Rape is not a fucking joke.
No matter who it happens to.
Putting this in your film as a joke does not make you edgy, clever, funny, or ironic. It makes you a fucking scumbag douchnozzle who clearly doesn't give a rat fuck about who you hurt as long as they have a vagina. Adding her "why are you stopping?" statement as justification is also bullshit.
Anyone who wants to come here and try to defend this tripe can bring it the fuck on. All you prove by doing so is that you also don't care who gets hurt for your jollies. This is not a case of evil feminazis wanting to take your fun away, this is a case of you thinking that something that traumatizes another person is funny. We are not over-sensitive, you aren't sensitive enough, and I hope every woman in your life knows that you think rape is fucking hilarious.
Showing posts with label antifeminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label antifeminism. Show all posts
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Queer Kids Don't Exist-Action Needed
And the saga of clueless hetero people being obsessed with teh GHEY SEXXORS! continues, now with added fuckery.
Amazon dot-fucking-com has decided to strip the sales ranks from TLGBQ books, which keeps them from showing up in bestseller lists and some searches, because they have been deemed "adult" material.
Someone is thinking "what about the children?" in deciding to do this, and indeed, I wonder "What about the children?"
What about the gay children?
What about the lesbian children?
What about the bisexual children?
What about the trans children?
What about the children that come from families with transitioning, transitioned and/or queer parents/siblings/other family members?
Why the fuck doesn't anyone think about them?
Cause its only about the sex right? Thats the only reason anyone is trans or queer, because of sex. Dirty steamy stinky sweaty sex. We are all just straight folk with a fetish, right? And if its about sex, then we can't have the children seeing it! Oh NO! Except for Playboy. Because objectifying women is okay, hell, standard operating procedure, and we have to train em young, amirite?
What can you do about this?
There’s a petition going here, and you can complain to Amazon directly. Their exec customer service email is ecr@amazon.com and their customer service phone number is 1-800-201-7575. Folks are trying to google bomb the term Amazon Rank (more info here). And, of course, you can boycott Amazon. I am also going to contact the company I work for (who sells our product to Amazon) and let them know that it would be a great show of support to the non-cis and non-het communities if they joined the boycott as well.
If you want more information, the first link in this post leads to a great collection of links and a great take-down of this stinky business.
I intend to do everything I can to let this company know that I don't appreciate being treated like a shameful family secret.
ETA: textual fury has mentioned in the comments that books about disability and sexuality are also disappearing!
What the fuck! Its like the biggest troll in the world got into Amazon and took the fuck over! Only cis, het, abled bodies can bump uglies now or else its too "explicit" for kids?
I have also heard rumors that feminist theory is starting to go missing as well.
I will say this again, because it bears repeating: What...The...Fuck?!
Amazon dot-fucking-com has decided to strip the sales ranks from TLGBQ books, which keeps them from showing up in bestseller lists and some searches, because they have been deemed "adult" material.
Someone is thinking "what about the children?" in deciding to do this, and indeed, I wonder "What about the children?"
What about the gay children?
What about the lesbian children?
What about the bisexual children?
What about the trans children?
What about the children that come from families with transitioning, transitioned and/or queer parents/siblings/other family members?
Why the fuck doesn't anyone think about them?
Cause its only about the sex right? Thats the only reason anyone is trans or queer, because of sex. Dirty steamy stinky sweaty sex. We are all just straight folk with a fetish, right? And if its about sex, then we can't have the children seeing it! Oh NO! Except for Playboy. Because objectifying women is okay, hell, standard operating procedure, and we have to train em young, amirite?
What can you do about this?
There’s a petition going here, and you can complain to Amazon directly. Their exec customer service email is ecr@amazon.com and their customer service phone number is 1-800-201-7575. Folks are trying to google bomb the term Amazon Rank (more info here). And, of course, you can boycott Amazon. I am also going to contact the company I work for (who sells our product to Amazon) and let them know that it would be a great show of support to the non-cis and non-het communities if they joined the boycott as well.
If you want more information, the first link in this post leads to a great collection of links and a great take-down of this stinky business.
I intend to do everything I can to let this company know that I don't appreciate being treated like a shameful family secret.
