You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘RPOJ’ tag.
This post from the garrulous hodgepodge of turds known as ‘ihatesocialjusticewarrors’ manages to test the very boundaries of quantum physics – the stupid here is so super-dense that the Planck constant just may not apply. The original buffoonery can be found at ihatesocialjusticewarriors.com. The dumb is strong at this site, consider yourself warned. :)
“There is a widely held belief that feminism is a movement for equality between men and women. This is inaccurate and a misconception.”
Whaaat? These two sentences are true. Feminism is the movement to liberate women from the detrimental constraints of patriarchal society. Might we have common ground between DWR and ‘IHATESOCIALJUSTICEWARRIORS’?
Wait for it.
“Feminism is actually a form of sexism.”
And *boom* goes my head into the desk.
“Feminism views women as inherently inferior to men, no different than the traditional ‘sexists’ they are actively engaged in fighting against.”
Not. Even. Close.
Feminists are in the business of analyzing, deconstructing, and critiquing the patriarchal society that women are forced to live in. The goal of feminism is to eradicate the patriarchal superstructure that society is based upon; the very same patriarchy that damages both women and men.
Women are treated as inferiors in society because the patriarchal status quo, not because of any inherent inferiority.
Happy to clear that up for you.
“Feminism doesn’t encourage women to be as efficient as men, but rather they attempt to adjust policies to accommodate women. This isn’t equality. Instead it’s making the determination that being a woman is a handicap and special rules need to apply.”
What does being ‘efficient like a man’ look like? It looks like you are implying that men are the default normal setting in society and, that if women could just be more ‘man-like’ they would do better. Of course, the idea that default human = man, is the sorta of bullshit that feminists have been fighting against since the founding of the movement.
Adjusting policies? You mean supporting structural changes that move toward levelling the playing field? We certainly cannot have any of that.
The common thread running through so much of the feminist backlash is the wacky idea that equality is somehow achievable with the current state of affairs. The problem with this analysis (other than its made of certified grade A bullshit) is that it ignores the structural reality of society. Society is heavily tilted toward favouring men. How could it not be, as men are the primary architects of society, so why would they not craft it in their favour?
Axiomatically speaking, no egalitarian solution can be reached until patriarchy has been dismantled.
It is known that being female *is* a handicap in society. Females are not taken seriously, not given bodily autonomy, not paid as much, and for the most part relegated to the sex class to be objectified by the ‘default humans’ a.k.a men. Not exactly carnival fun times for the double XX caste.
“If feminists truly believed that women were equal to men, then there would be no motivation nor reason for them to implement, or to push to implement, special rules or adjust any of the policies that govern workforce requirements or productivity.”
Because not challenging the status quo will somehow fix the status quo…
1. Observe differential treatment on the basis of sex.
2. Do nothing about it.
4. Profit! – Sweet sweet egalitarianism for all!
C. *thud* *gasp* Need ASA stat, head sore from repeated desk impacts.
“Let’s face it, feminism is just a different form of sexism.”
Maybe in your imaginary world reverse racism(?) exists as well, but back here in reality feminism really isn’t sexist, as it attempts to directly address sexism in society and fix said problem.
“It’s also misogynistic in that it attempts to put unrealistic demands onto average women and it denies the very nature of what a woman is and how nature designed her.”
Aww f*ck, it is all about the fluff pink lady brains isn’t it? Along with the migrating wombs and bouts of hysteria – women had better just shuffle back to the kitchen before more male egos are hurt and privileges are threatened. It’s not patriarchy that is holding women back, but rather biology that makes females inferior…
*thud thud thud thud*
“Feminists hate women and want them to be men instead. There, somebody finally came out and just said what we were all thinking.🙂”
Feminists want to see the structures in society that mandate differential treatment based on body type erased. Feminists have no desire to become the oppressor class, rather they seek to redress the fundamental imbalances in society.
And there you have it gentle readers, your dose of deconstructed ass-hat misogyny for the day.
The working title for this post was accurate, but a bit wordy: Dude Superciliously Imagines What Females Think then Blames Females for His Imagining of their Problems. We tightened things up a bit and figured we’d add more verbosity in the introduction.
The Dude over at Talonrest is a master of erecting stupid assertions (go there now for the bullshite-in-the-raw), applying them to the group he hates (feminists, women, double-XXers, etc.) and then castigating feminists for acting (as he portrayed them to act) so damn shallow and stupid. Talon’s glaring problem is that his argumentation only briefly entertains connections to reality.
Talon DudeMcDudinstein is all about abandoning any semblance of rationality preferring to sashay headlong into meandering fields of straw arguments and butt-cogitations that manage to both besot and flagellate the reader not only with their insipidness, but astonishing lack of grounding in anything resembling fact.
Different format time folks, let’s deal in paragraph sized chunks to see if we can really appreciate what dear Talon is trying to say.
“Behind all the feminist posturing about being independent and empowered a big fear for many millennial young women still remains the impending big 30. That’s when the facade starts to crack and they realise that they didn’t have this all figured out.
You will see signs of it start to happen in the late 20s as the strong independent millennial woman who has been living it up in the years of her prime attractiveness starts to realise that the party won’t last forever and that she is no longer the center of the universe for the high-quality male attention that she used to take for granted.”
This is really a grand example of what happens when dudes ‘analyze’ the experience of females through the fucked up lens of patriarchal expectations. Those expectations are:
1. A female’s worth in society is directly correlated to the physical attributes men find attractive.
2. Male ‘attention’ is a valuable resource because, implicitly speaking, females cannot achieve in society without male help/attention.
Both points are the kind of nefarious bullshit women struggle against everyday. The grand quest to be though of as human, rather than desirable fuck-object starts here.
The fight to be a subject that is capable of action, rather than a object to be acted upon is fundamental to the feminist movement and happens to be one of the tenets many radical feminists organize around. (The radical notion that women are people too – et cetera)
“It happens gradually, but one day she suddenly realises she has been receiving a lot less attention from men. The waiter at Starbucks is no longer extra-friendly to her. People start expecting her to pull her weight at work and no longer cut her as slack despite her pulling the usual charm offensives. She looks at that new young pretty intern that just joined her workplace getting attention from everyone and suddenly realises that she can no longer compete.”
