I'm making an edit here. I came across pretty hard on Glenn Sacks in the first version of this, but really wanted to say that I like him, but disagree often. Now, keeping that in mind, here is the original paragraph (I believe in taking responsibility for my mistakes but also in correcting them). Now, I'm not a huge fan of Mr. Sacks, I feel he is sometimes too extreme, too conservative, too ready to accept the male point of view, however this one hit a couple of major trigger points for me.

A quick summary looks like this: There was a study that said that 28% of college women would be raped within their college years. There was a counter to that which said that number was much smaller and was exaggerated by including a lot of things that shouldn't be construed as rape in that category (like drunken hook-ups). There was backlash against that saying that if a woman is too drunk to make a rational decision then any sex with her is rape...

As a man, I have always had a rule... I don't hook up with drunk girls. I have broken this rule, but only when really drunk (which worked out pretty good last time. We have lived together for more than five years and are engaged). Most of my male friends follow similar rules. Now, none of the women I know follow anything close to those rules. If the guy is drinking, so be it. If he is conscious and not puking... then he is fair game. Does that mean I can cry rape for the times I have been the more inebriated party? Seriously... there are nights I barely remember from my teenage years and some of those nights included hook-ups and even the start of relationships. This isn't to say that there aren't men who take advantage of girls (due to the particular sub-culture I belonged to as a teenager I have had more than my fair share of encounters with unsavoury people, including some men who are in my opinion more than capable of sexual assault) but it isn't most of us, and it isn't most of the girls I used to know either. Look, it's not blaming the victim if both parties were drunk and the man had every reason to believe that it was consensual (you know, she grabbed him, started kissing him, took off her clothes, never said anything remotely resembling no or gave any indication of the same). Hell, even by the modified standards for rape (force or inebriation) you can say that any guy who ever bought a girl a drink (or handed one to her) and then had sex with her was in fact guilty of rape. That is part of how the statistics get so blown up. Here is one great quote from one of the articles "It’s pretty amazing, to think that men can only commit rape when they intend to" (from this article on the curvature). If you have reached a point in your life where you believe that it is okay to punish a man who had every reason to believe he was having consensual sex, maybe you need to do some re-evaluation. As to her claims about forced sex... of course the majority of actual rapists deny it, and yes, forced sex and rape are the same thing, but the sampling of guys asked those questions are guys who have been charged with rape, not the general populace, making this an incredibly clear case of confirmation bias.

Now, let me tell you another story about attempted rape. When I was 15 I was in the lobby of a hotel. A man came up to me and started to say something incoherent. He was drooling and very drunk, but very large. He started to gesture to his crotch and using hand gestures make it obvious that he wanted me to give him a blow job. Not my cup of tea (even if I was gay I don't think going down on a smelly drunk guy in a hotel lobby would do it for me) so I shook my head no. He whipped out a knife and held it to my throat. At that point, I had no idea what to do. All of my power was gone, I was trying to decide if I would rather die or comply. I was kind of leaning towards die. At that moment the hotel manager (I was friends with his children) came in and saw what was going on. He forced the man out of the hotel. I didn't see what happened after that, but the manager called a couple of other guys and they didn't come back in for a while. I went to the hotel bar and the manager decided to let me have a drink after he got back. This was the first of two incidents in my life. The second one found me with a large knife in my hands and my assailant deciding to get the fuck out of there before I used it.

I tell this story to a: let you know that I have a lot of sympathy for the damage caused by even an attempted rape... let alone one that is carried out to completion, and b: to attempt to put the idea of a drunk couple fucking in a realistic context. You may regret the hell out of the sex the next day, you may wish you had never met that person, but to put a drunken mistake in the same context as the real thing... it is insulting to actual victims.

There was also a party where the next morning I woke up to discover that girl I had no interest in was in the process of performing oral sex on me. I let her finish and then I got up for the day. Was I raped? Technically... yes, I never gave consent. Does it have the same impact as having a knife held to my throat? Not even close. In the one case, I put myself in the situation of being passed out drunk at a party, in the other I had no expectation whatsoever of risk. Now, I am wholeheartedly in favour of taking men who start having sex with unconscious women at a party and shooting (or at least castrating) them, but it still isn't in the same class as the knife.

I think in the end, that the feminist movement is pushing back so far because of how far they were pushed in the first place, because things happened (and still happen) like a judge ruling that a woman who was wearing jeans couldn't be raped because jeans are too hard to remove, or that a woman who has a history of sexual promiscuity is not to be believed when she claims rape (although from my perspective that women is probably the least likely to put in a false claim, as she didn't the last whole bunch of times she had sex...) and I understand that, but fuck, it's getting to the point where many men I know are terrified to have sex out of sheer terror at the prospect of a false accusation (something that contains virtually no penalties for the woman).

In the end we need to take a hard look at the whole thing, from the perspective of both genders, and deal with rapists as rapists while still dealing with innocent people as innocent. After all, your life is no less destroyed if you are falsely convicted of rape than if you are falsely convicted of murder, and it is far more common.

A woman whose false rape allegation led to the collapse of her victim’s marriage has been jailed for four months after a judge branded her ‘wicked’.

Tracey Winfield, 21, claimed she had been held down in a park by her former boyfriend Richard Peacock while his friend Dean Frasier raped her.

As a result of her allegations – delivered in a detailed, seven-page statement – the men were arrested and held in police cells for 17 and a half hours.

The pair, both innocent, were forced to undergo medical examinations and give intimate samples before being released on bail.

Their ordeals ended only when Winfield walked into a police station in Grantham, Lincolnshire five days later and confessed the incident never took place.

Mr Frasier was so distraught over her claims he contemplated suicide, Lincoln Crown Court heard.

Jailing her yesterday, Recorder Christopher Donnellan said Winfield’s lies had damaged the chances of securing convictions in genuine rape cases.

Simon Rowe, prosecuting, said Winfield initially phoned officers to say she had been attacked in Wymondham Park, close to the centre of Grantham.

The men were arrested in the early hours of the morning and interviewed twice before eventually being released.

Mr Rowe said both suffered as a result of the lie, adding that for Mr Frasier: ‘It was the last straw in his relationship with his wife.’

He said: ‘Such was his concern that he spent money on taking a polygraph test to try to prove his innocence.

‘He says Miss Winfield has ruined his life.’

My only concern is that this woman has not received a particularly substantial sentence, however a custodial of any duration is better than the pretence that such lies are of no consequence and not deserving of imprisonment that some apologists for this class of criminals would have you believe.
Cheers Comrades
8)

My Bold

This appears to be a story about a man fighting to be in his daughter’s life and wanting to protect her from what seems to be an abusive mother. Only he can’t - he has no legal rights to the child because he wasn’t married to her mother when the child was born. Despite the adamant denial that this could ever happen, I know for a fact that it can and does. These kinds of cases are not all the same across the board. Insisting that one's own experience represents every other case is not only ignorant, it's also rather immature.

I would like to take a quick detour, just to mention for the benefit of those currently studying law, that I think they will find, as they grow up in their careers, that what they have learned in the classroom about how the legal system is supposed to work isn't always how it actually does work. It's more than a little irritating to have some arrogant law student telling people that their experiences aren't real just because they don't line up with what the textbooks and law journals have to say on the subject. I'm afraid someone is in for a very rude awakening.