ETA: textual fury has mentioned in the comments that books about disability and sexuality are also disappearing!
What the fuck! Its like the biggest troll in the world got into Amazon and took the fuck over! Only cis, het, abled bodies can bump uglies now or else its too "explicit" for kids?
I have also heard rumors that feminist theory is starting to go missing as well.
I will say this again, because it bears repeating: What...The...Fuck?!
Thursday, March 05, 2009
"Conscience": Its Like "caring" but ...not.
Obama administration is working to repeal DHHS regulation that prevents health care organizations that receive federal funds from firing or refusing to hire health care workers who refuse to dispense medical care for "moral" reasons. Still wishy-washy on actual "conscience" clauses which allow health care workers to refuse medical care in the first place. Important distinction: what is being repealed is the idea that a clinic that provides family planning services could fire someone who refuses to dispense birth control for their refusal. What is not being repealed is their supposed right to refuse care. This concept of conscience clauses and right to refuse care can and does apply to much more than reproductive health. Doctors could refuse to see or touch gay or trans patients, pharmacists could refuse to dispense medications to people who are transitioning, EMTs could withhold lifesaving measures from someone they found "repulsive" and claim conscience.
What I want to know is: what kind of conscience can rationalize refusing medical care, which in some cases is life saving and in almost all cases is necessary to some degree, on the basis of personally not wanting to encourage "immoral" behavior? What kind of conscience thinks that another person's health and LIFE is worth less than their ability to say they are "moral"? When did your right to a "clean" conscience trump the right of someone else to live? You have to think that this person in front of you has less of a right to live than you have to sleep at night. Its fucking psychotic. How dare you call yourself moral when you are willing to let people die for your conscience? When does your right to feel good about yourself become more important than someones life!? How the bleeding burny fuck CAN you feel good about yourself knowing that you harmed someone and/or actively contributed to their death?!
The only answer I can come up with to explain it is hate.
You hate anyone who lives a life you don't agree with. You hate them to the point that possibly letting them die is a-okay for you because they aren't really people anyway. Women who want to make their own decisions about their reproduction? Not people. Queer folk who live openly? Not people. Transpeople who just want the chance to be themselves? DEFINITELY not people. Multiply these sentiments by several hundred if the aforementioned women/queers/transpeople are not white, or are poor, or live in a "developing" country, or don't fucking speak English, or don't try REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to be as "normal" as possible or any number of things that add to your smug feeling of superiority that masks insecurity, fear and hate.
This is the difference between you and me, you so-called "moralists." I want everyone to have the right to live their lives as they see fit provided they don't prevent others from doing the same. You? You only want people like you to have that chance. In my perfect world, you would be allowed to have your life, and your opinions still. The only difference is that you would not be able to dictate the life of anyone besides yourself.
In your perfect world, I wouldn't even exist.
I refuse to lay down and die so you and yours can live in your perfect world.
What I want to know is: what kind of conscience can rationalize refusing medical care, which in some cases is life saving and in almost all cases is necessary to some degree, on the basis of personally not wanting to encourage "immoral" behavior? What kind of conscience thinks that another person's health and LIFE is worth less than their ability to say they are "moral"? When did your right to a "clean" conscience trump the right of someone else to live? You have to think that this person in front of you has less of a right to live than you have to sleep at night. Its fucking psychotic. How dare you call yourself moral when you are willing to let people die for your conscience? When does your right to feel good about yourself become more important than someones life!? How the bleeding burny fuck CAN you feel good about yourself knowing that you harmed someone and/or actively contributed to their death?!
The only answer I can come up with to explain it is hate.
You hate anyone who lives a life you don't agree with. You hate them to the point that possibly letting them die is a-okay for you because they aren't really people anyway. Women who want to make their own decisions about their reproduction? Not people. Queer folk who live openly? Not people. Transpeople who just want the chance to be themselves? DEFINITELY not people. Multiply these sentiments by several hundred if the aforementioned women/queers/transpeople are not white, or are poor, or live in a "developing" country, or don't fucking speak English, or don't try REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to be as "normal" as possible or any number of things that add to your smug feeling of superiority that masks insecurity, fear and hate.
