Feminists sabotage yet another talk on men's equality

[The Steel Magnolia]

Posting the identities of protestors online?

A voice for men has certainly done that.

They boasted about committing criminal acts on Twitter, AVFM re-published their tweets. Surely you should be condemning the feminists for outing themselves?

And what's wrong with writing articles about people committing crimes anyway?

Late I know, but you do realize that A Voice for Men was declared a hate group by the SPLC, yes?

Probably because of things like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... y-of-rape/

[New Edom]

They boasted about committing criminal acts on Twitter, AVFM re-published their tweets. Surely you should be condemning the feminists for outing themselves?

And what's wrong with writing articles about people committing crimes anyway?

Late I know, but you do realize that A Voice for Men was declared a hate group by the SPLC, yes?

Probably because of things like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... y-of-rape/

I'm just wondering--but have you actually read the site? Can you cite anything there you particularly disagree with?

[Faolinn]

Dear Gods what hair brained attack on feminism is this now?I just have to ask what do you give to the sex that already has privilege? What is there that men do not have already?

[Ovisterra]

Late I know, but you do realize that A Voice for Men was declared a hate group by the SPLC, yes?

Probably because of things like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... y-of-rape/

I'm just wondering--but have you actually read the site? Can you cite anything there you particularly disagree with?

The ad in the top right is pretty deplorable, though I'm not sure if everyone can see it.

Also, the first video annoys me. Not because I've watched it, but because the guy's t-shirt tells me things about him that make me sad.

Also the whole article is full of reactionary bullshit about rape being about sex and the "she was asking for it" shite I'm really sick of.

[New Edom]

I'm just wondering--but have you actually read the site? Can you cite anything there you particularly disagree with?

The ad in the top right is pretty deplorable, though I'm not sure if everyone can see it.

Also, the first video annoys me. Not because I've watched it, but because the guy's t-shirt tells me things about him that make me sad.

Also the whole article is full of reactionary bullshit about rape being about sex and the "she was asking for it" shite I'm really sick of.

You know, I actually take the point about how feminists are frustrated by the 'she was asking for it' meme. And I don't think Elam's arguments are helpful or productive. However I wonder if it can be seen that the common position feminists take on things like rape and abuse often come across as dogmatic and frustrating?

For example when The Good Men Project tried to post stuff about how rape and consent are issues we need to examine more closely, a number of feminist blogs simply condemned it, rather than realizing that the conversation needs to be more in depth than "yes means yes, no means no". There seems to be a dislike within feminism to discuss the mutual responsibility that bell hooks brings up more than once, and that is troubling. Without that, A Voice for Men is likely to continue to get converts.

[Ovisterra]

The ad in the top right is pretty deplorable, though I'm not sure if everyone can see it.

Also, the first video annoys me. Not because I've watched it, but because the guy's t-shirt tells me things about him that make me sad.

Also the whole article is full of reactionary bullshit about rape being about sex and the "she was asking for it" shite I'm really sick of.

You know, I actually take the point about how feminists are frustrated by the 'she was asking for it' meme. And I don't think Elam's arguments are helpful or productive. However I wonder if it can be seen that the common position feminists take on things like rape and abuse often come across as dogmatic and frustrating?

Possibly, but the rape apologists aren't exactly better.

For example when The Good Men Project tried to post stuff about how rape and consent are issues we need to examine more closely, a number of feminist blogs simply condemned it, rather than realizing that the conversation needs to be more in depth than "yes means yes, no means no". There seems to be a dislike within feminism to discuss the mutual responsibility that bell hooks brings up more than once, and that is troubling. Without that, A Voice for Men is likely to continue to get converts.

People do silly, reactionary things sometimes, on both sides. If I had to pick a side though, I'd choose reactionary feminists over rape apologists, if those are the two options.

I still don't get what there is to rape apart from "no means no" by the way.

[New England and The Maritimes]

You know, I actually take the point about how feminists are frustrated by the 'she was asking for it' meme. And I don't think Elam's arguments are helpful or productive. However I wonder if it can be seen that the common position feminists take on things like rape and abuse often come across as dogmatic and frustrating?

