Rape Culture

If other groups were targeted like men…

I’ve been seeing an increasing number of articles and social media posts with the “Men can stop rape” theme. There have been some variations, like the popular “Teach men not to rape” and/or references to “Rape culture” (well, the popular, feminist definition of rape culture, rather than how our culture actually views rape… but that’s another topic).

All of this is to further the connection between “rape” and “men” in people’s minds. It’s been a pretty textbook example of saying far more than what is explicitly mentioned. Usually, at least unless pushed, the journalists, protesters, and others promoting this feminist rhetoric don’t outright say that “All rapists are men” or that “All men have a duty to protect women”. They don’t need to. When someone says that they “Jewed” someone in a deal, they don’t need to say that they believe Jews are greedy. The implication is plenty.

I’ve often considered what if other groups were targeted in the same way, and I’m not the only one. I’ve asked myself, “What if, instead of looking at the rates of convictions, and concluding that violence has a masculine face, we looked at the rates of conviction according to race, and concluded that violence has a black face?” The answer to that question, of course, would be that we would not do that (In this case, “we” being people who are relatively well-adjusted, and not racist), since people who would say such a thing would be racist. They’d be ignoring that the higher incidence of convictions for violent crimes by blacks is a result of a “justice” system that sees people color coded according to their guilt (Black = most guilty, then Brown = also, quite guilty, White = not all that guilty, and Yellow = mostly innocent).

In fact, when we look at incarceration rates, and see blacks are locked up at higher rates than whites, we don’t conclude “Well, that just means blacks are inherently more violent” (well some of us do, but they are correctly singled out as bigots). Instead, we understand that blacks statistically are more likely to live in poverty, be denied educational opportunities, factors that lead to criminality (desperate actions arise from desperate situations). That’s not to say blacks are the only ones, since I have personally known whites struggling to live day by day in poverty, just that it’s more common. We also acknowledge racism in sentencing.

The problem, though, is when we read about statistics for male vs. female sentencing, we (again, “we” being our society) conclude that it’s just that men are more violent than women. We acknowledge that juries view blacks as more guilty than whites, and more often, and we acknowledge that this is racist. However, we don’t acknowledge that juries view men as more guilty than women, and more often, and that this is sexist. We don’t acknowledge this even when the sex disparity in sentencing is worse than the race disparity.

MRAs, have, occasionally, used the racial angle as a means of demonstrating bigotry. We’ve commented that singling out a sex for violence is as bigoted as singling out a race.

Here’s the thing, though, all the “What if we just replaced ‘men’ with ‘blacks’ in these slogans,” or “What if, instead of women’s groups clamoring about men’s violence against women, and claiming the need to take back the night from violent men, a white group clamored about black’s violence against whites, and claimed the need to take back the night from violent blacks?” conjectures were purely hypothetical. Well, until now [1].

The White Student Union has been making claims about the “very large problem of black-male-against-white-female crime”, and using this as reason/justification/excuse to go on very visible patrols, ostensibly to protect innocent whites (and especially, white women). No word yet on if they suggest white women also dress as “sluts” while walking on patrol.

It should come as no surprise to any MRA how much the rhetoric from this group matches the speech from feminists. Remove the racial element from the White Student Union, or add a racial element to feminists, and it would be hard to tell where the quotes came from.

For example, take this quote: “Violence against white women is the single greatest human rights violation of our generation.”

Feminist, or racist? Actually, that was said by Patrick Stewart (minus the racial angle) in his white knight campaign to end violence against (you guessed it) women. [2]

How about: “We always knew when we took on the issue of violence against white women, that somehow our opposition would come after us.” Was that said by a racist, or feminists?

Actually… Patricia Ireland (again, just insert “white”, and it could just as easily be from a racist group. You don’t even have to remove “women”).

There’s also “The virtue of white Christian womanhood is under attack at Towson University by degenerate criminals seeking to rob our women of their God given innocence.”

That one would be racist.

Side note: “Feminist Or Racist” could be the next big party game.

This group is claiming that black criminals preying on white victims justifies demonizing an entire race, in pretty much the same way that feminists claim male criminals prey on female victims, and demonize an entire gender. Honestly, if someone were to write a satirical story, a work of fiction meant to demonstrate the bigotry in feminism by comparing it to racism, it would fit with the reality of what is going on at this moment almost perfectly.

It is important to note the similarity in this group’s rhetoric to the feminist rhetoric, how targeting a race as suspect of criminality and violence is as abhorrent as targeting a sex for the same. However, also important to note is how the group uses white (no pun intended) knighting to further itself. They don’t just protect whites from blacks. No, they protect white women from black men. It’s as though they realized that they would have a pretty hard sell with the whole “White group stereotyping blacks, and claiming that all blacks are violent criminals” deal, and so decided to go with the selling point of protecting women. After all, the focus of the group is stopping violence against not just whites, but white women (or so they say, and they say repeatedly). Who can argue with ending violence against women? It’s the same attempt at legitimacy used by the Klan back in the day. Hate groups used to use the “Scary black man” [4] image to justify fearing black men, and when you fear a group, you can more easily justify hating that group. After all, you’re not the bad guy, picking on innocent victims… you’re resolutely standing up to the forces of evil.

It’s an old, and widespread pattern. The Klan was justified, you see, because blacks were scary, and attacking white women, so the Klan was just protecting the innocent, right (note: inconvenient things like facts and reality could be swept aside. All that matters is that enough people believed the story). The Jews were responsible for Germany’s poverty and downfall. Anti-Westerner racism in China is justified because problems are caused by “Foreigners, trying to undermine harmony”, and accusing groups as using religion to “split China and cause disharmony” justifies attacks on Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and any other religion that the government doesn’t approve of (which is pretty much any that isn’t the government’s official religion, or obsequious enough to the government). Wars in the Middle East are justified because scary Arab terrorists are trying to blow up America, so we need to kill them all.

The scary black man image might not be acceptable to the majority of America, but remove the racial element, make it about scary men of all races, and it’s easily used by feminists. Fearing (and then hating) men because they’re men might not go down so well, at least with the less gullible male white knights so valuable to feminists. However, fearing and hating men because men are a threat to all women, and do such horrible things to women… well, that’s justified. Then, misandry is merely defensive. I’m not saying that hatred of men based on irrational rationalization might lead to violence against men. I’m saying it will, because it has. Black men weren’t lynched solely because they were black. They were lynched because they were black males. Black women weren’t murdered for whistling at white boys. Unfortunately, we’re more than willing to look at the racial angle, but very hesitant to look at the sex angle.

This isn’t limited to just the US, either. Yang Rui, a host for a Chinese government TV network said, “The Public Security Bureau wants to clean out the foreign trash: To arrest foreign thugs and protect innocent girls, they need to concentrate on the disaster zones in Wudaokou [student district] and Sanlitun [nightlife district].” [5] If any audience members were not sure about hating Westerners simply based on being the wrong ethnicity and/or skin color (“Foreigner” is used interchangeably with “Westerner”, or people not of Asian decent, in China, and usually in a disparaging manner), then protecting the innocent flower of Chinese female virtue makes it justified.

