harlan, still working the creaky economic metaphor, puts it:

One cure is to enhance the value of female sexuality by decreasing the supply and thereby reduce both regret and false rape claims.

But, darn it, this won’t work, because women are out there marching in the street for the right to, you know, have sex when they want to with consenting partners without being shamed for it.

That, of course, can never happen in a society where “slut walks” are celebrated as liberating events, where colleges excuse women from underage drinking charges so long as they report they were raped, and where false rape claims are routinely excused and implicitly encouraged. In short, it can never happen in a society that encourages young women to be promiscuous and to then tell rape lies when that promiscuity results in an unfavorable sexual experience.

Harlan ends his piece with a call to lock up false accusers for a long time.

Certainly malicious false accusers should be charged. Women who identify the wrong guy in a lineup? No.

And it would be nice if Harlan extended the sympathy he shows for falsely accused men to real victims of real rape, a much larger group of people than the falsely accused. But instead he writes pieces like this one, and links in his sidebar to a host of misogynist blogs that, among other things, routinely joke about female victims of rape and murder, that urge men on juries in rape trials to vote to acquit the accused even when he’s clearly guilty, that claim that age of consent laws are inherently man-hating, and that think it would be great if sex robots and artificial wombs rendered women obsolete.

Those actually interested in helping those falsely accused – rather than supporting Harlan’s retrograde agenda — would do better to support The Innocence Project, and to stop reading Harlan’s drivel.

Categories
antifeminism creepy I'm totally being sarcastic misogyny MRA oppressed men rape rapey reddit sluts

Men's Rights Reddit explains it all to you

Apparently we feminists simply can’t understand the Men’s Rights Movement, because

feminist ideology is still stuck in the 19th century concept that women are second class citizens when objectively they are in a better position than men. …  The[y] just cannot grasp that in modern western society men are second class citizens.

Luckily, the good fellows at the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit are here to put us straight.

Oh, and while they’re at it, they would also like to explain to us at great length why the whole Slutwalk thing is so silly. I mean, telling women to not dress like sluts if they don’t want to get raped is just good common sense! And obviously dudes have a much greater understanding of the topic of rape and personal safety in general than silly ladies with their silly lady brains and their silly tendency to get drunk on silly lady drinks.

Because Reddit Men’s Rights is not completely dominated by retrograde MRA misogynists, there are actually some decent comments mixed in with all the patronizing nonsense. Enjoy?

Categories
antifeminism evil women misandry misogyny MRA rape rapey reactionary bullshit sluts threats violence against men/women

Blogger: SlutWalkers deserve to be raped

From the website of the Edmonton SlutWalk 2011

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the most odious misogynist bullshit I have seen thus far on the topic of the Slutwalks: a post on The Third Edge of the Sword, a blog that seems to go out of its way to be offensive and “edgy,” that takes victim blaming to a whole new level. Here’s the basic, er, argument of the post, which the author has put in giant pink letters so we won’t miss it:

Every woman marching in the Edmonton Slut Walk is publicly declaring herself a slut. This means every woman there desires sex with any and all partners. Any sexual activity you initiate with them comes with implied consent. They cannot say no, and if they do understand all their ‘no’s mean yes. They are all asking for it. They want it bad. Now. From you. Go get ’em!

Some other highlights:

[I]f you … dress slutty, men are going to stare at you. We’re going to catcall. We are going to tell you all sorts of sexual things we want to do to your body. And if you dress slutty and wave your ass in our face, we will do them. The organizers of this event are not oblivious to this point: what they want is a fake sexual revolution. They want to be able to impersonate sluts without actually being sluts, and that’s unacceptable. If you don’t want to be treated as a piece of meat, don’t marinate and grill yourself and sit perched on a piece of garlic toast. You dress slutty, you show off the goods, you try to get a reaction, you will get one. Hint: it’s not always going to be the one you want. …

The “reaction” he has in mind is rape. By calling rape a “reaction” instead of what it is — a criminal assault on someone, an act of sexual violence, a violation — he of course is attempting to switch the blame to the victim. He spells out his “logic” in more detail:

[W]hen you impersonate a slut we don’t fine you, and we don’t throw you in jail. There’s really only one punishment for dressing like a streetwalker when you aren’t one: you do have to endure the occasional rape. You should really suffer it in silence. Accept the character flaw within you that caused this, and move on. Police and court resources are already busy enough with real criminals: like actual rapists who do nasty things to their niece or the homeless native chick passed out under the bridge, or a conservatively dressed urban professional walking to her car, or a girl out jogging in a track suit. To equate the act of actually violating and raping one of these people with having sex with a girl who’s every square millimetre of public persona screams anybody who wants to can screw me right now is ridiculous.

