MISANDRY: The Redstockings Manifesto and Mainstream Feminism

Here’s a remedy for some of the generalized feminism-bashing and accusations that feminists as a hive-mind are misandrist. Feminists quite correctly insist that there are many feminisms. It’s a request for a little more attention to detail, and it’s more than reasonable. So let’s look at what is misandrist about radical feminism and see if that is foundational to any other kind of feminism, if other feminists use its terminology, formulations and theoretical assumptions.

When it comes to rebutting the accusation of misandry, Fidelbogen has a simple solution – one can simply renounce and abjure the explicitly man-hating aspects of other people’s feminism.

Let’s see how wide and deep the distinction between radical feminists and other feminists really is. Let’s focus on a early founding group.The Redstockings were a radical feminist group formed in New York in 1969. (There was also another independent Redstockings group in San Francisco.) The full text of the manifesto is below at the bottom of the post.
Can we agree that it is a fair statement of the radical feminist position?

If so, can we then also agree that the way to distinguish one’s position and one’s feminism from those angry man-hating radical feminists is to reject their misandrist positions?
And what are those misandrist positions? Let’s lift them from the text of the Redstockings Manifesto itself:

1. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor. We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance men’s lives. Our humanity is denied.

 

By describing women’s oppression and ignoring men’s exactly identical oppression, this formulation erases it, and that is misandrist. That the value of men in this society is based solely on our utility to women is not only so general that it is easy to demonstrate, but also so general that it fades into the background and becomes invisible.

2. All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women….
….. We call on all men to give up their male privilege

 

Barbara Nussbaum identified denial of autonomy as an indicator of objectification. Borgification of men and women into classes is both misandrist and misogynist. The notion of male privilege proceeds from this borgification of men and is inseparable from it.

 

3. To blame institutions implies that men and women are equally victimized, obscures the fact that men benefit from the subordination of women, and gives men the excuse that they are forced to be oppressors…. We also reject the idea that women consent to or are to blame for their own oppression.

 

Here the manifesto denies that men are constrained by society and insists that women are. This is not only objectification of women in the form of inertia, the denial of agency, but it is a blatantly discriminatory double standard. The only discernible basis for this discrimination is that men are objects without rights or any claim to judgment under the same standard, rather than human beings.

 

4. We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men.

 

The authority to change others is a claim of ownership. Barbara Nussbaum identifies ownership as an indicator of objectification.

 

5. The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress men.

 

Again, Barbara Nussbaum identifies violability and denial of subjectivity as indicators of objectification. Denying that women can and do oppress men and boys, harming us in institutional and structural ways, is to excuse the violence and harm that women do men based on the violability of men. And when men come forward and recount how they have been harmed and continue to be harmed, any attempt to deny that or to silence them is a denial of subjectivity.

 

To summarize, here’s a list of what is misandrist in the Redstockings Manifesto:

1. Objectification of men (and women) by means of reductionist class analysis.
2. Demonization of men as the oppressor class.
3. Denial of harms to men as merited to members of an oppressor class
4. Double standards in analysis biased against men

So the question is how often do we see this kind of terminolgy and discourse in non-radical feminst spaces, or hear it from one of the “That’s Not My Feminism” feminists?

Fidelbogen drew up an oath of abjuration for feminists who did not want to be considered misandrist. I offer my own, which is more detailed. If a feminist doesn’t care whether he or she is considered misandrist, that is fine, that is a personal choice. But it is their choice and they can accept the consequences of it.
Oath of Rejection of Misandry

1. I renounce and reject any analysis that objectifies or dehumanizes either men or women by crudely and reductionistically lumping them into classes and that denies their individuality or individual agency.

2. I therefore renounce and reject any analysis that identifies all men as oppressors and all women as victims, or that denies that men can be victims or that women can be oppressors, or that denies that these power differences can be based on gender roles alone.

3. I also renounce and reject formulations or slogans based on accusing men of being oppressors as a class such as “male privilege”, and “men can stop rape”, in the absence of female equivalents or formulations that include male victims on the same basis as female victims.

4. I renounce and reject gender-based discrimination. I reject analysis that uses false equivalencies to minimize harms to men, such as: equating rape of women to murder of men or insults to women’s faithfulness with paternity fraud against men, that seek to explain away harms to men as insignificant because they are done by other men, that seek to exculpate women for blaming men for the violence that women do to them or their children. I condemn any gender-based discrimination before the law, whether intentional or simply resulting in disparate impact – the female sentencing discount, gendered disparities in scholarships, institutional support groups or quality of instruction and educational outcomes in government-run education, disparities in the family court system resulting in disparate rates of child custody and disparate treatment of parental misconduct, and all other forms of governmental and institutional gender discrimination. I condemn gender-based infringements on due process and other Constitutional rights.

5. I renounce and reject the demonization of human sexuality, either as dangerous and creepy or as sluttish and dirty, or as perverted or unnatural. I reject notions such as “rape culture” and “male gaze”.

6. I renounce and reject any social or political project that treats one gender as morally inferior to another. I reject calls from women to “fix” men and attempts by women, or their male enablers, to define or decree what constitutes a “good man” a “real man” or masculinity.

So there’s the oath a feminist can take before witnesses to remove any doubt she or he is misandrist. Just swear off “male privilege”, “male gaze”, “rape culture” and all special pleading for either gender. It’s simple egalitarianism.

 

 

REDSTOCKINGS MANIFESTO

I After centuries of individual and preliminary political struggle, women are uniting to achieve their final liberation from male supremacy. Redstockings is dedicated to building this unity and winning our freedom.
II Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor. We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance men’s lives. Our humanity is denied. Our prescribed behavior is enforced by the threat of physical violence.
Because we have lived so intimately with our oppressors, in isolation from each other, we have been kept from seeing our personal suffering as a political condition. This creates the illusion that a woman’s relationship with her man is a matter of interplay between two unique personalities, and can be worked out individually. In reality, every such relationship is a class relationship, and the conflicts between individual men and women are political conflicts that can only be solved collectively.
III We identify the agents of our oppression as men. Male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination. All other forms of exploitation and oppression (racism, capitalism, imperialism, etc.) are extensions of male supremacy: men dominate women, a few men dominate the rest. All power structures throughout history have been male-dominated and male-oriented. Men have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force. They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.
IV Attempts have been made to shift the burden of responsibility from men to institutions or to women themselves. We condemn these arguments as evasions. Institutions alone do not oppress; they are merely tools of the oppressor. To blame institutions implies that men and women are equally victimized, obscures the fact that men benefit from the subordination of women, and gives men the excuse that they are forced to be oppressors. On the contrary, any man is free to renounce his superior position, provided that he is willing to be treated like a woman by other men.
We also reject the idea that women consent to or are to blame for their own oppression. Women’s submission is not the result of brain-washing, stupidity or mental illness but of continual, daily pressure from men. We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men.
The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress men. The basis for this illusion is the isolation of individual relationships from their political context and the tendency of men to see any legitimate challenge to their privileges as persecution.
V We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.
Our chief task at present is to develop female class consciousness through sharing experience and publicly exposing the sexist foundation of all our institutions. Consciousness-raising is not “therapy,” which implies the existence of individual solutions and falsely assumes that the male-female relationship is purely personal, but the only method by which we can ensure that our program for liberation is based on the concrete realities of our lives.
The first requirement for raising class consciousness is honesty, in private and in public, with ourselves and other women.
VI We identify with all women. We define our best interest as that of the poorest, most brutally exploited woman.
We repudiate all economic, racial, educational or status privileges that divide us from other women. We are determined to recognize and eliminate any prejudices we may hold against other women.
We are committed to achieving internal democracy. We will do whatever is necessary to ensure that every woman in our movement has an equal chance to participate, assume responsibility, and develop her political potential.
VII We call on all our sisters to unite with us in struggle.
We call on all men to give up their male privilege and support women’s liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own.
In fighting for our liberation we will always take the side of women against their oppressors. We will not ask what is “revolutionary” or “reformist,” only what is good for women.
The time for individual skirmishes has passed. This time we are going all the way.

July 7, 1969
Redstockings P.O. Box 748* Stuyvesant Station New York, N.Y. 10009

224 thoughts on “MISANDRY: The Redstockings Manifesto and Mainstream Feminism

  1. Verrrry interesting. Since you have linked to me, and promoted a pet project dear to my heart, the least I can do is give you a shout-out on my blog. Which I shall duly do in the near future.

    ~Fidelbogen~

  2. Thanks for the shout and thnaks for the original post of course.

    I made a point of framing this in feminist terminiology. This is aimed at feminists who claim that feminism is men’s best hope, that it is the best and most appropriate paradigm for analyzing gender, that it is really all about equality.

    And I just love your requirement for self-criticism in the form of that oath – deliciously Maoist – from feminists who want to engage on men’s issues. You nailed it – time to come clean.

  3. “This is aimed at feminists who claim that feminism is men’s best hope, that it is the best and most appropriate paradigm for analyzing gender, that it is really all about equality.”

    Of course men can be feminists! Absolutely! Welcome to the meeting, Mr. Male! Insert your membership fee in the top of the slotted box and we can get started.

    Hold on, gotta pat you down first. Just to make sure you aren’t concealing anything. What’s this? A Hemmingway novel?? Of course you can’t bring that in here! It’s unapproved literature. Too patriarchal. Too violent. It’s going straight into the garbage.

    Okay, now let me get a glove. Drop your trousers and submit yourself to a cavity-search. That’s right. It’s standard for all new members of your… background. Just relax the sphincter. This’ll only take a minute. Or three.

    Congratulations! It looks like you’re safe to come-in now. Just put this on your head…

    Yes, I mean it. It’s standard issue. All new male members to wear a dunce cap which says “I’m a patriarchal oppressor who must beg for forgiveness.” If you don’t like it, then you can’t join-up.

    That’s right. Tie those chin-straps real tight, boyo.

    Now, shut-up, sit in the back of the room and don’t speak until we pass you the talking-stick.

    And wipe that look off your face.

    So— let’s talk about equality!

  4. A constructive suggestion.
    In the Oath which you have composed, you ought to work in some reference to the Redstockings Manifesto itself. Just so that people will become aware of it.

  5. Thanks, Fidelbogen. I think I will cross reference the items in the oath to the forms of objectification they address.

  6. Ok, this post kicks ass.
    Alas, ALL HAVE SINNED and all that, for I can’t totally take an oath about number five. I see use for very limited “slut shaming” (basically if you can’t have sex unless you are drunk) and I believe in a code of conduct for sex which includes honesty with a partner, and Safe Sane and Consensual or Risk Aware Consensual Kink – that sort of thing, which means I can’t give any old kind of sexuality my blessing, unless its backed by ethics. I also don’t like cheaters who have sexually available (to them ) partners and are NOT in open relationships.

    But I can take the oath on all the rest of the stuff.
    Alas, I have not ever been called a “feminist” by anyone who counts, so I guess taking the oath is something I can’t do anyway.

  7. “I see use for very limited “slut shaming” (basically if you can’t have sex unless you are drunk) and I believe in a code of conduct for sex which includes honesty with a partner, and Safe Sane and Consensual or Risk Aware Consensual Kink – that sort of thing, which means I can’t give any old kind of sexuality my blessing, unless its backed by ethics.”

    None of that is slut-shaming. All of that is good and necessary.

    Slut-shaming is thinking someone’s sexuality and expression of are inherently bad. It’s finding some way to stigmatize a man looking at a woman out on the street -a la Schroedinger’s Rapist. It’s giving the stink eye to some young girl in a skimpy dress who is just enjoying the feel of the sun on the feel of her beautiful body.

    As for sexual ethics, the rule I go by “An ye harm none, do as ye will.” That means basically repsecting boundaries – respecting consent or lack of it, respecting ack of interest and putting that repsect above one’s own hurt feelings – you don’t get to start foaming and be all hell-hath-no-fury because some guy didn’t all drool over your awesome hotness. Etc.

    There is a diffenrence between demonization and simple prudence, and since i have never in however many years now seen you say one demonizing thing, I think you cna prettysafely sign on to the whole thing…..even if you are not the target audience.

  8. Excellent job. You’ve completed a very thorough analysis of the radical feminist and your oath is also excellent. I do hate to say it, but I would not be able to take the pledge. One of my pet projects is to define “masculnity” and that has included the “good man.” I might have some weasil room, however. Mine is not an attempt to “fix” men, but to create a workable definition of a modern masculinity.

    I have also commented on the Redstocking Manifesto and keep a copy posted on my site for reference. Many of its ideas and roots can be traced to Valerie Solanas and the SCUM Manifesto which she self-published published in New York about a year earlier.

    TDOM

  9. Ginkgo, have you read this?

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/exile-in-gal-ville-how-a-male-feminist-alienated-his-supporters/252915/

    So you can teach Women’s Studies, organize rallies against rape, organize on behalf of women’s rights for years and years… but if you have a penis, feminists will still treat you like shit on any minor pretext they can.

    Why do feminists seem to have such a freakin’ hard time acting as if men are equals?

    I can only chuckle with amusement at the fact his camp is also perpetually baffled as to why anyone gets the impression that feminists have a problem with men. Gee whiz, what a gigantic mystery that is, eh? It must be a media conspiracy to make feminists look bad and not the behavior of the feminists themselves that make feminists look bad.

    Geniuses, all of them.

  10. Aych:
    Calm the heck down.
    I was banned from the only feminist blog that purports to care about men because of a few posts in the comments thread on another blog where I was not very “PC” in describing my sexual attraction to various women.

    Hugo has arguably engaged in
    A. Abuse of power, having sex with some of his students in the past
    B. And more importantly attempted MURDER. Now he was feeling suicidal at the time, but the point is , according to his own words, he was attempting to take his girlfriend at the time with him.

    If you believe these things are “minor pretexts” esp. “B” then that doesn’t say anything good about you.

    It’s true its easy for a man to get spit out and dumped by the feminasties for little or nothing. But I don’t think you can use Hugo as such an example. Perhaps the worst thing you can say about feminism and Hugo at this point is that now his use for them is ended and they have no need to forgive or pretend to forgive his past.

  11. Ha, I got banned from there too. Apparently the reason was “victim blaming” Rebecca Watson as she’s considered to be a “victim” of being offered coffee.
    Sometimes I wonder if these people even realize how out of touch they are with reality or if they’re quite intentionally pushing an agenda at the expense of the truth.
    I suppose, if she leaves her apartment with the doors and windows wide open, gets her things stolen, then recommending her to close and perhaps lock her doors, that would also constitute “victim blaming”.

    Under the circumstances and everything I’ve seen in feminist circles, I cannot but conclude that feminism is a movement of sexism and any claim to the contrary is ignorant of the facts. Even the word “feminism” couldn’t be more sexist and yes, that is very significant (especially since wording is routinely scrutinized meticulously in that same movement).

  12. Clarence? I’ve known for years that Hugo slept with his own students; he’s been open about it. But- That didn’t disqualify him from being a feminist in good standing until very recently.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but didn’t they suddenly turn on him due to some ‘jizz’ article he wrote? And then, suddenly, his past became objectionable? That’s the minor pretext I’m talking about, not all the sociopathic stuff he did. You can sleep with your own students, but don’t you dare express ideologically-impure thoughts.

  13. Aych:
    You are mistaken. They turned on him when item “B” in my list above became widely known, I forget if it was on Feministe or Clarisse Thorns site or where it was but I was there when the shitstorm broke out. It wasn’t long after he left the Good Men Project blog and Tom Matlock got attacked by all those feminists. I remember our ol’ pal Ginmar really ripping into him on one of Clarisse’s threads on Feministe. Another thing that sealed the deal is that he pissed off (and I honestly forget how) certain womenist bloggers (POC who left feminism for being too “white centric”) and on Feministe and a few other such places when a Person of Color says “Jump!” you, the privileged one, only ask “how high?”.

  14. I will say that in my memory he first spoke of his attempted suicide/murder about 2 or 3 years ago on his own blog. SOME feminists didn’t like it, but for some reason it did not gain traction until now. I don’t remember how it got brought up again – I believe someone mentioned it in afterthought somewhere, shit storm ensued – he did what?!!! – and for whatever reason that was that. But I do know he was in “Good Standing” only about 2 months or so ago so all this stuff is recent.

  15. Clarence: “but for some reason it did not gain traction until now.”

    Exactly! Some tipping-point got reached. What was this tipping point? I was under the (mistaken) impression that he’d said some minor thing that some woman didn’t like and she raised enough of a stink that everyone turned on him.

    Maybe it was simply because men aren’t allowed to become too too prominent within feminism? He rose-up through the ranks and it caused resentment until– SNAP!

    In the Tulsa 1921 race riot, do you know the first place that the white mobs torched? The black-owned businesses. Burned the whole street down. If you were black in those days, having money made you a target.

    Whenever I look at the situation that male feminists are in, I sometimes wonder whether feminists unconsciously wish to keep some little wuss in the kitchen where they can smack him around.

    Feminists can’t even seem to treat each other as equals. But it’s all about equality, amirite?

  16. Hugo – I noticed how prominent Ginmar was in leading the mob on judging him in that Feministe thread. Pretty telling.

    “I will say that in my memory he first spoke of his attempted suicide/murder about 2 or 3 years ago on his own blog. SOME feminists didn’t like it, but for some reason it did not gain traction until now.”

    I agree with you that it was the murder attempt they jumped on him about and Ginmar was right to insist on that. The timing is strange though, that it was allowed ot stay dormant for a so long. His blog ws hardly that obscure.

    Looking at that thread a lot of things ocme out – juts the fact that he mentioned something like that in a public was taken of evidence of narcissisim and as a narcissist he was blamed for subverting feminism to his own exhibitionistic needs.

    It may have been a lot of little things adding up. I noticed in threads on Feministe where he did comment – and always in the most mealy-mouthed, placatory tone – no one really ever engaged with him. In the ned maybe he was just pretty marginal – he certainly was not in soem power elite academic position – and he was just seen as getting above himself.

  17. I think we can agree it wasn’t fair or nice how they treated Hugo as he was more of a benefit to the movement than a hindrance, and I’m convinced it’s probably something like what you are saying here : when certain “competitors” of his within the movement got wind of these faults , this time they knew what to do with them.

    On the other hand, he certainly deserves it. Under some conditions I don’t have a problem with Professor/student sex so long as the students are not currently in (it’s ok in my book if they WERE in) and will not be in your class in the future – but he boffed his students, not former students. Then he tried to kill someone else in a VERY selfish suicide attempt. Lastly, he really has damaged many men and boys with his casual misandry. I’m not going to shed a tear for Hugo Worm Schwyzer.

  18. I hate to say it, but I am afraid that is somewhat over my head, Clarence. But, yeah, I can see how feminism would be more compatible with one kind of BDSM (with the woman on top) than it would be with any other kind.

    But I was more thinking along the lines of how people with the feminist point of view are obsessed with women getting pushed-around and go on and on about how horrible it is, but they are very VERY quick to lash-out on their own kind if they are men.

    Yeah, they savor watching men squirm. I agree with you on that. But here’s what looks so dumb to me: If you’re going to buy-into an ideology that presumes guilt on half the human race and rationalizes treating half the human race like scum, you can’t really get all butt-hurt and dumbfounded and go ‘why? why? why?’ when people don’t understand that your ideology is actually all about puppies and ice cream. It looks kind of dumb to me, that’s all.

  19. Aych:
    That blog is written by a woman who is a fan of writer Mark Simpson (he coined the term “metrosexual”). She grew up in a radical feminist household and spent years getting away from that mentality. She now mostly writes on genderqueer stuff and expressions of masculinity.

    Mistress Whiplash is a construct of Mark Simpson’s to describe the current ascendent type of feminism. You’ve probably seen or heard other MRA’s and PUA people occasionally refer to Feminism as a “shit-test”? Well, that’s part of it, but largely feminism wants total control based on male guilt. If it wasn’t for the fact that so much of male and female sexuality is subsumed into feminist philosophy, you could almost call her BIG MOMMY because so much of her power is based on guilt and shame. But what kind of woman wields guilt/shame power (traditional feminine) but also sexual power? A Dominatrix. Perfect, hmm? I think it fits modern feminism at the .90 plus percent level as a metaphor, with only a few parts of the modern political philosophy not seeming to fit -the largest one being the fact that feminists love to exploit the lack-of-female-agency that Typhon has talked so much about. I think I’ll link you to a blog and suggest to you when you get a chance -take your time, they are not long but there are six parts to the essay- that you read this and the other five parts:
    http://stummyrumblings.blogspot.com/2011/11/essay-on-societal-dominatrix-part-1.html

    I think you will find that fascinating and you will gain some knowledge that you will find useful to farther refine your own thoughts of the state of gender politics and depictions in much of current Western society.

  20. By the way, I must delve a little bit into my private life to explain a concept or two that was present in that post of mine. I’m a male “switch”. This doesn’t mean I’m bisexual, in normal BDSM parlance it means I bottom and top , or can be the spanker or spankee etc in terms of play, in my case with women only. I have some personal experiences with dominatrixes because when I was really young (this was before the internet) I thought I was a male submissive ( a “switch” can be submissive at times but when I say male submissive I mean someone who cannot or does not want to switch) because I had no vocabulary or examples in my private life or on tv to tell me otherwise.
    Now I know that more women than you think will “switch”, but more to the point, there are many types of female sexual dominants of which the leather clad dominatrix is only a subset, a subset that has become the sole expression and stereotype of female dominant sexuality. I didn’t know this at that time, so I sought out pro-dommes and…well, that’s enough potentially icky stuff ( I presume I’m talking to mostly straight or gay people on this blog but most of you guys and gals aren’t kinky).

    Anyway, many dominatrices or “Mistresses”, “Dommes” whatever they call themselves or you call them will take males as sexual or service type slaves. Stereotypically, they never date these men as they are supposedly not attracted sexually to them. In real life this is false, many dominant women do date and have sex with submissive men, HOWEVER – and many people don’t know this – even most female dominants are not attracted to needy or totally supplicant men. Either they want their subs to be respected in the wider world ( I’m sure people know that many powerful men play or otherwise live submissive games and lifestyles with the women in their lives) or at least to make the dominance challenging for them. In that, 90 plus percent of female sexual dominants are not total dominants – they still have “hypergamous” instincts and want to be able to look up to the men they have sex with or dominate in some way – even if it’s only because he’s brainy, brawny, or can play a mean guitar.

    Extend this observation to the metaphor of Mistress Whiplash and I think you can explain lots of the reaction that male feminists get.

  21. Clarence: “Extend this observation to the metaphor of Mistress Whiplash and I think you can explain lots of the reaction that male feminists get.”

    I’ve read them. And, duuuude… I always thought that consensual BDSM is a legitimate sexual activity. But you’re basically describing something that looks pathological and fascistic and trying to fit it into a BDSM mold. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a hater is just a hater. There’s no need to to dress it up with pretty verbiage, is there? The only type of men that feminists approve of are rich, famous men who direct money towards feminist causes without attempting to have any say in how the money is spent. Useful idiots, in other words.

    And there’s no need to make-up big words like “hypandrephobia” when you’re describing what looks like flat-out heterophobia. (There’s a subgroup of women out there who gush over virtually anything a gay man says or does, partly because it makes them feel ‘progressive’ and partly because they’re too neurotic to handle relationships with straight men. If you dig deeper into this tribe, you’ll find that they have similar attitudes wrt gay porn. When someone finds straight porn to be distasteful and creepy but gives gay porn a wink and a nod, it rather gives the whole game away.)