This is the difference between you and me, you so-called "moralists." I want everyone to have the right to live their lives as they see fit provided they don't prevent others from doing the same. You? You only want people like you to have that chance. In my perfect world, you would be allowed to have your life, and your opinions still. The only difference is that you would not be able to dictate the life of anyone besides yourself.
In your perfect world, I wouldn't even exist.
I refuse to lay down and die so you and yours can live in your perfect world.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Fame and victim blaming
Unless you have been living under a rock in the States recently, you have probably heard of the case of musical artist Chris Brown facing charges for beating the stuffing out of his girlfriend, Rhianna who is actually more widely known than he is.
Cue the inevitable cries of "What did she do to make him act like that?" There is unsupported conjecture that she cheated on him and/or gave him herpes being give as justification for his actions, or the usual suggestions of "but hes so NICE!" that are being offered as proof that the bitch must be lyin'.
I will never understand how someone can rationalize the idea that because you like someone's artistic expression that you know who they are and how they would act. Famous people are still PEOPLE and some people are assholes. Just because you like his music/think hes pretty/hate her for her fame/looks/relationship with him, does not mean you know fuckall about who they are.
No, I don't want to hear any, ANY justification for domestic violence. I have heard that he was abused by a child, and if it is true then it is awful that he was. This does not excuse violence he commits in any way. Aileen Wuornos was sexually and physically abused throughout her life and no one excused her for her crimes.
As far as the incursion into Rhianna's privacy in this case, I get so enraged that someone not only released her name, which is against law enforcement protocol, but a motherfucking picture of her after the attack that it is all I can do not to fucking walk to LA to verbally tear the shit out of whoever did that and their boss until this person is unceremoniously and publicly fired and shamed. I will instead quote Uppitybrownwoman:
This woman and her injuries are not gore porn for anyones amusement. No one has a right to see these photographs just because she makes a living in the public eye. If you need to see a picture of a battered woman to "show you the REALITY" of domestic violence, I suggest instead volunteering at a local homeless or battered women's shelter or just fucking right the hell off. If it takes something like that to "prove" to you that shit like this is a problem, then you have some serious soul searching and questioning of your humanity to do.
Fuckers.
Cue the inevitable cries of "What did she do to make him act like that?" There is unsupported conjecture that she cheated on him and/or gave him herpes being give as justification for his actions, or the usual suggestions of "but hes so NICE!" that are being offered as proof that the bitch must be lyin'.
I will never understand how someone can rationalize the idea that because you like someone's artistic expression that you know who they are and how they would act. Famous people are still PEOPLE and some people are assholes. Just because you like his music/think hes pretty/hate her for her fame/looks/relationship with him, does not mean you know fuckall about who they are.
No, I don't want to hear any, ANY justification for domestic violence. I have heard that he was abused by a child, and if it is true then it is awful that he was. This does not excuse violence he commits in any way. Aileen Wuornos was sexually and physically abused throughout her life and no one excused her for her crimes.
As far as the incursion into Rhianna's privacy in this case, I get so enraged that someone not only released her name, which is against law enforcement protocol, but a motherfucking picture of her after the attack that it is all I can do not to fucking walk to LA to verbally tear the shit out of whoever did that and their boss until this person is unceremoniously and publicly fired and shamed. I will instead quote Uppitybrownwoman:
I don’t want to open up any dialogue right now. I don’t want to teach you. I don’t want to explain to you how women of colour are shoved in all directions when it comes to violence against women. I don’t want to teach anyone about sexism and racism in the media. I don’t want to tell you about my experiences so that you can satisfy your voyeuristic curiosity that we have been trained to have. I don’t want to make any woman, WOC or not, into a model victim. I don’t want to tell you why it’s wrong to expect that of any survivor. I don’t want to have to argue again and again why it is downright bullshit to try to take away agency from the survivor. I don’t want to explain that “the personal is political” doesn’t mean no one has a right to privacy.
I want to yell. I want to scream. I want to rage. I want to extend a hearty ‘fuck you’ to a lot of people.
I don’t give a fuck how your life has been fundamentally changed by seeing a sensationalized photograph of a domestic assault survivor.
