by Connie Chastain*
I mentioned in my first FRS essay that tracking down the origins of rape culture would comprise research for future essays.
I must confess, though, that I'm far less interested in researching the origins of rape culture, which I don't even believe exists, and more interested examining the primary motivation behind the claims for it, the same one that fuels feminism -- hatred of men.
Toward this end, I recently went through the web in search of feminist sites and blogs to help with my research. To my delight, I found much of my work already done for me.
Take Part, Inspiration to Action, , a website that encourages activism on left of center issues, has a list of "Top Ten Feminist Blogs," some of which the readers of The False Rape Sociey are no doubt familiar with.
The list was compiled two years ago by Bostonian Giulia Rozzi, who does not identify the criteria she used to choose these particular blogs, which is understandable when you think about it. Whim seems as acceptable a rationale for much feminist decision-making as objective standards do.
In any case, whatever Rozzi's criteria, the Top Ten Femnist Blogs are (if you're interested):
1. Feministing - http://www.feministing.com/
2. Feministe - http://www.feministe.us/
3. Our Bodies Our Blog - http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/
4. Jezebel - http://www.jezebel.com/
5. Broadsheet (part of Salon.com) - http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/
6. Finally Feminism 101 - http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
7. Women in Media & News Blog - http://www.wimnonline.org/WIMNsVoicesBlog/
8. Holla Back NYC - http://www.hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/
9. MediaGirl - http://www.mediagirl.org/
10. Bitch Magazine - http://bitchmagazine.org/blogs
I haven't visited all of these blogs. In fact, I've hardly visited any of them to date. See, I have a really low threshold for feminist BS and can only take small, measured exposures to it at any given time. But I will visit them, looking for what they say about rape culture, and what they probably won't say, but may otherwise reveal, about the man-hatred that underlies such claims, for future essays, as promised.
Rozzi follows up her list with an acknowledgement that there are many more "fabulous female-focused blogs out there."
Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered, quite by accident, that one of the most viscerally male-hating blogs I have ever encountered is run by ... a man. (Or so the blogger claims.) I'm speaking of "A Radical Profeminist."
The blog's banner sez, "This blog exists to challenge white heterosexual male supremacy as an institutionalized ideology and a systematized set of practices which are misogynistic, heterosexist, racist, genocidal, and ecocidal."
Oh, goody. Sounds like I've come to the right place. Anybody who has something to say about so many subjects based on man-hating and male-bashing will surely have comments on claims of rape culture and false rape accusations.
The problem, I discovered after a few minutes of looking around over there, is that the blogger, who claims his name is Julian Real, appears to be completely demented.
This guy concocts his own terminology that requires a fabricated glossary; he remains secure in his "radical profeminist" hatred of men (if they're white and hetero) by a commenting policy that allows no challenging opinions. His blog is stuffed like a turkey on Thankgsiving. Look down the right sidebar at all the links, labels and previous posts. Among them, you'll find Real's bio, which says he is disabled, which explains why he has so much time to create and then wallow in such hatred. Men (and women) who have to go to work and earn the money to put the 'taters on the table don't have time for such foolishness. (And this is no smear of the disabled, either. I've known numerous disabled folks who spent their time doing positive things.)
Demented or not, when I stumbled across the site, I was on a mission, so I stayed long enough to look for posts on rape culture. A search of the site using that terminology reveals eight pages of articles, the first one a movie review of The Karate Kid remake written by Malik Diamond, "hip-hop medicine man from the fifth dimension." (I'm not making this up.)
I have to say, after visiting Julian Real's little corner of cyber-insanity, it'll be a bit of a relief to get back to ordinary man-hating from, say, Michael Kimmel at Feministing. At least Mr. Kimmel's stuff reads like he was sober when he wrote it.
About the best thing I can say about Real's blog is that visiting it doesn't cause permanent brain damage.
*Connie is a member of the FRS team. Her weekly essays appear every Friday. Her personal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
62 comments:
Great one, Connie. Sorry we're late posting it this week -- my fault.
Julian Real is a great example of an HONEST feminist, as opposed to all the rhetorically disciplined EARNEST feminists who populate the blogs like Feministing and such ...
Another great example of HONEST FEMINISM is BitingBeaver, please do read up on her. If you have the stomach for it.
For instance, on Julian's blog, one time I found this post by a radical feminist called v. The discussion was about a comment an MRA said, I think. that's the "scary stuff" she refers to.
One thing I really got about this woman is that she must have had some truly horrible experiences with men, and so she slanders all men because of that.
v was supported by Julian in a comment after this.
