This week NPR's Jennifer Ludden reported about feminist activists who are pushing universities into punishing students accused of rape and sexual assault.. The reporting is horribly one-sided and leaves out the crucial detail that many of these accusations uses an overly-broad definition of rape that many people reject.
Her report started with a new student orientation at Georgetown that broke students into small groups to discuss this new low standard for rape. Well, I think students should be warned, but not with the message the activists will give. This is what I would tell them:
Welcome new freshmen. I want you to take everything you know about rape and forget about it. Forget about the idea that this is something vile people knowingly do. The classic definition, of sex forced upon an unwilling partner, has been dismantled. Instead, the term has been redefined from an evil, violent act into a mild technicality.
From now on, you must think of all sex as rape until it can be proven otherwise. It is the default now. Think of rape as a new concept and forget about everything you knew going in. Forget about men violently forcing themselves on women or taking advantage of unconscious people. That's the old definition. The new one must be taught, as no one would ever figure it out for themselves without guided lessons.
Under the new definition, all sex is rape until the woman gives verbal permission to a man, known as affirmative consent. Nothing else will do, such as letting one thing lead to another and letting reciprocated acts or a lack resistance speak for itself.
And if the woman has been drinking or is high, that permission doesn't count. After all, you can't sign a legal contract while intoxicated, because all human interactions should follow the same rules as formal documents that are checked by lawyers and that require the signatures of witnesses.
It doesn't matter if she is the aggressor, is older, is in a committed relationship with you or is willing to have sex again afterwards. It doesn't matter if both partners acted completely the same or are both intoxicated. It isn't really about what either sex partner wants, but about satisfying the wishes of activists. This is about attacking men and treating women as helpless children.
In fact, it may not even matter if she gives you permission and you have documented proof that she was both and went far out of her way to have sex with you. Schools like this one care more about appeasing activists than preserving justice. This is not about justice or morality; it's about shielding young women from the consequences of their actions at the expense of young men.
Don't expect women to have to lift a finger to notify you that the rewarding sexual activity you're engaging in is secretly a life-ruining rape. She can always change her mind later and retroactively remove permission later. From the activist perspective, it's better to let women be raped than to ask women to exercise prudence for their own well-being.
As we've all experienced, most women want to be pursued and want men to play the aggressor in sexual situations. That's why the activists are putting all responsibility on the male partner - they still believe sex deep down inside that sex is something men pursue and women act as the gatekeepers to sex.
And above all else, if you want to make sure you never commit a happy, consensual act that has been redefined as rape, don't ever pursue a women's studies major.
Read more...
Showing posts with label Men's Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Men's Rights. Show all posts
Friday, August 29, 2014
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Great journalism on the men's rights movement
VICE reporter Alex Brook Lynn has just done a multimedia piece on both the women of the men's rights movement, and the entire movement itself.
It is phenomenal. I endorse it with every clinging scrap out clout I have.
The full video and article are here. The following embedded video is a one-minute trailer:
What really stands out to me here is that we get to see both the valid points the men's rights movement cares about as well as the scumbag tactics the activists use. Issues like domestic violence against men and the new definition of rape need to be discussed and addressed, and I'm glad people are out there fighting for this cause, but as I wrote last April I absolutely loathe the tactics they are using.
In the video, you see one of the activists proudly states that they are using the Malcom X approach, which is contrasted with the always reasonable and soft-spoken Warren Farrell who uses a peaceful, MLK approach. The movement is dominated with hyperbole and bomb throwers and they acknowledge this openly. Like CancelColbert social justice warrior Suey Park stated in March, they admit they are purposely saying outrageous things to get attention.
Bad journalism serves to advance an agenda or glosses over nuances in search of a good story. Good journalism informs and enlightens. It would have been very easy for Lynn to create yet another hit piece focusing on the bad tactics and dismissing men's issues, but instead Lynn has done the modern world a service by framing this subject in a way that is both fair and moving.
Bravo.
Read more...
It is phenomenal. I endorse it with every clinging scrap out clout I have.
The full video and article are here. The following embedded video is a one-minute trailer:
What really stands out to me here is that we get to see both the valid points the men's rights movement cares about as well as the scumbag tactics the activists use. Issues like domestic violence against men and the new definition of rape need to be discussed and addressed, and I'm glad people are out there fighting for this cause, but as I wrote last April I absolutely loathe the tactics they are using.
