tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10588695218668540842024-03-14T11:49:28.823-07:00Breaking the GlassesHannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.comBlogger151125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-61033902921563757172021-09-18T19:56:00.001-07:002021-09-18T19:56:53.157-07:00Vaccine mandate supporters: How far would you go to enforce mandatory vaccination for Covid-19?<p><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">For those who advocate a Covid vaccine mandate, how far are you willing to tolerate your government going in its enforcement actions?</span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-41974833-7fff-841d-85cc-4e19d9e2a916"><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What should be the goal of said actions?</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1) A goal of high compliance, but not necessarily 100%, among people with no compelling objection to receiving the vaccine. (How high?)</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2) A goal of 100% compliance EXCEPT in cases of legitimate objection such as health contraindications and religious objections.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3) A goal of 100% compliance regardless of individual objection, even for those with health contraindications. (Including those for whom the risk includes fatal allergic reactions?)</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What actions should be taken to meet that goal?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">4) Widespread, free, easily accessible public information campaigns to provide people who are considering their options with a complete, factual rundown on each vaccine's known effects, possible side-effects, known statistical effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness of natural immunity from overcoming the infection.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Or mandates?</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What level of mandates?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Perhaps you agree with making receipt of the vaccine a requirement for employment for some workers, to be administered by employers via mandatory hiring and firing practices? At which group do you draw the line?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">5) Workers who will be working directly with covid patients?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">6) Health care workers whose specialization makes high risk patents dependent on their care, regardless of whether they will be working directly with covid patients?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">7) All health care workers, regardless of who they will be working with?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">8) All health care workers, and also workers in areas of mandatory attendance by any part of the public, like schools, prisons, and court systems?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">9) All of the above, and also workers whose job involves regular interaction with the public like childcare, the direct retail sales of goods, home repair or personal services like hair cutting, etc.?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">10) All workers, regardless of what their job involves?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">11) All workers, regardless of what their job involves, with the additional stipulation that people who are unemployed due to vaccine refusal should be ineligible for public assistance until they comply?</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Of course, if this just made a lot of people jobless, but not homeless, how do you elicit compliance then?</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Perhaps you agree with making receipt of the vaccine a requirement for residence in some types of environments, to be administered by facility administrators via admission and eviction practices? At which group of people do you draw the line?</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">12) M</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">edical care facilities that include other residents in the same building, like nursing and group homes?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">13) </span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Nonmedical living spaces that include other residents in the same building, like apartment and condo complexes, dormitories, and fraternity or sorority houses?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">14) Medical living spaces that do not include other residents in the same building, like individual homes in retirement communities?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">15) Nonmedical but still grouped-together living spaces that do not necessarily include other residents in the same building, like trailer parks and gated communities?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">16) Individual houses or other residential arrangements on individually owned property?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">17) Would you then also accept making receipt of the vaccine a requirement for eligibility for assistance from homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and food banks, to be administered via mandatory denial of service by the volunteers who operate these services? </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">18) Mandatory vaccination for all inmates in detention facilities, to be administrated by facility staff by force if necessary.</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">How about other services? Perhaps there will be people living with family members, who face no hardship from these exclusions. Which of the following would you support to gain their compliance? How about making receipt of the vaccine a requirement for...</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">19) Eligibility to enter retail establishments where goods and services may be purchased?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">20) Eligibility to receive other medical services?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">21) Eligibility for vehicle ownership or any public or private transportation services?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">22) Eligibility for banking services?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">23) Eligibility to travel in or occupy any public space?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">24) Would you support an electronic system enforcers could use to verify your neighbor’s vaccine status before permitting entry into, use of, or to verify a right to continued occupation or use of any of the items discussed above that you have decided are acceptable limitations to place on vaccine refusers?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It’s unlikely that vaccine refusers would be able to survive such a system without getting arrested for trying to do ordinary things that are now forbidden to the unvaccinated, but let’s imagine some have. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">First, what so you, the vaccine mandate advocate, think should be done with arrested refusers who have violated statutes limiting their movement, business interactions, and occupation of various spaces within the community?</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What should be done with people who manage to live outside of compliance with the strictest of the standards described above, remaining unvaccinated without getting arrested for violation of any of them? Should they be arrested as well?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Second, what should be done with those who are arrested or rounded up for failure to comply?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Should they be</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">25) Lectured and released?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">26) Jailed and vaccinated by force since they are now inmates in the penal system?
</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">27) Subjected to some form of public humiliation as with people on deadbeat parent or sex offender lists, or forced to wear an identifying symbol of their noncompliance?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">28) Placed in vaccine refuser camps to isolate them from the compliant public?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">29) Placed in refuser camps and forced to work to pay for their keep at these camps?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">30) </span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Just rounded up and forcibly vaccinated without incarceration?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">31) Simply be executed for noncompliance?</span></p><div><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div></span>Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-65670014626781520182021-09-10T00:25:00.004-07:002021-12-14T12:26:57.396-08:00Heartbeat laws and lousy abortion advocacy strategy<p> <span style="color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">I'm seeing a lot of false info going around about the Texas hearbeat law.</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-063685d3-7fff-51f6-2799-5d07d5035ddf"><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There's a couple of things that are blatantly, egregiously false & really need addressed.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Claim: The law allows rapists to sue their victims for having an abortion.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Claim: The law provides no exception for victims of rape or incest.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Reality: The law does not impose civil liability on the mother - only on the physician and anybody who assists in the abortion or in obtaining the abortion, so no, sex criminals cannot sue their victims. All of the wording of the law makes prohibitions against the physician's behavior and any 3rd party that assists, and all of the penalties are applied to the physician or any 3'rd party participant. This would not even allow the mother to be sued at all.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Further, the law specifically states, regarding rape or incest:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sec. 171.207. LIMITATIONS ON PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(a) Notwithstanding Section 171.005 or any other law, the requirements of this subchapter shall be enforced exclusively through the private civil actions described in Section 171.208. No enforcement of this subchapter, and no enforcement of Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in response to violations of this subchapter, may be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision against any person, except as provided in Section 171.208.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Section 171.208 says</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(j) Notwithstanding any other law, a civil action under this section may not be brought by a person who impregnated the abortion patient through an act of rape, sexual assault, incest, or any other act prohibited by Sections 22.011, 22.021, or 25.02, Penal Code.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Since, in order to file the civil complaint needed to collect (from the doctor - you can't sue the mother) one would have to know 1) that the mother had an abortion, 2) where she got it done, and 3) that the physician either failed to comply with the heartbeat testing & documentation requirement or aborted after a heartbeat was detected. There's no way for a 3rd party who to have all of the information they need in order to sue unless the doctor or the mother gives them that information. People who are not in positions of authority don't have the legal power to force the doctor or the mother to do that, and the doctor CAN'T even disclose that information to them without a court order or he'll be in violation of HIPAA.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Therefore, only family - and in particular the father - is even likely to be able determine that information, based on the required logistics, and the law bars a perpetrator of a sex crime from bringing a civil action against anybody involved if the pregnancy is a result of his criminal sexual misconduct.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That is your rape or incest exception.
