Seriously, this is probably one of the most subtly disturbing things about male feminists.
I mean, they have to have some kind of a basis for believing that "rapist" is the natural "untrained" male state of being, because that's pretty much what they're expressing... but the implication of that carries what I'd think would feel to a rational person like intellectual splashback.
You'd expect a person to be shocked when confronted with the notion that behavior he finds abhorrent is not just common to his sex, but supposedly universal. You'd expect denial, especially from someone without any tendency to exhibit the behavior. A non-rapey man should be appalled at being told that all men are potential rapists, and he should be offended and outraged at having that label applied to him. He should feel like he's been lied about.
For a guy to simply stand by and accept the label, or worse, participate in the application of it to other men indicates something about him... yet male feminists as a group do exactly that.
Here you have a bunch of guys supporting advocacy that says all guys are predisposed to rape unless taught otherwise.
That has to include themselves, doesn't it?
Is the reason they support the idea is because they think all other men... are just like them?
I mean, they have to have some kind of a basis for believing that "rapist" is the natural "untrained" male state of being, because that's pretty much what they're expressing... but the implication of that carries what I'd think would feel to a rational person like intellectual splashback.
You'd expect a person to be shocked when confronted with the notion that behavior he finds abhorrent is not just common to his sex, but supposedly universal. You'd expect denial, especially from someone without any tendency to exhibit the behavior. A non-rapey man should be appalled at being told that all men are potential rapists, and he should be offended and outraged at having that label applied to him. He should feel like he's been lied about.
For a guy to simply stand by and accept the label, or worse, participate in the application of it to other men indicates something about him... yet male feminists as a group do exactly that.
Here you have a bunch of guys supporting advocacy that says all guys are predisposed to rape unless taught otherwise.
That has to include themselves, doesn't it?
Is the reason they support the idea is because they think all other men... are just like them?
6 comments:
Re: Younger Dudes
I didnt do my schooling in the US, but it looks like something's going on in the schools.
About 2-3 years ago, I bumped into a ~20yo guy online who was trashing other men, specifically the lower classes/underclass comprising criminals and saying that "these men should die and the species would be better off. The 21st Century belongs to women, and they will be winning more Nobel Prizes than men, etc". He was dead serious about this. It was still my bluepill days, so I just thought he was some bizarre dude.
Re: Older men, esp Fathers of Daughters.. It isnt difficult for them to believe this. In their mind 'men are rapists' refers to YOUNG men, or unmarried men.
My Dad never told me all men are rapists - he told me that if I made myself vulnerable, those people (of both sexes) who are predators would notice and take advantage. He was right. I've been hit in some way every time I've forgotten that.
As for the younger set, in the U.S., they're being inundated with "progressive" socialism in school, which, contrary to popular belief, does encourage "culling the herd" based on prejudices against class, race, and disability. I am not surprised that some of them are picking up "impoverished criminals should die" in that process.
Still, male supporters of the notion that all men are potential rapists until taught otherwise have to have a basis for believing that a rapacious attitude is the norm and not the exception, especially if they're willing to support social campaigns which make that claim their bottom line.
My Dad never told me all men are rapists - he told me that if I made myself vulnerable, those people (of both sexes) who are predators would notice and take advantage. He was right. I've been hit in some way every time I've forgotten that.
Well.. many fathers can take that truth and stretch it in the usual feminist fashion where the princess can do no wrong, and responsibility/blame lies 100% with the man. They become Feminists and hardcore White Knights. Maybe they are also projecting their own shortcomings onto other men, like Anthony Porter did in his TED talk.
A while ago, I was reading this (conservative) blogpost and one moment he's offering sound advice and next moment he crosses over to rapist-land.
http://theothermccain.com/2013/08/12/your-vagina-is-sudetenland-and-other-helpful-advice-for-young-ladies/comment-page-2/
A college girl might as well cuddle up with a rattlesnake as to assume she can trust a 19-year-old-boy to respect her. Are there decent and trustworthy 19-year-old guys out there? Sure, but they look exactly like every other adolescent creep, and the minute you get one of them aroused, there isn’t much difference between (a) the mild-mannered “nice guy” and (b) every other teenage rapist on the planet.
Here’s my advice, ladies: Don’t just play hard to get, be hard to get.
...
Did I ever mention that my eldest daughter got married about two months after she graduated college? You could ask her (or her husband) the entire story of how that happened, but one Christmas he gave her pearls when she had been expecting a diamond, so she broke up with him. As much as she cared for him, she was willing to walk away rather than to be kept dangling on a vague hope of a promise.
Wow, there's all kinds of messed up in that McCain statement. It's like he thinks consensual sex is rape if he disapproves of the young woman's behavior. The statement about pearls and diamonds is basically "you should expect men to buy your affection." Isn't that prostitution? How is that more respectable than simply interacting on one's own? That outlook reduces intimate partnership to a financial transaction.
This is an area where I just do not understand how conservatives think they're respectful of anyone.
The statement about pearls and diamonds is basically "you should expect men to buy your affection." Isn't that prostitution?
Well.. not if he's thinking of it in terms of a package-deal.. such as marriage and (many?) children, which historically WAS a financial transaction in part.
(leaving aside the issue that they dont hold women, esp their daughters, to their end of the bargain later on)
You might have seen that TED talk
Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc
When making (snap) moral judgements, conservatives tend to use more balanced factors, whether for good or worse.
The thing about making marriage a financial transaction is that it's a dishonest approach for an individual claiming to love her future partner.
We separate financial-transaction sex (prostitution) from relationship sex. We separate pretty much any financial-transaction-associated action from actions taken as part of a loving relationship. It should be no different for marriage; one may have a marriage of convenience that is nothing but a financial transaction, but if one does that it's dishonest to pretend it's an intimate partnership. If one is going to claim to love and cherish a partner, making that a financial transaction diminishes the intimate and honest nature of the partnership.
Of course, regarding McCain's story, I see a woman who "expects" gifts of a specific nature so much that her affection hinges on receiving them as a spoiled, greedy brat who still has some growing up to do.
Post a Comment