Gonzo Times does not condone sexism, racism or any other form of hierarchical dominance of people groups. Many of us are anarchists. We promote No Rulers. This would mean no rule of one people group over another.
I would like to have some input here from our readers on how they feel the site should proceed in this matter.
I made a post back in October asking why it seemed our ranks are full of mostly white males. This post was re-posted on international woman’s day on our social media sites. As a response to the backlash here and on other sites I addressed here, asking why the subjects of gender and race were met with such hostility. This went into a debate which seems to have dominated the site lately. I do believe it is an important thing to address. My asking these questions seems to have scratched a surface which brought out much of what I was writing about in the first place. The attitudes towards women specifically have been revealed. This has been productive in one way because the issue was not being discussed and was something many were happy about keeping quiet on.
I have given the writers here liberty to post whatever they wish to write about. This has led to many articles I do not support being posted on the site over the last year or so. I do not wish to remove articles from the site. I do however feel that there is a great injustice we have become a part of. I wish for the site to be a safe place for people of all genders, race and people groups in general. I feel it has not been this. It has become a place where right wing prejudice has been given another voice. Such right wing stances for racial, gender or cultural supremacy has many other places it is given voice. They dominate mainstream media, talk radio and many other sites. Historically such views have dominated culture in general, which is part of the problem I initially addressed.
A dynamic of sexism and a problem of the gender issue has played itself out here on the site. We have seen the few women who have been brave enough to speak out have been met often with verbal attacks. Men who find it difficult to let go of their privileged and power wish to maintain their dominance.
Any action that would be taken to remove content or comments I would not take without one of two things. I would need either a mutually agreed upon outside source of dispute resolution or a general census from all writers and contributors at Gonzo Times. I view this site more as the Commons that Professor Elinor Ostrom speaks of.
I have encouraged some differing views to speak up. I will continue to do so. I will not condone sexism. I find myself at odds with my ethics.
I would like to see the site return to other topics. Some great articles have been over shadowed by this dispute, such as Jehu Eaves Capital, Absolute Over-Accumulation and the Fascist State (Part two).
Should Gonzo Times continue allowing any post regardless of message?
Bishops’ message blunted in NY gay marriage vote
AP Online June 28, 2011 | RACHEL ZOLL NEW YORK (AP) ? New York’s same-sex marriage debate was the toughest test yet for U.S. Roman Catholic bishops and their position that only heterosexuals should wed.
The outcome for the hierarchs was dismal. New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan was criticized ? even by some sympathetic to Catholic teaching ? for comparing the bill to the family policies of China. Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio was even more pointed, publishing photos of three Catholic lawmakers who said they would support the bill on the front of his diocesan newspaper under the headline, “Shame! Shame! Shame!” Yet political observers say Dolan and the church can still have influence on issues like abortion and immigration issues ? but not necessarily on gay marriage, which many rank-and file Catholics support. web site ny gay marriage
“It’s a question of which particular issue and how they weigh in,” said Mark Silk, professor of religion in public life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. “A lot of Catholics really feel the force of the equality argument. People in the church have complicated feelings about this. They have gay relatives.” Catholic leaders say they worked intensively against the bill, but were outspent and outmaneuvered by the other side. Legislators approved the New York bill last Friday and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic who put the force of his office behind the measure, swiftly signed the measure into law.
The bishops and their representatives said they met repeatedly with lawmakers and mobilized a citizen lobbying network of more than 60,000 voters through the New York Catholic Conference, the bishops’ state public policy arm. The Brooklyn diocese organized a rally outside a district office of state Sen. Joseph Addabbo, a Catholic who said he supported the measure because he conducted polls to determine what his constituents wanted.
In March, Dolan and other New York bishops met privately with Cuomo. Dolan’s spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, would not release details of any further conversations between the archbishop and Cuomo. On the Monday before the vote, the bishops made a last-ditch appeal in a conference call to Dean Skelos, leader of the Senate’s Republican majority and an opponent of gay marriage, said Dennis Poust of the Catholic Conference. Skelos was deciding with Republican senators whether to bring the bill to the floor.
Dolan spoke publicly and wrote on his blog about the legislation. But during a critical week ahead of the vote, he was in the Seattle area for a national meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ? Dolan’s first such gathering as the group’s new president. When he returned, he preached on the issue from the pulpit of St. Patrick’s Cathedral at the Father’s Day Sunday Mass.
“We thought we could win and we tried our best,” Poust said. “I’m not sure we worked harder in my time here on defeating a bill as we did on this one, and I’ve been here 10 years.” Church leaders strived to frame the debate in a way that it would not be perceived as only a Catholic issue. However, Catholics are the largest single religious group in the state, comprising about 37 percent of the population, and is the largest religious group in the country. New York Jewish leaders did lobby on the issue, but had strong groups on opposing sides. Liberal Protestant leaders either supported the bill or largely stayed out of the fray.
Paul Moses, a journalism professor at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York who spent more than two decades covering state politics and religion, said the bishops have a harder time making their case because Catholics born after the Second Vatican Council, which modernized the church in the 1960s, tend to evaluate what bishops say through their personal experience. see here ny gay marriage
Moses said the bishops also hurt themselves with some of their rhetoric. A June Quinnipiac University poll found 58 percent of New York voters supported legalization of same-sex marriage ? a figure Moses said had to include a significant number of Catholics given the composition of the state population.
“A pretty good percentage of them decided that same-sex marriage wasn’t going to destroy civilization in the way the bishops made it sound it would,” Moses said. “The bishops are more influential on abortion. That’s an area where more Catholics tend to agree with them.” New York is the sixth ? and by far the most populous ? state to legalize same-sex marriage since Massachusetts led the way, under court order, in 2004. Gay rights advocates are predicting a big boost to their cause nationally. However, observers caution against making sweeping conclusions about whether Catholic bishops and their religious supporters can prevail in other states.
New York bishops are generally more moderate in their approach, which partly explains their strategies in recent months. While Dolan has spoken out forcefully on marriage, abortion and other issues, he has never joined U.S. bishops who have publicly denied Holy Communion to dissenting Catholic lawmakers in their own dioceses. Dolan prefers to maintain a dialogue with the legislators. There is no indication he has changed his position since the vote.
“Dolan’s cachet is as a communicator and evangelist, not necessarily a political heavyweight,” said John Allen, longtime Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, an independent newspaper. “That’s part of the reason most Catholics see him as a reconciler.” DiMarzio also hasn’t instructed clergy in his diocese to deny Communion to any legislator, the bishop’s spokesman said, despite growing pressure for church discipline for Cuomo from some conservative Catholics. But DiMarzio instructed Catholic schools and parishes in his diocese to refuse any honors bestowed by Cuomo or lawmakers who voted to legalize gay marriage. He also told them not to invite any state lawmaker to a parish or school event; it was, DiMarzio said, a protest against the state’s “corrupt political process.” In an op-ed in the New York Daily News, DiMarzio suggested the lesson for bishops may be they should be more aggressive in their advocacy wherever gay marriage is proposed in the future.
“We have in part failed as the proponents of the historical understanding of marriage as that between a man and a woman precisely because we have sought to be sensitive to those who have same-sex attractions,” wrote DiMarzio, who helped draft the U.S. bishops’ national voting guide. “Perhaps we must now speak more forcefully and clearly.” ____ RACHEL ZOLL
Author: PunkJohnnyCash
Visit PunkJohnnyCash's Website -
Email PunkJohnnyCash I am a writer at Gonzo Times. I started the site up some years ago. The site would not be what it is today without my fellow contributors. I read, write and paint. I am the maternal figure in my children's lives. I cook a lot and consider myself a pretty good vegan chef. I am really interested in the history of Anarchism and classical Anarchist writers.
4:30 pm
Jay’s argument can be subject to critical analysis, and so can feminist ideology. I would suggest assuming that misogyny and feminism are two poles of the same thing. I do not know this for sure, but whenever I run into a dispute like this, I try to understand what is common in both perspective — what common assumptions underpin them.
Misogyny is probably the more difficult of the two understand, since it is rarely as pronounced as the form Jay gives it, and thus difficult to examine its features in the kind of detail with which feminism can be examined.
I would suggest that a stateless society would not only subject misogyny to critical analysis, but would also expose feminism as merely an anti-misogynist critique of misogyny from within misogyny. I am not sure — in fact, I am not entirely sure I know what I just said, except this: misogyny itself has poles: male-female, straight-gay, etc.
It is entirely possible to remain within the misogynist paradigm and critique it, not from the point of view of someone outside it, but from the view of the female, the gay within the misogynist relation. To really critique misogyny, one has to critique both of its poles.
4:44 pm
The general point I was making was this: I’m not actually a misogynist, but the knee-jerk reaction of feminists to any critique of feminism is to call the critic a misogynist. I embraced the term for that reason, and also to come up with a catchy title that would draw in traffic.
4:47 pm
I’d actually like to see a critique of the ideas therein beyond “you’re creepy” and “right wing stuff on here makes me uncomfortable.” I had hoped for something of an intellectual give and take, and I wrote the initial post with certain angles explicitly left open for criticism. No one bit on those angles. I don’t know if it was the length or the fact that they didn’t understand what I was writing, but the holes were there to go through. It was actually intended as a satirical inversion of feminism on some levels. I explicitly said that in one of my comments and at the beginning of the second article…but again, no one bit on it.
