DSCF1404

Booze: the weapon of sluts

Slutwalk, a feminist protest event and excuse to get half-nekkid and compare cellulite is in Hamilton on June 1, 2013.

I am going to be there to call them on the horse shit. After all, Hamilton is my backyard.

I did some looking into Slutwalk Hamilton. Their website has the usual trivialities; what they claim to be up to and who is coming out to support them, etc; things any person who reports on events or an organization would say.

I started by looking around their facebook page I discovered one of their supporters is a group called ‘Hollaback Hamilton‘. Curious, I decided I would look at Hollaback’s twitter feed.

This is what I discovered:

You think slut shaming = flirting? Well, then my drink in your face = a hug. #unslut

Now I have to admit this re-tweeted statement by Hollaback  from an organization called the ‘UnSlutProject’ got me fairly irate and a little confused.

Are these women sluts or un-unsluts?

No time to ponder that one, nor do I care to ponder it. They’re women, some like sex a lot some don’t, just like, you know, men. Some humans like sex a lot some don’t.

I wondered if these two feminist organizations realized how the advice they were tweeting was going to help increase hostility and violence toward women, rather than reduce it.

I decided to engage them, realizing the futility but wanting to try. The reason; what these feminists are advocating for is going to get some women hurt, and land some men in jail with a pending court date.

Slut-shaming is just that, shaming someone. It does not involve laying your hands on someone, or threatening them. It certainly doesn’t warrant Hollaback’s suggested response, which is a crime as defined under 265 of the Criminal Code of Canada — assault.

However in the minds of the Hollaback feminists a verbal insult entitles them to commit a physical response.

And feminist say males have ‘privilege.’

I tweeted Hollaback informing them of their irrational reaction to verbal insult.

Here is that exchange.

hollaback tweets

Click to enlarge

 

From the screen grab I took you can see I first point out the error in their thought process. And they immediately became confused. Just like 1,2,3. One, they promoted the idea of throwing a drink in someone’s face as a response to being verbally insulted. Two, I pointed out that this was violence advocacy. Three, they said. “Uh, what?”

Gender studies, anyone?

Anyway, I pointed them to the law which codifies the crime they were advocating women to engage in.

Then the feminist follies began, conflating the topic of verbal slut-shaming with a person being actually being attacked. Hollabck claimed we have to look at the context.

What context? An insult is just that, an insult, nothing more.

I again informed them of the situation, but true to form the Hollaback folks wanted to maintain their privilege of escalating an embarrassing comment into a physical one by changing it from an insult to a threat.

The two literally have nothing to do with each other.

Either some person said something that pointed out you are dressed rather poorly and called you something you found to be shamful, or they made a threat against you. And while I admit that there is a possibility the two events can be tied together, shaming language combined with a threat, common sense tells us that unless you are drinking hydrochloric acid, throwing your drink in a criminal’s face is not going to stop them.

In fact there is a very strong probability that it will increase their hostility and make matters worse for the victim.

But that’s not what their tweet indicates in plain English. Their tweet put forth the idea that when a woman is insulted (slut-shaming) and it involves their outward appearance, a valid response is to increase things by engaging in a crime.

So, Hollaback feminists, if that is the way you want to engage in equality, how do you feel about every man you call a creep throwing a drink in your face?

It is pretty shameful for a man to be called creep, among other male shaming language employed by women.

How about calling a man who displeased you a dick? Would it be OK for that male to then throw his drink in your face?

What do you think any woman today would do after having a drink thrown in her face?

I can tell what happened to a friend of mine who after being slapped in the face by a woman and his response was to employ the drink in the face tactic. He got to enjoy 3 hots and a cot at the local jail. And then got to go through about a years worth of probation. And he didn’t even initiate the situation.

What that also illustrates is that throwing your drink in someones face is a crime. And if you’re a male the self-defense claim, even when it is real, doesn’t matter.

So, Hollaback Feminists, I have a question for you.

If I see you at Slutwalk Hamilton and I say something to displease you or shame you can I expect to be assaulted? Or for that matter can any man expected to be assaulted for simply insulting your slatternly ways and attire?

About Dan Perrins

Dan "Dannyboy" Perrins, up until a few years ago, was blissfully ignorant of what was going on. Then a series of events demanded he either grab his ankles and let a corrupt "just-us" system have its way with him or take action. He chose the latter, and he is now the Ontario News Correspondent for AVFM News.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • gwallan

    Relevant…

    http://intentious.com/2012/10/26/man-exposes-penis-during-slutwalk/

    Women expose body parts…NO criticism permitted. Men expose body parts…should be beaten down.

    • http://gravatar.com/fidelbogen fidelbogen

      Not only body “parts”, but the percentage of exposed flesh overall. Women are socially permitted to display a lot more of their uncovered skin than men are.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        weeeeellllll…I don’t “get to” go around topless. I just think women’s nakedness just seems naked-er.

      • Anna

        (socially expected)

    • Anna

      Often, it’s actually “women expose body parts, get called sluts behind their back/ to their face and sometimes receive innapropriate sexual comments/ gestures from men”. I honestly see no problem in men exposing body parts as long as it isn’t their genitals (because let’s be honest, only a pervert would want to see a penis or a vagina casually on the street, or would show their own), but I live in a warmer climate so maybe it’s different where you are? And at times when I’ve gone out in a small dress (because I have that right, as does everyone) I have had received gropes from strangers which have made me want to [cuddle a cute little kitten], but I refrained although I honestly feel that I have that right as well.