In the video, you see one of the activists proudly states that they are using the Malcom X approach, which is contrasted with the always reasonable and soft-spoken Warren Farrell who uses a peaceful, MLK approach. The movement is dominated with hyperbole and bomb throwers and they acknowledge this openly. Like CancelColbert social justice warrior Suey Park stated in March, they admit they are purposely saying outrageous things to get attention.
Bad journalism serves to advance an agenda or glosses over nuances in search of a good story. Good journalism informs and enlightens. It would have been very easy for Lynn to create yet another hit piece focusing on the bad tactics and dismissing men's issues, but instead Lynn has done the modern world a service by framing this subject in a way that is both fair and moving.
Bravo.
Read more...
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
How about, don't hit people?
I remember a slogan that said there is no excuse for domestic violence. I wish more people who pride themselves for being supporters of domestic violence victims would adopt it.
Because there seems to be plenty of excuses when it's a woman striking her male partner.
Sports commentator Stephen A. Smith was suspended for his commentary on the suspension of NFL player Ray Rice after Rice hit his girlfriend in an elevator and then dragged out her unconscious form. More specifically, Smith was suspended for a straw man version of his commentary that was trumped up to make him look bad.
There's a two-minute clip going around that does a neat job of propagandizing the issue, as it snips off important details he said before and after the clip.
In the full clip, Smith said, "People get on television and they get scared to broach these subjects... You say you don't care whether she hit or not. Let me make everybody uncomfortable by telling you I do care." He then proceeded to say that some men are vile and will assault women no matter what, but others will only do so when they are provoked, by which he was referring to a woman striking first. Then, at the end, he said even if a woman strikes first it is still wrong for the man to hit her back.
So what was the fake version of his comments being shared? They claimed that his message was that women shouldn't provoke men into hitting them, making it sound like he was pinning the blame entirely on victims. He tried clearing it up and apologizing, but online outrage never accepts apologies.
I first learned about the high prevalence of "mutual combat" in domestic violence from advocate Erin Pizzey. While most people automatically sympathize with the female partner, there is still an underlying problem that needs to be addressed with couples that strike one other repeatedly and create a cycle of violence in their relationship.
I imagine mutual combat makes feminists and domestic violence advocates uncomfortable and they either don't know much about it or try to rationalize it away because they don't want to place any responsibility on a victim.
So ponder this: Overlooking the issue of mutual combat in domestic violence means this major issue is going unaddressed and more women are hitting their partners as a result. That directly means more male domestic violence victims (which I hope we can all agree is a bad thing) and indirectly means more female domestic violence from provoked male partners.
Trying to force domestic violence into a simple good vs. evil narrative actually leads to more domestic violence.
While Smith said men struck by their partners should not hit back, Whoopie Goldberg said that people struck have the right to strike back, and that Rice's fiance shouldn't have struck him first.
“If you make the choice as a woman who’s 4 foot 3 and you decide to hit a guy who’s 6 feet tall and you’re the last thing he wants to deal with that day and he hits you back, you cannot be surprised,” said Goldberg. "Don't anybody hit anybody."
That should be the real takeaway message here. No one should be hitting anyone. Period.
Read more...
Because there seems to be plenty of excuses when it's a woman striking her male partner.
Sports commentator Stephen A. Smith was suspended for his commentary on the suspension of NFL player Ray Rice after Rice hit his girlfriend in an elevator and then dragged out her unconscious form. More specifically, Smith was suspended for a straw man version of his commentary that was trumped up to make him look bad.
There's a two-minute clip going around that does a neat job of propagandizing the issue, as it snips off important details he said before and after the clip.
In the full clip, Smith said, "People get on television and they get scared to broach these subjects... You say you don't care whether she hit or not. Let me make everybody uncomfortable by telling you I do care." He then proceeded to say that some men are vile and will assault women no matter what, but others will only do so when they are provoked, by which he was referring to a woman striking first. Then, at the end, he said even if a woman strikes first it is still wrong for the man to hit her back.
So what was the fake version of his comments being shared? They claimed that his message was that women shouldn't provoke men into hitting them, making it sound like he was pinning the blame entirely on victims. He tried clearing it up and apologizing, but online outrage never accepts apologies.
I first learned about the high prevalence of "mutual combat" in domestic violence from advocate Erin Pizzey. While most people automatically sympathize with the female partner, there is still an underlying problem that needs to be addressed with couples that strike one other repeatedly and create a cycle of violence in their relationship.