My stomach literally (viscerally) turns. When I read this post, it makes me feel like vomiting. So be forewarned.
v said...
"Well I can appreciate your desire Julian not to have scary stuff on here, for fear of terrorizing women who comment here or gay men for that matter.
However, I do like to see what men have to say at their worst, because most of my straight women friends don't believe me when I talk about this stuff, unless they get divorced, and are dumped for a younger woman, then they tend to get it. But by then they are in their early 50s, have sole responsibility for the kids, and then have to go on the dating scene where jerky men are legion it seems. Too late, they wasted their youth on a man.
I wish we could have preventive medicine for younger women--just stay away from these guys to begin with, because this is who tbey really are.
It is a sad thing, because lesbians love older women, and love it when women have gray hair. Our lucky radical feminist generation really honored women and age and life experience. Straight men and gay men don't like older women or older men. Men just don't like older people period.
I think having a sense of humanity is not that great a thing. I really believe that women are naieve in wanting to be humane to terrorists, rapists and porn makers. You can't be humane to men, you have to be very aggressively violent to them-- direct simple phrases, the threat of stomping them if they can't shut up, lawsuits to make them pay women fair wages, lawsuits to get them to stop sexually harassing women at work... men understand lawsuits, money confiscation, and a gun to their heads. So women need not be humane toward men ever.
We can be as rude as necessary to scare them away. Being nice to men never got me anywhere! The tougher I was, the better off I became, and now I am passionate in my show of complete scary contempt toward men in public places. From kicking their legs on buses, to stealing parking spaces and watching them scream, to spitting in their direction at a nice restaurant. Love to see their shock at that. It's pretty cool.
Since all men are guilty it is open season! You need not worry about that silly concept known as an "innocent man" because all men are guilty and deserve to be attacked for their past history. You can assume that all men view porn, so spit at them at least.
One of my friends was a police officer, and she loved slamming the heads of violent men on car hoods as she took them into custody. They almost always tried something with her, only to have their heads smashed. Some guys on the street were very fearful of her patrol car. We all loved her stories back in the day.
But a lot of women can't summon this level of contempt or hatred, and that's a shame. I think women could really get into pushing weak men around, kicking them, spitting at them, shoving them out of the way. Good practice, because again, men don't respect women, they hate women, and we need to hate them back. Fear works with men, because ultimately they fear the day women wake up. They fear feminists for this reason.
I know most feminists are pretty nice women, but I think being angry is great! An angry feminist is great, but most feminists are way too nice to men. Women's nice training should be revealed only to other women, and we need to show 24 hour hostility towards men."
Ironically, I know what she means about it being helpful to see men at their worst. This is certainly an example of a woman at her worst and it was eye-opening for me to read.
No offence but its it really wise to be linking to these sites?
Linking to a site increases its Google rank and therefore legitimises it.
It's great to discuss these things, but I'm sure some of those sites publish hate speech and a great deal of misandric content. Could we not just leave the names there without actually having a link?
Anonymous at 7:07, honest? Please. Real just posted a "top ten" list of things about Jesus that "most Christians don't want you to know."
As a Christian, there are things in the list I have no problem with people knowing -- e.g., yes, Jesus was not a Christian. Duh. Christianity did not exist during his earthly lifetime. How is that honest?
As for other things in the list, how is it honest to make claims about things nobody can know?
Here's another example of the blog's dishonesty: a post from December 2009 titled "What's Wrong With Fathers' Rights". If linking to it is a bad idea, go to his blog and search "men's rights advocate," and click the title of the first article in the index.
It starts with a translink to a very dishonest photo of "bad fathers," and does downhill from there. The article reproduced in the blog post is Father’s Rights and Violence Against Women by Dr. Michael Flood. Read it and tell me what's honest in palming off half-lies as whole truth.
I guess we can take some small comfort in knowing Real's blog isn't widely read, but it is quite breathtaking to see damaging, real-world effects of feminist thought in the post-modern age....
"Heterosexist" means "discussing relationships -- without even mentioning lesbians!" In case anybody was wondering.
Connie, this list you posted are the fairly well-known blogs and generally considered the centrist feminism blogs. I don't know about all of them, but most.
If you really want the eye-opening Radfem viewpoint, try:
Femonade: http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/
who just did a series on PIV (I had no idea what that was before reading it).
or
http://berryblade.wordpress.com/
which I haven't read myself.
or
http://feminazi.wordpress.com/
a lot of trans-hating there, which I really don't understand.
You can go from there if you really want the lay of the land.