5:16 pm
I can completely understand what you are trying to do here. Perhaps, the point here is that the misogyny-feminist paradigm is a meta-debate: a debate on the nature of freely expressed human sexuality being carried on within the limits of present sex roles, and focused on whether those roles are natural or socially determined. What we can infer from the the nature of modern society is that there is no human sexuality in present day society, precisely because there is no human being — no author or creator of this sexuality. Instead, what is imagined to be human sexuality are various forms of self-objectification and a general reduction of the individual to a mere means.
6:49 pm
“I’d actually like to see a critique of the ideas therein beyond “you’re creepy” and “right wing stuff on here makes me uncomfortable.”
That’s rich coming from Mr. Creampie.
7:04 pm
Hey, Mike…if you don’t mind, the adults are talking here. Go sit at the kiddie table, and in a few years, maybe you’ll be ready to join our conversation.
5:33 pm
It was the length. I read the first 800 words of every post (not just yours) on this issue so far, and most of them spend the first 400 words in apologetics or ad-hominem; which is not always an intellectually dishonest debate tactic.
So far, no points have been won on either side in my opinion. My personal opinion on the matter shall be opined upon at some later dater perhaps.
We need a point-counterpoint style roundtable on this for GonzoTimes Radio.
6:52 pm
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute. ~Rebecca West
In your Anarcho-Misogynist post the entire foundation for your argument is based on male-centric prejudices. The first prejudice being that of masculine and non-masculine. You seem to have an assumed gender bias on what is prefferably masculine and non-masculine and these girly men are all at church with the women.
Can you define what makes men more or less masculine outside of your culturally influenced biases?
The next fallacy is your arguments for men having no power or say in the reproductive rights of a woman. This overlooks that fact that many women around the world and in the U.S today are forced to carry and raise mens children. Even when a male is present in the home gender roles often lend to the woman in the mindless task of chasing around children and wiping their asses. Historically and today the woman serves as a vessel for one man to bring his child into the world and then for him to avoid the responsibility of raising the child. Reproductive rights is not the right for a woman to get child support as you seem to think. It is the right for a woman to make decisions as to what she does with her own body. Abortion should be a non-issue because women should not need to get to a point where she is carrying a child that is not wanted. Reproductive rights is simply the right to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence.
The reality is that women are not afforded this due to many reasons.
You continually scream the feminine aspect of government is evil. This overlooks the masculine aspect which would be the aggressive force which is the crux of the state. The welfare programs you so vehemently disdain can not exist in the form they are now without the aggressive masculine state.
I have no idea why you are going on about sexual partners. If one consents nobody I have heard has challenged such a thing. Where does feminism or gender issues oppose your ability to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Much of what you seem to oppose sounds like an opposition to child support in a desire to be rid of the power of the state in this. That’s funny to me because I have spoken to many feminists who see major issues with child support and the whole system that exists regarding parents who do not live together or agree. Some have expressed their concern that it is nothing more than the perpetuation of archaic gender roles through the state. Sorry, but that sounds like your prejudice of all feminists being the evil statist you are attempting to paint them as.
You seem to think that speaking against feminism is somehow taboo. I’m sorry there too turn on Fox news, Rush Limbaugh or attend any of those effeminine churches. I have seen that when I did bring up gender issues everyone pops out of the wood work to attack feminism, which was odd to me because the initial posts were a call to discuss gender issues not to become feminists.
You go on to ramble about the bad emotions of women being inferior to the ‘logic’ of men. That’s really funny because that is a criticism of feminists of sexism. You actually display these critiques in your posts further proving their points. The idea that emotional intelligence is inferior to the long male dominated claims to logic is one I have heard a great deal. The so-called logic is often that which has thousands of years of male thought crammed into a justification of a man’s actions and the concerns of a woman is just simply emotional and silly. Sorry Jay, but you are displaying the very actions that the feminist expects sexist enculturalization.
Your next fallacy is this idea that women are seeking to become men and do like the boys do. Feminism as I understand it is not this at all. It is asking why the values of men dominate society and the values of women are marginalized by the very males that hold the power. It is not begging to act like they have weenies, it is challenging the values of our culture to embrace female liberation and equality. Not equality in the terms of being like you Jay, but equality in being able to bring a woman’s voice and place into culture where it is currently still dominated by the centuries of male dominated thinking and culture. Think acculturalization vs enculturalization.
Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their oppressors. ~Evelyn Cunningham
Equality for everyone is the idea behind feminism, so you have already made the claim in your earlier post that you support that basic feminist crux.
5:46 pm
Not to over-share, but in the swinger community, sex acts between wives is encouraged because this act is pleasurable to the husbands (and also to the wives — there is no obvious coercion). Quite often such acts between the husbands is frowned upon or discouraged — although more than one woman has told me it is her fantasy to watch two men having sex as well. No husband who was not bisexual has ever admitted to me that he is aroused by watching two husbands together. If a man enjoys pleasure from another man, it is through the agency of watching another man with his wife, or taking part in the act of sex with a woman in tandem with another man or even many men.
Our understanding of human sexuality is meager, and only develops within very narrow limits allowed by capitalist social relations.
7:34 pm
That’s interesting. It reminds me of an interview Jill Kelly gave years back. Kelly, who at the time was a recently retired adult film superstar starting her own production company, noted her fantasy of watching her husband with another man. I think sexuality is a good bit more fluid than any of us care to admit, and I’d be willing to bet those men who engaged in swinging were on the cusp of involvement with other men. They just didn’t want to go first, if you will, and risk the rejection or ridicule.
12:22 pm
That’s because fear of being branded One Of Them Gayers is just as strong in the Swinger community as it is everywhere else. Masculinity is a terribly fragile thing.
8:02 pm
One of the qualities of Gonzo Times that I’ve always enjoyed is the freedom to write about whatever I like, however I feel like writing. It’s what makes this site unique. You can’t have the sort of utopia you’re apparently advocating, where people you agree with feel safe, if you want to have a site that challenges fundamental beliefs and assumptions. I don’t particularly like having what I write characterized as “right wing prejudice,” given that I don’t believe that it is.
I’ve said over and over and over again that I support equality for everyone. What I do not support is exceptionalism for one group, and I believe that feminism has moved towards just that over the past thirty years. In short, feminism has extended the imprimatur of legitimacy to misandry and hate speech thereof. We see mainstream feminists celebrating the idea that evolution will eliminate males. This isn’t seen as a crisis to be checked or a problem to be confronted; rather, it’s a yearned-for and celebrated inevitability given the patina of neutrality on the grounds that science said it. Science also used to say that blacks and people with poor eyesight should be sterilized. Imagine if the inverse were true, and scientists were saying that women would be culled by evolution. Any male writer or thinker who pointed to this with the glee or smugness currently on display by the likes of Maureen Dowd and others would be shouted down as a misogynist.
Don’t even get me started on the stereotypes of masculinity we see in advertising, where wives are constantly wiping up the messes of their juvenile husbands and male progeny with the quicker, thicker picker-upper. What crap. I do all of the cooking in my household, most of the laundry, and a good bit of the cleaning as well. That doesn’t even take into account the grocery shopping and the finances, both of which are handled by me.
I know that I am not the exception, because I have other male friends who pull the same weight in their marriages. The great legacy of feminism is this, insofar as I see any legacy at all: my wife, capable though she is, grumbles incessantly about how she has to do everything whenever she winds up loading a dishwasher. In essence, women today have become the men of the 1950s: resentful of any effort they have to put forth. As a law student spending ten to fourteen hours a day studying, writing papers, and seeking out employment so that my wife will one day be able to quit her job of twenty years and do whatever it is she intends to do, it’s rich to hear her say that she’s the only one working right now.
No matter the fact that I could easily live off of my loans as a single man with no revolving debt, or the fact that she couldn’t live without the excess loan money I get refunded ever semester for living expenses…my wife doesn’t seem to comprehend reality, which is this: as a practical matter, I don’t need to be married. I could easily survive and thrive without her from a purely financial standpoint. She works because she has debt in her name, and because her health issues require her to keep the insurance her employer provides. The original plan was for me to work while she went to pharmacy school, but she changed her mind on that course and decided I should go to graduate school.
I choose to be married. A lot of other men, despite the aspersions and contemptuous remarks their enlightened, liberated, and thinly-disguised misandrist wives cast upon them, choose to be married as well. In four years of living with my wife, I’ve never raised my hand violently to her. She can’t say the same, and while I won’t say that her violence is chronic, I will say this: she never seemed to mind or have an issue with the slapping or the clawing until I told her that the next time would be the last time because I’d be hitting the road. Feminism has articulated a double-standard for women that they struggle to adapt to: on the one hand, it’s okay to be snide and denigrating and even mocking towards men, but having a man respond in kind is verbal abuse.
What bullshit. Everywhere I look, I see misandry, and not because I’m some polarized ideologue looking for evil feminists lurking in the shadows, but instead due to the fact that it exists. I was told as a manager that I needed to interview an equal number of males and females to cover my bases, and that it would be okay if I interviewed more females than males for an open position, but not vice versa.
You want to talk about safety and security? I’ve got the owner of this site re-tweeting the content put out by people who denigrate me as a ne0-fascist for holding a different viewpoint. Those same individuals don’t care to address the substance of what I put forth, they just simply say I should go away. That’s bullshit. To date, the only individual on here who actually made an attempt to deal with the substance of what I was saying was Jehu Eaves.
To a certain degree, (re)becca did, but she couldn’t help herself: she had to attribute conclusions and statements to me in her comments that I didn’t make in my writing. The only reasonable conclusion for me to draw is that it’s okay when someone who doesn’t believe in feminism is marginalized or told to go elsewhere it’s okay…but I guarantee you if I’d told MoPowell to go some queer theory website where he’d get a pat on the head and a dick in his mouth, I’d be castigated and possibly even banned from this site.