I imagine mutual combat makes feminists and domestic violence advocates uncomfortable and they either don't know much about it or try to rationalize it away because they don't want to place any responsibility on a victim.
So ponder this: Overlooking the issue of mutual combat in domestic violence means this major issue is going unaddressed and more women are hitting their partners as a result. That directly means more male domestic violence victims (which I hope we can all agree is a bad thing) and indirectly means more female domestic violence from provoked male partners.
Trying to force domestic violence into a simple good vs. evil narrative actually leads to more domestic violence.
While Smith said men struck by their partners should not hit back, Whoopie Goldberg said that people struck have the right to strike back, and that Rice's fiance shouldn't have struck him first.
“If you make the choice as a woman who’s 4 foot 3 and you decide to hit a guy who’s 6 feet tall and you’re the last thing he wants to deal with that day and he hits you back, you cannot be surprised,” said Goldberg. "Don't anybody hit anybody."
That should be the real takeaway message here. No one should be hitting anyone. Period.
Read more...
Friday, May 9, 2014
Airplane sexism
A short essay from a mom who doesn't want men to be allowed to sit next to her kids on an airplane has drawn some much-needed criticism. The idea that all men should be considered rapists and pedophiles, and treated as such until proven otherwise, is a modern sickness
I came across the following comment from a man named Michael in Virginia that is worth preserving here:
Read more...
I came across the following comment from a man named Michael in Virginia that is worth preserving here:
I once got on a standby flight that was filled up by a travelling youth group (a choir or something) and one of the chaperons pitched a fit with the airline when they tried to give me the one empty seat. Her argument was that the seat was paid for, but the ticket holder was out sick. I wasn't sure why she was making such a big deal out it until I realized that I was an adult male and these were teenage girls. Believe me, if anyone was getting abused on this flight, it was going to be me. I just wanted to put on headphones and listen to music and drown out the chatter.
After many arguments with various airline personnel, including the captain of the plane, the woman finally compromised by having the seats reshuffled so I was sitting in between two chaperons and not next to any of the girls, which really irritated me more because I was now forced to sit for three hours next to a woman who thinks I am a rapist.
Treating adult men and adult women differently is sexism, and it's disturbing to see how often pedophilia is on the minds of some parents.
Read more...
Monday, April 21, 2014
Why I am not part of the men's rights movement
I care a lot about men's rights issues, including domestic violence against men, male disposability, the male suicide problem, asymmetrical attention for men's health issues, false rape accusations, discrimination against men and attempts to vilify masculinity in modern society.
Unfortunately, the movement that is drawing attention to these important issues tolerates too many scumbags in its ranks.
In college I read The Myth of Male Power and became a huge Warren Farrell fan. I also became a male domestic violence victim and felt I had no where to turn - not the police, who would have probably arrested me instead of my abusive girlfriend - and not the local domestic violence shelter, the same one I had given money to at a fundraiser earlier that year.
It's not that I thought they would turn me away; they probably would have given me a safe place to stay for the night. It's that they never presented themselves as an organization that welcomes male victims, so in my time of crisis it never occurred to me that I could call them for help.
There's one major aspect of my views on men's rights that most people misunderstand, and I have this view because Warren Farrell made a very good argument for it. Our society is bisexist - that is, it is sexist against men and sexist against women at the same time but in different ways. That doesn't mean they automatically balance out - I consider that magical thinking - and I'm open to the idea that women have it worse overall, but they are both there.
Caring about men's issues does not mean that we have to ignore, mock or diminish women's issues. It's a big world and we can care about all of them.
I lost my friend Mark to suicide in college. I didn't think of it as a men's issue at the time, but now that I'm more familiar with the subject I recognize it as one. While women attempt suicide more often, men die from it four times as often.
This winter when I cheered on a friend at a polar dip for a gay men's domestic violence group in Boston, my heart sang when the founder told his story. In 1993 he fled for his life from a partner, but was turned away from domestic violence shelters because of his sexuality and his gender. Even as a straight man I could relate to that feeling of isolation and abandonment and I realized I want to be around more people who care about these issues.
But it's not going to be the men's rights movement. They have too many monsters that are allowed to move about the ranks. There are extremely vocal people in it that hate western, independent women and dismiss all claims of anti-female sexism out of hand. Even beyond them, there are many members who are rude, vulgar and childish.
