No. 2187Anonymous 28th November 2009 Saturday 2:44 am2187Ridiculously over-the-top feminists.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not against women better asserting themselves in the world, celebrating who they are or any other similarly benign desire, but I take exception to a certain breed of woman who lacks even the most basic understanding of what it is like to be a man, while simultaneously complaining that men have no idea what it's like to be a woman.
And, in some ways, even moreso by the comments that go along with it.
An excerpt:
>Now, you want to become acquainted with a woman you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.
>“But wait! I don’t want that, either!”
>Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones?
Yeah, men (who account for 75% of murder victims and the majority of violent crime victims overall) have no understanding of what it feels like to be threatened. It's not like we ever get assaulted by random people on the street or in bars or anything. I know that when I'm walking around my city alone after dark, I just stroll down dark alleys willy-nilly because my penis makes me immune to violence.
And the worst comment I've ever read, from "Caitlin":
>I think that’s the also really interesting other facet of this. Starling’s post looks at Shrodinger’s Rapist from our point of view — that we can’t tell which way it’s going to go until it does, and then it’s too late. Bagelsan’s was looking at the fact that the man himself may not know yet which way he’s going to go in a situation, and will act according to how other people respond. If the woman is sufficiently pleasant and accommodating to his continuous intrusion, maybe he’ll just harrass her a bit and go on his way. Or maybe he’ll think “she wants me” and rape her. If the woman refuses to play along, maybe he’ll be intimidated and leave it, or maybe he’ll hurt the upppity bitch to show her what’s what, especially if a carriage full of people are ignoring (=condoning) their whole interaction, so he must be right to treat the uppity bitch this way.
>A man who would never conciously think of himself as a rapist could approach a woman on public transport “just to talk to her” and have any, all, or none of these motivations in his head, and how it proceeds from there is a random product of her reaction, onlookers’ (usually lack of) reaction and the situation. The terrifying thing is that there is no way of knowing what will provoke this particular “perfectly reasonable guy” into the “attacker/rapist” state, and there is no way for us to win.
tl;dr - we're all rapists, we just don't know it. Fucking rage.
> 3. If I am never promoted, it's not because of my sex.
If women get promoted because of their sex (see point 2) then men will loose promotions due to not being women.
> 5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are.
Men are sexually harassed all the time, it's just not a problem for us.
> 7. If I'm a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low.
This is just a badly worded point. If women meet these criteria their risk of rape is also relatively low (ie. in comparison to not meeting these criteria).
> 8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.
She used 'taught' probably because she can't find any figures that suggest women have more need to fear walking alone in the dark.
> 9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
Yes it is. Being gay is rarely masculine and that's what childless men are joshed about. Additonally, if you don't have any kids it's usually because you can't get any women - another facet of being manly.
> 10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
She's ignoring the fact that any man who wants to be a primary carer for their children would have questions against their masculinity. Besides, I wouldn't question the masculinity of a women who wasn't the primary carer, would you?
> 11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent.
By other women. To other men, a man is being a good father when they step in whenever necessary to ensure their family's welfare.
> 12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I'm selfish for not staying at home.
Again, only other women will care.
> 14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
> 15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
What is she saying? That somehow talking to people of my own sex is some sort of advantage... that I'm privileged to be able to speak to people of my own sex? This is batshit insane.
I seriously can't comment any more on this list because it's taking up too much of my time. Just from reading the rest there's 20 or so points that are just complete trash.
The fun part comes when you try to explain how preposterous this concept of male privilege is to some of these women. I tried it, making points not dissimilar to yours, and pretty much all I got back was a bunch of comments about how the biggest male privilege of all was not being aware of one's own privilege.
I seriously tried enumerating an equivalent list for women (which was a piece of piss, since there is a roughly equivalent point to be made on each side of all of these apparent issues) but it had no impact on their thinking whatsoever. I was just another fortunate man who had everything handed to me on a plate.