A Romani camp was attacked (well, the men… women and children were warned to leave) by an Italian mob [6] all due to a false rape accusation by an Italian girl. The Romani men weren’t solely attacked because of their ethnicity, but ethnicity plus gender.

And adding yet another layer to this, just a short while before the story about the White Student Union broke, Zerlina Maxwell penned an article for Ebony [3] offering her help on teaching men not to rape (how nice of her). Just put an anti-black spin on it, focus on black men raping white women, rather than just men raping women, and she could have written this as a gift to the Ku Klux Klan.

[1] http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/03/26/white-student-union-claims-towson-has-black-on-white-crime-problem/

[2] http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/patrick-stewart-million-men-violence-women-011042478.html

[3] http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebony.com%2Fnews-views%2F5-ways-we-can-teach-men-not-to-rape-456%23axzz2NvsB7wpO&h=DAQHG9RwT&s=1

[4] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScaryBlackMan

[5] http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-21/chinese-lash-out-at-foreigners-amid-turmoil#p1

[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/11/italian-girl-rape-claim-gypsy

About Mateusz Wacek

Mateusz Wacek, with an interest in gender rights, human rights, and animal rights, has an overdeveloped sense of equality. He isn't a political or gender expert, but he plays one on the Internet.

View All Posts
  • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

    WOW, just WOW.

    I have no idea where to begin.

    I always knew that feminists were racists. Their only caveat in hiding the projection of their racism is what “affirmative action” their brand of social justice was/is actually aimed at. What I mean is, what tax money could the object of their social justice campaign garner them?

    When it comes to black Americans, they attack on multiple fronts, but is such a variety of ways you would think it was very distinct groups; not groups ostensibly from the same camp; AKA feminist camp.

    Black women are okay, because they get the minority, and female vote; so they are tolerated. Until they start getting to much of the tax pie. Then they are hood rat hoochy mamas; the sole proprietor in all cases for heroic single mom is the white single mom. This is for a very racist reason; white women are the majority of top feminists for the last 50 years. Coincidence? I think not!

    White men are given a pass because the vast majority of crime that is closer to white specific is white collar crime. Street crime is viewed almost exclusively in black terms. For example, when a group or family of white people is attacked; the perps are labeled “youths” so as to hide their identity. Even though the photos of the suspects are clearly black teenagers from single mother households. They have been raised by Lashonda to hate whitey; and their father who she kicked out of the home for white feminist tax subsidies.

    You see, if the single mom meme was ever allowed to be seriously challenged in the public eye; 100s of 1000s of attorneys, state and federal bureaucrats, and single baby mamas of all shades would be without the welfare and family court systems. Hence out of freebies and/or a lucrative/easy job.

    So the vast majority of our inmates are black males, or non violent offenders. Yet the PC thought police are okay with this because it suits their meme. Also, gets them cheap modern day slave labor.

    Their racism is not allowed to totally breach the surface for it is not politically expedient for feminists, and their white supremacist ties to be inundated with the public microscope. They could not possibly have time to explain why rape culture exists when they have to explain the true nature of their point of view before hand. So terribly inconvenient against their freedom of speech they deny others.

    So they divide and conquer with numerous straw men, who they claim simultaneously go bump in the night.

    The beat goes on.

  • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

    “White Student Union Claims Towson Has Black-On-White Crime Problem”

    W.A.S.P. – White – Angry – Superior & Proud if it – feminists are just about the worst with all that W.A.S.P. Privilege that they luxuriate in and just can’t see!

    … and they even wonder why African American’s have negated the W.A.S.P. feminism that is being pushed about as normal?

    I keep wondering what happens when you put a feminist in a box with a some cyanide and some radioactive material?

    Schrödinger’s Feminist is a fascinating study in just how quickly Rabbit Holes can take over reality and through the magic of Quantum feminism rapists are plucked out of thin air and conjured into feminist reality …. but these Quantum Rapists are only visible after extended immersion in the F-ing laced with W.A.S.P, venom Cool-aid!

    It’s also posited that these Quantum Rapists have an incredibly short half life, which means that they decay and evaporate before illegality is commenced. And Some think that the Higgs Boson has issues!

  • http://kevin-wayne.blogspot.com Kevin

    In line with all of this, if anyone else wants to throw up, check this little gem:


    • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

      It is lovely isn’t it. I really like the part where she says she screams at the kids “maybe they are going to jail for rape because THEY ARE RAPISTS!”

      Then she indicates that the kids are sitting there looking confused because they had Apparently not considered that people who rape are rapists.

      I take an obviously controversial view that the kids were sitting there in confused silence – because having a teacher scream at a class room that way could just be verging on the bonkers and even socially disturbing.. and the kids having been warned about stranger danger and odd behaviour and sex were all wondering how to contact a safe adult and raise the alarm.

      Abby Norman – Accidental Devotional – you are no credit to the teaching profession and should be barred from having access to children for their safety – Global bar please. You have a nutty and frankly dangerous view of your own religion based rectitude and it’s not nice…. it’s abusive, and you tell us how you do it! Abusive and Stupid – neither has a place in the class room with kids.

      PS – all your farce book followers who think you are amazing really need to be monitored as well.

    • All Contraire

      A couple more quotes from the linked hurl-producing blog of the (self-styled Christian) high school teacher Abby Norman, plus a comment…

      ‘Christian’ Mz. Norman: “It is a strange thing about looking into the face of a 15-year-old, to really see who they are. You still see the small child that their mother sees. You see the man or woman they will be before they graduate. They are babies whose innocence you want desperately to protect. They are old enough to know better, even if no one has taught them.”

      Then the misandrous feminist sting:

      “It is uncomfortable to think that some of the students you still call babies have the potential to be rapists. It is sickening, it is terrifying, but it is true. It is a reality we have to face.”

      OMG – 413 glowing comments adoring this teacher who, by her own boasting testimonial, is an intentional and unrepentant child abuser of the hapless teenage boys under her control. … Control (and fem-domination) that Mistress Norman is certainly keen on passing on to her empowered young girl students.

      I surfed through her website and was met with the expected suffocating solipsistic feminist folderol, but all gussied up in showy Sunday Morning church service finery … and a lot of bad pretentious sentimental poetry. I didn’t find the post where Mz. Norman discusses brainwashing her class of eager little empty minds about the evils of homosexuality…Probably a subject that in her savvy pc marketing of herself ‘as a saintly loving and charitable Christian mother’ she knows is best left off the liberal internet. But, hey, shaming young boys and destroying their self-esteem, that’s applauded.

      She did post often about her deep Christian love and forgiveness. Clearly, however, such charitable virtues don’t apply to the young Steubenville boys who she angrily damns with ‘Moses come down from the mountain’ authority. Nor does Mz. Norman grant Christian innocence and grace to the boys in her classroom who, like a good missionary among the savages, she hopes to rescue from their violent depraved male natures.

      Then again, maybe, like Screwtape, she really works for the other side?

  • keyster

    The sticky wicket here for the Equality Police is “disproportionality”. The black urban culture is disproportionately violent and criminally prone, hence the incarceration rate vis a vis suburban whites.

    Men disproportionately rape women (sorry but it’s true), hence the targeting of men as a group that rapes.