Once again, this brand of misogyny leads to some conclusions that are pretty misandrist – namely, the notion that men are at heart rapists who can’t control their violent urges:

If you go out on the street in an outfit that would make Britney Spears feel uncomfortable, you do so knowing that your ultimate aim is to make men want you. Well, they want you now. Congrats. Oh, wait, you mean you didn’t understand what that implied? That in the great Bell curve of sexual congress you’ve just pushed everybody on the right-hand side of the -2 std devs line past that imaginary barrier that says “there is no power in the universe powerful enough to stop me from sliding my finger inside your panties”? I call bullshit. You do know. But you want to be a virginal slut, to dress in ways that makes men helpless to their urges but still leaves you fully in restrictive control.

The blogger concludes by arguing that the Slutwalkers are all “lying bitches” because they dress like they wasn’t to be raped, but do not actually want to be raped. Then he makes this lovely suggestion:

If your wife is one of them, I’m very very sorry. Maybe a good rape might make her a little more manageable around the house.

Now this post is an atmittedly extreme example of a misogynistic response to the Slutwalks. But the basic “logic” of this blogger’s would-be argument is essentially identical to that of many MRA and other “manosphere” pieces I’ve seen on the subject, the main difference between them being that this guy embraces the logical conclusion of his argument — that Slutwalkers deserve to be raped — while the MRAs who make essentially the same argument (and fling the same sorts of insults at the Slutwalkers) make a show of saying that they don’t really think the Slutwalkers “deserve” it. And maybe they’ve convinced themselves that this caveat means something . But in that case the extreme reaction that manosphere misogynists have had to the Slutwalks – the insults thrown at the Slutwalkers, the “jokey” references to rape, the prurient sneering – makes little sense. If you argue that women are “asking for it” when they dress like “sluts,” you’re essentially saying they deserve it. You’re making the same argument this guy is making, but pretending you aren’t.

NOTE: The graphic above is taken from the official web site for the Edmonton SlutWalk 2011, which took place a week ago. Here are some pictures of the march.

Categories
feminism MGTOW misandry misogyny MRA rape sex

Hating female sexuality: Is it normal?

You'll see why I used this picture in a minute.

So I recently ran across a site called “Is It Normal?” The idea behind it is simple, and kind of wonderful: people confess some possibly odd thing about themselves, and others tell them if it’s normal. Now, normally (as it were) I’m against the too-rigid enforcement of what is considered “normal” behavior, especially when it comes to sexuality and sex roles. But that’s not really what we’re talking about here. Ohhhh, no. We’re talking about grown men and women eating their own boogers; having sexual fantasies about zombies; feeling an urge to jump off of high places;  or wanting to be turned into a doll or manikin. (Hey, whatever floats your boat.)

Naturally, I did a search for “misogyny” just to see what turned up. Is that a normal thing to do? I don’t know, and I don’t care, but I did it and the search pulled up a couple of pretty interesting little discussions.

The one that really grabbed my attention was from a guy who said he hated female sexuality. Which may not be “normal,” though as readers of this blog know it’s not uncommon. But this guy is  no Christopher from Oregon, whose hatred of female sexuality is part of a package deal that includes hatred for pretty much everything female.

No, this guy hates female sexuality in part because, well, he thinks the male body is ugly and so assumes – or at least feels on a gut level —  that any woman having sex with a man is being coerced, bamboozled, or raped. Yep, we’re talking about a rich and toxic stew of misogyny and misandry here. Let’s let him explain:

I Hate Female Sexuality

What little mysogyny I have in me is directed at female sexuality. I can’t stand it that females are attracted to males, ever. I hate them a little for it, just feel it in my gut. I thought for a long time when I was younger that females were basically asexual, not interested in sex, and that romance for them was something far removed from physical love. It didn’t occur to me that anyone might find the male form attractive, and I always suspected males were using some form of deception or raping women in some way when they were with them. I don’t understand this hate and distrust for my own sex. It really bothers me.