    Gingko: About Ginmar:

    I was about to express amazement that an embarrassment like Ginmar can apparently outrank a hardworking male feminist… but, really, I don’t know how most feminists think of Ginmar. She’s something akin to the village idiot of the feminist blogosphere, is she not?

  22. Aych:
    Two things:
    1. I did not write the “societal dominatrix” essays, and I can’t take credit for such excellent work. Nor am I related in any way, shape, or form with Mark Simpson or Quiet Riot Girl nor do I have any connection to her blog other than commenting there from time to time.
    2. Don’t get me wrong, I think your “useful idiot” description describes most feminist men and what will happen to them, but at a pyschosexual level (esp if you consider female and male sexuality as a whole in common descriptions in our society) I think those essays help describe the reasons for the current gender roles (as women’s get more fluid, men’s get more restricted, but society must still make sure to make a ‘right kind’ of acceptable male mate and a wrong one) as well as help explain some of feminism. After all, female feminists are women too.

  23. Clarence: it’s too bad you didn’t write it. I thought you’d done rather a good job ;)

  24. Gentlemen, that has been a really rich discussion you had there. Thank you very much.

    Clarence, that dominant female you are referring too is an archetype -”Large and in charge”, Nurse Ratched – think of how prevalnet it is. And you are quite right to call it Big Mommy and also in your analysis of how it brings men to heel – through guilt. One proof is the way men who break free tend t desribe the process. Ther eis a lot of talk of rejecting guilt.

    Ginmar and what feminists think of here. All I can say is that I don’t see her around much. That suggests she isn’t widely welcome. She is so damned toxic she is bound to fuck up pretty regularly and get thrown out, even if it isn’t for her most toxic shit.

  25. As a feminist, I happily take that oath. Yes, not all feminists perpetuate misandry… just most of the ones who get paid to do it for a living.

  26. Wow! I hadn’t seen the Atlantic thing.

    1) Aych, thanks for the link to the article… I have to say, “Exile in Gal-ville” is a great title. (I have awful trouble coming up with good titles, so I bow to talent.)

    2) Clarence, I wish you hadn’t been banned over there and we could brawl it out like good Irish-Americans should. (Actually, you strike me as being more of a Scot, but same thing applies.) I am sorry that “Mom’s comin round to put it back the way it oughtta be”* happened, since I notice that always happens right as we start getting right to the meat of things, if I may quote my beloved Liz in “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf”… First ballgame and his control-freak complex, and now we have this… sorry.

    Besides, I cut masochists breaks, even part-time masochists. (I’m as chivalrous as any man!) You should have waved your white flag or whatever and I would have let it pass. :)

    3) “even most female dominants are not attracted to needy or totally supplicant men”–do you know what devotees are? This would overlap into this sort of thing, about which I am allowed to say no more.

    But simply put, its far more common than you think. Teaching women it is okay to “marry down” (or whatever we want to call this phenomenon) would free this impulse where it exists, which I think gets diverted into unwholesome attempts to control men.

    Please do not ask me how I know any of these things, since I won’t answer you.

    4) The whole Ginnar vs Hugo thing has amazed me. You’d think he was HER professor, the way she has gone after him. Really, bloodlust and bloodsport, can’t come up with any other word for it. Its not like he isn’t being savaged by all quarters–her vicious piling-on simply is not necessary… but its like she can’t let it go, she is having too much fun. Its been an ugly spectacle, and in the end, I think it generated sympathy for Hugo after a point.

    5) My defense of Hugo stands. If somebody can’t be an addict and recover, there is no hope for anyone. He wrote about that shit years ago! I was dumbfounded by the whole inquisition, and as I told Jim/Gingko, I moved the word “feminist” down about 8 words or so on my self-definition on my blog profile. Never did THAT before.

    6) All feminists are not bad, some of us are nice and reasonable, nyah. But only if we were born before Reagan! :P (yes, ageist comment, sue me!)

    7) My first big de-linking by the feminists is when I wrote about FAT. You are not allowed to call yourself fat and draw comparisons to a FAT society and FAT, rapacious American culture. They went berserk on me, link available on request. Jesus H Christ! But that is not even about men, which is what blew MY mind. Still not sure I get it.

    *I quoted Tool for Stoner with a Boner, does he ever post here? Tell him I said hello. Also, I tried to post on Ed Sparrow’s blog post about me (loved it, and I even complimented Typhon Blue!), but WordPress either flung me into the evil spam filter, or its set for no comments. bah.

  27. Daisy, howyadoin.

    That Ginmar thing – I took her measure a long time ago. She is just seriously toxic and that’s the only way to explain her behavior WRT Hugo. But that doesn’t raise him much in my estimation. I think he’s a user and a taker.

    Favor to ask – please critique this article and help me refine and improve it. You are my mentor in this area. You hipped me to the Redstockings in the first palce and you were in that world. I cannot have gotten this all right.

    I remember how you got hereticated for your fat comment. I think there is a certain community of feminists in the femisphere and probably in certain academic settings that function like a cabal of those poisonous little teachers’ pets we all remember. They have specific third rails with them and fat is one. Another is a victimology hierarchy.

    Not all the reasonable and nice feminists are our age. You should drop in at Good Man Project now and then. Those feminists, the ones that remain after the Great Purge, actually listemn to the men who comment there on men’s issues and I can see their views and awareness evolving. And they are relatively young

  28. Valerie! I am overjoyed at seeing you here. Welcome, welcome, wlecome!

    Not surprised to see you get behind that oath, no surprise at all.

  29. Jim, another third rail is FIBROMYALGIA, which I think is actually other things, or in some cases, nothing. I have even looked over the skeptic blogs. Does anyone have any suggestions for further reading?

    I figure, might as well go whole hog and alienate everybody!

    Okay, about the Redstockings. If you really want background on this world, I would recommend holding your nose and reading Robin Morgan, who dished constantly. Her biography is a good place to start, but she actually recycles her own writing annoyingly (whole paragraphs from her other books end up in her bio, without properly crediting the earlier book), so you don’t need to read a LOT, but at least some.

    Morgan left her awful controlling stage mother to marry a gay poet and get out from under her horrific mother’s influence, which was so extreme, her legal age was changed (just like in “Gypsy”!) … and she was thought to be oh so precocious (she was two years older than her mother claimed). She was a child star in the 50s TV show “Mama”, where she played the cute, sweet child Dagmar. (This was even before MY time, but anyone in their late 50s or 60s might remember the show.) There were few TV shows then, so the fame the few TV stars got was much different than it is now, where we can’t even remember the names of all the shows. Morgan was “special”–and she even had a radio show (as a child!) where she gave ‘advice’ to other children. Her terrible mother was the mastermind behind all of this. (Morgan often wrote poems about horrible mothers, you will notice.)

    I think Morgan’s unmistakable stamp is on all of NY feminism of the period, NYRW as well as the Redstockings and WITCH. She was the best writer and the best media-ready personality, having been on TV as a child. She was the one who came up with media-circus stuff like trashing the bras, letting the mice loose in the bridal fair (which I personally thought was a real hoot!) etc. Morgan is crucial to understand… and I think she saw feminism as the way to “fix” her mother. She believed her mother would not be so awful if she had been permitted to pursue her *own* dreams–and there is likely much truth to this. But her mother was also never married to her father, which she only discovered as an adult, rocking her world.

    Morgan felt “pimped out” by her mother, and in her bio, even says it like that.

    I think the narcissism of the TV child star, the feeling of being pimped early and then cast aside, etc is a crucial emotion in a lot of early feminism, and it comes directly from Morgan. The victim-chic started there, you can trace it right back to her. She WAS a victim (of her mother), and with that other famous victim Andrea Dworkin (forcibly prostituted by her ex while in another country and vulnerable, unfamiliar with the culture and language), they defined feminism in victim terms, rather than in empowerment terms. The empowerment feminists (Steinem, Millet, Alice Walker) were systematically undermined by the victims, and by the time Morgan took over editorship of Ms from Steinem, the transfer of power was complete.

    2b continued

  30. The class formulation is from Shulamith Firestone, who based it on Marxism. I hardily recommend people read “The Dialectic of Sex” for themselves. There is much in it that modern feminism finds embarrassing, such as the idea that pregnancy is barbaric and needs to be eliminated. I am fascinated that women who think its okay to hire other women to have babies for them (and I am amazed by how many rich female celebrities now do this as a matter of course!) would be embarrassed by this idea, since it seems many women have admitted they don’t want to do it themselves for whatever reasons. (as rich women used to hire poor women, or enlist slaves, to nurse their babies) I think this is an idea that is widely accepted, but you are not allowed to admit it. Whereas there was once a harsh feminist criticism of surrogate motherhood (criticism pioneered by Phyllis Chesler, who is now writing for David Horowitz!), that is now verboten.

    Likewise, rich women paying poor women for their eggs, reproductive exploitation, is now acceptable and nobody is allowed to criticize it. Some feminist might want to do it, so of course, we can’t say anything! Pardon digression.

    Anyway, Shulie, as she was known, had a major crack-up and I believe was diagnosed as schizophrenic. This is one of the most closely-guarded crack-ups in history. But I think this is another reason (besides the fact that she was onto the reproductive exploitation in all of its facets) that she is not top-rung now, and the Dalyite faction stepped into the breach. The fact that Shulie did not continue her brilliant theory? Was probably the biggest loss for feminism, because all of these 1) idiots (Jeffreys) and 2) fascists (Daly) stepped into her place. :(

    Anyway, CLASS is not the word I would use, but what others do we have? Certainly, *I* am not being oppressed by some Mexican male construction worker currently building something across the street from me. But his girlfriend might be oppressed by him. Certainly, it is likely his girlfriend is oppressed by the Church. Both would be oppressed by the government that seeks to deport them while still exploiting their labor. So ALL women are not oppressed by ALL men as a class, but some are, by some men. (And by some institutions.) This needs to be quantified in ways we can understand, and using other words would be a good place to start.

    Anyway thats where I am right now. I am leaving Catholicism so, sorry, no more oaths for me! (LOL)

  31. DD: Very interesting stuff. I learned quite a bit from those posts. Thank you.

    In a similar vein about surrogate motherhood: Back in early 2009, I didn’t see very much feminist commentary when Nadya Suleman (i.e.: ‘Octomom’) was all over the news. I got the impression that a lot of them were unable to reach some kind of consensus and gave the whole thing a pass (but, then again, I had a lot of work back then and I couldn’t exactly do an in-depth survey. It was just a passing impression.)

    I figured the lack of an obvious hubbub it had to do with: 1) there was no obvious male villain to blame and excoriate 2) single moms are always assumed to be de facto heroic and 3) women’s reproductive choices can never be questioned for any reason, even if it’s weapons-grade Crazy.

  32. Daisy:

    I have asked you not to talk to me and because of your past behavior and associations I don’t trust you any longer. However since you chose to bring this up here, I will respond:
    A. I do not believe you are sorry I was banned at NSWATM. Indeed, you cackled about me getting you banned at Feminist Critics forgetting two very important facts:
    1. You are not banned at Feminist Critics, instead Daran/Ballgame et.al would be holding your posts in moderation to make sure you make no personal attacks before releasing them. While I understand you might not “trust” them, I’ve been there for years, and I’ve seen other peoples posts on there who have been under such restrictions, thus clearly posts get through.
    2. *I* never asked for you to be banned or even disciplined at Feminist Critics. I merely defended myself from your personal attacks and was happy to see others noticed. I also did not rub it in your face when you were disciplined.
    I am BANNED from No Seriously What About Teh Menz even though I received no warning, nor did I violate any of the blog rules, at least any they bothered to write down. Same thing with Typhonblue, and she didn’t even use any bad language but merely dared to ask a male rape counselor who has seen both sides of the issue (victim of female rapist, counsels male rape victims) if he had any lingering fear of females due to his experience.

    I suppose it’s true, in your defense, that you may have been triggered (as I said I know your buttons, I’d assume AB (who has seen you in action much more than I have the past 6 months or so)knows them as well. Perhaps she (pure speculation on my part of course) knew that when you saw my comments from the comments section of that other blog you’d go berzerk. Whatever. All I know is that you basically compared my “crime ” of making blunt sexual judgements in a private thread on another blog to me saying hideously racist things, and you went off on a tangent and started asking me bluntly private questions about my private life. This despite the rules on NSWATM , AND despite the fact that I specifically asked that people talk about my post on Elevatorgate -which, need I point out to you, was on topic as to what was being talked about in that thread. Instead, in a style reminiscent of the Maoism that you used to practice, or the Catholic confessionals that you no longer have to worry about attending you started to try and grill me on all my perceived sins, and, to put it bluntly, “homey don’t play that!” I mean SERIOUSLY:
    what business is it of yours and why should you or NSWATM care about my private sexual feelings or how they are expressed about 3 women, 2 of whom I dislike , who will never even see or care about my judgements on them, on a thread where the subject of sexual attractiveness was not even started by myself, but rather by women on that blog?

    This post is already long enough and I don’t intend to bring drama to this blog, so for anyone interested, here you go:
    http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/elevatorgate/
    Don’t read what I consider an excellent and fair post on Elevatorgate, instead do what Daisy and AB did and skip down to the comments section where you can have fun seeing me say a few schoolyard level taunts about a few feminists while giving my true feelings as to the sexual attractiveness of said feminists. Then feel free to exclude me as the obviously horrible sod I am, if you so choose.

  33. Oh, and PS:
    I’m not a Christian. I merely have a few friends on that blog and they are open minded enough to occasionally let me post about secular things some of which even include mild critiques of religion.

  34. 1) Ballgame has told me outright that I am banned, and even told everyone else to shut up about me since I was not allowed to participate. Check the last Feminist Critics open thread, if you don’t believe me.

    2) As you wish, believe as you like. I can certainly ignore you if you prefer, but remember this goes both ways.

    3) *I* never asked for you to be banned or even disciplined at Feminist Critics this is good to hear.

    4) I explained my reasons for my opinions, in full, on NSWATM and how disgusting I thought your words were, and yes, they were and I don’t back down from that. Apparently, you don’t know how the bag-over-the-head thing sounds to young women… I have heard it all my life. But *they* are really freaked out by it. I was trying to get you to retract it. You are not reading it right. But whatever.

    No worries, as I said, I saw the white flag upthread. It’s just plain good manners.

  35. I meant #3 above, to be in quotes: “*I* never asked for you to be banned or even disciplined at Feminist Critics”

    and meant to reply to this–

    This is good .

    Sorry for typos.

  36. Daisy Deadhead:

    Are you referring to this :
    “FTR, I’m greatly sympathetic to your reaction to DaisyDeadhead’s responses to you. Obviously, we bloggers at FC agree there is something fundamentally wrong with DDH’s commenting approach, or we wouldn’t have revoked her ability to comment freely here.”?
    Note the “freely comment” instead of “comment” altogether.

    It’s from this thread: http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2012/02/11/a-quadrennially-compensatory-open-thread-noh/
    And by the way, I was at the original thread where you got into trouble recently and I forget which one it is (Daran or Ballgame) but they specifically say your comments would be moderated. I sincerely doubt they’ve decided to unilaterally ban you for no reason.

    Here’s the thread at NSWATM:
    http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/open-thread-batman-edition/
    My beef with you starts on the 15th and ends on the 16th. Note that some of my comments have been removed, and two were quickly pulled into moderation and never let out, I have screen caps..but why bother. I think it would be obvious to anyone reading that thread.

    Now I can kill two birds with one stone: I can illustrate a wonderful propaganda technique you might be using while answering your question as to why I wouldn’t answer your questions in that thread.
    Here’s one reason why:
    Daisy Deadhead says:
    February 15, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    So Clarence writes misogynist-swine stuff on a blog, then tells us “I got rather tired of it myself, but I don’t apologize for giving my “two cents” about RW and AM.”

    And we are actually expected to argue in good faith with such a person?

    Really, Clarence, I thought you were decent, I am pretty shocked and disappointed. You see nothing dehumanizing about your comments?

    (((crosses another one off the list)))) Now that I know who and who not to bother responding to, makes interacting on this blog a lot easier and quicker.”

    From that point..that insult ON you never seemed to argue in good faith. You switched the goal posts, soon as I’d shoot down one of your insulting conclusions about my character, you’d throw up another thing. Part of a comment as an example:
    “Does your grandmother know you talk about screwing women with bags over their heads? What does she think of that? Or do you respect her too much to share these sentiments with her? (That tells you how disgusting they are)

    there are larger issues about those two women other than my sexual opinion of them, an opinion I’m sure they could care less about anyway.

    But Clarence you didn’t say it to them, you said it to the women you wanted to intimidate and insult with your opinion.

    I’m just really surprised. I thought you were basically a nice person and it turns out you aren’t at all. Sad. :( ”

    Why should I trust you were being honest in engaging in me? More likely you were just employing the following rhetorical technique:
    A. Find something , legitimate or not to criticize -
    B. If that criticism is rejected or disproved, find something else
    C. Repeat the cycle until something is admitted
    D. Then mercilessly attack that moral weakness

    This is excellent strategy when you want to smear someone or to take a thread off topic. I wanted to talk ELEVATORGATE, Daisy wanted to talk about how horrible a man I was.

    I think people should be aware of this kind of rhetorical technique.

  37. @ Daisy,

    I think WordPress just hates you, to be honest, but I rescued your comment from moderation and replied. I just read through your comments here, and I just wanted to say, I get the feeling that you’re often less interested in whether ideas are correct than whether they’re interesting. It’s not a criticism, I just noticed how you talk about a lot of early feminist writers from a perspective of, “Well, that’s kinda crazy, but isn’t it cool to think about?”

    Am I on the right track?

  38. Clarence: ELEVATORGATE

    Ahh, I remember that one.

    Let us take an instance of a human being who is striking-up a flirtatious conversation and…. …act like he’s a fucking serial killer!!111!!

    When a woman complains? No over-reaction is ever too extreme!

    It was like an Antietam of misandrous musket-volleys. Good times!

  39. Clarence: NSWATM is becoming more ridiculous all the time. I don’t know why people still try to engage them (Though, I confess I gave them another chance recently. I doubt I will do so again.) They are just a bunch of faith-head radfems who pretend to be “egalitarian” feminists. They are exactly the type of feminist that it is pointless to talk to.

    I’ve just read the thread and I’m torn on the whole debate. I don’t think it’s as clear cut as Daisy et al made out. I don’t think your comments were misogynist or sexist. Mean, yes, but not misogynist. That term is overused by feminists that it doesn’t even mean anything anymore beyond “I don’t like that”. I didn’t see any argument that shows that it is misogynist beyond people claiming that it was so, but I guess that’s all the argument feminists need.

    This reduces the problem to merely being offensive, rather than a wider problem of sexism. While I believe sexism should be stamped out, as with discrimination of any birth group, I don’t think that generally being offensive should be.

    “I think people should be aware of this kind of rhetorical technique.”

    I think most people are already aware of Daisy’s bullshit. You missed some off your ABCD:

    “A. Find something , legitimate or not to criticize -
    B. If that criticism is rejected or disproved, find something else
    C. Repeat the cycle until something is admitted
    D. Then mercilessly attack that moral weakness”

    On B it should be noted that there is never any acknowledgement that the criticism was disproved. And there should be B2. Later in the thread go back to already rejected criticisms and use them again, as though they haven’t already been disproved.

  40. Okay, if I am being shooed away and told to go away, can I ask if this is the consensus of the mods, or just Adiabat and Clarence? Can we put a lid on the gatekeeping, in that case? I am not going anywhere, just because you want me to.

    And BTW, Clarence, you LOVE me for it. As we see, you said I should stop talking to you, but you can’t stop talking to me. :D Know why?

    Here is one of those forbidden truths I can’t say on self-defined feminist blogs: MEN LOVE BITCHES. Yes, it is the symmetrical-mirror image of “women love bad boys”–certainly not *all* of them, but enough of them to make a stereotype. At least enough men to ensure that a true bitch like myself has plenty of options. (Note: I can’t call women bitches on a feminist blog, even if I refer to myself, unfortunately. Also, this is a rather controversial assertion, as you might guess.)

    MEN. LOVE. BITCHES.

    Do not attempt to deny this fundamental truth. I know its true.

    This is why I don’t understand why you complain that women are so mean to you, when you love it. A total and complete bitch, with no mercy, I have never needed a date, never been without a boyfriend if unmarried (and at least once WHILE I was married), been married three times, and men still come on to me at my age. They just NEED someone to tell them how it is, and I try to provide the necessary correction that most men crave. Surely you understand this, Clarence. Its a dirty job, etc.

    But seriously, I first realized this reading R Crumb comics (whose heroines strikingly resemble me and my body type, even my braids), because they are considered very sexy (to him) but they are not feminine *at all*. This has always interested me, because as Trotsky would call it, its an intrinsic contradiction.

    Speaking of which, Ed Sparrow:

    I think WordPress just hates you, to be honest, but I rescued your comment from moderation and replied. I just read through your comments here, and I just wanted to say, I get the feeling that you’re often less interested in whether ideas are correct than whether they’re interesting. It’s not a criticism, I just noticed how you talk about a lot of early feminist writers from a perspective of, “Well, that’s kinda crazy, but isn’t it cool to think about?”

    Yes, that is exactly right. :)

    Rolls up sleeves… okay, now, onward:

    Ballgame is one of those guys that really dislikes bitches.

    I sincerely doubt they’ve decided to unilaterally ban you for no reason.

    Ask him. I certainly have not been able to comment since, and I was told in an email that I could not. The ACTUAL RESULT has been banning, in effect, whatever he is calling it to avoid responsibility. I have posted at least a dozen times and the posts did not show up and of course, were therefore ignored. Isn’t that banning? What is it then?

    He has effectively done it and doesn’t even have the guts to call it that? See, as I have made it clear, one thing I hate more than anything is PASSIVE AGGRESSION which is usually a feminine thing, but ballgame is riddled with it. (This is what convinces me he really IS a feminist, haha.) His cowardice and wishy washy inability to take an actual stand is his worst trait as a so-called “feminist”–that’s also why he has to insert bullshit qualifiers into people’s posts like a catechism teacher and annoy everybody.

    Back to the topic:

    Why should I trust you were being honest in engaging in me?

    You can trust me as much as you trust all the other bitches in your life, Clarence, no more and no less.

  41. I think most people are already aware of Daisy’s bullshit.

    Can’t figure out if Adiabat likes bitches as much as Clarence obviously does; it is unclear in your rhetorical technique.

    But anyway, I really would like to talk about things here that I have been unable to talk about on feminist blogs, like why men love bitches and why some men don’t. Like the Madonna/Whore syndrome, it can also careen back and forth in the same man, as he loves a bitch one place but not another. But most men seem to have distinct preferences for one or the other.

    This is why I am skeptical of the MRM. The whole reason. Why do you all go running after bitches like the proverbial bloodhounds, if you hate bitches so much? Splain Ricky.

    Clarence, the women on that Trad Christianity blog, talking shit about RW, were major bitches… so there you were, criticizing women you regard as bitches, TO bitches. I found it really Twilight Zone-ish in the extreme. But fascinating at the same time.

    Intrinsic contradiction!

    Of course, I couldn’t say any of this on NSWATM, so you were not getting my entire perspective. I have always heavily censored myself, so really, lots of you do not know the entirety of my thinking. You only have the tip of the iceberg, so please stop assuming you know my techniques and blah blah blah. What you see is, my attempts to circumnavigate all the puritans and censors who won’t allow XYZ to be spoken aloud on their precious blogs. I try to say what I am trying to say within their strict parameters… sometimes I say it the way I want, and other times I must seriously compromise my ideas to get even a fraction of them across. I have a lot of ideas and theories, and most are (like what I said above), not acceptable in mainstream feminism, so you have never heard them before.