It is fascinating stuff.
Ironically, Julian Real is not liked by many of the more radical feminists.
Again, I don't know why. From the bits I've read, he seems pretty radical to me.
Anon @ 7:07: what is the difference between an Honest Feminist and Earnest Feminist? I'm assuming those are actual terms.
I agree with Connie. While the links to those sites may increase their Google rankings, it is also good to "know your enemy." We must know that such people and sites that she has linked to and described actually exist. We must develop a taxonomy to describe and categorize such people and websites, because when we can name and describe something, it gives us power and control over it. Without the ability to make distinctions, i.e. "equity feminist" versus "gender feminist" we are lost. So, at least now I have a new distinction about what "nucking futz" is as defined by Julian Real and "v" -- I almost think it is satire, like Betty Bowers is to Christianity.
Anonymous said, 'So, at least now I have a new distinction about what "nucking futz" is as defined by Julian Real and "v" -- I almost think it is satire, like Betty Bowers is to Christianity.'
I wondered about that myself.
Hey Connie and Michael,
To Connie first. I doubt you're a woman, and I doubt your name is Connie.
See how easy that is to do--to cast doubt on something? It's just that easy. And it really makes you seem foolish, to tell you the truth. And going after someone who's disabled for being disabled--really classy. Where did you learn to do that? In bigotry school?
Why don't you doubt I'm disabled? Because it's not convenient?
To Michael:
Why don't you quote my words, instead of lifting some long passage of a commenter? Because I can go to any blog and pick and choose from the comments to find the one that most conveniently makes the point--you're very good at that. What you're not so good at is arguing with the points I make on my blog.
Why don't you quote from this post of mine, for example?
What if Women Ruled? (The Way Men Do)
or this one:
The Rapist Savage, on Christopher Columbus
And continue to quote, you know, the writer of the blog--if you're making a point about the blog, as opposed to the commenters state who visit there?
What's the matter: didn't anything I write make your propagandistic point as well as that? You're sad.
Social Worker, yes, those are actual terms.
Why not check out what I wrote about earnest feminism right here. There's also a piece on FRS called 'How long can they blame it on fringe radicals?' but I can't find it using the search.
Earnest and honest feminists will receive adequate coverage in the Remasculation Manifesto, the writing of which is underway.
Oh, and Julian Real should be banned from here.
Part 1 of 2
Julian Real said to someone else:
"And going after someone who's disabled for being disabled--really classy. Where did you learn to do that? In bigotry school?"
Wearing one's "disability" on one's sleeves as a badge of honour? Usually people who do that have issues and enjoy the victim role. If I were you, I would find someone that specialises in Dialectic Behavioral Therapy. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_behavior_therapy
I think DBT would help you. It is based on Buddhist mindfulness training (which is useful nearly everyone these days).
I have read the links you have posted and, unfortunately, I find your writings to be full of logical fallacies. You have not made your point at all, at least as it appeals to my sense of logic, reason, and accountability. In saying this, know that I am not attacking you. If you had broccoli stuck between your teeth, I'd tell you about it. If I can see errors in your facts, logic, or reasoning that are corrected by objective reference to the preponderance of observable evidence, then I will point those things out, too.
-continued-
Part 2 of 2
In reply to your position and philosophy overall, I am re-posting the comment I made here at FRS in January:
" Unfortunately, with the arrival of the internet, if misinformation occurs anywhere, it occurs everywhere -- and it can do untold damage to all of us even if it is extremely rare, and no matter how well-meaning the groups and individuals may be who become involved in the process. A fascist or two in the last century told "big lies" that were repeated and fomented hysteria, hatred, and resulted in the mass murders of innocent people.
Today, instead of racial and ethnic cleansing of the past, perhaps this generation will have to also confront "gender cleansing" at the hands of gender-feminists as its main social issue.
Why and how do these things get started? At the emotional center and the likely cause of all this conflict, regardless of whether one is a falsely accused person, a gender-masculist, gender-feminist, equity-feminist, or an advocate for equal justice is the concept of humiliation and the feeling of being humiliated. It was in part the humiliation of Germany after WWI that brought about WWII. It was a handful of women who felt humiliated by their circumstances that brought about social changes early in the last century in the United States that helped push for equality: the right to vote, equal work for equal pay, etc. It is the current humiliation of mostly young men and boys at the hands of an unjust and unfair legal system that has brought about the need for this site.