I hate that I feel there’s something wrong with a female having an active sexuality when I know intellectually there’s not. I’m a passionate feminist and attracted to females myself. I don’t really understand this feeling.

I think maybe a small part of it is jealousy when I see a couple, and the rest mostly my wierd, incongruous hatred for the male sex.

I don’t think females are doing something wrong but that something wrong is being done to them when they engage in sexual activity, even consentual, with a male, and they’re allowing it to happen, are complicit in it. This is just a feeling I have and can’t shake. It’s not overwhelming, like I’m freaking out whenever I see a couple but it’s there a lot, subtle but persistent. I’m atheist and I’m not someone who belives sexual promiscuity is wrong or even undesirable in male or females. This is just a wierd, lingering emotional problem, like fear of the dark or something like that.

Is it normal?

So, yeah. For what it’s worth, only 14% of those reading this confession rated it normal.  But, as I said, I don’t think it’s uncommon. We grow up, after all, in a society that treats sexuality as a commodity that women possess, and that men try to “get” from women – by charming them into “giving it up,” by buying it directly or indirectly (by going to a prostitute or paying for dinner), or simply taking by force.

This way of thinking about sex is pretty deeply embedded in our culture; as regular readers of this blog know all too well, many MRAs, MGTOWers, and PUAs (especially) seem unable to conceive of sexuality in any other way. Neither does the questioner on Is It Normal (who goes by the name SamuraiPeeper), even though he’s a self-described feminist.

Like a lot of misogynistic ideas, this “women own sex, men must fight to get it” idea contains a heaping helping of misandry as well – suggesting that women basically don’t enjoy or desire sex with men because male bodies and male sexuality are inherently disgusting. It’s only a few small steps from this to SamuraiPeeper’s whole muddled mixture of desire and disgust, hatred and self-hatred.

The biggest difference between SamuraiPeeper and the MGTOWers and other misogynists I write about here is that he’s aware that his views are fucked up, and is trying actively to work through his issues. And he’s actually gotten some good responses to his query on Is It Normal?

PoisonFlowers suggests that some of his hatred and disgust probably stems from a fear of female sexuality:

Is it misogyny? I don’t think it’s as clear cut as that. Perhaps because the image you had of women (almost an idealised impression it seems) when you were younger has been destroyed (instead of having romance that is above sex, it turns out that women can be just as animalistic as men), you feel a sort of resentment and that mixes with the jealousy and then as you say “a weird, incongruous hatred for the male sex.” This then becomes a strong dislike for female sexuality.

Why do you have these feelings about men? Is it the people you’ve been surrounded with throughout your life and their behaviour/attitudes? Have you witnessed a man being abusive towards a woman at any point in your life? …

You say that you feel as though “something wrong is being done to them,” which could point to an urge in you to protect women, or perhaps it is more accurate to say to protect the _idea_ you have of women that stems from the concept you had when you were younger.

randomsensuality offers some similar observations:

It definitely sounds like you want to protect the idea of females as pure, with an almost divine stature. It also sounds like you have been taught or embraced the idea that penetrative sex is inherently degrading or immoral: therefore a woman who enjoys it is equally so.

Another bit on the matter is that many men do not find it attractive when women lead the hunt, as it were. They want to be the ones in control, in the pursuit of the sex and relationships. If a woman is as much “on the prowl” as he is, then he can’t say that it was a full conquest. He wants to know he’s been where others have failed to enter, that it took his prowess to crack the nut, setting him apart and making his mate a trophy and attribute to his stature.

Lets also not forget the angle of loathing the male form, which you say you can’t understand a woman being attracted to. If you are heterosexual male, this makes sense. Of course it’s easier to wrap your brain around lesbian sex, you like women, you understand innately attraction to women. Attraction to men, is scary for more than that reason though. If a woman is attracted to a man, then she could be attracted to any man the way a man can be attracted to any woman: this vision of the situation can induce pre-emptive jealousy and defensiveness.

Meanwhile, a 19-year-old girl calling herself so_damn_unpretty offers a blunter response – and one that might do the questioner as much good as the longer, more thoughtful responses:

I love men… and cock.. and sex… so i really cant relate.