      [editor – sorry, no violence on this site]

  • Bewildered

    “I can tell what happened to a friend of mine who after being slapped in the face by a woman and his response was to employ the drink in the face tactic. He got to enjoy 3 hots and a cot at the local jail. And then got to go through about a years worth of probation. And he didn’t even initiate the situation.

    What that also illustrates is that throwing your drink in someones face is a crime. And if you’re a male the self-defense claim, even when it is real, doesn’t matter. ”

    How is this punishment even proportionate to the ‘crime’ committed ?

    Why is that society loses it shit when it comes to women ?

    She could afford to be brazen because the laws support her{much like doting parents indulging in a brat at home to the detriment of other siblings}.

    • MGHOW_AU

      Why, you ask? May I refer you to a recent Russell Lindquist video on YouTube, that in the latter half (jump to around the 10-11 minute mark to get to the juice) actually explains this quite well…

      NOTE: I do not advocate this as a justification, just as a probable reason and food for thought why this shit happens.

      • Kimski

        That’s not the look of a woman looking for comfort.
        That’s the look of a woman checking if someone buys into her BS tears.
        Just saying..

        @Dannyboy:

        “If I see you at Slutwalk Hamilton and I say something to displease you or shame you can I expect to be assaulted?”

        If the history of feministic rallying in this country is any indication, then, yes, you should expect assaults for openly expressing dissent.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      I think these ladies have been watching too many vintage movies – you know the old school throw a drink or slap across a man’s face stuff from the ’40’s…when women were oppressed and held back.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    I’m no believer in a god but this article has me wonder.

    Only by intelligent design can something so brutally stupid exist. I sense the higher workings of an entity who enjoys making deranged toys in order to sit back and have a jolly good laugh. What a hoot it must be to wind up a key and watch these mannequins (chick-equins?) fall about on the carpet making odd noises?

    God, whoever you are I am sold. See you in church next week mate.

  • http://feministlies.wordpress.com feminismisbullshit

    These are the exact same people who would call it victim blaming if soemone blamed a woman for egging on a man who hit her. Violence is never justified unless it is in self defense/as a reaction to physical violence (even then you have to draw the line somewhere)

    .An insult is verbal violence?…..Does that mean It is justified to knock out the next person who says something I don’t like?

    Fuck these people are dense. ..

    • http://feministlies.wordpress.com feminismisbullshit

      someone**

    • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.fox.5621 Ryan Fox

      Yes, that’s pretty much the justification being offered here: if a man says something a woman doesn’t like, she’s entitled to hit him, cut him, chop off his penis, whatever. But if the man hits back in the middle of this onslaught, he’s the abuser and is the one thrown in prison.

      I’m genuinely impressed at the deviousness of feminism, how it’s managed to convince the nation at large of women’s helplessness while these same women pull the strings to get exactly what they want. Talk about the evil viziers. Jafar would be turning in his grave…er, lamp?

      • Anna

        I have to disagree with your comment – one of the main points of feminism (not the crazy, hate men, try and twist things to the benefit of the woman feminism, but real feminist values) is that women are not viewed as “helpless”, neither does it actually try to give females extra benefits that men don’t have – the whole purpose is gender equality.
        I am a feminist and I believe in gender equality (that strange, abstract thing which i can’t help but feel will never actually be reached), and there are some people who claim to be feminists but just go around angrily hating any man, lumping every man into a single category of whatever type of asshole they believe men to be. These women are the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what feminism actually stands for, but unfortunately a lot of people believe they represent feminism which is why feminism has lost a lot of its power and credibility these days. I would never think a woman can “hit a man, cut him, chop off his penis” for merely saying something insulting, and neither would real feminists.
        This “deviousness of feminism” that you refer to actually has nothing to do with real feminism, it is just something that some women (who are definitely not genuine feminists) employ so that they can use their gender to their advantage. If people could just learn to separate these manipulative people from what feminism really stands for then there would be a better chance of gender equality actually coming into existence. Most people that I have talked to on the subject of feminism (many of whom are (sorely ignorant and uninformed) females who I know) scorn feminism as some kind of crazy radical movement, but they don’t realise what it really stands for.
        Anyway, sorry for this big rant, I just want people to realize that this is not what feminism is really about, just that there are crazy radical branches which have unfortunately come to represent and distort the general view of feminism and which therefore makes it even harder for real feminists to get their views across and try to reach gender equality.

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com August Løvenskiolds

          Anna, all feminists believe in Patriarchy theory, which says that men had enslaved and oppressed women, for the sole benefit of men, from the beginning of time.

          This means that ALL FEMINISTS want to hate and destroy men. Every last damn one of them. How could they not, if they think that all men are evil?

          We’ve heard your equality lie so many times – yawn! – that it is a silly joke to us.

          Take your violence and lies elsewhere.

        • Fredrik

          Oh come on, that’s just the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. It’s nice if you don’t agree with female supremacists, but they call themselves feminists and so do we. If you actually believe in equality of the sexes, then please just call yourself an equalitarian or humanist or egalitarian or something like that, and stop giving social cover to hateful misandrists by calling yourself by the same label that they use.

          You do realize, don’t you, that feminist organizations haven’t actually promoted equality in a practical sense in decades, right? That even the so-called “Equal Rights Amendment” in the ’70s had an Orwellian rider from the Senate that made it the “Female Privileges Amendment”? You’re defending a label that doesn’t deserve your loyalty. Stop it.

    • Tamerlame

      Women are scared of men so much, that they throw drinks in their face! I mean that is the action of someone who holds someone in contempt not fear.

  • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

    Rabble rousing amateurs. A very scary breed.

  • http://gravatar.com/shmiggen Dean Moriarty

    I wonder if it’s worth it to even go, Dan. The Slutwalk has nothing to do with…anything. Nothing to do with feminism; in fact, nothing to do with men’s rights, either. It might be just a headache. Why subject yourself to a bunch of overweight losers with sagging breasts, nose rings and blue hair?

    If you check out the video I link to you’ll see none of the mainstream feminists consider a Slutwalk very useful. Rather, they consider it to be an embarrassment. It’s really just a place for some fairly unattractive girls to remove some clothes and feel some sort of validation. They probably never get much male attention.

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/DannyboyCdnMRA Dan Perrins

      Dean,
      It is in my backyard and I always call out bullshit in my backyard. So this is just an easy opportunity to ensure male voices are heard.
      It also gives me a platform to spread the message that men are organizing and are fed up with female privileges and entitlements. thereby helping the MHRM grow. And expose the rampant sexism in feminism’s ideology.

      Now I do understand what you are getting at but I say not one more inch of male bashing gets a pass on my watch.
      That being said there are plenty of sex positive feminists who also male bash. The rape culture lies they broadcast no matter how ludicrous are still picked up and carried by the masses.
      They also carry the domestic violence lies and a myriad of other feminist half truths such as patriarchy theory.
      And that shit stops in my backyard.
      Cheers,
      Dan

    • Andy Bob

      “I will probably not be attending slutwalk…um…this year.” Susannah Breslin

      She went last year, but…um…not this year. Ms Breslin has had a change of heart about slutwalks. Couldn’t be that, like other establishment feminists, she has been made rudely aware that slutwalks have seriously backfired on the feminist movement by any chance?

      These engine room feminists were all for slutwalks when they initially began teetering their way around the globe. This is because the entire concept sprung from the feminist swamp of victim identity which places the denial of female agency at its very core.

      The boiler suit brigade saw this as the perfect rallying point to reign in the young, sex-positive ingrates whom they feared they were losing. The engine room boilers may have had doubts about slutwalks – fish nets are unforgiving on middle-aged cellulite – but they kept their doubts to themselves.

      Now they are attempting a volte face on their initial support because slutwalks have made feminism a laughing stock among the general public. That’s what Ms Breslin means when she dismisses them as ‘unproductive.’ Unfortunately for feminists like her, their initial support is on record.

      Notice the look of betrayal all over the slutwalk organizer’s face. It is dawning on her that she is a disposable foot soldier for the cause – one of the balloon sculptors sent to amuse the crowd while the ring mistress power brokers desperately network their next move? Probably not. She’s too dim to realize that feminism eats its own, and she’s next on the menu.

      Slutwalks are relevant to the MHRM because they reveal feminist ideology at its most hypocritical, irrelevant and narcissistic – while parading itself under the sensation-seeking glare of the media spotlight.

      Slutwalk Hamilton is feminism marching its obliviously soused self ever closer to its doom. Mr Perrins has elected to be our eyes and ears on that glorious day. I hope he takes some snaps.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    G’day dean and welcome to AVfM.

    I understand your dismissal of the SWs but consider that these narcissistic twerps flouncing their goods are to many impressionable folk the vanguard of feminists expression in all it’s distilled glory. They walk and they must have a message it seems.

    We get it that the more basal nature of the SW attendants are those of privilege and “power”, and it’s not what we already know that counts, it’s telling others on the cusp of decision what we know.

    With that that means we have our duty with this matter.

    • Kitty Malone

      Dr. F. You are now on my shit list. Our unslutted glory is not distilled, you must be mistaking it for the donkey piss that is fuelling your misogynistic posts. It is obvious from your tone that you are intimidated by the vagina. We are flouncing in your direction and your only duty is to wet your lips and lap up the sacred clots as we fly our red flags.

      • Andy Bob

        “Flouncing Vaginas”

        I remember when that was workshopped by the Womyn’s Interpretive Dance Collective in my uni student days. I still have nightmares.

        When will feminists come up with something new?

      • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

        Loy, is that you sockpuppeting?

        • Kimski

          I think so.
          He has a thing for Piet Hein’s super-ellipse.

  • Andy Bob

    “I’m not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?” Hollaback Hamilton

    Yes, Mr Perrins certainly could, despite the fact that his original point was already crystal clear to anyone not blinded by an ideological trust in their own impunity.

    Ms Hamilton carefully omitted the fact that when slutwalker types throw drinks in men’s faces, they are usually still in the glasses they were served in. Such violent responses to real or perceived slights rarely result in reprisals for the women who stoop to engage in them. They can always count on blue pill strangers to stumble hopefully to their defense, regardless of the circumstances which initiated them.

    Congratulations to Mr Perrins for, once again, challenging feminist hypocrisy and confounding the bigots who gleefully embrace it. Like the University of Toronto yobos, he has exposed the perversity of their mindset – not to mention their utter ignorance of the illegality of the actions they advocate. Mr Perrins’ activism never fails to validate our position, and I thank him for it.

    I trust that Mr Perrins and his associates take care at the Hamilton moofest and exercise the precautions recommended to MHRAs who step unto the breach. We already know that these stilettoed harpies believe they are entitled to hurl Blazing Orgasms at anyone who offends them – swizzle sticks and all.