I don’t give a fuck about her fame.
I don’t give a fuck that you want to see it too.
I don’t give a fuck that you think she has no right to privacy because she’s a celebrity.
I don’t give a fuck how lucky you now feel to have never experienced intimate partner violence just because you’ve seen it.
I don’t give a fuck that you can see the ‘upside’ of this because it’s “raising awareness.”
I don’t give a fuck about you making her into an example.
I don’t give a fuck about what you think she should and should not do about her life.
I don’t give a fuck about her abuser’s career.
I don’t give a FUCK if you think she deserved to be abused, or to have her photos spread around like a fucking Christmas card.
Fuck the people who have turned this into entertainment.
Fuck the people who have turned this into an after-school special on VAW.
Fuck the people who published it on news sites and displayed it on television (I am looking at you Entertainment Canada).
Fuck the people who posted it on their blogs, their journals, their Facebooks, MySpaces, and other social networking sites so that EVERYONE else can see it.
I give a fuck about her dignity and I am yelling about it. I give a fuck about her choices that only SHE has a right to. I give a fuck about her life. I give a fuck about her rights. I give a fuck about her privacy. I give a fuck about her, so why don’t you?
This woman and her injuries are not gore porn for anyones amusement. No one has a right to see these photographs just because she makes a living in the public eye. If you need to see a picture of a battered woman to "show you the REALITY" of domestic violence, I suggest instead volunteering at a local homeless or battered women's shelter or just fucking right the hell off. If it takes something like that to "prove" to you that shit like this is a problem, then you have some serious soul searching and questioning of your humanity to do.
Fuckers.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Same Shit, Different Day
Dear US, US based mainstream media, and various other information outlets,
Please stop it with the judgments of Nadya Suleman. I am so sick of hearing about this that I could puke. Asking if she should be "allowed" to give birth to octuplets when she already has six children is an irresponsible question. Her body, her life and her choice. So they may end up on some sort of public assistance. Who the fuck cares? no really, who cares? Some of y'all think you shouldn't have to pay for her choices because you think they are irresponsible. I get it. I also think thats a pretty fucking cold Regan-esque thing to say. These are children, they are here and they are alive, and they deserve a chance at a decent life, regardless of how desperately you want to judge their mother. Unless you really think your self-righteous posturing about how this woman is a leech, insane or worse is more important than feeding children who haven't done anything but be born. And seriously, Yahoo news...the whole family may end up costing a whole 1.3 million dollars as a scare tactic? That means one dollar from a million taxpayers. How many taxpayers do we have in this country, hmm? Purposefully inflating that number to feed into the welfare wank? THATS fucking irresponsible.
Honestly, judging women for their reproductive choices is so fucking old-meme I don't even know where to begin. Besides, if she were a white woman with a husband everyone would be cooing over the pwecious widdle babies and TLC would be falling all over itself to give her a TV show and years worth of free shit.
Just cut it the fuck out already.
love and kisses,
me
Please stop it with the judgments of Nadya Suleman. I am so sick of hearing about this that I could puke. Asking if she should be "allowed" to give birth to octuplets when she already has six children is an irresponsible question. Her body, her life and her choice. So they may end up on some sort of public assistance. Who the fuck cares? no really, who cares? Some of y'all think you shouldn't have to pay for her choices because you think they are irresponsible. I get it. I also think thats a pretty fucking cold Regan-esque thing to say. These are children, they are here and they are alive, and they deserve a chance at a decent life, regardless of how desperately you want to judge their mother. Unless you really think your self-righteous posturing about how this woman is a leech, insane or worse is more important than feeding children who haven't done anything but be born. And seriously, Yahoo news...the whole family may end up costing a whole 1.3 million dollars as a scare tactic? That means one dollar from a million taxpayers. How many taxpayers do we have in this country, hmm? Purposefully inflating that number to feed into the welfare wank? THATS fucking irresponsible.
Honestly, judging women for their reproductive choices is so fucking old-meme I don't even know where to begin. Besides, if she were a white woman with a husband everyone would be cooing over the pwecious widdle babies and TLC would be falling all over itself to give her a TV show and years worth of free shit.