Now, back to the topic at hand:

I was appalled by the angry comments about how the woman is portrayed in this film; not to mention the denial that this kind of thing ever happens. It’s as if they refuse to believe that it’s possible for a woman to behave that way. They seem completely unwilling to accept the fact that there really are hysterical, abusive women and that some children would actually be better off living with their fathers.

I’m getting very tired of the whole women can do no wrong (and even if she does it's some man's fault) and all men are evil bullshit that seems to permeate feminist circles; the comments in this thread serve as a perfect example of this. This kind of thing is a huge part of why I don't call myself a feminist anymore: I don’t want to be associated with a group of people who behave and (don’t) think like this.

Yes, according to the feminists in this comments section, the film is part of an evil male conspiracy to paint all women with the same hysterical brush. It couldn’t possibly be about anything that doesn’t have their own fucking names in it! Of course not. It’s all about them. Everything is about them.

Something I found most interesting and likewise disturbing is the fact that, at the time of this writing, not a single person has commented on the clip showing the baby - who had been in the sole custody of her mother - with bruises and what appeared to be fingernail marks across her face. But it’s probably just another part of the conspiracy to portray all women as psychotic bitches. Because women never abuse children, and no man would or could ever be genuinely interested in the safety and well-being of his child.

It’s all so very disturbing and Orwellian, this black and white woman good, man bad mindset. These women seem to be mirror images of what they despise. Misandry is equally as loathsome as misogyny to me.

Here’s the trailer they’re all so worked up about. Why it’s categorized under “misogyny” is beyond me. Before you watch it, here is what the blog administrator had to say about it:

Jill says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:10 pm - Edit

A summary for those who don’t understand the trailer:

Bitchez is whores.
Bitchez be stealin your money.
Bitchez be fun to fuck, sometimes.
Bitchez get pregnant on purpose
Don’t trust dem bitchez.

There was a time when I believed this kind of comment was beneath her. Oh well...

P.S. I would have made these points over there, but I’m not keen on having my comments deleted; nor do I relish being attacked by a pack of rabid wolves for daring to speak my own mind instead of being led around by the nose by a bunch of women - as if that were somehow better than being controlled by men. That’s another thing that seems to escape them: their own behavior personifies the stereotype of the irrational female better than Hollywood ever has or could.

My friends, I have an announcement to make to you all:

I am a Gatekeeper of Feminism!!1

That's right, I exercise my amazing, all-encompassing power to tell men to "STFU and get to the back of the feminist bus," and I exercise this power willfully, indiscriminately, immorally, and much to the distaste of most people who would rather I be the one to STFU.

I am so reckless as to claim that some male feminists/allies' behavior stems from male privilege.  I know they are feminists, and yet I feel the need to shout them down when they decide that their words are more important than mine.  I should really be ashamed of myself.

I make men's words have no meaning or value by simply talking back to them.  I don't even have to delete comments or anything for that to happen -- it's probably my favorite magical feminist power.

I insist on calling assholes assholes, even though I know it's just unladylike of me to use vulgar language.

I rashly and thoughtlessly call "feminist" men who talk about themselves and their problems without touching on male privilege or feminism self-centered.  How dare I.

I demand that people stay on topic, even when they really, really want to talk about their irrelevant personal problems and illustrate their inability to comprehend basic sentences.  I am aware that this is censorship and fascism in practice, and yet I do it anyway.

I dare to transgress and blaspheme by questioning male allies' behavior, intentions, and words within the feminist movement.  And I don't apologize afterward.

When men say such philosophical and poetic things as "As a purely physical interaction of molecules in space [blowjobs have] no meaning, so it’s only in its construction, it’s [sic] significance to my partner and I [sic] , that it can be eroticised," I have the temerity to say that that sentence MEANS NOTHING.

I don't give a fuck if one dude out of millions doesn't demand blowjobs, doesn't rape his girlfriend, doesn't hit women, and I am just so invested in hating men that I don't see how one dude not doing these things makes up for all the millions of other dudes who do do these things regularly.

I get my jollies by not accounting for that one "different" "feminist" dude in my discussions of dudes and patriarchy. It's like porn for me. Yeah.

I tell men that I am not interested in hearing their opinions of how to do feminism.  Wow, even I can't believe I have the guts to do such a thing.

I stand in front of the feminist movement -- it's fenced off, you know -- with my pointy horns and my pitchfork and my bell hooks books and I tell men that they aren't allowed to enter because of their penises.  (Yes, I look in people's pants when I do that, because I'm SO NOSY.)  I don't know what "male privilege" is, and I certainly can't identify it when I experience it, so I absolutely must discriminate against men based on anatomy.  I am sexist against men, and that is just the worst thing in the world, truly.

The verdict is in: I am pure evil.  I am so evil that I am practically patriarchal.

It couldn't be -- no, I shouldn't even say it -- it couldn't be that these dudes really are assholes whose words mean nothing.  It couldn't be that they aren't feminists -- it must be that I'm keeping them out of feminism by the sheer force of my will.  I mean, there's just no other explanation for all these disempowered guys lying around the gates of feminism than that I am solely responsible for the disenfranchisement of middle-class white American dudes everywhere.

Thanks, Scott, for helping me realize just how much power I have.

I want you to keep in mind the above law as you read my brief take on F. Roger Devlin's outstanding (and MSM blacked out) essays on gender dynamics and the sexual revolution. The truth of that law is the explanation for everything you see around you today.

I found the link to Devlin through 2Blowhards with interesting followup commentary. You can read the essays here. Scroll over the icons, hit the down arrow, and click download for easiest access. This is a must read for anyone who wants to know why things seem to have gone off the rails. Devlin's essays are long but I urge you to read them through, including his evisceration of Wendy Shalit, representative of those obtuse anti-porn crusading social conservatives and myopic "fourth wave feminists" who preach from a pulpit of willful ignorance, habitually missing the forest for the trees:

[...]the notion that all our problems come from women’s making sex available outside marriage—and, consequently, that a “holding out for the wedding” strategy will make everything right again—deserves a close, critical look. Wendy Shalit’s writings provide a useful occasion for doing this. Her proposals have considerable limitations, in fact, most of which flow from a single source: feminine narcissism and its concomitant unconcern for the masculine point of view.

Devlin's essay Sexual Utopia in Power contains this nugget of truth:

It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of male conservatives: Women only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them. Some evidence does appear, prima facie, to support such a view. One 1994 survey found that “while men projected they would ideally like six sex partners over the next year, and eight over the next two years, women responded that their ideal would be to have only one partner over the next year. And over two years? The answer, for women, was still one.” Is this not evidence that women are naturally monogamous?

No it is not. Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is not to a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well: Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lie”—a belief which is salutary, although false.

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. [...]

Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime.

And here Devlin gets to the heart of the matter:

The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize their own {hypergamous} utopia, not that of men.

The irony is that in the course of dismantling millennia of biologically-grounded cultural tradition and enacting their hypergamous sexual utopia, women have unwittingly made life more difficult for all but the most attractive of them. The result has been more cougars, more sluts, and more demand for DNA paternity testing. To prevent this edifice from crumbling under its own weight entirely, massive redistributive payments from men to women in the form of welfare, alimony, punitive child support (even from men who aren't the biological fathers!), female- and child-friendly workplaces, legal injustice (women in general do not give a shit about justice), corporate-sponsored daycare, PC extortion, sexual harassment claims, and divorce theft have had to be ruthlessly administered and enforced by the thugs of the rapidly metastasizing elite-created police state. Remove these security and resource transfers and safety nets and you will see the feminist utopia crumble within one generation.