    I have to add…throwing drinks in people’s faces in 2013? It seems someone overdosed on the Bette Davis Festival on TCM.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

  • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.fox.5621 Ryan Fox

    You do realize that the feminist warmongers will just take your exposure of their un-logic to justify actual assault and destruction now, right? When someone is consumed with hatred they will make any leap to justify their vile actions and thoughts, eventually convincing themselves they’re in the right.

    The perfect comparison is in Rwanda, with the Hutu and Tutsi: while their tribal distinctions hadn’t mattered for decades if not more than a century, the history of Tutsi having power allowed the Hutu to justify their slaughter even if current Tutsi were actually closer to second-class citizens under self-governing Rwanda.

    This is the same in our current Western culture: since men had power in history, current men share the blame of their ancestors and, in the feminist mindset, deserve punishment for every generation of men to have come before. Even though men are automatically considered to be the bad guy, automatically considered to be the aggressor and the dangerous one, and automatically considered the rule the country even though every evidence shows that men are simply tools, exploited by the rich and abused by feminist theory.

  • Bev

    OT Received from Malcolm Turnbull about the annual CEO sleep out. This event has been hijacked by feminists.

    From: Malcolm Turnbull (Malcom.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au)

    The mark of a great society is the way it treats the neediest and most vulnerable.

    Next month, I will be joining St Vinnies in their annual CEO sleepout – business and political leaders used to warm beds will be sleeping outdoors on a chilly winter night to raise money for the homeless.

    The campaign will raise badly needed funds so St Vinnies can continue the important work they do in helping the homeless break the cycle of despair by offering them short term crisis accommodation, counselling and opportunities for education and training.

    Last year the sleepout raised $5.3 million, of which just over $36,000 was raised
    in support of my sleepout. So I am hoping to outdo that figure this year!

    PLEASE DONATE TO ST VINNIES HERE.

    The money raised last year funded important programs around the country including:

    $146,000 for literacy and numeracy programs for homeless people at the Ozanam Learning Centre in Sydney.
    $310,000 for outreach services, including counselling and material aid packages.
    $230,000 for 9 crisis accommodation places for women escaping domestic violence.
    $210,000 in funding of 30 previously unfunded crisis accommodation beds at Matthew Talbot Hostel in Woolloomooloo.

    My reply :

    Yours sincerely,
    Malcolm Turnbull

    I will no longer donate to the sleep out. This event has been hijacked by feminists using exaggerated and dodgy stats. Such that funds for homeless males (real homelessness) are being reduced to fund women who are no where near as bad off as some men. Enormous amounts of funding are provided for women’s shelters from other sources but none for the 1 in 3 male DV victim and their children. Now they want to hijack funding (some of which goes to male DV victims) from other areas where it is badly needed. No Thanks!

    Bev

    Others may wish to send a protest just maybe he will listen.

  • http://twitter.com/carlosgeijo Carlos Geijo (@carlosgeijo)

    I disagree. If a man insults me I would ingnore him at first, if he keeps on, and say something about my mother he is asking for a punch in his face. Yes, being called names is perceived by the brain as an agression. Just ask Seargeant Hartmann recruits.

    • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

      Interesting comment, what does the law say about verbal remarks which may or may not be intended or interpreted as ‘insults’? I mean, if they are reclaiming the word, then I guess that means it’s not an insult, right? Otherwise why would they claim it. Sex positive

      • http://twitter.com/carlosgeijo Carlos Geijo (@carlosgeijo)

        I dont give a fuck about the law. I was pointing a fact, a scientic one for the record, that verbal agression is as painfull (allmost) for the brain as physical agression. I’m with you guys on this MRM thing, I really find amusing your dislinking of my comment, and the overemotional reaction here.

        In fact,, what I said just prove the point that women can and DO exert agression in the form of verbal punishment that is equally damaging. Something that we may have lived when your girldfriend wanted to leave the relationship and starting to act like a bitch to justify to herself leaving it by trying to make you act on her provocation. Children that get verbally abused have worst congnitive development.

        You know “The pen [or the tongue] is mightier than the sword “. You insult she, and then she throws you a beer to the face, I don’t see it fair, but talking about confrontations, “fairness” is not the first word that come to mind. I just pointed something that is wrong with the article, come on!! X”D

        • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

          I’m pretty sure that the downvotes were in response to this:
          ” he is asking for a punch in his face. ”

          Physical violence is not the answer to verbal violence. During such an altercation it is ONLY appropriate as a response to physical violence – as self defense.

          Responding to verbal violence with physical violence is not only illegal, it is bad strategy in every way. It escalates conflict instead of resolving it, and it gives your opponent the upper hand, even if you punch his/her lights out.

          • http://twitter.com/carlosgeijo Carlos Geijo (@carlosgeijo)

            Ok, thanks Suzanne for the explanation, I agree with you. On the other side I have people calling me mangina and white knight, so maybe there other factors at play besides what you said.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

      Interesting how no mention is made of your father, uncle brother or son.

      Your mother of course is the one that counts. She’s the only one that requires a face punched for the good of society. She’s the one who holds the very same womb that shot you across the barbershop floor. Her womb is a blessed thing that trumps all other male things.

      Your comment is rancid and leaks the juice of a mangina and a white knight with a twist of thug in it so good show and hurrah! The goon has waltzed in through the door and we better listen to it because boorishness means truth. Right?

      Piss off fuckhead-breath. On this site we don’t do hooligan.

      • Kitty Malone

        I sense sarcasm here where there should be MUFF worship: Modern Underground Feminist Force. The barbershops of the future will cut off your evil rape sticks upon birth instead of just giving you a trim. We don’t need to play tricks with trump cards because we’ve remade the deck of cards. In the new world, the queen always wins and we don’t need your endorsement.