Just cut it the fuck out already.
love and kisses,
me
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Blog for Choice day
Its Blog For Choice Day.
The 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade is traditionally marked by anti-choice(I categorically reject the term "pro-life" to describe these people. Anyone who supports laws that kill women and do not save fetuses is not "pro-life.") advocates widely protesting the fact that women are still worth more than an unborn fetus. Today, there are anti-choicers marching in DC showcasing "Women Who Regret Their Abortions." The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Not only are these... people... doing just that, they are running this campaign on faulty information.
Say it with me kids: THE NOTION THAT WOMEN ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED MENTALLY BY HAVING AN ABORTION HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY DISPROVED.
Saying otherwise over and over again with no solid proof is the same as smashing your head against a brick wall: its pointless, and proves no other point than that you are a moron.
The concept of medical choice covers more than just abortions, more than just reproduction. It means that as human being we have the right to decide what will medically be done to our bodies. It all comes down, as Liss at Shakesville put it, to trust. I trust people to make their own medical decisions. I apply this universally: I trust people to decide when to have children, I trust people to decide if ther bodies are right for them, and I do not trust someone who doesn't know me or mine to make that choice for me.
What I want to see from our new pro-choice President is the end of the Global Gag Rule that pulls American federal funding from any organization that dares to think the word abortion and results in the maternal mortality rate world-wide going up. I want to see the end of the DHHS regulations that allow medical providers to refuse necessary services based on being offended. I want to see the end to the so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban. I want safe, affordable access to contraception, and abortion, as well as comprehensive sex-education programs.
Its not enough, but dammit, we deserve to be treated like people, not fucking brood mares.
The 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade is traditionally marked by anti-choice(I categorically reject the term "pro-life" to describe these people. Anyone who supports laws that kill women and do not save fetuses is not "pro-life.") advocates widely protesting the fact that women are still worth more than an unborn fetus. Today, there are anti-choicers marching in DC showcasing "Women Who Regret Their Abortions." The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Not only are these... people... doing just that, they are running this campaign on faulty information.
Say it with me kids: THE NOTION THAT WOMEN ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED MENTALLY BY HAVING AN ABORTION HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY DISPROVED.
Saying otherwise over and over again with no solid proof is the same as smashing your head against a brick wall: its pointless, and proves no other point than that you are a moron.
The concept of medical choice covers more than just abortions, more than just reproduction. It means that as human being we have the right to decide what will medically be done to our bodies. It all comes down, as Liss at Shakesville put it, to trust. I trust people to make their own medical decisions. I apply this universally: I trust people to decide when to have children, I trust people to decide if ther bodies are right for them, and I do not trust someone who doesn't know me or mine to make that choice for me.
What I want to see from our new pro-choice President is the end of the Global Gag Rule that pulls American federal funding from any organization that dares to think the word abortion and results in the maternal mortality rate world-wide going up. I want to see the end of the DHHS regulations that allow medical providers to refuse necessary services based on being offended. I want to see the end to the so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban. I want safe, affordable access to contraception, and abortion, as well as comprehensive sex-education programs.
Its not enough, but dammit, we deserve to be treated like people, not fucking brood mares.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Your Intrepid Explorer Risks Eye and Sanity...
okay, I did a bad thing...
I went over to Glenn Sacks' blog, mainly because it is rude and fallacious to criticize someones position without actually knowing anything about their position. I am not going to link to it, simply because its not hard to find on your own, and because the last thing I need right now is a deluge of some of the people who read those blogs. I am not in the mood to heavily moderate comments to maintain a safe-space.
When I was there, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, because as much as I have a serious problem with MRAs, there are inequalities that men face that I am against. I mainly disagree with the source of these inequalities, and the technique for solving them that most MRAs seem to advocate. They want to blame feminism, or feminists, which ends up turning into a fight against the very group of people with the history and experience to solve the inequalities they are being blamed for.
I only managed to really analyze one thing before the whole space started to really bother me, so I will make this a gradual thing. I will start with one, and if I can stomach spending more than a few minutes over there, I may do this again.