Many will suffer in the fallout. Their suffering will be necessary. The only alternative is a gradual decivilizing of the West until the hellhounds of human nature have broken their chains and the blood-dimmed tide is loosed.

My one beef with Devlin's essays is that he overlooks the emergence of game as a social phenomenon in reaction to the negative trends he correctly outlines. Game was birthed in the twin crucibles of the feminist-inspired sexual revolution and the teachings of evolutionary psychology. As women have become more hypergamous, betas, feeling the pinch, have become more dedicated to learning the crimson arts. Some alphas looking for even more edge in the dating market have also taken up the cause, with a bounty of no-strings-attached pussy the result. Women call this manipulation, but in fact it is just the same old reproductive arms race, this time with laser-guided cock bombs.

Devlin continues to make the following astute observations in Sexual Utopia:

A characteristic feature of decadent societies is the recrudescence of primitive, precivilized cultural forms. That is what is happening to us. Sexual liberation really means the Darwinian mating pattern of the baboon pack reappears among humans. [...]

If women want to mate simply as their natural drives impel them, they must, rationally speaking, be willing to share their mate with others.

But, of course, women’s attitude about this situation is not especially rational. They expect their alpha man to “commit.” Woman’s complaining about men’s failure to commit, one suspects, means merely that they are unable to get a highly attractive man to commit to them; rather as if an ordinary man were to propose to Helen of Troy and complain of her refusal by saying "women don’t want to get married.”

Furthermore, many women are sexually attracted to promiscuous men because, not in spite, of their promiscuity. This can be explained with reference to the primate pack. The “alpha male” can be identified by his mating with many females. This is probably where the sluts-and-studs double standard argument came from—not from any social approval of male promiscuity, but from female fascination with it. Male “immorality” (in traditional language) can be attractive to females. Thus, once polygamous mating begins, it tends to be self-reinforcing.

There's a reason why beta males have stopped holding open doors for women. Chivalry requires gratitude.

In Devlin's parallel essay Rotating Polyandry, he quotes a female author from her book explaining how differently men and women view sex and love:

Most men I have talked to call it infatuation, but most of the women I have talked to call it being in love… Women in particular may believe that, if they find the right person, intense feelings can last. They’ve been taught to believe that they should only want sex with someone they love. So when a woman desires a man, she thinks she is in love, and when the desire fades she thinks she is out of love.

This leads to further quotes by Devlin describing the natural forces of female caprice that make marital dissolution practically a foregone conclusion in the absence of either social shaming and stigmatism or the supervision of a very alpha dominant husband:

They often form relationships with men who are emotionally inaccessible. Instead of choosing men who are interested in developing a relationship, these women choose men who make them feel insecure. Insecurity can create motivation and excitement. Women who seek excitement in their marriages (and many do) will often forego the possibility of real relationships for the excitement of fantasy relationships…. It’s not uncommon for women to pine for men who shy away from commitment, while they shun the attention given to them by men who are willing and ready to make a commitment. [...]

When a woman wants to get married, she will usually overlook a lot, and at times allow herself to be treated pretty badly. After she gets married, not only is the excitement of pursuit over, after a few years of marriage the attraction buzz has dissipated too. At that point, many women may find that marriage hasn’t even come close to meeting their expectations. Some women feel stupid for having wanted it so badly in the first place.

And then Devlin reaches the logical conclusion -- frequently written here by me -- that marriage is not necessary for a loving, sexual, commited relationship, and is often antithetical to it:

Men being pressured for “commitment” sometimes attempt to point this out: “Why is it such a big deal? What is going to be different after we’re married?” The men are right, of course: a wedding ceremony has no magical power to produce lifelong happiness. Unfortunately, this seems to be something women only learn from experience.

Read the rest of his essay if you can stomach it for a realistic description of what exactly goes through a woman's mind as she is slowly falling out of love with her provider beta husband and contemplating the firestorm of divorce. If all men would read this and absorb its lessons I can guarantee you that marriage rates would tumble into the basement. There's only so much reality a man can bear before he begins to act in accordance with his self interest. For example:

Some of the women resented their husbands’ lack of suspicion…. Although females never give males any indication that they are anything less than 100 percent faithful, [they] seem to think men are stupid for believing them. Females just think males should know that when they say “I would never cheat on you,” what they really mean is “I would never cheat on you…as long as you make me happy and I don’t get bored.”

Feeling like dropping to one knee and slipping that $20K ring on your beloved's finger now?

Helpfully, in Sexual Utopia Devlin puts some numbers to the suspicion by men that the divorce industry is mostly a female-run enterprise:

Women formally initiate divorce about two thirds of the time. Most observers agree, however, that this understates matters: In many cases where the husband formally initiates, it is because his wife wants out of the marriage. Exact data are elusive, but close observers tend to estimate that women are responsible for about nine-tenths of the divorcing and breakingup: Men do not love them and leave them, but love them and get left by them. Many young women, indeed, believe they want marriage when all they really want is a wedding (think of bridal magazines). The common pattern is that women are the first to want into marriage and the first to want out.

Devlin goes on to describe the horror show that is the legal process when wives file for divorce and husbands and fathers take it up the ass as they are mercilessly ground to a pulp in the machinery of the state. Read the whole thing and remember that one copy of Mystery Method will cost you a lot less than a trip down the altar.

As I've said before, my advice to the typical man is simple:

DON'T GET MARRIED.

Women by nature aren't on your side, the law isn't on your side, and even lapdog beta males who've blinded themselves to reality and unthinkingly toe the PC party line in hopes their status posturing will offer them up a scrap or two of roadworn desiccated pussy don't have your side as a man. There is every incentive in the world to avoid marriage. It is a fetid corrupt mess, and only radical social change will make it an attractive alternative for men once again.

Thanks to Game and contraceptives, you can get the sex for free now without the imprisonment of marriage and potential financial and emotional ruin of divorce. The unsuitability of so many self-indulgent modern women for marriage doesn't help the once-venerable institution's cause either. As Devlin writes regarding this last point:

Men do not have to prove their worthiness to anybody. They are the ones who bear the primary costs of marriage. It is a woman’s responsibility to prove she is worthy of the privilege of becoming a man’s helpmeet and bearing his children. It takes a strict upbringing to form a tiny female savage into such a lady. Today, that form of upbringing is mostly a thing of the past: marriageable women are becoming difficult to find, and the costs of searching for them are getting too high.

I can tell you right now about 90% of the women I've fucked in the past nine months (double digits) were, barring a character transplantation, completely unworthy as marriage material. That is higher than selection effect could reasonably account.

How unsuitable is the modern woman for marriage? Devlin demonstrates that here:

Men of the older generation are insufficiently aware how uncouth women have become. I came rather late to the realization that the behavior I was observing in women could not possibly be normal—that if women had behaved this way in times past, the human race would have died out.