</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961 (heartbeat law)</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://casetext.com/statute/texas-codes/health-and-safety-code/title-2-health/subtitle-h-public-health-provisions/chapter-171-abortion/subchapter-h-detection-of-fetal-heartbeat/section-171205-exception-for-medical-emergency-records Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.205</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://casetext.com/statute/texas-codes/health-and-safety-code/title-2-health/subtitle-h-public-health-provisions/chapter-171-abortion/subchapter-h-detection-of-fetal-heartbeat/section-171208-civil-liability-for-violation-or-aiding-or-abetting-violation#:~:text=Download-,Section%20171.208%20%2D%20Civil%20Liability%20For%20Violation%20Or%20Aiding%20Or%20Abetting,this%20subchapter%3B%20(2)%20knowingly Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.171.htm Health & safety code title 2, health, subtitle H, public health provisions, chapter 171, abortion</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The one thing I see in this that is disturbing is the possibility that any abortionist might try to pressure a patient to make a false allegation of rape to prevent the father from suing him or her for performing the abortion, so I hope the courts will not allow allegations alone to halt any lawsuit, but instead only rule that a party who has been criminally convicted cannot sue... and that Texas judges will enforce laws against false complaints to police, lying during an investigation, and perjury, including the accompanying penalties.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Claim: This is men trying to control women's bodies. No uterus, no opinion!</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Claim: This is the pro-life minority trying to impose their beliefs on the pro-choice majority.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">Reality: </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Gallup in 2019 reported that 51% of women identify as pro-life, while only 43% identify as pro-choice.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">More men are pro-choice - 48% as opposed to 46% who identify as pro-life. So per-capita, more men are pro-choice than women, and women are more pro-life than pro-choice.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Among other things, this makes it slightly less believable that if a physician performs an abortion in violation of this law, the father of the baby will sue him. Chances are lower that any given father will be pro-life than that any given mother will be.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://disrn.com/news/gallup-more-women-than-men-are-pro-life</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Arguments regarding the value & validity of legislative responses to the abortion controversy are one thing. Creating hysteria by promoting false claims about legislation is another entirely. I think that undermines the pro-choice position just as much as it undermines the pro-life position when some idiot claims sex crimes cannot lead to conception because of trauma.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Personally, I think the current attitudes of abortion providers and seekers are such that if the procedure was outlawed, those who wanted it or wanted to get paid for performing it would just break the law. If the goal is to prevent the practice, education and a change of social attitudes are going to be far more effective than legislation & should be the priority of the pro-life movement. Especially, ensuring that young women and girls old enough to conceive to understand that they are the sole gatekeepers of their own fertility & have 100% control over whether the conditions that lead to conception get to happen with their consent; 100% of the power to take the guesswork out of it. If sex education in the public school system is effective, there is no reason why any girl or woman who was exposed to that curriculum should find herself unable to totally prevent herself from becoming pregnant as a result of consensual sex. She should come out of it knowing 1) exactly how conception occurs, 2) the effectiveness of abstinence, and 3) solid information regarding the full spectrum of birth control and infection prevention options that are available to her, including advice regarding their proper use, what could interfere with their effectiveness, and how to combine two forms to make one a safety net in case of failure in the other. So armed, she should be able to create a 0% chance of unplanned pregnancy, thus eliminating the need for her to have to consider abortion. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #050505; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If the goal is vengeance against providers, this law is moderately effective, because it can hit them in the wallet IF someone has the information needed to sue... but aside from that it's basically just lip service & at worst it might lead to an increase in false sex crime allegations against men. I view it as being meant to feel like a pro-life victory without actually achieving one.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Personally, I think vengeance is useless to the living and would rather see the procedure become unwanted enough that providers cannot attract enough of a consumer base to stay in business. It could still be done in hospitals under emergency circumstances such as when complications of maintaining the pregnancy to the point of viability are a threat to the mother’s life. There just would be no need for abortion </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">clinics,</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> not because women’s interest in them is being thwarted, but because it has diminished to the point of making the industry unsustainable</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div></span>Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-77152450558775317572018-10-28T04:38:00.001-07:002018-10-28T04:38:28.700-07:00Troll in the dungeon!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A while back I wrote a post about <a href="http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2017/02/are-you-target-of-redherringtroll.html">red herring trolls</a>. Thought I'd give a few illustrations as a supplement.<br />
Consider the following:<br />
<br />
You - Look at muh shiny new truck!<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_270924876"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="300" src="https://media-cf.assets-cdk.com/teams/repository/export/v/1/b4f/923204ec41005821900146efa6b30/b4f923204ec41005821900146efa6b30.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 14.4px;"><a href="https://www.carlblacknashville.com/Nashville-Trucks">https://www.carlblacknashville.com/Nashville-Trucks</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
He - A red truck hit my dog! Trucks are bad! You have a truck! You are bad!<br />
You - I didn't hit your dog.<br />
He - So you're ok with my dog getting hit by a truck? You're a bad person!<br />
You - I'm sorry your dog got hit but I still am not bad for owning a truck.<br />
He - You don't care about my dog. You only care about covering your truck-driving ass!<br />
<br />
You are now in the position of justifying why you should have the right to even own a truck, even though there is nothing wrong with owning one. No matter what argument you make, the troll can now loop back to calling you a truck apologist for owning a device that has mechanical function in common with the one with which, according to him, someone else hit his dog, and you are stuck defending trucks and yourself despite the fact that neither you nor trucks are inherently anti-dog.<br />
<br />
Or, he may answer "I didn't hit your dog" differently.<br />
<br />
You - I didn't hit your dog.<br />
He - So you're saying it didn't happen? I'm lying about my dog's lived experience?<br />
You - I didn't say that, only that your dog's unfortunate experience isn't everyone's experience with trucks.<br />
He - You're calling dogs liars!<br />
<br />
Troll has just moved the goalpost from his specific dog and the specific truck that hit it to all dogs and all trucks. If that is not pointed out the argument will devolve into you defending against #BelieveDogs.<br />
<br />
Another:<br />
<br />
You - I didn't hit your dog<br />
He - What's wrong with you? You didn't condemn the truck that hit my dog!<br />
You - I don't even know the whole story. Was it a deliberate act?<br />
He - OMG! YOU HATE DOGS! MUTTSOGYNY!<br />
You - I didn't say I hated dogs.<br />
He - Oh, sure, you just don't condemn trucks that kill them! You approve of hitting dogs with trucks!<br />
<br />
You're now in the position of defending yourself against a ridiculous, meritless accusation of muttsogyny. No matter what you say, your troll will continually loop back to asserting that your failure to condemn the truck that hit his dog proves you hate dogs.<br />
<br />
Another:<br />
<br />
You - I didn't hit your dog<br />
He - Oh, I see. No sympathy because he is not a cat, right? Your cat is better than my dog?<br />
You - I don't have a cat.<br />
He - Cat supporters are evil, bro.<br />
You - I don't have a problem with cat people, but I don't have a cat.<br />
He - It's ok to be ashamed of your cat, dude. I'd be ashamed if I had a cat instead of a dog, too.<br />
You - Why do you hate cats?<br />
He - Cats eat babies.<br />
You - What? What the hell are you talking about? I have friends with cats and babies and that's not true!<br />
He - See, I knew you were secretly a cat fanatic! How many babies have you killed for your cat?<br />
<br />
Notice how your troll just took the conversation entirely out of the realm of trucks and dogs? By first accusing you of being a cat-supporter and then making a ridiculous accusation against cats, he's manipulated you into a loop between defending cat people & denying being a cat fanatic.<br />
<br />
I could go on... but I bet you can already identify trolls you've argued with on social media who have used these tactics. When it's not so blatant as cats, dogs, and trucks, it's easy to get sucked into debating these ridiculous assertions. And that's why these kinds of arguments are made. The goal is not to arrive at a logical conclusion, or persuade. It's to confound you, distract you, discombobulate you, or cause an emotional response.<br />
<br />
Nothing pisses this type of troll off more than if you don't give them any of those things... except maybe if you make fun of their pitifully substandard effort to get them from you. The key is to watch for really ridiculous leaps in logic, unreasonable demands, catastrophic failures at understanding cause/effect relationships, misrepresentations of your assertions, etc.<br />
<br />
Try substituting trucks, dogs, cats, etc. for the subjects of the arguments being made, and you'll immediately see the ridiculousness being thrown at you. Then it's up to you to decide whether to call it out or decide the troll isn't worth your time.</div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-22876284913136854882017-07-16T16:12:00.001-07:002017-07-28T17:07:42.019-07:002017 Mix-up meetup<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AOPUk2VrOVY/WWvx-vJBWZI/AAAAAAAAEDA/saafRruMtHwI8bp72ux4nLRD4GrGePexgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/start.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AOPUk2VrOVY/WWvx-vJBWZI/AAAAAAAAEDA/saafRruMtHwI8bp72ux4nLRD4GrGePexgCK4BGAYYCw/s640/start.jpg" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
This year's mix-up meetup will be the weekend of September 23-24.<br />
<br />
At last year's meetup, we visited the Wright Patterson Air Force museum in the morning, and then after it closed, adjourned to a local retro-games arcade for pizza, snacks, and drinks. I was able to host people who needed a place to crash afterward, but don't have the same situation this year.<br />
<br />