        • Andy Bob

          So, the queen is the new joker. How appropriate.

      • http://twitter.com/carlosgeijo Carlos Geijo (@carlosgeijo)

        Please read my previous comment.

        I say mother, so what? :-p

        You pay too much importance to stupid details without even knowing the cultural implications of it. You know, here in Spain “hijo de puta” (son of a whore) is one the worst insults, the one that is perceived as the most agressive. (And please don’t tell me that this insult demonstrate that women are more valued.. bla bla bla.. because there is not a “son of -derogatory male name here-” in spanish… is that way, and that is how is perceived.

        Thug??? Just because I used and example of how an insult can start a physical confrontation between males in order to made you think what would you do if some random guy insults you ?? And then you presume that I’m siding with the pathetic beer launcher feminazi? Just because I pointed the wrong asumtion that verbal agression is not agression.

        And then you go on the descalification wihout even knowing me. I would like to reply to your remarks about me in kind, but it’s not worth it.

      • Ashley

        Well, him saying that he absolutely would punch someone was wrong. But the fact of the matter is that the law pays no attention to context, and human psychology should absolutely be taken into account. To think you can walk up to someone and run your mouth wether your right or wrong, and nobody can do anything bat it is not only smug, but cowardly as well. There is a line. Also, some people on here get very militant about the whole male rights thing. It’s becoming a male version of the broken female one. I was happy when I found this site because I assumed the overall message was pretty much “see ladies? We all have shit to deal with, lets stop this blaming nonsense and move on, we can all be friends” I hope that’s the case, but some of these comments make me think otherwise.

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

          So if my domestic partner nags me all day, belittles and provokes me, I can punch her out and people should take it all in “context”?

          IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

    • Kitty Malone

      Of course you disagree, Carlos. You are a reasonable penis burdened recalcitrant hoping to overturn the wayward direction of your fellow dickheads so as to relieve your well deserved sense of guilt. Your only flaw is that you give your fellow man too much time to persist in his gorilla ways before fist meets face. You fail because you try to ignore him first but while this is a flaw to be hammered out I give you a vote for trying- despite your small aggression prone brain.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

        Kitty Malone.

        You being a vicious and deranged human is not my problem, and my commiserations to all those who have ever bumped into you on the street, at your workplace, in your home or clamped under your rainforest armpit.

        What is my problem are your disagreeable interpersonal skills here, and your next reply will be you selling me the concept of not pressing the eject button that would release the thick steel spring that is coiled under your scabby bottom.

        • Kitty Malone

          Dr. Fucktard. I’m glad it’s not my viciousness that’s causing you problems. Given the noxious spew splattered all over this site it would be somewhat hypocritical to start criticizing language now. What have we left? Your subjective judgement of my “interpersonal skills” only reveals that you get a stiffy from threatening me which is the reason we are not socializing well. You want to ban me? I’ve gotten bigger shocks from a personal appliance. Of course, letting me stay might toughen up your winky bag a little.

          • Near Earth Object

            “I’ve gotten bigger shocks from a personal appliance.”

            Something tells me that your personal appliance (read: dildo) was more shocked than you were. : S

            What do you think about that, Kitty Ma(n)lone(ly) :)

          • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

            Amateur.

          • Turbo

            I had a Kitty Kitty once.
            All it ever did was eat, shit and preen itself.
            Fucking useless really.
            Didn’t last long though, the local possums growled at it and it ran away.

      • http://twitter.com/carlosgeijo Carlos Geijo (@carlosgeijo)

        Sorry, I don’t talk to animals.

        • Near Earth Object

          :)

      • Ashley

        Bitch, ( and I say that becaus your a stupid bitch, not because women are bitches) you need a reality check.

  • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

    Mr. Perrins, I stand thoroughly impressed. This is 100% the right thing. And yes, he/she/it exhibits a 100% logic fail, a material one. Surprise.

  • Political Cynic

    This is JUST lovely: “If I see you at Slutwalk Hamilton and I say something to displease you or shame you can I expect to be assaulted? Or for that matter can any man expected to be assaulted for simply insulting your slatternly ways and attire?”

    I do so enjoy questions where whatever answer you are given will expose the idiots for what they really are. Nicely done.

  • ComradePrescott

    “verbal violence is still violence”

    I really hate the way they tell lies. That is exactly what they are doing. Words are not violence, even if you don’t like them or they “hurt your feelings”. I can’t kill you with my words.

    • Near Earth Object

      You are mistaken.

  • feeriker

    How about calling a man who displeased you a dick? Would it be OK for that male to then throw his drink in your face?

    “Dick?” Is THAT the best she can come up with? Shee-it, she’d have to do a helluva lot better than that to get me to waste a perfectly good drink on her ugly, slutty face.

    Alcohol is intended to be applied internally as a cure for the trauma of exposure to a nasty slut’s face.

    • Eoghan

      Infantile and gratuitous, imo.

      • feeriker

        No more so, I would think, than the brain-stem act of throwing something at someone (of any sex) in response to mere words spoken.

  • Eoghan

    Their argument against slut shaming is that it creates a negative or unconscious suggestion in the culture that its more ok to assault people that behave or look a certain way, shaming is also part of the arsenal that people with personality disorders use on their targets – just a couple of ways how slut shaming can be construed as being more than an insult. Personally I think sexual shaming isn’t a positive thing.