The reader who suspects me of exaggerating is urged to spend a little time browsing women’s self-descriptions on Internet dating sites. They never mention children, but almost always manage to include the word “fun.” “I like to party and have fun! I like to drink, hang out with cool people and go shopping!” The young women invite “hot guys” to contact them. No doubt some will. But would any sensible man, “hot” or otherwise, want to start a family with such a creature?

Now as a dedicated hedonist and realist, I am not in the market for marriage or children and so one of the things I look for in a girl is someone who isn't dropping the hammer of expectation on me, but if I were screening women for their wife and mother potential I would have to agree that any girl emphasizing her bonafides as a lover of "fun" would not make my short list. And yet a quick glance at Craigslist shows that 75% of women in the W4M section describe themselves as exactly that. Only the foreign women who post there, especially the Russians, seem aware of what it takes to inspire a man to see them as more than a pump and dump. American women need the tutelage of their grandmothers' wisdom to remind them how to cater to men's better natures, but in today's sexual market it may be too late to employ the coy strategy.

Roissy Maxim #39: If you want a wife stay clear of investing much in girls who constantly remind you they like to have "fun fun fun" and "get bored easily".

Eventually, sexbots will drive the final nail in the rotting coffin of Western marriage.

It is only under some very special circumstances that I would counsel a man to consider the option of getting married:

1. He would be perceptibly higher status than his wife. Note that this does not necessarily mean financial status; many wealthy men have been brutalized by their wives in divorce court because at their cores they were simply fearful beta males with lots of money. A high status man is one who perceives himself to be better -- as reflected in his psychological dominance -- than his woman. He would be unafraid to leave her in search of other women if she were to withdraw from him sexually and emotionally. This would keep her in line... and in love.
2. The woman he would marry is much richer than him. Although this is a recipe for loss of love and eventual divorce, at least the man who marries a sugar mommy has a distant shot at collecting alimony from her in the event of divorce and using the money to party with strippers. If not, at least he won't be taken to the cleaners, since he won't have much to clean. Only men with supreme alpha confidence who are able to attract wealthy women without the crutch of their own equivalent load of riches should attempt this marital scenario.
3. He has GAME. A man who understands the mentality of women, their different psychological profile, and their true desires and fallen natures, can risk exposing himself to a marriage system that is rigged against his interests from the start. GAME will not only win a woman into your bed, it will keep her in love with you till death... or a beta relapse... do you part.

To all the guys who've gotten married and insist their wonderful loving wives would never lose their love for them, betray them, and turn their lives into hell on earth with the rubber stamp of the law, I've only this to say...

that's what the unlucky men used to believe, too.

***

PS: Women are ten times more narcissistic than men by nature (and I'm not talking about the narrow clinical definition of narcissism but the more prevalent form of it as a normal gradient of the whole personality). We notice the narcissistic men more because women's narcissism is like background whitenoise -- always there and hence barely registered. A woman's is a self-regarding narcissism that can coexist with asexual nurturing altruism, which is the kind of altruism practiced by women that single men on the prowl for sexual relief have little use for.

PPS: When a woman appears stereotypically uninterested in discussing certain matters like, for instance, politics, is it more likely the reason that

a. she's... wait for it... uninterested in the matter or

b. she's concerned that no one would take her opinion of the matter seriously? (funny how fashion and gossip are exempt from this hypothesis.)

best,

Roissy Your Sage Dismisser of Bullshit and Upholder of Occam's Razor.

When I read what happened to James Landrith one of the things that really made me pause is the realization of the way that I have gendered the victim in my mind. Before reading his account yesterday, I never once thought to write about male victims of sexual violence. In my mind they (read: males) were the evil enemy, and not the ally for which I should weep tears of compassion, and solidarity with. I have experienced true shame since realizing this truth about myself. I am 100% against rape, and yet I created a group of victims as invisible, and thus marginalized, and ignored their experiences. Thank you for sharing James, you have opened my eyes in many ways.

One of the greatest fallacies with my reasoning was the thought that because a man had to get an erection to penetrate a woman, he must of have enjoyed it on some level. I am so ashamed to admit to this as I have often fought against this same sort of stereotype when it comes to womens physiological reactions towards rape. Getting an erection, or ejaculating during a rape is not an indication of pleasure, it is an involuntary physiological reaction. To those that think as I once did the following statistics will be eye opening.

It has been my position for some time now that the best way to change people's opinions about male victims is not badger them into agreeing or shame them into silence but to simply allow boys and men to share their experiences. If a person is reasonable and objective then the person should have little trouble considering male rape victims as being equally victimized and traumatized as female victims.

While the initial post was supportive of male victims, some of the comments on the thread are not as open-minded. There is still the issue of relegating male victimization into the realm of "Patriarchy Hurts Men Too" or the "It's Your Own Fault" category. Unfortunately, the blogger also falls into that trope. As I have said many times, part of the reason boys and men do not come forward is because they will blamed for what happened. What the blogger and some of the posters do is essentially blame male victims for their rapes and then (rather ironically) claim that those boys and men somehow benefit from it via the "Patriarchy."

Like James, I think some of the comments on that thread are condescending, dismissive, contradictory and hypocritical. I find it somewhat sad that while the blogger was willing to challenge her gendered view of rape, that challenge could not withstand her strongly held preconceived notions about how rape works, who can be harmed by rape or why rape occurs. Like many other feminists, the blogger and some of her posters fall back on male privilege as a means of -- unfortunately -- trivializing and dismissing male rape as essentially unimportant in comparison to women's experiences.

That said, I still believe that a reasonable, objective person should have little trouble considering male rape victims as being equally victimized and traumatized as female victims and acknowledging that politically-motivated theories have little to do with why women and men rape.

The woman of the story should have done something, anything else to change this situation, not commit premeditated murder then use 'battered women's syndrome' to excuse the fact that she did so.  So I argue that the man should be in jail for abusing a woman, but since the woman murdered him she should get 25 to life.

'But she was afraid for her life, in constant fear.'  Okay consider this hypothetical.  A man owns a small business and has invested all of his money and borrowed heavily to improve it so that he can support his family better and comfortably retire.  His restaurant is in the jurisdiction of an incredibly corrupt and ruthless city water inspector.  One day the inspector tells him that he will hit him with a hefty fine for some made up water usage thing unless the man gives him 2500 bucks.

The man refuses and the Inspector gives him the ticket.  The man challenges it and loses, the courts refuse to believe that the inspector is crooked and has to pay the fine which puts him further into debt.  A couple of months later, the inspector again blackmails the man and the man pays him off this time, borrowing more money.  This goes on for several years until the man is at the end of his rope and when the inspector shows up again shoots him in the face with a shotgun and hides him in the freezer for a year.  When he is finally caught, the man claims that the inspector had him in fear of his life and that he was acting in 'self-defense.'

You can argue that the man was indeed in fear of his life, the restaurant was his livelihood and the inspector was out to ruin him.  Would you argue that the man should walk away or should he go to prison for committing premeditated murder?

What can we take from a statement like that? To me, the implication is that the women involved were less deserving of slaughter than the men. It seems that the men are viewed as somewhat legitimate targets, despite their status as civillians.

The lives of men are as precious as those of women. There is no justification for this sort of message, which tells men that violence against their sex is fundamentally more acceptable than violence aganist women. There is no justification for the almost super-human levels of bravery and self-reliance that men are expected to show when threatened. There is no justification for that the way that violence against men is tollerated, that individual men are presumed to be complicit in violent exchanges unless proved innocent, while violence against women is presumed to be unacceptable in almost any circumstances. There is certainly no justification for a lack of compassionate, heartfelt grief over every civillian, regardles of their sex, who has ever lost their lives to war.