This year we will be reserving a party room at the same retro-games arcade, and some cabins at a local campground. This will cover the night of the 23rd. On Sunday, the 24th there will be a trip to the Ohio Renaissance Faire.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, three of those things will involve expenses and there will be a fundraiser to cover them. This will determine how much food & drinks and accompanying tokens are prepaid at the arcade, how many campers-worth of cabins will be rented, and how many advance-purchase tickets to the Ren will be bought. <br />
<br />
Aside from that, everywhere we are going is open to the public. Anyone who only wants to participate in part of the weekend's events can visit the museum with us, buy Ren tickets & visit the Faire with us, or go to the arcade with us and buy their own food and tokens... but space at the cabins will be limited, with fundraiser donors getting priority. <br />
<br />
I will update as soon as there is more information, except that the name of the arcade and the name of the campground will not be announced until closer to the event, for the usual reasons.</div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-74535366533770829432017-04-29T05:47:00.003-07:002017-04-29T05:53:50.119-07:00Transcript for my video "What is feminism (a response to @antifempraxis)"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>The video:</b><br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z5i6MPkrC0Q" width="560"></iframe><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Transcript:</b><br />
In his video, at anti-fem praxis, Nick Reading asked 3 questions and challenged 3 youtubers to each answer one of them. <br />
Those questions are:<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>What is feminism</li>
<li>Where to nonfeminist people stand</li>
<li>What is to be done</li>
</ul>
<br />
The about page of the Anti-feminist Praxis website (linked to in the lowbar of that video,) asks that question of its readers.<br />
Having read it, I've decided to share my answers, each in its own video. This first video answers the question, "What is feminism?"<br />
Feminism is a political movement designed to capitalize on society's naturally gynocentric outlook by gendering human rights issues to exclude men from consideration as human beings, and women from any related obligation or accountability should they violate another person's human rights.<br />
<br />
To achieve this, the movement portrays women (and only women) as victims of everything, including the direct consequences of their own choices. Their written ideology blames this manufactured victimhood on men as a group and as individuals, treating them in social, legal, and psychological terms as both all-powerful, all-comprehending gods, and as devils who are responsible for all of the world's evil. This supports their promotion of the view that female experiences and interests are uniquely relevant, meaningful, and impacting, women and girls are uniquely deserving of relief or protection from discriminatory law and policy, and men and boys are uniquely guilty of being the cause behind any grievance feminists name as a women's issue and therefore accountable for providing relief.<br />
<br />
This is fleshed out via some of the movement's ideological concepts, such as Patriarchy.<br />
<br />
While different feminists will articulate the concept differently, the various descriptions all have in common a reliance on the belief in a social structure comprised of legal and social environments and practices created by and geared toward accomodating men, which by that very nature oppress women. Essentially, it is a term created by the second wave to expand the concept of male chauvanism from an individual behavior to a chronic, society-wide issue.<br />
<br />
Belief in Patriarchy theory relies heavily on circular reasoning which uses the aforementioned gendered view of human rights issues as evidence that women are oppressed, and the claim that women are oppressed to justify gendering one's view of human rights issues.<br />
<br />
The feminist movement itself is divided between its establishment, (or its archetects, leadership and organizations,) and its grassroots.<br />
<br />
Among both of these sets, the movement can be further divided into activists, academics, media, grunts and warm bodies.<br />
<br />
Activists include legislative lobbyists or leaders who direct grassroots campaigns to influence legislators... policy lobbyiests, or leaders who direct grassroots campaigns to influence policy, and propagandists... or leaders who direct grassroots campaigns to influence public perception and attitudes.<br />
<br />
Academics include the composers of feminist theory, feminists working in research fields who produce statistics and conclusions to back that theory, administrators in educational institutions who ensure that feminist theory is part of the institution's curriculum, feminists working in education to train students in that theory, and students who absorb feminist theory as part of their studies such that it affects their interaction with others in society.<br />
<br />
Media involves broadcasting and publishing - this would be anything from television and movies to news publications to radio to podcasts and blogs.<br />
<br />
Grunts are the movement's working grassroots - feminists who don't necessarily have individual power and influence but by following the directives of various leadership, assist in achieving their goals. These are the foot-soldiers in feminist grassroots campaigns, the students who fill the seats of interdisciplinary studies classes, the distributors of feminist propaganda to their peers in society, and very often the providers of anecdotal evidence feminist activists, academics, and media use to support and perpetuate their beliefs.<br />
<br />
Warm bodies are the part of the movement's grassroots who do nothing but wear the label and talk about how great it is. They're useful to the movement in three ways: They spread its propaganda without question, they increase its apparent size, and they provide a loyal but mindless shield against criticism of the movement's malicious acts against men and boys. In other words, these are the movement's useful idiots.<br />
<br />
Feminist activists use a gendered approach to human rights issues to push for law and/or policy ostensibly to remedy a social or legal infringement against a human right, written in such a way as to reserve its benefits and protections for only or mostly women and girls, and so that any obligations or restrictions laid out in it only or mostly apply to men. These laws and policies often include funding which benefits the feminist movement through job creation and payment to feminist-run organizations.<br />
<br />
Feminist academia and feminist media are used to support this activism by producing and selectively presenting information to support the activists' portrayal of issues and environments in a way that supports the anti-male discriminatory legislative and policy changes they seek. In some cases, feminists have even lobbied for law which funds research done in facilities that only serve women and then used that research to promote the narrative that the issue in question only or nearly only affects women. Grunts and warm bodies are used to widen the dispensation of related propaganda, and defend against criticism of its content. Their function in the cycle is to make challenging the narrative socially unacceptible.<br />
<br />
One example of this is the feminist approach to family and sexual violence. <br />
Despite compelling evidence that these types of violence are a genderless issue, the feminist establishment spent decades getting gendered intimate partner and sexual violence law passed in the United States.<br />
<br />
Feminist leadership latched onto the stereotype of the drunken, wife-beating husband and longsuffering, innocently victimized wife, and the existing perception of sexual violence as only a male-perpetrated crime against female victims.<br />
<br />
They expanded that type of domestic violence, a minority among cases, and promoted it as the predominant type of case.<br />
<br />
They began to push the envelope on sexual violence from an intentional crime of contravening unwilling victim's refusal toward a crime defined by how the female in the interaction felt about it after the fact.<br />
<br />
Feminist academia tailored survey-based research designed around existing feminist theory to inflate statistics on male violence against female partners, while ignoring evidence of female violence against male partners.<br />
<br />
This research was particularly designed to inflate the apparent incidence of sexual violence by defining instances in which, in the researchers' opinions, the woman should have felt victimized, as sexual violence... a stipulation which treats the intent of the alleged perpetrator and the actions of the alleged victim, including active and willing participation in the sex act, as irrelevant.<br />
<br />
Feminist media used the combination of feminist theory and the data, and conclusions from that biased research to promote their "epidemic of male violence against women" narrative.<br />
<br />
Feminism's grassroots picked up on that narrative and spread it far and wide. Belief in the supposed epidemic was established, preparing society and legislators for a call for action.<br />
<br />
Feminist media increased public pressure by promoting that narrative, along with the data and conclusions from that biased research, and feminist leadership and organizations lobbied for gendered federal law using those media reports. The grassroots was rallied to pressure legislators to comply.<br />
<br />
During this time, a genderless federal law was passed that provided funding for shelters where victims of family violence could flee their home environments. The Family Violence Prevention and Services act of 1984 strengthened law enforcement's approach to intimate partner and sexual violence by establishing that the victim being a member of one's household or in a relationship with the perpetrator does not excuse any violent crime. Feminists, not satisfied with it, continued applying pressure until it was replaced with the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.<br />
<br />
The Violence Against Women Act gendered everything in the Family Violence Prevention and Services act, including the label for the shelters. They were no longer family violence shelters, but women's shelters.<br />
<br />
The law also funded training for officers, prosecutors and court personnel to view intimate partner and sexual violence as a an area of crime that is specifically male perpetrated agaisnt female victims, and to interpret all evidence in intimate partner and sexual violence through a filter of feminist ideology.<br />
<br />
It funded the creation of special units specifically to focus on the requests of female accusers.<br />
It funded the development of communication and tracking systems around the concept of addressing only violence against women.<br />
It funded the provision of additional crime victim's services, over and above that which is available to the general public, for only women.<br />
It funded agenda-based research intended to quote increase the understanding and control of violence against specifically women.<br />
<br />
These grants fund research done at facilities which only serve women, and the data is used to portray intimate partner and sexual violence as a male perpetrated and perpetuated, female experienced issue. The data and conclusions from this research are used to pressure legislators to keep law addressing intimate partner and sexual violence gender discriminatory.<br />
<br />
Each of the areas I just mentioned that are funded by grants from the Violence Against Women Act is a fountain of jobs for graduates with an interdisciplinary studies focus or expertise.<br />
<br />