    So I will thank you not to assume you know a damn thing about what I really believe. Thanks.

  42. “Okay, if I am being shooed away and told to go away, can I ask if this is the consensus of the mods, or just Adiabat and Clarence? ”

    This is my thread and I am the only mod who matters on it, that’s our modding agreement. Daisy, I welcomed you and I am the only one who can withdraw that welcome.

    And speaking of welcome, I expect all my guests to respect my house and the welcome of my house. That means I expect my guests to respect my guests.

    “MEN. LOVE. BITCHES.
    Do not attempt to deny this fundamental truth. I know its true. ”

    Well this one sure does, in the meaning you are using, Daisy. In fact I much prefer bitches over weaklings, whether male or female. I think weaklings are beneath contempt and someone acting like a weakling brings out a mean streak in me.

    On the subject of ballgame and banning Daisy, since this is a meta point it is useful to discuss it here. I remember the exact ocnversation. BG was ticked specifically at Daisy’s refusal or failure to concede points and come to a conclusion with someone she actually agreed with. Fair point, but it is a matter of style rather than substance in many cases and that was one. and in many modding decisons of his I see an obnoxious prissiness at work that cares more about protecting feelings than arriving at clarity. in particular he has no notion of the diffenrnece betwen criticizing someone’s behaviors and attitudes or beleifs and criticizing that person, and he often micharachterizes comments that way. Daisy is exaxctly the kind of person he would eventually fall out with.

    Daisty is a cav trooper – tons of testosterone and sometimes not much sense, and then again a bolt of blinding clarity; not really safe to bring into garrison but invaluable in the field.

    Everyone step back a bit and re-orient your guns away from each other out forward, out onto the threat.

  43. Daisy Deadhead: “Okay, if I am being shooed away and told to go away, can I ask if this is the consensus of the mods, or just Adiabat and Clarence?”

    Well, I’m not shooing you away. I’m just pointing out your behaviour on nswatm. I think your insight into early feminism is interesting, and it makes a nice change from reading bullshit from college kids running home and regurgitating what they’ve just learned in their Gender Studies Unit. But I’m not going to bother debating with you, as you don’t debate. You lie, deceive and use various other rhetorical tricks to “win” the debate with no care as to what is actually true. Of course, if I see you acting reasonable in a thread I might join in.

    “MEN LOVE BITCHES”

    I don’t doubt it.

    “Note: I can’t call women bitches on a feminist blog, even if I refer to myself, unfortunately.”

    Of course not. That’s because it’s a magic word that’s always sexist, regardless of usage. /total-failure-to-understand-how-language-works

    “Of course, I couldn’t say any of this on NSWATM, so you were not getting my entire perspective.”

    So you troll instead? You knowingly make flawed arguments just to “win” rather than make the argument you want to make? I don’t get why you have such a need to post on these blogs that you self censor to the degree you describe. What do you care if some radfem bigots on nswatm ban you? They are lost cause.

  44. Gingko, what a nice thing to say. :)

    PS: Gay men have no trouble with my bitch hypothesis, it is het men who get upset when I say it. Surprised there hasn’t been a chorus of condemnation already!

  45. You lie, deceive and use various other rhetorical tricks to “win” the debate with no care as to what is actually true.

    Well, that is probably because debating is overrated. I hope you know that nobody actually reads anymore? (Even the people who read my blog, don’t seem to understand what I am actually saying.) Reading and writing is going to left to the scribes, as in the Middle Ages (as one of my mentors, Dana Beal, used to say).

    I am on talk radio, and I prefer verbal grenades. I idolize Ann Coulter’s schtick and have fashioned myself as left wing version of her (which of course means I don’t have to wear cocktail dresses and that shit). Coulter is a Deadhead you know, and one of my fantasies is to umm, “debate” her personally as right vs left wing deadhead! May the best flaky long-haired blond win!

    I got the idea watching her and Al Franken on C-Span, which was really entertaining.

    My radio show is little but mighty! I am getting a small following. Will take me years to get to Laura Ingraham’s level, unless I say something insane to get me suddenly quoted all over the country, and I will have to think carefully before going that route; not sure I want to. Also, being a local radio person (here in the Bible Belt) has its own rules, for instance somebody chastised me on Facebook for using the term “pro life” on the radio–but I was ADDRESSING the pro life people and wanted them to pay attention. (I said, “you pro life people out there”). If I’d said “hey you anti-choice people”–I don’t think they would listen to me. But for some people (hi ballgame!) terminology and words are primary, more important than actual results.

    Adiabat, you will respect me when I am on MSNBC with Coulter and Amanda Marcotte!! :P (my producer’s goal is to get me on MSNBC, he says it almost every day)

    I am doubtful this stuff will actually happen, but as Ed Sparrow said about my love of fun ideas — it IS a lot of fun to think about. And I do give it my all, just in case it does amount to a career.

  46. Adiabat: So you troll instead?

    Is Ann Coulter a troll? Well, I suppose some people would say so, I would use her own terminology of “verbal bomb thrower” or provocateur. It is not appropriate to be a provocateur in all situations, but sometimes it is.

    You knowingly make flawed arguments just to “win” rather than make the argument you want to make?

    Of course, nothing I say is FLAWED. (rolls eyes) Clearly, you have not been reading.

    I am polite and do not use words that will get me banned, like “bitches”–which is shorthand for an argumentative or troublesome woman (that men love!)… there is no feminist blog that would allow me to use the word. So, I don’t.

    Surely there are words you also refrain from using?

    I don’t get why you have such a need to post on these blogs that you self censor to the degree you describe .

    What other blogs talk about gender issues with men, without also insulting feminists outright for every feminist sin under the sun? That allow feminist participation even if we don’t go along with the checklists?

    Jim is right in that ballgame kept trying to extract some kind of loyalty oath from me, YOU MUST SAY THIS and YOU MUST AGREE WITH THAT and no, I don’t do oaths. As I have said, I left the Church, no more oaths. I will not participate on a blog if 1) I am simply going to be excoriated and attacked for claiming the label “feminist”–which historically, is mine to claim and 2) I am only allowed to participate if I agree with XYZ points of dogma. And that seems to encompass most of them, wouldn’t you say?

    If you have links for other blogs that do not do this stuff, I am interested.

    What do you care if some radfem bigots on nswatm ban you? They are lost cause.

    Radfems? Ohhhh, Adiabat, you have much to learn. They aren’t radfems in the least; true radfems do not care about men and think it is unfeminist to even go in that direction. Read Ginmar or Margaret Jamison lately?

  47. Um:
    As a matter of historical record Daisy was placed in moderation due to attacking me personally repeatedly in a thread simply because she disapproved of something I said.
    It’s not “prissiness”, Jim, to insist that your commenters do not attack each other in a personal manner. It was rude, unanimously agreed to be uncalled for, and she proved incapable of getting back on topic even after being warned. I only wish the NSWATM moderators were as even handed, I got neither protection from Daisy nor a warning about my behavior. The other part of her issues at Feminist Critics was that she had been warned repeatedly about her “moving the goalposts” behavior in past threads. If you want to call that “prissy” well, I guess you are free to make that determination. Regardless , it was an inability to stick to an argument rather than attack a person that got Daisy in trouble for the final time at Feminist Critics, and that thread is still up and a matter of the historical record, and can be found and linked to if anyone would like.

    P.S. I didn’t bring this stuff up in this thread, Daisy did. I hope it was not a “sin” to defend myself.

  48. Ohhhh! Fun already!

    simply because she disapproved of something I said.

    Correction: I am tired of ageism in people, so I commented negatively on yours, as you endlessly comment on women you feel oppress you with THEIR behavior and language. Same.

    Now you *could* reply to the substance of what I said (which you didn’t then and were patently unable to), or you can quit belly-aching and yowling because you were at a loss for words. Sauce for the goose, etc.

    And as I recall, you defended yourself then, the same way you just defended yourself over at NSWATM, short version: “I do what I please and fuck you”–which is true of course, but its no logical argument or defense. Please do not confuse that with one.

    And more to the point, please do not criticize feminists for replying in the very same way that you repeatedly have: we will do exactly as we please and no explanation to you or any man is necessary. (right?)

    If you make a habit of offering criticism, you can expect to get some yourself. If you aren’t mature enough to accept the repercussions and fall-out from your own behavior, then maybe you should reconsider your approach. I certainly have had to, many times.

    Yes, that thread has been linked to, and no two people read it the same, it is a modern Rorschach test, isnt it? Black Humor agreed with me about it, so it would appear that your verdict:

    unanimously agreed to be uncalled for

    is incorrect. Unanimous? If so, why did I get about a half-dozen emails in solidarity, all with some variation of, “I wouldn’t even go over to that pigsty in the first place”? No, not unanimous. As usual, just because women/feminists do not speak up, does not mean they agree with you. FC is widely regarded as a cesspool, rightly or wrongly. (if you are going to generalize, so can I)

    Now you can drop this crap or continue to whine: “Make the mean girl go away” –its unseemly. Further, constant appeals to authority because you can’t deal with something, is something I would expect some passive aggressive feminist blogger to do. Come on, Clarence, you won’t disintegrate into itty-bitty pieces just because I am posting here. (or will you?)

    Grow up and accept that there will always be people on a blog (or in *any* social situation) that you don’t like.

  49. “It’s not “prissiness”, Jim, to insist that your commenters do not attack each other in a personal manner.”

    No, that isn’t prissiness. I was referring to a general tendency of his, and I bet labeling it “prissiness” is exactly the kind of thing he would call a personal attack, which is exactly what I mena by prissiness.

    I remember that whole conversaation. I remmeber Daisy taking umbrage at a general comment and at the tiem, i have t say, I looked to me like Daisy, you heard what you heard, but it was a long way form what Clarence was saying. I react the same way to any straight woman vaunting the awesomeness of her vagina before which all men tremble or should if they are real men. I am starting age out of noticing every insecure little princess and getting wound up over them. We all have our wild hairs, I guess.

  50. Clarence, damn. All that typing, all that fuss. Did I trigger you or what? Whine, whine, whine. I’ve never seen such carrying-on.

    Clarence: Sticking with the topic of a thread just isn’t your strong point, is it,

    Of course not. Are you just now figuring this out?

    Please pay attention: I care exactly as much for you and your feelings, as you do about mine. I care exactly as much about apologizing to you, as you care about apologizing to me. Okay? Now, that should answer all of your sputtering and fussing.

    No, I won’t apologize for shit, as you have made it clear you won’t either. You adamantly proclaim you have said nothing offensive or bad or sexist (etc), well, then neither have I. (I can do some proclaiming of my own, how do you like it?)

    Jihad, huh? Um, maybe you have noticed, but you are the one having a tantrum here, not me. You are the one trying to bully me and make me go away–I don’t have any such expectation of you. I am not doing this to you, or expecting this from you. You are the one launching an attack.

    You will not intimidate me or run me off, which is what you are attempting to do. Won’t work, hon, sorry. Go right ahead and twist yourself into knots and have another amusing A-to-Z hissy fit, but I will post where, when and what I want to, just as you do.

  51. Oh did I forget your attempt at psychoanalysis where you said I want to be hurt by women?

    Yeah, that was pretty good, huh? I need to start charging for it, the way I do the Tarot.

  52. Daisy:
    Had you approached me as a human being and not your punching bag or as an inquisitor I might have trusted you. In a way, I’m glad you didn’t. You are a lost cause and I won’t be talking to you on this blog from this point forward unless you attack me in some manner. I suspect that eventually other people here will start ignoring you as well when they see you have little or nothing to add and can’t be bothered to stay on topic. Then you will go away, probably in a huff. Your past history of getting banned and/or leaving one blog after another shows me this is true.

  53. Clarence, whatever, hon. You have much more anger in you than lil ole me could ever be responsible for. The word for today is “displacement”… get in touch with whatever and whoever is *really* making you so angry.

    I don’t even know you, sir. I can’t possibly be the reason for your ongoing distress.

  54. Gingko, you might be interested, kinda/sorta connected to the Golden Uteri thing you’ve been talking about. A group of us were discussing this woman earlier today, Waneta Hoyt:

    http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/09/14/reviews/970914.14buscht.html

    Five kids! See, that to me is a serial killer, but you haven’t even heard her name, now have you? That is because serial killers are supposed to be strangers to their victims, etc. The definition doesn’t include mothers like Hoyt.

    But one woman in our group discussion pointed out that five murders is *more* than some actual “serial killers”.

  55. @ Daisy,

    IIRC, a serial killer is classified as such after three killings, so Hoyt would definitely count. Her Wikipedia page lists her as such, for what that’s worth.

  56. Ed, shoulda looked her up on Wikipedia, first. She is on my mind since my womens group read the book DEATH OF INNOCENTS. Also a really good book about how medical syndromes “get started”–recommend it to skeptics who enjoy that sort of thing.

    Nightmarish. Simply… nightmarish.

  57. Gingko, if my comments went thru at NSWATM, I’d tell you I loved your last comment about the tomboys. :)

    Unfortunately, they don’t, so I can’t… but I can tell you here.

  58. DaisyDeadhead, could I ask you to explain your “men love bitches” idea more thoroughly? The evidence you presented to support it seems to me to suggest only that:
    1.) Many men seek out and argue with women they claim to find disagreeable on the internet. This strikes me as being more convincing evidence of a competitive streak and/or a love of argument rather than sexual attraction.
    2.) That you, a self described “bitch” are considered attractive by a reasonable proportion of the men in the region you reside in. No evidence is provided to suggest a causal link between the two points, although, as per your earlier injunction, I will not request any information regarding your personal life and therefore drop this point.
    3.) R. Crumb likes women who are not stereotypically feminine. This is presumably also true of a significant portion of his fans.

    I do not wish to contest your ideas, as I feel my condition renders me unfit to comment on matter of romantic and sexual interaction (among other things, I am physically incapable of engaging in or recognizing flirtation). I merely wish for some clarification regarding your ideas, which I do not feel I fully understand. I would also like to express my appreciation for your perspective on the feminist movement and its prominent figures, although I regrettably cannot engage in the research you recommend (I have learned to avoid the works of such writers as they trigger memories of my prolonged abuse at the hands of their adherents, which sometimes leaves me physically ill for days at a time and might result in a relapse into suicidal depression. In any case, neurotypical ideas and assumptions of social interaction, especially where gender is concerned, are so alien to me that I rarely gain anything of value from them).

    Please do not respond with another speech about how overrated debate is and how you just like throwing ‘word bombs’ or whatever you call them and just want to be really confrontational. You are of course entitled to your own opinions and methods, but saying that to an autistic person would be roughly equivalent to me standing in front of wheelchair-bound cousin and bragging to her about all the wonderful things I can do with my legs.

  59. That is a good question, Hiding, and until Daisy gets back I will try to answer it.

    The term “bitch” is ambiguous but the sense I think Daisy is using is the Annie Oakley persona – loud, opinionated, combative – not the submissive prison bitch. Also when she says “love” she can hardly mean anything about sexual attraction, snce she immediately refers to gay men loving bitches.

    Come the think of it the popularity among men, rather than women now that I thnk of it, of Annie Oakley and of all those hard-edged, worldly-wise women in 40s movies is evidence supporting her assertion. The modern equivalent is not too hard to find.

  60. Ok, Jim.
    Since you see fit to remove comments from me without warning wherein I detail Daisy’s uncalled for series of insults of me – yet leave snarky comments of hers up – congratulations. I won’t be particpating in any more of your threads and you can have fun talking to Daisy all you want.

  61. Hiding, I refer to the adage often seen on MRA and other men’s blogs, that “women love bad boys”–I can’t argue with that, since my mother married several of them and I had to put up with them… but of course it is *not* universal, which is why feminists get pissed at the expression. (Also, having a crush on Xena or Don Draper, or finding them sexy, does not mean you want to spend your whole life with Xena or Don Draper, you know?) I realized the reverse is probably as common… men seem actually attracted to, well, Gwyneth Paltrow and snooty cheerleaders… as well as the “rougher” types like me or Xena.

    I was making the case that there is an opposite/equivalent. When I find equivalents in men/women behaviors I am HAPPY, because I think we can always find cultural equivalents if we look. i..e. Joanna Russ’ famous formulation that romance novels are to women as porn is to men. Now that we have the internet (Russ was writing decades ago), we find out there are men who like romances and women who like porn, since people can privately engage. But before people could privately engage, it was not cool for women to go to porn movies. It was often assumed you were a sex worker on the job, unless accompanied by a man, and if a man took you there on a date, it was regarded as a come-on. (Remember how upset Cybill Shepherd was with Robert DeNiro for taking her to see the porn movie in TAXI DRIVER? That was a perfect scene!!) (Of course, the whole movie is perfect.) I can also recall men in huddled in corners of bookstores (really!) trying to hide the fact they were reading Harlequin Romances… I LMAO’d in the car leaving a bookstore, the first time I saw this, so I am no paragon of virtue in this regard! But I thought then, yes, Russ is right!

    Likewise, I think the “women love bad boys” and “men love bitches” thing is roughly equivalent. As Russ said, we are more alike than different if we can decode the cultural equivalencies.

    Yes, as Jim says, I also mean the Auntie Mame syndrome (“who?”–chorus the kids) and how celebrated women like that are in our culture. Annie Oakley is a great example, also Joan Crawford and Katharine Hepburn and women like that. I think the modern “bitches” are women like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rachel Maddow, Whoopi, etc. I’ve noticed they tend to be political women these days, since political commentary is relatively new territory for women. I am interested in how many men gush over their favorite political woman, unabashedly saying they “love” her… “I love Ann Coulter!!!” “I love Rachel Maddow!”…its a new thing in our culture, where women are valued for representing political ideas. I also get more male than female fans on my radio show, which is kinda weird, isn’t it? Well, not if I keep in mind these factors.

    how you just like throwing ‘word bombs’

    Verbal grenades, is the term I prefer. :) But a good description of a bitch is: a woman who throws verbal grenades. Has she ever been “in trouble” for something she has said, trending on Twitter? (LOL– Whoopi used to trend every week or so, remember her famous “rape rape” remark?) Rosie O’Donnell and Rosanne Barr come to mind, but also Megan Fox, comparing Michael Bay to Hitler. (In other words, this is not about appearance but attitude)

    Clarence, your “my way or the highway” demand is something I would expect from a passive aggressive radfem, demanding her own way. A little shocked, but not really. As I said, finding the equivalencies makes me smile. We are all far more alike than different.

  62. Did Clarence delete his A-to-Z temper tantrum? Damn, I actually loved that A to Z denunciation of my behavior.

    I had a teacher once, who wrote a bunch of mean stuff about me on a blackboard, using my initials. Your post reminded me of that, and I was momentarily nostalgic. (sigh)

  63. Thank you very much, that was quite enlightening and, I suspect, rings true. I must confess, the meanings I associate with the word “bitch” are most likely rather different from the images most people carry around in their heads. I had a close friend who was a professional dog trainer when I was very young, and as a result I will always associate the word with friendly fuzzy things that want to lick your face. As a result, I never use the word unless I’m writing dialog for post-apocalyptic marauders or other ruffians (I translate Japanese comic books to improve my language skills, so this happens more frequently than might be generally supposed).

    I suppose your hypothesis applies to me as far as characters in fiction are concerned (Doomsday, Stone Ocean, etc.), although I find it interesting that you include bombastic and outspoken political figures in the same group. Personally, I find such people, regardless of their gender, utterly distasteful and avoid them whenever possible (it doesn’t help that I find most political thinkers in our society to be hopelessly childish in their conceptions). I must confess to idolizing proper academic debate (rather a rarity these days, unfortunately) and its principles, which have often proved my only solace in times of personal crisis and have saved me from more harm than I care to enumerate. I understand that their “verbal grenades” serve a real function in many arguments by breaking down established rhetorical styles, but they are quite inadvertently cruel to people who must exert great effort merely to affect the normal mode of speech and cannot engage with others without the crutch that it provides. The sensations it engenders in myself are like drowning (I have actually been very nearly drowned on one occasion, so this comparison is no mere hyperbole) and it would be deleterious to my mental and physical health to engage routinely with such people.

  64. I just looked her up and she seems interesting, but not quite what I’m looking for. Nevertheless, I’ll be sure to give her work a read next time I find myself in the vicinity of an English language library or bookstore (Importing books into or out of Japan is quite expensive, so I’ll probably have to wait until I return to the states).

    The bombastic public debates, stinging retorts and vitriolic insults which characterize the portion of her work readily available to me on my computer (principally her arguments with various feminists in the pages of magazines and journals) make it rather hard for me to sympathize or admire her position as they render her utterly alien to me. Even as a child, I have never been in a position to engage in such behaviors, and as I was born without the social instincts common to the vast majority of humanity I could never engage in them without first being taught, something which does not appear to be forthcoming in any quarter. In any case, engaging in or even observing such verbal duels has a markedly negative effect on me, as I am utterly incapable of processing or expressing the emotions thus engendered. It is the position of our society that the only proper thing for a man or boy to do with his anger, his sadness or his pain is to hide it; to bury away in the back of his mind and pretend it doesn’t exist while accepting all the blame of any altercation in which he has been involved, whether or not he committed any wrongdoing being entirely beside the point. It is the position even of our psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists that the proper response to abuse, even prolonged and institutionalized abuse like that I suffered over a period of more than ten years at the hands of a long string of social workers entirely free from justice or accountability, on the part of a man is to apologize profusely to his abusers, who stand above him entirely uninjured while he sits covered in bruises and scrapes, and to accept full responsibility for the abuse he has suffered, never, of course, acknowledging it as such. I am thus unable to express, in any meaningful way, any negative emotion or experience and must therefore exercise extreme caution in the stimuli to which I expose myself, lest I enter another state of near-suicidal depression (it is only my work ethic and commitment to learning which preserves me from these spells as society cares very little for my well being, even those portions of it that are payed quite handsomely to do so).

  65. “Ok, Jim.
    Since you see fit to remove comments from me without warning wherein I detail Daisy’s uncalled for series of insults of me – yet leave snarky comments of hers up – congratulations.”

    I don’t knw what happened. We don’t delete comments as matter of policy. I am ging to find out what happened and report it here and you can look in if you care to. i wouldn’t blame you if you didn’t. I hope this is just technical trouble.

  66. ” Joanna Russ’ famous formulation that romance novels are to women as porn is to men. ”

    Daisy you just keep on giving, don’t you? I argued that porn could be art and Jane Asuten was the proof. Romance novels objecitify men as much as any porn loop does women. Anyone who can make such engaging novels out of social parasites’ career machniations in which the men they supposedly love are really just markers.

  67. Hiding, first thank you for letting us know up fron to be careful here wiht your feelings. It is very helpful to know that kind fo thing in advance and I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

    Second – you emntion you have ahrad tiem bringing books into Japan. If you live in japan are you Japanese, or perhaps an American expat?

  68. Gingko, check out the rape thread over at NSWATM. Tamen wants to apply the same Draconian state-defined standards to women, that you have decried so effectively when applied to men. He says Cameron Crowe was raped in ALMOST FAMOUS, never mind what Crowe himself says!

    Unsolicited advice:

    You know, I agree with Adi and others who have made the case that the men’s movement is in the early phases, as feminism was back in 70s–point taken. So let me warn you, I see your own Mary Dalys looming on the horizon, and you need to nip that shit in the bud, like quick. Otherwise, your nascent movement will be compromised and hobbled at every turn.