As with almost every form of sexism, both men and women suffer a disservice. When men as a whole are seen as the more acceptable target for violence, the ability of women to present a legitimate threat is dismissed. This is patronising and insulting to women, as well as dangerous for anyone who really thinks that all women lack aggression or capabiliy when it comes to physical violence! However, this issue is not primarily about women's rights, but men's.

The issue of violence against men is one of the reasons why, no matter how much I support the struggle of the world's many wonderful, insightful feminists to end sexism against women, I will never be a feminist. Surely, any permanant focus on one sex's rights above that of others' is sexist in itself. Sexism affects all of us, male, female and transgender. Unfortunately, there is pleanty of it to go around! Every person deserves protection from the various forms of hatred and discrimination directed against their sex.

The political correctness of Feminism/Misandry has given American/Western women increased power, but eliminated most responsibility of women. It has given women endless entitlements in the work place, schools, universities, military, police, family court, etcetera because it’s politically incorrect for anybody to disagree with the inequality of these entitlements.

With great power should come great responsibility, but it’s hasn’t been the case with American/Western women. Political correctness has removed most responsibility for indefensible behaviors by American/Western women by making it politically incorrect for anybody to criticize them. Women have been granted unconditional impunity for criminal activity against males, false criminal accusations against males, child rape, child abuse, divorce (no matter the facts of the case), drug/alcohol abuse, manipulation, selfishness, narcissism, shallowness, risky sex, fiscal irresponsibility, etcetera.

Women have even been granted unconditional impunity for the failings of Feminism/Misandry itself. If you chart out the incarceration rate , drug abuse rate , mental illness rate, school violence rate, and rise of Misandry/Feminism in the USA, all five graphs would look almost exactly the same. There has been changes of ruling political parties, changes of economic conditions, etcetera since the start of Misandry/Feminism, but the rise of Misandry/Feminism is the only constant factor during the almost 50 year increase of the incarceration rate , drug abuse rate , mental illness rate, school violence rate and many other problems in American society.

Political correctness has also led to lower standards in the USA. Most women could not do jobs such as Police, Fire Fighters, Military, and Engineering. So, the standards were lowered for these and many other jobs to accommodate the quotas granted to women through endless entitlements. Of course, it’s always been politically incorrect to point out that the standards had to be lowered to accommodate the quotas granted to women.

Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were two of the worst environments for political correctness ever. It was against the law for people in Nazi Germany to own radios, so that they would only hear what was politically correct to Hitler.. The feminists have made political incorrectness a crime, so that people only know one truth… the political correctness of the Femi-Nazis/Misandry. But guess what my friends, we have a huge radio, a boom box even… it’s blogs and forums like this all over the world… crank it up and let the truth ring to all of those who are willing to listen!!!

ForeignWomenOnly

http://foreignwomenonly.blogspot.com/

One of her relatives works with domestic violence cases, and I guess this woman shot her husband in the head, covered him up with linens and blankets, covered the door with towels, and no one noticed that her husband was dead for over a year.  She even held Easter for her family in the house with no one figuring out that her dead husband was hidden and rotting in the bedroom!

The sickest part of this was how happy the advisor sounded about how the woman was going to get off totally free of the murder charge.  Pre-meditated murder for women is okay, just as long as they have been 'abused.'

If I would have shot and covered up my abusive father for a year, I doubt I would get such a lenient sentence.  Hell, I might have even ended up on death row.  Just another example of how women get off, and men get incarcerated.

How do I account for it? Simple really: when my mom was kid girls had a pretty rough time of it. The were told to be pretty and sweet, and to keep their voices the hell down, because men were talking. That pretty much sucked (it wasn't even really that historically true... womens roles were stronger in primitive cultures). Her generation reached out and took that on, changed it. They said "Fuck you, we'll talk, and if we feel like it, we'll shout", and that was good.

Problem is, they don't realize, at least not on a deep level, that men my age grew up with them as mothers. We didn't grow up with the same assumptions, at least not the men that I am friends with. We see old movies where a man pats his female receptionist on the bum and we find it bizarre, some kind of strange cultural artifact that makes no sense. We don't have an emotional connection to it, hell, on some level we feel like it's just in the movies that stuff happened. Now, there is still sexism against women in some places, my fiance is experiencing some of it at work, but it hasn't been at all common anywhere I have worked. Sure, sometimes men make comments about the women they work with... but all of us make damn sure that there are no women in hearing range... and none of the comments are negative (pretty much the only thing you hear nowadays is when a male colleague finds a female attractive, and then the level of respect in the statement is pretty high). So, as all of us who were mothered by feminists and taught by feminists are wandering through the world, we are still told that men are sexist and that women are under-valued in society.

As an adult I have had to find my own way, from being married to a woman who was abusive and never being willing to deal with that fact because hey, I'm a man right? I should be able to deal that sort of thing, to being told over and over again that the only reason I did well at things (and this was always implicit, not explicit) was because I was a white male with a middle class education. This kind of thing messes you up, the belief that whatever you achieve is because you were born privileged, while being abjectly poor and having to fight for every goddamned thing you achieve (although with a lot of help from loving family who were also abjectly poor).

Then there is the edge case thing. Turns out that boys are more likely to have extremely high IQ's than girls... but also more likely to have extremely low ones. This means that it is a natural that you will see more physicists and mathematicians that are male, but also more ditch diggers. To ignore that is to ignore that there are gender differences beyond plumbing, and to discount it is to live in a world that isn't the real one.

My mother is incapable of talking about this with me... it just makes her angry. I finally even understand that (at least a little bit). What her generation went through to try and gain equality was horrible and should not have happened... but that doesn't make it okay to treat me like I don't count either.

I say fuck the whole thing. Lets stop marginalizing people based on gender and start treating them based on what they have to offer, lets put all forms of sexism in the past.

Based on the email itself, it is fairly obvious that there is some tension between the two of them. To what extent is unclear. That is not uncommon. Siblings do not always get along. The reader also does not mention any men in her brother's life, which likely plays a large part in his general behavior. Also missing is any information about the general relationship the reader's brother has with her and her mother. While the reader certainly does not have to offer that information, not having it makes it fairly difficult to judge objectively what might actually be her brother's issue(s). It might be that he is rebelling because he is a teenager, because he is under pressure or because of being raised in a feminist household where he may lack any male role models or has been taught to devalue himself because he is male. It may also be that the reader's mother focused more on her and gave little attention to her brother (for whatever reason) and he is simply rejecting being treated as insignificant by annoying and ridiculing those who rejected him, i.e. women.

However, the more interesting thing is the responses on the thread. The first poster first claims empathy, then ridicules the boy, then assumes he is gay (nothing wrong with being gay, but it is an odd jump in logic). A little further down another poster suggests putting him out of the house, which was followed by this gem:

I have found that if you just say, “Wow, I am really disappointed in you” in a very serious and somber voice and look away it tends to have an impact. Other than that the kid just sounds like an ass. If I were his mom I would smack him in the face for calling me ‘woman’ (yeah the woman who effing gave birth to you) and do something along the lines of what the person above me said. As a sibling though, the ‘disapproval’ tends to work better. Good luck.