Misogyny comes in so many flavours, here we see the restated notion that female worth is derived from male attention. Female people have the same extrinsic and intrinsic value as human beings – and this is the key truth that Talon, our shit-nozzle of the day cannot comprehend.
“It is telling that most of the social media posts worrying about the impending big 30 come from my empowered, independent female acquaintances, along with the usual self-assuring polemics about how they “still got it” and are wiser and stronger with age. But you get the distinct impression that they are just posturing and attempting to make sense of a very confusing situation.”
Women are not confused about the situation as they have been socialized from the beginning to be pleasing objects of desire for men, and are also aware of the penalties for non-compliance. Aging-out or fatting-out of the prime attention of zone of dudes can be bitter celebration for many women as it marks the transition from constantly creeped on fuck-toilet to mostly ignored invisible non-person. Choosing your patriarchal shit sandwich has never been so empowering…
“What’s more interesting is that my female acquaintances who have settled down in their 20s and have gotten on with life in starting a family and working on building a functioning, fruitful and healthy marriage don’t exhibit any sort of the same angst on social media.”
The Second Shift doesn’t leave much time for facebook. Raising a family mirrors of the inequality women face in society, as women are responsible for most of the work that goes into rearing children and the domestic hell that goes along with said task.
“Meanwhile their strong, empowered counterparts are trying to get into fad yoga, getting cats and hopping onto the next fashionable frivolous activity that comes along in an attempt to prolong their party years. But it’s clear for all to see that their best years are behind them, and they are just trying to relive the heady days of their early 20s, except without the devoted male attention and valuation that they used to take for granted.”
Because the male-gaze is awesome.
“This is the brutal reality of female nature that many millennial women don’t realise- they time they have in the sun is actually quite limited. Young women who keep themselves even passably attractive enjoy a lot of social leverage based upon their biological youth. This, along with modern pop-culture feminism that encourages “empowered” behaviours without caveats that leads to them having a distorted idea of their own value.”
I’m pretty sure this ‘social leverage’ is what douche-canoe misogynists like Talon bang-on about all the time. All the submissive beauty rituals that differentiate females from the accepted standard of ‘normal’ (male) must be lauded and elevated so that somehow they become desirable to perform. Hey ladies, perform all these pointless rituals to appease the male gaze, but on the same time we’re going to shit on you your for doing all these frivolous time-wasting things. Patriarchal double standards for women are the norm in this society, and this is just one of many.
Striving to be valued as full human being is society is hardly a ‘distortion’. Ass-hat.
“They assume they will always be attractive and that the red carpet from men will always be out for them. They don’t realise a lot of the “you’re beautiful” polemics will actually be coming from themselves after they pass the big 30. There are always thirsty Beta men who are willing to snap up the leftovers after the party stops for our “empowered” woman when she ages out of the market, but she is unlikely to find this men very appealing.
The “empowered” woman stuck with lower tier dating options. Cue a lot of self-convincing that they are not snag a Beta they can’t feel attracted to because they are trying to cash in before all of their attractive fade and eventual resentment that the “empowered” lifestyle didn’t deliver them Mr. Big at the end of the day.”
*sigh* – Because all women are about snagging the ‘prime’ ‘alpha’ male. One of the neat things about making arguments is that one cannot arrive at truth when one of the premises you’re basing your arguments on is false. In this case, patently false – classifying men, like wolf packs, into Alpha and Beta males – is based on discredited shit research that got almost everything wrong about wolf society. I’ve talked about this before on the DWR before so I’ll quote myself to on how wrong the MRA classification system is:
“Schenkel’s observations of captive wolf behavior were erroneously extrapolated to wild wolf behavior, and then to domestic dogs. It was postulated that wolves were in constant competition for higher rank in the hierarchy, and only the aggressive actions of the alpha male and female held the contenders in check. Other behaviorists following Schenkel’s lead also studied captive wolves and confirmed his findings: groups of unrelated wolves brought together in artificial captive environments do, indeed, engage in often-violent and bloody social struggles.
The problem is, that’s not normal wolf behavior. As David Mech stated in the introduction to his study of wild wolves (Mech, 2000), “Attempting to apply information about the behavior of assemblages of unrelated captive wolves to the familial structure of natural packs has resulted in considerable confusion. Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in refugee camps. The concept of the alpha wolf as a ‘top dog’ ruling a group of similar-aged compatriots (Schenkel 1947; Rabb et al. 1967; Fox 1971a; Zimen 1975, 1982; Lockwood 1979; van Hooff et al. 1987) is particularly misleading.”
So, as the studies cited indicated, these assertions have been shown to be erroneous for over twenty years. It is known that accuracy (wit, intelligence, charity, …) and MRA’s don’t mix. If you can stomach the manosphere you will see this error perpetuated with metronomic regularity.
“A Red Pill masculine man worth his salt will know that these “empowered” women in full on approaching or post-30 panic will not be good prospects for a relationship. Their years of “empowered” feminist living would have stuffed their minds full of ideas that give them an entitlement mindset to commitment that is way beyond their value proposition. In addition, it is highly likely these “empowered” women would also not be having any maternal feminine aspects that are considered desirable wife material.”
Yes, having their minds stuffed with ideas that they are full human beings and not just objects of male of desire, the nerve of 30+ women. Oh, and keep in mind when you hear ‘maternal feminine aspects’ please read ‘patriarchally approved ritualized submission to men’.
[…] – Skipping repetitious meandering prose.
“Meanwhile, the Masculine man who has been focused on improving himself would find that his options in the dating marketplace would have opened up dramatically. While the early years can be tough for a man, the later years will only get better if he has spend the intervening years improving himself.
The Masculine man is shaped through adversity and develops the important life skills and experience that allows him to have a true value proposition in the Dating Marketplace.”