  69. Hiding, the state is an evil force. The anarchists are right on that one. Social workers do a lot of the state’s dirty work now.

    I just don’t know what to do about the social safety net and the old people and the quadriplegics with no jobs… we NEED a social safety net, but who will run this if not the state or the church? ((confused))) Thus, me and the anarchists argue and argue ever onward about what to do.

    Sorry to derail, but its the modern conundrum of our times, at least here in the USA, where we love to hate the govt. :)

  70. “Unsolicited advice:
    You know, I agree with Adi and others who have made the case that the men’s movement is in the early phases, as feminism was back in 70s–point taken. So let me warn you, I see your own Mary Dalys looming on the horizon, and you need to nip that shit in the bud, like quick. Otherwise, your nascent movement will be compromised and hobbled at every turn.”

    They are already here and always have been. Woman-hating men are nothing new just because they gin up an ideology to “justify” their woman-hate. The diffenrnence is that the culture already stigmatizes women-hating men pretty throughly, thank God, in a way that it is only very recently and very barely strating to come around to WRT to man-hatred.

    My movement – I hate movements. I don’t trust them because I don’t trust the species. But your warning and Adi’s is right on the money.

    I have been ignoring MRA misogyny because 1. there are those protections in place already, to an extent and 2. a lot of it is reactive and 3. some anger can be useful, in measured amounts. But I want to start looking into it more.

  71. I am now wondering if this desire to prosecute women (on the rape thread) is misogynist at based or actually anti-sex, the way early feminism was. Check out Black Humor’s proclamation that Crowe was raped and he would have prosecuted those teenage groupies, based on what is in the movie. (!) Dumbfounded! Really, I am.

    I was already confused, but not about this: I think this is may be a dangerous anti-sex tendency that is developing in the men’s movement, and again, yall need to nip that shit IN THE BUD. (shakes head) Next up, the MRA equivalent of Andrea Dworkin (and *who* will it be?), starts patrolling porn for men being treated badly, and decides to initiate local ordinances and lawsuits.

    Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

  72. I think traditional gender roles will do the heavy lifting. Anti-sex was all ladylike and an easy, no-resistance way to go for feminists, but anti-sex is generally considered anti-masculine already. This shit will die before it’s born.

    Clearly I need to go look in on that thread. Eeeewwww. Black Humor is good mostly for laughs.

    And by the way, Joanna Russ is going onto my reading list, all of her. I love SF anyway, but there has to be something more than technology in it for it to be wirth the tiem. I love all of Ursula LeGuin and Frank Herbert, for example. The essays are what I am really interested in but I have a feeling she will state her message in her fiction.

  73. @Ginkgo:

    I don’t knw what happened. We don’t delete comments as matter of policy.

    Or at least we haven’t found reason to remove them yet. I don’t know if that qualifies as “policy”.

    In any case, I checked the trash and the spam filter, and I can’t find Clarence’s comment in either. I’m at a loss. Sorry Clarence! Feel free to re-post it if you still have it on hand.

  74. but anti-sex is generally considered anti-masculine already. This shit will die before it’s born.

    You better go look at the thread, in that case.

    I have rarely seen such anti-sex attitudes. I am truly shocked to hear this from young men on a forum like this! Are they just trying to defend prosecuting women for rape (in which case, they need to go find a *real* example), or are they serious? Because if its just misogyny, it makes sense… but from Black Humor?

    …Through the looking glass!

    As I said over there, I assumed most of the guys at NSWATM had engaged in such behavior themselves, I mean, I certainly have. And I think most people I know have. Is this some “sexual divide” I am looking at? I thought the young kids now were having tons of sex all the time, all kinds, with everybody. Shows what I know! (boggle)

  75. “but anti-sex is generally considered anti-masculine already. This shit will die before it’s born.
    You better go look at the thread, in that case. ”

    Oh, I totally agree with your reading of those comments. But as to how widespread or influential those attitudes are, I don’t think they’ll get very far.

    And remember who Black Humor is – he is a male feminist. You are not hearing the MRM in his comments. it’s the rancid misogyny in some MRA sites that worries me more. That will run people off, and it should. Actually I hope it will get them sidelined and shoved into the ditch.

    Black Humor is a feminst. He is just applying the feminist standard for deciding if something is rape. That’s one reason I respect him by the way, his consistency.

    And I basically agree with that standard. See, I have a very easy and reliable metric. All I have to do to evaluate a sexual approach is to envison trying it on a straight guy. If he would freak, it’s sexual and it’s probably trangressing a boundary.

    “As I said over there, I assumed most of the guys at NSWATM had engaged in such behavior themselves, I mean, I certainly have. And I think most people I know have. Is this some “sexual divide” I am looking at?”

    Probably. It wasn’t just AIDS that killed the 70s; the inevitable cultural hangover and backlash did its part too.

    How’s this for a sexual divide? Young straight guys less and less are getting all threatened when a guy hits on them. They just say flattered but not interested. And older straight guys go on the down-low so much in their sexless marriages (just a very broad generalization; if the shoe fits etc…) that it’s like the whole world has turned into a very discrete bath house.

  76. Nah, I’m with you on this one Daisy (and have now posted as such over at NSWATM). People seem to talk about consent like the initiator is the only person who ever actualy does anything during sex, while the initiatee lies their and examines their feelings. The whole “grey rape” narrative reaks of denial of female agency, and when people apply it to men, well, it just makes it all the more obvious.

  77. Jared, I feel like its Bizarro World over there, where I am the one saying what the MRAs usually say, and they are saying what feminists usually say… topsy turvy land!

    Yeesh!

    Is the victim-chic in our culture now so compelling that men feel like they have to get in on the act? Because otherwise I really don’t get it. Are they serious in actually denying the words of the MAN WHO WROTE THE FUCKING MOVIE based on HIS OWN LIFE? I mean, its just…

    Through the looking glass!

    Feminists have long been criticized (rightly for interpreting certain other women’s lives in ways that these women themselves would not/did not interpret them. Now I see the men’s rights guys doing it to other men. They have decided Cameron Crowe was raped, even when HE says it was a fun experience. Obviously, as men’s right activists, THEY know him better than he knows himself.

    Adi is right in that it is like watching early feminists, and men are making all of the same mistakes we did… (sigh) Deja Vu all over again!

  78. Gingko, check out the rape thread over at NSWATM. Tamen wants to apply the same Draconian state-defined standards to women, that you have decried so effectively when applied to men. He says Cameron Crowe was raped in ALMOST FAMOUS, never mind what Crowe himself says!

    Way to misrepresent my viewpoint. Here is the first paragraph of my first comment where I address the Almost Famous scene:

    As for the scene in Almost Famous it’s hard to say definitively whether it is rape in a legal sense or not as the sex act itself is not shown (it’s only implied) and we do not see whether the kid continues to protest. In some ways before the scene fade out it can seem like he’s inclined to consent. Assuming sex happened then at the very least it’s statutory rape (in most jurisdiction as far as I know) and if he continues to protest during the sex then it’s rape.

    The women made their intent quite clear (“deflower him!”), he protested yet they didn’t back off. They began to strip him of his clothes while he was protesting. Highly problematic behaviour which is a first step to rape (get their clothes off even if they protest).

    Regardless of whether it turned out to be rape or not (no explicit consent is shown on camera, but at the end of the scene it seems like he inclined to consent) it doesn’t change that those women while he was protesting continued to escalate the sexual encounter. I find that morally and ethically wrong.

    Secondly, you are stating here and at NSWATM that this is Cameron Crowe retelling what happened to him. That this scene is autobiographical. That is not the case. The scene in Almost Famous is a retelling of what Cameron Crowe in retrospect wish had happened. In reality he declined when a groupie asked him if he wanted to be seduced when he was 15 and the groupie did not push the point. He went on to lose his virginity later that year to a divorced mother of a girl he knew. A comment currently in moderation at NSWATM provides links to the 1975 and 1973 Rolling Stones articles by Cameron Crowe where he writes what actually happened.

  79. Here by the way is a real case of a woman being sentenced to prison for raping a man: http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/woman-convicted-of-rape/

    What isn’t apparent from that article is that she initially denied any sexual contact with the man. Only when the police confronted her with the finding of her DNA on his genitals did she admit to sexual contact which she then claimed was consentual because “He smiled”.

    In the appeal her lawyer argued for a reduced sentence since all the media attention (neither her nor the victims name were published in any media) were an extra burden on her. Unsaid was the fact that the media attention also invited loads of ridiculment of the victims with all the usual phrases: “He must’ve wanted it”, “He didn’t stop her”, “He had an erection”, “I wish it were me”, “What kind of man wouldn’t want a blow-job” and so on ad nuaseam.

  80. Daisy, all those guys are doing is holding women to the exact same standard of consent that men are held to. i haven’t seen the movie, but from what everybody says, the guy in question said no. According to the feminists, that’s exactly where it should have ended. This is the standard that feminists have set for men with regards to women. If you think that standard is too draconian, well, you know who to blame. And it isn’t men.
    I mean, I have to wonder what you’d think of a movie where three guys drag a young girl away with cries of “Deflower the Virgin!” over her ineffectual protestations?

    For the record, I agree with you that if the character in question ended up enjoying the experience despite his protestations, then it isn’t rape. However, I’m not sure thats really a precedent that should be set. “Just ignore the no, (s)he’ll probably end up having fun anyway.”

  81. I am going by this interview: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/crowe1.html

    And he gave several others at the time of the film’s release.

    Q: And the scene in which his stand-in William is “deflowered” by a flock of “band-aids”?

    “…is true. We were in Portland, and I was writing about Lee Michaels. [The groupies] were sitting around and decided this was boring and they needed to liven things up…It was terrifying! These girls controlled everything. They controlled the rockers. Then of course you’re hanging with the rockers and they’re in glorious states of denial. And it’s like, what happened to grand nobility of the muses that control the artist?”

    How would I know what is in moderation at NSWATM? And how do you know? Am I now expected to answer comments in moderation?

    Whatever Cameron Crowe wrote when he was a minor (in the 70s), still living in his mother’s house and supported by her, really isn’t too believable, is it? Anything written about himself before 1976 would be suspect. (I certainly didn’t tell the truth either, if I knew my mother was reading.)

  82. Paul: Daisy, all those guys are doing is holding women to the exact same standard of consent that men are held to. i haven’t seen the movie,

    The clip is over there, go watch it.

    but from what everybody says, the guy in question said no. According to the feminists, that’s exactly where it should have ended.

    And you are a feminist now? (So when did THAT happen?) You think this feminist standard is the one that should be followed? You usually do not say this, as the men over on that thread, usually do not say this.

    (scratches head) I thought one of the criticisms yall had was, the Draconian standards that have been applied to men’s sexuality due to feminism? Now you are saying, ohhh no, the feminist standards are always GREAT!

    Well, which is it?

    I am more confused than I have EVER been. I thought I understood where you all were coming from, but apparently you are all feminists-under-the-skin. I have been faked out! You’re all a bunch of sweet-tempered pussycats!

    This is the standard that feminists have set for men with regards to women. If you think that standard is too draconian, well, you know who to blame. And it isn’t men.

    So you are agreeing with Lamech, etc, not because you really agree, but because you want women to get some comeuppance for women/feminists. Is that it? Because that is a lousy way to argue.

    Okay: I hear you guys saying, the standards we have been complaining about, are actually good standards. Right?

    What other standards that you complain about as unfair to men, do you really secretly like?

    I mean, I have to wonder what you’d think of a movie where three guys drag a young girl away with cries of “Deflower the Virgin!” over her ineffectual protestations?

    Did you read what I said? I was very clear on that, when Danny asked me. How about you read the thread so I don’t have to type it all again?

    If we were all dancing around and partying and laughing?

    Well, I think I WAS deflowered that way, so maybe I am not the person to ask.

    For the record, I agree with you that if the character in question ended up enjoying the experience despite his protestations, then it isn’t rape. However, I’m not sure thats really a precedent that should be set. “Just ignore the no, (s)he’ll probably end up having fun anyway.”

    Then go ahead and make that case, but saying this *was* ABSOLUTELY rape, without a doubt, despite what the author wanted/intended to present it as, is just outrageous to me. Its like rewriting someone’s work. The writer in me is offended and the baby-boomer in me is offended.

    And as I said, I think this is also a different in age standards. Its almost irresistible to put mom/grandma in her place. (How silly to think we could learn anything from older people.)

  83. So Cameron Crowe said something in 1975 and 1992 and then he said something else in 2000 about a sitation that occured in 1973. I guess that means that only Crowe knows for sure. I do suspect that the 2000 interview may be biased based on the fact that he was promoting a film then and painting it as more true/autobiographical would perhaps benefit that promotion. That is an explanation of why I put more credence to his own article and the 1992 interview.

  84. I understand the confusion. Maybe I can cut throguh some of it

    What people are accpeting as valid and defending is the feminist notion that consent is the standard. No consent = rape. And that is a pretty basic and reasonable. This is how Toy soldier expalined rpae – he says it s the ultimate and most invasive enslavement. and that resonates for me. Slavery is the disregard or negation of a person’s will

    What is unfair in the feminst formul;ation is the refusla to accpet any need ot communicate lack of consent or revocation of consent, to put all the burden of communication on one partner – the man of course, as the definitionally active person versus the trembling, dainty princess wallowing in her passvitiy, or worse yet, the expectation that men be mind readers with years of prison as the penalty And then heaped on top of that, dead stubborn refusal feom feminsts to entertain the thought that any woman might lie afterward, or that there shuold be commensurate penalties for perfury and fraud resulting in false imprisonment.

    Tha’ts what I find unfair. The basic insistence on consent is not in any way problematic. It was the princesing that was a problem.

  85. Tamen, done arguing with kids who were not alive in 1973 and therefore do not know how the situation would have been viewed at the time. I am talking about that, too.

    But yeah, arguing with young people about the 70s, is tedious. Nietzsche warned us about judging the past by the standards of the present, and it sounds like every single comment in that thread:

    “We know everything that has ever happened and there is no end to the derision”

    Oh man, is that ever the truth.

    The kids think they know the 70s better than I do, I mean, they watched “That 70s show”–so they know it all, of course.

  86. the man of course, as the definitionally active person versus the trembling, dainty princess wallowing in her passvitiy, or worse yet, the expectation that men be mind readers with years of prison as the penalty

    And now, men get to be the dainty princesses, in fact, they DEMAND equal time!

    (sigh)

  87. Daisy: I can see my own comments while they’re in moderation at NSWATM. I know when they are in moderation because it says so at the top. I was too lazy to reproduce what I wrote over there here as I expected that comment to pass moderation rather soon (I guess it got hold up because of the number of links).

    For you convenience I’ll reproduce the relevant part here as well:
    Secondly it seems like this scene is not as autobiographical as you think. According to the Rolling Stone article called How I Learned About Sex which Crowe got published in 1975 he turned down an offer of seduction from one groupie when he was 15 by saying to her “I think I wanna watch Steely Dan” and trudged back to his room. You know what, that groupie did the decent and right thing, she accepted his “no, thanks”. It turns out that Crowe lost in virginity to a divorced mother of a girl he knew not long after that. Not long after as in the same year (1973). Her got the phone number to the divorcee from a friend while they stayed at Beverly Hilton interviewing Rick Wakeman of Yes. That interview was printed in RS in June 1973, when Crowe was 15 – almost 16 years old. Now, how long it took for him to call that woman and have sex with her Crowe didn’t say in his 1975 piece, but he has confirmed that he did call her and that he did loose his virginity to her: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920913&slug=1512719

    Whatever Cameron Crowe wrote when he was a minor (in the 70s), still living in his mother’s house and supported by her, really isn’t too believable, is it? Anything written about himself before 1976 would be suspect.

    Yet he somehow thought his mother would be more OK with him having sex with a divorced woman old enough to be his mother?

    Perhaps so, but then again he confirmed that he lost his virginity to the mother of a girl he knew in that interview in Seattle Times in 1992. Which is after your milestone of 1976 (which very neatly was the year after the 1975 article I mentioned in an earlier comment).

  88. Things to notice in the NSWATM thread:

    1) I am told not to call names, when I only did that after Jesus called me a petulant child, which I guess is okay. Nobody tells HIM not to call names.

    2) Schala only safely weighs in after Ozy declares her position. The word for today is suck-up.

    3) I don’t see the usual suspects who would agree with me. I like how they have no integrity and won’t defend me just because I am a feminist. Thanks dungone and everybody, so glad to know I have your support!

    4) Since I am politically incorrect and not worth replying to… could somebody tell me what Ozy’s trendy term “meta value” means? I am stupid, remember? She said she was linking it on Feministe for “sheer meta value”–and I don’t know the postmod lingo. She won’t tell me, since of course, I am already supposed to know.

    Tamen, I am far too disgusted to continue, so in keeping with that, of course you are right. “Everyone is brilliant and right and I am stupid and wrong”. Isn’t that what I am expected to say? That certainly seems to be the consensus. The shaming of me for my opinion in that thread? Is exactly what you all criticize feminists for doing. EXACTLY the same.

  89. “And now, men get to be the dainty princesses, in fact, they DEMAND equal time!”

    Keep your hands off is not dainty. You know this. It’s not dainty to ask women to keep their hands and their orifices to themselves since it’s still illegal to break a glass in their faces. White knights still swarm the earth.

    Not complicated.

  90. Tamen, done arguing with kids who were not alive in 1973 and therefore do not know how the situation would have been viewed at the time. I am talking about that, too.

    Good for me that yours truly were alive and kicking in 1973. I have to say that as someone who’s complained about ageism you are not very averse to employ it yourself.

    I have a pretty good picture of how the situation would have been viewed at the time and frankly that’s not very relevant. I think there is even a distinct difference between how the situation would be viewed now versus when the film came a measly 12 years back. I mentioned in a comment at NSWATM that perhaps a change in how this is viewed can partly explain why there is such a small difference in the number of men who reports being made to penetrate someone else in during their whole lifetime and who reports being made to penetrate someone else during the last 12 months (2010) in the NISVS 2010 Report from CDC (This blog has a post about this report/survey).

    I myself have held the position that “no means no” and that a “no” should result in a cessation and a check-in anywhere in the sexual process (not just during intercourse) since I had to come to grips with this issue in the early nineties.

    If one continues to adhere to social norms, morals and ethics from the seventies one will often find oneself out of tune with present society. Racism is not quite as accepted for one. And several other examples. I am sure there are other examples where values and ethics from the seventies are better than the corresponding we have today. I am also pretty sure that the norms around sexual consent are not one of those. In the interest of decreasing non-consentual sex I find that the standards we have today and what standards we wish to have in the future is more relevant than what we used to believe.

    One can look at civil-war movies and understand that Mr. P. Lantage saw nothing wrong with having slaves while acknowledging that we think having slaves is wrong now – we now think it’s objectively wrong and hence was in fact wrong then and we want it to be wrong in the future as well.

  91. @Daisy: “1) I am told not to call names, when I only did that after Jesus called me a petulant child, which I guess is okay. Nobody tells HIM not to call names. ”

    Uh… Quoth the Ozy:

    “Daisy, ***Jesus,*** cut it with the personal attacks. Anyone who posts something from now on that can even be interpreted as “no doesn’t mean no” gets spamfiltered. That is against the comment policy.”

    (emphasis mine.)

    “And you are a feminist now? (So when did THAT happen?) You think this feminist standard is the one that should be followed? You usually do not say this, as the men over on that thread, usually do not say this.”

    Really? Praytell me what *I* usually say? I’d like actual quotes please, not your assumptions of what *I* say based on what other guys with Y chromosomes say. And just because I don’t identify as a feminist doesn’t mean I don’t agree with them on occasion. It just so happens that i tend to agree that when somebody says “no” in a sexual situation, at the very least, bare minimum, activities should cease to make sure everything is okay. No matter how you slice that video clip (which I did watch now) That didn’t happen. half-hearted or not, the kid did say no. And was ignored. Does that automatically make those girls rapists? Not necessarily, if he (or Crowe, assuming this is an actual event) don’t consider what happened rape, then I wouldn’t presume to argue with him about it.

    But just because i wouldn’t necessarily call it rape, doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s not shitty behavior.

  92. One meaning of the word meta is that it means something that refers to itself. A meta discussiong for example is a discussion about the discussion (“I really think you’re yelling too loud!” is an example of an argument in a meta discussion).

    So when Ozy posted a link on Feministe to the NSWATM’s post by Noah Brand which originally was about and linked to an article on Feministe on prison rape then there is a self-referential circle: Feministe talks about prison rape, NSWATM talks about Feministe talking about Prison rape and finally the Ozymandias comment on that Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday post on Feministe talks about NSWATM’s post about Feministe’s post about prison rape.

  93. @Daisy
    You seem unable to grasp that there are two different arguments here. The first is internal consistency. Pointing to an instance of male rape(Cameron Crowe) by feminism’s standards serves to highlight their hypocrisy, and does not imply an agreement with those standards.
    Whether or not those standards are too draconian is the second. FTR, it’s obvious to me, to you apparently and to a lot of MRAs and gender egalitarians that they are.
    You seem very eager to blacken MRAs to make you feel better about your 40 years in the service of a deeply flawed ideology. “Ohhhhh, look, they’re just like us !”. Pathetic. Pure projection. Work off your guilt somewhere else.
    How deeply ironic that you refer to yourself as “politically incorrect” when you essentially tried to ostracize Clarence (on this very thread) for making an allegedly “sexist” comment on another site. That Gingko’s post is about deeply entranched misandry in your own movement is a fantastic bonus. To you, misogyny, no matter how benine, is always condemnable but systemic misandry gets a pass.

  94. “3) I don’t see the usual suspects who would agree with me”

    To be fair, Daisy, this has gone down quite quickly.

  95. I’m not sure how relevant it is to what the conversation in these comments has become (bloody time difference), but, in answer to the question about my nationality: I’m American, born and raised in New England, but I’m currently studying in Japan for a year. I’m majoring in languages and aspiring to become a translator, so it seemed like a natural step to take as far as improving my conversational skills in my third language (the second was Mandarin).

    Regarding Daisy’s comment about the state, I’ve always been enamored of the conception of a government as a facilitator rather than a ruler (Some Daoist philosophers have written about this and Ursula Leguin wrote about it a couple times). I think there are definite advantages to a common framework in which everyone can interact and settle their differences safely, as well as to organizations to carry out work that is necessary but might not be profitable on its own (free education, constructing roads, funding massive research projects, etc.). On the other hand, most of what our government does is waste obscene amounts of money on laws and policies which generate no tangible benefit and often serve to drive markets and communities underground, provide support to organized criminal syndicates and generally exacerbate the serious problems that it should be confining itself to addressing. I would generally attribute this to an increasingly flawed electoral process (Hunter Thompson inadvertently ended up chronicling some important changes in the way politicians and the media relate to each other in his coverage of the Reagan campaign) that selects based on qualities largely irrelevant to the actual business of government and to cultural attitudes which privilege truly juvenile conceptions of power and morality while discouraging long-term planning.