Establishment Feminists - the movement's leadership and organizations - use the data and conclusions that come from them, along with that Patriarchy-theory-based filter through which female experiences are seen as more relevant, meaningful, and impacting and all culpability is transferred to men and boys, to perpetuate the public narrative and continue to shape public opinion for the purpose of supporting that pressure.<br />
<br />
The movement's grassroots picks their propaganda up and spreads it far and wide, and again, the warm bodies shield it by perpetuating the social unacceptability of questioning that narrative.<br />
<br />
So feminism, in a nutshell, is the politically targeted financial exploitation of society's tendency to favor and protect women. In other words, it is a giant scam.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
* * *</div>
<br />
I put my research on feminist activism into blog posts, articles and other videos. In lieu of listing all of those sources, here are the work I did using them (all with sources cited.)<br /><br />http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/more-equal-than-others-bias-in-intimate-partner-and-sexual-violence-victims-advocacy/<br /><br />http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2013/01/vawa-is-not-like-that.html<br /><br />http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2015/11/17/war-on-victims-of-female-perpetrators-goes-to-back-college/<br /><br />http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2016/06/04/nice-feminism-how-a-hate-movement-uses-its-grassroots-against-men/<br /><br />http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/double-standard-rapeib/<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6IFLbGkbbA<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob4DFbLMbyg<br /><br />http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2016/03/01/the-feminist-crusade-against-fatherhood-2/<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csGVuuyuYNk </div>
</div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-5569275518085573702017-04-13T00:53:00.000-07:002017-04-13T00:53:00.247-07:00Feminist/MRM conflict is rooted in feminist ideology and activism (originally from mensrights.ca)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This is an addition to the conversation started by the post, <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://www.mensrights.ca/the-mens-rights-movement-versus-the-feminist-movement-necessary-conflict/" title="The Men’s Rights Movement versus the Feminist Movement… Necessary conflict?">The Men’s Rights Movement versus the Feminist Movement… Necessary conflict?</a><br />
<br />
One commenter asked, “Why does there have to be a conflict?”<br />
<br />
I left a reply, but the topic is something that really can’t be condensed into a simple comment.<br />
The short part of the answer is that many of the discriminatory
conditions men face can be traced back to causes rooted in feminist
activism.<br />
<br />
It really starts with what’s behind the sense of entitlement that is inherent to feminism.<br />
<br />
<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Feminists fail to differentiate between having a fundamental <em>need</em>, and having a fundamental <em>right</em></span>.<br />
<br />
The pursuit of conditions or factors to meet fundamental needs (eg.,
putting forth effort to obtain food and shelter) is a human right.<br />
<br />
The receipt of conditions or factors to meet fundamental needs (eg.,
having food and shelter provided at the expense of others) is not a
fundamental right, but an act of charity on the part of the provider (as
long as it’s voluntary – otherwise, it’s theft by the recipient, even
when those things are needed.)<br />
With this misapplication of the word “right,” feminists treat the
condition of being given possession or position as if it were the same
as the condition of having one’s pursuit not being wrongfully
obstructed. This is related to the positions of equality of outcome
versus equality of opportunity. In the equality of outcome scenario
mentioned in the article above, feminists are expecting women to be
given wealth/positions that were not obtained in order to achieve
equalization. In the equality of opportunity scenario, the focus is
simply on removal of barriers so that the effort put in by every
individual results in similar achievements.<br />
<br />
<strong></strong><br />
Another problem which has a side effect upon this is that feminist
advocates fail to differentiate between fundamental needs, and dearly
valued/wanted conveniences.<br />
<br />
Food and shelter are fundamental needs.<br />
<br />
Yummy food and nice shelter are dearly valued/wanted conveniences.<br />
<br />
Feminists go beyond claiming the right to the pursuit of fulfillment
of fundamental needs to claim the right to receive dearly valued/wanted
conveniences. <strong></strong>A striking example of this is their
campaign for government in the U.S. funding for Planned Parenthood, and
their loud demands for a provision in Obamacare requiring coverage for
birth control drugs. Abortion and birth control drugs are dearly valued
and wanted conveniences, but they are not needs. Feminist advocates
were dishonest in their advocacy for both, arguing as if women’s access
to these conveniences is controlled by outside funding.<br />
<strong> </strong><br />
One outgrowth of that combination of beliefs is a sense of entitlement
to enforce the provision of the fulfillment of needs or dearly held
wants upon other human beings. Treating this as a given fact upon which
society must base law and policy, this is equivalent to the assertion
that “If <em>A</em> has a need for or dearly held want of a factor, B
must provide it,” where A is the individual with whom feminism
identifies itself, and B is the individual with whom feminism takes
issue.<br />
<br />
This is further modified by another fundamental flaw in the movement:
Patriarchy Theory, which, in short, blames upon male society all issues
or conditions which feminists define as oppression of women. <strong>Patriarchy Theory makes female society group A, and male society group B.</strong><br />
<strong> </strong><br />
So you have a group which labels <span style="text-decoration: underline;">having</span> (as opposed to not being prevented from reasonably pursuing) that which <span style="text-decoration: underline;">women</span> want or need to be a right, and asserts that as justification for demanding or taking it from <span style="text-decoration: underline;">men</span>.<br />
<br />
A result of that combination of entitlement and blame is that
feminist groups are content to lobby for law and policy which is
discriminatory toward men in order to acquire benefits for women. This
has further led these groups to be the cause behind some men’s issues,
and the opposition holding back any effort at remedy for others.<br />
<br />
For example, men face discrimination in family court. <a href="https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data/">In custody disputes, it’s much more likely for mothers to be awarded custody of their children than for custody to be awarded to fathers. Mothers who retain custody are awarded child support more than fathers are, and in larger amounts</a>.<br />
Feminists confronted with this issue claim that this is not because
of feminism, but is instead based on the presumption that women are
better caregivers, a concept they attribute to “patriarchy.” History
shows that this presumption is not a result of patriarchy, but in fact a
result of the activities of feminists themselves. <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2013/04/effeminition-patriarchy-hurts-men-too.html#.Ukd75H_P93c">The
tendency of courts to award custody to mothers can be traced back to a
19th century feminist who campaigned for it because of her own custody
battle</a>. Though the doctrine she wrote as part of her campaign is no
longer cited as the reason for awarding custody to mothers, the
presumptions laid out in it are, including the idea that women are
better caregivers. <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-ELQhEQCrUFSFY3aktnaWZNVTQ">When father’s rights groups have lobbied for more evenhanded child custody law, the National Organization for Women lobbied against it, using demonization of fathers as deadbeats and abusers as their argument</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/pyfwJ55hKgE" rel="nofollow">For the last 40 years</a>, feminist advocates have <a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/more-equal-than-others-bias-in-intimate-partner-and-sexual-violence-victims-advocacy/" rel="nofollow">(successfully) fought</a> to <a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-corruption/the-feminist-advocacy-research-scam/" rel="nofollow">impose their gender ideology</a> on the <a href="https://youtu.be/1EglxuSgZmY" rel="nofollow">issue of domestic violence</a>, managing to <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/280897-vawa-must-be-reformed-for-domestic-violence-rates-to-come-down">deny assistance</a> to <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1nb2n1/after_the_popularity_of_my_previous_infographic_i/">half or more</a> of the victims of abuse.<br />
<br />
Feminist advocated law and policy in the U.S. has <a href="http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/sex-assault/how-rape-laws-remove-the-presumption-of-innocence/" rel="nofollow">whittled away at the due process rights</a> of <a href="http://www.saveservices.org/camp/faam-2011/false-accusations-of-domestic-violence-by-the-numbers/" rel="nofollow">accused men</a>, provided <a href="http://archive.is/SVmWQ" rel="nofollow">incentives to make false allegations</a>, and made restraining order abuse <a href="http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2012/05/restraining-order-abuse-and-vexatious_31.html" rel="nofollow">easy to commit, and hard to counter</a>.<br />
<br />
They’ve advocated for laws <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/sex-assault/how-rape-laws-remove-the-presumption-of-innocence/">which remove the presumption of innocence from men accused of rape</a>. The handicapping of an accused man’s defense makes <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm">false conviction a significant risk for men in the U.S</a>., keeping organizations like <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php">The Innocence Project</a> busy undoing the <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://www.cotwa.info/2012/06/bygones-be-bygones-unspeakable.html">damage done by a severely imbalanced, heavily biased legal system</a>.<br />
<br />
They have advocated for federally required <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://web.archive.org/web/20110407072607/http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html">changes in disciplinary policy at colleges and universities</a>, which have led to <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1bryth/no_due_process_for_college_rape_trials/">an
environment that encourages and enables the leveling of false
allegations of sexual violence against men on college and university
campuses in the U.S</a>. In March of this year, <a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/the-campus-false-accuser-support-act/">the Campus SaVE act goes into effect</a>, making federal law from policy which has already been shown to be unbalanced and dysfunctional.<br />
<br />
In all of those areas, group A has obtained social, political, and
legal power by slandering group B and then demanding to be protected
from them.<br />
<br />
The tactics feminists have employed to grease the legal wheels for their sponsored legislation have included <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/p/steps-of-dehumanization-campaign.html#.UkeVxX_P93c">deliberate, targeted demonetization of men</a> to the extent of creating a <a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/nice-feminists-grassroots-of-a-hate-movemen/">perception of them as subhuman in comparison to women</a>, and <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/">portraying women as helpless victims</a>.