Dr. Evelin Lindner describes how humiliation can be responded to in this article:
http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/evelin/SpatialMetaphor.pdf
"Humiliation may be responded to within four categories of reactions: i) Humiliation may be accepted, ii) it may be responded to with depression, iii) it may be countered with aggression,or iv) it may be reacted to with the elimination of the humiliators, either by annihilating their significance, or their physical existence, or by an unexpected method, namely by gaining their respect.
The last method is the only one that yields lasting peace. Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi stand for this alternative. For thirty years most people expected a bloodbath in South Africa. Why did it not happen? Mainly because Nelson Mandela taught his followers how to overcome the pain and anger caused by humiliation under the system of apartheid.
In South Africa the humiliators and the humiliated sat down together and planned for a society in which ‘both black and white’ could be ‘assured of their inalienable right to human dignity.’
Instead of killing and annihilating his humiliators, Mandela succeeded in convincing them that they ought to discontinue their humiliation. He impressed the white elite. He stepped out of the ’humiliator’/’humiliated’ dyad, he stepped out of the role of the re-actor, and became an actor. He rejected the definition of the situation given by the humiliator, and with it the ‘normal’ response to humiliation, namely the holding of an unbridgeable gap towards the humiliator. Mandela, as well as Gandhi, ‘undermined’ the gruesome paradigm of humiliation, and invented a peaceful response to humiliation, namely the denial to accept the role of the victim."
The conflicts caused by misinformation can end when everyone acknowledges rational, authoritative sources of information; when everyone has respect for critical thinking and fair and just treatment; and when there is truth and accuracy in reporting.
Until then, we need to address the needs of BOTH legitimate rape complainants AND the falsely accused to restore dignity to individuals and groups on all sides of the false rape conflict."
Julian Real said to someone else:
"And going after someone who's disabled for being disabled--really classy. Where did you learn to do that? In bigotry school?"
Yeah ... because they have those. Nice 'comeback' Julian, you sound like you're nine years old.
If you're genuinely interested in the origins of rape culture, here's an oldie, but goody frat song:
I'll set it up for you. This is a song sung in front of a rival frat house.
It begins where someone raises his thumb high above his head, singing "Ohhhhhhhhh..." - and all the brothers join in raising their thumbs and saying "Ohhhhh" too.
Then the guy who started it turns his thumb down (as everyone does the same) and in a huddle shouts at the top of their lungs, very fast:
"Ohhhhhhhhhh,"
"The nipples on her titties are as big as my thumb!
The wiggle in her ass would make a dead man come!
She's a mean mother fucker, she's a dirty cock sucker!"
(now everyone points to the rival house)
"She's your girl, and she fucks!"
"Julian Real said to someone else:
"And going after someone who's disabled for being disabled--really classy. Where did you learn to do that? In bigotry school?"
Yeah ... because they have those. Nice 'comeback' Julian, you sound like you're nine years old.
Jul 24, 2010 7:55:00 AM"
The best part about Julian Real is that he is self-satirizing.
So! Enough said about him and his blog. We should move on to more important things....
Julian Real, are you and Kyle Payne somehow related?
AnonMark, I fail to see the connection between that song (admittedly crude and immature) and rape. In fact, rape doesn't seem to be mentioned at all, or even implied. Only someone who has difficulty separating (in their minds) sex from rape would connect that in any way to rape.
We're talking rape "culture", not rape. If you can't see the connection, God help the co-eds.
Here's another one. Maybe this one will sink in that thick skull of yours:
Frat guys start off with the drinking songs before the cunts arrived.
Just replace Phi Psi with your own frat:
I placed my hand upon her toe
Yo-ho, yo-ho
I place my hand upon her toe
She said "Phi Psi you're way too low"
Shove it in shove it out quit fuckin' about
Yo-ho, yo-ho, yo-ho
I placed my hand upon her thigh
Yo-ho, yo-ho
I place my hand upon her thigh
She said "Phi Psi you're way too sly"
Shove it in shove it out quit fuckin' about
Yo-ho, yo-ho, yo-ho
I placed my hand upon her tit
Yo-ho, yo-ho
I place my hand upon her tit
She said "Phi Psi go for the clit"
Shove it in shove it out quit fuckin' about
Yo-ho, yo-ho, yo-ho
I placed my hand upon her snatch
Yo-ho, yo-ho
I place my hand upon her snatch
"We're talking rape "culture", not rape."
So rape culture doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with rape?
"Here's another one. Maybe this one will sink in that thick skull of yours:"
You sound pretty angry for someone who got asked a simple question.
Could it be that when people ask questions, your theories start to fall apart?
And besides, who cares about a couple of songs that a dozen or so people have ever sung?