    I would generally consider the actions of abusive social workers the instruments of society rather than those of the state. The only official contribution is to condone their attitudes and actions. There’s something deeply wrong with a society in which five grown women can walk up to an eight year old boy sitting on a bench and reading a book, hold him down in a four point restraint and beat him for three hour before falsely reporting him to the police for violent activities and be excused on the basis that they were “afraid”, but I do not believe these attitudes originate within the apparatus of government. I must note however, that this behavior seems to be encouraged by the utterly inadequate training provided to these people before they are allowed to exercise almost complete authority over others. Most of the social workers who were responsible for my “care” in the various special education programs I was forced into didn’t even know the nature of the mental conditions they were supposed to be helping to alleviate. I should note that this oversight seems to apply primarily or exclusively to women, as the three male social workers I have met all had much more extensive education and training as psychologists (I am inclined to chalk this up to discrimination in hiring practices) and were consequently capable of actually doing their jobs to some degree. Most of these people are also protected by the rapidity with which many of them change jobs. It seems to be exceedingly rare for most social workers to remain in one institution for more than two years, with the exception of program directors and other higher level staff.

    Also, regarding the current discussion, being a dainty princess sounds like it would be pretty great. You’d get to wear one of those pointy hats with a ribbon on it and get presents ans poems and stuff and have people like you just for being around even if you aren’t constantly doing momentous things. Sucks about the dragons, but, hey, nobody lives forever unless their last name’s McLeod. I’m only half joking, a think a lot of guys really do have at least a little envy (is that the right word here? It feels just a little off) for that role, or at least the option of taking that role. I know I certainly feel that way sometimes.

  96. Tamen:

    I have to say that as someone who’s complained about ageism you are not very averse to employ it yourself.

    Do you think its the equivalent, when we are so outnumbered? :)

    I think there is even a distinct difference between how the situation would be viewed now versus when the film came a measly 12 years back.

    I was thinking this too! The internet has made things happen quicker, mores change in other ways than they used to. I am aware mores change, so I am not so stupid that you have to explain this to me. But keep in mind where *I* live, and things are not nearly so respectful and liberal. Don’t think they are in the Middle East, either.

    I actually believe the USA will break up into smaller countries in the future, and eventually, unless there are more population changes, that the southern USA will be its own country, as will Texas. So those laws will likely be different than the laws on the coasts. Yes, I DO think futuristically too, but I don’t think its going to be all roses and wonderfully enlightened Civil Liberties for everyone, as NDAA and SOPA make clear. In short, I see fascism in the future, not freedom, and the state policing our every intimate act is certainly one aspect of fascism. This is one of my big beefs with the Third Wave, is that they have brought the state even closer. I think that was a mistake… and its what happened when the liberals ran off the radicals who might have warned them how their efforts were going to be co-opted and used by the state.

    Tamen, if you have not read this, you might enjoy this… I am sure you even REMEMBER Dorothy Hunt!
    http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-feminist-collaboration-with-state.html

    Jacksam: Pointing to an instance of male rape(Cameron Crowe) by feminism’s standards serves to highlight their hypocrisy, and does not imply an agreement with those standards.

    I know, and I kept trying to sort out over there, who was arguing about the hypocrisy itself (which I made it clear I agree with 100%) and who really did think Cameron Crowe was raped. I couldn’t tell who was being rhetorical and who really meant it. In fact, I thought there COULD be a good discussion about the standards. That is why I talked about the gender encoding: women are thought to be more harmless due to giggling, etc. I think giggling, in fact, can loosen up men. *I* once talked a man into sex in this fashion, undressing him, saying “sh!” (he belonged to my friend, yes, I was drunk) and giggling. He thawed out more or less immediately. (Also, suddenly stripping in front of a man, I learned in my youth, usually brought interest). And he then seemed to be pretty enthusiastic, if I may say so myself. Yes, I have always thought it was shitty since he belonged to someone else, but going back over it by today’s standards, I raped a man who at first said no, then he went at it like a damn horse and asked me for seconds. So, I really wanted to say, “no isn’t always no” but that would have gotten me banned… but yes, I HAVE behaved like the girls in the movie. I was shocked to be called a rapist, when this guy called me over and over afterwards and I could not get rid of him. THEN I was in a pickle, since (like a woman would!!!) he seemed to think we were in a RELATIONSHIP and uh, no, we weren’t.

    Glad he liked it though. I remember the fun I had seducing him, but the actual sex fades in and out of my memory, LOL.

    But my point was, men’s behavior is encoded to scare women. Men do not dance and giggle (unless they are drunk or high, or with girls or each other or..)–the behaviors have totally different cultural meanings. THIS is what I really wanted to talk about, but I was too busy getting called Rapist Defender.

    Whether or not those standards are too draconian is the second. FTR, it’s obvious to me, to you apparently and to a lot of MRAs and gender egalitarians that they are.

    Well, actually, I have just now come to that conclusion. Now that I see what now qualifies as rape? Are they serious? Yes, count me in.

    You seem very eager to blacken MRAs to make you feel better about your 40 years in the service of a deeply flawed ideology. “Ohhhhh, look, they’re just like us !”. Pathetic. Pure projection. Work off your guilt somewhere else.

    This is too early in my awareness to have any guilt, also Buddha said guilt is shit (more or less, paraphrase!) and I am divorcing it, along with my divorce from the Catholic Church. NO I do not feel guilt for not being perfect. I do not think feminism is “deeply flawed” and I am very proud I had something to do with nearly every item on this list, or a lot of them:
    http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2008/05/thank-second-wave-old-feminist.html

    Also see above about the radicals. The Second Wave split and the radicals were driven out, and the careerist radicals and liberals took over (read the post). If we have triumphed, the state would not be babysitting ANYbody. Please study the different tendencies and splits within the movement, before announcing which “flawed ideology” I supported. You don’t know anything about me.

    As a married woman (for 24 yrs) I have remained separate from much modern sexual interactions. (I didn’t even know all these women get their pussies waxed nowadays, until reading Feministe.) This is why I keep coming back to age, because I think this is true for many older women who have no idea what is going on with the young. My daughter has been married for 6 years herself! Instead of putting us down for not knowing, they could explain it nicely. Its like putting people down for no education. (PS thank you Tamen for explaining the whole meta remark. I hate that such language is taken for granted, it is a way of closing people out who are *not like you”.)

    How deeply ironic that you refer to yourself as “politically incorrect” when you essentially tried to ostracize Clarence (on this very thread) for making an allegedly “sexist” comment on another site. That Gingko’s post is about deeply entranched misandry in your own movement is a fantastic bonus. To you, misogyny, no matter how benine, is always condemnable but systemic misandry gets a pass.

    Benign. The word is spelled BENIGN.

    Yes, its interesting you should mention that.

    Clarence made remarks that when I was young, referred to rape. He probably didn’t know that, but I reacted that way. Unlike the kids over at NSWATM, I did not *call* him one, but I still reacted that way, which was a mistake. Nonetheless, I did want to discuss why he thought the language was not sexist, and he wouldn’t even go there (which I think is what upset Ozy). If its not sexist, explain why its not. That would have ended the conversation. But he couldn’t say that, since it is. (Historic note: “bag over the head”– when I was young, was a fun gang-rape game… they sneak up behind the ugly girl, PUT THE BAG OVER HER HEAD and then…) I knew that I could not appeal to a game of my youth, they’d all laugh: “Nobody thinks that now!… well, I think of it, and you don’t know if someone else from the Ohio or Indiana or West Virginia might think of it. As someone from Texas, Amanda Marcotte might have thought of it.

    But yeah, that is nasty. Much nastier than “Almost Famous” IMHO.

    Clarence is the one not speaking to me and has his knickers in a twist, I am willing to argue with anyone who is serious about these issues, as I said. Clarence included. Ain’t skeered.

    My problem now is in figuring out who is serious (like Tamen) and who is just getting their digs in (you and Clarence). If you have nothing important or interesting to say (as apparently you don’t), you can save it :)

    2b continued

  97. Hiding: I would generally consider the actions of abusive social workers the instruments of society rather than those of the state.

    Social workers working for the govt (rather than hospitals, hospices, nursing homes, private practice, etc) *are* instruments of the state. ESPECIALLY in schools. I started realizing this when they started harassing my daughter for bullshit, interrogating her about her very typical fantasies (!) and then calling me and tattling on her. Its like some therapist telling you what somebody said, what happened to privacy? Does not apply to middle-schoolers.

    Needless to say, gave the stupid social worker BOTH BARRELS (as we say in the south) and I was outraged. I told her she needs to mind her own damn business. I think I probably MARKED my kid at that point and I regret not controlling my anger. But I was LIVID.

    I feel SO SORRY for the kids whose parents just react like suburban automatons and jump the kids for their private thoughts. This is out-fucking-rageous! When I was a child, we did not even HAVE nosy social workers in school, deciding your stories are too fantastic. We weren’t all drugged to the gills on Ritalin either, and I had to fight tooth and nail to keep them from dosing my kid with drugs.

    By the way, did you guys see this? Made me cry: http://nathan-lee.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/retalin.png

    The social workers in the schools have nothing to do but read kids’ scifi stories and decide they must be crazy, so they can write notes to doctors and get them drugged. What would my grandmother say? Fascist SHIT is what.

    Do not get me started on the therapeutic arm of the state, the Leviathan responsible for drugging the children. And then they wonder why they graduate to meth–well, because you turned them into SPEEDFREAKS of course! The meth epidemic can be correlated DIRECTLY to the rise of Ritalin and Adderall. The kids get a taste for it, as well as a taste for the panoply of anti-anxiety drugs to come down from it, Valium, Elavil and so on.

    The whole thing benefits… who? BigPharma.

    Thank you for your comments, Hiding!

  98. @Daisy
    You can yell “No True Scotsman !” all you want, fact is those feminists that you begin to see as nefarious are and have always been your allies against the dreaded patriarchy. If nothing else, you still share the name with them (and they are the overwhelming majority in your holy movement). As Girlwriteswhat would say, own your shit.
    You sound like a nazi in 1945, saying Hitler highjacked a perfectly good ideology about encouraging blond people to reproduce, and twisting it into something ugly with the war and the extermination camps. Or, if you don’t like that analogy, your advice to me to study the different schools of thought within feminism sounds like PZ Myers’ “Courtier’s reply”.

    “If its not sexist, explain why its not.”

    I don’t care whether it is sexist or not. I don’t go around policing people’s thoughts or way of expressing themselves. The key word is benign. As I said, my standards as to what thoughts and expressions ought to be shunned are way, way lower than modern feminism’s. If I entered into a rage every time a woman said something slightly misandrist, I would have had a heart attack the first hour I started to look for it. So instead, I condemn it only when it is virulent and the basis of an entire ideology, like the Redstockings Manifesto.
    Again, for the cheap seats : IMO, you lose both of the arguments I presented in my last comment :
    1) Your sexism-radar is way more sensitive when it affects women than when it affects men.
    2) Your standards are too high.

  99. “1) Your sexism-radar is way more sensitive when it affects women than when it affects men.”

    I see that changing. I see Daisy beginning to see misandry in all the right places.

  100. Huh? (I never understand references to the elusive Scotsman… dumb it down please.)

    I am talking about the Second vs the Third Wave. Do you know what these theoretical differences refer to? If not, you are not addressing my subject. And its that is exactly like feminists conflating MRAs with every single man who posts on men’s blogs. I have finally learned that men interested in men’s issues are not a monolith, and it sounds like you still haven’t learned that feminists aren’t either.

    There are liberals, radicals, Republicans, just like on men’s blogs.

    You sound like a nazi in 1945, saying Hitler highjacked a perfectly good ideology about encouraging blond people to reproduce, and twisting it into something ugly with the war and the extermination camps.

    I may be dumb, but at least I’ve heard of Godwin. Purple prose, anyone? I thought Mickey Spillane died in 2006.

    I don’t care whether it is sexist or not.

    That was addressed to Clarence, and what I felt his behavior should have been on a blog run by feminists. You do realize that sexism on a feminist blog is going to get you in trouble? I notice I don’t see you posting over there on NSWATM, so YOU not caring about sexism makes sense, but when a man (Clarence) posts on a blog run by feminists and makes certain remarks and proudly doesn’t care, expect this to be roundly criticized, by me and everyone else. It is naive to think otherwise.

    1) Your sexism-radar is way more sensitive when it affects women than when it affects men.

    Well, duh. I experience one and not the other, just as you do. We tend to think our own personal experience is the most important … and the personal IS political. This is how most of us end up in political activism.

    2) Your standards are too high.

    See, I still get lambasted for things like putting a mostly-naked photo of misogynist Frank Zappa on my blog. Just today, somebody writes me an email about titties on my blog. Not kidding.

    So when you say this, I just have to shake my head. I have been run out of most of the major feminist blogs for disagreeing with the hierarchy. If my standards are too high, you should see what the rest of them are like.

    For one thing, I am ready to dialogue and my political ideas (like my religious affiliation) is in flux and is changing. If you don’t want to talk to me, then don’t, but please cut the insults, put-downs and the baiting. Thanks.

    Just out of curiosity: Can I ask how old you are?

  101. Derail, but to make it clear I am serious, time for a COMPLIMENT.

    I really liked Clarence’s suggestions on Feminist Critics, and wish we could talk about these kinds of things:

    A. Legalize and regulate prostitution.
    B. Females should, at the minimum, be encouraged to sexually flirt with men they are interested in.
    C. Women who are cruel to men who ask them out in a respectful manner need to be shamed.
    D. Same with men who shame women who ask them out. I know quite a few men do say they do NOT want to get hit on by a woman, as it takes the thrill of “the chase” out of it. Fine, but don’t you dare shame or otherwise hurt a woman so she won’t try again with another man.
    E. Perhaps advice could be spread around that if you like a shy man you can hardly go wrong by being assertive.

    I think these are good ideas, but of course, most feminists wouldn’t like the way they are worded, would disagree on the face of it and insist on rephrasing this or that. #1, all by itself, could start a near-riot.

    I do worry that lots of fat and/or unattractive girls will be hurt by #D (which could make them more misandrist than they might be already!), but then again, they will probably be more successful than currently they are by standing around and waiting. Also, it is time women took this role and were hurt too…. (I often have, and I certainly have been.)

  102. Jacksam, just figured out what I was trying to say. Sometimes it takes me awhile to correlate my thoughts; I was a medical transcriptionist and I often type faster than I am actually thinking. :P

    At Feminist Critics, a poster named Uncalledfor talks about “female hypocrisy” regarding the whole Nice Guy thing. You probably didn’t know that this subject was covered by the aforementioned Shulamith Firestone, and even way back in the antique First Wave, by neo-Freudian Karen Horney, who had a major influence on my thinking.

    What happened is that Third Wave decided women couldn’t criticize each other on certain grounds…. what they do is simply close-out women they don’t like, or call them unfeminist. No theoretical unladylike brawling… and certainly, no criticism of things like (what Horney called) Feminine Narcissism.

    Translation: No more criticism of high heels is allowed. Twisty is the only one who consistently goes there, and that is why she has the huge following.

    Speaking of which, recent funny thread at IBTP, in which we all came clean about the shitty TV we watch. It was a great Second Wave moment, as we all confessed to things like Real Housewives and The Bad Girls Club, and there was no judgement or blame. It is understood that the choices are shitty, and yet, we become addicted to our bad choices anyway. Since there was no judgement, it allowed us to go deeper and talk about why we liked some of these shows and how they might speak to us personally. It was the Second Wave at its finest. People were THINKING about entertainment, what it is, what motivates us, why “bad girls” are watchable and so forth. (I hate fashion and yet I love PROJECT RUNWAY, and I said so!)

    Twisty’s infamous blowjob thread, would be the Second Wave at its worst.

    But some of what I hear men saying at men’s blogs, are things my friends and me sat around and talked about. Somewhere along the way, rules were set down, what was acceptable and what was not. Feminists attack me for saying *I’m* fat (nobody else, just me)…and they take that as personal criticism of themselves and run me out of town on a rail.

    As I said on this post, the Third Wave prided itself on no dogma, but they DO have dogma. I inadvertently blundered into it.

    http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2010/09/saturday-with-duke-meditations-on-fat.html

    Anyway, just some thoughts. Hoping for some replies.

  103. “1) Your sexism-radar is way more sensitive when it affects women than when it affects men.
    Well, duh. I experience one and not the other, just as you do.”

    Well it clearly is not an either or thing with you, Daisy. You may not remember but you have called out misandry even if not with that specific term. And it is a pattern with women who have men in their lives they love, even little men who they care very much about, that the Mama Grizzly comes out when they see these men threatened by societal norms (I know you will take that reference with good grace.) That is GirlWritesWhat’s story.

    BTW is your grandson mowing the lawn yet? I have one on the way!

  104. Oh and I am happy to hear something, anything positive about Twisty. Because I’m just that twisted, and lenient.

  105. “Huh? (I never understand references to the elusive Scotsman… dumb it down please.) ”

    Wiki it.
    Godwin’s law is bogus. Why shouldn’t we all be able to use the historic equivalent of “pure evil” when discussing ideas ?

    “You do realize that sexism on a feminist blog is going to get you in trouble ?”

    Wrong. Sexism against women will get you in trouble.

    “Well, duh. I experience one and not the other, just as you do.”

    I’m not talking about my experience, but about ideas. We should all be able to understand another person’s POV. I never bought the “you’re a man, you can’t understand”-line of arguing. It all leads to relativism if you ask me. Another woman can say to you(Daisy), regarding her experiences : “you’re not me, you can’t understand”.
    Me being a man has nothing to do with my position. A few months ago, I would have seen misogyny everywhere, and misandry nowhere, just like you.
    I also don’t care about the commenting policy at NSWATM, but I do care about you saying to Clarence something to the effect of “You made a sexist comment, so you’re a horrible person and I don’t wanna be friends anymore”. By that standard, given the widespread misandry in our culture, the overwhelming majority of the human race is horrible.

    “See, I still get lambasted for things like putting a mostly-naked photo of misogynist Frank Zappa on my blog. Just today, somebody writes me an email about titties on my blog. Not kidding. ”

    I’m sure there are lots of nuts out there. I’ll rephrase it for you : Compared to a thinking person’s standards, your standards are too high. Good for you that your standards are lower than most feminists, but you’re a little too easy on yourself to think that it’s enough to impress a rational person.

    “If you don’t want to talk to me, then don’t, but please cut the insults, put-downs and the baiting. Thanks. ”

    This is funny coming from a self-described bitch who takes pride in engaging in just that sort of behaviour. As far as I’m concerned, you qualify for the highest amount of snark allowed, sweetheart. Enjoy it.

    “Just out of curiosity: Can I ask how old you are?”

    Not that it matters (for the reasons explained above), but 23, white, male, het, european, libertarian, working class, atheist.

    P.S. : I read your 1:35 comment. Don’t take the snark too much at heart. I enjoy your insights into feminism theory as much as the next guy.
    Don’t be a Girl ; )

  106. 1) Of course it matters, I am talking to someone younger than my own daughter. Its very jarring… can you not put yourself in my place? I have to remember there are things you probably never heard of, and that you will make references I have never heard of.

    2) Me and Clarence go back a long way. I won’t lie and say there wasn’t an element of payback. I feel that he got me banned at Feminist Critics, although it was ballgame’s ultimate call.

    3) “I swear Scout, you act more like a girl all the time!”–Gem in To Kill a Mockingbird.

    4) Did you think Cameron Crowe was raped? (go look at the clip on NSWATM) Just curious.

  107. “1) Of course it matters, I am talking to someone younger than my own daughter. Its very jarring… can you not put yourself in my place? I have to remember there are things you probably never heard of, and that you will make references I have never heard of.”

    I don’t think you deserve any respect for being old, if that’s where you’re going. Put yourself in my shoes, why dontcha ? You sound like a conservative, or a confucian.
    Anyway, can we look past our differences and build a better world *innocent smile on my face* ?

    “4) Did you think Cameron Crowe was raped?”

    NO !!! How can you still not get that ?
    What passes as “rape”, what is deemed “offensive”, what is “misogynistic”, “racist”, “ableist”, “fattist”…. All of these words have lost any meaning, thanks to liberals crying wolf all the time. Their standards are too high, with the result that free discourse is greatly impeded by the need to navigate the tight rope of PC. Well, in Clarence’s case, you were that liberal crying wolf, the “ghost of PC”.

  108. I’m sorry to keep replying after a whole conversation has happened in the intervening time. Unfortunately, the time difference prevents me from being more prompt in my replies.

    Daisy:
    Regarding over-medication, I have personal experience of the problem and it is indeed awful, even when no addiction results. Starting in elementary school, I was put on a different drug every six months for about three years, in an effort to fix violence and anger issues I didn’t have (I would be frightened by crowds of people or situations I didn’t understand and try to go sit in the hallway, as my ed plan explicitly permitted me to do, and then I would be jumped on, beaten, and blamed for starting some kind of fabricated disturbance. It is a favorite trick of social workers to create a “problem” by forcing children into situations they no will trigger an outburst or an act of self defense, but they never succeeded in doing this with me. I have since learned the default interpretation of any male action is that it stems from anger, a fact which is especially dangerous to someone like me who does not present normal social cues and is therefore frequently the body-language equivalent of a blank slate), before being stuck on antidepressants. The earlier drugs gave me violent mood swings, which the school used to justify forcing more of them on me, and the antidepressants led to apathy and weight gain that destroyed ant confidence I had in my physical appearance (boys can be bullied and insulted for their weight in the same way girls can be, but all of the programs to help students with body-image problems were female-only. The fact that I was frequently warned about how “big and strong” I was and how that meant I had to be especially careful of anyone else despite being short exceptionally weak served to exacerbate my condition). I got myself off the drugs half way through high school (I had an even longer and more solitary fight not to be sent to a special education facility with utterly inadequate academics that would have kept me from ever getting into anything better than a community college), after spending years fighting against my parents and the school system for the privilege of doing so, and managed to hide the withdrawal until it went away (I’m sure I would have simply been issued more pills if it had been noticed). I took up exercise, built muscle, lost so much weight I had to replace my entire wardrobe, turned my grades around (the medication had been destroying my ability to concentrate and sapping my energy), got into a well-regarded university (where I’ve made the dean’s list every semester, despite spending all of middle school and the beginning of high school in danger of failing my classes) and completely dispensed with all the “supports” that had been plaguing me, but my self-esteem has not in any measure recovered. The practices of our nation’s public school system have grown so destructive that I believe it has become necessary to dismantle its entire infrastructure and design a new system entirely independent of the old.

    Regarding the demise of privacy, I learned early on that speaking honestly to therapists is the quickest way to find yourself under consideration for suspension or expulsion. Any discussions I had regarding things I read in books, watched on television, or imagined for myself were best confined to secluded corners of fields or other places beyond the hearing of the staff. Drawing of anything more unusual than a flower or my pet cats was best confined to my bedroom with the door closed and blocked by some heavy object. Changes in the cultural landscape eventually rendered Star Wars, Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings acceptable subjects for conversation around the time I entered middle school, but Poe, Doyle, Milton, Pullman and Le Guin, my principle literary fixations at the time, generally earned me a letter to my parents if discussed in any detail, as did my drawings of medieval armor and weaponry. The atmosphere in which children singled out by these programs are raised is designed to do nothing but force them in upon themselves until they present an outward face which is deemed socially acceptable by the powers that be. It is little wonder that school shootings occur in such an environment, although they ultimately constitute nothing more than another excuse to demonize young boys and deprive them of support.

    In regard to your later comments and the various splits and conflicts within the feminist movement, might I inquire as to where I might find some record of this history? The orthodox version presented by contemporary feminist scholars and contained in the curriculum of introductory classes in “women’s studies” (a subject I regard as being a specialization of other disciplines, rather than a discipline unto itself, and therefore as a course which probably should not be offered at the undergraduate level, at least as a major) seem to do there best to present feminism as the “monolith” that its adherents so strongly deny when under attack. Where might I obtain a truer history? The informal ban on infighting and its accompanying proscription of divisive or volatile topics which you describe also strikes me as being a great contributor to the perception of a single monolithic organization by an outside observer. Indeed, I would have great difficulty saying that the opinion of that observer is wrong as long as the majority of third wave feminists continue to display such behavior.