    Illegal gun owners disproportionately kill using guns…so we target legal gun owners for “gun control”.

    As long is Equality is the objective, there will always be some “more equal than others”.

    • Falcor

      When the definition of rape is “a man forcing himself on a woman,” I can’t say I’m surprised when a disproportionate amount of men are rapists and a disproportionate amount of women are rapees. Not that your comment isn’t correct.

      • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

        Actually – when you go to the latest evidence from the largest sample you find that the old Overwhelming tropes and bias against men are quite unjustified. 2010 CDC report “The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)” – it has interesting definitions of Rape for women and sexual violence against men – the the stats are EQUAL. The old rape myths got slaughtered as Sacred Cows by the CDC.

        Interestingly that report should have been published in 2010, but got held back until December 2011. The reason is simple. When the report was circulated in draft back in 2010 some groups with a vested interest in the rape culture Industry funded by Federal Tax Dollars shat their pants, because the Pork Barrel Buffet was in danger. They used all their political clout up on that hill to get the report held back and delayed.

        The CDC report debunks all the rape claims – Domestic Violence claims … in fact it debunks just about everything that so many fraudulent feminist finance seekers have taken as given for decades.

        Not able to deny the work of the CDC they got political as ever and started to demand that the Federal Definition of rape (1927) be changed … and lo and behold over much objection about the failure to include Rape By Envelopment a new definition arrived – one that failed to keep pace with international law, The Geneva conventions and even best practice around Human Rights. But why would that matter – crying that it had been wrong and damaging for so long and making sure it’s still broken to provide profit. The only one’s who could justify the logic were a group of Ferengi traders held in Area 51.

        Many have wondered why the Feminists and even groups such as NOW were so aware of failures in the 1927 Federal definition of rape and how they just IGNORED the issue for so long. There is a long Trail of hearings and investigations on the subject of rape and even funding …. and when you look it;s so very odd, because the supposed interest groups just didn’t seem to notice an issue from 1927 until it was ever so convenient and served a funding issue, and not a rape prevention issue. The Duplicity of putting your bank balance over the interests of rape victims did not pass the political classes by … in fact it’s pissed them off!

        So once that political game was rigged …. and all the media know that the New Supper Dooper Rigged Definition of rape would be published on or about 06 January 2012, it was safe to allow the much delayed CDC report out in the wild because everyone was pre-programmed to read it all the wrong way!

        If you can’t defeat and control them – confuse them. Just shows the attitude of so many feminists to media and journalists – it’s just one scintilla of contempt above the level used for men in general.

        … and then of course there was Political Retaliation with VAWA being held up and not recertified because of people in congress really getting pissed at the scoffing at that federal Pork Barrell due to frankly fraudulent figures misrepresented for decades for feminist funding and fun at the tax payers expense .

        Where I come from we call it White Collar Crime – and in the USA the people controlling the Rape Culture Campus industry are white feminists…. hence the concern about the waspish ways they have and how defensive they are in covering up all the shenanigans they have been employing to grab other people’s tax dollars since the 1970’s.

        There is so much racism and abuse embedded in Organised feminism it’s shocking how few women are turned off by such criminality and turn away from such groups…. but the main point is the claims that there is a gender imbalance in rape perpetration was blown out of the water by the CDC in 2010… and then the real falsies came out of the closets!

        I’ve had no time for any supposed feminist group or anyone affiliated to them since that little dose of reality came out and so many just denied it all – demanding business as usual.

    • Theaverageman

      Whatever the reason you can’t single out a group to shame collectively for the actions of a few bad apples.
      I want to say that rap music cant be attributed to the problems of the black community; you left big pieces out of the puzzle and masculinity is not responsible for rape.

      Instead the appropriate course of action is to look at the conditions which lead to people actually commiting crimes.

    • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

      I do not understand why keyster has been down-voted. In fact, he is right on the money.
      Besides, this article has a „fair amount” of PC assumptions in it. But besides that, it also has some logical leaps that are not in fact correct.
      Take this one:
      „The Romani men weren’t solely attacked because of their ethnicity, but ethnicity plus gender.” – This cannot be backed up by facts. Gypsies (zingarro in Italian) camps are attacked everywhere in Europe (UK, Italy, Spain, France, etc.) and they are attacked solely because of the crimes these groups generate.
      Sure, it is not politically correct to say it – but it is true.
      One can make the logical leap that they are attacked because of their ethnicity – a logical leap that is already quite thin and can barely be supported by facts – but to claim that they are also being attacked because of their sex is just double-plus-good PC. It is simply not true.

      I am not saying that sex (not gender!) has a role in the entire ordeal – what I am saying is that it is not an important, or a relevant factor. Just look at the footage available on the Internet with the gypsy camps burned down in France – they did it with women and children included.

      Moreover, making it about race is not productive and it eventually leads to a slippery slope of PC – which is something that I, as a European living under a regime that shoves PC on everyone’s throat, consider that it has to be avoided at all costs.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

        I’m rather unsurprised that you are racist against Gypsies, and that you can’t see an attack on a Gypsy camp that spares the women as being both racist and misandric. You make it clear that men’s rights are, for you, secondary to your right-wing agenda.

        • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

          Oh, it is you again telling people around here what should or should not think. I asked you on another thread and you failed to answer: Who the fuck are you?
          Everyone has spotted you as a leftist ideologue – and you prove it once again by making everything about race.
          If I am racist against Gypsies, that means all the National Statistics Institutes throughout Europe are racist against Gypsies.
          Numbers do not lie – ideologues, however, do!

          • vanguard

            I don’t get your logic here. How can an attack that spares women on the basis of gender not be misandric in its very nature?

            I’d consider myself a leftist, but do not think that any of the statistics are inherently racist; but I also do not think that those retaliations are only driven by the the higher occurence of crimes – racism could play a role here as well. I don’t think the issue is as black and white as you describe it. They’re simply easy targets most of the time.

          • napocapo69

            @Lucian, maybe Correctrix is a leftist ideologue, but that is not yet a crime.
            @Correctrix, Lucian might have a tendency to cross men’s right issues with other personal beliefs, but I think it happens to everyone. Getting to the conclusion that his involvement in MRM is subordinate to his political beliefs, is a bit bold.

            That being said (so that now I secured my post with at least 2 down votes) a leftist anecdote follows; a couple of years ago in Turin (North Italy) a young girl had sex with a man, and when discovered by one of his brothers she acted out of fear and played the usual victim card, “I’ve been raped”.
            That was not enough, and she accused a gipsy.
            There was no rape at all, and there were no gipsy involved, but the coomunity the same night decided to put on fire the gipsy camp.
            Well, I think there is a bit of prejudice and racism in this story.
            For her was very easy to accuse a man, and even easier to accuse a gipsy man. And I hardly believe that, if the girl had accused an Italian citizen, her family/friends would have put on fire the houses of the “rapist” community.
            And this because the community that girl was part of shared the belief that gipsies should not be recognized of the basic human rights other Italians were enjoying.