Two years ago I wrote about how absurd it was for the Southern Poverty Law Center to label the men's rights movement as a hate group. I stand by what I wrote, that they were cherry-picking and ignoring the Warren Farrell's of the group. There are the legitimate sexists, and then there are people just like me who want to address legitimate problems men have in our society.
The problem is, every time I try to read men's rights webpages, I end up finding the trolls within a few clicks. They are there, and there are a lot of them.
Of course, the critics paint them all with one brush and often sprinkle in messages from comments sections to pad the numbers of jerks. In fact, feminists have dug up obscure passages that Farrell wrote and misrepresented what he said about consent laws to dismiss him. This is a crude tactic to avoid addressing his real concerns, and unfortunately it has worked on many young impressionable minds.
I hate acronyms so I'm not going to call anyone an "MRA," and feminists have done a good job of using that three-letter term to associate men's rights activists with negative connotations. That have, in fact, poisoned the movement in the public's eye.
Which is ironic, because every single problem I have with the men's rights movement is a problem I have with modern feminism. Look at the tone of this vulgar piece on A Voice For Men. It's like I'm reading another foul-mouthed social justice warrior rage blog. Perhaps that's because it is just another social justice warrior rage blog. Feminist circles have their obnoxious extremists who say monumentally stupid or crass things, and many of them get propped up as legitimate leaders in the movement. The more I learn about the men' rights movement, the more I believe they do it too.
The two movements mirror each other in ways that supporters from both don't like to think about. While I love people like Farrell are care about these issues, I have no interest in being associated with the troll fest.
I've also owned a grey fedora since college and would like to be able to wear it again on formal occasions, but the men's rights stereotype destroyed that for me.
Read more...
Unfortunately, the movement that is drawing attention to these important issues tolerates too many scumbags in its ranks.
In college I read The Myth of Male Power and became a huge Warren Farrell fan. I also became a male domestic violence victim and felt I had no where to turn - not the police, who would have probably arrested me instead of my abusive girlfriend - and not the local domestic violence shelter, the same one I had given money to at a fundraiser earlier that year.
It's not that I thought they would turn me away; they probably would have given me a safe place to stay for the night. It's that they never presented themselves as an organization that welcomes male victims, so in my time of crisis it never occurred to me that I could call them for help.
There's one major aspect of my views on men's rights that most people misunderstand, and I have this view because Warren Farrell made a very good argument for it. Our society is bisexist - that is, it is sexist against men and sexist against women at the same time but in different ways. That doesn't mean they automatically balance out - I consider that magical thinking - and I'm open to the idea that women have it worse overall, but they are both there.
Caring about men's issues does not mean that we have to ignore, mock or diminish women's issues. It's a big world and we can care about all of them.
I lost my friend Mark to suicide in college. I didn't think of it as a men's issue at the time, but now that I'm more familiar with the subject I recognize it as one. While women attempt suicide more often, men die from it four times as often.
This winter when I cheered on a friend at a polar dip for a gay men's domestic violence group in Boston, my heart sang when the founder told his story. In 1993 he fled for his life from a partner, but was turned away from domestic violence shelters because of his sexuality and his gender. Even as a straight man I could relate to that feeling of isolation and abandonment and I realized I want to be around more people who care about these issues.
But it's not going to be the men's rights movement. They have too many monsters that are allowed to move about the ranks. There are extremely vocal people in it that hate western, independent women and dismiss all claims of anti-female sexism out of hand. Even beyond them, there are many members who are rude, vulgar and childish.
Two years ago I wrote about how absurd it was for the Southern Poverty Law Center to label the men's rights movement as a hate group. I stand by what I wrote, that they were cherry-picking and ignoring the Warren Farrell's of the group. There are the legitimate sexists, and then there are people just like me who want to address legitimate problems men have in our society.
The problem is, every time I try to read men's rights webpages, I end up finding the trolls within a few clicks. They are there, and there are a lot of them.
Of course, the critics paint them all with one brush and often sprinkle in messages from comments sections to pad the numbers of jerks. In fact, feminists have dug up obscure passages that Farrell wrote and misrepresented what he said about consent laws to dismiss him. This is a crude tactic to avoid addressing his real concerns, and unfortunately it has worked on many young impressionable minds.
I hate acronyms so I'm not going to call anyone an "MRA," and feminists have done a good job of using that three-letter term to associate men's rights activists with negative connotations. That have, in fact, poisoned the movement in the public's eye.