    I must confess that your descriptions of the types of discussion permissible in second wave feminism strike me as being far superior to what I’ve had shoved down my throat in classes from the third wave. I would prefer an honest devil to a deceitful hypocrite. Is there any place left where such discussions can occur, or has there ever been one in which men can participate? I feel that I and many other might benefit greatly from such a thing. As it is, I am forced to conceal at least half of the media I enjoy in order to keep up appearances.

  109. “I don’t think you deserve any respect for being old, if that’s where you’re going. Put yourself in my shoes, why dontcha ? You sound like a conservative, or a confucian.”

    She is just asking for clearer communication really, and that requires getting inot the other person’s head a bit and seeing the conversation from their angle. It’s basic to good communication. It involves sharing a common base of experience, however a person comes by that common exerience, either by experiencing it or hearing about it.

    It is generally easier for an older person to do than for a younger person simply because they have the advanatge of seeing the same culture the younger person does while the older culture has vanished.

  110. I’m not asking for any favors, Ginkgo. If I don’t get a cultural reference, it’s my problem, not hers. Besides, I really think accentuating personal differences is a debating dead-end. Opinions should stand on their own.
    In France, we have a saying :
    When the rock falls on the egg… Woe to the egg !
    When the egg falls on the rock… Woe to the egg !

  111. Hiding: In regard to your later comments and the various splits and conflicts within the feminist movement, might I inquire as to where I might find some record of this history?

    The aforementioned book by Joanna Russ (upthread), gets a big fat A+ from me. :) I was ecstatic when I first read it; it was like never getting physics and some teacher comes along and explains it perfectly on a grade-school level.

    Daring to Be Bad by Alice Echols, caution for “tell the truth but tell it slant”–she seems to have taken that advice to heart. (She settles a few of her own old scores)

    In Our Time by Susan Brownmiller, same score-settling is apparent, as above, but good history. Brownmiller is a great writer, has written thousands and thousands of words for women’s mags, and her experience really shows.

    Dreamers & dealers: An intimate appraisal of the women’s movement by Leah Fritz. Big controversy at the time, but I have forgotten why. I do not presently have the book in front of me; lent it out and never got it back. You know how that goes!

    The Sisterhood by Marcia Cohen (mostly about the leaders, but the disagreements are outlined)
    http://www.amazon.com/Sisterhood-True-Story-Marcia-Cohen/dp/0449904113

    Anything by the late Ellen Willis, when we lost her, we lost a big heroine for our side:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Willis

    The only problem w/Willis is a rather cultish devotion to Wilhelm Reich, but the Reichian analysis passages are still great reading!

    I might think of some others later.

    Robin Morgan’s biography (caveats galore) is titled SATURDAY’S CHILD, and Andrea Dworkin’s account of her place in the movement, is appropriately titled HEARTBREAK. I have a deep attachment to Andrea due to how she fiercely has been excoriated (especially for her weight and appearance, unlike male thinkers) and in addition, I think she was likely schizophrenic or bipolar. I never believed the infamous “Paris drug rape incident”… although I think to her, it was very, very real: http://www.salon.com/2000/09/20/dworkin/
    Also interesting:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/apr/12/gender.highereducation

  112. I flunked French, I’m proud to say.

    I don’t think you deserve any respect for being old, if that’s where you’re going.

    Nietzsche’s Last Man of History! I can recognize you anywhere! Yeah, you don’t need no stinkin old people! You already know everything, and if you don’t, well, it must not be important. You have nothing to learn from anyone who lived through another time. Besides, you know it already, even better than we do!

    Got it.

    What passes as “rape”, what is deemed “offensive”, what is “misogynistic”, “racist”, “ableist”, “fattist”…. All of these words have lost any meaning,

    Our governor is currently trying to take all benefits away from disabled people who are not willing to be institutionalized… I suppose that isn’t ableist? What is it then?

    And I live in a state that specializes in giving black men the death penalty. No racism? What the hell are you talking about? Only someone from FRANCE could be so clueless. Try living here in South Carolina as a minority person. You have no clue what you are talking about, Mr Enlightened Frenchman. One out of four black men in the USA are locked up… what do you call that? Oh, racism is a word with no meaning, huh? Come over here and say that to the convicts locked up for stuff that gets you lauded as cool in the rich white prep schools.

    What utter and total bullshit. Am I expected to seriously argue with this person?

    I’m not asking for any favors, Ginkgo. If I don’t get a cultural reference, it’s my problem, not hers.

    There was once this thing called slavery, then this thing called the Civil War (started right here in my state), and then this thing called Reconstruction and then this thing called Jim Crow. And then this thing called the Civil Rights movement. If you think racism is a word with no meaning, I would council you to study those events and get back to me.

    Didn’t your country occupy Algeria or something? Haiti? French Guiana? The Ivory Coast? What was that? Imperialism, colonialism and yes, RACISM. I didn’t see them trying to occupy Greece or Norway.

    These things have no REAL MEANING, huh? Well, I would expect Last Man of History to say so. Get a clue, hon.

  113. “In France, we have a saying :
    When the rock falls on the egg… Woe to the egg !
    When the egg falls on the rock… Woe to the egg !”

    Good saying. there is a version of that in every culture. this is what it ocmes down to. When you are trying to communicate both persons have to meet past the middle.

    Cultural refences are tricky anyway and not just for reasons of age. It helps to be in the same culture in the frst place, and even within the Anglosphere there are real regional differences. Brits think tey understand the race situation in the US and don’t, because they model it on their own. Etc. If you are in France the distance is even greater.

  114. Oh, honey, mentioning Andrea Dork-in Dork-out is never going to get a comment blocked around here!

  115. Hahaaaa Daisy ! Glad to see you turn on the snark again. I was getting tired of being nice. Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name. Does that mean you’re not going to whine anymore about how mean I am, with the “insults, put-downs and the baiting” ?
    Only an american would wear his academic failures like a badge of honor and simultaneously make a big deal out of correcting the spelling of a foreigner.

    “Yeah, you don’t need no stinkin old people! You already know everything, and if you don’t, well, it must not be important.”

    You don’t get any extra respect for being old is all I was saying… You LOSE respect for being thick however, no matter how old and fat you are.

    You know what ? Maybe I am the Last Man. Yeah, my life is pretty comfortable. Maybe that’s the problem with you liberals, you know ? Never laying down your arms, always looking for a way to “fix the world” some moar. Incapable of giving back the roman dictatorship after the war, gradually transforming the Republic into a totalitarian state…

    Jacksam(Me) said : “All of these words have lost any meaning ”

    Is there something fishy about the word “lost”, Daisy ? I’m either missing the nuances of your language or you have some massive reading disability. Those words used to mean something dangerous and condemnable. I wish it still meant that… Keep that in mind for the following :

    The KKK’s ideology is “racist”. A person subconsciously more scared of blacks than whites isn’t. The word “nigger”, or “niggardly” for that matter, isn’t. The Redstockings Manifesto is “misandrist”. A woman laughing at a man getting kicked in the balls isn’t. A woman who claims women have superior empathy isn’t.
    Are you starting to see a pattern ? Some of those examples are truly dangerous and condemnable, (and therefore earn the label) others are just expressions, arguments or things you can’t control.
    It all comes down to what you want to censor… For the upteenth time, I believe free expression trumps the “right not to be offended” or some such nonsense in a majority of cases. The only limit to free expression should be a direct threat to individuals. That’s one of the things America got right, IMO. Shame that you distance yourself from the admirable tradition of your country in that regard.

    “Our governor is currently trying to take all benefits away from disabled people who are not willing to be institutionalized… I suppose that isn’t ableist? What is it then?”

    Oh, I dunno Daisy, call it “reducing the deficit”, “Small Government”, “Liberty”, or “You’re on your own, folks”.
    Didn’t you warn somewhere about the dangers of Big Gov ?

    “Come over here and say that to the convicts locked up for stuff that gets you lauded as cool in the rich white prep schools. ”

    I went to public school, but I see common sense flew out the window at this point in your comment… Dont let me stop you from soaking up all that “minority anger” and concentrating it on a very distant and imaginary oppressor-figure. Take a Tylenol, dear.

    “Didn’t your country occupy Algeria or something? Haiti? French Guiana? The Ivory Coast? What was that? Imperialism, colonialism and yes, RACISM. I didn’t see them trying to occupy Greece or Norway.”

    Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that Greeks and Norwegians had firearms and boats instead of sticks and feathers and less with the color of their skin. Empires (of all ages and ethnicities) conquer their weaker rivals, starting with the weakest and nearest. Probably too revolutionary a hypothesis when you’ve got this nice “race”-angle going on.
    The Ivory Coast Kings sold slaves to the europeans. The Greeks didn’t do that anymore at that time. You might say they outgrew it.
    It was easier to just buy blacks than to kidnap some greeks and risk war with a seafaring nation. Think pragmatic. Think like a slave trader. Calm down. Be happy.

    @Ginkgo
    “When you are trying to communicate both persons have to meet past the middle.”
    Funny, I thought it meant : ” No matter how you communicate, The egg’s going to get crushed !” Then again, you can’t make an omelette any other way….

  116. Jacksam: Only an american would wear his academic failures like a badge of honor and simultaneously make a big deal out of correcting the spelling of a foreigner.

    If I had initially known that English was not your first language, I would not have corrected you. But when people are being all elitist and superior, one of the things I do is correct their spelling. (Yes, petty, I know, but such fun it is.)

    I’m afraid you lost me, man. My little mind can’t follow your European brilliance. I’m just a common redneck you know. I do cringe reading your rather stunted politics… I blame that late busybody-freak Alisa Rosenbaum for ALL of this.

    I will respond to a couple of the more incomprehensible comments.

    You LOSE respect for being thick however, no matter how old and fat you are.

    That’s fine. We all can’t be as smart you are.

    Maybe I am the Last Man.

    No maybes about it.

    I’m either missing the nuances of your language or you have some massive reading disability. Those words used to mean something dangerous and condemnable. I wish it still meant that… Keep that in mind for the following :

    The KKK’s ideology is “racist”.

    Wait, I think I get it. Are you under the impression that the kkk is simply something from history? And where would you get an idea like *that*? (Is someone clueless enough to think the st0rmfront crew is all in the past, preaching to me about what racism is and is not? Incredible.)

    “You’re on your own, folks”

    Haha! Making fun of disabled people is so funny! But seriously, your country has a social safety net and health care, we don’t. You might keep that in mind. It isn’t fucking funny. This is a crisis.

    Then again, I shouldn’t be surprised …I think “Let them eat cake” originally came from one of yours, didn’t it?

    Dont let me stop you from soaking up all that “minority anger” and concentrating it on a very distant and imaginary oppressor-figure.

    Distant and imaginary? I just watched a hair-raising film (part of our Occupy film series) about COINTELPRO and their extended war on the Black Panthers. Do you really think that was imaginary? Are you saying one out of four black men in prison RIGHT NOW is imaginary? South Carolina giving black men the death penalty is imaginary?

    If you believe this, I really don’t have anything else to say to you. I just wonder what planet you live on.

    The Ivory Coast Kings sold slaves to the europeans. The Greeks didn’t do that anymore at that time. You might say they outgrew it.

    Ah, the whites had “outgrown” that dumb black behavior, I see.

    Speaking of the kkk, they claim this bullshit version of history too. You’d feel right at home.

    Think like a slave trader. Calm down. Be happy.

    Think like a slave trader? (Is this supposed to be cute or something?)

    Maybe that’s the problem with you liberals, you know ?

    I’m a radical, not a liberal. And you are not a libertarian, you are a conservative.

  117. Speaking of the kkk, here is the riot! (1977)

    It starts at about 3:15-goes to the bang-up finish (that got me a subpoena) at 3:40. You can see my beautiful 20-year-old self at 3:19 or so (the blond one yelling in front). I didn’t even know how good I looked! (sigh)

    I was on both PBS and CBS that night. (This is a clip from the PBS film “The New Klan”)

    (According to Jacksam, this whole documentary is about imaginary stuff. Go figure!)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqimK3oC7oo

  118. Thank you very much. I’m sure that will keep me busy for a while (I’m always reading three books at once to ensure that I don’t fall behind on my languages, so I end up getting through things rather slowly). Hopefully I’ll be able to discuss these issues more fluently and form more grounded opinions on them once I have more background knowledge.

    As for Andrea Dworkin, I’ve really come to loathe most if not all of the positions she espoused, but I’ve also always thought it was quite unfair the way people went after her for her appearance. She’s said and done enough to be hated for without anyone having to go “oh yeah? Well… you’re fat!” like some school child on a playground. Ad hominem attacks are the tools of the lowest form of rhetorical reprobates and should not be excused under any circumstances. I wonder, do you think the way people talk about Dworkin is equivalent to the women who call men who criticize them “creeps”, “losers” and even “rapists” or “pedophiles”? The principle strikes me as similar, and I believe a stronger emphasis on proper rhetorical discipline and the use of logic in our educational system might do much to curb the problem on both ends.

    Also, props for bringing up Nietzsche. You can always tell he’s the best philosopher because he’s the only one whose books would work with a screaming metal soundtrack. Also because he came up with the coolest names for things (the “Last Man of History” being one example. When you hear a name like that, it makes you want to learn more about the thing itself).

  119. Blah. It’s like talking to a wall.

    Leave poor Ayn out of it. She was nuts, if you ask me. Blame the Enlightenment if you must.

    Daisy : “Wait, I think I get it. Are you under the impression that the kkk is simply something from history?”

    No. Apparently, I need to express myself without any ambiguity to get through to you. At one point, you said that you agreed the rape definition is too extensive. Well, by the same principle, IMO, the definition of what constitues racism, ableism, sexism, etc… also too extensive.

    “Haha! Making fun of disabled people is so funny!”

    Everything is funny to me. But anyway, I wasn’t even making fun of them with that remark. Isn’t “You’re on your own, folks” a good summary of small Gov’s attitude towards its citizens in general ? There is something seriously wrong when someone starts to see evil, “ableist” policies and jokes where there are none….

    “I think “Let them eat cake” originally came from one of yours, didn’t it?”

    Apocryphal. We made it up to make us feel better about cutting Marie Antoinette in two. 200 years later, still used by leftists to demonize the elites. Well done !

    “Ah, the whites had “outgrown” that dumb black behavior, I see.
    Speaking of the kkk, they claim this bullshit version of history too. You’d feel right at home. ”

    Look, I don’t care who shares my ideas, only whether they’re true or not. Nothing is taboo. Didn’t the Ivory Coast Kings sell slaves ? Weren’t the Ivorians less civilized than the greeks ? Feel free to refute it with ideas and facts, not with guilt by association.

    “And you are not a libertarian, you are a conservative.”

    I couldn’t care less about what people do with their own bodies or which God they prey to in the privacy of their home. I don’t think we were better off in the past. By all means, equate me with an ideology you’re more comfortable with if it helps you think even less.

  120. “Think like a slave trader? (Is this supposed to be cute or something?)”

    No, Daisy. It’s supposed to test if you’re so brainwashed you automatically come up with the “right” emotional response (“Oh yeah, well, YOU are the KKK!”). I feel like Pavlov. It’s so easy to trigger this, I’m only barely aware that I do it intentionally. I just sit down, watch the blood pressure rise and the absurd accusations fly. Being part-troll yourself, I’m sure you can see the beauty of it.

  121. Jacksam: Weren’t the Ivorians less civilized than the greeks ?

    No. And that’s the RACIST bullshit I refer to.

    PS: How did you like my kkk-bashing turn? No reviews? :( I looked good!

    Hiding, I once worked with this guy who drove me crazy. I described him in-depth to my husband, who then forced me to read Nietzsche’s description of The Last Man, and that was it, I was hooked. I decided on the spot that he was a genius and read every word after that. I haven’t changed my mind!

    I finally had the description for the type of individual (all genders, all races, all nations–MAN does not necessarily refer to a man) created by modern economics and media: endlessly smug, perfectly indoctrinated by the bourgeoisie to accept mass-market values, superior to history, comfortable, certain they would do the right thing in a crisis while simultaneously always running away from genuine crisis (so they are never truly tested by the ideals they claim to have, although most don’t claim any), etc. They are critical of radicalism, but in a notably smug, superior way: Oh, how silly is that. The Christians would say, no soul, the Buddhists would say, no center.

    “Who wants to follow? Who wants to obey? Both require too much exertion.”

    I can spot them anywhere. ;)

  122. Jacksam: No, Daisy. It’s supposed to test if you’re so brainwashed you automatically come up with the “right” emotional response (“Oh yeah, well, YOU are the KKK!”).

    Actually, I thought you’d like to see that I have brawled with REAL kkk, that you people in France have only seen on TV and in movies–and consequently, seem to think is fictional or myth. They are not fictional and they are not past. Their local HQ is in the next county over, 25 minutes away. (Google “the redneck shop, Laurens, SC”–I won’t link the swine.) Things you haughtily assume are in the past, for some of us, are right here and now. Your rather incendiary insensitivity to such political realities, was my whole point. You are privileged (there’s that word again) and can afford to be apathetic, yet, you seek to preach to me as if you know MY reality. You don’t know anything about living in upstate South Carolina. (Is there even a death penalty in France at all? I thought there wasn’t? Easy to say “no racism” when you live in a liberal state with health care for everybody and without death squads.)

    The difference is, I would not tell you about living in France and what its like, but you think you can tell me about what its like HERE. That’s the Last Man in you:

    “We know everything that has ever happened, and there is no end to the derision.”

    That’s you, man.

    Have a nice day. Namaste.

  123. @Daisy
    This Last Man sounds like a reasonable fellow. The kind that presents superior arguments, free from needless emotionality and bias. There is not much in your description I care to differentiate myself from, so I guess the shoe fits. Feeling superior and smug is the natural consequence from engaging in, and winning lots of arguments with people who weren’t so unbiased. Lack of spirituality : Yep. Critical of radicalism : You bet ! “Hey, let’s sit down and talk more before we start killing people for your utopy.” That’s me alright. As to ideals, I have only one : Freedom of the individual. So, yeah, following and obeying are alien to me by definition.
    Is this the most damning critique of character you can do ? To be honest, I’m puzzled by the lack of any substancial negative characteristics in that description. Is that what leftists abhor ? Calm, reasonable discussion with people who don’t hate themselves ?
    That would be my critique of character of modern leftists : Self-hate, which expresses itself in a compulsive need to belong to a collective, with strong totalitarian leanings. Have you read The True Believer ?

    “Jacksam: Weren’t the Ivorians less civilized than the greeks ?
    Daisy : No. And that’s the RACIST bullshit I refer to. ”

    That is exactly what I’m talking about. I specifically asked you to substantiate your opposition to that statement, and all you do is declare it condemnable with the use of the word “racist”(in caps, no less). THAT is what I mean with “lost any meaning”. Is that question racist like the KKK is racist ? Am I evil (Don’t answer that!) ? Am I too curious ?
    There is no piece of knowledge I wish I didn’t have. Even how hamburgers are produced.
    You’re just slapping my fingers because I reached for a dirty book in the school library. Why can’t I say things as I see them ? The Ivorians killed each other, enslaved each other, had no good technology, art or science… Why is it fine for you or me to morally condemn the europeans but not the ivorians ? Are you saying the ivorians were more civilized than the greeks ? Those questions interest me, curious, unruly child that I am (Hey, you played the age card first).

    The rest of the comment, you babble on about things I never said.
    I never said true, evil racism didn’t exist anymore. I see a difference between the two uses of this word today.
    I never said I knew what it was like in SC. What I did say is that I think personal life differences are overrated. Ideas defend themselves. That’s why I reject the word “privilege” (as is currently used, anyway).
    I never said I knew everything or even enough. Else I wouldn’t be here, would I ?

  124. “Only an american would wear his academic failures like a badge of honor and simultaneously make a big deal out of correcting the spelling of a foreigner.”

    Uh, no.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_Ninth_Category

    And I guarantee you if you get the stroke order wrong when you are writing a Chinese character, you will get handed a fork to eat with, along with a tolerant, dismissive smile.

  125. @ Ginkgo
    That’s it ? Out of all the deep ideological rifts between Daisy and me, you pick this cheap jab at american anti-intellectualism and cultural arrogance to disagree with me ?
    Just like you in “a map of how awful men are (revisited)”, she refuses to pass a moral judgment on primitive cultures while simultaneously condemning the developed cultures. It’s very disconcerting. Could you please tell me what the deal is ?
    Anyway, I’m sure the Chinese and Japanese have their fair share of cultural arrogance, just like the French (Living in Germany atm and being half-german, I can tell you there is an enormous difference between those 2 european countries. Starting and losing two World Wars and killing 6 millions Jews will do that to a country’s self-esteem.)
    Your example notwithstanding, it seems to me there is a deep undercurrent of anti-intellectualism in the States, more than anywhere else. I heard it has to do with your country’s old and stable democracy that has always put the “common man” in the center. Similar to the Swiss in that regard.

  126. “That’s it ? Out of all the deep ideological rifts between Daisy and me, you pick this cheap jab at american anti-intellectualism and cultural arrogance to disagree with me ?’

    I see you got your sense of humor from your German side. Chinese cultural arrogace is foundational to their whole identity. They have been waking up to that for 150 and they have a ways to go. And this is after realizing how some core elements of their culture disadvantage then vis a vis the West. It’s never easy.

    “Just like you in “a map of how awful men are (revisited)”, she refuses to pass a moral judgment on primitive cultures while simultaneously condemning the developed cultures. It’s very disconcerting. Could you please tell me what the deal is ?”

    It has to be stubbornness and force of habit. She may grow out of it.To me it is quite obvious that developed societies are better for women for really obvious reasons. Developed societies make childbirth hugely safer than nature provides for. Developed societies privielege individuals over groups and that advantages women over thier earlier status, in which they are dependent on the group to feed and protect them and they cannot contribute as much and aere therefor rated olower than the men.

    “Your example notwithstanding, it seems to me there is a deep undercurrent of anti-intellectualism in the States, more than anywhere else. I heard it has to do with your country’s old and stable democracy that has always put the “common man” in the center”

    You are quite right that there is a current of anti-intellectualism, as long as you are dcareful to define “intellectualism” closely. thre is not much repsect or even tolernace here for Left bank style cafe philosophers. And you are on to something when you tie it to the tradition of democracy. It comes out of a specific kind of radical Protestantism that vests all final authority on determining truth in the individual person.

    Non-intellectual academic matters are taken very seriously here – technology of all kinds and research into organizational structures – and this goes back to those land grant colleges staffed with mostly German academics after the Civil War.

    The US is not unique in this though. You see the same thing in China. Despite its unparalleled intellectual culture – older, deeper and richer than anywhere else – what you see in their academic establishment these days is an overwhelming emphasis on technology. Intellectual pursuits have always been a high-stakes game in China, and the Revolution was a prime example, but basically these days the country just seems to think it has better things to do with its talent pool. so we’re not so alone in that.

  127. Jacksam: “Just like you in “a map of how awful men are (revisited)”, she refuses to pass a moral judgment on primitive cultures while simultaneously condemning the developed cultures. It’s very disconcerting. Could you please tell me what the deal is ?”

