RoR: Forum

Ginny,

I think you missed the point of this article entirely.

Rape and other forms of initiated violence against any human being are morally wrong, they are reprehensible, and the perpetrators ought to be severely punished.

That doesn't alter the following facts:

- many feminists are not in favour of equal rights for women, but are actually anti-male

- such feminists often intentionally mis-label events and manipulate statistics in order to make the 'average man' out to be some kind of violent rapist monster

- they deserve scorn, derision & mockery for the above, which Alec was kind enough to provide in his inimitable style

If you carefully re-read the article, you'll come across this passage:

We need counseling for rare victims of real violence. We also need to pursue an impartial and intellectual study of sex. But neither goal should be exploited as a politicized medium for propaganda, as it has been by feminist institutions on campus. All they’ve done is to contribute false information and to literally put the “y?” back in women. What a legacy.

This doesn't look like trivialisation to me. Furthermore, the only use of the term "cow" is in this passage:

It’s time to put this diseased sacred cow out to pasture.

How did you manage to take from this the idea that Alec considers women cows?

Your response looks to me like a knee-jerk reaction to a few honest truths about so many of the 'feminists' we're cursed with today. Note that I use the term 'feminists' loosely, lest I be accused of lumping genuine human-rights activists in with the manhating brigade who you seem hell-bent on defending.
(Edited by Duncan Bayne
on 5/02, 4:10pm)

Post 41

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 5:10pm

Duncan

You shouldn't be using the term feminist in your post at all. Someone who is "not in favour of equal rights for women, but [is] actually anti-male" is, by definition, not a feminist. Now, if you had said that some women are waving the flag of feminism under false pretenses, I would agree with you.

However, to marginalize this violence by saying the "rare" victims need counseling is worthy of outrage. In that I support Ginny in saying it's no laughing matter.

Sarah

Post 42

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 5:24pm

Nice ass, Nicole.

I'll take responsibility for the derogatory term "cow" being falsely attributed to Alec by some posters in this thread. He concluded his article by referring to phallophobic feminism as a "cow," and I started the thread by calling his feminist detractors "cows." So I guess I crossed a few people's wires there.

But I'm not about to shrink from using the term "cow" to describe the worst element of campus feminazis, who I was sure had probably already submitted hysterical letters to the Nexus (a suspicion easily confirmed by clicking on any of the links Alec provided). You want to see an ugly cow, you need look no further than Andrea Dworkin, a woman who coped with sexual assault by spending the last few decades of her life railing against the most pleasurable, spiritually sacred act that two people can enjoy.

I don't pretend to know what it is like to experience sexual assault, or to deal with the pain and psychological damage that it must inflict. Nor do I know what it is like to have to worry about walking alone at UM at night (though I always offer to escort women on my campus if they ask, and make it a point never to make romantic advances when I do). But I have dealt with some emotionally traumatic shit in my life, and I didn't get over it by obsessing over who I could blame and how, or by devoting my academic career to the subject.

Could there be reasoned criticism of Alec's article? Sure... I just haven't seen any. All I've seen is the typical hysteria, psychologizing, and "you're-a-man-you'll-never-understand" hogwash one always encounters when advancing heretical propositions like Alec's. Nicole, I actually agreed with your post right up until your catty little flirting advice to me, which made your entire post look like an us-vs-them rant. I never called you a cow, but if you really want to lump yourself in with the "ugly cows" I was talking about, fine. If the hoof fits, wear it.

And to continue with the bovine discussion, your implication that most men are boob-ogling sex-obsessed perverts is just so much bullshit. Most guys certainly need to "change the way they think," but in the exact opposite way you implied. If there's one manifestation of the potent evil of radical feminism I see every day, it's the sheer terror of my fellow men at the thought of expressing any sexual interest in a woman. (Yes, there are boorish exceptions. 99% of them can be avoided by staying away from bars and hip-hop dances.) They started us on this crap in fourth grade--don't touch, don't look, don't even think of another girl in a sexual way, or it's harrasment and it's wrong. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, these "counselors" left us with a ball-and-chain where our balls-and-dicks should have grown.

I'm interested in intelligent conversation, shared experiences, a relationship of total trust and complete absence of pretense. And I'm also interested in hot, steamy, do-it-till-you-pass-out sex with a woman who I think has a nice ass and a sweet rack to boot. I'll know I've found the right woman when she takes my compliments to her physique (tendered at the right moment and in a playful spirit) as what they are: FUCKING COMPLIMENTS! They're a way of saying, "I'm interested in sex with you," without displaying the tact and charm of a soccer hooligan. If she turns down my advances, fine; she's welcome to go find her ideal verbal eunuch, Lord knows they're all over the place these days. She wasn't the one for me anyway.