            Dividing people in categories is wrong.
            Dividing people on the basis of statistics is dangerous, it is group identity, the first step towards racism/gender ideology.
            Remember that statistics are just a measure. Stats do not explain the casue of a phenomenon they just observe the outcome.
            Whoever draws conclusion on basis of statistics, instead of rational research of cause-effect link, has a poor understanding of science, to say the least.

          • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

            Sorry, there is no more reply button so I will do it like this:

            @Vanguard says:
            „How can an attack that spares women on the basis of gender not be misandric in its very nature?” – I did not say that. What I said was that in the overwhelming majority of the cases when gypsy camps are attacked – they are just attacked – and nobody is spared. There have been babies as young as 5 or 6 months being killed or wounded in these kinds of attacks.
            This article, however, makes the exact opposite generalization – that is that when gypsy camps are attacked, women are spared – which is simply not true.
            @Vanguard says: „I also do not think that those retaliations are only driven by the the higher occurence of crimes – racism could play a role here as well.” – Sometimes a prejudice against gypsies plays a role, sometimes it does not. But this does not make it any less true that the spark comes from the higher crime rate.
            There are gypsy communities in Serbia or Romania that have been living in a relative state of peace for hundreds of years with the locals – regardless of whether the locals were prejudiced against them or not. The same communities, however, did not generate crime. This leads me to believe that crime is the primary motivation.
            I am not saying that racism does not play a role – I am just saying that it is not the primary role. Had racism been the primary motive for attacking gypsy camps, well, gypsies would have been attacked more often, more violent, and in much more places – which just is not the case.

            @napocapo69 says: „@Lucian, maybe Correctrix is a leftist ideologue, but that is not yet a crime.” – I did not say it is a crime, nor do I think it should be. What I did say is that she has no clue of how things really are – and that has already been proven with her ignorance displayed wide open for everyone to see in the Spain article.
            @napocapo69 says: „That being said (so that now I secured my post with at least 2 down votes)” :)
            Your anecdote proves half of my point – except that in your anecdote it is also the problem with the fact that women are automatically believed when they make a rape claim. However, my point is that even when there is racism, crime is the main spark of these attacks – and your anecdote supports my point.

            „Dividing people in categories is wrong.” – That is what the EU is doing, that is what this article is doing, that is what Correctrix is doing and that is what some other PC-oriented individuals are doing – and yes, it is wrong. Good luck in convincing people of that!

            „Dividing people on the basis of statistics is dangerous, it is group identity, the first step towards racism/gender ideology.” – It is the first step towards identity politics – which is precisely the public enemy number one in this movement – and it is also the reason why I said in the first comment that making it about race is not productive.
            But then again, good luck in convincing people of that!

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

            I didn’t answer, because your question was retarded. Who am I? Correctrix, a lifelong gender-egalitarian advocate.

            I suppose that what you’re really getting at is ‘What gives a woman the right to disagree with me in this men’s space?!’. Plenty of other people disagree on stuff, but I haven’t seen you challenging their right to do so, as with me.

            I may be wrong, but I don’t think of the MHRM as simply the other side of the bigot coin — pro-men, with feminism being the pro-women side. I see it as a movement that seeks to expose the stupidity of gender supremacism, and build a world where men and women don’t have any reason see each other as enemies. I see it as a movement without wussy ‘safe spaces for men’, like the equivalent feminist echo-chambers where only self-hating men are allowed.

            Or perhaps — as I said — I am wrong, and this movement really is for little shits like you, and egalitarians have to exit and build a separate movement in opposition to the MRM and feminism. I don’t like to think so.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            Correctrix – women disagree with men on this site all the time.

            PEOPLE disagree with each other here all the time.

            Trust me when I say – your vagina just isn’t that special.

            (Guys – see how easy that was?)

        • Peter Wright (Tawil)

          @Correctrix: “an attack on a Gypsy camp that spares the women is being both racist and misandric.”

          Absolutely agreed, it is.

          In regards the political stances fortunately I don’t position myself as a leftist or rightist (am wondering why more people dont use the latter term) – I become claustro in both houses.

          Instead of a leftist or rightist I think I’m more of a Johnny Cashist :-)

      • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

        @Lucian Vâlsan – I have found it interesting that there have been many incidents of Roma being accused of bringing crime into an area – because post their arrival crime has gone up. This is assumed to be direct cause and affect meaning that it’s the Roma who are committing crimes. It’s a silly and lazy error that comes from prejudice and not clean thinking.

        It has also been found that there are those who are none Roma and criminally minded who use the presence and prejudice towards Roma as cover for major crime sprees. In fact, in the UK proper investigation and crime management shows the trend all the time. I even saw the same patterns in the 70’s 80’s with racial integration into certain areas communities and the big issue was always talk of crime…. and low and behold Crime went up. Oddly, it kept showing up that the increased crime was caused by people coming to the area to exploit the local prejudice issues… and the VAST majority of the people doing that were of course white guys.

        It’s a bit like urban folks who are so nice and upstanding looting that 52 inch plasma TV when the power fails and you have massive urban unrest. Criminals exploit social issues as cover, so don’t foolishly get caught in Prejudicville and self terrorising and claiming that there is a crime wave linked to your own prejudices.

        I don’t do blanket coverage and I sure as hell don’t support anyone using blanket views to create prison jackets for others.

    • http://www.genderratic.com Typhonblue (Asha James)

      “Men disproportionately rape women (sorry but it’s true), hence the targeting of men as a group that rapes.”

      Sorry, no it’s not.

      First of all, the majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated in an institutional context. And even there, most of it is female-staff on male inmate (either adult or juvenile.)

      And if you look at community rape the two honest responses to the statistics are:

      A. Men rape women about the same rate as women rape men. Or;

      B. We don’t have accurate statistics to make a determination.

      And B. is skirting the edge of dishonesty because the people gathering the statistics keep fucking with them to avoid A.

      • http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com Rick Westlake

        What about C?

        “Only men rape because that’s the way we wrote the definition of rape, and you won’t get VAWA funding unless you go along with us.”

    • Shrek6

      Wow Keyster, that was a big broad brush stroke.

      How do you come to the conclusion that it’s mostly men who rape?
      Is it simply because they are the only statistics the corrupt cops and court system can come up with?

      How do men report rape?
      Can you see them actually reporting it? They would not only be laughed out of the police station by all the wankers in blue uniforms, they would also be threatened with some form of prosecution or at the least an investigation against them.

      I know this is only my own personal opinion, but I doubt it is far from reality and the truth.
      But I am convinced and firmly believe that women can perpetrate every single crime a man can, AND they do it in equal proportions to men, or in some cases they perpetrate some crimes more than men.

      Women are much more cunning and deceitful than men ever will be and they rape so many men. I wouldn’t mind betting that if men were asked the questions about rape that women are asked, there would be some figure close to 50% of the male population who state they have been raped by women.
      (that was just my guesstimate and is probably not correct, but I believe women are just as bad as men, so….)

      However, we need to qualify “What exactly is female on male rape!”

      Women use all sorts of evil manipulation to rape and many women rape men, even if they think it is just fun.
      Men find it very difficult to refuse a woman, because they have been brainwashed by their mothers and blue pill fathers to basically give a woman what she wants.