    It’s really simple. It’s about your definition of “civilized”: mass murder, genocide, wholesale theft of land and resources, as well as forced slavery is NOT civilized. It is barbarism. The Africans did not do this to Europeans, Europeans did it to Africans.

    And yet somehow, Europe is regarded as the Civilized Party in this discussion. Sorry, I do not endorse this definition of “civilized”. I find it really grotesque, in fact. Joseph Conrad, call your office.

    If you want to use more descriptive terms, such as a “technologically advanced” or whatever, I would have no argument with that.

    But the term “civilized” is a value judgement, and Europeans fail that test, big time.

  128. “But the term “civilized” is a value judgement, and Europeans fail that test, big time.”

    They put MILK in tea. For God’s sake.

  129. I disagree with the implication that those who have the will, but not the means to commit atrocities are somehow more ethical.

  130. I get tired of ethical haggling over this shit. The only groups who have not committed genocides and atrocities are the ones who had no opportunity. That seems to be the only thing that actually prevents these activities.

    “It’s about your definition of “civilized”: mass murder, genocide, wholesale theft of land and resources, as well as forced slavery is NOT civilized. It is barbarism.”

    The distinction between civilized and barbaric is so muddled that it is useless. People call the Chinese, Japanese and Indians “barbaric” for having the death penalty. I am not in favor of the death penalty, but calling those people barbarous is just silly. Get a new and more accurate term of disapproval.

  131. This machine at work won’t let me see that, but I am going to take your point on faith.

    I am rather over these moral judgments that accomplish nothing except to make the moralist feel like a moral person.

  132. Druk: I disagree with the implication that those who have the will, but not the means to commit atrocities are somehow more ethical.

    What is “will” and who decides who has it? You mean “desire” or just wishing something could happen, wishing something was true? Are we judging people morally on their thoughts, now? Because if its like that, everyone is equally guilty. It’s called “original sin”–and as stated above, I have taken my leave.

    Just THINKING something is just as bad as doing it, since of course JESUS SEES ALL! GOD SEES YOUR HEART!

    Right, been there and done that. I am trying to focus on facts instead.

  133. I don’t see anything wrong with judging people’s intentions or wishes. For example, it makes plenty of sense to condemn a KKK member for wishing aloud for all the minorities to leave the country.

    But I was more taking issue with your use of statements like “mass murder”, “genocide”, and “wholesale theft”. They are all large scale atrocities that smaller, less technologically advanced countries couldn’t commit if they tried (especially a couple hundred years ago).

    Do you really think that smaller countries are more civilized/ethical not just in spite of their weakness, but because of it?

    Kinda reminds me of the excuses given for female DV perpetrators.

  134. I fell like this discussion would benefit greatly from William Vollman’s chapter on Cortez and Montezuma in Rising Up and Rising Down. The charts showing death and its causes under both are particularly interesting, although the whole section is worth a look. I feel like it’s a good tool to help people get their ideas and perspectives on imperialism in order (the work as a whole has that effect with regards to human conflict in general). Of course, it’s seven volumes and almost 4,000 pages long in addition to being slightly mad, so very few people ever get through the whole thing.

  135. Druk: Do you really think that smaller countries are more civilized/ethical not just in spite of their weakness, but because of it?

    No, they are simply not guilty of the genocide and theft I mentioned, as you have all stated: they didn’t have the means. I am looking at this as an Amnesty International member in good standing, and whether these countries are in violation of the objective standards laid down in the Geneva Convention(s). And yes, they are. Period.

    Guilt is guilt. I am not taking “the measure of their souls”–that is for Jesus, Krishna, Mohammed and that whole crowd.

  136. Daisy : “do you listen to old hippie music at all? :)”

    All the time.
    Don’t feel like Satan,
    but I am to them
    So I try to forget it,
    any way I can.
    Got fuel to burn,
    got roads to drive.
    Keep on rockin’ in the free world…

  137. Jacksam, does this mean you do or don’t like the song? Heavy irony doesn’t always translate well.

    Keep in mind Neil Young is Canadian, not American.

  138. Ohh, excuse me for that! Rather than “American”– I should have said “US-ian” –a more descriptive term I rather like. (On the radio,we say AMERICAN 80 million times, just so listeners are assured you love Amurrica and all like that.)

    There used to be these Bircher signs that said “US OUT of United Nations!” and so the Yippies had some made that looked identical (typeface and design), but said “US OUT of North America!”

  139. Daisy : “forced slavery is NOT civilized. It is barbarism.”

    I agree. So the Ivorian Kings were barbarians after all ? No matter how you define “civilized”, there is no way to argue the africans were more civilized than their european counterparts…
    Slavery at the time was operating in a framework of “Grey and Gray morality” or “Black and Black”. Definitely not Black and White. Abolitionism is a product of the Enlightenment. And it correlates with technological advancement.
    When you call the europeans “barbarians”, you unwillingly frame the discussion in those civilized/less civilized(barbarian) terms that you claim to reject.

    Druk: Do you really think that smaller countries are more civilized/ethical not just in spite of their weakness, but because of it?

    Daisy :No, they are simply not guilty of the genocide and theft I mentioned, as you have all stated: they didn’t have the means. I am looking at this as an Amnesty International member in good standing, and whether these countries are in violation of the objective standards laid down in the Geneva Convention(s). And yes, they are. Period.

    The europeans AND the africans were in violation of basic human rights. The africans did have the means and the will to do evil on their small scale (and did so). The europeans did not bring slavery and war to Africa.
    Hate was just a legend
    And war was never known

    I call bullshit, Neil. Cortez was a ruthless killer, but the Aztecs were not innocent children. You just can’t beat human sacrifice on the Barbaric Scale.

    Ginkgo : “I get tired of ethical haggling over this shit.”

    Your primal, leftwing “I refuse-to-judge-primitive-cultures”-stance changed to a “Fine-but-you-can’t-make-me-enjoy-it”-stance. Progress.
    And I’m only haggling over this shit because left-wingers keep demonizing the europeans while presenting a saintly picture of the oppressed (Where have I heard that before ?) to make it all about race.

  140. “Jacksam, does this mean you do or don’t like the song? Heavy irony doesn’t always translate well.”

    Interpreting songs is very tricky anyway, even without the language barrier. Some say all songs are about drugs, other say they are all about your inner Jebeebus !
    I don’t think “Rocking in the free world” is as ironic as you think, if that’s what you’re saying.
    “There’s a lot of people sayin’
    we’d be better off dead
    Don’t feel like Satan,
    but I am to them”
    If this is ironic, then he thinks he really is Satan and is better off dead !
    In which case I underestimated the left’s self-hatred.
    Wiki says :
    “Rockin’ in the Free World”, despite lyrics critical of the then-new George H. W. Bush administration (“we got a thousand points of light”; “kinder, gentler machine gun hand”), became the de facto anthem of the collapse of communism (specifically the Fall of the Berlin Wall which occurred a month into the album’s release) because of its repeated chorus of ‘Keep on Rockin’ in the Free World’.

  141. Boys are drugged in schools and aren’t even allowed to play tag…enter school shootings.

    What’s most amazing (downright frightening) about this is that many “teachers”, even today, can read the RSM and nod their heads in agreement.

  142. Hm, you seem to have reversed the meanings of both songs… sailed right over your head, didn’t it? Irony is not intended for Last Men, and never was. (I know this since you seem to misunderstand a good bit of what I say too.)

    Whatever… I am sure you know far more about Neil Young than I do, since you know everything. Which books about him and his work are your favorites? What did you think of “Journey through the Past” (film, not record). Now there is a conversation I enjoy having.

    You don’t seem to be getting it: I am not interested in arguing with you, since you obviously already know everything. I am interested in talking to people who admit they DON’T know all the answers and are seeking to find them, like me. If I wanted the certainty, arrogance and smugness of priests, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, I would have stayed in the Church. The Church really DOES have all the answers, and an excellent social network besides. (They’ve been doing the “arrogant, smug-certainty thing” a lot longer than you, and lots better. Also, colorful vestments and nice old buildings.)

    Not interested in the haughty goading you are trafficking in; there is something nasty and mocking in your tone. Oh wait, here it is, Nietzsche again: “There is ice in their laughter”…

  143. My cat, I think the mass-drugging of boys is something the men’s movement should really latch on to and loudly agitate about… it would also reach a lot of women worried about their sons, who don’t want to drug them. Of course, BigPharma would bring out the big guns.. (I envision Dr Oz and his henchmen giving non-stop TV teach-ins about ADHD and what-all, to keep the suburban moms in the fold. Let the propaganda wars begin!)

    It is certainly an outrage!

  144. Hi Daisy.

    RSM -”Red Stockings Manifesto”

    Just for fun, lol

    Acronym Definition
    RSM Rotterdam School of Management
    RSM Royal Society of Medicine
    RSM Regional Sales Manager
    RSM Sisters of Mercy (religious order)
    RSM Response Surface Methodology
    RSM Regimental Sergeant Major (British, Canadian)
    RSM Removable Storage Manager (Microsoft Windows)
    RSM Rational Software Modeler (IBM)
    RSM Regional Spectral Model
    RSM Retail Sales Merchandiser (retail job title)
    RSM Route Switch Module (Cisco)
    RSM Response Surface Method
    RSM Regional Sediment Management (US Army Corps of Engineers)
    RSM Renault Samsung Motors (South Korean automobile manufacturer)
    RSM Republic of San Marino (ISO Country Identifier)
    RSM Removable Storage Management (Highground Systems)
    RSM Reynolds Stress Model
    RSM Royal School of Mines (UK)
    RSM Remote Switching Module
    RSM Radio Squadron Mobile (US Air Force)
    RSM Regional Simulation Model (South Florida Water Management District)
    RSM Real-time Session Manager (Nextone)
    RSM Reciprocal Space Mapping
    RSM Remote Systems Management
    RSM Remote System Manager
    RSM Repair Station Manual
    RSM Replication Server Manager (Sybase)
    RSM Rancho Santa Margarita Intermediate School (California)
    RSM Radioactive Scrap Metal
    RSM Réseaux, Sécurité et Multimédia (French: Networks, Security and Multimedia)
    RSM Road Sign Math (driving game)
    RSM Remote Service Module (Nortel)
    RSM Real Storage Management (IBM)
    RSM Rugby Saint Maximinois (French rugby school)
    RSM Response Service Message (FIPS)
    RSM Red de Solidaridad con México
    RSM Renegade Slash Militia
    RSM Rosettanet Standards Methodology
    RSM Reuse Strategy Model
    RSM Route Set Test Message (CCS #7 ITU-T)
    RSM Reduction Symmetry Method
    RSM Requirements Spiral Model
    RSM Receive Signal Module (Ciena)
    RSM Random Signal Mapper
    RSM Reserve Staffing Model
    RSM Receive Slot Mask (Register)
    RSM Remote Site Module
    RSM Residual Supplies Model
    RSM Radio Soult Ménager (French construction company)
    RSM Recreation Sports Management
    RSM Rancho Santa Margarita (California)
    RSM Restricted Senior Management
    RSM RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) Storage Manager (Dell)
    RSM Radio Spectrum Management

  145. “You don’t seem to be getting it: I am not interested in arguing with you, since you obviously already know everything. ”

    Stop asking me questions then, woman. Go talk to nice girls(tm) who want to learn about how they are oppressed.

    “Irony is not intended for Last Men, and never was.

    There is something nasty and mocking in your tone.”

    Oh really ? Something approaching, hum-hum, IRONY ? Keep bringing on my mean character when you get cornered. It’s working, honest.
    Irony is this funny thing, see ? Sometimes, you say something ironically, it turns out to be true and you look like a jerk.
    Like when a singer-songwriter does an oh-so-clever biting criticism of capitalism, and it turns into a “de facto anthem of the collapse of communism because of its repeated chorus of ‘Keep on Rockin’ in the Free World’”.

    Love your Nietzsche quotes. God, is this Last Man cool or what ?

    Peace out.

  146. Alright you’ve maxed my tolerance out, knock it off, both of you.

    All pissing matches do is cover everything with piss.

  147. Jacksam: Keep bringing on my mean character when you get cornered.

    Mean? Who said you were mean? Adolescent snottiness is not mean. Bikers, cowboys, mafioso, rednecks, gangstas and Airborne Rangers are MEAN.

    The French are not mean, which is why we had to bail your sorry asses out of two world wars. You’re welcome. (Although admittedly, your posturing IS rather cute, like a toddler dressed up as a cowboy for Halloween.) Run along now, hon. I am interested in arguing with the big kids.

    My Cat: Sisters of Mercy! :)

    I linked that song by Leonard Cohen here:
    http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2009/01/leonard-cohens-songs-in-mccabe-and-mrs.html

    So beautiful! Also, the movie “McCabe and Mrs Miller” is great great great and you guys should all see it. Warning: you might sob your heart out.

  148. After this post all comments involving off topic insults will be deleted. Daisy, the reason why your comment got strike through treatment, is because it was posted after my warning. If either you or Jacksom post insults again, I’ll be deleting posts.

    Argue people’s ideas, not their nationalities, genders, argument tone, etc.

  149. @Typhonblue
    “Each blogger has complete power in moderating their own posts.
    Ginkgo’s moderation policies:
    No moderation policies yet, sorry! ”

    How is the price of tea in China relevant to you ?

  150. Hey what the heck TB there was no insult in that comment.
    Shouldn’t the comment policy say “each blogger has complete power in moderating the other two blogger’s posts” ?

  151. I’ll let your posts through in order to answer your question.

    The moderation policy at this blog is the business of the moderators.

    If Jim gets P’O'd at me over how I’ve dealt with this matter on his thread, then that is _our_ business and we will deal with it as such.

    His decision will be the final word on the matter. In the interim, while he’s otherwise occupied, you deal with me.

    Now, knock it off.

  152. TB, if you would rather not answer this, I understand, but I’d really like to know if you thought Cameron Crowe was raped in that clip I posted over at NSWATM? Just curious. Trying to get a feel for everyone’s sensibility. (If you haven’t been following the foofaraw, never mind.)

    I am still in shock over that thread. I think that had to happen to me *personally*, to get totally get it.

    Still stunned, actually… and the tectonic plates have shifted in my leetle haid.

  153. Post a link to it here and I’ll take a look.

    Going to NSWATM is iffy for me on a good day.

  154. “The moderation policy at this blog is the business of the moderators.”

    Thanks for answering.

    Jacksam said : “Hey what the heck TB there was no insult in that comment.”

    My “last comment” I referred to was :

    @Typhonblue
    “Each blogger has complete power in moderating their own posts.
    Ginkgo’s moderation policies:
    No moderation policies yet, sorry! ”

    How is the price of tea in China relevant to you ?

  155. Oh but there’s lesbian kissing! That makes it all better.

    Yes, it’s rape. The kid says no, protests, and only stops protesting when he’s demoralized by the girl he likes leaving him to his fate.

    It would never fly the other way around, IMHO. It’d be some sort of horrific gang-rape and the boy who abandoned the girl to it would be seen as scum.

    The only reason it isn’t is because of our essentialist attitudes towards the value of male/female sexuality.

  156. Yes, it’s rape. The kid says no, protests, and only stops protesting when he’s demoralized by the girl he likes leaving him to his fate.

    It would never fly the other way around, IMHO. It’d be some sort of horrific gang-rape and the boy who abandoned the girl to it would be seen as scum.

    Rape by feminism’s standards, on that we all agree. But are those standards valid ?
    Do those “gang-enveloping” women deserve to go to prison for five years ?
    He’s demoralized by his girl leaving, so he doesn’t put up much of a fight.
    IMO, you can’t claim coercion if you don’t fight it enough. It’s harsh, because it amounts to :”Come with a black eye or don’t bother reporting rape”, but I see no way around it. Imprisoning “kinda innocent” people strikes me as worse, whether they are male or female.

    “the more laws and orders are written, the more thieves there are”.

  157. @ Jacksam

    I’m not proposing to change the definition of rape or to change the evidentiary standards in rape trials. If I was I would propose to increase them to be in line with other crimes as I don’t believe rape should be treated a ‘special crime’.

    But what happened to that boy looked like rape to me. He protested and they did not stop at his protests. He may have been afraid to violate a fundamental taboo of our society–hitting women–which explains his relative lack of physical resistance.

    Quite honestly, in a society where a group of people is subject to a taboo–reinforced socially and legally–that they never, ever hit another group of people, I think their lack of physical resistance when dealing with the aggressive actions of the ‘protected’ group should be judged in that light.

    Unfortunately this scenario would result in an impossible ‘he said, she said’ trial and too much possibility of injustice.

  158. “If Jim gets P’O’d at me over how I’ve dealt with this matter on his thread, then that is _our_ business and we will deal with it as such.
    His decision will be the final word on the matter. In the interim, while he’s otherwise occupied, you deal with me. ”

    Trust me, Jacksam and Daisy, I will be nothing but grateful to Typhonblue for tending my thread while I wasn’t. If she deletes posts, they stay deleted and I thank her for taking the trouble. It’s called elegation of authority.

    And thank you, Typhon.

    Besides, the whole conversation is a massive derailment.

    “Your primal, leftwing “I refuse-to-judge-primitive-cultures”-stance changed to a “Fine-but-you-can’t-make-me-enjoy-it”-stance. Progress.”

    The leftwing is as prissy and judgemental as you can get. Try again.

    That particular type of moralizing always reduces to a priori dogmas. It is the sort of thing useless old women sit around dooing to ame themselves feel superior.

    And jacksam, please show me where I ever said anything resembling “I refuse-to-judge-primitive-cultures”. I judge all cultures but not by some artificial moral standard. I judge them on how well they stand up to outside invasion, by hwo much and how fast they spread , in other words by how attractive they are and how readily outsiders adopt them – concrete, objective standards.

  159. Daisy: I am indeed familiar with the Neil Young song in question. I would consider Vollman’s exhaustive analysis to be the ultimate antithesis and counterpoint to Young’s fairy tale narrative of a pre-colonial paradise (great song, though). Vollman ultimately concluded, looking at the facts, that Cortez and Montezuma were both horrible people who oppressed and murdered those under their rule to the best of their abilities. I am inclined to agree with him and I think his slightly mad detachment is something we should all endeavor to emulate in discussing similarly sensitive issues.

  160. @ Ginkgo
    “If she deletes posts, they stay deleted and I thank her for taking the trouble.”

    In the end, she let them through, so, fine. I guess I misread the moderation policy.

    “Besides, the whole conversation is a massive derailment.”

    Still quoting the comments policy : I think so-called “derailing” can actually be really productive. Going off on tangents not directly related to the OP can lead to interesting discussions and insights.
    Me too. I think arguing specific points is often counterproductive, because the commenters have different values, ideals and ideological backgrounds. Going back to those ur-positions often helps to understand the other person’s POV(or why the commenters could never ever reach an agreement).
    As to the snark, I use it as a tool to bypass the mask of politeness and get at those ur-positions quicker (OK fine, I also enjoy it ).
    In your own words, I believe you and TB are being prissy. You’re not beating any records in the gendersphere (understatement of the year, I recognize that), but still. Daisy and me’s conversation was dying out anyway. Needless use of force on your part.

    “I judge all cultures but not by some artificial moral standard.”

    The ugly head of relativism. Moral standards are not “artificial”. You really don’t want to talk about it, do you, Ginkgo ?
    So be it.

    @Hiding
    “I would consider Vollman’s exhaustive analysis to be the ultimate antithesis and counterpoint to Young’s fairy tale narrative of a pre-colonial paradise (great song, though). Vollman ultimately concluded, looking at the facts, that Cortez and Montezuma were both horrible people who oppressed and murdered those under their rule to the best of their abilities. I am inclined to agree with him and I think his slightly mad detachment is something we should all endeavor to emulate in discussing similarly sensitive issues.”

    Careful, you’re being a racist scumbag. Carry on, friend.

  161. TB: Oh but there’s lesbian kissing! That makes it all better.

    You bet it does. (We need boy-kissing to complete the picture, but I’ll settle for just one).

    Okay, that is all I wanted to know. Surprised, but not really. You are as pro-men as these Blogdonia-feminists are pro-women. Not objective, in other words. Oh well, I had hope for a second there.

    (scratches another one off the list)

    Jacksam, we may disagree on much, but I am impressed you don’t buy the bullshit. Maybe our hope IS with the Last Men. Damn, the ghost of Nietzsche is now angry with me.

    Off to re-evaluate my theory, yet again.

    Rape by feminism’s standards, on that we all agree.

    I don’t agree at all… rape by precious-princess THIRD WAVE FEMINIST standards. Cameron Crowe is now married to an older (feminist) rock star, and apparently the scene was okay with her.

    But are those standards valid ? Do those “gang-enveloping” women deserve to go to prison for five years ?

    The world has gone insane, Jacksam. Maybe I should move to France with R Crumb.

    “the more laws and orders are written, the more thieves there are”.

    Amen. And as one of my mentors, Dana Beal, used to say: “..and fascists smile”…

    I am considering taking the word FEMINIST off my biography so as not to be confused with anything remotely puritanical. I probably won’t, but I never would have believed I would even be considering it. TB, this is your inspiration, since you sound exactly like that herd of independent feminist minds over at NSWATM.

    Thanks again Jacksam, and BTW, I am not totally down on France: I love Sartre and de Beauvoir, who would look at that clip and say the kid had a real good time.

    I think the French also invented that nice word LIBERTINE. ;)

    Oh and TB–

    It would never fly the other way around, IMHO

    As I wrote previously in this thread, I have been in identical situations, and I ALSO had a real good time…. w/boys and girls and everybody else. As the movie accurately reminds us, the 70s really were like that. Sometimes no really is NOT no, and is part of playing around.

    I am grateful I have not grown up in a time of increasing fascism; the state entering and policing the realms of intimacy. Giving thanks to the Buddha for current incarnation.

    *bows and exits thread*

  162. @Daisy

    Quick to bury the hatchet, I see. Last Men never fight more than they have to.

    *Smokes peace pipe, smiling*

  163. @ Daisy

    “As I wrote previously in this thread, I have been in identical situations, and I ALSO had a real good time….”

    But did you spend time explaining to your partner that you wanted to ‘slow down’ and do normal courtship stuff, suggesting that, on a fundamental level, you weren’t into ‘the scene’?

    It’s more then just his initial reticence, it’s also that he expressed a very different viewpoint on how relationships should progress. He was bothered by her _peeing_ in front of him for god’s sake. And then he jumps to group sex?

    If it’s not rape, it’s extremely bad characterization.

    “You are as pro-men as these Blogdonia-feminists are pro-women. ”

    How can it be pro-man if I think the opposite scenario is rape too? If a woman was accosted by a bunch of men, protested, and then they went through with it anyway (fade to black), I would be equally bothered by that.

    Again I don’t think it’s something that can be prosecuted, being in a grey area, but it is sexual bullying at the very least.

  164. @ Jacksam

    “In your own words, I believe you and TB are being prissy.”

    If two people start fighting in your front yard and you demand that they stop, that’s not being ‘prissy.’ That’s having boundaries.

    This is not a democracy nor is it a public space. You are here because we allow you to be here. And while you are here, as our guest–in a space that exists because I paid for it, Xakudo set it up and Gingko helps to maintain–you will follow our desired guidelines for your behaviour.

    Also this directed towards ‘Hiding’:

    “Careful, you’re being a racist scumbag.”

    Is not cool. How can he be a racist scumbag when he’s implicated a _behavior_ and not a race. (Last time I checked Montezuma and Cortez did not share a race.)