I think the best comment I read about the whole affair was ironically from the woman who led me to this treasure trove of insanity and the creation of this thread in the first place. I read about it on Belle de Jour's blog, and her supreme disdain for it helped me view it with less rage than I might otherwise have felt:
>If you're reading my blog, then you know I'm a long time, dyed-in-the-wool A-number-1 Fan Of Men. If anything, being a sex worker made me more sympathetic, instead of less so, to their struggles and their lives. And as a result it amazes me just how casually, and how widespread, the assumption is that men have things easy.
>Go on, open a Sunday supplement today. How many pages in before you encounter some polly filler by a female columnist implying men in general (or her man in particular) doesn't pull his weight at home, while she majestically juggles family, work, and the burden of having a vagina which has the audacity to bleed once a month?
>Bottom line, it takes a particular kind of self-consciously middle-class gynecentric view of the world to imagine that the only physical danger men face is in a war zone. As someone who has lived in more than a few dodgy neighbourhoods - because sponging off my parents was categorically Not An Option - and been privy to the secrets and fears of my male friends, I do not think they have it easier than we of the XX-type. Different, yes. Easy, no.
>There are elements of male life that, as a woman, I am exempt from. For the most part this is reciprocal: in most situations they will never have a fear of rape. But I almost never enter a room worried about who is sizing me up for fisticuffs. When my ex, the Boy, was attacked and sent to hospital with multiple skull fractures by six strangers who jumped out of a car onto him and his brother... I was not thinking, 'well, at least he had it so much easier because he was male!' The last time T came back from Brum with a bloodied lip and a torn shirt, it occurred to me yet again that there are plenty of situations that read as 'Danger!' to men in which I would get a free pass. Because I'm a girl.
>And let us not forget that the sort of men who exercise violent dominance over women do not only do that to women.
>But then, it must be beastly difficult to see that from the point of view of a B.A. in Women's Studies surfing broadband in your parents' spare room. Very difficult indeed.
All of this is of course paranoid and insultingly sexist bollocks, but I wouldn't contest the assertion that most men are after sex and sex alone when they interact with a woman they are attracted to.
>>2270 > What is she saying? That somehow talking to people of my own sex is some sort of advantage... that I'm privileged to be able to speak to people of my own sex? This is batshit insane.
A charitable interpretation would be that, as a woman, you have considerably fewer role models when it comes to powerful positions, which is a fair point. The phrasing implies otherwise, of course, so I agree: batshit.
>A charitable interpretation would be that, as a woman, you have considerably fewer role models when it comes to powerful positions, which is a fair point.
One could say that about any under-achieving ethnic minority. I understand it. But if one group wants role-models, they have to make them themselves.
>>2275 Sure, it's not an issue that's specific to women, and your solution is correct as well, but it's a chicken and egg problem. Admittably the people who bleat about this the loudest usually have the same kind of attitude as people who bitch and moan about the government and then don't bother to vote, but it's a valid point none the less.
I never realised how wide-spread this bullshit is. For extra spice, throw in some paedophilia as well:
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/12/16/girl_raped_at_school/index.html Guy has (apparently) consensual sex with a 10 year old whom he believed to be 16, but of course that can't be the case since it was rape and he raped her and rape rape and she can't consent rape rape rape.
I developed super early for girls and started puberty at 9 with a massive growth spurt. At 10 I looked a good 3-4 years older than I actually was, with boobs and hips already and being tall (5'5 then, currently 5'10). It's unusual but possible.
It drives me up the wall whenever a feminazi starts moaning about "male privilege". I read an interesting statistic once, that 90% of all homeless people in this country are male. 90% of the people on the absolute bottom rung of society's ladder; I don't understand how they still manage to justify the idea that they're still privileged purely for their sex.
Feminazis are just the same as any other paranoid conspiracy theorist, if they weren't doing this, they'd be telling everyone how the CIA destroyed the twin towers, or how the Queen is a 10ft lizard.
I'm sorry, I don't read /101/ often, this background is impossible to deal with.