This portrayal of men as subhuman brutes and women as helpless victims
has been instrumental in convincing politicians and their constituents
that it’s acceptable to pass laws which infringe on people’s civil
rights… as long as it’s done in small increments, and it feels like it’s
for a good cause.<br />
<br />
Much of feminist activism has been about obtaining funding for
feminist-led programs and organizations; things like domestic violence
victims advocacy agencies, women’s shelters, campus rape prevention
programs based on feminist theory, women’s studies programs with
feminist professors and feminist department heads. There’s <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/https://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/x3759953334.pdf">a lot of money</a> involved in maintaining the current political outlook. <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=bb440f3b8364f7a565e6474f50b30f70">A lot</a>. No, <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/rpe/">really</a>. A <em><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/ovwgrantprograms.htm#5">lot</a>. </em><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20131006033342/http://www.vawnet.org/grants-funding/funding-opportunities.php?category=DOMESTIC+VIOLENCE&state=all&submit=Show+All&page=1">Tons</a> and <a href="http://archive.is/Ne5yi">tons</a>.<br />
<br />
Men’s rights activism is in direct confrontation with that. It is not
possible to fight for reform in family and criminal court without
butting up against feminist interests. Feminist interests require a
group B; a group upon whose human rights it’s acceptable to infringe in
order to continue the cycle that funds feminism.<br />
<br />
MRAs can’t compromise with feminist activists because that would
entail adopting aspects of feminist theory which are in direct
contradiction to the best interests of men. Successful advocacy for
legal and social reform to reduce the discriminatory conditions faced by
men partially depends on countering myths and stereotypes about men and
women, including those promoted and exploited by feminist advocates.
People who are willing to see civil rights trampled because men are
considered disposable and dangerous, and women valuable and vulnerable,
won’t be persuaded to want to protect those rights unless their
attention is first drawn to male humanity, and female agency.<br />
<br />
That conflict leaves the two groups in opposition to each other
whether we want to be at odds or not. It is not that men’s rights are
pitted against women’s rights, with one having to win and the other to
lose. It is that men’s humanity is pitted against feminist power.<br />
<br /></div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-23477178086370798352017-03-17T18:31:00.000-07:002017-03-17T18:31:39.975-07:00Pain<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TYyGYbf39mE/WMyFanLs93I/AAAAAAAAD70/hrcfH8P3CQYrEbnHwnrQMGP5HWOJ2-yUgCLcB/s1600/head-1597550.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TYyGYbf39mE/WMyFanLs93I/AAAAAAAAD70/hrcfH8P3CQYrEbnHwnrQMGP5HWOJ2-yUgCLcB/s640/head-1597550.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Imagine for a moment, if, upon waking each morning, you are soundly
beaten by a stranger with a baseball bat. You call police to have your
assailant arrested, only to be quizzed by the dispatcher in a patient
voice, asked to describe the bat, and to rate the assailant on a scale
between not being assaulted, and the worst attack you've ever suffered.
You are asked to describe these things in terms that are completely
unrelated to the attack, such as artistic comparisons, or mathematics,
and all while the beating continues uninterrupted. The person you are
talking to treats you as if you are stupid, lying, or intoxicated
because the beating makes it hard for you to concentrate and
communicate.<br /><br />You end up having to beg the police to stop the
stranger from beating you... being treated as if you are weak because
you begged, or even just because you don't want to be beaten by the
stranger with the bat. No matter what you say, they won't listen, but
instead tell you that lots of people are assaulted by strangers with
baseball bats each morning, as if knowing that you are not the only one
will somehow make the beatings more tolerable.<br /><br />After going
through all of this, you are told that you've reached your limit of
assailant arrests, that you've been helped by the State police, the FBI,
and the Marines, and you can't be helped any more. You know it's true,
because they're still all there, but they're outside defending you from
other assailants. You've just called
for reinforcements because this one got through.<br />
<br /> Perhaps you have become a nuisance to the dispatcher. Perhaps she just
doesn't know a nice way to tell you that she cannot help you. Either
way, she sends you packing. She tells you that
you'll have to learn to live with your assailant. You are treated as a
criminal for seeking help, with sidelong looks given, and clucking of
tongues, to make you feel dirty and low. The evidence your assailant is right there in the room with you, beating you as you speak to the dispatcher, is unimportant. You're obviously an attention whore. Your assailant is probably all in your head. You made your assailant up because you have a thing for cops. <br /><br />After calling and
calling, searching for any kind of help, you finally find someone who
understands your suffering, a dispatcher from a unit that specializes in countering consistent patterns of assault... but he tells you his hands are tied by federal laws regulating his work, which do not differentiate between a stubbed toe and an assailant with a baseball bat when it's one who has gotten past your other defense force. Since you wouldn't need police to control a stubbed toe, you can't have protection from this guy with the bat. This dispatcher, too, admits he can do nothing to protect you from this particular assault, but he says he can give you something to
make you less depressed about being beaten. Desperate for relief, you accept the somewhat comforting service of an emotional therapist. Your therapist can't help you get rid of the assailant with the bat, but he can help you process the sense of hopelessness and despair that results from being beaten all day long. <br />
<br />
When others find out what you've
been given, you discover the stigma of mental illness as they treat you
like a crazy person. They gossip, warning each other to be careful around you because your behavior might be unpredictable. Parents of your children's friends deem you the untrusted parent, the one who might feed the kids dessert for supper or say the wrong kind of things in front of them. Dear god, what if the kids are at your house when you have a breakdown? After all, you need a therapist to get through everyday life! Every assumption seems reasonable while ignoring the stranger beside you,
still bashing that bat into your body. Who needs context when it's easier to be judgemental?<br /><br />You lose your job, because
trying to work around that stranger interferes with your performance
until you become completely ineffective. Then, you are treated like a
deadbeat because you cannot work, others telling you about times when
they've been kicked in the leg once or punched in the jaw, and still
were able to work, so why can't you? What's wrong with you? Why can't you just man up and work through this situation? If your assailant is not hitting you in the head, why can't you just change to a desk job, where his behavior won't prevent you from doing the work? Nobody considers that being constantly pummeled with a bat might not only impair your ability to do manual labor, but to exercise the focus needed to perform mental tasks, as well. Nobody considers the fact that they're comparing unlike circumstances and temporary incidents to a long-term situation. They simply see an able-bodied man without a job. <br /><br />Maybe you just happen to be
somewhere public when your assailant slams the bat into your gut... then
you find out the building's restroom isn't public. Describing your situation does not elicit sympathy from whoever controls access to that restroom. No, you've got a problem, one they don't know can't rub off on everyone else who uses that same facility. And the fact that you're followed around by all those cops - clearly you're the wrong type of person to be in this building. Are you just going in there so you can call for more?<br />
<br />
Worse, any appearance of desperation you might have because of your situation will be treated as aggression. Clearly you're just an impatient, overprivileged jerk who feels entitled to exemption from the rules that apply to everyone else. You're standing there demanding special treatment, for no obvious reason.<br />
<br />
You are treated as
too rude, too dirty, or too dangerous to use the bathroom, as the stranger stands there,
unnoticed, continuing to hit you with the bat. You rush, humiliated, to
the nearest place that you know does have a public restroom. You just hope you make it in time. <br /><br />At
the grocery on a bad assailant day, you have to use your handicap tag,
park in the wheelchair space, and use one of the electric carts, because
your assailant has hit you so hard in the back, legs, knees, or hips
that you cannot walk in the cold, or cannot walk all over the store. The other shoppers look at you
as you walk from your car in the handicapped space to the electric cart,
sit down, and begin driving it.<br />
<br />Imagine the lack of understanding,
the judgmental head shakes, stares, and sometimes even cruel statements
made. Maybe you wouldn't need that cart if you weren't so fat. You should walk around the store for exercise. When they don't have the guts to say it to your face, you get to hear them talking behind your back. He
doesn't need that cart. He didn't need it last month. He's just lazy.
Shame... he should leave it for someone with an actual handicap. Security should kick him out for using it.<br />Shame. Tsk-tsk.<br /><br />Even
the people who know you and know you're under constant assault don't really understand. They were sympathetic at
first, but eventually they tune out your assailant, even though you
cannot. You can tell by their actions, and their reactions. They ask you
stupid questions, such as "Why can't you just suck-it-up-and-drive-on?"
or "Why does everything you do take so long?" and "Why don't you just
call the police?" If you remain silent about your problem, people forget it's happening, but if you speak up, regardless of how much your assailant hits you, you're a buzzkill and everyone will avoid you. You have learned to walk a fine line between mentioning your limits when you have to, and keeping your mouth shut when you don't. <br />
<br />
This is compounded by the fact that some of those who know the size of your existing defense force don't believe this assailant is real, and some of
them suspect there are less to defend against than would merit the force
you've employed. Some treat you as a person impaired in ways you are
not, on the assumption that the noise from the fighting prevents you
from thinking properly. Others blame any random problem which occurs in
your life on your defense force, and advise you to get rid of them.