An ad that occurred right after the first article:
To be fair, many blog ad programs simply search keywords and post ads that match. We find that on feminists sites as well, a discussion of eating disorders or fat acceptance flanked by diet ads, a discussion of porn or sex-workers rights surrounded by ads for "free" porn sites, discussion of abortion rights bringing up ads for pro-life services. This is why a good deal of feminist bloggers have very limited ads, and tend to stick to ads that they can approve pre-posting. It is possible that this is what is happening here. Make of it what you will.
I am skeptical, mainly because all of the other ads seem directly applicable to the content of the blog.
I have heard a lot of excuses from MRA's about how they aren't anti-woman, they are just anti-feminist, or even how they aren't anti-feminist, just anti-radical misandrist feminists. I personally do not see that distinction being made here.
Keep an eye out for later posts examining the inner-workings of the MRA blogosphere...
I went over to Glenn Sacks' blog, mainly because it is rude and fallacious to criticize someones position without actually knowing anything about their position. I am not going to link to it, simply because its not hard to find on your own, and because the last thing I need right now is a deluge of some of the people who read those blogs. I am not in the mood to heavily moderate comments to maintain a safe-space.
When I was there, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, because as much as I have a serious problem with MRAs, there are inequalities that men face that I am against. I mainly disagree with the source of these inequalities, and the technique for solving them that most MRAs seem to advocate. They want to blame feminism, or feminists, which ends up turning into a fight against the very group of people with the history and experience to solve the inequalities they are being blamed for.
I only managed to really analyze one thing before the whole space started to really bother me, so I will make this a gradual thing. I will start with one, and if I can stomach spending more than a few minutes over there, I may do this again.
An ad that occurred right after the first article:
Discover how she has 'played' you. For the first time ever, a book that tells you exactly how manipulative and deceitful women win against their unsuspecting prey--and there's detailed information about what you can do about it. Read Roy Sheppard and Mary T Cleary's book "Venus: The Dark Side".An alternate title for this book, when you follow the ad's url, is "That Bitch" (You cannot make this shit up.) It was changed because the authors wanted to reach as many people as possible with their message of "evil conniving" women who victimize "innocent" men. If Mr. Sacks and his movement are not interested in demonizing women, why have an ad for something so flagrantly anti-woman? ETA: Since it came up in the comments, when was the last time you saw a book about abusive men titled "That Asshole"? Even more than that, was it advertised on a site run by gender equality activists?
To be fair, many blog ad programs simply search keywords and post ads that match. We find that on feminists sites as well, a discussion of eating disorders or fat acceptance flanked by diet ads, a discussion of porn or sex-workers rights surrounded by ads for "free" porn sites, discussion of abortion rights bringing up ads for pro-life services. This is why a good deal of feminist bloggers have very limited ads, and tend to stick to ads that they can approve pre-posting. It is possible that this is what is happening here. Make of it what you will.
I am skeptical, mainly because all of the other ads seem directly applicable to the content of the blog.
I have heard a lot of excuses from MRA's about how they aren't anti-woman, they are just anti-feminist, or even how they aren't anti-feminist, just anti-radical misandrist feminists. I personally do not see that distinction being made here.
Keep an eye out for later posts examining the inner-workings of the MRA blogosphere...
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The MRA Mirror
By Sunless Nick
originally posted at Shakesville
When MRA-types can be bothered to acknowledge rape as a problem at all, they inevitably claim false accusations of rape as a comparable problem, one that happens at least as often, and one that is—unlike rape, they claim—ignored and belittled. For the record, that is not true. But I thought I'd look through that MRA mirror and see what would happen if false rape accusations were really "taken as seriously" as rape.
First, of course, depending on where he lives, the falsely charged man might have to pay for a rape kit that could bolster his case. Naturally, it would likely never be relevant, because the false report case would probably never get to court, being summarily decided instead by lawyers or the police after they determine there to be no evidence that the woman lied. (And of course, there would be a legal presumption that she is truthful and he a rapist.)
But leaving that aside... There is also the fact that false accusations would benefit from widespread apologism, and accused men would suffer from victim-blaming.