Masculinity is about exercising your will over others. Masculinity is toxic.
“The “empowered” woman on the other hand, has coasted through her life based on her youthful biological attractiveness and feminist “empowerment” ideology that made her overestimate how valuable she was just for having a vagina. She is less likely to have gone through the same adversity and rejection that a young man has in his struggle to be valued and hence is out at sea with a clue on what to do once she can no longer rely on her looks.”
Oh my goodness. Pro-Tip: Being Born with a vagina means a ticket to second class status in society. Not being heard, not being seen (other than as a sex object to be possessed), not being represented. These are all part of the female experience. Fuck-Nugget is trying to compare males facing rejection to the shit-show that is living life as female, as it appears to him to be a valid comparison (fml).”
“They are the ones that become the true matriarchs- the women who contribute their valuable life experience and maternal instincts towards nurturing the next generation of functional, fruitful adults, not the aging feminist spinster taking fad yoga and adopting multiple cats trying to live in a real life parody of Sex and the City.”
Yes ladies, if you adopt the submissive patriarchal ideal things will be right with the world, negating your personhood will payoff huge dividends as you’ll be expected to raise the next generation of patriarchally screwed up women and men.
This is why it’s important to have a long game mindset in your Masculine journey, don’t be like the thirsty Beta who can’t think 5 years ahead and is always clamouring for female attention, making him the prime target of the panicking “empowered” woman seeking a chump willing to take any woman to settle down with. Focus on improving yourself and success, along with high quality feminine women worth your investment will naturally come.
*sigh* – Stupid ‘sage’ advice for the conclusion. Avoid those females with notions of personhood and wait to attract the perfect slave befitting your station. :(
This shit makes me tired. The amount of horrible is off the scale, and yet it dribbles forth with disquieting regularity from dudes who think they have the great game of life down and are grasping the bull by the horns.
I hope, by quietly pointing out that our MRA friends are not grasping the horns, but rather are elbow deep into the rectal fissures of said bull, that people can see how the societal system known as patriarchy fucks with people on an individual level, leading them to the dehumanizing conclusions we see on display here today.
The feminist tag in the wordpress reader keeps sending me these reality defying, stomach churning, polishing of turding, decidedly bad-will gifts. Aggrieved man children are now, during this very second, writing
inspirational insipid posts about how terrible it is to be a man and how getting back to patriarchal standards is the *only* thing that will save society from degenerating….(to what state – egalitarianism? the horror). I can’t review the entire post, a tip of the hat to Talon’s Rest for making the notion of word diarrhea come to life, the fail is much too thick for that, let’s delimit our topic to one putrid subheading:
“The Birth of The Manosphere and Neomasculinity”
(Well since it is known that men cannot give birth, thus we can assume that the ‘birth’ of the Manosphere and Neomasculinity entered our world with a wet plop and we can now examine these floating nuggets of wisdom in the sombre light of day.)
“However as the body of Red Pill knowledge and thought expanded, Red Pill men started to explore issues beyond simple inter-gender dynamics to get success with women and realised that Red Pill truths had plenty of implications for everything from culture, to soceity, and eventually civillisation.”
(Fuck, I don’t know about you, but I’m breathless already. This is such an artful way of saying entitled dude shitlords got together for a whinge-festival about how fucking sad-pants they are that women are being treated less like fuck-toilets and more like human beings.)
“This led to a formative set of ideas that rose to encapsulate what we know today as Neomasculinity, an idealogical framework that combines Red Pill truths on biological human nature, traditional wisdom and masculinity […]”
(Biological human nature? What in heaven’s name is that? Are some dudes still fapping on about the giggle fest that is ‘classic’ sociobiological roles – man=hunter woman=gatherer – thus we should emulate primitive society because it’s right(?) type thinking. Sociologists have this other theory – socialization – that you may want to consult before wheeling out more ‘hard hitting” (un)truths.)
(Traditional wisdom and masculinity? OH! You mean patriarchy? The shit system we live under that both women and men suffer under? That is the traditional system you are referring to, you complete and utter lack-wit. Celebrating the oppression half the human race as the method of maintaining your position in the dominant class…way to go douche-canoe. )
“to aid men in making their way in the modern world where regressive progressivism has all but destroyed old-school patriarchal masculinity, seeking to help the masses of men left aimless and confused by it’s destruction.”
(Good old school patriarchal masculinity is shit. So is the current school of masculinity that is floating around. You see, my half-witted friend, masculinity is a condition that can only exist if there happens to be an inferior class to kick the shit out of, in this case femininity. Nothing says ritualized submission like femininity. To pine for a return where these values are more strongly codified makes you a horrible person, as in, Ebola just called and wants to talk about you about an image makeover. )
“Unlike the MGTOW who believe in opting out and giving in to the decline, the PUA who recede into nihilistic hedonism, and the MRA who futilely seek to reform an unreformable system,”
(Oh my stars! MRA’s wanting to reform the system…the lolz just keep coming!)
“Neomasculinists believe that the best way to go about giving the modern man a future is to build tribes of strong masculine men from the ground up,”
(What is up with putting caveman ethos on a pedestal? Building strong tribes works so amazingly great just look at the harmony in Syria, it’s a productive love fest for all involved and an example to be followed for the betterment of humanity. Sectarianism is actually good for us… (!))
“resisting the spread of degeneracy as social insurgents against the numerically superior regressives as first, and later as a dominant social force when the tide of strong masculine men finally reaches a critical mass.”
(You never define degeneracy. Moving toward a world without patriarchy means the end to the explicit and implicit oppression of women. We can give egalitarianism a chance instead its current status as ‘clueless liberal dude pipe-dream’. I cannot even fathom how you managed to make out the dissolution of patriarchy as degeneration. Or could it be that you’re scarred spit-less that your once iron-clad entitlement to the best of everything in society is under threat? Naw, couldn’t be that, the masters are always happy to give the slaves a helping hand up and share the wealth…)
“The aim is for masculine men is to be the best that they can be, and to slow, or even reverse the slow slide of their civillisation into degeneracy. If the slide cannot be reversed, these masculine men will then seek to gather their tribe to build a new one.”