>The fun part comes when you try to explain how preposterous this concept of male privilege is to some of these women. I tried it, making points not dissimilar to yours, and pretty much all I got back was a bunch of comments about how the biggest male privilege of all was not being aware of one's own privilege.
I hope you retorted that the biggest indicator of being a psychotic paranoid feminazi is not being aware of one's own psychotic paranoid feminazism.
These arguments really do raise the hackles. Especially this sort of thing:
>A man who would never conciously think of himself as a rapist could approach a woman on public transport “just to talk to her” and have any, all, or none of these motivations in his head, and how it proceeds from there is a random product of her reaction, onlookers’ (usually lack of) reaction and the situation. The terrifying thing is that there is no way of knowing what will provoke this particular “perfectly reasonable guy” into the “attacker/rapist” state, and there is no way for us to win.
I struggle to believe that anyone thinks this way, could be that articulate as well as that fucking clueless.
These are the same nutters who would otherwise think the world is run by a Jewish banking conspiracy, or a Hollywood homosexual conspiracy. They've got the same solipsistic, persecuted mindset that isn't going to be dented no matter how much logic you throw their way.
>>2484 I was about to make a joke about "true feminists" (the "womyn" type) refusing to use the term ad hominem and instead using ad feminem.
I then realised that feminem sounded like a female rapper.
A fellow I studied with in Spain once made me aware of a strange ritual in which Sabbateans would gather together, men and women, in a room. And suddenly, the lights would go out and they would copulate promiscuously with one another.
It was known that, under these circumstances, one would even be able to copulate with one's mother or sister, because, of course, you didn't know whose vagina you were entering. And often, from these issued unions, children would be born.
It's worth noting that "feminism" is not a uniform movement, even when you consider it on a "sliding scale". It roughly divides into three camps: First, second and third wave feminism.
First wave, unsurprisingly, comprises the first feminists. The (almost exclusively) women who fought against the very obvious discrimination at the time. You'll find few nutjobs in that part.
Second wavers are where most of the crazies come from. It's a post-first-wave ideology that's half "Payback time!", half misandry and garnished with a dollop of female supremacy. They form quite a vocal and tight knit front. They also make for the most appealing headlines, so they tend to get publicity far beyond their actual numbers.
Third wave feminism is more accurately described as gender egalitarianism but retains the feminism moniker as it's roots lie firmly in that area. Few crazies come from this camp.
The point? Some "feminists" are crazy in the same way that the black supremacists from the racial equality movement are crazy and, on the whole, the former deserve the same disdain and obscurity that the later "enjoy".
Let me start out by assuring you that I understand you are a good sort of person. You are kind to children and animals. You respect the elderly. You donate to charity. You tell jokes without laughing at your own punchlines. You respect whites. You like white people. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful friendship with a white person.
So far, so good. Mr. Griffin, your humble instructor, approves. There is nothing wrong with these a yearning for human connection.
Now, you want to become acquainted with a white person you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that whites are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a black. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.
“But wait! I don’t want that, either!”
Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into a gang war? Because, for whites it is. My own activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?
So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this black assault me?
Do you think I’m overreacting? Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey. How do I know that you, the nice guy who wants nothing more than conversation, are not a violent criminal?
I don’t.
When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Thug. You may or may not be a violent black. I won’t know for sure unless you start assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.
Fortunately, you’re a good guy. We’ve already established that. Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the whites with whom you interact feel as safe as possible.
To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%. For some whites, particularly whites who have been victims of violent assaults, any level of risk is unacceptable. Those whites do not want to be approached, no matter how nice you are or how much you’d like to converse with them. Okay? That’s their right. Don’t get pissy about it. We are under no obligation to listen to you.
The second important point: you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat.
This means that some black people should never approach strange whites in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a white person cold. That doesn’t mean you’re doomed to a life of exclusion, but I suggest you start with internet chat, where you can put your unusual traits out there and find someone who will appreciate them.