      It is my belief that for every evil man on this earth committing all manner of crimes against humanity, there is an equal proportion of women doing exactly the same, but doing it in a slightly different manner.

      We need to be so careful to not allow ourselves to be sucked in by the utter bullshit out there that is spread by the filthy bitches who rule the western world, then spread around by our mothers and all the other women in society, and further enabled by all the blue pill men.

      As Manwomanmyth said in another post on another topic, it’s time “we men got angry” and started to smack down these attacks against us that are patently not true.

      • Shrek6

        @ Keyster.

        Oh and I have to add one more comment. In every country there is an over representation of Aboriginal or ‘Dark Skinned men, in prison for committing all sorts of crimes.
        But how many of these men have actually committed crimes???

        I ask you this. Isn’t there an OVER REPRESENTATION of men of all colours, in prison today, when criminal murderous women mostly always walk free???

        So even if white men are locked up at the behest of an evil bitch mostly under false allegations, how is it any different if a Black Man is locked up because of the evil of false allegations made just because of their colour…….racism???

      • Shrek6

        Sorry, had to add this.

        Let’s talk about rape within the marriage.
        How many men have had to endure the following scenario..
        Wife is the one who dictates when they have sex, which is the case in the vast majority of marriages/partnerships.
        We(men) all know that women/wives use sex as a weapon against us in marriage, to punish us and manipulate us.
        So the wife comes home one day and wants an orgasm, so she grabs the husband and uses his penis like a dildo to obtain this orgasm, whether he wants it or not. But he is never going to say no, because he knows that the next occasion of sex could be weeks away.
        After this occasion she goes back to refusing sex when he wants it.

        Would you say that she just raped her husband?

        For me the answer is, ABSO’BLOODY’LUTELY!

        How many of you men here have had to suffer this form of sexual abuse?
        I know it has happened to me through two abusive marriages, but if I wanted sex, I was told in no uncertain terms what was going to happen. So, for me to have sex less than 10 times in a whole year was not uncommon. And out of those 10 times there were a few times she just wanted a live dildo.

        That is rape and it is rape just as bad as when a woman is raped in a dark alley, because it left me feeling cheap and like a piece of shit, just to be used by some lowlife woman who had no respect for my humanity.

        • napocapo69

          Sorry but I do not buy it, as I do not buy the Swedish interpretation of intercourse, according to which if an husband puts the hand on his wife vagina to start an intercourse while in the same bed, wihtout having first signed an agreement before a lawyer, that can be considered a sexual abuse…

          I find this kind of interpretation of relationships, really frightening.

          Sorry Shrek6, if she takes the initiative and puts her hand or your penis and say “come on give me an orgasm”, to me it is perfectly fine. She’s not a stranger, it should be fun and it is what you should expect in a sane and intimate relationship. If you are not in the mood, you can just say NO!

          It is your body, your choice.

          • Shrek6

            Mate, you missed my point by a country mile. I am actually astounded that you cannot see how this could be the rape of a husband under the circumstances I had set out above.

            In “Normal Healthy Relationships/Marriages” I agree with you 100%. That is all part of normal ‘initiation of foreplay.’
            You obviously didn’t read the bit where I stated I had suffered in 2 abusive marriages, where sex was used as a form of punishment and/or manipulation.

            Where in hell is any of that normal and healthy?

            In a relationship where the woman is nothing but a mongrel, sex is used against you frequently, including being forced to have sex with her when she demands it, lest you suffer further abuses, including physical abuse for not satiating her desire to have an orgasm.

            Now, I have not been physically abused for not being obedient, but I have suffered the psychological and emotional abuse. And yes, I do actually know of other men who have been physically bashed by their wives for not having sex or doing enough to satisfy them.

            It is such a common occurrence and men are so often vilified for speaking out about it, which is why the other 98% of the male population never ever say a word.

            Rape of any type/kind is still rape, and women are just as guilty of committing it, including within a marriage!

    • napocapo69

      “black urban culture is disproportionately violent and criminally prone”
      I would reprhase “black urban people are disproportionately underedcuated and poor, thus more criminally prone”

      To commit a crime you need to bee equiped to commit a crime and have the motivation to commit a crime:
      – men are better equiped for commiting a crime
      – poor people is more motivated to commit a crime

      • Ben

        Why rephrase it? As Keyster’s comment stands, it is factual, free from a conclusion as to why. What you have added is a qualifier, based on a theory. Suppose I asked him to rephrase it with a qualifier indicating that poor, urban blacks disproportunately commit violent crime based on a biological theory. In either case, the two of us would have asked him to replace a fact with a theory. Wouldn’t that be regressive?

        • napocapo69

          Indeed, I added a qualifier in order to translate the sentence into a possible social interpretation of cause-effect.

          If that was not the case, what’s your definition of black urban culture? Culture cannot be prone to crime, people can be prone to crime. What’s your logical link?

      • Ben

        Why rephrase it? As Keyster’s comment stands, it is factual, free from a conclusion as to why. What you have added is a qualifier, based on a theory. Suppose I asked him to rephrase it with a qualifier indicating that poor, urban blacks disproportunately commit violent crime based on a biological theory. In either case, the two of us would have asked him to replace a fact with a theory. Wouldn’t that be regressive?

    • Theseus

      The general point that you are making is absolutely correct. I think that you got all the down votes because of the rape comment and the “black urban culture”comment. I would argue this to a certain degree, because as the article points out there are many other factors at play in inner city culture crime; however it served to illustrate what you were talking about – which is that there are other groups ( at least on paper) that commit a disproportionate slice of crime or bad behavior and they are not targeted or stereotyped in anywhere near the same way that men are, because that would be bigoted and/or racist. However, if “male” or “man” is attached to it, all consistency goes out the window.

    • Ben

      I agree, Keyster. I care about facts. We can look up the facts are for violent crime by race. Facts should always be upheld and welcomed. Sugar coating and glossing over facts are a big problem today. In a scientific report, there is an abstract, an introduction, a procedures section, a results section, and then analyses and conclusions. The results section stands alone, contains only results and comes before any conclusion. An uncomfortable results section is not regarded as bigoted reporting in a solid mechanics or fluids laboratory. It should not be regarded as bigotry in the crime statistics.

      • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

        „An uncomfortable results section is not regarded as bigoted reporting in a solid mechanics or fluids laboratory. It should not be regarded as bigotry in the crime statistics.” – I agree, but, as you can see, some folks here have an issue with facts.

        • Theseus

          True, but some folks think you should add the caveats, and mitigating and contributing factors as part of the package when discussing a negative stat regarding one group over another; these can be important when discussing the overall situation

          I don’t necessarily agree with that all the time, but I understand the sentiment in certain situations.

          • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

            Yeah well, people do what they do here voluntarily – and the resources are limited.
            Besides, when it is just a comment to an article – and not an article it itself – it is usually something written in a hurry (and it is normal to be like that) and, therefore, expecting a comment to contain sources and extremely long arguments and source(s) is a bit too much.

          • Theseus

            @Lucian Valsan

            This is true.

      • Theseus

        Yeah, I think the point he was making got lost with some folks – which is that even if group X statistically does more of Y than than other groups, it is still not the majority and it’s bigoted to broad brush and stereotype the way it’s done with men all the time.