Still others, pursued by different types of attackers than the ones
after you, recommend you try their defenders. "I know what you're going
through. I'm being attacked by sea. You should quit with the Marines and
try out the Navy. The Navy is working great for me!" Often, people who make suggestions get offended if you don't run right off to try them out, even if you explain that you've already done so to little effect. You're not being attacked by sea. You're being attacked by individuals with baseball bats, and a lot of evaluation went into determining that the best defense force for you was the combination you're using... but none of that matters when there's an amateur dispatcher's opinion to consider.<br />
<br />
You know that people's frustration with your refusal to switch methods at the drop of a hint is partly caused by needing to have some way of trying to help, and feeling stymied by that refusal... but it doesn't make the resulting criticism they launch at you... you're just wallowing in it... you don't want to get better... you just want sympathy... any easier to hear.<br /><br />You're not
allowed to fight back on your own, either, and you can't hire a
bodyguard. Defense against assault is a controlled action, and must be
carefully monitored by proper authorities. If you attempt to defend
yourself, and are caught doing so, you will be arrested and jailed for attacking your assailant. All
defense will be taken away from you, and previous assailants will be let
into your cell, to all beat on you at once. You live in fear that this
will happen to you anyway, as you are required to periodically renew
your protection (via the feds and the marines) from those assailants.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, you cannot keep the same people
involved with your case forever in order to keep your defense consistent, as the type of people who deal with
cases like yours are frequently targeted for investigation by the
Defense Establishment Authority. Their documentation makes them much
easier to target than street assailants, and too
often they end up getting jailed for unlawful management of defense
forces, leaving you to search
for a new resource for help. Each time a new person becomes involved with your case, he or she looks
over your history and tells you that you are too protected, and that
some of that protection must be removed so that you will be safer. When
this does not make sense to you, the new person gives you that same
sidelong-look and clicking tongue treatment you've had before, and
orders changes to your guard. When the changes reduce the guard's
effectiveness, letting through more assailants, and the new person must
grudgingly admit things were right before, you are blamed, treated as a
weakling, or otherwise made to feel that your need to be protected from
harm is invalid. The same old "thing for cops" accusation keeps getting repeated everywhere you go. Evidence that you're actually under constant attack does not matter. The inconvenience you represent to the system is all that does. Your dispatcher is being watched. Working in his field is a crap shoot. At any time, he may become the Defense Establishment Authority's next target.<br />
<br />Each time this happens, in addition to the sadness you experience for your dispatcher, your guilt over having been one of his charges, and the frustration of having to seek help elsewhere, you face a very real fear. If this happens too often, you can get accused of "shopping" for a
dispatcher more willing to wrongfully send forces to protect you, and
jailed yourself, despite being able to prove your previous dispatchers
were no longer available to help you because of their arrests. In fact, their arrests may even be used against you. Obviously, that's just part of your protection seeking pattern.<br />
<br />
Talking about this situation to other people once again elicits the shaming response that you must have a thing for cops or attention. Why else, the people ignoring your assailants wonder, would you be so worried? What are you, some kind of defense fanatic?<br /><br />Though the situation is hopeless,
you have no choice but to continue on like this. You cannot fight the
authorities who control your access to protection from assault, and
there is nothing you can do yourself to get rid of your assailant. You
know that for the rest of your life, there will be varying degrees of
this type of assault heading your way, and it is up to you to weather
them as best you can, taking what help you can get, and living one day
at a time. You'd square your shoulders and set your jaw against this tide, but that, too, would just draw negative attention.<br />
You decide to just keep your head down, instead.<br />
<br />Congratulations. You've just had a taste of chronic pain, complicated by breakthrough pain, in today's legal and
medical environment.<br />
Hundreds of men and women experience this as they age. Workers in heavy labor industries and dangerous jobs, more likely to be men, will face it at a higher rate than the general population due to work related injuries.<br />
<br />
There is a degree of sympathy for women with chronic pain, although it is limited. There's less of a degree when that assailant is attacking a man, and the younger the victim, the more likely people are to treat him like a liar, a layabout, or a lunatic. People are more likely to avoid him than check on him or include him in social activities, often out of discomfort with his situation and their inability to make a perceivable difference in it.<br />
<br />
There are, in fact, differences you can make. They're not always the ones you're looking for.<br />
The chronic pain sufferer in your life knows you can't get rid of his pain. He knows you can't pay his bills, or become his caregiver. Those things are too big for one individual to help with. Don't let discomfort with your inability to fix everything become a reason for you to contribute to his isolation, when that is the one thing you do have the power to affect. <br /><br />Keep in contact, even if all you guys do is send each other memes. Check in on him when you're able. Don't let the time in between days you're able to do that embarrass you. He knows you work and you have a family. There's no law that says you can't visit again because you missed some invisible deadline.<br />
<br />
Don't feel like you have to be upbeat all the time, or make him upbeat. Your life isn't all shits and giggles. Don't expect his to be, either.<br />
<br />
"It hurts" is a reality. It's his reality. Sometimes just having someone else know makes it more bearable, even if you don't have some profound words of wisdom to make it so. Believe it or not, "That sucks, man. I wish there was something I could do..." can be profound enough.<br />
<br />
Does he make gallows jokes about his condition? Let him. Laugh with him, or groan if it's a groaner of a bad joke. Gallows humor is a way of processing experiences that would otherwise be emotionally crippling. Just having a loved one understand that can be an immeasurable relief. Listening without judgement can make a huge difference. It may be frustratingly invisible... but so is chronic pain.<br />
<br />
Once in a while, there will be something measurable you can do, like being the driver for a grocery trip because going alone is rough, or spending a couple of hours playing video games with him because that distracts him from his situation, or sitting with him while he deals with the social security administration because those bureaucrats will run him over if he doesn't have a friend there to witness their behavior... or writing a short letter to a pain clinic describing the person you know him to be so he doesn't get treated like an addict when his arthritis kicks up a notch in cold weather... or getting him go to a sports bar with you when depression about his condition has been keeping him home. Essentially, be a friend to your friend, the same as you would any of your other friends.<br />
<br />
Got extra nervous energy to deal with because of the situation? Yes, it is hard to see someone living under an adverse condition you can't protect him from or remove from his life. It's not wrong for you to get frustrated, angry, worried, or just antsy with the need to do something about the problem. <br />So you can't get rid of his pain. So you can't be his doctor, his housekeeper, his nurse, and you feel like sitting around his house playing video games or watching TV, or even including him in your outings isn't enough. That's not wrong. That's fuel for activism.<br />
<br />
One of the big problems faced by chronic pain sufferers, at least in the U.S., is that our government has decided to lump them in with street drug addicts. More and more limitations are being placed on what types of treatments are available to them. Their access to pain control medication is being reduced, while at the same time, their insurance providers are allowed to deem pain control therapies like massage and other physical therapies unnecessary. Then they're told, based on data from when people had better access to pain care, that their conditions are not disabling. And maybe they wouldn't be, if they were receiving proper treatment.<br />
<br />
Politicians need to hear that this is stupid. While it's reasonable for medical professionals to monitor patients' pain care to avoid addiction and medical emergencies that drugs can cause, using the drug enforcement agency to monitor that has resulted in the opposite. The shrinking resources for chronic pain patients end up so overburdened that patients who aren't savvy or mindful enough to monitor themselves fall through the cracks. Some end up without access to care, leading to other health problems such as depression, anxiety, and stress... which in turn, over time, can lead to more threatening conditions. Some of those underserved patients turn to street drugs, which are plentiful and easier to get one's hands on, thanks to the DEA's redirection of its focus onto pain clinics, oncologists, neurologists, osteopaths, and other physicians whose specialties mean they're going to have more chronic pain patients than the average general practitioner. Exactly how does that protect people from drug addiction?<br />
<br />
You don't have to break your friend's confidence, or draw any attention to him in particular to explain this. Just make the point that medical treatment is best assessed and administrated by medical professionals. It's good when the DEA polices things like drug diversion (medicines being stolen.) It's bad when, based strictly on a set of numbers, they arrest oncologists for providing pain relief to dying cancer patients, or pain specialists for helping degenerative disk disease sufferers manage their symptoms well enough to continue to work. This is something you can affect with minimal effort, just by sending an email or a fax to your state's representatives telling them why, in your experience, the federal government's overzealous interference with pain care is more harmful than helpful. Enough people doing this will show federal representatives that public opinion is set against the policies that make your loved one's life more painful. That's a big chance to do something about the problem.</div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-85560903595628424272017-02-16T06:45:00.000-08:002018-11-01T00:18:37.544-07:00Are you the target of a #RedHerringTroll? <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/YTeomU6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://i.imgur.com/YTeomU6.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
You might be, if an account - particularly one that that doesn't follow you - does any of these:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They reply to a non-hashtagged tweet of yours</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They reply to a non-hashtagged conversation between only people they don't follow</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They reply to month-old (or more) tweets</li>
</ul>
<br />