I applaud Alec because he had the ovaries to call out academic feminism for what it is: a pseudo-philosophical discipline dreamed up by penis-haters, and stagnating from its own bitterness and victim-mongering. And I'm not about to quietly acquiesce to labels like "soft" or "indifferent" to rape when I believe castration and 30 years minimum in prison is an appropriate sentence for that penultimately heinous crime.

Alec, I wish you all the best in your editorial battles. Your piece was dead-on, and the accusations of callousness and indifference being hurled at you on this forum and in the pages of your university newspaper should be thrown back on the dung heap from whence they came.

(Edited by Andrew Bissell
on 5/02, 5:44pm)

Post 43

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 5:39pm

Sarah,

Firstly, the reason I call them "feminists" is because that's what they call themselves. It's like the term "liberal" - it's been hijacked by socialists & progressives to the extent that very few people think "Austrian Economists" when they hear the word "liberal".

The fact that I don't recognise them as genuine feminists (i.e., those who campaign for equal rights for both genders) is indicated by the quotes - i.e. "feminists" instead of feminists.

Secondly, use of the word "rare" was Alec's, not mine. But my understanding of his meaning is that real instances of assault against women, while deplorably common, are rare when compared with the frequency that self-styled psuedo-feminists would have us believe is real.

I am reaching the conclusion that you & Ginny are deliberately suspending your reading comprehension skills in order to attack Alec's article.

Post 44

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 5:50pm

Andrew,

Firstly, I think you mislabel (beyond calling them feminists) what you call academic feminists. The people you are talking about aren't interested in academic issues at all. They would be more like activistic "feminists."

Secondly, about these compliments. Let's see if you can tell the difference between the following two statements: (1) She's got a nice ass. (2) She's a nice piece of ass. See the difference? Objectification of people is an issue that can be rationally discussed. I wonder if you're as willing to do so as you claim, or if you'll simply continue to defend the use of the word cow.

Does every debate turn into this? Each side pats itself on the back while ignoring the other side and you call it a day?

Sarah

Post 45

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 5:56pm

Andrew,

When you say, "Could there be reasoned criticism of Alec's article? Sure... I just haven't seen any. All I've seen is the typical hysteria, psychologizing, and 'you're-a-man-you'll-never-understand' hogwash one always encounters when advancing heretical propositions like Alec's," do you mean that none of the responses in this forum have been reasoned criticisms either?

What about the fellow who objected not to Alec's thesis (anti-gender studies) but to his generalizations, terminology, and choice of tone and phrasing? ("I don’t want my little girl to grow up in a world where men like Mr. Mouhibian think date rape is a myth and sexual violence isn’t 'real violence.' You don’t need Birkenstocks, hairy legs or 'morbid Marxist ideology' to be a feminist; you only need to not be an asshole.") It wasn't a point-by-point analysis, but he was no more glib than Alec was in the first place. And it certainly wasn't along the lines of "you're-a-man-you'll-never-understand."

Have you honestly seen no reasonable reactions to the article besides unqualified praise? Or are you only "encountering" what you expect to encounter?

(Edited by Eve Stenson on 5/02, 6:12pm)

Post 46

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 5:57pm

Duncan,

Your conclusion might hold up if it weren't for the fact that I agree with Alec's article. The meaning behind it at least, if not all the details.

I did see that you stated that you used the term feminist loosely, and so I was hesitant to say what I did. But, given that you put feminists in quotes in one part and didn't in another I assumed you were referring to the unquoted feminists as what you viewed as genuine feminists instead of impersonators.

...are rare when compared with the frequency that self-styled psuedo-feminists would have us believe is real.

Can you show that? I believe it is your "side" that wants the rational argument. How about a little corroborating evidence?

Sarah

Post 47

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 6:10pm

Sarah,

The FBI maintain some very detailed crime statistics here.

According to the FBI, the stats show that 72 women in 100,000 in the U.S.A. were raped in 1995 - a total of 97,464 victims, comprising ~ 10.5% of reported violent crime for that year.

This is a truly horrendous figure. It's more than the total population of the town in which I grew up.

However it also puts a lie to the figures claimed by pseudo-feminists. Furthermore, it's worth considering that many of the psuedo-feminists who rail against imaginary rape figures are themselves at least partially responsible for the horror of the real figures, by supporting "gun-control" legislation:

"Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990)."

In other words, they rail against men as being the cause of rape statistics they've essentially invented, and then conspire to prevent women defending themselves against real rapists, leaving their lives in the hands of legislators and policemen who, wait for it ... are primarily men.

Sometimes my head spins at their outright evil & hypocrisy. I apologise if I've come over as overly bitter or hostile as result of this.