There are always going to be exclusive viewpoints coming into conflict on any open site where a variety of views are tolerated. If you take that away from this website, you’re ripping the soul out of its identity. I don’t have an issue with what MoPowell says that I can’t handle by engaging MoPowell. I know the limits of what I can say, and I’m not going to threaten him physically or engage in illegal behavior in my response. Laissez-faire: leave it alone and let us debate!
8:55 pm
“… she couldn’t help herself: she had to attribute conclusions and statements to me in her comments that I didn’t make in my writing.”
Your comment would hold water if I was sitting there trying to rebut you, but I wasn’t. I was giving you my opinion on what you wrote. Given what you yourself wrote, I drew my own conclusions. That tends to happen when you write something, put it out in the public arena, and people read it. And I never attributed any statements to you that you did not make yourself, so don’t pull that one.
Because I had my own opinion that didn’t agree with yours, you automatically assumed I was not only a feminist, but a “parasitic” one at that (I believe that’s the word you used to describe them). Talk about a knee-jerk reaction. I’ve said on many occasions that I don’t like calling myself a feminist. Not that it matters anyway since you automatically branded me a feminist because I had an opposing opinion.
Other than that – I don’t think any view should be silenced. However, multiple postings on the same issue by the same author only to serve the same purpose as puffing out the chest and saying “LOOK AT THE IDIOTS THAT DISAGREE WITH ME!” or “look at all of the havoc I’ve caused!” It does get nauseating. There’s no need for that. Keep the discussion on the same posting. It’s borderline attention whorish. Personal attacks just get flat out boring, but being a female that’s lived her whole life opinionated, I’ve just learned to laugh at the males that my opinionated self intimidates. I’ve also learned that if I get attacked, it’s because I hit a nerve.
On the other hand, if we wanted to read hateful crap, we could all just read the Stormfront message boards.
9:12 pm
You’re comparing what I wrote with a Nazi site?!
12:40 am
No. If I were to compare what you wrote to another website, I’d choose maybe Mensactivism.org. Random bits of hatred mixed in with things that are so ludicrous they’re funny.
If I wanted to read hateful rhetoric, I’d go to Stormfront. I found what you wrote to not be hateful. I found it to be pathetic.
4:57 am
You don’t think feminism has any “hatred” mixed in to it? hmm.
9:36 pm
You don’t think comprehension skills should be a requirement before posting a comment to something that was said? hmm. Did I ever say feminism doesn’t? Did I ever once defend the modern day feminist movement?
11:28 pm
Your anecdote on conducting hiring interviews is interesting. Understanding the anti-sexual nature of capitalist society is probably the same as understanding the corporate environment. The rules of behavior are increasingly bureaucratic and determined not by direct relations between individuals but relations established by HR conflicts and legal proceedings. This is especially true since women entered the labor force in large numbers during the 70s depression.
12:20 pm
“What bullshit. Everywhere I look, I see misandry, and not because I’m some polarized ideologue looking for evil feminists lurking in the shadows, but instead due to the fact that it exists. I was told as a manager that I needed to interview an equal number of males and females to cover my bases, and that it would be okay if I interviewed more females than males for an open position, but not vice versa. ”
If you think that is “misandry” then you are an idiot. Simple as.
But since many of your problems stem from the fact that you have a chosen to cultivate a deliberate ignorance of historical context in order to ferment your own butthurt little pity party about the many and myriad injustices you face and extrapolate them out into some grand feminist conspiracy to make your wife want you to load the dishwasher, I can’t see any other way it would be. You don’t seem to bring anything except a white hot, blistering self absorption to your writing, and it’s hard to sustain such a level of arrogance without also carefully incubating one’s ignorance about the world.
Yours is not the stupidity of inability, but the idiocy of deliberate choice. It’s quite a sad state of affairs.
12:46 pm
well said…
2:23 am
Guy, these issues aren’t necessarily about washing dishes. That’s fairly dismissive of his argument, don’t you think? Try this instead: what happens if you are merely accused of rape or abuse in this country? YOU WILL GO TO JAIL–even if she strikes you and you do not respond. You will wait there while your accuser is automatically granted the title of “victim”, the police will gather only evidence that makes you look guilty. And don’t think of cross-examining your accuser at trial, unless your lawyer does something slimy. And it doesn’t matter if there are already two other guys that she’s accused of rape sitting in prison–the jury will never hear it. And no, there’s no projection here–I’m queer and just watching from the sidelines.
I see similar issues around race and sexual orientation. I wince every time gays or our allies accuse the other side of hate–sure there’s plenty that deserve that and should be called on it, but not all. I don’t think that someone that yells out “faggot” in a fight with me while I call him a “piece of shit” deserves more punishment should we be arrested. Why is he punished for a hate crime? I didn’t exactly love him when I punched his nose.
I believe in equality and reason–a fair hearing for everybody–including *gasp* white, heterosexual, “christian”, middle-class, males. Why is it outrageous to stand up for the white guy’s rights on occassion?
3:29 am
Individual differences are greater than the general differences between gender. It seems that much of this is polarized to this swooping generalization of entire groups disregarding the individual.
3:30 am
Also I’ve made quite a few slams on ‘white men’ in some of the threads lately because some of the assholes here were coming over from “White Power World Wide” websites.
4:01 pm
How about I’ll try this. If someone has managed to falsely accuse two people of rape and they are sitting in prison, I will stay really fucking far away from that lunatic. How about if I only sleep with mentally stable people? What if I limit sex to people whose name I know and maybe whose friends I’m acquainted with. I realize that I’m blaming the victim here, but isn’t this the prescription handed out to would-be rape victims all the time? Don’t walk around at night unescorted, stay away from dark areas, dress conservatively, be sober, etc.
Right or wrong, most folks accept that women are largely responsible for physical and sexual assaults that happen to them. And yet no dude who avoids just the most obviously rapey situations is going spend time in prison for rape. Why is victim blaming in one situation so common and in the other . . . well, almost unheard of.
I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s a double standard to think about and a good chance to find common ground with female rape victims who are required to absolve themselves of all blame by the legal system for the crimes committed against them.
4:50 pm
Aside from the “most folks accept that women are largely responsible..” line, which is an inaccurate generalization wrapped in an over generalization, very well put.
8:48 pm
Redacted and more concretes added in to the original comment.
7:39 pm
LOL I’m not sure where to go with this one, as I agree with almost everything you said. It’s easy to cite “natural selection” for idiots who let themselves get into these situations, thereby “blaming the victim” as you said. Yet, I think that the point that feminists leverage govt against men unfairly is not aknowledged. Again, unless your lawyer does something slimy, her behavoir, actions, and history will never be seen by the jury. I even recently read somewhere about divorce lawyers coaching women to claim abuse to sweeten the settlement as a matter of course. Sure, I can avoid most of these situations–esp since I’m queer–but that doesn’t counter the injustice. I’m not an anarchist, but as a small-govt libertarian with an anarchist streak, I’d like to think that I share with many here an intolerance for govt’l activism that interjects itself to favor one group unquestioningly over another.
8:46 pm
Right, so stay with me: anecdotally, there are instances in which the law system is perverted to carry out an injustice against a men at the hands of a woman. Women are systematically denied justice by this same system of law. One in six experience a rape attempt (completed or no) and one in three will be assaulted by a partner. The courts put allll those people into the position that they wouldn’t consider putting your falsely accused rapist–that is blaming them for being in a situation where they were victimized.
10:02 pm
Okay, I heard your argument–now please hear what I’ve said twice… Unless your lawyer does something slimy, the jury will never hear. When a guy wakes up from a previous night of being wasted to discover he’d had sex with someone he ordinarily wouldn’t have and can’t remember doing it–his options don’t generally include blaming her of taking advantage of his poor choices. She, however, can and need only CLAIM that he did. If 35-40% of rape and abuse claims are false–a frequent crime for which women are rarely punished even if it’s considered a crime… This isn’t mere anectdote. As a father of two girls btw, I give them similar advice that you gave above & thought was good enough for men–keep away from the POS loser, stay safe, keep your phone on you, a pen in your purse to stabb with, & walk with friends… If they would ever have to face her attacker in court, she’d do well, calling him on what he did and feeling no shame or need to explain the way she has chosen to live. Nor would she need an extra advantage that the law would provide–just a fair hearing. If the guy’s guilty, let the jury decide that with all the facts.
11:26 am
Man I feel for you. I’ve been reading the ongoing debate with a mixture of horror and incredulity, but I haven’t for a second thought that it reflected badly on you or the site.
Don’t moderate. Encourage a community that will respond to this sort of thing in the open and with transparency to the things that are so obviously distasteful, but don’t moderate.
You need to make sure that everyone feels free to step in without ridicule. Not sure how you do that, but thats the goal, I think.
6:56 pm
“Gonzo Times does not condone sexism, racism or any other form of hierarchical dominance of people groups.”
That’s not anarchism, that’s nihilism.
2:37 pm
Don’t even get me started on the stereotypes of masculinity we see in advertising, where wives are constantly wiping up the messes of their juvenile husbands and male progeny with the quicker, thicker picker-upper. What crap.”
Most of those commercials are written by men. It’s easily discovered.
Also- do you think having to clean up after a giant child is the better role? It’s also a stereotype of women. We exist to take care of our husbands, who are free to act like children. Somehow though these infantile men get thin attractive wives to be their mommies.