For instance, if a victim of false rape accusation was really treated like a victim of rape, then the accused man would be held responsible for it. He'd be asked why he was alone with her. He'd be lectured on everything he coulda woulda shoulda done differently, then or otherwise. He'd have his whole history dissected, looking for other women he might have annoyed, thus justifying this woman's annoyance. He'd be asked if he agreed to the rumour, or secretly liked it? He'd be pressured to drop the whole thing because it was a mistake, not really a serious allegation, she's not really the lying type (heck, she might even be called plucky), and is it really worth ruining her life over this?
And that'd be from the people who believed him and claimed they were on his side.
Otherwise of course, he'd be called a liar (or even a sinister conspirator)—and were he ever to smile or date again, it could be advanced as proof of it. And he'd be called the male equivalents of slut, whore, tease, and bitch (or would, if the male equivalents of those words weren't compliments). And he'd be asked if he can really remember what happened, and is he sure she said yes?
There would be long earnest diatribes about how men could avoid being "deservedly" accused. (Not by just by disgruntled women either; the mainstream media would weigh in on the "MRAs false-accusation fallacy"). Of course they'd include disclaimers of how, "No man deserves to be falsely accused of rape, BUT"—before going on to explain how so many case of false accusation are indeed the man's fault, and how men should ensure that they don't happen.
For instance, it might be trotted out how women are hardwired for intimacy, security, and long-term commitment, and are you sure you didn't say or do anything that implied you were willing to marry and start a family with her? No? But you had sex, and that could have been construed as a promise for those things, so her anger at you breaking that promise is quite understandable really. Did you made it clear you were only interested in a casual hookup? Well why didn't you make it clearer?
Along the way, it might be compared to property crime... say identity theft. After all, we know the stories now; we're careful about letting information about slip into other people's hands, and we know how hard it is to prove the truth if false purchases are racked up in our name. So it's not much of a stretch to parallel that to false accusations and tarnished reputations, right?
There'd be PSAs on how parents can prevent their sons getting into situations where they might be accused of rape, with the women who might do it mysteriously disappeared from the narrative.
Men would be told to take false accusations as compliment—you know, you're so hot she'd say anything to make people think you'd been together—or maybe she thinks the accusation makes you sound more manly. At the same time, they'd be told the claim must be true because they're too old or ugly to have been with a woman any other way.
We'd read posts about how false accusations are sometimes necessary; this link needs an extra trigger warning.
Kobe Bryant, saying "I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter" would be a nationwide rallying call for how all men who deny committing rape are lying dogs.
We would read news stories about falsely accused men being punished for engaging in malicious gossip. We would read about judges who even if an accusation had been proved false, would say they wish they could jail the man anyway (oh, and they might ban him from using the words "false," "lie," and "sex" in his testimony).
False accusations would be the stuff of jokes, even onstage. Men would even be expected to take direct or veiled threats as jokes. False accusations would also routinely be evoked in adverstising and used as metaphors for wit or good presentation. And you would deemed humourless if you objected to any of this.
Even when utterly blatant, false accusations would frequently be ignored or disappeared.
Saying that a false accusation is never deserved would elicit controversy, while a woman who didn't make a false accusation against a man who annoyed her would be deemed worthy of praise for her accomplishment and self-control.
I think most MRAs would much rather see their causes ignored than taken as seriously as that.
Of course on this side of the mirror, I don't see anything like that leveled at men accused of rape—including those who are genuinely accused, tried, and convicted. But rape victims face all of it. So no, I don't find the problems all that comparable. It beggars my imagination that someone can seriously believe there are as many women who voluntarily put themselves through it for no reason as there are men who decide they can get away with rape.
But that's the trouble with mirrors: They don't show us the real world, but a back to front version of it. Maybe MRAs should try the window instead.
originally posted at Shakesville
When MRA-types can be bothered to acknowledge rape as a problem at all, they inevitably claim false accusations of rape as a comparable problem, one that happens at least as often, and one that is—unlike rape, they claim—ignored and belittled. For the record, that is not true. But I thought I'd look through that MRA mirror and see what would happen if false rape accusations were really "taken as seriously" as rape.