(LoL. Shitlords must be shitlords to stop the corruption of a society moving toward a more egalitarian future. Hurrah! Bonus points for ‘reforming’ society after it all goes down trope . Who gets to be Mad Max – oh fuck bro, no can do anymore – the more important question now is who is Furiosa!)
“As a countercultural movement these ideas were largely found their place in the internet on blogs, chat forums and social media. This collectively became known as the Manosphere, a place where male interests and issues can be discussed by like-minded men.”
(In other words, arrogant man-babies gather to take the piss and moan about the evilz of women and their sooper-sekrit feminist movement that is hell-bent on the destruction of man. )
The manosphere – the gift of sad hilarity that keeps on giving.
I’m not sure what the author of the review was thinking… Actually, on second thought I might have an idea – this is the liberal left dude deciding to be ‘edgy’ and take on an issue that feminists, especially radical feminists, like to rattle on about. One would hope that with a title of a book like ‘Why Rape Culture is a Dangerous Myth – From Steubenville to Chad Evans” one might, at the very least raise a cursory skeptical eyebrow at the presumptive nature of the work. Perhaps this is just my own bias showing through, but I think that it would be a good idea to least familiarize oneself with the topics at hand before presenting a review that would have worth to someone outside the liberal circle of ‘progressive’ dudes who think that they ‘get it’ and can speak with authority on the topic(s).
So there are two dimensions to this review of a review, the tone deafness of the review and the astonishing amount of cluelessness posited by the author of the book in question. Both will be tackled as the cocksure nature and faux-authoritative pronouncements being made about the experience of women in patriarchal culture – as interpreted by men – in this ‘review’ sadly illuminates how far we have to go to becoming a decent culture, and one that doesn’t rely on marginalizing half of the population based on their private bits.
The Red Pen of Justice has been under wraps for a very long time now and has been agitating to let loose once again on the blogosphere. I cannot deny the RPOJ discontents anymore, so gentle readers, suit up, sit back and prepare for a radical feminist analysis of the important words going on over at David Marx:Book Reviews.
“It has sometimes been said that sex and intimacy can mean what we ultimately want them to mean; which, for all intents and self-gratifying purposes, can more often than not entail the go-ahead (regardless of one hundred per cent consent). The ‘go-ahead’ that is, amid a resounding variant of ways in the eyes of the law, not to mention society at large.”
“”It has sometimes been said that sex and intimacy can mean what we ultimately want them to mean; […]”
Who said this and when? I think this defaults to what David Marx thinks on this particular topic, as no references are made to any relevant sociological source. This could be interpreted as David, with artless academic-ese construction, trying to authoritatively make a point.
My eyebrow raised because it looks like David is making the case for non-consensual relations somehow being a-fucking-okay because we can define consent out of the occasion. Funny how a review about the purported mythological status of rape culture is actually affirming its existence.
“The ‘go-ahead’ that is, amid a resounding variant of ways in the eyes of the law, not to mention society at large.”
Sentences missing objects/clauses don’t make sense. Charitably, I think David means that the ‘go-ahead’ or consent is somehow related to what is agreed on in society.
“Either of which can, and often does trigger dire and detrimental consequences.”
I’m done playing parse the sentence fragment – make your best guess here – thanks Dave for being unfathomable in your writing style.
“That we live in a society, where so-called honour killings (usually by men) are on the unfortunate rise; and a vacuous dirt-bag of Tunisian descent feels it’s in his right to attack a mother and her two daughters with a machete at a summer resort in France – because, in his eyes ”they weren’t wearing enough clothes” – is a both a sad and a very, very serious indictment of today’s moral fabric.”
Almost always by men, as they are upholders of honour/subjugators of women. Why mention that the killer dude was Tunisian? One should try to curtail the impulse toward xenophobia and racism in a serious review. And how is this one incident a serious indictment of anything other than horror we all know and love as organized religion; the big three and the various tributaries of fail almost always reinforce the patriarchal status-quo. Name the problem Dave.
“The fact that such vile and callous behaviour is entwined with varying degrees of religiosity, only accounts for the latter being something of an idiosyncratically laughable indictment.”
So you spend the words to make a point and then dismiss it as ‘idiosyncratically laughable’ in the next paragraph? Coherence is a thing Dave, more of it would make what you’re trying to say easier to understand.
“Yet as Luke Gittos points out in Why Rape Culture Is A Dangerous Myth – From Steubenville to Ched Evans: ”The argument that we live in a rape culture encourages a deeply harmful notion of inherent vulnerability, which adds to a worrying problematisation of intimacy in wider society. This is likely to have a significant effect on the young, who are often taught that intimate relationships are potentially dangerous”
What? A Jaw dropping non-sequitur after a word salad of an introduction, this review has legs!
Let’s look at the content after you massage your jaw for a bit, I should have warned you gentle reader, limber up those oral hinges it only gets worse from here.
“”The argument that we live in a rape culture encourages a deeply harmful notion of inherent vulnerability, which adds to a worrying problematisation of intimacy in wider society.”
The fuck it does. The argument we live in a rape culture threatens the status-quo notion that women should always be sexually available to men. Rape culture threatens the normative idea that women are not really fully autonomous, that they do not share the same rights to their personhood and autonomy, rights that men, under patriarchy enjoy by default.
Problematisation? Is problematic too ordinary a construction for you? Jeezus. A dudes ability to fuck females with impunity is not synonymous with ‘intimacy’. Luke Gittos is riding high on the Misogyny Train, and a decent review would call his shit out for what it is.
Tell me Dave, how is treating a woman like she has rights and a full human being a fucking problem with regards to intimacy? It’s only suffers from ‘problematisation’ if you are in favour of the current toxic environment that women are forced to inhabit.
“If such is the case, which, throughout various parts of the world it most certainly is, does this mean intimacy and ultimately love, should be denied?”