AnonMark, that second song has even less to do with rape. For instance this part:
"I place my hand upon her toe
She said "Phi Psi you're way too low""
SHE SAID you're way too low. Sounds like she's the one instigating sex to me.
But since it doesn't have to be about rape to be about rape culture, perhaps it is. I don't know. What is rape culture, then? Why is it called rape culture if it doesn't have anything to do with rape? Are these questions too difficult for you, AnonMark? Why not just go ahead and insult me instead of trying to answer?
"If you can't see the connection, God help the co-eds."
Da porr porr porr co-eds who will be raped by songs dat have nothin to do with rape ... how I feel for them. My heart bleeds.
If these songs having nothing to do with rape culture or promoting rape, how do you account for them?
"If these songs having nothing to do with rape culture or promoting rape, how do you account for them?"
lol! What a question.
Account for them? ... in what way? I don't have to account for anything.
I don't believe they promote or even MENTION rape - the second song particularly makes it clear that the girl is consenting, even instigating.
As for 'rape culture', I'm now confused as to what that is since you said it doesn't have to have anything to do with rape.
Connie, you could write your next Rape Culture 101 piece on the ravings of AnonMark ... LOL!
"And besides, who cares about a couple of songs that a dozen or so people have ever sung?"
A dozen? LOL Obviously you never made it to college.
Other Anon, the point of the songs has zilch to do with who insigated what, but I'm sure you already know that.
I agree that these songs are sung by crude and immature frat men who are unable to distinguish between sex and rape. Those who sing these demeaning songs have no respect for women. How can you still deny the existence of rape culture?
"A dozen? LOL Obviously you never made it to college."
Not in America, you insensitive, ethnocentric dolt.
"Other Anon, the point of the songs has zilch to do with who insigated what, but I'm sure you already know that."
How so?
I mean, if a woman instigates sex, then she isn't being raped.
And if both parties are consenting, then it isn't rape.
Right?
So what on earth does this have to do with rape?
"I agree that these songs are sung by crude and immature frat men who are unable to distinguish between sex and rape."
No, it's you who is unable to distinguish between the two. Their songs seem pretty consensual to me. You alone are reading rape into it. If I didn't know better I'd say you have rape on the mind.
'Rape culture' is a silly fantasy which only serves to perpetuate the 'all men are rapists' myth once it became untenable in its original form. Sorry, but it's the same thing - another way to hold all men responsible, whether or not they're guilty of anything (and the overwhelming majority are not).
You people are neurotic.
Anonymous - "So what on earth does this have to do with rape?"
There's no point trying to have a rational discussion with Julian real and his minions, who he's lead over here, regarding rape. They are hard-core Dwarkinists who view all sex which (white) men are participants who derive some enjoyment as being rape.
They seem to, for the most part, advocate for only homosexuality. Thus, there angst at against regarding a few frat boys (a very small percentage of the over-all population) is not so much about what consensual activities that rational people would NOT see as rape; but, rather, that (white) men boasting of their sexual exploits (by their definition, "rape"), is a celebration of what they imagine to be this so-called "Rape Culture" (the enjoyment of sex by straight white men being rape", of course).
Of course, they also give a pass to raunch-culture women, who's behaviors often leave the worst of the frat boy's paling in comparison to their utter filth. Also notice that they single little-know frat songs, but not the highly misogynistic, and widely popular (notably, amongst women) hip-hop and rap music offerings. Of course, women in raunch-pop music can do no wrong in their eyes either.
Their obvious "omissions" are a glaring demonstration of their view that "Rape Culture" is simply (white) men enjoying sex, and saying so.
They represent extremely fringe thought, and are best just ignored (responding to them gives their radical notions undo credit).
"They seem to, for the most part, advocate for only homosexuality."
Heh. I hate to break this to you Julian (Paul). But there's a good possibility that you're fighting a losing battle here.
Julian, I didn't "go after" you for "being disabled."
Let me spell it out for you (although you're probably determined to misconstrue it no matter how concisely it is stated).
I speculated that being disabled, and not having to spend one-third of your time working for money to live on, freed you up to cram-pack your blog with, well, let's just call it "content."
I also acknowledged that one doesn't automatically result in the other because I've known disabled people who used their time for positive accomplishments.
Second, I haven't cast doubt on anything; I've expressed my opinion that your blog content is the result of somebody who is demented--an unscientific term I used, in this case, in the sense of being unable to tell fantasy from reality.
It's a condition I've found to be not uncommon among those who have allowed themselves to be overtaken and controlled by hatred--in your case, your self-acknowledged hatred of white, heterosexual men. And you imply that I'm bigoted, LOL!