First, of course, depending on where he lives, the falsely charged man might have to pay for a rape kit that could bolster his case. Naturally, it would likely never be relevant, because the false report case would probably never get to court, being summarily decided instead by lawyers or the police after they determine there to be no evidence that the woman lied. (And of course, there would be a legal presumption that she is truthful and he a rapist.)
But leaving that aside... There is also the fact that false accusations would benefit from widespread apologism, and accused men would suffer from victim-blaming.
For instance, if a victim of false rape accusation was really treated like a victim of rape, then the accused man would be held responsible for it. He'd be asked why he was alone with her. He'd be lectured on everything he coulda woulda shoulda done differently, then or otherwise. He'd have his whole history dissected, looking for other women he might have annoyed, thus justifying this woman's annoyance. He'd be asked if he agreed to the rumour, or secretly liked it? He'd be pressured to drop the whole thing because it was a mistake, not really a serious allegation, she's not really the lying type (heck, she might even be called plucky), and is it really worth ruining her life over this?
And that'd be from the people who believed him and claimed they were on his side.
Otherwise of course, he'd be called a liar (or even a sinister conspirator)—and were he ever to smile or date again, it could be advanced as proof of it. And he'd be called the male equivalents of slut, whore, tease, and bitch (or would, if the male equivalents of those words weren't compliments). And he'd be asked if he can really remember what happened, and is he sure she said yes?
There would be long earnest diatribes about how men could avoid being "deservedly" accused. (Not by just by disgruntled women either; the mainstream media would weigh in on the "MRAs false-accusation fallacy"). Of course they'd include disclaimers of how, "No man deserves to be falsely accused of rape, BUT"—before going on to explain how so many case of false accusation are indeed the man's fault, and how men should ensure that they don't happen.
For instance, it might be trotted out how women are hardwired for intimacy, security, and long-term commitment, and are you sure you didn't say or do anything that implied you were willing to marry and start a family with her? No? But you had sex, and that could have been construed as a promise for those things, so her anger at you breaking that promise is quite understandable really. Did you made it clear you were only interested in a casual hookup? Well why didn't you make it clearer?
Along the way, it might be compared to property crime... say identity theft. After all, we know the stories now; we're careful about letting information about slip into other people's hands, and we know how hard it is to prove the truth if false purchases are racked up in our name. So it's not much of a stretch to parallel that to false accusations and tarnished reputations, right?
There'd be PSAs on how parents can prevent their sons getting into situations where they might be accused of rape, with the women who might do it mysteriously disappeared from the narrative.
Men would be told to take false accusations as compliment—you know, you're so hot she'd say anything to make people think you'd been together—or maybe she thinks the accusation makes you sound more manly. At the same time, they'd be told the claim must be true because they're too old or ugly to have been with a woman any other way.
We'd read posts about how false accusations are sometimes necessary; this link needs an extra trigger warning.
Kobe Bryant, saying "I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter" would be a nationwide rallying call for how all men who deny committing rape are lying dogs.
We would read news stories about falsely accused men being punished for engaging in malicious gossip. We would read about judges who even if an accusation had been proved false, would say they wish they could jail the man anyway (oh, and they might ban him from using the words "false," "lie," and "sex" in his testimony).
False accusations would be the stuff of jokes, even onstage. Men would even be expected to take direct or veiled threats as jokes. False accusations would also routinely be evoked in adverstising and used as metaphors for wit or good presentation. And you would deemed humourless if you objected to any of this.
Even when utterly blatant, false accusations would frequently be ignored or disappeared.
Saying that a false accusation is never deserved would elicit controversy, while a woman who didn't make a false accusation against a man who annoyed her would be deemed worthy of praise for her accomplishment and self-control.
I think most MRAs would much rather see their causes ignored than taken as seriously as that.
Of course on this side of the mirror, I don't see anything like that leveled at men accused of rape—including those who are genuinely accused, tried, and convicted. But rape victims face all of it. So no, I don't find the problems all that comparable. It beggars my imagination that someone can seriously believe there are as many women who voluntarily put themselves through it for no reason as there are men who decide they can get away with rape.
But that's the trouble with mirrors: They don't show us the real world, but a back to front version of it. Maybe MRAs should try the window instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)