If love and relations can only be had with the shitty patriarchal overlay that shafts both men and women, then yes it should be denied. But you are not arguing that, are you Dave, your faffing on with Gittos about how denying women their agency (consent) is making it hard for dudes to feel intimacy. This is a primal man-baby argument – if we can’t have sexy times *my dudely way* then everything is wrong with the world and the feminist sponsored end times are here.
“Immediately prior to the above, Gittos also writes: ”Recent decades have seen the expansion of the law around rape to cover many new areas of sexual behaviour. The impact of the hysteria around rape has been the shutting down of debate around this expansion and the demonisation of anyone who seeks to question it.”
Hysteria? Man-children really can’t help themselves when it comes to patriarchal tropes. But let’s get back to what he’s saying – the broadening of laws to protect the integrity and autonomy of women is making his boner sad. Gittos (emphasis on ‘git’) is also sad that he gets shit on for harkening back to the good ole’ days where beating and raping your wife was just the norm and everything was hunky dory – if you happened to be in the same class as Gittos…
“That the ”hysteria around the rape has been shutting” down it’s ”debate,” is surely cause for alarm, which to a certain degree, these 140 pages do tackle head-on. But, as Graham Matthews recently wrote in Will Self and Contemporary British Society: ”The language used in rape cases is of the utmost importance since, according to Lyn Higgins and Brenda Silver, ‘whether in the courts or in the media, whether in art or criticism, who gets to tell the story and whose story counts as ”truth” determines the definition of what rape is.”
Why in a review of the GIT are you talking about Will Self and Contemporary British Society? Is foisting non sequitur after non sequitur on your reader a stylistic choice? It’s a bad one, let me assure you.
“There again, as Luke Gittos has categorically stated in Why Rape Culture Is A Dangerous Myth’s Introduction: ”this book is not about rape. It is not about the hideous criminal offence that takes place every day, and is the subject of arrests, court cases and prison sentences up and down the country […]. This book is about the contemporary panic around ‘rape culture’ that […] often bears little resemblance to the reality of rape.”
Translation: The idea that rape culture exists and is working in my favour is unpalatable to my sensibilities, thus the problem must be with the hysterical women and their risible claims… *facepalm*
“The argument of the book is that intimate life is suffering under the panic around rape and rape culture. This panic has arisen in the context of a society which is less sure of the parameters of intimate life than ever before. “
Oh consent is necessarily a roaring tempest filled with vapours purposefully designed to confuse the man-brained. The idea that women are struggling toward agency is an affront to needs of the ‘peen and patriarchy and must be done away with because my male right to unfettered access to female bodies is at stake – and this unfettered access – is what is important.
“As old narratives of intimate life die away, what has replaced them is not a new, individualised sense of what intimate life is, but a ream of laws, regulations, guidance and expertise about how we should conduct the most private aspects of our lives. This presents a serious challenge to the status of individual judgement about intimacy and, accordingly, the future of intimate life in general.”
I thought it couldn’t get worse, but Dave also seems to aspire to the swaggering, self-aggrandizing pile of mule-feces that Libertarianism is. Where white males are the only ones who can have the *true* feelings of oppression while simultaneously wielding power in society. If you cannot handle intimacy with a female that has autonomy and full human being status – then the only females of the blow-up variety will fit your particular bill. So go forth, find your inflatable Sally, and kindly fuck the hell off.
“Herein lies something of a literary juxtaposition, surely?”
*rolls eyes* – Dave, sounding smart and being smart have never been so clearly demarcated.
A fucking equals A? This is the epic conclusion mic-drop you’ve assiduously been setting up. Step aside Machiavelli, Word fucking salad Dave is in the house! You are brought this review to close with a tautology? I have another for you, hold on it is earth shattering level of awesome – “stupid people are stupid people”.
And do you know ‘taurine’ means? It is a goddamn amino acid. Another meaning, common in the 17th century is ‘of or like a bull’. So is this a bullish book on rape culture, or did your thesaurus go to the dark side and led you astray with it?
“Regardless of judicial interpretation, sexual intimacy or, dare I say it, ”individual judgement.”
Did you eat alphabet soup and are just burping this shit up and then writing it down?
And also: Subjects, what the fuck are they?
The double shot of tautology and quasi-coherent sentence structure ends this review with an unsatisfying, stultifying dribble that offers offence not only to feminism, but the English language as well.
I cannot identify what it is with dudes and radical feminism. There must be some strange extra-sensory siren call that attracts dudes and dudely opinion to articles, blogs, and heck even just mere information about women speaking unequivocally about their experiences and analysis of society. Of course the attraction is just one part of this warlocks brew, the most infuriating part is that the dudes once attracted, have the overwhelming desire… nay with seemingly single-minded animus to grandiloquently extrude their man-centric opinion blithely into feminist conversation. At the very same time,said dudes, expect to be taken seriously with all the gravitas and respect they usually receive while intoning their manly wizdom.
Concomitantly, dudes assume that their experience is just the same as everyone else in society(??) and thus, without research or understanding, make pronouncements that, to the finely tuned lobes of radical feminists, sound like Grade A, First Tier, patriarchally laced bullshit. Once called on their bullshite phase two sets in, displaying in full glory the fragility of the male ego and the ensuing stampede, to either Godwin,Flouce or have a full blown mantrum as they exit from the thread. Let me assure you gentle readers, this cycle of male-fail is a most dependable and curious clockwork… But I digress. The RPOJ has leapt into my hand quivering in anticipation of the justice about to be dispensed.
Today friends we delve deep into the world of dudes explaining Radical Feminism AND misandry – all in one post – who would have known it was soooooo easy. Let’s put on our swashbuckling pantaloons and join The Brain in the Jar; hmm…lets tighten that up a bit and go with Shit for Brains (SfB); and watch as he puts on his Mansplaining boots and beats all your favourite strawfeminist arguments to death.
The original post by ‘Brain in a Jar: Of Radical Feminism and Misandry’ ,in all its glory can be found here.