to argue in any of the following ways:<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They mainly speak in <a href="http://politicaldictionary.com/words/talking-points/" target="_blank">talking points</a>.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Everything they say seems designed to be more inflammatory than informative.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They engage in nitpicking minutia to make the conversation into arguments over that, instead. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They attack only in <a href="http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/" target="_blank">fallacies</a>; Strawman everything you say, use Ad Hominem attacks & Genetic Fallacies, they appeal to authority or popularity, etc.<br /><br />A subset of this is the hyperbolic strawman - replying to a comment that does not contain absolutist words like "all," "always," "only," "never," as if it did, or replying to a statement containing "can be" as if in instead contained "is" or "are."<br /><br />Example: You say "Women can also be violent." They reply "There are many women who are nonviolent! What are you talking about?" You didn't say "All women are violent." The person is using a hyperbolic strawman.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They respond to you discrediting one of their assertions by simply abandoning that one and making another assertion, often seeming to move down a list of the aforementioned fallacies. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They get mad if you make your position too clear and specific for them to spin it into a strawman. This will often be demonstrated by a use of loaded questions to try to redirect you to the strawman they want to confront, followed by a temper tantrum if you refuse to deviate from your actual position in response to their loaded questions. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They demand explanations for the obvious & proof of long-established facts, but refuse to explain or provide evidence for anything they say, regardless of how outlandish their assertions are.<br /><br />Example; it's on you to prove getting stabbed can be painful or a well-known documented historical stabbing happened, but it's not on them to prove that stabbing is a gendered behavior or that the effects of being stabbed are different for people of different ethnic backgrounds. This behavior often gets defended by articulating the fallacious belief that if some perceived truths turn out to be false, nothing can ever be genuinely known to be true. A simple look at physical representations of elementary-level math equations demonstrates why that is a stupid belief. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They seem bent on steering the conversation away from its original topic/point or on steering you into defense of a point that is beyond the claim you have made. Any response you make will be twisted into evidence of your position on the new topic, and the game continues from there.<br /><br />Example: You cite evidence that an assertion about person A, who also happens to be black, is untrue. Troll tries to steer you into defending the unstated argument that the assertion is never true about any black person. Your response is "evidence" that you concede, that you hate black people, or that you think they are above any & all criticism.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They respond to a topic using a counterargument against an off-topic assertion you did not make, usually based on presuming your political perspective based on the current discussion. This is to drag you into a debate over the new topic in the apparent hope that you'll defend the off-topic strawman. They'll usually treat pointing this out as an act of dodging that topic.<br /><br />Example: You tweet opposition to an unethical action. Troll takes your tweet as endorsement of the political opponent of the person who engaged in that behavior and from there, presumes you to be politically aligned with that opponent. Troll then replies to your tweet with a counterargument against an item from said opponent's political party's platform.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
</ul>
If the first condition is met and the individual seems to be doing at least some of the above, you may be dealing with a red herring troll. The more of these behaviors you see, the more likely you're dealing with one. If they combine them with responses that ignore points you've made & evidence you've provided that comes from sources which give full information (example, articles that link to studies or have video of incidents, proving a person made a social media post by linking to the actual post or an archive of it, etc.,) that's another clue.<br /><br />Other things to watch for in combination with the above behaviors:<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They run in packs. While you are engaged in discussion with Troll A, Troll B (who often doesn't follow either of you) will begin replying to your replies to Troll A using some of the methods described above. <br /><br />Another telltale sign is if you get two or more accounts that never respond to you at the same time & all talk the same way, same vernacular, same vocabulary. Watch for the same spelling errors. When this happens you're dealing with one person piloting several <a href="https://www.google.com/search?num=40&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=sock+puppet+social+media&oq=sock+puppet+social+media&gs_l=serp.3..0.7372.11142.0.11907.13.8.0.0.0.0.314.675.0j1j1j1.3.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..10.3.671...0i13k1.e4qW3ZPYRYQ" target="_blank">sock puppets</a>. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The Churlish Shuffle: engaging in deliberate obfuscation. Example, treating counterargument against point A in a
thread about point A as if it is an assertion about point B which is not
part of that thread, or treating your argument as if it is
self-contradiction based on an acceptance you did not make of an
assertion of theirs. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>I Love Egg Salad: The troll has a contingent of accounts with almost no followers, no avatar, and little to no history who do nothing but "heart" or "like" and retweet the troll's tweets. Even more interesting, sometimes several of these will revolve around one troll, and their retweets & likes of that account's tweets seem timed to drag you back to the discussion after it's over. It's particularly telling when the troll account also has very few followers and the discussion isn't highly visible yet a few dozen "egg" accounts come out of the woodwork to like and retweet the troll's tweets, one at a time, at regular intervals, all over the course of a day or two.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>"Shift change" syndrome: At some point in the discussion, the person you're arguing with appears to have no memory of earlier parts of the conversation. This manifests in anything from repeating previously debunked arguments as if they're new arguments to asking repeatedly for information you have already provided to outright denying that earlier parts of the discussion happened. This is an almost certain indication, one that either means you're arguing with multiple people using one account, or a professional troll trained to assume you've forgotten what you were talking to him/her about several hours ago.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The debate that never ends: After reaching a dead end with you, or in the midst of a heated exchange on a particular topic, they make a vague reply to earlier parts of the conversation several tweets up the thread, which they've already replied to (and you've already answered their replies.) <br />Doing so from a dead end is a way to keep a finished conversation going. <br />Doing so in the midst of a heated exchange is an attempt at confusing you or getting you to respond to a reply to tweet A as if it is a reply to tweet B, which says something different. It's a direct attempt at tripping you up by getting you to reply to what it appears was being argued instead of what actually was.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Replying to you only in "retweet with comment" tweets rather than direct replies when the "comment" is not a comment to others about your tweet, but a direct response to it. This breaks up the discussion and makes it harder to trace back through earlier parts of the argument to prove what what already has been said & who said it. This alone isn't a RHT behavior. Some people do it because they don't know the speech balloon icon is for replies. Some do it to draw their followers' attention to the conversation. But if it's in combination with the other behaviors, and it results in a bunch of similarly trollish accounts joining in, especially accounts that are new or have no profile image, it's probably a RHT.</li>
</ul>
<br />
The overall point of these trolls is to redirect you away from conversation about concepts, ideas, news, or other topics that challenge a narrative the troll wishes to protect. I've found that these tend to be most active whenever certain news topics begin to trend, such as conservative political events, news stories which expose information about the Oligarchy within the U.S. government, men's rights or antifeminist topics, and evidence against the narrative used to attack #Gamergate.<br />
<br />
While the temptation to engage them simply because "OMG, someone on the internet is wrong!" the most effective way to deal with these trolls is to point out that's what they are, and move on. Being targeted by a Red Herring Troll should indicate to you that you were doing something important, and doing it effectively enough that someone, even if it was just the troll himself (no need for this to be a conspiracy for it to be happening,) wanted you stopped. <br />
<br />
How do you win? By not letting them make that happen. <br />
Kick the troll aside, and stay on target. Let them rant and rail, call you names, accuse you of bad faith and ill will... and keep talking about whatever it was you were talking about when they began their attempt to derail. </div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-241073508917306482017-02-04T16:24:00.003-08:002017-02-04T16:26:29.738-08:00No, we still can't all just get along. (Response to a youtube comment.)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The comment on <a href="https://youtu.be/idn1wGvcq6A" target="_blank">this video</a>:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xYnIMMqXWqY/WJZvyBIP88I/AAAAAAAAD54/3lgOKNgtA287ZpZwWuwR1iWVOSQUFhhMQCLcB/s1600/screenshot-www.youtube.com%2B2017-02-04%2B19-19-33.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xYnIMMqXWqY/WJZvyBIP88I/AAAAAAAAD54/3lgOKNgtA287ZpZwWuwR1iWVOSQUFhhMQCLcB/s640/screenshot-www.youtube.com%2B2017-02-04%2B19-19-33.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
My response, posted in answer to the comment, was wordy, but to the point with regard to the "can't we all just get along" charge. I've copy/pasted it here rather than using a screenshot specifically to make it available if others want to use part of it to compose responses to specific claims related to its parts, if that makes sense.<br />
<br />
The claim feminists have something in common with MRAs does not even
deserve consideration until some serious changes are made in feminist
advocacy: Get back to me when mainstream feminist groups acknowledge
they've been lying about the dynamics of intimate partner violence, take
female violence seriously, cease promoting the "condone female violence
while generalizing & condemning male violence" formula that
PERPETUATES they type of partner violence that makes up about half of
existing cases, and lobby to revert the gender-discriminatory VAWA back
to the original, non-discriminating Family Violence Prevention and
Services act of 1984 so that two-way violence and unilateral female
violence (which combined make up the majority of partner violence) are
addressed by the law instead of it shoehorning those cases in with the
unilateral male perpetrated minority of the problem.