Feminism has articulated a double-standard for women that they struggle to adapt to: on the one hand, it’s okay to be snide and denigrating and even mocking towards men, but having a man respond in kind is verbal abuse. ”
Huh..all the feminist sites I’ve been too (which is quite a lot) have never ever condoned anything but respectful treatment on both sides. In fact, the Feminism 101 site states flat out that neither women nor men should act denigrating and neither men nor women should be abusers. Feminism (in general) doesn’t focus on male issues, however, because in regards to domestic abuse women are largely the victims of it.
Feminism, btw, isn’t a monolith. The only common thread is that feminists and feminism believe women are equal human beings. And you’re surprised by the reaction when you say you disagree with Feminism. That’s why.
2:49 pm
Those who maintain the power are reluctant to give it up often. Sadly with much of it being cultural most are blind to it and many ‘libertarians’ pay no attention to it.
Are you familiar with Jean Kilbourne? http://www.gonzotimes.com/2009/12/killing-us-softly/
3:00 pm
Yes, very powerful.
have you seen this?
3:56 pm
No, I haven’t seen that one yet. I’ve seen a few of those, but lots of them are new to me. I’m going to pass that one along.
3:26 pm
Punk,
You claim to be anti-authoritarian and yet you speak with the unified voice of the power structure. You parrot the misandristic, anti-White propaganda the establishment has been ramming-down our throats for the better part of the last century.
Contrary to your statements, the White men, on this site, who are challenging the authorities’ insane ideas concerning gender, race, and other “identity politics” issues aren’t given a voice anywhere.
7:53 pm
You sure as hell said plenty of stupid shit here. So I wouldn’t really say you have a voice nowhere.
2:01 am
You know what I meant by it, you’re just playing fuck-fuck.
We are not given a voice within the mainstream power structure. We’re limited to the backwaters of the internet.
12:44 pm
Maybe you ought to take that contempt as some kind of hint.
4:29 pm
Hey, another idiot.
11:18 pm
You really shouldn’t be shocked, you aren’t the only one we’ve seen here lately.
5:11 pm
Noooo, they just sit silently on benches and in police cars and in front of news cameras. Oddly enough, your opinions are well known. If you haven’t been given a voice anywhere, how has that happened? Borg mind meld? Did you beam your thoughts out into the universe? I hate to tell you, but your Fresh!Manly!Wisdom! isn’t as new and exciting as you think. It’s almost 1800′s mentality verbatim.
6:50 pm
It is a well documented fact that the Mainstream Media have a policy that forbids White men to speak-out in their interest. They call it the “No Platform Rule.” Which means they will not allow anyone a voice at the table if he proposes to speak to issues of concern to heterosexual White men of the working and middle classes. Yes, White men can gain positions of authority in society, but they have to be completely “reconstructed” and they must support the regime’s goals of “polymorphous perversity.” In other words, they must accept and promote all of the standard hate movements (multiculturalism, feminism, queerism, communism (in either one of it’s two prevailing forms – Cultural Marxism or Corporate Trotskyism), etc.
Our rulers have repeatedly stated that there is no such thing as a “No Platform” policy, but they were recently “outed” in a debate in Britain.
White Rights Advocate, Simon Darby, managed to get onto a small internet podcast show to debate Britain’s leading anti-White crusader, a black male by the name of Weyman Bennett.
The show was conducted by telephone, when Bennett realized Darby was on the air with him he refused to continue the debate, repeatedly stating that all of the political parties have a policy of “No Platform” for White men and the issues that concern them.
Here’s the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTFbBhKo6tE
He says it the first time at 2:43 and repeats it about 2 dozen times after that in this 10 minute video.
The regime that rules the West is anti-White. They’re goal is White Genocide. “Feminism” is one component of their strategy, therefore “feminism” is hate.
6:52 pm
Quick the ruling class is oppressed by a secret conspiracy get Alex Jones on the line!
7:46 pm
Evidently the idiot in charge of documenting such things has managed to avoid hearing of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, who speak for All White Men Everywhere. Indeed, wasn’t it Rush himself who coined the term Feminazi? And last I checked, the Tea Party (aka old white men party) have commentators, protesters and signs everywhere.
Speaking of genocide, you do realize that white people haven’t actually STOPPED murdering Native Americans, right? In fact, Native American women are at a 5 times higher risk of rape than any other group of women. 90% of their rapists are non Indian white and black men. That’s pretty impressive since you’re so busy fighting your genocide n all. Their murder rates are low though because the white male backed police force rule them suicides….even after discovering their beaten and raped bodies in the middle of no where in the dead of winter.
Everything you’re worried about is projection. You think other races are like you. Thieves always suspect people are stealing from them. Con men don’t trust other people.
11:36 pm
Rush Limbaugh speaks to the interests of the few White men that are allowed to be members of the Ruling Caste. He does not represent the interests of White men of the working and middle classes. If he did he would be exposing the sham that is “liberalism” but yet he never does.
7:58 pm
For the record, Weyman Bennett works for an organisation called Unite Against Fascism, which opposes (among others), the British National Party, who are a racist, fascist party in the UK.
The leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, has previously been arrested for inciting racial hatred, and until a recent court ruling, the BNP did not allow non-white people to join the party.
The BNP are not ‘white rights advocates’, they are racist. Nick Griffin is a holocaust denier, a homophobe, and wants all non-white people to leave the country.
UAF have a ‘No Platform policy’, you’re right – that means that they refuse to share a platform with members of the BNP, as they believe it legitimises the BNP’s views.
But let me emphasise this, UAF, as an organisation, have a No Platform Policy. My student union also has one. Many organisations do, but NO MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLET HAS A NO PLATFORM POLICY.
So, er… yeah. You’re wrong.
11:32 pm
Anti-fascist is a codeword for anti-White. Weyman Bennett is an anti-White racist. Just because Weyman Bennet (or anyone else for that matter) smears White Rights Advocates, with the term “fascist” or “neo-Nazi” doesn’t mean that he (or anyone else for that matter) has the right to deny White Rights Activists access to the platform to speak to issues of concern to them.
Thank you for admitting that his group (and others) do, in fact, have a policy of denying White men the right to enter our national discourses to speak to our interests.
12:18 am
You really need to learn what it is you’re actually saying here.
In case you were unaware, the prime minister of Great Britain is a white man, as is the deputy prime minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the one who deals with the money), the Foreign Secretary, and in fact, the vast majority of the UK cabinet. White men are most definitely not refused a platform to speak, to represent, and to rule. White men’s issues are most certainly not ignored in Western politics.
I assume that when you say that advocates of white men’s issues are not given a platform, what you really mean is ‘advocates of white men’s rights AT THE EXPENSE OF everyone else’s rights’ are not given a platform. But even then you’d be wrong.
Last year, the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, was invited to appear on BBC Question Time, a leading political debate programme, on the UK’s leading television network, on its leading channel (BBC 1). UAF, and a number of other anti-fascist organisations complained to the BBC and were outraged that the BBC were giving the BNP a platform. The BBC did not revoke the invitation, and Nick Griffin appeared on the show, as planned.
What is often included in No Platform policies, as mentioned before, is that members of organisations who hold such policies cannot share a platform with members of racist and fascist organisations, and events held by the organisations cannot give a platform to members of racist or fascist organisations to spew their hate speech.
National networks (at least in the UK; I can’t speak for the US, of course, but I’d be surprised if any major networks there have No Platform policies) do not have no platform policies.
There was major call for the BBC to impose one, particularly over the Question Time furore, but they refused.
Oh, and for the record, the Chairman of Unite Against Fascism is a white man.
1:58 am
Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem.
I keep telling you, that White men, who are willing to go along with the agenda, are allowed access to the media to promote the globalists’ agenda. It is only White men, that are resisting the globalists, in other words White men that speak to the issues that concern White men, that are denied access.
If White men, like David Cameron, want to promote the globalists’ agenda, they are certainly free to. The problem is, that the powers-that-be do their best to keep honest White men, like Nick Griffin, off the platform and out of the media.
12:12 pm
Ah, OK, you’re a racist then. Good to know!
Just admit this stuff upfront and we can all start ignoring you *much* earlier and you can get back to pouting resentfully in that brooding, masculine way of yours. Everyone’s happy!
11:44 pm
“UAF, as an organisation, have a No Platform Policy. My student union also has one. Many organisations do, but NO MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLET HAS A NO PLATFORM POLICY.”
Then how come they won’t allow men like David Duke, Jared Taylor, Don Wassall, Paul Elam, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, or dozens more like them access to the media.
Every time Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Mark Potok, or any number of left-wing haters are on TV, I want to see on of the men I listed above, given an opportunity to rebut their left-wing insanity. But it ain’t never going to happen, because they have a no platform rule.
No, dipshits like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck don’t count. They are extreme left-wing (YES, I said LEFT-WING) nutcases. The only difference between them and people like you, is that you are ULTRA extreme left-wing nutcases.
12:23 am
Who are “they” who don’t allow those men you named access to the media?
If you’re going to come off with a sense of righteous indignation, at least know who that righteous indignation is actually aimed at…
1:49 am
Ahh, I thought it was pretty obvious that they referred to those that own/control the media. Or maybe you’re unaware that media outlets actually have owners.
I guess your feminism . . . err . . . women’s studies classes don’t have time to teach that. After all they’re probably too busy brainwashing you with inanities like “gender is a social construct.”
12:38 am
You mean Rupert Murdoch?
Ted Turner?
Yes, I’m sure both of those men sat down and rubbed their hands together gleefully and HAND PICKED who gets interviewed and who doesn’t. Daily. For every station they own.
And Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck DO count, because your first post only qualified WHITE MEN.