“Whenever I bring up the subject of feminism, I always hear about those crazy extremists who really are all about hating men. I’m sure they exist.”
Well if you only talk to other dudes and MRA’s why of course you are going to get a nuance free view of feminism and feminists. Looking beyond your own bias is hard, and who the fuck wants to do that?
“There plenty of crazy ideas out there, and misandry is actually saner compared to them.”
Awww! Lookit SfB put on this big-boy-boots of equality and deep understanding, to show how amazingly aware he is of what he’s prevaricating on about.
“Women are also parrt of the dating game, so the terrible of reality of people wanting to have sex with you but not be in a relationship must have taken its toll on some. The thing is, these people can never refer to an example of such a radical feminist.”
Editing, what the fuck is it? Also, did you catch the subtle(?) hostility toward women? I mean isn’t it totally obvs that women are in the position of power when it comes to dating and relationships? (*eyes rolling into back of head*) That whole male violence/rape culture stuff those feminists prattle on about sure clouds the issue about those bitches not knowing their place and bowing to my ‘peen.
“They also don’t see that misandry and feminism, even the radical version, are two seperate things.. You can point out misandry all you want, and if it makes sense I’ll get behind you. It’ll never be a solid criticism of feminism or radical feminism.”
Autumn approaches; the obnoxious university ‘Week of Welcome’ orientation drones are yelling insipid, yet inclusive, chants at each other; and of course, more stupid post mostly made of straw languidly emerge from the turbid depths of the wordpress “patriarchy” tag. Like appreciating the subtle fireworks of the turning of the leaves, one can appreciate the flawed assumptions and ignorance on display over at A Reasonable Faith. But Lo! The coming of Fall and the exudation of a steaming pile of Herp-Derp always leaves one gasping for breath at the enchanting majesty of nature in all her glory in the first case, and in wonderment at the raw-stupid on display in the other. (hurrah for awkward parallel sentence construction!)
Two concepts that will help us in our merry cavalcade of fail will be that of the (1.)Naturalistic Fallacy(with due consideration to Hume) and the concept of a (2.)Social Construct lets define them:
- The Naturalistic Fallacy – […] the term is sometimes used loosely to describe arguments which claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts. Even more distantly, the term is used to describe arguments which claim to draw ethical conclusions from the fact that something is “natural” or “unnatural.”
- Social Construct – A social construction, or social construct or a social concept is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society which exists solely because people agree to behave as if it exists, or agree to follow certain conventional rules.
Most of the problems with the post I’m about to critique will default to a lack of understanding of these concepts and how they work in our society. I would be remiss to also point out that there is, of course, a generous helping of strawwoman arguments that serve to undermine the authors arguments and credibility.
So let loose the doges of war, and we shall have at it:
“If there’s one truth that would impact culture for good more than just about any other if it were more male-female-brainwidely believed, accepted, and embraced, it’s this: males and females are quite different from each other. We are. And not just anatomically but physiologically and emotionally”
Sounds good right? Too bad its almost entirely bullocks. Let’s take a peek at what people who study sex and gender differences have to say:
“A 2005 analysis of 46 meta-analyses that were conducted during the last two decades of the 20th century underscores that men and women are basically alike in terms of personality, cognitive ability and leadership.”
Hmm…it would seem that the some of the research directly contradicts your claim..but wait!!! There might be hope, there are differences!!!!
“Only a few main differences appeared: Compared with women, men could throw farther, were more physically aggressive, masturbated more, and held more positive attitudes about sex in uncommitted relationships.”
Whooops… you’re still wrong.
“Hyde found that gender differences seem to depend on the context in which they were measured. In studies designed to eliminate gender norms, researchers demonstrated that gender roles and social context strongly determined a person’s actions. For example, after participants in one experiment were told that they would not be identified as male or female, nor did they wear any identification, none conformed to stereotypes about their sex when given the chance to be aggressive. In fact, they did the opposite of what would be expected – women were more aggressive and men were more passive.”
We could simply drop the mic here and be done with this piffle (flawed assumptions leading to flawed conclusions and all that), but where is the fun in that?
Let us soldier on brave readers! Bewarned and wary, forward we must go fellow travellers(of the loquaciously impenitent persuasion), to further reconnoitre this curiously(willfully?) ignorant realm.
Usually we get to watch loopy christians say loopy stuff in support of their sincere belief in magic here on the the Disservice. Not so much fun today as we are going to look at how belief in magic can warp the moral fibre of people into condoning rape and the abuse of women. Let’s visit our new
shitstain friend over at Christian Husbands.
[ed. I’m almost done and I really need to put a trigger warning on this post because this depraved example of humanity has written a how-to manual on how to dominate and rape your wife all the while being at one with with the loving christian god. This dude plumbs the depths of atrocious human behaviour and morality with the robotic smiley certainty that only absolute religious belief can bring about. Consider yourself warned.]
“As Christians who embrace God’s Word as the guide for our lives, we know that the Bible condones sex ONLY within the bounds of marriage.”
For an all powerful being god sure seems to be obsessed with sex and sexuality. I’m thinking the all-father has no fracks to give about human procreation, priests and clergy though, do have a rather large stiffy when it comes to controlling their flock.
“Our culture’s acceptance of pre-marital sex has been one of the major contributing factors to the decline in marriage, and the rise in cohabitation rates.”
You see, my dear fuck-witted christian misogynist, that is a load of shit. Dudes have been procuring copious amounts of sex from women outside the godly bounds of marriage both before and after the “sexual revolution”. So your problem isn’t premarital sex or cohabitation, it is the unseemly idea that women have choice and free will when it comes to choosing a relationship and their mates.
You know, sort of exercising the type of freedom men have had since day one. This sort of base level expression of female humanity and autonomy – fucks with your shit – and now I sense you’re going to attempt to justify how awesome it was in the good ole days when men were people – and women were not.
“Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?”