I support women's rights (Thomas Jefferson said it best -- that all men [i.e., people, human beings, male-and-female] are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights) but I despise feminism, a subset of Procrustean socialism.
Feminism is based upon the hatred of men apparently rooted envy of them -- envy being a huge, integral component of socialism. Based on my small sampling of it, your blog reeks of both.
Connie, I watched your video over at your blog - the trailer for Southern Man. I just wanted to say it is AWESOME as a propaganda piece. I have taken notes ...
See how easy that is to do--to cast doubt on something? It's just that easy. And it really makes you seem foolish, to tell you the truth.
***
Julian, do you have any idea how mindblowingly stupid that comment is?
The ONLY path to truth is the scientific method -- forming a theory and subjecting that theory to as much doubt and experimentation as possible.
The reason we don't doubt that you're disabled is because YOU TOLD US THAT, get it? But a rape accusation without corroboration MUST BE DOUBTED, or else there is never any reason to believe it.
That's the way knowledge -- which is JUSTIFIED true belief -- works.
Rape accusation without corroboration is tyranny!
Thanks, Anon at 12:23. I grew interested in false sexual accusations (rape, harassment) because of the Duke case. What I'm primarily interested in is the motives behind false accusations.
In my novel, it's vengeance -- typical feminist get-evenism. There are all kinds of motives for filing false claims but vengeance appears to be a common one.
Here's a real-life false accusation story with vengeance as a motive.
http://www.ohiodailyblog.com/content/bogus-sexual-harassment-complaints-drove-ag-marc-dann-office
Keep in mind, as you read it, that "The woman never lies."
@slwerner
"There's no point trying to have a rational discussion with Julian real and his minions, who he's lead over here, regarding rape. They are hard-core Dwarkinists who view all sex which (white) men are participants who derive some enjoyment as being rape."
IMHO, we still need to address Julian Real and his like when they comment on any given post with a rational re-statement of our position. Why? I want to make sure that anyone reading FRS for the first time gets a correct impression and complete understanding of the blog owners and the rational majority of those of us who have been falsely accused, as well as those guests that post regularly. The way I view any given post and set of comments is to ask the question "how would this post and associated comments be viewed by a biased member of the mass media on either the liberal or conservative side of the fence?" As this blog garners more media attention over time, we need to make sure that we are dismissive of no one -- not even the lunatics. I'm not saying we need to argue with them point-by-point, but we must address them in a way that appeals to fact, reason, and logic and denies them any ability to say "they didn't answer me, so I must be right."
In general, we could do better without the ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs that crop up, but I understand, as a falsely accused man, that it is difficult to deal logically with such an insane and emotional subject.
Bottom line: ignoring people like Julian will not make them go away.
I have to admit the songs posted up there are grossly disrespectful, and maybe dangerous. You get a group of guys with the same mind set, all who probably go nuts over homophobia, and before you know it, somebody gets gang banged.
I agree with Slw that they represent a low percentage of the overall population, but then so do rapists, so why make the point, as that doesn't make these people any less dangerous.
In that respect I can easily see how these behaviours promote a rape culture.
"I have to admit the songs posted up there are grossly disrespectful, and maybe dangerous. You get a group of guys with the same mind set, all who probably go nuts over homophobia, and before you know it, somebody gets gang banged."
I wouldn't read too much into the songs. Probably mostly it's sung out of loyalty to the fraternity, y'know, for entertainment.
I seriously doubt that anyone's personal philosophy is contained in those lyrics.
Songs don't hurt or kill people. Nor do they inspire people to hurt others. If someone hurts another person because they heard or sang one of those songs, they were an asshole who was going to do it anyway.
These misandrist sites should be removed. Any hackers out there want to oblige? I don't believe in freedom of speech when that speech is hateful against men. Besides, in real life it's all about POWER not persuasion and most people only understand a punch in the nose. It seems like every little peasant with a few thousand dollars to buy a computer and set up some blog thinks she an expert on something today. Wipe them all out.
I don't believe in freedom of speech which it involves idiots dragging down this blog by making criminal threats.
It's awesome in every other situation, though!
"Those who sing these demeaning songs have no respect for women. How can you still deny the existence of rape culture?"
They're SONGS about SEX. They have nothing to do with RAPE, RAPING, or RAPISTS. You're simply trying to justify an anti-male bias you already have using evidence of something only incidentally related to rape,because you are unable to tell the difference between consent and non-consent. SEX is NOT RAPE,dumbass.