Now you’re changing it to RIGHT WING white men after you were given examples of white men.
Anymore last minute qualifiers you want to add? Must they all be right handed? Able to whistle?
7:39 pm
“Anti sexism” is anti reality.
http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/
People should learn what I teach.
I have been thinking about this situation a long long time. (It is basically my life’s work, whether I wanted it to be or not.)
No solution to the human condition will come from belief in santa claus.
You guys are a little young and your heads aint screwed on right yet regarding realty.
Your ENTIRE way of framing the everything on the world is in err. (Eg there is no such thing as a world without power; and males don’t per se hold power over females –they fight each other where a tiny minority win access to females with the female as the happy catalysts. (Yet dimorphic sex is a power battle where females are inherently emasculated.) These are not debatable things. …You all frame the world oddly indicative of youth and indoctrination. http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/ )
8:12 pm
For someone who’s supposedly spent their life studying this kind of stuff, you clearly missed the very first lesson on gender:
female =/= women
male =/= men
Sex and gender are very, very different. Gender is a social construct. If you haven’t even learnt that, then I wonder what you’ve spent your life actually studying. Bullshit, perhaps? Quite evidently.
8:16 pm
Gender is on a continuum, in flux. It’s easier for them if they see only boy and girl. That makes sense in their world view. Don’t you know girls are still icky to these guys. You may make them a little too afraid if you get into cisgender or anything outside of their invented paradigm.
9:45 pm
You really believe what you say?
Do you know your IQ?
Do you believe intelligence is relevant to understanding mankind?
8:27 pm
*snorfles*
It gets dark, I’m sure, when one’s head is up one’s ass. Hard to study in the dark,
8:30 pm
These assholes are making me want to become a feminist now…
8:33 pm
Hate to break it to you, but I think you already are… You believe in equality for women, and you seem to have a good grasp on the issues; I think you already are a feminist!
Or, if you’re not comfortable with that term (many men aren’t – as men haven’t experienced first-hand the oppression that women face, they perhaps feel they’d be doing the movement a disservice to call themselves ‘feminists’), you could go with feminist-ally, or pro-feminist.
8:50 pm
I always assumed the whole Anarchy thing excluded me from that.
9:29 pm
How so? I don’t see the two as being incompatible.
6:47 am
Of course feminism is NOT anarchy.
(I’m an anarchist. I haven’t read a paper, barely a book, magazine or seen a TV episode through in years –-since early 90. (My TV isn’ t even cable-ized) Meanwhile “anarchists” are being read to from a college hand book (published by people who live in mansions). Might as well be the bible of our day.)
And anarchy won’t lead to the outcome you think it will.
Man doesn’t come from a “golden age of the past”* where there was no war caste or racism (*one wing matriarchy o past canard). We come from something much closer to lord of the flies (barbarians with a 6th grade bully pecking order and psychology–but add libido as fuel).
It was christianity –and civilization[5000 years ago] in general– that changed that and bred for infantile thralls. These are the very people who are susceptible to conforming to this giant caste structure held together with the worship of boopsy and her musical-chairs-boyfriends desire while we all chant the prayer “she can do no wrong” (and absorb more and more big brother policy and hypocrisy).
And note man wanted civi and chrisendumb to tame us (ultimately leading to the fem state), because the lord of the flies barbarian thing is so harsh for so many.
Now if you say christers are anti sex gits and not very bright*. Fine. I want to know how you plan to stop them.
*You do understand, right, that both christians and liberals are equally prone to warping or censoring man’s understanding of the facts of nature(tm)? Right?
12:08 pm
Thanks for that comment actually addressing an element of anarchist philosophy, I would have gone my whole life as an anarchist. I see the light now.
2:05 am
You’re already one step below a feminist.
You’re what’s known as a mangina.
2:44 am
he doesn’t hate women….he just uses not so clever word plays of their body parts as insults.
(that doesn’t mean hate…um…it means something totally different.)
3:26 am
Recognizing that there is such a thing as gender-role appropriate behavior isn’t hate, you silly twit.
I know, I know that’s not what you learned in feminism class.
3:14 pm
Your silly white centric gender roles don’t actually apply to everyone else, you realize this yes?
And when you use a variation of vagina as an insult, that really means you loooooves the vagina. It’s so awesome it’s an insult!
Who knew?
4:36 pm
Another gem from feminism class? Or was it some “ethnic studies” class?
Certainly you’re not bashing vaginas are you? After all, your pathological fear of penetration has led you to love ‘em too. Right?
11:44 pm
Given that I’m not using vaginas as an insult, no I’m not bashing vaginas. And leave it to a poor man to equate verbal critisism with pysical violence. Bashing. Pathetic.
And what pathological fear of penetration? Amateur armchair philosophy tends to be the domain of the pseudo intellectual.
I wonder if this is another case of projection. Are you afraid of penetration? Homophobic perhaps?
9:13 pm
Then why does “women empowerment” has the criteria of “only those with vaginas allowed?”
9:19 pm
It doesn’t. Trans gendered are welcome.
9:28 pm
I’m fairly sure it doesn’t, actually.
But, since you raised the question – I’ll take this opportunity to give you a little lesson on liberation, shall I?
Liberation is about oppressed groups coming together to fight and overthrow the system which oppresses them. For the most part, this can only be done by those who are oppressed. Just as it isn’t for a banker to tell the factory worker how capitalism is to be overthrown, neither is it for the white person to tell the black person how to defeat racism, nor is it for the man to tell the woman how to destroy the patriarchy… THAT may be why you’ve perceived that you’re excluded from the women’s movement – but that doesn’t mean you’re not welcome to help out, and support. Thanks for your interest – the movement would be glad to have you, I’m sure.
2:51 am
“Liberation is about oppressed groups coming together to fight and overthrow the system which oppresses them. ”
Karl Marx called, he wants his theory back.
“nor is it for the man to tell the woman how to destroy the patriarchy”
I must say, thanks for the laugh.
Anyway, a country like Norway which scores so high on the “gender-equality” scale does this for women empowerment while meaning human beings who were born as and identify as females:
http://www.csreurope.org/news.php?type=&action=show_news&news_id=1065
“Thanks for your interest – the movement would be glad to have you, I’m sure. ”
Stop, I’m blushing here.
“That women own only 1% of the world’s property, and yet account for two thirds of global hours worked, and yet earn just one tenth of the world’s wealth?”
That is a hilarious mash-up of statistics.
“That in the UK, the rape conviction rate is the lowest of all crimes, at 6%?”
Wrong.
58% of rape cases that go to trial, end in convictions and it’s higher than most crimes. The statistic you used is pointless. See the Stern Review of Rape Reporting, and visit falserapesociety.blogspot.com for more.
“That in the UK, the gender pay gap means that women are paid up to 17% less than men *doing exactly the same job* in full-time work, and up to 38% less in part-time work?”
In US women earn more in part-time work, so do the the young women in major cities. And the young women phenomenon is a decade long thing. And why don’t these companies get sued if they pay women less? Don’t you wonder?
“That only 22% of the British House of Commons are women, even though they represent 51% of the population?”
How much percent of elections issues concern men alone? How many laws are passed that are for welfare of men alone?
Does the gender make a difference if the person in power makes laws that help women regardless of their gender? Unless, of course, when it is used to make an apex fallacy, like you just did.
“I don’t give a shit about ice-cream, I just want some equality, please. Kthnxbai. ”
The truth is you don’t give a shit for truth. You’ve been indoctrinated in a worldview that is far removed from reality, and uses bogus numbers and terms to validate its existence. I hope that you find saner group of people that helps you lose these lies.
3:06 am
Holy fuck on a stick. Did you actually just link to the sites you did and then claim others use bogus numbers and statistics?
Comedy. Gold.
9:51 pm
Not only is what you said incorrect it is not germane. Ie even if wimmins and men are constructs, the “females” of this culture are over privileged and vapid (and that is biology based).
———
Many of you are adults now: It is time to clean the ice-pop stain off your mouths and try to swim in the deep end. Facts are not just inventions of some patriarchy trying to keep you from ice cream.
10:13 pm
How, pray tell, does biology tell us that “females” (why did you put it in “”?) are over privileged and vapid?
Facts are not just inventions of the patriarchy? Perhaps not. But how else would you explain:
That women own only 1% of the world’s property, and yet account for two thirds of global hours worked, and yet earn just one tenth of the world’s wealth?
That in the UK, the rape conviction rate is the lowest of all crimes, at 6%?
That in the UK, the gender pay gap means that women are paid up to 17% less than men *doing exactly the same job* in full-time work, and up to 38% less in part-time work?
That only 22% of the British House of Commons are women, even though they represent 51% of the population?
That two women are killed every week by a violent current or ex-partner?
That the British Crime Survey of 2005 showed that 45% of women in the UK have experienced some form of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking?
That the 2008 British Crime Survey also found that in 85% of the incidents of domestic violence the victims were women?
That around 10,000 women are sexually assaulted and 2,000 women are raped every week?
That 1 in 7 women students have experienced serious sexual or physical assault whilst studying?
I don’t give a shit about ice-cream, I just want some equality, please. Kthnxbai.
10:37 pm
Well I explain them by calling Bullshit.
Like I said, you all have some massive immaturity and indoctrination issues.
I was given the link to this site by someone but quite frankly you all are not even up to place where communication is possible. I really am more interested in talking to the boys than the girls here, since girls are not sentient.
I gave you all the link to my site. Go there and learn. Don’t talk until you have. (Now you might say “well who the fuck are you?” Irrelevant; there is a difference between men–we are not equal and we will never be. Go learn.)