Which is ironic, because every single problem I have with the men's rights movement is a problem I have with modern feminism. Look at the tone of this vulgar piece on A Voice For Men. It's like I'm reading another foul-mouthed social justice warrior rage blog. Perhaps that's because it is just another social justice warrior rage blog. Feminist circles have their obnoxious extremists who say monumentally stupid or crass things, and many of them get propped up as legitimate leaders in the movement. The more I learn about the men' rights movement, the more I believe they do it too.
The two movements mirror each other in ways that supporters from both don't like to think about. While I love people like Farrell are care about these issues, I have no interest in being associated with the troll fest.
I've also owned a grey fedora since college and would like to be able to wear it again on formal occasions, but the men's rights stereotype destroyed that for me.
Read more...
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
FBI cans left-wing busy bodies
This is a subtle, but important news story. The FBI stopped linking (and therefor, stopped endorsing) the Southern Poverty Law Center on the FBI hate crime webpage. Along with the Anti-Defamation League,
The SPLC does good, important work by identifying hate groups like KKK offshoots, and black nationalists. I give them props for labeling black nationalists as racists, something I've seen too many left wingers decline to do, but their recent opposition to men's rights showed how low a threshold they have for outrage.
Read more...
The FBI had no comment and offered no explanation for its decision to end their website's relationship with the two groups, leaving just four federal links as hate crime “resources.” The SPLC had no comment.
The SPLC does good, important work by identifying hate groups like KKK offshoots, and black nationalists. I give them props for labeling black nationalists as racists, something I've seen too many left wingers decline to do, but their recent opposition to men's rights showed how low a threshold they have for outrage.
Read more...
Sunday, March 9, 2014
How not to argue against privilege
Today while reading an otherwise brilliant and moving piece about the struggle of one father to see his own son, I had to forgive the author for making a common error when he closed with a shout against the concept of male privilege. Specifically, he wrote:
As I wrote before, there are clueless social justice warriors who misuse the legitimate concept of privilege and treat it as a dumb "I win" button in discussions. Those people act as if accidents of birth dismiss the validity of someone's arguments, and only personal experience can be used to find truth in the world. Those people are wrong and should not be taken seriously.
But the actual privilege arguments are much more modest and reasonable. They do not say that men or whites have every advantage in society, but say that there are certain scenarios where some people do not have to worry about certain things. Tim Wise used the example of a cop helping jimmy open the lock on his car without checking to make sure it was actually his. If Tim has been black, the cop probably would have at least asked.
But what Tim Wise and the other social justice warriors don't include in their message is that all groups have privilege, including women. Female privilege, for example, includes not worrying about being accused of pedophilia while interacting with kids, sitting next to them on a plane or when using a public skating rink bathroom.
As Warren Farrell said, our society is sexist against men and women at the same time in different ways. That is not to say that they automatically break even, but that the two are not mutually exclusive.
Many, many times I see someone going up against an activist by pointing out some injustice men face and asking how they could possibly be "privileged." When they say that, I know they don't really understand the concept, and they are guilty of making the same simplistic assumption the social justice warriors make by assuming only one group can experience harm at a time.
Read more...
This is why I have a problem when people tell me I’m “privileged” just by virtue of my being a male.
As I wrote before, there are clueless social justice warriors who misuse the legitimate concept of privilege and treat it as a dumb "I win" button in discussions. Those people act as if accidents of birth dismiss the validity of someone's arguments, and only personal experience can be used to find truth in the world. Those people are wrong and should not be taken seriously.
But the actual privilege arguments are much more modest and reasonable. They do not say that men or whites have every advantage in society, but say that there are certain scenarios where some people do not have to worry about certain things. Tim Wise used the example of a cop helping jimmy open the lock on his car without checking to make sure it was actually his. If Tim has been black, the cop probably would have at least asked.
But what Tim Wise and the other social justice warriors don't include in their message is that all groups have privilege, including women. Female privilege, for example, includes not worrying about being accused of pedophilia while interacting with kids, sitting next to them on a plane or when using a public skating rink bathroom.
As Warren Farrell said, our society is sexist against men and women at the same time in different ways. That is not to say that they automatically break even, but that the two are not mutually exclusive.
Many, many times I see someone going up against an activist by pointing out some injustice men face and asking how they could possibly be "privileged." When they say that, I know they don't really understand the concept, and they are guilty of making the same simplistic assumption the social justice warriors make by assuming only one group can experience harm at a time.
Read more...