In the end, that’s probably the most important takeaway here, as they like to say in the business world. Women – most women, anyway – genuinely like and enjoy sex as much as men. Sometimes more. When a guy “scores” with a woman — she is also “scoring” with him. Rigid gender roles that define man as the sexual pursuer and women as the sexual prize may make it hard to see this, but it’s true. Not only that, but women – heterosexual women, anyway – actually like and enjoy the male body.

Guys, know this: while you are watching sports, or playing video games, or playing with yourself, or knitting (or whatever your favorite hobby is), there are thousands of women writing, sharing, and reading slash fic about dudes (from various TV shows and movies and books) getting it on with each other. There are no women in these stories, at least not in the dirty parts. Just dudes, and their dude bodies, having dude sex with each other. Freud once asked: what do women want? And to that we have a partial answer: stories about Sam and Dean from Supernatural penetrating one another’s deepest  mysteries.

Categories
evil women feminism men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men rape rapey violence against men/women white knights woman's suffrage

Using the myth of the “Pussy Pass” to justify rape and murder

From MEN-FACTOR

Quite a few MRAs and MGTOWers seem to have have convinced themselves that women rarely if ever serve real time, or face any real consequences, for committing crimes. In the parlance of the manosphere, this is known as the “Pussy Pass.”

Now, this is, of course, almost complete bullshit. Why the “almost?” Because women do in fact receive somewhat lesser sentences when compared with men committing the same crimes. (So do white people, though you don’t hear the MRA crowd talking much about the “Honkey Pass.” )

Are the lighter sentences for women the result of evil feminist man haters? Not so much, Ampersand of Alas, A Blog argues in a thoughtful look at several studies on the subject. The author of one study concludes, as Ampersand summarizes it,

that this may be caused by sexist paternalism among judges; women are seen less as full adults, and as being less capable of being responsible for their own actions, and as a result judges depart from sentencing guidelines to give women lighter sentences.

Another study found that, contrary to what virtually every MRA or MGTOWer would assume, male judges were more likely than female judges to give especially harsh sentences to men.  Let me repeat that: Male judges gave the harshest sentences to men. As the study’s author noted, “the greater the percentage of female judges on a district’s bench, the smaller the gender disparity.” (Emphasis mine.)

Just don’t try telling this to the MRA/MGTOW crowd. We saw the other day how the idea of the “pussy pass” – the notion that “the law does not serve justice” – has led some MRAs to advocate or voice their support for lynching female perps (with what degree of seriousness I don’t know).

Meanwhile, over on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum, nigeles175d “humorously” suggests that the supposed existence of the “Pussy Pass” should also give guys the right to rape women who happen to give them boners:

[I]f we men cannot control our passions as women often claim, why don’t we get a Dickie PassTM like women get the Pussy PassTM? If women cannot control their tears, their screams, their giggles, and if women are driven to poisoning or murdering their sleeping husbands and use the excuse of years of abuse and being unable to control their mental state, why do we not consider a similar excuse for men. The way some women dress (hint, hint, SlutWalkers) to deliberately entice men to want sex with them, why is it not an exonerrating circumstance in the same way as it is for women? It seems women are never made to take responsibility for their actions, nor are they ever held accountable. Alternatively, if men are not allowed it, but women are, then we’re treating them like children and they don’t deserve the vote or positions of authority.

And of course it all goes back to women having the vote — the source of all evil in the modern world. Attitudes like this are, of course, what make the Slutwalks (and feminism in general) necessary in the first place.

Categories
evil women men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA racism rape rapey reactionary bullshit the spearhead violence against men/women

Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest: A Rorschach test for misogynists

Looks like another evil lying bitch, doc.

Some highlights, by which I mean lowlights, of a recent discussion on The Spearhead of IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest on sexual assault charges. The Spearheaders, naturally, have some unique and interesting perspectives on the case:

Black women (like the accuser) are all a bunch of liars. Run away!

Reality May 18, 2011 at 11:04

I knew it was going to be a black woman- I suspected from the second I heard about this. Crystal Magnum anyone? Don’t want to make this a racial issue- but how can you avoid it? You take 5 ounces of Female/Feminist hate and deception, add 8 ounces of the stereotypical black thing of always sniffing around for a lawsuit, stir .. and you have more than enough reason to avoid black women even more vigorously than women in general.