  • Eoghan
  • The Real Peterman

    How could a feminist chastise this group for demonizing an entire group of people because of a few bad apples? The white union would just say “that’s what you do with men all the time” to which the feminist would likely answer with a long, rambling speech about rape culture and patriarchy, and the white union would answer with a long, rambling speech about international bankers and Illuminati…

    Nice hole you’ve dug yourselves, feminists.

    • Shortcircuit

      People know hating blacks is bad because they’ve heard it over and over. They’ve heard the opposite about men over and over. It is not a matter of logic but rather “Everyone knows how men and racists are and if I say otherwise I’ll be punished”.

      Maybe it’ll open a few more eyes, but I would not call it a “hole”.

      • Shortcircuit

        Perhaps I was not clear. I was not arguing that hating racism is wrong, only that many people do so for the wrong reasons.

        Social (collective) justice (punishment) supporters do not know why bigotry is wrong, they just want to avoid Santa putting coal in their stockings. To them it is an insult to the fight against the oppression of women to suggest it is similar to racism because they do not understand why racism or sexism is wrong. They see the mistake of white supremacists and other unpopular bigots not as bigotry, but as targeting the wrong people.

        This is important because feminist supporters are social justice supporters. That is why I am not optimistic that this will open very many eyes.

        • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

          ^THIS. This is right on the money.

  • externalangst

    We humans are a worry. We evolved using fear as a survival mechanism in a very dangerous past world. This fear has been co-opted by the those seeking and maintaining social power throughout our history. We have thoroughly disgraced our selves fearing, then hating, then harming others with the slightest or imagined difference from ourselves.

    The English and Germans were not different ‘races’. The fact that the ‘Fear-Hate-Harm’ program can just as easily be run between the sexes demonstrates how basic this aspect of humanity may be.

    There was a study of how hatreds were transmitted across the generations in Eastern Europe. Apparently they would routinely and predictable have conflicts and wars across the generations. This study found that it was the grandmothers that taught the next generation to hate and prepare for war. The ‘grandfathers’ had either died in the war or been so traumatized by the fighting that they were silent. The grandmothers had only lost their male relatives & resources so were still up for hating.

    I’d heard about this study on a radio program in the 80’s but cannot find a reference to it on the net. Can anyone here help with this? Note that the grandmothers expected the next generation of boys to do the fighting and dying for them. Not unlike how the those most proud of modern suicide bombers are their mothers.

    Female fear and hate is the elephant in the room. Male shaming, pandering and posturing to it seems to be our downfall. We are not yet civilized. Those in positions of power protect the source of their power. We need to take on the nature and problem of “POWER’.

    Finding scapegoats like racism, sexism or otherism is what the powerful want. Racism recently lost some it’s attraction in the West so sexism is the new big thing. The powerful (or power-seeking) will use either racism/sexism or accusations of racism/sexism. It’s all about ‘divide & conquer’ as Mateusz says. Any distraction from looking at those in positions of power and their relationship to power will suffice.

    • http://www.NewDemocracyWorld.org Dopesauce42

      Right on. I have faith that people can see through this bullshit, though. I put up posters saying that there is a divide and rule strategy being carried out by the corporate-state in order to divide us along all lines, even sex. i left my email and told people to get in touch.

      I got a couple torn down, one got comments written on it that made assumptions about what I believe such that “not all feminists are like that” would have been heard if I had made similar charges against these ‘commentators.’

      But two people have responded and others will, too.

      Soon all the respondents and I will meet for a discussion of these issues. Free speech and free assembly!

  • pinetree

    “Teach men not to rape” – how about replace that with “Teach Rapists not to rape.”

    • http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com Rick Westlake

      I wouldn’t be surprised by “Teach rapists to man-up!”

    • Mateusz Wacek

      The problem is that the feminists don’t see the difference. In their minds, rapist = men. When they say “Teach men not to rape”, they mean “Teach rapists not to rape.”

    • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

      @tyciol – I agree that the language being used by Feminists is wrong, and it has no value ** if ** the aim of the language is to change male behaviour.

      I don’t believe that the people pushing the language are doing it for that reason. In fact I believe the reasoning is very very different to what many consider and they do see great value in the language and how it profits them.

      That **If** is the big issue. I’m aware that so many feminists are educated, erudite, intelligent women and they even grasp matters such as Rhetoric, Psychology and Marketing. They grasp that the language has no value other than to emotionally manipulate women/feminists – to further the Cult of Female Victim.

      Brand “Rape” is as powerful as CocaCola, Pepsi and even them Golden Arches. The marketing around it is just as slick and emotive.

      Hence, people using the language are either seeking to emotional abuse and control women for personal profit (Primarily Power and Authority) – or they have been infected with the meme because they are not rational or rationally defended against emotional manipulation and social engineering. They love the high emotive caloric count of the Junk Sociology they are fed and swallow it whole. They even binge on it and any possible feeding frenzy sees them all there demanding their piece of the Emotional Pie so they can self terrorise.

      I’ve been looking for the original source of “Only men can stop rape” .. and it seems that it has been some supposedly men’s organisations with massive feminists leanings. This shows that the Mind Control issues are not just about women but all people being targeted to think in frankly insidious and corrupted ways. It also assists in mapping out the people in the background who are pushing the rubbish and getting others to put themselves out in public as the pushers.

      So many “Feminists” have been aware of the nature of rape perpetrators from research going back decades – a small group – perpetrating most rapes – %94 + of male population are not rapist and very much against rape (and all crime) – yet the emotional manipulation of the whole female population against men continues.

      You only see those patterns of misinformation and control of others in criminology and psychology/psychiatry – when studying psychopaths.

      When reality can’t inoculate against error it identifies Cult Mentality and indoctrination. Rational people change views and thinking when presented with new facts that expand reality and clarify it – those who don’t and who remain fixated and defended show all the traits of being in a Cult.

      I’m sure as time goes by there will be the opportunity to analyse certain individuals further, and in doing so there will be a wholesale uncovering of Female Psychopaths and Feminist Psychopaths in academia, none profits dealing with Feminists Centric issues and the media. I keep finding examples that show related activity that just leaves people stunned.

      Millions in funding provided to rescue supposedly sexually trafficked girls – yet no-one thought to fund a safe place for the children to go? What did they think would happen to a child if they were ever found and ever rescued? Or was it that they got caught because they knew there was no need to fund a place of safety when it was better to use the money to Advertise terror?

      When that came to light in Atlanta many missed it due to the massive attempts to cover-up so much and divert attention anywhere else – smoke and mirrors. I see no coincidence in the work that identified the issues suddenly grinding to a halt and funding issues seeming to stop the Inquisitive looking deeper and even further afield.

      For decades Feminists have attempted to claim that Psychopathy is a male trait, pointing to Violent offenders that have been identified. Some even latch at high speed onto what is called the Warrior Gene and paint all men as Violent monsters … even when only a very small percentage have the variant of the gene that links to violence – they do like to mislead and mix up the facts.