    Has anyone seen the paper “The Cultural Suppression of Female Dexuality”?

    It found little to no evidence that slut shaming is male on female and most of it pointed to it being a female construct!

    • tango

      It doesn’t surprise me to learn that women are the main controllers of other women’s sexuality. Slut shaming is the tip of the iceberg. When I was 11 years old I fell foul of a teenage gang, and the girls in the gang had no qualms about using sexual violence to teach me a lesson. Actually this is the only type of sexual assault I have witnessed that was unequivocally what feminists say its about – humiliation and dominance. And this was female on female sexual violence.

      • Tamerlame

        I saw a girl pin down a boy and try to rape him. I was about 10 at the time and didn’t understand what was going on. I forgot about it up until recently. I never thought of it as rape for some reason.

        I think when feminists go on about rape being a crime about control and power, they are projecting their female psychology on to men. Women are the more controlling gender.

        Rapists tend to be men without empathy with high sex drives. Unless they are sadistic, most male rapists use minimum face to get the sex act done. Rape is about sex, we got these nonsense meme floating about that rape is not about sex, even though rape is sex!

  • http://gravatar.com/getironic Rad

    “We need to look at what happened for someone to feel it’s necessary to throw a drink in someones (sic) face.”

    The proper response to this is: “And surely you apply that “facts first” mentality with “equality” to other areas of assault, such as when some dude slaps his wife.”

    After all, we need to look at what happened for someone to feel it’s necessary to slap someone else.

  • Lambo

    Been having problems getting on the forum, so posting this here…
    Please check out the following link and check if this looks as fishy to you as it does to me.

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/technology/fbrape-campaign-against-anti-women-facebook-groups/story-fn7cejkh-1226651223664

    I added two comments yesterday on this article, neither being published.
    Just tried again with the following…

    Why won’t you publish my comments? Scared of getting a little perspective?

    These kind of stories are a carefully engineered and subtle form of hate speech against men.

    Feminist media rapes culture every single day with these kind of misandric stories.

    I strongly suspect these pages are being set up by feminists trolling for reactions from men angry at choking on the feminist lies relentless being shoved down their throats by the feMSM.

    It is suspicious also that the “gender neutral” Everyday Sexism Project you cite here is purely from a female perspective. Sexism against males just doesn’t happen apparently?

    Courier-Mail – Please stop censoring male perspectives!

    • Lambo

      What a surprise, the Courier isn’t publishing that comment either.

      Thought I’d try seeing if I could slip this past them at everyday sexism… No doubt this won’t make it onto the website or won’t stay up for long if it does. If anyone sees it, take a screenshot.

      I used a pseudonym as clearly having a dongle means exclusion here.

      Everyday sexism is having your perspective completely discounted and censored in media, including at the everyday sexism project simply because you have a dongle instead of a cock socket.

  • http://gravatar.com/fidelbogen fidelbogen

    Watching the video that was posted above, I am struck by the connection between the Slutwalk, and rape specifically. I get the impression that Slutwalk was founded as a “rape awareness” event, and that what they are really yelling about is that it is not okay to rape sluts. Trouble is, the huge majority of people never said any such thing. So Slutwalk is based on a false premise and a huge non-issue. That is, it is intended to correct something that does not exist.

    Yes, yes, I know that rape exists. It’s just another crime among crimes, and the culture at large is overwhelmingly anti-rape. But that is not what I am talking about here. I need to make this point extra, extra clear because the feminists will hijack and falsify the meaning of your speech every chance they get in order to construct their narrative.

    On a separate note, the Slutwalkers have inflated the original Slutwalk mission to include a moral campaign against “slut shaming”, which is a separate issue from slut raping. That is, when most people slut shame, all they are really saying is that it is not a good thing to be a slut. They are certainly NOT saying it is permissible to rape sluts. But to hear the feminists talk, you would think that this is exactly what most people are saying. Count this as another example of how feminists hijack and falsify the meaning of other people’s speech in order to construct their narrative.

    Anyhow, I would like to hear the Slutwalk leaders address the specific point of “why it is okay to be a slut.” I think it would be quite interesting to know their philosophical thinking upon that subject.

    • Kimski

      “why it is okay to be a slut.”

      I can almost hear the reply to that one:

      “From a philosophical point of view, and as a woman, I _feel_ that..” .(-insert long dogma-based rant, that invalidates any presumptions of cognitive thinking.)

  • ErnestoGuevara

    I think this is just claiming, even begging for attention. And the best answer is sheer indifference.

    They want, they need you to engage in a ridiculous “debate” about whether being a slut is OK or not. My answer: “Honey, I couldn’t care less about you, there are really interesting, intelligent, attractive women that can gain my full attention through their best qualities, that are certainly not pathetical skin exposure”.

    Wanna be a slut? Wonderful. Next time cover yourself with horseshit if you want.

    Slutshaming? What the hell is that? They are only shaming themselves. I think that paying two seconds of your attention to these pathetic idiots is a gift they desperately need. And no wonder they are ready to escalate the slightest conflict, that is what they want, that is exactly what they expect.

    Following their stupid feminist parade to engage in insults and shouts is a big mistake. They want that. Let them parade without a word, let all normal people, the majority of men and women, see how “oppressed” they are, and get sick of their stupid obscenity, their lack of taste and brains. Those idiotic women soon will see they need to go further in order to get attention; and believe me: they will. We have just to sit down and see.

    Let’s concentrate in the important issues: laws, rights, justice system. Avoid circus and void debates. They propose that because they want to make a shallow, empty headed show with screams and cameras, the only thing they are able to do. If you engage in it you are actually helping them.