The case is somehow all about how badly “beta” men are discriminated against by evil women:

Commander Shepard May 18, 2011 at 11:53

Typically false rape allegations are made when a woman realizes she’s slept with a beta but doesn’t want her rep taking a hit and wants to avoid feeling like crap (betas are icky) my gut tells me either this is a totally fabricated set up (politically motivated) or Strauss-Kahn is getting a lesson in how betas have to apologize everyday for their existence.

She’s accusing him because she’s got AIDS and therefore (?) wants to make a quick buck, ethics be damned:

Avenger May 18, 2011 at 18:55 …

Since she has AIDS she knows that an infection could take her out at any time and she has a teenage daughter. A person like this will certainly not think like a normal person and may very well do something for a lump sum of cash since she has nothing to lose and may have some resentment towards men and doesn’t care what happens to this one guy. She also may be thinking that if she dies at least her daughter will have the money. This is not someone I would trust. …

I predict that Strauss will be released on bail tomorrow. He’ll pay the female’s lawyer some money and then the whole thing will just fade away.

He’s probably innocent, but he’s a white-hating Commie Jew bastard, so ha ha:

goldenfetus May 18, 2011 at 09:57

Libertarian here. I doubt this guy is guilty. Seems unlikely, yet possible. But as observed, this guy is a White-hating elite Marxist Jew. So while I agree that political disagreement is not sufficient grounds for wishing false-rape accusation/conviction on him, I submit that his hostility toward my people coupled with his general evil is enough to justify the enjoyment of his suffering. We can’t forget that his politics are what makes this possible in the first place, or ignore the ‘reap what you sow’ component here.

As a white guy, I’d like to say that goldenfetus does not in fact speak for “my people.”

And before anyone steps in to complain that I’ve picked the “outliers” in the discussions, the fanatics whose opinions aren’t shared by the MRA masses, I will note that (as is generally the case with Spearhead comments I quote) all of the comments here have gotten numerous upvotes from Spearhead readers, and only a handful of downvotes, if any. In other words, they represent something close to the Spearhead conventional wisdom. (And by “wisdom” here I mean “offensive idiocy.”)

Categories
evil women idiocy MRA PUA rape reactionary bullshit violence against men/women

MRAs respond, predictably awfully, to the arrest of IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn

There have been some strange, but hardly surprising, reactions in the MRA-verse to the arrest of IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn on attempted rape charges.

On The False Rape Society blog, Pierce Harlan seems bothered that the police would arrest such an important man, citing an assortment of articles saying that Strauss-Kahn’s arrest will likely have a big effect on markets and on the global economy.

Harlan titles his piece: “So rape claims aren’t taken seriously? Reuters says the claim against Strauss-Kahn could impact “the well-being of the global economy.”  After quoting from an assortment of news stories that suggest that, yes, Strauss-Kahn’s arrest has already affected markets and could affect the global economy, Harlan ends with this petulant conclusion:

All because of a disputed rape allegation. Right now, that’s all it is. I have no idea if a crime was committed, and neither do you.

But I know one thing: the entire world is taking very seriously — and perhaps way too seriously — the word of an unnamed maid it knows nothing about.

First of all, just as we don’t know whether or not Strauss-Kahn is guilty of this alleged attack, we also don’t know what evidence the police have. What we do know from other media accounts suggests that there is more to go on than the “word of an unnamed maid” – including DNA and other evidence at the scene, footage from the hotel’s security cams, injuries suffered by the maid, who was treated at a local hospital. There may well have been witnesses too; we simply don’t know. (Also, the maid has now been named in the French press. Wonderful.)

Second, and more importantly, why should the fact that the arrest has affected world markets have any bearing whatsoever on the case? By this logic, no important political or financial figure should ever be arrested for anything.

To make myself perfectly clear here:  Harlan does not say explicitly that DSK is too important to be arrested on the word of a lowly maid, but that seems to be the implicit suggestion of his post, the whole reason to quote several articles about the effect this is having on the world economy, all because of  “the word of an unnamed maid [the world] knows nothing about.”  I have asked him to clarify what exactly he did mean, and he has refused. In a followup post he asks rhetorically “Have we handed an unnamed maid too much power to destroy a presumptively innocent man?” and answers himself by saying “The question scarcely survives its statement.” Which I will take as a “yes.” He goes on to say:

We reported yesterday what the world press is saying about the sexual assault claim against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. About how it could impact not only the IMF he heads, and France where is a presidential hopeful, but the global economy itself.  It is widely believed that Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s reputation has been marred beyond repair, regardless of the outcome of this affair.