10:45 pm
I took a look at your website, actually.
I’m afraid I only learnt one thing from it, and that is that you are a sadly deluded, disappointed, angry individual who definitely likes the sound of your own voice way, way too much.
I’m sorry that you feel as if your lot in life is not enough, and that you have to blame women and feminism for that, but that really is your problem, not ours.
2:42 am
Well I call Bullshit Infinity.
I win the internets!
Seriously. Your rebuttal is ” Nu UHHH”.
God. If Evil Feminazis O Doom actually wanted to RULE THE WORLD, we could have done it years ago. If men like you are any example, a fucking monkey could have.
6:56 am
I told you to go to my site and learn.
Biology doesn’t “tell us”. Biology is the _cause_ of female humans being over privileged and dopey and vain.
Our modern culture is the manifestation “female sexual value”. Indeed the belief (our cultural religion/glue) that female humans are oppressed by this-that-and-the-other –while studious avoiding all the problems and woes of boys and men– is all part of the male competition over fem sex value.
Now I don’t expect you–honey– to understand that. But I do expect the boys here to wake up.
12:45 pm
“Ie even if wimmins and men are constructs, the “females” of this culture are over privileged and vapid (and that is biology based).”
I’ve never read anything more facile in my entire life.
There’s nothing as dangerous as someone with half a clue.
8:18 pm
Well dangerous and half clueless as it might be what I said is correct.
You don’t perceive it that way because you are woefully lacking.
You all specifically really need to learn to interpret reality through biology not “received wisdom” trickling down from the establishment (an establishment which has tricked you simple souls into thinking that it is the underground, underdog class –because they are that good at ‘cat herding’). Any official education you received that didn’t tell you that is purposefully indoctrinating you to be its cannon fodder.
——
And that is big problem that “democracy” must grapple with… How can an age of reason occur when people of this aptitude and lack on insight thrive as a mode?
3:19 am
Dude, I’m a Pathology Instructor. There is no vapid gene.
There’s no privilege gene either.
So what, specifically, are you talking about? What, in biological terms, even hints at that?
And everyone “interprets” reality through biology you fuckwit. The brain (where people process external stimuli, aka reality) is a biological function.
And that’s not even getting into philosophical aspects (ie the blue you see is not the same as I see), but it all happens biologically.
Did you even take biology past high school for fuck’s sake? Because you sound like some HS kid trying to fake his way through a higher level course.
3:20 am
*organ, not function. Your stupidity is fucking infectious.
3:01 pm
While you speak of women brave enough to speak their mind at the risk of being shouted down, you completely ignore the reverse – when men do the speaking and women do the shouting down. And as you can see from the comments below, the reverse is far more prevalent than the original complaint. I find that pretty telling. But what I find fundamentally strange is, for a group of supposed anarcho libertarian types, you spend a lot of time rehashing oft-disputed feminist ideologies without a whole lot of critical thought. Are you guys really free-thinking anarchos or what?
Here’s an ideological lesson for you. Any school of thought premised on victimhood whilst simultaneously waving the flag of self-reliance and the victimization of others is, by its very nature, self-contradictory.
What I would expect from free thinkers is an uncompromising look at the truth regardless of whether the outcomes align with preconceived expectation. But I don’t see that happening much here.
For anarchos I would expect a well-honed sense of what constitutes real and observable abuse of power. After all, that’s your bread and butter. But that too isn’t going on.
Perhaps you need to re-evaluate things.
8:20 pm
It was a mistake coming here, for these people can’t be reasoned with. They can only be led through protectionist demagoguery. It wasn’t time yet to try and deal with the class of creature here. (More power would be needed first, garnered through appealing to other more insightful classes of citizens. Then policy is simply imposed on this class of “thinker” through simple imagery[ie propaganda].)
It is interesting to note how the class of creature here may have formed. …Kneejerk opposition to that jebus cult from outback america. Jebus cult–especially outback kansas strain is dumb stubborn childish and spiteful and its opposition is the same.
Also these males here are literally underling siblings holding grudges against older brothers. They perceive the whole world as authority verse them. There is nothing deeper than that happening here in “anarchy”.
11:04 pm
Sadly I think you are right. They’re not anarchos, they’re fashionistas. Well dressed puppets who yearn identify with other well dressed puppets. Age has a great way of tearing that worldview down.
9:37 pm
Any school of thought premised on victimhood”
It’s not based on victimhood. That’s what you choose to interpret it as. These “male rights activists” list of perceived injustices against men, why is that not also victimhood?
10:45 pm
Of course feminism uses victimhood as a tenet of its philosophy. Have you paid attention at all? Do you have any idea what VAWA or any of the other misandrist legislation says?
And again with the pot kettle black argument you’re so fond of bringing up. Try to look a little deeper. There’s a difference between an ideology based on victimhood and an enumeration of injustice. The last time I checked there is no official MRA ideology. It’s a reaction against abuse. It’s not an ideology. While I’m sure you can find some self-described MRA who uses exactly the same type of language feminists use, that doesn’t mean all self-described MRAs share the same opinion. But I have to say, the more men who have real tangible beefs with misandry – such as the falsely accused – hear the type of “fingers in the ear/ I can’t hear you” logic all yall here are so fond of, the more likely they’ll turn into the equivalent of radical feminists. Beware what you wish for.
For the most part, men in the MRA movement have yet to define a coherent platform. It’s still at the bitching about injustice stage. And I imagine, if you were to poll these men, you’d find that many, if not most, of them would strong proponents in gender equality. But it’s people like you who don’t want to hear anything out of this camp anyway, and would rather paint them all with the same caveman brush. How enlightened.
Is it too hard to ask for the truth to be your guide? Is it too hard to examine the facts with cool, unbiased observation. You might be surprised at what you find. Certainly many of the core beliefs feminists have espoused would wither under the microscope. And you would likely see why men are pissed off.
But that doesn’t seem to be how things are done around here. Yall seem to be happier playing devils advocate than seeker of truth. Yall seem, frankly, to just be playing at rebel, wearing a particular mask and discarding it as it suits your fashion. When it comes down to it, you’ll get exactly the kind of appreciation you deserve. You’ll be treated like the entitled children you are.
11:39 pm
Of course feminism uses victimhood as a tenet of its philosophy.”
If you believe this, then you are siding with victimizers are you not?
“that victimizes others”
Point to me one law that victimizes men. I want a law that’s exactly like “only women can vote” or “only women cane be property owners”. I’ve yet to see any right men have lost. Undeserved Privilege is not a right mind you.
And I really wish you people would make up your minds. Feminists are either feminazis (no victimhood there) or victims.
Also the only common tenent the numerous variations of feminism have is that women are human beings. So which feminist ideology are you talking about? There’s over 50.
12:25 am
Your logic escapes me. How does my opposition to misandrist feminist policy endorsed by the state make me side with it?
At any rate, regarding your query for misandrist law, you should google false rape, divorce law, vawa, pay gap myth for starters. You’ll see a legal system (via explicit laws or merely the application of precedent) that rewards women unequally, often for dodgy behaviour.
Regarding laws from 100 years ago that treated women like chattel. Perhaps this may surprise you but I find those clearly misogynistic and deserving of derision and I’m happy they’re gone. That said, punishing innocents for the behaviour of their parents is no more right than any other form of abuse. That’s antedeluvian thinking that simply perpetuates division and hate. It’s the same logic which tacitly allows states like the US to kill and maim innocents under the guise of helping them. If you don’t find this morally reprehensible then there’s not a lot that can be done for you, sorry.
Regarding your demand that MRAs treat all feminism as a monolith (which you then curiously address as a spectrum). I’ll have to pass on that one. Not only do I not speak for all MRAs (shocking!), I also don’t believe feminism is monolithic. Some feminist policy is progressive. However, there’s also a lot of hate. If you really wanted to know my general position, which I’ve repeated enough times here already, it’s anti tyrannical and equalist. I know that doesn’t jive with your apparent belief that MRAs are all white power nazis, but that’s not my problem.
2:02 am
you should google false rape, divorce law, vawa, pay gap myth for starters. You’ll see a legal system (via explicit laws or merely the application of precedent) that rewards women unequally, often for dodgy behaviour. ”
False rape is also committed by men. Men can be and are rape victims, so I assume you are including them in False Rape Accusers as well. I also assume you aren’t conflating false rape (ie malicious lying) with mis-identification or lac of evidence. And figure in pressure/threats that have victims recanting. Oh and purposely skewed stats because of lazy police forces (like detroit, who for years didn’t even bother investigating rape reports before dismissing them as unfounded)
“That said, punishing innocents for the behaviour of their parents is no more right than any other form of abuse.”
I’ve stated many times that custody issues are a direct example of male’s sexism against women hurting men too. But societal pressure for women to be mothers, and societal belief that women make the best child care givers is a sexist gender role, and most feminists are against gender roles.
3:12 am
I know that doesn’t jive with your apparent belief that MRAs are all white power nazis, but that’s not my problem. ”
except I’ve never stated that, ever. What I’ve said is ” all groups get called hate groups by someone and white men aren’t special little snowflakes in that”. Other people have said the MRA’s are white supremacists. I try to avoid their sites because the commentary is sickening. I read enough “wish I could kill all bitches” and “those bitches just need to be raped and put in their place” comments on MRA sites to permanently ensure I won’t go to another one.
Which is another thing that boggles my mind. If a blog or forum is anti-woman, I don’t go there. If it’s anti Native American, I don’t go. I don’t participate. So I really don’t get why the hot second a place says ” we don’t support sexism”, posters come out of the walls to gripe.