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Word games
Taking a page from race profiteers, fringe feminists like Diana E. H. Russell are saying this Samsung ad portraying a stupid, grunting, sloth-like husband are not sexist because that word only applies to situations that are diminishing to women.
Well professor, what do you propose we call it when the most hostile stereotypes for a gender are used to portray a fictional man? Even if the rest of us took your arbitrary language hijacking seriously and agreed not to use the term sexism - something I will fight to the grave - what is the name for this phenomena?
This is what I hate about the dismissal about men's rights issues the most. It would be one thing if it came from apathy, but the people doing it are not neutral about gender issues; they are heavily invested in them as long as women are the victims. The moment the same forces are turned on men they shut their eyes as a reflex and defend the worst cases of gender stereotypes, hostility and discrimination.
It's because they assume sexism against men and sexism against women can't exist in the same same society, and that even admitting sexism against men exists or causes problems threatens their world view.
Read more...
Well professor, what do you propose we call it when the most hostile stereotypes for a gender are used to portray a fictional man? Even if the rest of us took your arbitrary language hijacking seriously and agreed not to use the term sexism - something I will fight to the grave - what is the name for this phenomena?
This is what I hate about the dismissal about men's rights issues the most. It would be one thing if it came from apathy, but the people doing it are not neutral about gender issues; they are heavily invested in them as long as women are the victims. The moment the same forces are turned on men they shut their eyes as a reflex and defend the worst cases of gender stereotypes, hostility and discrimination.
It's because they assume sexism against men and sexism against women can't exist in the same same society, and that even admitting sexism against men exists or causes problems threatens their world view.
Read more...
Monday, June 17, 2013
Limited justice for Brian Banks
Brian Banks was in high school when he fooled around with a girl who later told police he raped her. His lawyer told him if he didn't plead guilty he could get 40 years in jail, and being a young black man practically guaranteed a guilty verdict.
All too often women escape all legal punishment after they are caught destroying a person's life with a false rape accusation. Even after Banks got Gibson to admit on video that she fabricated the entire story prosecutors still wouldn't touch the case.
Thankfully, Banks was able to win back his good name through help from the California Innocence Project, and the school district won a $2.6 million civil case against Gibson, even though prosecutors have been unable to find her and she has already burned through the $1.5 million she took from them and has been on welfare. But is that really enough? Letting someone like this escape justice and live the life of a child of the state isn't justice, it's tolerance of evil.
If prosecutors won't go after Wanetta Gibson, who will they go after?
Read more...
Wanetta Gibson accused Banks in 2002 when the two attended Long Beach (Calif.) Poly High, where Banks was a star prep prospect. Banks was convicted of rape, lost his USC scholarship and landed in jail, and Gibson sued the Long Beach Unified School District for being unsafe and won a $1.5 million judgment.
Gibson later confessed that she lied and Banks was released in 2012. Gibson must repay a $750,000 settlement to the LBUSD plus attorney fees, interest and more than $1 million in punitive damages.
Banks, 27, got several NFL tryouts last year and played in the UFL before he signed with the Atlanta Falcons in April.
Lawyers were unable to locate Gibson, who has a history of civil litigation claims by and against her, including temporary restraining orders and domestic abuse charges. It's reported she also is being sued by the county for child support after receiving public assistance. The ruling allows the school district to get the money through her future wages and property.
All too often women escape all legal punishment after they are caught destroying a person's life with a false rape accusation. Even after Banks got Gibson to admit on video that she fabricated the entire story prosecutors still wouldn't touch the case.
Thankfully, Banks was able to win back his good name through help from the California Innocence Project, and the school district won a $2.6 million civil case against Gibson, even though prosecutors have been unable to find her and she has already burned through the $1.5 million she took from them and has been on welfare. But is that really enough? Letting someone like this escape justice and live the life of a child of the state isn't justice, it's tolerance of evil.
If prosecutors won't go after Wanetta Gibson, who will they go after?
Read more...
Monday, December 3, 2012
Fringe feminists oppose free speech
I had to stop myself from titling this entry "Feminism isn't a religion, it's a cult" because I started writing immediately after I watched the following video from the University of Toronto:
Feminist activists tried to stop men's rights and gender equality author Warren Farrall from speaking at the school defaced and removed promotional posters and blocked audience members from entering the venue until police forcibly removed them. They also assaulted police and harassed people who tried to enter.