Possibly, but the rape apologists aren't exactly better.

For example when The Good Men Project tried to post stuff about how rape and consent are issues we need to examine more closely, a number of feminist blogs simply condemned it, rather than realizing that the conversation needs to be more in depth than "yes means yes, no means no". There seems to be a dislike within feminism to discuss the mutual responsibility that bell hooks brings up more than once, and that is troubling. Without that, A Voice for Men is likely to continue to get converts.

People do silly, reactionary things sometimes, on both sides. If I had to pick a side though, I'd choose reactionary feminists over rape apologists, if those are the two options.

I still don't get what there is to rape apart from "no means no" by the way.

There's also "Yes and only Yes means Yes," which seems to be the biggest stumbling block.

[United Dependencies]

There's also "Yes and only Yes means Yes," which seems to be the biggest stumbling block.

There's also the slightly modified version of that which reads: You should only proceed if you have a clear and enthusiastic yes.

[Ovisterra]

Possibly, but the rape apologists aren't exactly better.



People do silly, reactionary things sometimes, on both sides. If I had to pick a side though, I'd choose reactionary feminists over rape apologists, if those are the two options.

I still don't get what there is to rape apart from "no means no" by the way.

There's also "Yes and only Yes means Yes," which seems to be the biggest stumbling block.

Well yeah, there's that. I assumed that was implied by no means no.

I don't get why people find it so hard.

[United Dependencies]

Well yeah, there's that. I assumed that was implied by no means no.

I don't get why people find it so hard.

Sadly the only yes means yes campagin came about from people using the phrase "she didn't say no"

[Occupied Deutschland]

Well yeah, there's that. I assumed that was implied by no means no.

I don't get why people find it so hard.

I think the argument goes (and actually might be somewhat important were it ever made by people who didn't bungle it and come off sounding like 'she was asking to get raped!' scuzbags) that social interactions vis-a-vis sex are ungodly fucked up STILL from years and years of uptight social views on the subject. So much so that, commonly, asking someone if they want to fuck is looked down upon. So euphemisms are used (want to go back to my place, want to come in for some coffee, etc.).

Problem there being that the euphemism may or may not be a euphemism.

Which of course, still doesn't change much because when da' girlie says "No!" one should be jumping back and leaving instead of proceeding on false knowledge that 'she was asking for it' because she invited you back to her place or some such thing.

[Kalarin]

Dear Gods what hair brained attack on feminism is this now?I just have to ask what do you give to the sex that already has privilege? What is there that men do not have already?

Oh wow yet another person claiming male privelage.

[United Dependencies]

Dear Gods what hair brained attack on feminism is this now?I just have to ask what do you give to the sex that already has privilege? What is there that men do not have already?

Oh wow yet another person claiming male privelage.

What do you mean?

[The Truth and Light]

Dear Gods what hair brained attack on feminism is this now?I just have to ask what do you give to the sex that already has privilege? What is there that men do not have already?

Oh wow yet another person claiming male privelage.

If you can't see male privilege there's something wrong with you.

[New Edom]

Well yeah, there's that. I assumed that was implied by no means no.

I don't get why people find it so hard.

I think the argument goes (and actually might be somewhat important were it ever made by people who didn't bungle it and come off sounding like 'she was asking to get raped!' scuzbags) that social interactions vis-a-vis sex are ungodly fucked up STILL from years and years of uptight social views on the subject. So much so that, commonly, asking someone if they want to fuck is looked down upon. So euphemisms are used (want to go back to my place, want to come in for some coffee, etc.).

Problem there being that the euphemism may or may not be a euphemism.

Which of course, still doesn't change much because when da' girlie says "No!" one should be jumping back and leaving instead of proceeding on false knowledge that 'she was asking for it' because she invited you back to her place or some such thing.

I would generally agree with this. And that this is what Dr. Farrell was trying to say, in my opinion, when he talked about date rape. You only have to look at how many romance novels--purchased mostly by women--have rape fantasy themes in them. Our ideas about consent are confused as you say by generations of confusion. And I think that with all due respect that progressives seem to not get that the average person is ignorant about sex PERIOD. Shockingly so in many cases. So talking about informed consent with people who are ignorant about sex to begin with is probably not helping.