It’s their house, not mine. I don’t make a habit of storming into someone else’s house to tell them how wrong they are in their own living room.
Then again, I wasn’t raised to be an entitled asshole who thinks everyone should STFU and listen to me, me me. Some people it seems, were.
4:06 am
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. However, my apologies if you have yet to use the typical white power nazi insult yet, I seemed to have confused you with a few others on this site, lol.
Regarding “your” house. That’s interesting. It seems to me that this site espouses a critical examination of society. If the application of that doesn’t seem to suit you that’s not my problem. You know what they say – if you have a solid argument then you’ll be able to weather the criticism. Obviously you don’t have a solid argument.
Btw, you used the word entitled incorrectly. It’s a discussion. That requires more than one person. Should you have chosen not to discuss, that would have been that. Probably in hindsight this would have been your best move. To use a well known quote, it’s better to be quiet and thought a fool than to have opened ones mouth and remove all doubt. (See! I’m pretty good at the closing snipe too! Hahahaha. )
7:41 am
“Regarding “your” house. That’s interesting. It seems to me that this site espouses a critical examination of society. If the application of that doesn’t seem to suit you that’s not my problem. ”
I’m not the one here telling everyone they’re supporting the wrong “side”. And, I don’t see your name on this as the owner. Therefore, it’s not your house. Yet here you are telling the home owners what they should really think. So if this site espouses things you’re firmly against, and you feel someone this furthers your persecution, wtf are you here? other than to troll? You’re not changing anyone’s mind, so it’s not for the debate or social discussion. Even you should know that.
“if you have a solid argument then you’ll be able to weather the criticism. Obviously you don’t have a solid argument. ”
I’m not the one whining that my entire gender/sex is being targeted for genocide. Or complaining that I’m being called mean names. That would be the men on this blog.
To use a well known quote, it’s better to be quiet and thought a fool than to have opened ones mouth and remove all doubt.
Honey, I have no doubt about you.
2:29 pm
It’s a wonder you dress yourself in the morning.
This site promotes debate does it not? That’s what I’m doing. I’m playing by the house rules. Apparently this is something that disturbs you. Probably because you’re losing. The rest of your ramblings related to “the house” can be discarded now, in light of the fact that you’re making no sense. Oh, one more thing. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. You, and anyone else here, are free to make up their own minds on their own.
Re the “solid argument” thread. In order for you to have a solid argument, honey, you’d need to put forth a premise. You haven’t, aside from your Housekeeper Manifesto, attempted to even do that. What you have done is try to snipe from the sidelines. And, like a respondo puppet in a scripted dialogue, you have performed impeccably for anti-misandrists everywhere.
Oh yeah. I’ve never said a gender was being targeted for genocide. You realize then that we would have no offspring right? And my complaints against name calling, I’ll admit may seem a bit thin, but since name-calling and lack of substantial argument is all you’re capable of, my choices are limited.
3:12 am
I know that doesn’t jive with your apparent belief that MRAs are all white power nazis, but that’s not my problem. ”
except I’ve never stated that, ever. What I’ve said is ” all groups get called hate groups by someone and white men aren’t special little snowflakes in that”. Other people have said the MRA’s are white supremacists. I try to avoid their sites because the commentary is sickening. I read enough “wish I could kill all bitches” and “those bitches just need to be raped and put in their place” comments on MRA sites to permanently ensure I won’t go to another one.
Which is another thing that boggles my mind. If a blog or forum is anti-woman, I don’t go there. If it’s anti Native American, I don’t go. I don’t participate. So I really don’t get why the hot second a place says ” we don’t support sexism”, posters come out of the walls to gripe.
It’s their house, not mine. I don’t make a habit of storming into someone else’s house to tell them how wrong they are in their own living room.
Then again, I wasn’t raised to be an entitled asshole who thinks everyone should STFU and listen to me, me me. Some people it seems, were.
3:15 am
I still think you need to do more research on the false rape phenomenon. I think you’d find stats that would go counter to feminist propaganda. There’s more than a couple studies that show 40 % of rape accusations to be false. But we’re on the same page on one thing. When police or other institutions avoid dealing with with injustice the public isn’t served.
Re: “I’ve stated many times that custody issues are a direct example of male’s sexism against women hurting men too”
Lol, wut? You think a broken custody system is the fault of male sexism? Your lens is very distorted. Keep railing against make believe enemies. It makes the propagandists very happy. For an anarcho you’re curiously blind to the people pulling your strings.
3:15 am
I still think you need to do more research on the false rape phenomenon. I think you’d find stats that would go counter to feminist propaganda. There’s more than a couple studies that show 40 % of rape accusations to be false. But we’re on the same page on one thing. When police or other institutions avoid dealing with with injustice the public isn’t served.
Re: “I’ve stated many times that custody issues are a direct example of male’s sexism against women hurting men too”
Lol, wut? You think a broken custody system is the fault of male sexism? Your lens is very distorted. Keep railing against make believe enemies. It makes the propagandists very happy. For an anarcho you’re curiously blind to the people pulling your strings.
3:29 am
Yes, but those studies never fail to leave out such things as
Were the false accusations true false accusations, or are cases where the evidence is lacking included? And cases that lack evidence are not the same as false.
In cases where victims recanted, why were threats against the victim ignored in order to be included in false rape stats?
“You think a broken custody system is the fault of male sexism?”
Who did it benefit to promote the belief that women were best suited to stay home and raise children? In other words, who is most guilty of believing “barefoot and pregnant” is a womans place?
THAT is why mothers get more custody. Women stay home with the children and do more daily hands on child rearing. Whether they want to or not. The parent who does more of the daily parenting is given custody. Family courts have clear and concise definitions of Primary Care Parent. And not once does it mention sex. It does however take into consideration just who has done the most feeding, bathing, nursing while ill, diaper changing, carting to functions, etc etc etc.
So sorry, but it’s not pro-woman that gives women custody. It’s restrictive bullshit gender roles. The Man is the breadwinner! The little woman stays home and does “women’s work”.
Bit ya in the ass though, didn’t it?
3:56 am
First I don’t think you’ve read any of those studies because, yes, they clearly do define (in a very narrow sense too) what a false rape accusation is.
Secondly, you’re inventing a narrative to describe why the custody system is broken. That doesn’t mean your narrative is correct. If both feminists and MRAs are for repair of the custody system then why isn’t it being fixed? Answer that question and you’ll have the correct narrative.
Thirdly, and I hope this reflects the true amusement in my heart, every time you throw in an insulting missive or gotcha (which, btw, you have yet to hit the mark on) you show your true colours. Jay’s original post, the one that spawned the debate, described people like you to a T. It’s endlessly funny that you go out of your way trying to rebutt Jay’s points and, in the end, consistently only keep validating them. And amusingly, I could use your last sentence here appropriately (unlike what you did) but I’ll save you the embarrassment, as you’ve had plenty of servings of that lately.
5:13 am
+1
3:26 pm
So it all boils down to you disliking women. Which everyone already knew, it just took a few jabs to show your true colors.
That was easy. next?
5:18 am
That’s rich coming from the ignorant bitch who defended both the now-murderer Crystal Mangum from the Duke Rape case, and Mike Nifong the DA who knowingly withheld exculpatory evidence.
7:28 am
yeah I’ve read them. I’ve also read the rather disturbing trend of police departments skewing the reports so that false rape studies are based on questionable facts. Such as the one’s I’ve described.
The same reason nothing else in the country gets fixed. Not one damn person in this country, regardless of sex, race or political affiliation want’s the national debt to be what it is. Yet it keeps growing.
“The Man is the breadwinner! The little woman stays home and does “women’s work”.
Yeah I just pulled that right out of my ass. It’s never been a societal mentality and it sure isn’t backed by any man at all in power or the average Joe. Nope. I just made up the phrase “women’s work”.
Care to address that little point or are you going to continue tap dancing around it?
2:14 pm
Well I’m glad you used the expression “pulled that right out of my ass” first, saving me the trouble of having to point it out. You’re making it pretty easy for me I’ll give you that.
The studies I’m thinking about weren’t done by the police. They’re all 3rd party. Their criteria for what constitutes false rape is simple. Either the evidence is cut and dried with no room for ambiguity or the so-called perp couldn’t have done it – ie. it was impossible for the claim to be true. That’s it. 40 %. Shocking really. The police reports didn’t really enter into the picture a whole lot.
But what you’re proposing is a whole boatload of bullshit. First you’re suggesting that cops are tampering the reports so that false rapes are reported higher. Interesting. You are aware that the US has a prison industry right? People profit when people (typically men, but we won’t go there lol) are put in prison. 7-8 times more than in any other industrialized country. Which is why it’s called a prison industry. Couple that with the ever widening definition of sexual assault to the point it’s lost all meaning (you can thank feminists for that). All of this working to skew the stats in favour of plaintiffs so that rapes are over-reported. Add a dash of the typical agendas – depopulation, destruction of the family, nanny statism, and yes, feminism, and you have even more pressure to put men in jail. I can hear the cash registers ringing already. Yet within this entirely one-sided environment against honesty, you’re saying that it’s the cops fault. Um hmm. Like hamfisted police tampering wouldn’t show up in statistical deviation, or police incompetence wouldn’t win some intrepid and angry victim a huge lawsuit payout. But logic aside, since you seem to eschew its use, let’s take a real example. The Duke rape case. Where a corrupt prosecutor intentionally ignored and covered up evidence of innocence in order to take the word of a drug user with a criminal record and a dodgy story.