To say this is morally grotesque does not capture the evil of what is happening to a presumptively innocent man. …

If there is a running theme in this blog, it is this: we have handed anonymous women and children far, far too much power to destroy the lives and reputations of presumptively innocent men before even a scrap of evidence has been introduced to prove their guilt.

If I am reading this correctly — and please correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Harlan — he is saying that ALL men are too important to be arrested on sexualk assault charges based on the word of “anonymous women and children.”

Again, let me ask you, Mr. Harlan, is this what you mean? I invite everyone here to read the two posts in question —  the first one here; the second one here — and tell me what you think he is trying to say.

Mr. Harlan, if you want to clarify what you mean here, I will put that clarification up without comment as a post, under a neutral headline (Pierce Harlan clarifies what he meant in his posts on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn arrest”).

I would also like to point out, again, that the police seem to be going on a lot more than the “word of an unnamed maid,” including surveillance tapes, statements from those who spoke to the maid immediately after the alleged incident, DNA evidence in the room. There may also be DNA evidence on her clothing; that we don’t know. But it seems fairly clear that there is evidence beyond the maid’s testimony.

Meanwhile, over on In Mala Fide, a guest blogger from Human-Stupidity.com, an MRA site that devotes a lot of its attention to railing against child porn laws, attacks the accuser and dismisses the charges. It’s hard to know what in the post is sarcasm and what is simply astounding stupidity. But as far as I can figure it, Mr. Stupidity is far more distressed by reports that the maid accidentally walked in on a naked Strauss-Kahn than he is by the possibility that he sexually assaulted her:

The story is very strange, and dominated by clear mistakes and screwups committed by the accuser. A five-star hotel maid trespasses into a naked client’s room?  Unforgivable. …

This is not supposed to happen in a high-class hotel. Were the sex roles inverted, were a male employee to walk in on a prominent female guest, like Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the male employee would be fired and arrested for sexual harassment.

Mr. Stupidity then goes on to suggest that such a powerful man would never try to rape anyone because, you know, powerful men don’t do that sort of thing.

A hitherto well behaved, civilized man, suddenly goes crazy? Just because he was naked, he wanted to take advantage of her and rape her?

A man pictured on the covers of magazines, admired by millions of women, who could get any woman he wanted with a snap of his fingers. A man from a country with legalized prostitution who could afford two luxury prostitutes per day, if he happened to be a sex addict. And this guy, exactly the moment the woman walks in, illegally, incorrectly, grabs her and rapes her?

Never mind that other women are coming forward with stories of assaults by Strauss-Kahn, suggesting that he may not be quite so well-behaved as Mr. Stupidity assumes.

So what does Mr. Stupidity think really happened? After raising the possibility that this is all some political setup, he ends the piece suggesting that the maid – who, he says “committed a serious professional lapse, almost a crime” by accidentally walking in on Strauss-Kahn – simply made up the story in order to protect her job. Because maids are instantly fired for accidentally walking in on guests? Because never ever in the history of hotels has a maid walked in on someone naked? (A quick Google search suggests not only that this is relatively common, but also that it’s a sexual fantasy of quite a few men.)

Meanwhile, Ben Stein – not, as far as I know, an MRA, but a neocon and a bit of a dick – has offered his own highly problematic defense of Strauss-Kahn, which boils down to, well, envy:

this is a case about the hatred of the have-nots for the haves, and that’s what it’s all about. A man pays $3,000 a night for a hotel room? He’s got to be guilty of something. Bring out the guillotine.

More on this as it develops. And it’s developing fast.

Categories
antifeminism bad boys beta males evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny nice guys rape rapey the spearhead thug-lovers violence against men/women

On The Spearhead, it’s always women’s fault

It wasn't me.