In a sense it is not what is happening by the time a couple are naked together that is the issue, from my perspective; it's how they got there in the first place.

[New Edom]

Oh wow yet another person claiming male privelage.

If you can't see male privilege there's something wrong with you.

With all due respect, this isn't helpful. I keep invoking bell hooks, I know, but the problem with all this is that privilege is often a concept misused and misunderstood by feminists themselves. One of the things that I like about bell hooks is that she connects many forms of oppression together--including the oppression of men at different levels.

An example of privilege: women were for the most part privileged in the same way to some extent that children are now. They were very vulnerable to being mistreated, yes, but they were also exempt from many responsibilities. This is actually a privileged position, and the refusal of many feminists to see this is part of what has a backlash of men refusing to see male privilege.

There is nothing wrong with a person who doesn't see this. It is hard for anyone to see it, which is why it needs to be discussed. What's wrong is that we have inherited generations of oppression, and that we need to learn to live more compassionately and wisely.

[New Edom]

There's also "Yes and only Yes means Yes," which seems to be the biggest stumbling block.

There's also the slightly modified version of that which reads: You should only proceed if you have a clear and enthusiastic yes.

It is a stumbling block, because it IS confusing. When Eve Ensler talks about the seduction of a minor by a grown woman in "The Vagina Monologues" that's an example of how feminist dialogue and art can lend itself to the confusion. (which btw is not something I am advocating, just to be clear--seduction of minors. No.)

I think we all know the evil of "man, she was asking for it." But the problem is that it is not really that simple. Taking the above case, is seduction rape? Because let's be honest, seduction isn't just an obvious "hey is this hot" "yes it is" "good let's do it". Seduction is also the overcoming of reluctance. And the idea of that is still choice. Now in Eve Ensler's play, what she is celebrating is the girl's choice to be seduced. But I feel pretty sure that if the seducer was a guy in such a story that it would not be received so well by feminists. People can say perhaps that this is about power imbalances, but let's go with another scenario. Older woman/youth? Is that a violation? Would that have been celebrated?

Or another example, the "My Short Skirt" part of her play. In this part, a young woman talks about the sexuality displayed by her short skirt as being about HER, having nothing to do with you. While it is fair to say that it is not an invitation to rape, as she declares--that's an unhelpful remark. It cannot have nothing to do with me, for example, because I can SEE it. Without having some idea of how I can appropriately react, it requires me to imagine what is appropriate, and that will cause further confusion.

And I think it comes down to that. Talk of consent, objectification, etc, is all actually either so precise that you can't imagine how to get there without being lovers to begin with or else it's so vague you have the same problem from the other end.

[Russadonia]

If you can't see male privilege there's something wrong with you.

An example of privilege: women were for the most part privileged in the same way to some extent that children are now. They were very vulnerable to being mistreated, yes, but they were also exempt from many responsibilities. This is actually a privileged position, and the refusal of many feminists to see this is part of what has a backlash of men refusing to see male privilege.

No. It isn't a privilege to not have choice. Grown women are not children and should not be treated as such. Being "free from responsiblity" as a privilege, for whatever that may mean to you, does not cancel out the abuse women have suffered for millenia at the hands of men.

[Freelanderness]

There's also the slightly modified version of that which reads: You should only proceed if you have a clear and enthusiastic yes.

It is a stumbling block, because it IS confusing. When Eve Ensler talks about the seduction of a minor by a grown woman in "The Vagina Monologues" that's an example of how feminist dialogue and art can lend itself to the confusion. (which btw is not something I am advocating, just to be clear--seduction of minors. No.)