  165. @Typhonblue

    Also this directed towards ‘Hiding’:

    “Careful, you’re being a racist scumbag.”

    Is not cool. How can he be a racist scumbag when he’s implicated a _behavior_ and not a race. (Last time I checked Montezuma and Cortez did not share a race.)

    I was being ironic. I was mocking Daisy’s(and the Left in general) constant accusations of racism when one points to the moral failings of primitive cultures.
    I happen to agree 100% with what Hiding said and don’t think he is in any way racist. Failed communication on my part.

    You are here because we allow you to be here.

    I wasn’t questioning your authority, merely criticizing your actions. Obviously, this is your house, you do as you please. If asked to leave, I will do so without blinking, whatever the reason. I also have no problem respecting guidelines, as long as I know what they are.

    If two people start fighting in your front yard and you demand that they stop, that’s not being ‘prissy.’ That’s having boundaries.

    Your boundaries are prissy. That’s just my opinion, not a declaration of war against the rules.
    Is there a guideline against criticizing the (improvized-on-the-spot) guidelines ? If there is, I’ll respect it, cos I like this blog.

  166. @ Jacksam

    “Your boundaries are prissy.”

    My boundaries have nothing to do with prissiness. I don’t want this space used for the emotional gratification of other people. If you want to post, you contribute something substantive, otherwise you’re effectively spam. (Whether or not you’re using this space to engage in emotional or financial self-gratification is irrelevant to me.)

    “Is there a guideline against criticizing the (improvized-on-the-spot) guidelines ? If there is, I’ll respect it, cos I like this blog.”

    I haven’t deleted your posts and I am engaging them. As for the guidelines being ‘improvised-on-the-spot’… the best way to answer this is that I had a good idea Gingko would not want his thread hijacked by spam before I stepped in.

    “I also have no problem respecting guidelines, as long as I know what they are.”

    Well now you know. And I’ll tell you now there is going to be a certain amount of arbitrariness to how the guidelines are applied.

    However, in general, on this blog the way to stay on the side of not-getting-moderated is to post substantive comments.

    Content will not be censored but posting for the sake of self-wankery will.

  167. @Typhonblue
    Wow. Power does corrupt. There was nothing aggressive in my 12:45 comment.
    Fine, I won’t criticize you again in any way.

  168. TB: If a woman was accosted by a bunch of men,

    I guess I don’t see a fun frolic as “accosted” and I am amazed that anyone would.

    According to this formulation, not only did I rape men several times, they raped me too. And no, they didn’t and I didn’t. I am amazed it is even open to discussion at all, TB. Utterly and completely dumbfounded that there is even a question.

    And my sensibility does not evaporate just because you and Ozy decree it should. My life does not instantly disappear when I am informed how politically incorrect it was.

  169. @ Daisy

    ” I am amazed it is even open to discussion at all, TB.”

    People have very different reactions to these kinds of situations, Daisy. Again, it seems untenable, to me, that the kid flipped from ‘I’m uncomfortable seeing you partially naked’ to ‘YAYSGROUPSEXXORS!’ in a matter of a couple seconds.

    Either it was forced sex or extremely bad writing.

    Was that the kind of situation you say you were in? You were initially uncomfortable with even just _partial_ nudity and managed to do a 180 flip in your values in the space of a couple seconds?

    There wasn’t even any real seduction (unless you count the lesbian kiss) just:
    ‘I’m uncomfortable with your nudity.’
    Ten seconds later.
    ‘WE’RE FUCKING YOU NOW REGARDLESS OF YOUR PROTESTS!’

    Was there any indication he even _changed his mind_?

  170. Either it was forced sex or extremely bad writing.

    Got an Oscar for Best Screenplay that year.

    Was that the kind of situation you say you were in? You were initially uncomfortable with even just _partial_ nudity and managed to do a 180 flip in your values in the space of a couple seconds?

    Yes, it is AMAZING what that little cocoa leaf can do, once its processed. That Bolivian marching powder, as we used to call it, goes STRAIGHT to your HEAD. Zoooom!

    I’m afraid so. I was a real floozy in the 70s.

    That means, I was not raped, I was a floozy. I take full responsibility. So does Cameron Crowe, who initially claimed the story was true and was the story of his own deflowering… although Tamen thinks it was hype to sell the movie, which I suppose is possible.

    Are men now responsible for rape if a woman just SITS THERE, as he did?

    Because if its come to that, sign me up for the men’s movement.

    I’m very serious.

  171. Sorry TB–that probably belongs on the rape thread, if you move it, fine with me.

    Just wanted people to know, and wanted Jacksam to see what happens to innocent black men in South Carolina.

  172. @ Daisy

    “Got an Oscar for Best Screenplay that year.”

    Crap gets Oscars all the time.

    “That means, I was not raped, I was a floozy. I take full responsibility.”

    And that’s fine, for you. If you felt you consented even under the influence, then you consented.

    I have read people who have had black out drunk, incapacitated sex and still were happy about it, male and female. By any definition someone having sex with you when you are unable to say no is rape. But people _still_ react differently.

    What I saw was an improbable reversal in values (absent intoxication or seduction) that occurred within seconds. If there had been one scene in which he looked like he had stopped protesting and started engaging positively with the girls I wouldn’t call it rape.

    As it was he just looked like the only reason he stopped protesting(maybe) was because he felt defeated. And I’m not even sure he stopped protesting.

    “Are men now responsible for rape if a woman just SITS THERE, as he did?”

    No, Daisy. Like I’ve said multiple times, I would not support someone charging someone else with rape based on this scenario as it’s too fraught with potential for miscarriage of justice.

    But I consider it rape, and I would support someone else saying that they had been raped in this way.

    Again I would not support someone being charged with rape in this scenario.

  173. @Typhonblue (The Commenter)

    But I consider it rape, and I would support someone else saying that they had been raped in this way.

    Again I would not support someone being charged with rape in this scenario.

    Why call it rape if you don’t think the “rapists” are guilty of rape ? What is this ? A “perpetrator-less” crime ?
    You seem to have internalized feminism’s standards, especially their staunch refusal to ever say to a “victim” (except males in feminism’s case, but different story) : “You weren’t raped”.
    Not everything is rape, IMHO. A person pulling a gun on you to have sex with you, rapes you. A person tying you up(unwillingly) to have sex with you, rapes you. A person who ignores the fact that you’re not “engaging positively” while he/she takes your clothes off to have sex with you, does NOT rape you.
    (@Daisy : Does this remind you of what I said about racism ? Freedom tastes sweet. Take a bite. Welcome to the Dark Side, sister !)
    The definition of what constitutes rape keeps growing and growing, and that process is at least partly disconnected from feminism’s hypocrisy and attempts at special treatment for women. It is Puritanism, I agree with Daisy.
    They won’t stop until all sex is rape. “Women as a group are not strong enough to give meaningful consent…”, “Rape Culture…”, “Sex is about Power…” etc, etc…. so they already have some great “pro-women” rationalizations for their Puritanism.
    You are actually buying the stuff, despite recognizing the flaws in the ads.

    N.B. : This is not in any way a criticism of “TB (The Mod)”, who I’m sure can take light criticism without overreacting, although I haven’t seen it.

  174. A person who ignores the fact that you’re not “engaging positively” while he/she takes your clothes off to have sex with you, does NOT rape you.

    This.

    Yes.

    Thanks for the welcome to the dark side, Jacksam. ;) I have gotten a few such welcomes, from some surprising corners of Blogdonia.

  175. Daisy searches her admittedly spotty, dusty memory banks… comes up with THIS dopey TV movie from 28 years ago:

    When She Says No
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088394/

    This seems to be the template. I remember laughing my ass off, but I guess lots of people took the idea seriously, that sweetly and softly saying “no” and *doing absolutely nothing else* to convey a no, therefore means no. Kathleen Quinlan is guided into various bedrooms, zombielike and hypnotized (as by vampires) and is unable to draw back and say, wait, what? She just says no (one time). The end. I remember thinking, well, nobody will pay any attention to THAT, although I remember being alarmed at the time that the definition of rape was being fudged, at a time that violent rape, rape of sex workers, etc was still minimized and even ignored by the law.

    I was wrong. The movie definition is now what rape means. As I said, this makes me a rapist and apparently, I was raped several times as well, and even didn’t realize it. (NOTE: many of us were TAUGHT to say no, as a sort of polite foreplay. Ask your mothers.)

    A definitive, stern, “I said no!” has always served me well. Running out of the room or the house (even naked, or especially, naked) is also plenty effective, as little Cameron Crowe could have done. Is it supposed to be understood that women are too delicate to do/say this, or “shouldn’t have to”? Why?

    And now, this preciousness and delicacy has been transferred to men. I find it pernicious regardless of which gender it is, and puritanical nonsense in the extreme.

    I think I understand the (angry) confusion over Elevatorgate now, although it has taken me all this time to get a complete picture.

  176. “I also have no problem respecting guidelines, as long as I know what they are.”

    Here’s one for you: You don’t “ironically” call someone a racist in America – I’m an American so this is an American thread – the same way you don’t “ironically” call someone a Nazi in Germany. The same thing goes for taunts about the KKK and such, for the same reason. As with accusing someone of being a Nazi, the situation gets very serious immediately. Sorry if you needed a rule like that made explicit, but it’s really not something I could have forseen.

    Daisy’s comment concerning the innocent man finally freed is an example of why this issue is nothing to joke about. Hallelujah Daisy, by the way.

    On the substantive side I agree fully with your impatience with easy, sleazy
    accusations of racism. They have become so laughable that they are standard butt of jokes for black comedians. And this has been going on for years, come to think of it.

    And I also am very tired of the tired Third World apologism that so often spatters conversations like these. I don’t happen to think that Abrahamic morality is a very good basis for criticizing cultures because I happen to think Abrahamic morality is a moral disaster. But there is a pretty simple and invariant standard.

  177. RocketFrog has just been banned from NSWATM for “misandry”–that is fucked up. Hoping to see him over here, although he may considerate it a hostile space. I hope someone reaches out to him and tells him he is welcome over here and you are not perpetually ban-happy.

    He was basically just repeating the Second Wave line that “men shouldn’t call themselves feminist”–which was standard among the women like his mother, a Second Wave feminist. (I used to say all of that too.) I can’t believe he was banned for that. That is what I mean about ageism. That was once the acceptable and politically correct thing for a man to say! If you don’t know the trendy thing, off with your head.

    Everyone knows his mental issues and the fact that his mother was a mean Second Waver who took it out on her son… you’d think they’d cut him some slack. Or maybe they think they HAVE cut him slack, I dunno. (sigh)

    Jesus H, people. Whatever happened to GLASNOST? (LOL)

  178. Oh that’s just the best way I can think of to deal with a man who is wallowing in self-destructive misandry. Can you think of a better one?

    That’s so inhuman that really words fail me at the moment. Poor, poor guy. Well he still has FC and he is finding a much better welcome there. If you run across him invite him over too, if you would.

  179. I know. Not good. :( He will take this in a self-hating manner.

    TB, not ignoring your replies, but have read your comments at Feminist Critics, about “promiscuity”–a word I even have trouble typing. I consider the term itself to be total bullshit and a result of religious zealotry, and actually agreed with Dungone in the thread (gasp), which is DAMNED ALARMING… but exactly the kind of thing I am going through lately, agreeing with people whom I know don’t even like me! Yigh!!!

    I realize I have misunderstood your views, and it is likely you are far more conservative regarding sexual behavior than I had initially believed you were. In that light, I see why you thought the scene was rape, or bullying, or force or whatever. We are coming from opposite value systems. I think being sexually open and a “libertine” is perfectly fine, and just as good as monogamy or polyamory. And I see now that you actually consider such people somehow damaged? (Or rather, you think that sleeping-around “isn’t good”– in any event?) I am surprised you hold this traditionally-feminine view (no offense, but it is)… then again, all kinds of things are shocking me these days.

    I think the couple-system needs to be abolished as an ideal (not as an option, of course). It has damaged friendship and community. It isn’t good. If it was, wouldn’t be a sacrament. :D

    The world has been turned upside down, Bizarro World.

  180. DDH,. I think TB is talking mainly about her own experience of trying to play around and about how it left her totally cold to it. I don’t know if she is really generalizing beyond that. It doesn’t sound like it’s motivated by sexual conservatism. We were not all enculturated by sex-negative dominatrixes in penguin suits!

  181. I can’t find the thread where RF was banned. I would like to look that part over. Just for my own satisfaction.

  182. Gingko, don’t you think there is a cognitive dissonance created by two things you said ?

    1)”You don’t “ironically” call someone a racist in America”
    2)”On the substantive side I agree fully with your impatience with easy, sleazy
    accusations of racism. They have become so LAUGHABLE*emphasis mine* that they are standard butt of jokes for black comedians. And this has been going on for years, come to think of it.”

    If you can’t laugh about it, how will you get rid of those absurd accusations ? Direct criticism (i.e, “Hey, I don’t think that guy is racist/sexist/ableist/whateverist ) will just get you lumped in with the poor soul. That’s just my take on it, as a dyed-in-the-wool freedom of speech supporter. Didn’t someone say : “Irony is the last tool of the underdog”(Paraphrase) .
    Those laughable accusations are protected by the taboo against laughing at them ! Tell me that doesn’t make a bit of sense to you… I must be crazy to think of something so simple to understand ??!!!

    “And I also am very tired of the tired Third World apologism that so often spatters conversations like these. I don’t happen to think that Abrahamic morality is a very good basis for criticizing cultures because I happen to think Abrahamic morality is a moral disaster. But there is a pretty simple and invariant standard.”

    I have no sympathy for religion and its massively outdated and dangerous message, so we agree on our moral judgment of abrahamic religion. Notice that we ARE making a judgment, despite not being old ladies (referring to one of your comments, not to Daisy ;) .
    I was thinking of “human rights” and such. But I agree it has the disadvantage of not being set in stone. Very, very small price to pay if you ask me.

  183. For Pete’s sake, RocketFrog’s most conspicuous expressions of misandry at that site were just moderately amplified reiterations of what the blog itself was saying, primarily in Noah Brand’s posts. It’s the natural result of the “Nice Guy TM” discourse’s demonization of shy, socially unskilled, unmasculine, and/or nonneurotypical men being internalized by one of its victims. And now they’re banning him for misandrist comments? Christ, it’s like flogging a man and then getting angry at him because there’s blood spattered on your nice floor.

    I see so much of myself in that man. I hope his conversation with Daran helps him.

  184. John: Christ, it’s like flogging a man and then getting angry at him because there’s blood spattered on your nice floor.

    Totally agree. Glad I wasn’t the only who saw it that way.

  185. “If you can’t laugh about it, how will you get rid of those absurd accusations ?”

    Treu, true, but it’s a touchy business. as i said black comdians have been at it, initially with black audiences, so it is gaining ground.

    “For Pete’s sake, RocketFrog’s most conspicuous expressions of misandry at that site were just moderately amplified reiterations of what the blog itself was saying, primarily in Noah Brand’s posts.”

    Exactly. So now you see why Noah had to ban him? RF was just a wee bit too explicit and blatant with that same shit. That is one cat that is going to stay in the bag over there. I wasn’t the only trying to get seem clarity on that issue, but we have all given up. It’s “moby dicking”.

  186. @DDH:

    RocketFrog has just been banned from NSWATM for “misandry”–that is fucked up. Hoping to see him over here, although he may considerate it a hostile space. I hope someone reaches out to him and tells him he is welcome over here and you are not perpetually ban-happy.

    Yeah, if you see him around, invite him over. He reminds me somewhat of myself when I was dating my radfem ex. Lots of self-hate, twisted up inside in knots. Knowing something isn’t right, but not being able to identify what. Severe cognitive dissonance, thanks to actively suppressing my own thoughts on gender issues (because, you know, disagreeing would have made me a bad person). Nearly constant low-level stress and anxiety.

    I should write a post about that at some point. Maybe guys like RF would find it helpful.

  187. To tell you the truth, I’d been considering a bit of my past and discovering another layer.

    Shame.

    I think RocketFrog’s rantings sort of influenced this self-discovery. It’s the true source of why I have a problem with “Male Priveledge”

    Because it ties in to these feelings of self-blame for what those girls and women did to me as a youth. “What did I do to deserve their hurt?”, “If only I supported female role models in media then I wouldn’t have been made a target”, etc.

    Damn, these feelings make me sound like RocketFrog. Uncanny.

  188. Gingko:

    The comment in question was posted and available for at least several hours ( I have a screenshot) on February 22, at 2:39 pm. It’s not a matter of it not posting, it posted and was removed.

  189. We think you’re right and that it got dumped by mistake with a load of the spam we have been getting. Since you have a screenshot, please repost it. Sorry for the mistake and we’ll work at avoiding a recurrence.

    @Eagle
    “Because it ties in to these feelings of self-blame for what those girls and women did to me as a youth. “What did I do to deserve their hurt?”, “

    That is the most commn response to abuse. It is really, really common for abused children to try to find some way to blame themselves since they can’t afford to blame their abusers. It’s a simple and predictable and dysfunctional accomodation to a dysfunctional situation. In a situation like yours, since you can’t change thier behavior that only leaves your own to examine. It’s logical, but not productive.

  190. Fair enough, Jim.
    I suppose I’ll have to retype it, but at least I don’t have to research it again.
    It was rather long.

  191. Ginko: “That is the most commn response to abuse. It is really, really common for abused children to try to find some way to blame themselves since they can’t afford to blame their abusers. It’s a simple and predictable and dysfunctional accomodation to a dysfunctional situation. In a situation like yours, since you can’t change thier behavior that only leaves your own to examine. It’s logical, but not productive.”

    Sadly, Ginko, I live in a world where girls bullying boys is hardly acknowledged or at worst, minimised.

    No articles on the subject, no discussions. It’s always boys bullying boys, boys bullying girls, girls bullying girls.

    I pracitcally had to write one myself because no one else bothered. And even then, it’s one article in a sea of “Majority”.

    Not to mention how certain feminists kept telling me I’m a white male who benefits from priveledge and oppressions of women, in addition to them telling me that my pain doesn’t matter compared to what women go through.

    So you look at these factors and then you realize how easy it is to feel ashamed sometimes. If no one is talking about, if no one wants to acknowledge it, then its obvious you’re not welcome and are to blame. Well, that’s what society says when there’s hardly anything on the subject.

  192. Just caught up with elements of this thread. RocketFrog’s position ties in with my emerging thoughts about male approval-seeking behaviour towards women. RocketFrog feels he needs the approval of women, so he tries to be a feminist. The feminists he approaches, who are bullies, won’t let him, knowing he’ll try even harder to gain their approval. He starts preaching their right to not let him at NSWATM, and they ban him. The more he abases himself to feminists, the worse they treat him. I hope to god he can come to the realisation that women are only human, they don’t automatically have any more insight into the human condition because they’re women, they have no right to judge him without walking a mile in his shoes, and he doesn’t need their approval, before he has some kind of a breakdown.

  193. He’s over at Feminist Critics right now, Patrick.
    That should be a safer environment for him. Hopefully.

  194. “I suppose I’ll have to retype it, but at least I don’t have to research it again.
    It was rather long.”

    So not only do I regret deleting the original post, now I regret the extra work you’ll be doing.

    Eagle, the silence over girls bullying boys is an example of the female sentencing discount. And the female sentencing discount comes out of the designated victim status of females, which in turn arises out of chivalary 2.0. Post pending.

    And Patrick, you have outlined a very basic dynamic in gender relations. It is foundational ot gynonormativity.

  195. Patrick Brown: “I hope to god he can come to the realisation that women are only human, they don’t automatically have any more insight into the human condition because they’re women, ”

    This right there is the reason why I get in a tizzy whenever people talk of women as if they’re the answer to all life’s problems, that they’re better than men at things while women’s rights are placed on a pedestal as men’s rights fester and rot below them.

    I never thought women or girls were perfect even though I, at times, gravitated to them a little more which ended up costing me dearly in the end when they exposed their dark sides.

    Back when I was young (this has been posted in Feminist Critics so I’ll present a variation here) in the dark ages of support for autistic people, men weren’t the only ones who treated me badly. Women, even professional women at the top levels, did their fair share of damage. Plenty of mothers got it WAY wrong. Yeah, they tried but so did the fathers. Yet you don’t see the level of empathy afforded them compared to the mothers.

    Boys weren’t the only ones that bullied and ostracised me. Girls dipped their hands in the cookie jar as well for mental torture.

    So whenever I hear of women being better than men at human compassion, child care, supports or whatever, I just want to take that person by their scrawny neck, slam them against the wall and shake until their bones grind to dust.

    Men and women blew it back then when understanding autistic people like me. Boys and girls tortured me. Both genders had their chance and took a collective piss all over me in equal measure (pardon my language). Believing otherwise is the worst thing you can do.

  196. Gingko: “Eagle, the silence over girls bullying boys is an example of the female sentencing discount. And the female sentencing discount comes out of the designated victim status of females, which in turn arises out of chivalary 2.0.”

    Which is aided and abetted by the more gynocentric strands of feminism.

  197. u are going to re-write the A-Z post, keep in mind, I am not going to respond to all 26 points, but will probably just say snarky redneck things. (Knowhuttamean?)

    So whenever I hear of women being better than men at human compassion, child care, supports or whatever, I just want to take that person by their scrawny neck, slam them against the wall and shake until their bones grind to dust.

    Wow. Is that kind of language countenanced here? (I hope this is not a direct reference to my “shaking” post? If so, its out of line.)

    BTW, the violence in what you say contradicts your whole statement. Reminds me of anti-war “pacifists” who threatened to beat up Republicans.

    There’s no sex in your violence, Eagle.

  198. Sorry, first line is cut off in above post, addressed the first line to Clarence.

    And again, let me emphasize, if Eagle’s comment is a reference to MY post (I just looked it over again and realized that besides ‘shaking’–I also mentioned getting slammed against the wall in comments) — I think it is way out of line.

    Eagle, if you want to fight with me, I’m right here. Passive aggression makes me vomit. Please say exactly what you mean and address me personally. Ain’t skeered. :) I love a good brawl, like any other self-respecting redneck.

    As I wrote and you undoubtedly read, I’ve been slammed against walls by bikers, I can take it.

  199. “Eagle, if you want to fight with me, I’m right here.”

    Again, fights are not allowed here and will be pulled into moderation.

  200. Daisy, nowhere in my comment did I address you. YOU are the one making it about you.

    Please quit tyring to rile me up.

  201. Daisy, I don’t see any reference to anything you said in anything eagle wrote. And his violent language sounds pretty metaphoric to me. Real violent language usually addresses a perosn by name and threatens to come over there blah blah, you’re not safe anywhere…that kind of thing.

    Anyway, he’s really in no position to pose a threat, so be lenient with the boy. And remember my “protection of the house”.

  202. It may interest you all to know that gender roles are alive and well on Mars! Just got back from “John Carter”–hm. Anybody else seen it yet? They have great lipstick on Mars too, but the princesses are updated from Edgar Rice Burroughs and can kick men’s butts in sword fights! As I said, hm.

    Yes, I hear you all loud and clear. I respect bouncers, even did when I was drunk.

  203. Bouncers – yes, Eagle can be counted on to respect this bouncer and you don’t have to worry about self-defense around here.

    It does not surprise me in the least to hear about gender roles in John Carter. That kind of fantasy literature – to include the Franz Fraztta babes – is the male equivalent of bodice rippers.

  204. Pingback: MISANDRY – NALT and NAFALT and how feminists can rebut the charge that they are all man-haters | GendErratic

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>