Post 48

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 6:15pm

Sarah,

I used the term academic feminists simply to refer to the feminists in academe. And like any broad-brush generalization made on an Internet forum, it came with the implicit qualification, "yes, there are exceptions." I'm not writing a term paper here.

Okay, even though it's a red herring, let's discuss objectification of people. First, I'll draw your attention to the fact that I used precisely the language you prefer in my post (i.e., I want a woman with a nice ass). I have objectified the "activist feminists" (split those definitional hairs however you like) because I think they are vile people with poisonous goals who pursue even worse means to achieve them. So, instead of accepting their premise that it is sexist to criticize them, I take that idea and throw it back in their faces by using a sexist term like "cow." Similar "objectification of people" occurs when one calls Osama bin Laden a rat, John Kerry a weasel, or George Bush a chimp. Another term for it is calling names.

Eve, you provided the perfect example of what I was talking about. Instead of offering a refutation of Alec's arguments, he resorts to ad hominem ("asshole"), straw men (alleging Alec "thinks date rape is a 'myth'"), and appeals to "please think of the children" (i.e. his daughter). It was indeed a glib letter, as you yourself point out (and glibness, like Alec's, is fine by me when employed in support of a true thesis).

Post 49

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 6:18pm

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 6:30pm

Andrew,

I'm not writing a term paper here.

You are while I'm around.

Red Herring? You brought it up. Now I will draw your attention to my language. I did not claim that what you said wasn't a compliment. But the issue at hand is not compliments. I can let a compliment slide even if it irks me, but an objectification, i.e. I am an object for someone's pleasure and not a rational being, I will not let slide.

In objectifying activist feminists what have you done? You have, as you put it, turned the issue into a name-calling game. How does that help anything?

Sarah
(Edited by Sarah House
on 5/02, 6:32pm)

Post 51

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 6:30pm

(Edited by Andrew Bissell
on 5/02, 9:08pm)

Post 52

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 6:31pm

Andrew, I guess I have more sympathy for the letter-writer's phrasing because I found Alec's date rape comment to be ambiguous as well, and his generalizations to be unnecessarily provoking. In a similar fashion, you don't mind Alec's ad hominem ("gargoyle"), straw men ("any guy who pays lip-service to feminism...") or glibness because you consider his point worth noting.

I just meant that characterizing all the criticism as monolithic was inaccurate and counterproductive.

Post 53

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 6:36pm

Unecessarily provocative? According to radical feminists of the Dworkin school, I'm a rapist by virtue of my gender (which is of course unreal, and a social construct - such wonderfully muddled thinking).

And moreover, the very concept of manhood needs to be destroyed in order for women to be free.

I suspect that Alec is sick to death of being on the receiving end of this kind of crap. I know I am.

(Edited by Duncan Bayne
on 5/02, 6:36pm)

Post 54

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 6:43pm

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 6:47pm

The term "gargoyle" applied to Gloria Steinem is no ad hominem. It's a perfectly accurate description of that woman's habits and courtroom agenda.

I suppose what it boils down to is I don't mind Alec going overboard a little bit (of course he knows that not all men are faux-feminists) for the sake of an hilarious joke. And it gets that much funnier when people take everything he writes completely seriously, word for word.

Post 56

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 6:55pm

Inaccurate and counterproductive is an excellent way to describe what's going on here. I agree with what Alec said, just not how he said it. It was ambiguous enough to do nothing more than throw gas on the fire. So, while you may be able to laugh it up at the people taking his words at face value, what he said is getting lost in the chaos. The article would have served better as a rant on this forum instead of the Nexus.
(Edited by Sarah House
on 5/02, 6:56pm)

Post 57

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 7:07pm

Am I the only woman here who likes being a sex object? It's not all I am, but it is why I get dolled up sometimes and why I walk swishier when walking by a group of admiring men. I like to be admired. I don't like gross men or dangerous men, but I like when regular men (hispanics in particular because they are so openly admiring without being creepy) stare at me. I love to know that guys think I have a nice ass. Rape is clearly wrong. Sexual abuse is clearly wrong. But there is nothing wrong with masculinity, and nothing wrong with me loving to be the focus of it. The feminists in charge of gender studies and the like want men and women to be the same. They are not, and I'm glad.

Kelly

Post 58

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 7:20pm

Kelly,

Being attractive or feminine doesn't mean being a sex object. Being masculine doesn't mean being sexist.

I've always been a bit confused about this obsession with sex in the U.S. To non-U.S.-ians, is it prevalent elsewhere too? To analog Kelly, am I the only one that cares more about what's being said than what's being worn? An object does not think, has no rights, no desires. Objectification is, on my list, one of the worst insults in existence (right around being called a subjectivist).

Sarah

Post 59

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 7:26pm