Other posters suggest mocking his genitals, that the boy is "exercising his male privilege" and the interesting "don't slap him because at 16 he's got the strength of an adult," not "don't slap him because it's wrong to slap anyone."

Some of the posters question the use of violence, ridicule and authoritarian approaches. However, the bulk of the comments are that the boy's behavior needs to be adjusted. It only occurred to one poster, William, that growing up in a feminist family might actually have something to do with the boy's behavior. Granted, feminists are not inclined to see their own behavior, ideas or treatment of males as bad, so it is not a surprise. However, in most instances where there is this kind of specific rebellion age usually is not the main reason. It is usually the family situation the person grew up in, whether it be a strict Christian household or ultra-progress household.

The fact that no one seems to question the messages that the reader and her mother have sent her brother, i.e. whether he has been taught to value himself at all or has been taught that as a male he is somehow lesser than them, inferior, prone to violence, aggressive, an oppressor, a potential rapist, etc., is somewhat starling because they certainly would ask these things if the roles were reversed. No one has asked if he has been raised in an environment where his behavior has been over-scrutinized or where he was the odd one out in the family because he is male. The issue of male role models was brought up by several posters, to their credit, but the reader never responded an answer.

Technically, I agree that the boy's behavior is immature. It reminds me of my older brother and his general dislike of anyone or anything female. In his case he has a particularly valid reason for not trusting or liking women given the abusive way our mother treated him, which may or may not be the case with this reader's brother. However, once is a joke. Twice is funny. After that, it is completely annoying. I do not value women over men on any level, so I have the same low tolerance for blatant woman-bashing as I do for man-bashing. Certainly the boy's behavior, to the extent that he regularly demeans women, is unacceptable.

That said, the fact he was raised in a feminist household and apparently holds women in contempt should be a red flag. Honestly, the fact that he behaves this way regularly might mean that he has an emotional disconnect with both his sister and mother. In my experience, that usually suggests some form of abuse, most often emotional abuse, not uncommonly physical or sexual abuse.

In the email the reader states that her mother ignores her brother's behavior, which might be her mother's typical response to her brother. Perhaps she simply ignores him, in general or when he has sought/seeks her attention. To what extent feminism played a role in the way he was raised is unclear. Again, in my experience there is not much wiggle room for questioning feminist ideas -- not matter how negative or anti-male -- and that may have been this boy's experience. That kind of emotional abuse usually results in the intense level of negativity towards a general group of people that the reader's brother shows towards women.

Or he may just be a jerk trying to set off his sister and mother.

Given the lack of information it really is not possible to say, but the subtly of the misandry in the reader's email and on the Feministe thread might be part of the reason why this boy behaves and reacts the way he does. There is an air in the email and in the thread that he needs to be "fixed," that because he is male he is fundamentally "flawed," that somehow feminism did not "correct" him and that the only one responsible for that is him. At 16-years-old, it is not likely that he cannot detect that sentiment. That may be part of the reason why when his sister confronted him he did not response well. It may also be why he does not confide in her or her mother.

Changing his behavior begins by looking at how much his family plays into what he does. In all likelihood, he did not just happen upon the idea of gender-bashing and it is rather unlikely that just hearing other boys at school do it would push him to doing it too. So again, one has to wonder what his family situation is like and whether he has spent the last 16-years-old hearing the kinds of comments I linked to above, comments that are ironically, though subtly, full of misandry.

I would say to answer the question, you must first identify the types of Misandrists/Feminists. I would say there are four main types of Misandrists/Feminists:

The Extremist Fascists/Stalinists of Misandry/Feminism – These are the man-hating leaders of the movement over the past 40-50 years.
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2007/05/my-favourite-feminist-quotes.html
http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/newreadings/2001/feminist_hate_speech.htm
http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/quotes.php

The Willing Herd Followers – These are the women who are proud card carrying Misandrists/Feminists

The Unwitting Herd Followers – These are the hundreds of millions of American/Western women who faithfully tune into Oprah, Tyra, Ellen, Rosie, Etcetera and hang on their every word like they are the Oracle. These women buy into the myths of Misandry/Feminism without ever knowing why they believe what they believe. Of course, these women will never denounce the hatred of Misandry/Feminism, no matter how untrue the rhetoric or how unjust the result.

The Hybrid Herd Followers – These are the hundreds of millions of women who are a combination of the tree types above. These women buy into the myths of Misandry/Feminism without ever knowing why they believe much of what they believe. Of course, these women will also never denounce the hatred of Misandry/Feminism, no matter how untrue the rhetoric or how unjust the result.

I would say that the “The Unwitting Herd Followers” and “The Hybrid Herd Followers” make up the majority of the Misandrists/Feminists in America. They don’t know exactly why they believe what they believe, but they know that the leaders of Misandry/Feminism say that women are benefiting. The Unwitting Herd Followers” and “The Hybrid Herd Followers” can see that women have gained every advantage, entitlement, and quota working in their favor in schools, universities, government, the justice system, and the workplace. So, they don’t bother to think deeply enough to ever dissent, no matter how untrue the rhetoric or how unjust the result… they simply follow the herd. Since these two groups make up such a substantial percentage of Misandrists/Feminists many men are willing to accept these attitudes from women in order “to keep peace” or “to have a chance for sex”. The problem with accepting these attitudes is the same problem with accepting any attitude of Supremacy. If somebody were to say that any other hate group was beneficial, they would be called out for that support. However, “The Unwitting Herd Followers” and “The Hybrid Herd Followers” accept the attitude of Female Supremacy of “The Extremist Fascists/Stalinists of Misandry/Feminism” without ever being called out by men.

Another problem is that men are trained from the time they are babies to please women. While fathers work 8 to 16 hours per day to support the family, modern mothers are teaching little boys to please women. Then boys go to schools with over 90% female teachers. Modern female teachers are teaching boys to please women. When boys turn on the TV, they are taught that all men are idiots, and that only men who always please women are of any value. Then young men go to colleges where they continue to be indoctrinated in pleasing women. Then men enter the work place where they observe women receiving endless entitlements. When men date American/Western women they are taught that they will only get dates (and only get sex eventually) if they provide women with endless entitlements. Married men are taught that they will only receive occasional sex if they provide endless entitlements to their wives. Hence, when many men are confronted with name calling and shaming language, they revert back to the little boy who was trained his whole life to please women. Many men have become so passive that they are dysfunctional.

So, I would say the only way to arm these men is to give them laser sharp talking points for which there is no logical argument against.. To educate men about the types of Misandry/Feminism, and awaken them to the fact that war has been declared on men for nearly 50 years now. Logic is the one thing that 99% of men can and will eventually respond to. However, men are going to need to hear theses logical talking points over and over before they can overcome a lifetime of programming (many men need to be de-programmed).

ForeignWomenOnly

http://foreignwomenonly.blogspot.com/

]]> http://roissy.wordpress.com/?p=694 Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:26:43 +0000 roissy http://roissy.wordpress.com/?p=694 Some of my commenters on the Sixteen Commandments post seemed confused. I thought it would be a good idea to answer their objections.