A sex offender in Washington state who has spent most of his life behind bars, convicted of an assortment of different crimes ranging from check kiting to child molestation, is close to his release date. Not surprisingly, given his long history of preying on young girls, prosecutors are pushing for him to be sent instead to a facility for sexual predators, as a recent story on SeattlePI.com notes.

A state psychologist has described Donald “Theo” Holmes as a remorseless psychopath and a pathological liar who has managed to rack up an impressive array of crimes, many involving underage girls, during his stints outside of prison.  As the psychologist observed:

 “He uses women and children to feed his sexual desires, and he uses other members of society to supply him with money, clothes, and cars that make him look important and fuel the grandiosity which is an ingrained part of his personality. …

“He admits to multiple sexual conquests and is proud of the fact that he has 22 children and that he has had mothers and daughters … pregnant at the same time with his child.”

Holmes, for his part, simply describes himself as a “womanizer.” Apparently 12-year-old girls count as “women” in his world.

Over on The Spearhead, W.F. Price uses this case as an example of what is wrong with, you guessed it, women.

Fathering 22 children is not easy even without spending so much time incarcerated, so one can only assume that his criminality had absolutely no ill effect on his success with women. In fact, it may have enhanced his love life.

Here again, we see that being a good man has nothing to do with one’s success with women, and often is an impediment. One of the big lies of feminism is that women will shower affection on well-behaved men, and have no desire for the low-life thugs of society. Sadly, this is not the case.

Perhaps the most important message we can get out there to young men is that there is little connection between what turns women on and what is objectively good for society.

I don’t know any feminists who think that women only go for “good” guys; indeed, the feminists I know spend a lot of time discussing (and trying to help) women who are or were involved with not-so-good-guys. Evidently the imaginary feminists Price hangs out with, though, are reincarnations of Victorians who assume all women are perfect little angels.

Price is bad enough. Do we have to look at the comments too? Yes, yes we do. Let’s start with the very first one, from Opus, who asked:

but is he really so bad [?]… there is nothing to suggest that the minors were anything other than enthusiatic. Whatever views one may have as to the age of consent, the girls were not infants or children but adolescents.

Yep, in Opus’ mind, sex with 12- and 14-year-olds is no problem, so long as we assume (based on nothing) that they were “enthusiastic” about it. Last I checked, this comment had  16 upvotes and only 3 downvotes, so apparently he’s not the only one willing to blame underage girls for being raped. Sorry, having “enthusiastic” sex with a career criminal many decades older than them.

Meanwhile, Anonymous Reader (in another heavily upvoted comment) takes aim at:

the state of Washington. There’s no way this guy could have spawned 22 children if he had to support them on his own. How many are on AFDC, WIC or other welfare programs, paid for by ordinary, working Beta men? Yes, this is a result of liberalism but it also is a result of feminism.

AFDC and WIC are, of course, intended to make sure that the children of poor women don’t, you know, starve to death.  Now, I’m pretty sure Holmes wouldn’t have given a shit if his kids all starved. But apparently neither would Anonymous and his numerous upvoters. Why exactly should the children – some of whom may well be the result of the rape of underage girls — have to pay the price for Holmes’ despicable actions?

Yes, you can blame liberalism and feminism for the fact that these children are being fed. That’s not a bad thing. The actions of Holmes weren’t the actions of a liberal or a feminist; they were the actions of a seemingly psychopathic  sexual predator who assumed, like many traditionalist men, that women and girls are put on this earth for men to use as they see fit.

NOTE: I didn’t set out today to write yet another post about The Spearhead. But I read Price’s post and sort of had to say something. My next post will have nothing to do with The Spearhead. I promise.

EDITED TO ADD:  Picture credit: Zampieri, “God reprimanding Adam and Eve,” detail;  photo G. Piolle.

Categories
oppressed men patriarchy rape reactionary bullshit

Two Holes Don’t Make a Right, and other somewhat baffling MGTOW slogans

 

Grace Jones will kick your bumper sticker’s ass.
One of the quickest and easiest ways to make yourself look like a complete idiot is to festoon your car with an assortment of bumper stickers – preferably stickers that are belligerent, incoherent, and “funny.” (By “funny,” of course, I mean “funny only to people who share all of your social, cultural and political beliefs, and probably not even then.”)
Alas, the Men Going Their Own Way movement doesn’t have any bumper stickers of its own. Oh, sure, there are a vast variety of just plain sexist bumper stickers out there  (“If I wanted a bitch, I’d buy a dog”),  and you can even buy “I HEART misogyny” stickers on Cafepress. but there’s not much out that deals with the specific stupid concerns of the MGTOW crowd.