I realize that the brutes who staged this violent protest do not represent all of feminism. That's why I wouldn't let myself use that pointed title I first came up with. However, the protesters who blocked the doors did behave like cultists. One of the hallmarks of cults is shutting out the influence of outside messages. That's exactly what they did here, try to block other students from hearing a message they don't like.
The target of these protests wasn't just Farrell, it was also the public. In a summary of the fundamentals of freedom of speech, Christopher Hitchens said:
Hitchens went on to ask who would the listener entrust the great responsibility to decide what they should be allowed to listen to or read. The implied answer was no one.
Watching that video, I can't say that I would appoint a group of ignorant, self-righteous, close-minded angry fanatics to decide what I can hear.
I find it frustrating when someone tries to dismiss a thinker based on something tangential they said that is separate from the important ideas they contributed. Last week I tried reading what progressive writer Corey Robin had to say about Friedrich Hayek, but he was more interested in alerting people to Hayek's embarrassing support of Augustus Pinochet than to address any of his major ideas. This is a sign of a hack, and it's telling that the Toronto protesters focused on a single line Farrell wrote in 1993's The Myth of Male Power.
Farrell had criticized watering down the definition of "date rape" to include cases where women say "no," then change their mind and engage in sexual activity without verbally declaring "yes." Farrell was critical of labeling this as "rape" because no unwanted sexual activity occurred. Instead, the sexual partners did not follow a protocol established by certain activists. He then wrote "We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting."
That's where the out-of-context quotes of saying Farrell supports date rape come from. They have no interest in understanding his message, they just want an excuse to shut him down.
It is customary to blame media bias when stories like this fails to capture much media attention, even though reporters where there when it happened. I try not to make jump to those conclusions when a story like this fails to spread, but I would bet money that if this was a Christian group shutting down Dan Savage from trying to speak using the same forceful tactics it would be all over the news.
Is there anyone who would find tactics like this acceptable when used against a speaker they agree with?
These activists are brutes. They are so absolutely sure that their world view is correct that they are willing to stomp all over the rights of others to silence their opponents. This is fanaticism and it has no place in a civilized society.
Read more...
Feminist activists tried to stop men's rights and gender equality author Warren Farrall from speaking at the school defaced and removed promotional posters and blocked audience members from entering the venue until police forcibly removed them. They also assaulted police and harassed people who tried to enter.
I realize that the brutes who staged this violent protest do not represent all of feminism. That's why I wouldn't let myself use that pointed title I first came up with. However, the protesters who blocked the doors did behave like cultists. One of the hallmarks of cults is shutting out the influence of outside messages. That's exactly what they did here, try to block other students from hearing a message they don't like.
The target of these protests wasn't just Farrell, it was also the public. In a summary of the fundamentals of freedom of speech, Christopher Hitchens said:
It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view.
Hitchens went on to ask who would the listener entrust the great responsibility to decide what they should be allowed to listen to or read. The implied answer was no one.
Watching that video, I can't say that I would appoint a group of ignorant, self-righteous, close-minded angry fanatics to decide what I can hear.
I find it frustrating when someone tries to dismiss a thinker based on something tangential they said that is separate from the important ideas they contributed. Last week I tried reading what progressive writer Corey Robin had to say about Friedrich Hayek, but he was more interested in alerting people to Hayek's embarrassing support of Augustus Pinochet than to address any of his major ideas. This is a sign of a hack, and it's telling that the Toronto protesters focused on a single line Farrell wrote in 1993's The Myth of Male Power.
Farrell had criticized watering down the definition of "date rape" to include cases where women say "no," then change their mind and engage in sexual activity without verbally declaring "yes." Farrell was critical of labeling this as "rape" because no unwanted sexual activity occurred. Instead, the sexual partners did not follow a protocol established by certain activists. He then wrote "We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting."
That's where the out-of-context quotes of saying Farrell supports date rape come from. They have no interest in understanding his message, they just want an excuse to shut him down.
It is customary to blame media bias when stories like this fails to capture much media attention, even though reporters where there when it happened. I try not to make jump to those conclusions when a story like this fails to spread, but I would bet money that if this was a Christian group shutting down Dan Savage from trying to speak using the same forceful tactics it would be all over the news.
Is there anyone who would find tactics like this acceptable when used against a speaker they agree with?
These activists are brutes. They are so absolutely sure that their world view is correct that they are willing to stomp all over the rights of others to silence their opponents. This is fanaticism and it has no place in a civilized society.
Read more...