    A clever warrior learns to choose the battleground.

  • appealtoreason

    While I understand wanting to provide men with a place to voice their perspective, why does the word feminist have to be used in such a derogatory manner? I know this word gets thrown around a lot, but look at the actual definition of the word (from dictionary.com):

    fem·i·nist [fem-uh-nist]
    1. advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
    2.an advocate of such rights.

    How can a reasonable person living in society today think that being an advocate of such rights is wrong? How can a man with a wife, a girlfriend, a daughter, a mother, a grandmother, or a sister, not be a feminist?

    There is certainly sexism against men, but there is also still a lot of sexism against women and a history of oppression and violence against women that can’t be denied. For women, especially young women, it’s important to have a way to identify yourself that is empowering (in contrast to all the derogatory words used for women). Why not let feminist be a positive word? You can still criticize what you find unfair or hypocritical or bigoted in other people’s behaviors, but do you have to perpetuate the use of the word feminist as a derogatory slur?

    As someone who believes in equal treatment for all, I can get on board with some of what you argue on this site. But it makes it impossible for me to really support an effort like this when I see such negativity in response to the movement for women’s equality. After all, the history of feminism paved the way for a sight like this to exist in the first place. They were doing what you’re trying to do – find a way to express frustration, break silence on important issues, change the way society discriminates based on gender. Why not see the similarities instead of vilifying the “other side”? It makes you just as bad as what you claim to be fighting.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      @appealtoreason: “why does the word feminist have to be used in such a derogatory manner?”

      These two pages will fully answer your question. I hope you see the “reason” in them, and look forward to your response. Seriously.

      -Refuting the Appeal to Dictionary
      -Pig Latin

      • appealtoreason

        I have to say, I was really worried to read the responses to my post.
        It felt like a risk posting and you never know what you’re gonna get
        on the internet, right? So thanks for being rational and considerate.
        I understand that you don’t agree with me. Still it’s a relief to be
        able to have an actual discussion instead of just an argument that
        makes everyone feel crappy.

        In response to what you posted I’d say this: I totally get that the
        word feminism/feminist has connotations beyond the dictionary
        definition. I’m not saying it doesn’t. I’m just saying that it’s a
        word which has been used and twisted (by a small group of people, men and women) away from its actual meaning. But there are aspects of this word (this movement) which are not evil and vicious. Historically, it was an important path to gain rights which I’m sure you agree are important (suffrage, reproductive rights, equal education and employment opportunities, support for survivors of assault, etc). And there are feminists today who label themselves as such because they believe in the original meaning of the word. They want to re-appropriate the word so that it returns to its original, less radical connotation. The more we use a word in a derogatory or radical way, the more it becomes so.

        So I think it’s important for that word to be able to be used as it
        was originally intended without it seeming so taboo or awful. I know
        it carries a lot of baggage with it, but this way of talking about it
        just gives that baggage more power, instead of shifting away from those sides of feminism.

        Though I absolutely don’t think of feminism as a religion, this analogy might help make my point: people have used the label of Christianity (and other religions) to justify all kinds of atrocities and oppression. But there are many Christians out there who are Christians because they simply believe in the basic teachings of Christianity. Just because some people have warped those teachings to do evil things, doesn’t mean all Christians are evil or promote those things. And those basic tenets are still essentially good (love for fellow humans, supporting one another, taking care of those who are weaker than you, not hurting others, etc). So saying that all of Christianity is evil because of what some people do with it, is ignoring all the good things about it – the things that are potentially good for society and the world.

        By vilifying anyone who identifies as a feminist – or even thinks
        there are some good parts of feminism – you’re isolating people who
        truly want to be on your side, who care about a lot of the same
        issues, and who have experience fighting against systematic
        oppression/sexism and would want to help you do the same, if you
        didn’t keep insisting that they’re the enemy, I know that some
        feminists do the same thing, and they’re at fault too. I’d say the
        same thing to them. But labeling a whole group of people as villainous
        just isolates them and prevents collaboration.

        It’s perpetuates the us vs. them mentality which, I think, is part of
        what readers of this site find problematic in feminism. That mentality
        is so discouraging, isn’t it? To be made into the bad guy, or lumped
        in with all the real bad guys, when you really aren’t bad, you just
        want things to improve. Why perpetuate it? Why not be better than
        that? You have to model how you want the world to be after all.

        • Near Earth Object

          appealtoreason (pronounced ‘Full Of Shit’)

          WHO ruined the word feminism?

          You And Your Sisters!

          WHOSE behavior caused the word feminism to acquire a near endless list of negative con_notations?

          You And Your Sisters!

          IF you would like for the word ‘feminism’ to be seen in a more positive light, would it not be more reasonable for you to go to the source and begin to take your sisters to task on their behavior?

          Now Fuck Right Off Con Artist.

        • http://www.youtube.com/user/DannyboyCdnMRA Dan Perrins

          I am going to answer why feminism / feminists get put down around here with a recent example.
          We all know who ‘big red’ is. Her heinous behavior was caught on tape and there is no refuting it. Instead of calling her out on her bullshit, feminists flocked to her ‘aid’. Her self inflicted ‘victim-hood’ was exalted for all to see and rally around.
          The claim it was the MHRM who was threatening her was put forth by feminist publications like jezebel. Knowing full well that it was not the MHRM who harassed her. This is feminist dogma 101, the woman is never accountable for her actions. Some man somewhere is at fault. It must be the MHRM, says feminism.
          That is why feminism / feminists has such a foul reputation.
          That is but a single example. Do some poking around here, do some reading for many more examples. Read about some of the former feminists who are finished with believing the horse shit lies in feminists theory.
          Trying to ‘re-appropriate’ the word feminist / feminism is like the Germans trying to ‘re-appropriate’ the word fascist / fascism.