The good fellows on MGTOWforums.com want to change all that. Recently a batch of them began brainstorming about possible slogans for MGTOW bumper stickers. Womanhater started the discussion off with a doozy, managing to be both belligerent AND baffling to anyone who hasn’t already taken a sip of the MGTOW Kool-Aid:

 

Chivalry is Treason!

A promising start. Not all the suggestions that followed quite lived up to this standard. Quite a few were earnest and plodding, not very slogan-y:

 

When Was the Last Time You Treated a Man Fairly?
Single moms should stay single.
Some men live happy fulfilling lives, the rest get married.
Women and happiness don’t go together.

Still, some of the more earnest attempts managed to be attention-grabbing nonetheless:

 

I don’t believe any accusation of rape

Many others simply rehashed basic MGTOW themes:

 

We Are Men, Not Wallets
Marriage is for morons
Alimony is Slavery

But a number of the suggestions contained the spark of creative loopiness that keeps me coming back to the MGTOW forums again and again. Take, for example, the surprisingly large number that managed to work vaginas into the equation, generally in a highly off-putting manner:

 

Give women the finger and not in a good way
Excuse me, is that fish I smell?
Two holes don’t make a right

This last one, while not without its charms, is a little puzzling. If you do the math correctly, women have seven holes, and men have six (or seven, if you include one very small hole). Up to three of these lady-holes (and up to two for men) may come into play in the course of routine sexual activity. (More advanced fetishists may use more holes, as this somewhat NSFW video illustrates; don’t worry, it’s not a link to a video of someone putting something in a man’s seventh hole, because, OW!) I’m not entirely sure which two holes our sloganeer is fingering as the villains here.

Quite a few of the suggestions seemed almost designed to baffle everyone outside the confines of MGTOWforums.com (and even some within it):

 

Don’t blame me for 1920
Hammurabi was correct about women
Listen to Cato the Elder

For those playing along at home, 1920 was of course the year in which matinee idol Douglas Fairbanks married actress Mary Pickford, known as “America’s Sweetheart,” even though she was Canadian; it was also the year in which construction began on the Holland Tunnel between New York and New Jersey, thus setting the stage for the horror later known as the “bridge and tunnel crowd.” But I’m guessing the event our sloganeer is really concerned about is the passage of the 19th Amendment, giving American women the vote, though, unless our sloganeer is quite elderly indeed, I’m not quite sure why anyone would be blaming (or crediting) him for the Amendment’s passage.

As for the other two, well, the Code of Hammurabi, the first king of the Babylonian Empire in the 18th century BC,  “mark[ed] the beginning of the institutionalization of the patriarchal family as an aspect of state power,” as historian Gerda Lerner notes. Hammy (as I like to call him) also invented the idea of “an eye for an eye.” And Cato the Elder? He said some nasty shit about women.You can look it up yourself. I’m lazy.

 

Other slogans weren’t so much obscure as just plain odd:

 

If the FDA screened pussy, you’d need a prescription to get it.
I’d rather have guns than gals.
A cow in the bed…but a freak in the courtroom!

And then there was this little riddle:

 

Q)Why don’t women respect men?
A)Becoz a Mousetrap laughs at the Mouse

Uh, what?

Of all the proposed slogans, only one actually showed any real wit, this punny little contribution from Apeiron:

 

Better dead than wed.

Indeed, this one was so good I suspected it had to have been used somewhere before. And indeed it has been. A quick Google search showed that the UK anarchist group Class War used the phrase back in the 1980s on a poster protesting the marriage of Prince Andrew and Sarah “Fergie” Ferguson. Of course, that temporarily happy couple ended up separating after only six years, and divorced a few years after that.

Maybe slogans can change the world.

Scary thought.

Despite that risk, I would like to encourage the MGTOWers to make up some stickers of their own. Maybe some t-shirts, coffee mugs, and baseball caps as well.  Heck, put these slogans on everything you own. Seriously, anything that makes it easier to identify you, preferably at a distance, is more than welcome.

—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.