Or why get angry and frustrated by vapid christian stupidity when there plenty of other worthwhile causes to spend one’s mental resources on?
Good question, but usually it is the unseemly mix of ignorance, callous piety, and genuine disregard for ethical behaviour that flips enough switches for your moral homunculi to say ‘jumping frog guts, batman! – this amount of aberrant stupid is intolerable – battlestations!
Let’s get this front and centre. Women are not chattel nor are they animals in the sense that they can be bought and sold. Women possess the same level of humanity and autonomy that men do. Our society is sloooooooowly starting to get the idea that we don’t have a second class of people (women). Retrograde biblical shit-lords like BiblicalGenderRoles (BGR) want nothing to do with respecting women and autonomy; especially women outside of their patriarchally approved gender prison.
“I can hear it now – “What about those boys! This is not fair that all the pressure is on the women”. Yes the Scriptures command BOTH men and women to not engage in sex before marriage, and yes they did speak to us as young men about being godly men of integrity, about being gentlemen. However, if you examine the Scriptures closely, you will see that God places the greater burden on the woman to refuse the man. “
The first rule of misogyny is to blame women for the crummy behaviour of men. Quelle surprise! BGR is already going there, let’s watch and see.
“In the Old Testament law, a woman could be executed for not being a virgin when she was married, whereas there was no such punishment for a man that was not a virgin. I realize this goes against our modern “gender equality” ideas, but the Bible supports no such notion.”
Well, looky here! My magic book supports my misogyny because 2000 years ago people treated eachother horribly. We should replicate those norms because they happen to benefit me! Of course…Shitlord goes for broke and continues with the bovine/human female comparison…
“But once you have bought the cow, you ARE supposed to get the milk for free
One of the problems we face today in the Christian community (but it certainly is not limited to Christians) is that often times, even after we have waited, and “bought the cow” (married our wives), our wives expect us to “buy the milk” as well. I recently wrote a post responding to a Christian teacher’s false belief, that in marriage men do in fact have to “buy the milk”(earn sex), even after “buying the cow”(marrying a woman).”
BGR is all about the marital rape. We will now turn to his ugly rape apologia backed up, of course, by those sterling ethical standards found in the bible, for the rest of this episode. If you were ever wavering on the idea that ‘religion poisons everything’ please continue reading and your doubts will be assiduously quelled.
“A quick word on the “cow analogy” before we continue – in no way am I meaning disrespect toward women, or saying that cows are somehow equal to women, or that women are less human than men.”
What is truly abhorrent is that BGR, the High Christian Shitlord of Asstainistan, is aware that he is making an odious comparison. He has enough comprehension and remains of a moral compass to see what he is saying is wrong and hurtful to others. Watch what happens in the next sentence.
“But Biblically speaking, a wife does belong to her husband (men paid a “bride price” and one the terms for husband in the original languages of the Bible is “baal” which means “owner or master” (e.g. Proverbs 31). I Peter 3 says “Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord[master]“.
Did you see that?
Right Fucking There.
That is how toxic religion is to ethical behaviour. I respect women, but my magical religious supersede any moral compuntions I might have and therefore she is not human and not equal, but rather she is property and thus should be treated as such.
(A small break while I gather my words and my amygdala calms down, lets look at some kittehs.)
We’re always pointing out how crazy and terrible ISIL is with their savage acts against humanity, yet we have the exact same suspension of moral rectitude happening here for the exact same reason. Religious belief. It cannot be more starkly clear than what just happened above.
But hey, we need to get back to more biblical justification for immoral actions! Wheee!
“The fact is, in marriage, neither the husband, nor the wife, should have to earn sex. While husband’s denying their wives sexually is a problem sometimes, the vast majority of the time it is the wife denying her husband. Ask any pastor (and I have many pastor friends) and they will confirm this. Ask any marriage counselor, and they will confirm this as well.”
The fuck? You mean that woman are not machines you put kindness coins into until sex comes out? Unpossible!!! !!!
“But there is a difference between flat out denial, which some wives are guilty of, and a woman making her husband earn sex (but both are equally wrong). I once knew a Christian couple, where the only way the man got sex from his wife was when he did the dishes and picked up the house. For other men, it might be buying flowers for your wife, or taking her out to dinner. Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t think it wrong for a husband to do these kinds of things for his wife, but these things should NEVER be a prerequisite to sex.”
Shitlord honestly believes that women should be subordinate to his penis. You fucking cave dwelling toad – women including your wife owe you exactly jackshit when it comes to sex or anything else. Your insidious world view precludes the idea that women are human beings that have say as to what happens to them. You don’t want a wife you want an obedient fuck-toy to take care of you and your important man-problems and now that women are realizing that submissive rape-toy is not their only role in life you are throwing a herculean mantrum because your ‘peen haz a sad.
You, DGR, are a pathetic, immoral, excuse of a human being, deserving of nothing but scorn and disdain. I happen to have lots of both on tap Shitlord, so lucky for us and bully for you.
“The sinful sexual pattern of modern women
Husbands listen to me, engaged men please hear me. There is a pattern that takes place in a lot of Christian marriages (and non-Christian marriages). At the beginning of the sexual relationship between a man and woman (which should begin after marriage, but sometimes it sinfully starts before marriage), women will give their husbands all the “free milk” they want. She lets him “taste the goods” so to speak.”
Oh, here we go speaking of patterns we’re about to set up the blame women for my important man problems (again).
“But not long into the marriage, the milk is no longer free of charge, it now comes at a cost. That cost looks very different from woman to woman, but there is a cost of some sort. For some Christian men, it might simply be household chores, for others it is buying jewelry or other gifts. For other husbands, it is making a decision the way their wife wants it, but they do not think is best.”
You mean that she probably has your children and house to tend to now and doesn’t have the energy for yoursexy times any more? Completely shocking that she has no energy after dealing with the kids and then going to work, and then coming home to the second shift, that she has no gas left in the tank to worship your ‘peen.