I think we all know the evil of "man, she was asking for it." But the problem is that it is not really that simple. Taking the above case, is seduction rape? Because let's be honest, seduction isn't just an obvious "hey is this hot" "yes it is" "good let's do it". Seduction is also the overcoming of reluctance. And the idea of that is still choice. Now in Eve Ensler's play, what she is celebrating is the girl's choice to be seduced. But I feel pretty sure that if the seducer was a guy in such a story that it would not be received so well by feminists. People can say perhaps that this is about power imbalances, but let's go with another scenario. Older woman/youth? Is that a violation? Would that have been celebrated?

Or another example, the "My Short Skirt" part of her play. In this part, a young woman talks about the sexuality displayed by her short skirt as being about HER, having nothing to do with you. While it is fair to say that it is not an invitation to rape, as she declares--that's an unhelpful remark. It cannot have nothing to do with me, for example, because I can SEE it. Without having some idea of how I can appropriately react, it requires me to imagine what is appropriate, and that will cause further confusion.

And I think it comes down to that. Talk of consent, objectification, etc, is all actually either so precise that you can't imagine how to get there without being lovers to begin with or else it's so vague you have the same problem from the other end.

I was following until the Short Skirt part. What exactly is so confusing about wearing a short skirt and not wanting undesired sexual attention?

[New England and The Maritimes]

It is a stumbling block, because it IS confusing. When Eve Ensler talks about the seduction of a minor by a grown woman in "The Vagina Monologues" that's an example of how feminist dialogue and art can lend itself to the confusion. (which btw is not something I am advocating, just to be clear--seduction of minors. No.)

I think we all know the evil of "man, she was asking for it." But the problem is that it is not really that simple. Taking the above case, is seduction rape? Because let's be honest, seduction isn't just an obvious "hey is this hot" "yes it is" "good let's do it". Seduction is also the overcoming of reluctance. And the idea of that is still choice. Now in Eve Ensler's play, what she is celebrating is the girl's choice to be seduced. But I feel pretty sure that if the seducer was a guy in such a story that it would not be received so well by feminists. People can say perhaps that this is about power imbalances, but let's go with another scenario. Older woman/youth? Is that a violation? Would that have been celebrated?

Or another example, the "My Short Skirt" part of her play. In this part, a young woman talks about the sexuality displayed by her short skirt as being about HER, having nothing to do with you. While it is fair to say that it is not an invitation to rape, as she declares--that's an unhelpful remark. It cannot have nothing to do with me, for example, because I can SEE it. Without having some idea of how I can appropriately react, it requires me to imagine what is appropriate, and that will cause further confusion.

And I think it comes down to that. Talk of consent, objectification, etc, is all actually either so precise that you can't imagine how to get there without being lovers to begin with or else it's so vague you have the same problem from the other end.

I was following until the Short Skirt part. What exactly is so confusing about wearing a short skirt and not wanting undesired sexual attention?

It's very important that women remember their public existence has to be centered around the fact that occasionally men feel ways about stuff and this automatically becomes your problem.

[Churchilland]

Damn Emmeline Pankhurst for giving women political say... DAMN HER DDDDAAAAMMMMMMNNNNNN HHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

(I am joking, by the way, I admire Emmeline Pankhurst, but not feminists, they're nutcases! Seriously! Feminism has evolved into Feminazism!)

[New Edom]

It is a stumbling block, because it IS confusing. When Eve Ensler talks about the seduction of a minor by a grown woman in "The Vagina Monologues" that's an example of how feminist dialogue and art can lend itself to the confusion. (which btw is not something I am advocating, just to be clear--seduction of minors. No.)

I think we all know the evil of "man, she was asking for it." But the problem is that it is not really that simple. Taking the above case, is seduction rape? Because let's be honest, seduction isn't just an obvious "hey is this hot" "yes it is" "good let's do it". Seduction is also the overcoming of reluctance. And the idea of that is still choice. Now in Eve Ensler's play, what she is celebrating is the girl's choice to be seduced. But I feel pretty sure that if the seducer was a guy in such a story that it would not be received so well by feminists. People can say perhaps that this is about power imbalances, but let's go with another scenario. Older woman/youth? Is that a violation? Would that have been celebrated?