It seems to me that, yes, you are pulling stuff straight out of your ass. And no, you clearly did not read the false rape reports.
Regarding the rest of your crazy little argument. A societal attitude that men are breadwinners and women are housekeepers (well-past its expiry date I’ll add, not to mention something a very large portion of society no longer considers valid) is the root cause of all this. It explains the financial collapse, and presumably anything else you’d like to tack on and blame on men. Sure it does. I have a simpler explanation of course that uses observation of real events. The financial collapse was manufactured and we can see, at this very moment, the people who did it. They’re the ones with all the money. Sad to say that greed and not your Housekeeper Manifesto is more likely to explain that, sorry.
2:46 pm
I’m sorry, but this idea that men are largely innocent of rape and constantly being accused of it is just a fantasy. Sure it may occur occasionally but overall rape is under reported as well as often dismissed too quickly. Often those who are eager to dismiss rape have a tendency to place blame the victim. The blame the victim tactic is one that dominates almost all hierarchical relationships. It turns it’s head to the hierarchical abuse and places blame on the one who is violated. This is present in nativism, racism, sexism, statism and capitalism. It justifies the domination. This is one that ignores consent. Consent is the present of a clear and freely given yes. The state and capitalism does not allow for a clear and freely given yes. They allow for the dominance of what is based on the existing hierarchical relationship. These systems of justification of domination in interpersonal relationships or social dynamics of people groups is much the same. Acceptance of roles based on social, economic or state expectations is not consent either. The disparities that exist only reveal part of the problem.
3:04 pm
I agree that blaming the victim is despicable. You have no argument with me there. However the question is “what is the real data”? If you answer that question you can throw away opinions based on supposition and deal with the facts. The facts are what matters. But I’m not going to try to tell you what to believe. If you’re interested in learning the facts I suggest finding some of the false rape studies and reading them yourself and forming your own opinion.
And yes, some of the tools of oppression are propaganda (ie. repeating the lie enough times that people start to accept it) and use of societal beliefs and biases to shame people into submission. But that’s exactly what’s happening here when a self-described MRA, or any man, attempts to even start a dialogue on this subject. You’re accurately describing the phenomenon, you’re just not realizing that you’re perpetuating it.
4:02 pm
The studies I’m thinking about weren’t done by the police. They’re all 3rd party. ”
Where do you think they get their stats from? Police depts. and court files. Most of them get their stats from each other, and once you start digging, the end of the line leads you to the same source.
Which is, incidentally, a research FAIL.
“First you’re suggesting that cops are tampering the reports so that false rapes are reported higher.”
The Detroit PD upon being investigated by the FBI admitted it. They also jacked their homicide stats. Philadelphia police hid their records on rape too.
‘People profit when people (typically men, but we won’t go there lol) are put in prison. 7-8 times more than in any other industrialized country.’
No one here would argue that. It’s also an industry built on making money off of imprisoning men of color.
“The Duke rape case. Where a corrupt prosecutor intentionally ignored and covered up evidence of innocence in order to take the word of a drug user with a criminal record and a dodgy story.”
And the AG didn’t charge her because he believed her to have been mentally unstable, and that she believed she was raped. That’s not lying, because she believed she had been.
“Regarding the rest of your crazy little argument. A societal attitude that men are breadwinners and women are housekeepers (well-past its expiry date I’ll add, not to mention something a very large portion of society no longer considers valid) ”
Keep up please. That’s the root cause of women getting child custody, not false rape claims. And, much like racism, a very large portion of society plays lips service to not believing it but who stays home with the kids more often?
4:39 pm
It’s funny when you go off misandrist narrative your accuracy goes up. Yes, agreed, the prison industry maintains an underclass that is made up mostly of non-whites. This is observable. You’ll note I’ll probably never disagree with you when you deal with the facts. Just a heads up. But, since I don’t forget this, most of the people in prison are still men. Also a fact.
Re: the false rape studies (again). Please read them. You’re talking out of your ass again. There are more people involved in documenting rape cases than just cops. There is a chain of responsibility. There are doctors, nurses, shrinks, witnesses, yadda yadda yadda. Abuse of power by the police is a long documented thing. I’m not debating that. That doesn’t excuse all of the documented times in which false rapes do happen where the cops aren’t even a factor. Like I said, you should read the studies.
As to the AG in the Duke rape case not prosecuting the “victim” because he thought she was mentally ill. Please. You can do no more to out yourself as an apologist for false rape accusers at this point. Yes she was lying. Your adherence to the victim mentally is startling, but something I’m glad everyone else here will now be able to see with absolute clarity. As long as you are incapable of understanding that women are accountable for their choices, you’re just demonstrating Jay’s points.
Re: this root cause thing. Ok, so here’s how it typically works when you make an argument. First you say something like, the financial collapse was caused by so and so. And then while discussing your thesis you stay on topic. So far you’ve managed to switch between the financial crisis and some other invention where you’re linking child custody to societal bias. I don’t disagree that there is an element of societal bias to child custody. I never even intimated otherwise. What I did say was that if feminists and male parents are pushing for equality here then why isn’t it happening? Societal bias alone just doesn’t explain that. What you’re dealing with instead is an institutional problem. I’ll leave it to the more rational anarchos amongst you to put 2 and 2 together there. Now please come back on topic and tell me how societal bias created the financial crisis. You seemed to have skipped away from that.
11:17 pm
As to the AG in the Duke rape case not prosecuting the “victim” because he thought she was mentally ill. Please. ”
Came out of his own mouth. If you don’t believe him, write a letter. I’m simply telling you what he himself said when he explained his decision not to press charges. Did you just read the parts you wanted to and didn’t bother with the rest or what? Explain your ignorance here, because someone who is going to use the Duke case should at least have all the info, not just parts of it.
“That doesn’t excuse all of the documented times in which false rapes do happen where the cops aren’t even a factor.
If cops aren’t a factor, then no one goes to jail and it’s not a false charge is it? And the cops would be involved given that Dr.s are obligated to report rape. The research you’re reading is bunk science. it uses shoddy methods, rarely cites sources one can research oneself and relies on people like you to simply nod and agree, because it fits the narrative in your head.
There’s a reason these :studies” aren’t given credibility, and it’s not because everyone hates men or is out to get them.
10:23 am
Apparently besides being an apologist for women who invent shit because they’re crazy (a constituency it seems you have great affinity for), you have poor reading comprehension. And that you would use Nifong as an authority on the false accuser’s credibility, the same guy who hid exonerating evidence, indicates you have about as much as he does. You’d refrain from passing judgment on the most heinous and obvious of crimes, should it fit within your ethos of Revenge Feminism. The problem, of course, with all you Revengists, is that you fail to see it’s primarily innocents (often children!) who are victimized when people like you are allowed to further your agenda. I’m sure, however, there’s a feminist brainwashing support group to scrub that out of your brain too. Good luck on being a human being.
Oh yeah. Since we live in a society that has laws (good grief eh!), and it’s these wacky guys called police that investigate crazy things called “crimes”… It’s kind of, oh I dunno, fucking impossible not to have some agent of the state get involved in the whole crime / policey thing. But you think that makes it inherently corrupt and thus not at all to be trusted. So you would replace it with what exactly????…… Right. There would be no replacement that doesn’t have at least some potential for corruption, which according to you means they are worthless. You have an absolute position whose absurdity it’s been a pleasure to reduce you to.
2:32 pm
But you think that makes it inherently corrupt and thus not at all to be trusted. So you would replace it with what exactly????”
Oh jesus, you’re a statist.
Makes sense now.
Just FYI, I’m an anarcho-libertarian.
2:10 am
I’m a statist?? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. No. It’s called logic, dear. And no, you’re not an anarcho-libertarian. You’re a poseur.
2:37 am
No, I’m pretty sure you’d be the first on the bandwagon if you could use the government to enforce what you want. You don’t hate jackbooted thugs when they’re on your side.
if there was no state, who would enforce the divorce laws that you want instead of what we have now?
If there was no government, then women could do as they please and you’d be left just bitching about it. God, you’d REALLY hate that.
We wouldn’t have to worry about false rape accusations, because women could simply defend themselves and shoot the rapist in the face. The VAWA wouldn’t be around, but women who defend their rights and property aren’t violating the NAP by killing a man who was abusing her. A stalker would only have to show up uninvited on her doorstep ONCE and then it’s goodbye stalker, hello bullet.
You’d be shit out of luck without the state backing you. You wouldn’t be happy, even though no laws were supporting women, because there’d be no laws supporting YOU either.
4:31 am
Yeah I’m so reliant on the state now I can hardly take it. What with not being reliant on anybody, having virtual total control over my life, vocation, avocations, and pretty much the lot. I so very much wish someone could come in and save me. Get a clue. I don’t need an anarcho meritocracy. I’ve already got it. But if it were to happen you can be quite sure the only thing that would change in my life would be seeing the lot of you useless tits go away. Which is a lot more appealing than the statist feminism that enables your existence.
3:23 pm
Btw, what are your thoughts on the Assange case? There’s a pretty clear example of consensual sex turned into assault after the fact. The leaked phone records and emails show the timelines. If a man can be clearly seen to be innocent of the charge, then why was it so easy for the prosecution to extradite him in front of the world? Sure, political influence was the main driver for it. But the system itself was oriented to allow it to happen – and easily. If you want evidence that the rails are greased against men for overzealous prosecution, there you have it.
3:36 am
The White power Nazi accusation may have come from me because some commenter were coming from links from White Pride and nationalist sites that linked here.
4:18 am
Fair enough.