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

          Appealtoreason thanks for your post here. It gives pause for some of us to respond.

          What I am reading from you is the idea that the inherent goodness of feminism has been corrupted so much that we are forgetting about the origins of it. The noble and just core of it.

          My problem with this thinking is that feminism was then, is now and can never be anything except the pooling of resources for one sex at the expense of the other. The ideology falls flat without this directive in place.

          If feminism was called “humanism” and then became fouled by those that rake in hefty salaries then I would agree. Feminism was always about apartheid of goods and services. This lot get nothing and that lot over there get the rest. Look at the word itself and call it “Whiteism” and argue from that perspective. I mean really try it for an experiment and see how the hatefulness comes pouring out.

          For so long we never thought about it this way and now more and more are scratching their heads about this slow motion holocaust. And yes it is a holocaust and the ‘Jews’ in your life are feeling the pain and hurt as you will never know except vicariously.

          I can see how you are dabbling with different thinking, perhaps, and for that you get my sincerest attention.

        • ErnestoGuevara

          You know, during some part of my life I was a feminist too, even after realizing that under the “patriarchy” men suffered a lot of discrimination. I bought that “patriarchy oppresses men too” statement and thought that in the end feminism would “truly want to be on my side”.

          But the problem starts with definitions: the difference between MHRM and feminism is not about the declared aim (“advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men”), if that were the issue, then MRHM and feminism wouldn’t be opposites. The problem is the assessment of the current situation.

          According to feminism, women need more power because they do not have enough and they were historically oppressed. According to MRHM (if I understood it correctly) that “oppression” is a myth, and it is the male human the one who is being oppressed, or at least ignored regarding his rights.

          Feminism power starts exactly at the dictionnary: every claim it states is disguised in “equalism”, when in fact it’s about oppressing men. Guess what: the dictionnary is wrong, which comes as no surprise: I can show you some not very old Spanish dictionnaries in which the word “Jew” is defined as “greedy”. A piece of advice: never trust dictionnaries.

          Yes, I also believed feminism would raise some questions about lack of equality in favor of women, but it never did. It only keeps on pushing to destroy men.

          The issue is understanding what “equality” means. Equal rights should be equal obligations and equal burdens. Otherwise it’s privilege. Show me a feminist crying after Hillary Clinton statement about females being the primary victims of war instead of dead men, show me a feminist fighting for more shelters for male victims of DV.

          The problem with “feminism” starts with the very word “feminism”, because it describes a situation that does not exists, one that needs to be “balanced” by putting more weight on women’s side. Yes, sure, we all fight for “equality”, but we understand that word in very different ways.

          That’s when I realized I was not really a “feminist”.

    • Near Earth Object

      “…why does the word feminist have to be used in such a derogatory manner?”

      For the simple reason that it has been well-earned and is well-deserved.

      How exactly could someone be proud of being a sexist and that is to say the very least of what feminist HAS COME to represent.

      Feminist: just a more succinct way of saying ‘creepy crawler’.

  • Light23

    I’d imagine you’d go to jail for throwing a drink in a woman’s face in response to her slapping you, because it is obviously not self-defense.

    If someone slaps you once, you don’t need to respond in self-defense, because you’re no longer being attacked. It would be considered a reprisal.

    However, it’d be ridiculous for the man to get punished for assault if the woman didn’t also get punished.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      “However, it’d be ridiculous for the man to get punished for assault if the woman didn’t also get punished.”

      It happens every day that way. That’s a big part of the problem.

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/DannyboyCdnMRA Dan Perrins

      Light,
      Listen that crap happens ALL the time.
      If your a male you’re guilty until proven innocent. It is that simple and that brutal.

  • Dean Tasvil

    England needs a Slut walk I will be there with my cock out!

    • Perseus

      Holla

      Cockwalk, oh yeah. Mix a cockwalk and a slutwalk and what do you get? Free love, make love not war? Ha, yeah fucking right. You get female hystrionics– wayyyype ….

  • Rick

    (in reply to Anna, way up around the top of the stack of comments)

    “Socially expected” my arse. Women get to enjoy a plethora of socially approved options, especially for outdoor casual/beach-wear, from bikinis to 1-pieces to full-body-sarongs & wraps to shorts & t-shirts; jeans & blouses, whatever they please. Likewise they get more options at the office: skirt/blouse combos, pant-suits…. It’s men whose clothing must tightly conform to social expectations per context: weddings, office, evening-wear, you name it. Even their choices at parks & beaches are limited: must be long shorts or jeans/khakis (anything above the knee will be ridiculed, speedos especially), but they must remove everything above the waist for swimming or for casual team sports whenever their teammates do. It’s not a choice, so if you’re a male and for whatever reason don’t like the social expectations, you just grow up and suck it up. Not that I’m complaining, just pointing out facts. Even in bed, women have options galore, from lingerie to pyjamas to nudity to wearing their male partner’s shirts, to night-shirts & panties or shorts or bottomless; hell even mud packs get a tolerant pass.

    (sorry I’m not sure how to put this comment where it belongs; even attempts to delete it haven’t worked – maybe a problem with my internet connection)