How can I deny a rape culture, based on your "evidence *snicker*? The same way I can deny that a salvador dali painting can melt a clock.
Other people's artwork has NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY,you retard. Even if it WAS a song about rape, it would still be completely IMAGINARY.
You do realize the difference between reality and the pretty pictures in your head,don't you? You are over the age of six,right?
"I have to admit the songs posted up there are grossly disrespectful, and maybe dangerous. You get a group of guys with the same mind set, all who probably go nuts over homophobia, and before you know it, somebody gets gang banged."
Has EVERYBODY LOST THEIR GODDAMN MINDS?
Let me try to spell it out. ART=IMAGINARY
There are NO SONGS,PAINTINGS,SCULPTURES,PHOTOGRAPHS or FUCKING MACARONI PICTURES capable of inducing someone to do something they wouldn't do otherwise. You can't even hypnotize someone into doing something they wouldn't do otherwise.
SONGS are imaginary. It doesn't even matter what they say, because WORDS CANNOT HARM YOU.
"How can I deny a rape culture, based on your "evidence *snicker*? The same way I can deny that a salvador dali painting can melt a clock."
Damn. That is an awesome comeback to claims of rape culture. I may use that in future.
"They're SONGS about SEX. They have nothing to do with RAPE, RAPING, or RAPISTS. You're simply trying to justify an anti-male bias you already have using evidence of something only incidentally related to rape,because you are unable to tell the difference between consent and non-consent. SEX is NOT RAPE,dumbass."
I just wanted to add:
Your "evidence" of a rape culture is like an idiot pointing to dogs in order to prove the existence of werewolves.
Yeah guys sing songs about sex. We like sex. Women sing songs about horses and rainbows and shit, I don't particularly like to listen to that crap but,unlike you, I know that you cannot call someone a rapist because you don't like their taste in music.
As long as there are laws against rape on the books in every country on earth that have been there forever, you don't have a leg to stand on with this "rape culture" bullshit.
"I have to admit the songs posted up there are grossly disrespectful, and maybe dangerous. You get a group of guys with the same mind set, all who probably go nuts over homophobia, and before you know it, somebody gets gang banged."
Maybe he's got a point. Why would a fraternity gang rape someone? Like where do they get the idea?
"Maybe he's got a point. Why would a fraternity gang rape someone? Like where do they get the idea?"
Where's your proof that that they do? Where are you getting THAT idea,if you have none?
I don't monitor for a few hours, and it's as if the animals have taken over the zoo. What the hell are you doing with my blog? I'm going to have to go to moderation mode.
The notion of fraternity gang-rape, or male athlete rape or gang rape, reflects the feminist envy and hatred of men having anything, or doing anything, exlusive to themselves.
They cannot stand the idea of groups of men doing anything without a woman being in the middle of it, central to it, directing it or reaping the benefits of it.
When that doesn't happen, men have to be punished, with claims of gang rape that create "rape culture."
Note what this does--it puts women back in the middle of male activity and besmirches men in one fell swoop.
Never mind that it's mostly fabricated; feminism doesn't put a lot of emphasis on reality, as their continued citing of the bogus 1-in-4 statistic demonstrates.
They simply cannot leave men alone.
Archivist:
"I don't monitor for a few hours, and it's as if the animals have taken over the zoo. What the hell are you doing with my blog? I'm going to have to go to moderation mode."
Maybe it's my warped sense of humor, but some of the bizarro comments had me rolling.
Anon @ 5:10:
"Why not check out what I wrote about earnest feminism right here. There's also a piece on FRS called 'How long can they blame it on fringe radicals?' but I can't find it using the search."
Yes, I have read those articles. I didn't know you were the same person. Thanks.
There has been some talk on this thread about song lyrics, and I'd just like to remind everybody that the purpose of music and stories isn't to indoctrinate people (especially adults) in how to behave, but rather to explore the full range of human behavior.
This includes bad behavior; the kind you see in r-rated movies.
& Connie. I didn't respond to this bit yet:
"Anonymous at 7:07, honest? Please. Real just posted a "top ten" list of things about Jesus that "most Christians don't want you to know."
As a Christian, there are things in the list I have no problem with people knowing -- e.g., yes, Jesus was not a Christian. Duh. Christianity did not exist during his earthly lifetime. How is that honest?
As for other things in the list, how is it honest to make claims about things nobody can know?"
What I meant by honest is that he is open about his hatred of men.
I didn't make this clear at all. My bad.