II, keep her jealous, has to be done with care. Too much flirting with other women might lead her to dump you.
- Glorious Natural Pelt Guy

Obviously you don't want to blatantly flirt with every women who crosses your path when your girlfriend/wife is with you. There are diminishing returns past a certain excessively slavish adherence to the commandments. Even super alphas can overplay their alpha cards. But you'd be surprised just how much you can get away with (and by "get away with" I mean "make your GF horny while she watches you flirt shamelessly with other women").

they secretly love it when a man aggressively pursues what he wants and makes his sexual intentions known.

This is, BY FAR, the biggest mistake that men without game make.
- Usually Lurking

A man making his sexual intentions known does NOT mean going up to a random girl and asking if she wants to fuck. I should hope even gameless betas understand this basic concept.

One question: Any influence of age of the woman applicability?
- Anton

Only in degree, not kind. Of course, the closer she gets to hitting the wall, the less game you'll need. Eventually, just showing up will suffice.

If a man’s Alpha enough to have a couple of women in “reserve” he doesn’t need any of this advice in the first place.
- GNP Guy again

He doesn't need it because he already uses it. QED.

You’d figure that those commandments would be like a default behavior in all men, not just a province of skilled casanovas. And yet that’s not so. In fact, many — most — men take the exactly opposite approach. Why is that?
- PA

It's an interesting question why the commandments behavior doesn't come naturally to most men. It's as if dressing provocatively, batting eyelashes, acting coy, and showing a little leg didn't come naturally to women on the prowl. We know that isn't true for the vast majority of women. All I know is if every man followed these precepts there'd be a lot more fucking in the world resulting in a lot more happy smiles on the faces of the sexually satisfied.

Not only the average guy, but no guy, can hold to these commandments at all times. Some are better than others, but everyone falls eventually.

Trying to follow these commandments is like trying to fight being human and actually feeling things. [...] In an effort to fight your feelings, you have done something very “male”: tried to fix the problem.
- Tina Fey (AKA Lemmonex)

There's no need to follow the letter of the biomechanical law every minute of every day. Simply adjusting his behavior and mental state by as little as 10% so that he acts more in alignment with his yang polarity can mean the difference between a breakup and relationship bliss. Falling once in a while is not the same as staying down, which is how many diehard betas live their lives.

Since men are the chosen in the mating dance, they have to be more aware of reality than do women. If men ignore reality, they risk involuntary celibacy. If a woman looks attractive (which is most of them during their prime fertile years), she can ignore reality to her heart's content as unicorns and rainbows shower her in cellophane raindrops and still have suitors lined up around the block to fuck her. That is why men work to "fix the problem" where there is a problem. It isn't a fight against his feelings, it's an ENDORSEMENT of his feelings that he will do what it takes to satisfy his desires.

Don’t be surprised if tactics and manipulation attract the like.

Lastly, too concerned about alphaness = beta.
- Kay Gee

All goal-directed communication is manipulative. (Ask yourself: Is advertising evil?) The natural womanizer manipulates just as much as the beta spitting a routine in emulation of the natural. The difference is the natural does it instinctually. Manipulation doesn't magically become noble just because it is done at the subconscious level, just like our immune system isn't more noble than man-made synthetic drugs for fighting off illness. To wit: We are all being manipulated by our genes right now.

Re: too much concern about appearing alpha = beta. Natural alphas are very concerned about maintaining their status. They're just better at coolly concealing it.

In fact, an alpha doesn’t have to fall in love to make himself look ridiculous. Just being too arrogant, and too eager for sex, even the casual kind, can lead him to serious humiliation.
- Clio

In opposition to your point, Clio, you have described a beta. An alpha knows not to be arrogant or overeager. And falling in love is not beta, but expressing feelings of love before the woman has made that leap for her man is courting with beta disaster.

I think broadly speaking Roissy is correct in the wooing phase, but a lot of the rules will end in disaster if applied to a steady relationship. I think it’s telling that nearly all the PUA cannot maintain a relationship AND GET DUMPED. Something tells me that PUA stuff simply fails when applied to long-term relationships.
- Whiskey

Of the PUAs I know, many of them jump in and out of relationships because they like the variety. Fresh pussy is a potent addiction, and if you've got the skills to score it, you'll be less inclined to strap yourself into a monogamous arrangement. Personally, I like the best of both worlds -- love with an incredible woman spiced up by the occasional fling.

Men are if anything *more* emotional than women. But they are less expressive. This can paradoxically result in stronger emotions.
- MQ

Men have greater emotional peaks and valleys that often find articulation in physicality, as with impassioned fucking, fighting, and forging. Women have a steadier whitenoise hum of emotions at a higher baseline than men but with muted peaks and valleys. Women handle their emotional static by incessantly talking it out with whomever will listen, much like you would vent the pressure of a steam buildup by slowly turning the release valve. See: [REDACTED]. Or most female bloggers for that matter.

Roissy’s commandments may be good for “poon” as the title states, but suck for how to “keep real, true unconditional love and happiness in your life” as the last sentence suggests. But what do I know? I’m just a girl.
- Hope (AKA The Putatively Rare Exception)

A woman's psychological essence doesn't radically change after she's been with a man longer than three months. Her brain doesn't rewire itself into a wholly new entity unrecognizable from the woman she was on the first date once she's in a committed relationship. The differences between the sexes are binding, immutable core characteristics. What turns a woman on during the first few hours will turn her on in the tenth year. The commandments are equally effective for long term relationships and short term hookups. The only thing that differs is the intensity of commandment administration. If you don't believe me, observe those men who do the exact opposite of all my commandments with the women in their lives, and watch as they rend their striped shirt garments in anguish wondering why they get jettisoned for less "virtuous" interlopers.

and ever since [my husband] started being more caring and affectionate...
- The Audacity of Hope

Being caring and affectionate and following my commandments are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually reinforcing. Think about it.

Playing games inside a marriage rather than just finding a suitable partner to begin with seems to indicate the wrongness of the pairing rather than the rightness of these “commandments.”
- Hope begged for my very special lessons

The commandments aren't about "playing games" anymore than being a good provider is about playing games. They are about acknowledging reality and giving the woman you love what she truly desires. Suitable partners don't fall from trees on the side of the road. They must be found, wooed, and nourished in love, like a garden. Hope, I hope this helps.

Yours in universal orgasmic consciousness,

Roissy

On the other hand it would appear that none of the feminists there can explain exactly what "privilege" is, how it works, why it works, who is affected most and how one would make such a determination. Initially I assumed this occurred as a matter of unwillingness. However, given the number reasonably capable feminists commenting there who still cannot seem to address the questions raised, perhaps they literally cannot explain the concept beyond what Sammy refers to as "standpoint epistemology."

I think this best demonstrated by Sailorman's response to Hugh expanding the list of possible interpretations/explanations of privilege. Sailorman gave a list of five possibilities in response to a post by Daran:

1: Men are privileged over women, always, at all times (and the reverse is never true). 100% of the time, or pretty close to it, it’s better to be male.

2: Men are privileged over women in general. Which is to say, there are times where the privilege flips. But if you were to weigh things, and count numbers, and compare advantages, you’d find that at least 51% of the time, men were more privileged.

3: Sex privilege is exactly, miraculously, equal.

4: Women are privileged over men in general. Which is to say, there are times where the privilege flips. But if you were to weigh things, and count numbers, and compare advantages, you’d find that at least 51% of the time, women were more privileged.