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Idiot hunting with the Southern Poverty Law Center
The self-appointed taxonomists of hate groups at the Southern Poverty Law Center released a list of Men's Rights websites they consider to be the work of hatemongers, and have idiot hunted the issue to prove that only bigots can care about injustices men face.
M-Hawkins did a good take down of some of the nonsense, and even referenced a classic post I wrote about the feminist shell game, where criticism of modern feminist causes like affirmative action is misrepresented as opposition to older victories like voting rights.
He did a great job of showing the polarizing impact modern feminists can have. Feminist caricatures like Gloria Allred say if you don't mimic her exact goals and tactics for reaching them, then you are an evil bigot. There is nothing in between, she says. By the Southern Poverty Law Center's logic, her existence should disprove feminism as a legitimate movement.
It's also Allred's with-us-or-against-us thinking that leads to nonsense like this. Some of the examples on the list of Men's Rights deserve harsh criticism and are belligerently sexist, but then there are descriptions of pages like the MensActivism blog:
Here's the kicker for the SAVE Series page
The Southern Poverty Law Center is guilty of idiot hunting. They have found some idiots on the web, an easy task no doubt, and used those anecdotal examples to "prove" that a civil rights cause is illegitimate. Shame on them, as Men's Rights advocates have shown a lot of potential.
I've learned a lot from Warren Farrell over the years and his brand of masculinism is truly a quest for gender equality.
Farrell declared we live in a bi-sexist society, where both genders have their own problems. That's not a way of saying men and women have an equal amount of problems, nor is it a wish to undue the progress women have made. Instead it's a desire to bring both genders forward with more progress.
The good feminists are out there fighting for gender equality, and by their own admission they have left a gap to be filled for men's issues.
False rape accusations, domestic violence and custody laws are real issues that need to be addressed, and I'm glad to see civil rights activists are out there tackling them. It's terrible that some jerks who want to turn back progress have made some idiot blog posts, but that doesn't disprove the important work other people are doing.
Read more...
M-Hawkins did a good take down of some of the nonsense, and even referenced a classic post I wrote about the feminist shell game, where criticism of modern feminist causes like affirmative action is misrepresented as opposition to older victories like voting rights.
He did a great job of showing the polarizing impact modern feminists can have. Feminist caricatures like Gloria Allred say if you don't mimic her exact goals and tactics for reaching them, then you are an evil bigot. There is nothing in between, she says. By the Southern Poverty Law Center's logic, her existence should disprove feminism as a legitimate movement.
It's also Allred's with-us-or-against-us thinking that leads to nonsense like this. Some of the examples on the list of Men's Rights deserve harsh criticism and are belligerently sexist, but then there are descriptions of pages like the MensActivism blog:
This website tracks news and information about men’s issues from around the world, with a focus on activism — and outrage. Par for the course are lurid headlines like this one: “Pakistani wife kills, cooks husband for lusting over daughter.” The site also runs stories like the one it headlined “Australia: Girl, 13, charged after taxi knife attack” that involve no abuse accusations, but are merely meant to undermine what the site claims is “the myth that women are less violent than men.”What's the problem here?
Here's the kicker for the SAVE Series page
The site trumpets as a “key fact” that “[f]emale initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence,” even though a study shows that approximately twice as many women as men are injured during incidents of domestic violence.That's poor reasoning. The Southern Poverty Law Center is trying to sweep male domestic violence victims under the rug, and their broken logic assumes they can judge who started a fight by who reported an injury afterwards. This is a basic failure in logic, but it's presented like some kind of trump card.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is guilty of idiot hunting. They have found some idiots on the web, an easy task no doubt, and used those anecdotal examples to "prove" that a civil rights cause is illegitimate. Shame on them, as Men's Rights advocates have shown a lot of potential.
I've learned a lot from Warren Farrell over the years and his brand of masculinism is truly a quest for gender equality.
Farrell declared we live in a bi-sexist society, where both genders have their own problems. That's not a way of saying men and women have an equal amount of problems, nor is it a wish to undue the progress women have made. Instead it's a desire to bring both genders forward with more progress.
The good feminists are out there fighting for gender equality, and by their own admission they have left a gap to be filled for men's issues.
False rape accusations, domestic violence and custody laws are real issues that need to be addressed, and I'm glad to see civil rights activists are out there tackling them. It's terrible that some jerks who want to turn back progress have made some idiot blog posts, but that doesn't disprove the important work other people are doing.
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)