      On the other hand, the genetics that links to changes in brain structure linked directly to Psychopathy is not sex linked and occurs equally in men and women. Research shows that the genetics and brain structure of Psycopathy is not sex linked genetically – so there are as many Psychopaths of both sexes in circulation …. and the most telling thing is that all of the check-lists for recognition of and diagnosis of the person specifically exclude one trait that feminist keep misusing and that is “Violence”.

      As soon as the feminists retreat into the Violence memes and narratives they are running away from the realities of female psychopaths.

      Rape is equated to violence so misusing the reality to promote fear of violence – especially sexual violence is a real tell tale sign of how twisted rhetoric and psychology can control people – and that is exactly the Modus Operandi of the Psychopath. They create violence in people’s minds and rape them mentally.

      I no longer tolerate such abuse of rape victims for political ends and for those who seek power to fill the gaps in their own Psychopathic Psychology. Thankfully the numbers are being reduced and their environmental influence being reduced … but as they have such a powerful and valuable Brand in Brand “Rape”, they will keep on pushing the marketing to retain power over others – especially power over other women. Those who keep pushing false rape ideas to control others have the highest negative impact upon women … so why continue to do it when you know the reality? Rational people change – irrational ones stay fixated – and the Psychopath exploits.

  • Andy Bob

    “Men can stop rape”…“Teach men not to rape”…”Rape culture”…

    As Dr Elam wrote in an earlier post, these terms were coined as very slightly less crude versions of “All Men Are Rapists’ to appease those pesky ‘equalists’ – often with sons – who could muster enough shreds of decency to be offended by it.

    As more and more people – and not just MHRAs – are expressing their revulsion at the inherent bigotry at even these rad-fem-lite slogans, it will be interesting to see their uniquely flat-footed attempt to water it down even further.

    One thing is certain, every slogan will ecapsulate the putrid kernel of their ideology – their hatred of men. The comparisons offered by Mr Wacek help to highlight this hatred under a powerful beam they cannot escape.

    Thank you for this edifying read.

    • Mateusz Wacek

      Many thanks for the kind words, Pan Bob.

  • TheSameDog

    Look what we’ve got here: Mateusz Wacek, a Polish national, reports from China in English for a North American based website.

    We are truly global.

    Mateusz, is there some place on the Web where I can read you in Polish?

    • Mateusz Wacek

      Actually, I’m an American national, but of Polish ancestry (though, my ancestors lived for a while in Czechoslovakia, back when Czechoslovakia still existed), and I used to live in Poland. I haven’t published anything in Polish, aside from some posts on forums. I had to learn Polish as a second language, actually.

      I am humbled by your interest, however, and I am keeping up on my Polish writing ability.

      • TheSameDog

        OIC. Please do keep up on your Polish writing ability, and if you ever want to post anything in Polish, I can grammar-check it for you. Poland needs you :)

        • Mateusz Wacek

          Dziękuję za oferty =D

          I’ll work on getting good enough that I can start to write articles in Polish.

  • Feuillet

    While I am quite a nationalist myself, I do agree with this article about how many Chinese racist try to stir up hate by using this ” rapes young girl” rhetoric. I remember seeing a video when a group of people beating up a English man in the street of Beijing because he was accused of sexually harassing young woman. While I am convinced that English man might be guilty, but engaging in such mob action before any proven trial (and also after) is simply retarded. The law was written for a purpose, to prevent any group of white knights and wannabe to engage in any violence they see “just”.

    I think these kind of nationalist “right wing” crime simply indicate how the idea of “left wing and right wing belongs to the same boat”, which this website advocates for some time, is completely true. Both side manipulate people to perform hysterical, and often illegal actions, by advocating irrationality and giving snipplet of information to twist the mind of an individual. Whether it is the concept of “patriarchy” from the feminist, or those nationalist “traditional Christain/Confucianist values”. Mind you, many of these Chinese racist who uses these rape rhetoric are quite anti feminist themselves, since they see them as part of the westernized ideas.

    Though I believe the blacks are more targeted then the “westerners” in China, they simply suffers more discrimination. While the westerners are only being targeted byt the extreme right wings of China, blacks seems to be targeted from all side of the society..

    • Mateusz Wacek

      I was actually rather intrigued to find that the “protect our women” angle existed in China,since we assume it’s a Western thing, originating in Europe (with the background being European chivalry and knightly ideal).

      Outright attacks and violence aren’t super common (though, it’s very hard to tell, since the government likely keeps a tight lid on reports of any such attacks. Still, I have been threatened by a truck-ful of workers when I was walking with a Chinese girl. They accused me of “stealing China’s natural resources”. Honestly, I don’t know if they English man was guilty or not, but the fact that the crowd attacking him didn’t care about trial or evidence is pretty telling.

      It does look increasingly like “Right wing” and “Left wing” are not all that different, especially when people throw the terms around (both describing themselves and their opponents) pretty easily, to the point that they’re meaningless.

      I’m pretty sure you’re right about blacks being treated even worse, and targeted more. I’ve seen schools and companies here refuse to hire blacks, and be pretty open about the refusal being solely based on skin color.

      • TheSameDog

        I was actually rather intrigued to find that the “protect our women” angle existed in China, since we assume it’s a Western thing, originating in Europe (with the background being European chivalry and knightly ideal).

        Doesn’t it exist in every K-strategist social species? It’s an atavism. Chivalry and its equivalents in other cultures are just its cultural continuations.

        (I believe in the Genome Offloading theory which proposes that during early evolution of Homo, culture gradually took over encoding and enforcing certain then-survival-critical complex behaviors, thus offloading our genome and enabling us to evolve faster).

        • Mateusz Wacek

          You’re probably right there. The drive to protect women at the expense of men seems to be pretty biologically hardwired. Our prehistoric ancestors could afford to lose a larger percentage of the males and survive than females, and cultural traditions would have been built around this.

  • Robert Sides

    > “there was Political Retaliation with VAWA being held up and not recertified because of people in congress really getting pissed at the scoffing at that federal Pork Barrell due to frankly fraudulent figures misrepresented for decades for feminist funding and fun at the tax payers expense .”

    It’s been 86 years since 1927, And at least 50 years since the latest iterations of feminism began. So how many men’s groups appeared at the recent VAWA hearings?

    Thought so.

    Maybe boyos thought Martians would descend and speak on their behalf. In any case, I’m sure that will be comforting to think when they find themselves jailed for ever-more-nebulous “crimes” they let feminists define.

    All a foreign country has to do to defeat America is send an army of baby girls.

    • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

      Dear Robert – you ask “..how many men’s groups appeared at the recent VAWA hearings?”

      That is the wrong question and shows your ignorance around Politics US flavour. A better question is how many were invited – or how many asked to be invited and just got plain ignored.

      You may want to also ask how many despite being ignored and not allowed to speak still submitted full written evidence?

      Then you can start asking about who read and who commented upon any written evidence.

      You see – asking the Wrong Question (Something you seem very good at) due to personal prejudice and very narrow world view does not get reality to open up. It seems you believe that only you know what all men should be doing to create the Utopia you have decided upon in your mind. That is one way to go, but if does not gain you any friends or support in MHRM, where reality is the coin and not false representatives of facts in a poorly constructed attempt to win an argument…. and then tell people you castle in the air is a universal blue print for all men.