5: Women are privileged over men, always, at all times (and the reverse is never true). 100% of the time, or pretty close to it, it’s better to be female.

Hugh responded by suggesting that there may be more choices available:

Surely these are not the only possible positions.

6: “Privilege” is a meaningless concept

7: There is a greater variance in male privilege than female privilege (i.e. more men at the top and more men at the bottom) (EDIT: this is what Daran is getting at above)

8: The privileges of men and women cannot be compared, because they are qualitatively different. The privileges of men and women cannot simply be tallied up and compared on a single dimension.

9: Even if the privileges of men and women could be compared in principle, no convincing argument has been put forward so far about who has more of it.

10) Both men and women deal with so much shit that asking which pile is bigger is really a stupid question.

If the options you list are actually the only positions that feminists can typically think of on privilege, then it’s no wonder that so many people don’t “get” the feminist concept of male privilege.

Hugh's expanded list includes the possibility that the entire framework feminists use may be inaccurate, misrepresentative, imperfect, skewed or unhelpful. These possibilities do not explain privilege in anyway. However, neither do the ones Sailorman listed. Instead, the possibilities offer another way of interpreting and analyzing privilege, which as Sammy notes likely is not testable.

Despite this, Sailorman essentially writes off Hugh's suggestions as red-herrings apparently because Hugh did not state which one he believes is correct:

You could, for example, claim that poor men are less privileged than poor women, that there are enough poor men to balance out the privilege of all the rich men, and that as a result men are less privileged than are women, and then you could defend your position. Or whatever. But simply saying “Poor men! Underprivileged!” doesn’t cut it.

Ya know, for folks who were complaining about people ducking arguments instead of engaging in them, you seem to be ducking a bit more than expected.

---

Hell, you don’t seem to have put forth an argument at all–by which I mean a defined, defensible position which can be compared to competing arguments. I don’t really care if you find the other arguments convincing or not; they are surely more convincing than a non-statement.

As I stated before, not only does it seem that Sailorman is unwilling to explain his own position, it does not seem that he can explain his own position either. His argument is essentially that one must put forth a defined, defensible position in order to analyze or criticism the feminist position, despite that neither he nor any of the feminists commenting on the thread have done anything remotely comparable to their critics. Instead, he simply presented his particular position and then refused to even acknowledge any other possible position and has yet to actually defend that position beyond simply stating that it is inherently correct.

The problem with Sailorman's argument, which seems to be the same problem with the other arguments made by feminists on that thread, is that objective analysis requires that one does not interject one's own opinion into the analysis. To do so would make it subjective, i.e. belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind. An objective analysis of privilege would include the possibility that the concept itself is meaningless, that it is inaccurate, a malformed or incomplete concept or that the concept actually does not exist.

Of course, the only means of determining any of the possibilities is to test for them, which inevitably leads to problems if one has already formed an opinion about what the results should be, which is exactly what Sailorman and the other feminists have done. Because he already presumes to know what the reality is, Hugh's expanded list essentially brings Sailorman's preconceived conclusion into question.

If it is possible that the concept of privilege is "meaningless," then his preconceived conclusion is also meaningless.

If it is possible that there are greater variances in male privilege than female privilege, then it renders the notion that men in general are better off than women inaccurate as one could not make valid generalized comparisons.

If it is possible that the two types of privilege cannot be compared because they are too different, then one cannot validly state that either group is in a better position over the other.

If it is possible that the two can be compared, but that no convincing argument has been put forth, then it renders Sailorman's preconceived conclusion equally unconvincing.

And if it is possible that men and women deal with so much that it is stupid to even compare the experiences, then it renders Sailorman's preconceived conclusion equally stupid or perhaps even stupider.

All this could be avoided by actually analyzing privilege from an objective position, which is not to say that one cannot be a feminist and be objective, but that one must not presume to know the results beforehand as that will affect how one interprets the actual results and whether one will acknowledge results that conflict with one's position. In many ways this is reflected in the responses on that thread and in Sailorman's comments. The list he gives is so skewed and narrow that one can only choose the first or second choices to avoid being mocked or lambasted. The irony is that there is no inherent difference between choices one and two or four and five. Both state the same thing, but with different wording. In fact, the second option requires that the first is accepted, otherwise the second option begs for support, which can only be given as anecdotal evidence.

However, if the first is accepted as true, then one can leave open the possibility that men may occasionally, but rarely, experience something that is a technically a disadvantage without actually acknowledging any instance in which women are actually privileged over men. This is done by essentially accepting clearly bad things such as forced military service and prison rape as disadvantageous while disallowing, diminishing or wholly ignoring other clearly bad things such as the rape of men and boys outside prison, homeless men, male victims of violence, male suicide, the boy crisis in schools, male profiling, etc. because they do not fit into the feminist framework.

The ultimate problem with Sailorman's logic is that it is not particularly logical. One cannot limit the possibilities to only the options that one either finds completely acceptable or completely laughable. Logic requires that one acknowledges options that may render one's position inaccurate, incomplete, misguided or meaningless. That is the difference between wanting to be right versus seeking to know the truth.

And in case anyone is wondering why I posting the response here, that is because Ampersand banned me from posting on his blog (though he ironically feels free to post on my blog) and because I would rather discuss people's arguments rather than get attacked.

Maybe it's because I wrote it and it made me laugh, but I really don't think it's misandry. I don't hate men...I hate arseholes...and even then do I advocate violence? NO! What I'm saying is *intelligent design* would seem a whole lot more intelligent to me if penises had been designed to be attached by velcro. C'mon...you KNOW you wanna laugh you angry little dudes!

So yeah, I spent the day wondering about whether or not what I was advocating was violence and mutilation...and well, I don't really think so, no...ok...I do have a tendancy to joke about utilising cartoon style violence on people like Miranda Devine or Piers Ackerman (I mean for real, picture smacking her in the face with a shovel, it goes BOING!!!! and her face is imprinted in the shovel...but she's unharmed!). But those *are* jokes, I would never REALLY hit anyone with hands or with anything, and I would never think it was funny if it happened...I'm definately anti mutilation and violence.

But with the velcroscenario...I dunno...it's like stealing the nose of a Mr Potato head figurine...harmless confiscation (and helpful when penises are so often used as weapons)...a playful fantastical daydream whereby I could roam the streets with safety knowing I could dole out a painless and kinda funny consequence next time some arsehole thought it'd be funny to scare me...

And I still think that equating it with either a hatred of men, or the sadistic disembodying and often sexual violences that are inflicted on bodies (so much more frequently on women's bodies) so often is a bit like the hysteria over Harry Potter making kids want to use magic wands...IT'S NOT REAL!!!!

Also...is there not something to the imaginary violence of the victim fighting back? Like the vicarious joy of watching Buffy wail on some dude bearing down on her with evil intent, I just meant for the confiscation of the penis (without pain I might add) to be a levelling of the playing field in the area of the imaginary.

I mean, I'm down with the fact that "it's only a joke" doesn't excuse stuff that's still sick, is still linked to real violences, is still rooted in hatred/real disrespect...but c'mon! Tongue. In. Cheek...

Again, I'm not doing too well at being terribly serious about the subject...sigh.

Deranged feminist I'll wear with pride (especially coming as it does from deranged and tantruming menfolk) but misandrist...I think not.