Or another example, the "My Short Skirt" part of her play. In this part, a young woman talks about the sexuality displayed by her short skirt as being about HER, having nothing to do with you. While it is fair to say that it is not an invitation to rape, as she declares--that's an unhelpful remark. It cannot have nothing to do with me, for example, because I can SEE it. Without having some idea of how I can appropriately react, it requires me to imagine what is appropriate, and that will cause further confusion.

And I think it comes down to that. Talk of consent, objectification, etc, is all actually either so precise that you can't imagine how to get there without being lovers to begin with or else it's so vague you have the same problem from the other end.

I was following until the Short Skirt part. What exactly is so confusing about wearing a short skirt and not wanting undesired sexual attention?

Because it's not clear when or what attention WOULD be acceptable. What is meant exactly? Is it okay for example to express interest be told "no thank you" walk away and have things just move on? Should men be ignoring women who are dressed attractively and pretending not to notice? What is wanted exactly from the responses people may want to have?

[Farnhamia]

There's also the slightly modified version of that which reads: You should only proceed if you have a clear and enthusiastic yes.

It is a stumbling block, because it IS confusing. When Eve Ensler talks about the seduction of a minor by a grown woman in "The Vagina Monologues" that's an example of how feminist dialogue and art can lend itself to the confusion. (which btw is not something I am advocating, just to be clear--seduction of minors. No.)

I think we all know the evil of "man, she was asking for it." But the problem is that it is not really that simple. Taking the above case, is seduction rape? Because let's be honest, seduction isn't just an obvious "hey is this hot" "yes it is" "good let's do it". Seduction is also the overcoming of reluctance. And the idea of that is still choice. Now in Eve Ensler's play, what she is celebrating is the girl's choice to be seduced. But I feel pretty sure that if the seducer was a guy in such a story that it would not be received so well by feminists. People can say perhaps that this is about power imbalances, but let's go with another scenario. Older woman/youth? Is that a violation? Would that have been celebrated?

Or another example, the "My Short Skirt" part of her play. In this part, a young woman talks about the sexuality displayed by her short skirt as being about HER, having nothing to do with you. While it is fair to say that it is not an invitation to rape, as she declares--that's an unhelpful remark. It cannot have nothing to do with me, for example, because I can SEE it. Without having some idea of how I can appropriately react, it requires me to imagine what is appropriate, and that will cause further confusion.

And I think it comes down to that. Talk of consent, objectification, etc, is all actually either so precise that you can't imagine how to get there without being lovers to begin with or else it's so vague you have the same problem from the other end.

Do you feel compelled to react to everything you see? Do you go through life going, "Look, a blue car! A red car! Short skirt! Not so short skirt!"? The appropriate reaction is no reaction.

[Vestr-Norig]

That was kinda funny yet sad at the same time. I guess some people like to take things to the extreme, and are somewhat getting blinded by their own cause. Feminism, as seen in most Western countries today, has simply lost my symphaty.

[New Edom]

An example of privilege: women were for the most part privileged in the same way to some extent that children are now. They were very vulnerable to being mistreated, yes, but they were also exempt from many responsibilities. This is actually a privileged position, and the refusal of many feminists to see this is part of what has a backlash of men refusing to see male privilege.

No. It isn't a privilege to not have choice. Grown women are not children and should not be treated as such. Being "free from responsiblity" as a privilege, for whatever that may mean to you, does not cancel out the abuse women have suffered for millenia at the hands of men.

Women have had the privilege of being paid court to, being paid for, being held to a lower standard while being provided for. Now having said this: being a child in status is not something to be envied. You are terribly vulnerable; you are dependent upon the kindness of others, and if it is not there, have little defense against cruelty. Privilege is not always something good.

And I'm sorry but the one feminist I definitely agree with is bell hooks, who states that oppression affects more than just women, and that women have been party to both the oppression of other women and of men. It's not just about patriarchy being men abusing women. So when bell hooks talks about male privilege she emphasizes that it is not actually GOOD for men, but toxic, that it leads to death, abuse, and misery. You take the abuse that women have suffered at the hands of men, and I will gladly grant that but point out the abuse men have suffered as well. Suffering is not a zero sum game.