I didn't mean to imply that he conducts himself with honesty, only that he is honest in his feminism, i.e. openly admits that it is misandry.
As opposed to the earnest feminists you see at e.g. Feministing, who tell us so earnestly that the gender war is not a zero sum game ... and then play it like it is. They are hateful bigots too, but they are rhetorically disciplined. It's an important distinction to make, because the earnest feminists are actually far more dangerous - they get taken seriously because they use fluffy language to justify their hateful agendas.
Honestly, Julian, I have spent very little time on your blog. I believe that was one afternoon, and I probably saw about 4 or 5 posts.
I forgot most of what you talked about. I do remember that you had a glossary of acronyms on the right part of the screen and that the background to your blog was white. And there was a banner at the top with a picture of some sort.
That wasn't what impacted me about your blog.
What truly impacted me (shook me, really) was the comment by v, because it gave me a window into the way she views the world.
And from that window, I presume she had some shitty relationships with the men around her when she was growing up, leading to statements like "Men just don't like older people period." and "You can't be humane to men, you have to be very aggressively violent to them"
Those opinions are verifiably false. I could come up with many examples of men venerating older men, or men who are attracted to "cougars", and I could point out that aggressive violence is definitely not the "only way" to deal with people period.
But to her, based on her experiences, it obviously occurs that way. Seething statements like those can't be blamed on a womyn's studies course. Those must stem from some core part of her.
Not that she's evil and has no heart, but that she was badly hurt by men at a young age and has not woken up to the world around her where most men (surprise surprise) are good people.
So, i wasn't talking about you directly, I was talking about your blog. But I did check to see if you would tolerate that post, and you did, you replied to it in fact (I got the sense she was a regular poster, too). So that says something about you.
@Michael.
What it says is that I make my blog a space where women who have been very, very injured by men can come and say what they need to express, without being called all kinds of hateful things. Because, as I figure you get already, anyone who holds views like that has already heard plenty of hateful things about women from men, often during assaults.
I'm not speaking here about her story specifically, but it amazes me how little compassion so many women and men show to women survivors of abuse at the hands and fists of men. It's truly astounding to me how a woman who isn't hurting anyone, but is merely expressing herself on one of the few cyber-spaces where she can say such things without being roundly condemned and re-victimised, gets seen as a man-hater, when what she is is a woman who has known the hatred men feel for females up close and personal.
The callousness or quickness to go on the defensive about "some of us are good guys", when hearing the stories or responses of female survivors of male sexual and physical violence expressing how they feel, just astounds and disappoints me. That there are good guys isn't the point. That the good guys, overall, don't do shit to stop the bad guys is the point.
@Connie - I don't engage with people named "anonymous" and I won't read comments by anyone who doesn't have the decency to speak with at least a screen name.
I also won't engage further here, because of your policy allowing people to post anonymously.
I don't welcome you or any of your anonymous commenters to come over to my blog. All comments sent there will go unpublished.
That they have this place to say what they want is your call. But anyone who shows such callous disregard for female (and male) survivors of sexual assault by men won't have a voice at my place.
This is just something to agree to disagree about, as far as I'm concerned.
"I won't read comments by anyone who doesn't have the decency to speak with at least a screen name."
Right you are, PAUL.
I guess having a stupid made-up name is so much more 'decent'.
Julian, this is the Internet. Its nature is anonymous. "Jim Smith" or "Bob Brown" are no more reliable at identifying an internet commenter than "Anonymous" or "Genghis Khan". I suspect you know that.
I have seen no "callous disregard" for female (and male) survivors of sexual assault by men from the owners of, or contributors to, this blog, and if you had to produce evidence of such disregard for, say, a court of law, you couldn't. Anything that might show up in comments doesn't count since anyone, including you, could have put it there.
If I may ask, where is your regard for the children who survive physical abuse by their mothers? You realize male children are more likely to die from abuse than female children, right? And that almost forty percent of abused children are abused by their mothers, less than 20% by fathers? http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/figure3_6.htm
But by all means, don't let silly things like truth and facts get in the way of your blind worship of women and your animosity for white heterosexual males....
--- action against terroism, that is. I'm going to inform the other blogger of your comment along with the link to this thread.
Julian: the only oppressor here is YOU. Shame on you for making false statements to the FBI.
Nice try with the white supremacy idiocy, but we are anything but white supremists. YOU are the one trotting out the female supremacy horseshit.
All you are is a liar and a bigot.
By the way, if he is going to lie about MRAs to the FBI I certainly don't think he should be allowed anywhere near this blog. He is a false accuser and he is dangerous.
Post a Comment