      You know – the more I look at your comments the more they have a real strong Whiff of Channel No 5 about them – or as many know it Liquid Feminism! So I do wonder – have you taken your pill, and if so are you in the right place.

  • Theseus

    I am of Lebanese/Syrian descent and these little gems immediately come to mind:

    “Muslims can stop terrorism”

    “Muslims can teach Muslims not to terrorize”

    Now who doesn’t agree that these phrases should be condemned for the bigoted filth that they are? Yet if these celebrity feminist apologists say exactly the same thing using “men” and “rape” it’s hunky dory.

    I’ve met Patrick Stewart at a ‘con and he is an extremely intelligent individual. He should fucking know better. Gawd, I hate it when people can’t smell their own double standards and hypocrisy.

    • Theseus

      Oh, and how about this?

      “WOMEN can stop frivolous DV and false charge claims.”

      All WOMEN that don’t speak out against the abuse of our judicial system against men and fathers are part of the problem”.

      Double standard city here. Got a million of “em.

      • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

        I like to compare and contrast:

        Men Can Stop Rape.

        Women Can Stop Child Abuse.

        Statistically more children are abused by mothers and women in general per year than women are subject to rape. It’s simple math.

        That gets people thinking – and then they start to trot out stats in an attempt to prove that rape is a massive problem … and then you are able to show the smoke and mirrors of how rape is being linked to what is being branded as sexual violence, so if a women claims she was upset by something said to her it’s a bigger issue than a child being physically abused.

        When people start to see how the books are being cooked to keep market share and at the expense of abused children, you need a sick bag and quick.

    • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

      Interesting – in the US and the UK when there has been any attempt by anyone to publicly express the idea that “Muslims can stop terrorism” … politicians have been falling over themselves to say it’s wrong .

      On the other hand, Presidents and Prime Ministers have been happy to publicly endorse the negative views of men.

      Makes you wonder who to vote for… and even why!

      • Theseus

        Right, and just like the article states a lot of these idiots will try to turn it around on you with typical guilt and shaming tactics: “Gee, why are you taking this so personally….something to hide?” “Now why would anyone be against ending violence against women”?

        In my mind, everything automatically goes back to consistency and drawing analogies. This is probably the best method to test if an argument of this type passes muster: “Now why would anyone be against ending terrorism”? “Mr. Achmed, why are you taking this so personally……something to hide”? So on, and so forth.

        • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

          Oh I do love the attempts at Shaming – they are such a fertile place to spread humour and make asses of those who provide the free fertiliser.

          Of course Humour allows an escape route which some wisely take – it’s when they refuse to run from the burning wreck that the laughter really starts, because that is when you use reality and they just end up shaming themselves, the ideas they stand for and slice the legs out from under anyone foolish enough to be supporting them. It can be so Hilarious!

          I was once told at the last stage that I wouldn’t be speaking and acting as I did if It was a man – and that attempt at sexist shaming ensured that their epitaph was eternal ridicule.

    • Mateusz Wacek

      I can almost see a sign reading “I need Islamophobia, because I unknowingly contribute to Jihad-culture”.

      Something I’ve noticed is how the American extreme right likes to justify anti-Muslim/anti-Arab bigotry with white knighting. It’s all about how “they treat their women”. America was justified in killing countless Arabs because it was to make sure girls could go to school. Sure, wars in the Middle-East, with people dehumanized and reduced to slurs (killing “hadjis” and “towel heads”, not people) sounds horrifying… but remember, it’s for the sake of protecting women.

      I don’t doubt that he’s an intelligent individual. I guess it’s just evidence of how even intelligent people can be victims to societal pressures to “man-up” and defend women.

      • Theseus

        Yeah, now that I think about it, Stewart came from an abusive household where (according to him) his dad was quite the tyrant. So yeah, regardless of intelligence I think he has some deep rooted personal prejudices ( along with the societal pressures you mentioned) that are seriously affecting his sense of proportionality and consistency. Still, it’s just like what I would tell a bigoted white guy that was kinda nerdy as a kid, and he was sometimes picked on and beaten up by black kids when he was growing up: “You’re an adult now, what’s your excuse for your bigotry today”?

        Interesting connection to traditionalist conservative white knighting to demonize middle easterners, and quite accurate to boot. The “look at how they treat their women over there” rationalization always comes up.

        • Mateusz Wacek

          Hmm, it could be a combination of cultural pressure, and his experiences.

          You are right, though, about getting over it when you grow up. When I was a kid, going to school in San Diego, I got beatings from black and Hispanic kids. It didn’t take much brainpower to understand that those kids aren’t a reflection on their entire race. I didn’t grow up hating black and brown people. I grew up hating bigotry, whatever the race (or gender) committed it.

          Hating an entire group because of abuse by some of the members makes for as big a bigot as the ones doing the original abuse.

          I guess they realize they have to sell bigotry somehow, and it’s hard to argue with “Protect the wimminfolk.” It works equally well with the far left and the far right, the “conservatives” and “progressives”.

  • Roger O Thornhill (George Kaplan)

    A bit OT I know. It’s been awhile and I can’t remember my forum login and password, and it isn’t going to let me try to login for another two hours.

    Anyway, I recently walked into a Bodyshop store to buy myself some cologne.

    As I was purchasing my cologne the young female shop assistant started to wax lyrical about this!


    Now can you imagine the sound of a turntable tonearm being dragged across a vinyl lp with the volume set to ten?

    That was the sound I heard when I quietly asked the young female shop assistant “But what does it do for Men and Boys?” “It seems a bit sexist, don’t you think, to leave one sex out like that?”

    For a second, a glimmer of understanding registered on her face, and then she couldn’t get me out of the door quickly enough. I continued to browse some more and then went on my way. :-)

    I also have noticed Bourne Kitchens have taken down their sexist poster (mentioned in a article here awhile ago). It was the poster of a women physically threatening a man to upgrade her/their kitchen.

  • Truyardy

    LOL that scary black man image is hilarious. I’ve seen it before several times.

  • Carlos

    Great article!

    Most of it does re-iterate things I already know and frequently point out to people, in particular, the disparity in criminal sentencing between men and women, and how if we replaced “men” with any other group in most statements about men we would immediately recognize it as bigotry.

    Nonetheless, the way it was written has helped me to better refine these ideas and present them in ways that will be more rhetorically effective.

    In particular I like to point out that 90% of the incarcerated population is male. That is to say, males are disproportionately incarcerated for their crimes (in addition to receiving a harsher sentence.) This statement of mine is frequently twisted to be evidence than men are more prone to criminality.

    My response to this will now be something along the lines of, would you say the same thing if I told you that the majority of prison inmates are non-white? Specifically, if 90% of prison inmates were non-white, would you claim that, by itself, to be evidence that non-whites were more prone to criminality? Or would you think that maybe the disparity in criminal sentencing is indicative of a disparity in investigating crimes, making arrests, filing indictments and obtaining convictions which benefits women as well?

  • danielgrant

    Consist of long-tail look for phrases, short look for phrases and other possible keyword and key phrase modifications. description