Are you wearing a tee-shirt referencing violent hip-hop culture? NOT A GOOD CHOICE—not in general, and definitely not when approaching a strange white.
Pay attention to the environment. Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a white person and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a woman in most public places. If the public place is a closed area (a subway car, an elevator, a bus), even a crowded one, you may not realize that the person’s ability to flee in case of threat is limited. Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this white be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach them.
On the other hand, if you are both at church accompanied by your mothers, who are lifelong best friends, the white is as close as it comes to safe. That is to say, still not 100% safe. But the odds are pretty good.
The third point: Whites are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you.
You want to say Hi to the polite white guy on the subway. How will he react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because he’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb him. Really. Even to say that you’ve read his book or have the same briefcase. A compliment is not always a reason for whites to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Thug. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win them over with charm or flattery. Believe what they’re signalling, and back off.
If you speak, and they respond in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, they’re saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone.” You don’t know why. It could be “Please leave me alone because I am trying to memorize Beowulf.” It could be “Please leave me alone because you are a scary, scary black man with breath like a water buffalo.” It could be “Please leave me alone because I am planning my assassination of a major geopolitical figure and I will have to kill you if you are able to recognize me and blow my cover.”
On the other hand, if they’re turned towards you, making eye contact, and they respond in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to them, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.
The fifth and last point: Don’t murder whites. Nor should you commit these similar but less severe offenses: don’t assault. Don’t grope. Don’t constrain. Don’t brandish. Don’t expose yourself. Don’t threaten with physical violence. Don’t threaten with sexual violence.
Shouldn’t this go without saying? Of course it should. Sadly, that’s not the world I live in. You may be beginning to realize that it’s not the world you live in, either.
Mr. Griffin wishes you happiness and success in your search for romantic companionship.
I was only going to do the first paragraph, because that's more than enough to get the point across, but I got carried away with my clever, clever comeback to this daft bint.
>>2674 It's not. It's taking another (unfairly and unfortunately) common fear of people based on differences between you and them, and attempting justify prejudice through the use of flimsy statistics.
Both are as repulsive examples of thoughtless and primitive discrimination, but one can be vocalised because of those gosh darn white men and their privilege. Apparently the irony of prejudging white men based on generalised attributes is lost on these whiney cunts.
In what way? It's a simple highlighting of the fallacious righteousness anybody can feel in pre-judging based on broad fears. It seems pretty sound, unless you have a specific problem with it which I haven't noticed.
I can't accept a serious defence of this argument as being innocent, plain speaking and coherent. It seems to speak for a recognisable constituency of opinion judging by your and the following reply, but until these appeared I was unable to comprehend the point of it all.
There are assumptions supporting the reasoning which are not axiomatic despite being presented in that way. Interestingly it resembles the kind of complaint based on generalisation that it appears to criticise.
Oh, and I did read the other bit too, >>2681. It's nice of you to think I had missed it.
It's all right if you don't believe me: what I can't accept is that the argument above is a genuine attempt at an even-handed analogy. It is a loaded argument reliant on a given body of opinion, and it is dishonest to present it as objective.
>>2686 I don't actually believe what I wrote, you know?
These people are trying, with complete sincerity, not to address the problem of prejudice but to justify it. If I were to use that argument with them I have no doubt they'd tell me that I was to blame and should embrace Johnny foreginer, as thinking of him as a criminal leads to isolation which leads to criminality. This is not an unreasonable stance to take. When it comes to this scenario, however, it's okay to discriminate against men as they have 'privilege', that mystery quality that makes the majority an acceptable target.
This is from the comments:
"I really do think the onus is on men to not be creepy vs. on women to not be afraid of potentially creepy men."
Yes, women! Attempt to discern whether an individual man is or is not a rapist based on his own qualities and how he presents himself to you.
But start with the assumption that he's a rapist, ofc.
Is the onus on black men not to be intimidating? I think not.
And also;
>>2684 >Interestingly it resembles the kind of complaint based on generalisation that it appears to criticise.