BGR you are a regressive antediluvian ass-clam. Access to pussy is not a fucking human right. Look down. You see that weird dongle at the end of your right arm – its your hand and magically, if you need to release your sexual desires it is just a rum-tug-tuggle away; as a special bonus you don’t need an oppressed class of people to help you do that (unless you are categorically pants-on-head retarded, which I suspect is the case).
How BGR writes is a special treat because he always says something absolutely terrible and then manages in the next paragraph to say something even worse. It must be a special power granted only to those of the Christian Shitlord persuasion.
“What all these different prerequisites have in common is, they require a man to transfer his God given authority over his home, his children, and his wife and yes even his wife’s body to his wife. Only if they do the bidding of their wife, will she give them “the goods”.
Repeat after me Shitlord – “My wife is not my property, she is not my fuck-toilet, she is a human being who has the same rights and bodily autonomy that I do, she “owes” me NOTHING”. In the paragraph above you are contemplating that fact that if you treat your wife as a human being you can’t dominate her and own her like slave. Not having a slave is making you and your ‘peen sad.
From the rest of us who still retain their moral compass: You, Shitlord, are a monster. Know that.
“How to stop this wicked pattern
For you engaged men, or newlywed husbands it will be much easier if you spot this change in your wife and nip it in the bud right away. If you allow this pattern to go on for years of marriage, it only becomes harder (but not impossible) to break. Whether you have been married 6 months, or 6 years, the fix is still the same.”
Shorter Shitlord: How to crush my wife’s spirit and humanity (this was so much easier when it was okay to beat women into submisson) and turn her into the fuck toilet you deserve. (Spoiler: The bible says its okay!!!)
“When your wife tells you “If you do ___________ for me, then I will do that for you”, you need to sit down and take out the Word of God. You must see this as God sees it, as an act of rebellion against your authority over her (and her body), and by extension as an act of rebellion against God himself, because he has given her to you. You need to rebuke your wife’s sinful behavior.”
I can’t even… Women are people, your failure to recognize this fact illustrates the huge gap in your ethics and your reasoning. You have no ‘authority’ over anyone. You are invoking you magic book to justify oppressing another human being. This is past heart of darkness level of depravity and evil. BGR, you need to seek help because you are failing at basic humanity and empathy.
“Take her to I Corinthians and read the Word of God to her:
“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.” – I Corinthians 7:3-5(KJV)”
Scare tactics, shame, threats of violence are all considered abuse in this modern secular age. I suggest you get with the fucking program, despite the ‘wisdom’ of your magic book.
“The Bible places absolutely NO preconditions on sex between a husband and wife within the bounds of marriage (contrary to what many Christian books and teachers teach today). In fact the only mutual agreement a couple is called to is, when they STOP having sex for a given period.”
My magic book says that rape is okay, therefore rape is okay and should be encouraged… I’m going to start skipping some stuff as really, the theme that god says its okay to rape women is being done to death.
“After you confront your wife’s rebellion (not only towards God’s command to her, but by extension the authority he has given you) – she is not exactly going to be in the mood, if you know what I mean. It may feel as though you have been unloving to her, but you are in fact loving your wife when you call out her sin, and call her to repentance, just as God calls to all of us.”
After you berate and threaten your wife she might not be in the mood, go figure, you pernicious fuck. See how Patriarchy is interwoven into the very core of religion? See how tightly they collude to force women into submission. The House in Vegas is envious of this system that so effectively combats women’s status as human beings.
“Your wife’s rebellion against your sexual authority over her body is by definition “unrighteousness”. You would in essence, be “unloving” to your wife, from God’s perspective, if you allowed her sinful attitude to go unchecked.”
Gaa… Sexual authority? How about this, go fuck you and your ‘sexual authority’ sideways with the cacti of your choice.
“But should you still have relations with your wife after such a confrontation?
I believe the answer is yes, if she yields to you (even with the wrong attitude). When I first had to confront my wife with these types of issues, I would confront her, and then just leave the sex to happen another night, because after all, I like most men don’t prefer to have sex with my wife when she acts grumpy about it.
Holy fuck – you are advocating raping your wife.
But I realized that the sex still needs to occur, that sex is not about being in the mood, and it is not about feelings, it is about doing what is right. I agree whole heartedly that the best sex a Christian couple can have is when they are spiritually, emotionally and physically connected all at once. But the truth is there will be many times when we don’t have all that in place, but we must still have sex. God wants us to do the right thing, even when we don’t feel like it.”
You are a rapist. The authorities should be notified immediately.
“This probably won’t be a onetime thing
As a Christian husband, and really just as a Christian, we must realize that we all from time to time slip back into patterns of sinful behavior. Please don’t think that if your wife seems to submit to your sexual authority over her body after confronting her with the truth of God’s Word, that this rebellion will never seep back up again in her life. This has definitely not been a onetime thing with my wife, and I have also talked with other Christian men who have told me it is the same with their wives as well.”
This also abuse. Saying no to a sexual advance is NEVER sinful behaviour. Never ever. You are in this paragraph admitting that you are regularly raping your wife and using the bible to justify your criminal behaviour. I hear ISIL is looking for a few good men and let me assure you, you fit their qualifications admirably.
“Can my Christian wife ever say no to my sexual advances?
This is the logical question you as a Christian husband (or engaged man) might ask after everything we have just looked at. The answer to this question is a Christian wife should never give her husband a flat no, BUT she can humbly and gently ask for a delay. There may be legitimate physical or other issues that might prompt your wife to ask you for a delay. But this must be done humbly and respectfully, and always with the attitude in mind that her body does belong to her husband. But a Christian wife should ALWAYS make good on her “rainchecks” with her husband. Also these “delay requests” from wives should be the exception, and not the normal response to a husband’s sexual advances.”
Oh how beneficent is this? The sex slave can ask for a temporary halt to the rape train – how fucking convivial.
This person and their thoughts sicken me. This sort of attitude toward women has no place in a civilized society. This sick fuck should be in prison, end of story.
For more hilarity(?), see Violet Wisp’s take-down of this rapist’s post.