For more explanation from me on this, see this video & the citations
in the lowbar: <a class="yt-uix-servicelink " data-servicelink="CGQQtnUYACITCIDrwo3V99ECFdF4Tgod8l0Hnw" data-url="https://youtu.be/m6IFLbGkbbA" href="https://youtu.be/m6IFLbGkbbA">https://youtu.be/m6IFLbGkbbA</a><br />
<br />
Get back to me when academic & media feminists stop gendering their
promulgation on sexual violence to demonize men as predators and
infantilize women as victims, when they demand that their own movement's
researchers both within and out of government research give female
perpetration the same labels and push for those labels to lead to the
same condemnation as male perpetration, when they stop using generalized
demonization of men to push for legislated infringement on due process,
and when feminist acknowledgement of female sexual violence leads to
feminist lobbying for changes in law to hold female perpetrators equally
accountable to the system accused men face. For more explanation from
me on this, see this video & the citations in the lowbar: <a class="yt-uix-servicelink " data-servicelink="CGQQtnUYACITCIDrwo3V99ECFdF4Tgod8l0Hnw" data-url="https://youtu.be/ob4DFbLMbyg" href="https://youtu.be/ob4DFbLMbyg">https://youtu.be/ob4DFbLMbyg</a><br />
<br />
Get back to me when organizations like the National Organization for
Women and other mainstream feminist lobbying groups stop fighting to
block equally shared parenting laws, when they stop generalizing
demonization of Dads as deadbeats and abusers to excuse promotion of the
idea that regardless of their or their children's interests, their only
value to their families is to be a walking wallet, when mainstream
feminist organizations begin admitting that the harm done to kids when a
parent uses custody interference to prevent the child from having a
relationship with the other parent is NOT limited to paternal
perpetration and that the majority of parents doing that are mothers -
in short, when feminist organizations stop using "best interests of the
child" as a cheesy catch phrase and actually start supporting children's
best interests. For more explanation from me on this, see this video
& the citations in the lowbar: <a class="yt-uix-servicelink " data-servicelink="CGQQtnUYACITCIDrwo3V99ECFdF4Tgod8l0Hnw" data-url="https://youtu.be/csGVuuyuYNk" href="https://youtu.be/csGVuuyuYNk">https://youtu.be/csGVuuyuYNk</a><br />
<br />
Get back to me when academic feminists stop using feigned sympathy for
gender atypical men to demonize men whose masculinity manifests in a
more rugged nature, when interdisciplinary department professors stop
using "male privilege" as a proverbial bludgeon with which to beat their
male students - regardless of background and experiences - into
meekness and self-condemnation, when feminists stop thinking it's no big
deal that so much of their movement is predicated upon man-hating. I
have not made a video on that as of yet, but I recommend watching the
series that starts with this video, because I have discussed it as part
of my responses to Liana: <a class="yt-uix-servicelink " data-servicelink="CGQQtnUYACITCIDrwo3V99ECFdF4Tgod8l0Hnw" data-url="https://youtu.be/jL9lNocuPV4" href="https://youtu.be/jL9lNocuPV4">https://youtu.be/jL9lNocuPV4</a><br />
<br />
Get back to me when feminist organizations stop responding to gender disparity in the justice system (<a class="yt-uix-servicelink " data-servicelink="CGQQtnUYACITCIDrwo3V99ECFdF4Tgod8l0Hnw" data-url="http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/gender-disparity-in-criminal-court/" href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/gender-disparity-in-criminal-court/">http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/gender-disparity-in-criminal-court/</a>)
by advocating for MORE of it and treating advocacy for protection of
due process rights as an attack on women.
Get back to me when the mainstream in academic and media feminists stops
marginalizing the falsely accused and exploiting actual victims'
stories to excuse the promotion of railroading & sacrificing the
rights of men in general. I put responses to the main arguments I've
received from feminists on the false accusation issue into this article:
<a class="yt-uix-servicelink " data-servicelink="CGQQtnUYACITCIDrwo3V99ECFdF4Tgod8l0Hnw" data-url="https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/dangerous-rape-myths-part-1/" href="https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/dangerous-rape-myths-part-1/">https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/dangerous-rape-myths-part-1/</a><br />
<br />
For a particularly heavy example of what I've witnessed in terms of system-facilitated false accusation, read this: <a class="yt-uix-servicelink " data-servicelink="CGQQtnUYACITCIDrwo3V99ECFdF4Tgod8l0Hnw" data-url="http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/seven-years-in-hell/" href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/seven-years-in-hell/">http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/seven-years-in-hell/</a>
And for more examples of the effects of false accusation & due
process infringement, check out the Community of the Wrongly Accused:
<a class="yt-uix-servicelink " data-servicelink="CGQQtnUYACITCIDrwo3V99ECFdF4Tgod8l0Hnw" data-url="http://cotwa.info/" href="http://cotwa.info/">http://cotwa.info/</a><br />
<br />
Those are some of the bigger issues between men's issues activists &
feminists. There are more, too many to address in a comment, but I
think this is enough to understand why no... the two movements are not
compatible, and as long as feminism is what feminism is, we never will
be.</div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-90368763754248957262016-12-04T19:52:00.000-08:002016-12-04T20:01:09.133-08:00Charge of the Soggy Knees<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/P0047UqNddk/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P0047UqNddk?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
This was done in collaboration with <a class="g-hovercard yt-uix-sessionlink spf-link " data-sessionlink="itct=CDUQ4TkiEwim6PfakdzQAhWMCU4KHXS-B5Qo-B0" data-ytid="UCtga11J4WuEESQ6uiLe1_QA" href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtga11J4WuEESQ6uiLe1_QA">Mad man Ministries</a>, who did the music. I wrote the lyrics, and since no other woman we asked was willing to sing, I did that too. <br />
Probably won't do that very much because it's really not my forte... pun intended.<br />
<br />
Anyway, the title is The Charge of the Soggy Knees, and here are the lyrics:<br />
<br />
There is a thought terminatin’ cliche<br />
They call misogyny<br />
And it’s been the
ruin of many a good debate<br />
With the charge of soggy knees<br />
<br />
Been called a gender traitor<br />
Just because I’ve said I see<br />
Through
feminism's hateful rhetoric<br />
And their claim to speak for me<br />
<br />
Didn’t know compassion’s limited<br />
It’s a negative sum game<br />
And you’re not
allowed by the social justice crowd<br />
To have sympathy for men<br />
<br />
These motherfucking children<br />
Can’t discuss things rationally<br />
Treat care
for men as an attack on women<br />
So they cry misogyny<br />
<br />
We all will be no platformed<br />
We all will be called names<br />
We’ll be accused
of having hateful views<br />
To silence us with shame<br />
<br />
There is a thought terminatin’ cliche<br />
They call misogyny<br />
And it’s been the
ruin of many a good debate<br />
But that won’t be stopping me<br />
<br /></div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-30350951207404289642016-10-16T02:31:00.000-07:002016-10-16T02:31:55.539-07:00Comment under the video "Why feminism is good for men."<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">The video's url:</span></span><br /><span style="color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">https://youtu.be/CHzlFYQwpJo</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">My comment:</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Feminist initiatives like </span><a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23HeForShe" rel="nofollow" style="background-color: white; color: #427fed; cursor: pointer; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.218s;">#HeForShe</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> impose on men the very gender roles feminists like you claim it tries to eliminate. It just adds one detail: Only fill those roles for the benefit of women, never because it's natural or comfortable for you. And never expect to have your masculinity considered BY women while they're busy demanding you be strong & commanding against other men on women's behalf, because your humanity is secondary to your function as a shield/beast of burden for women.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Feminist propaganda campaigns like "Don't be that guy" do the same thing - make every man, specifically BECAUSE of standards for masculinity, responsible for the safety of women who can't or won't be responsible for themselves.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Meanwhile, feminists clearly feel entitled to tell men which feelings they're allowed to express.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Feeling girly? Great! You're a feminist!</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Feeling a need for human companionship? Get the heck outta here, creep!</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Feeling hurt over being rejected? Now you're a misogynist!</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Resent the damage done when you were circumcised? Don't expect help from feminists. They're too busy lining up to tell you that women, whose genital integrity is legally protected throughout the vast majority of the world in many nations where yours isn't & even where neonatal male genital cutting is common, have it worse. And they'll tell you that you're a misogynist if you think the more widespread cutting practice is anywhere near as bad of a problem as the comparatively rare one. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Heart broken because your children were taken from you in a divorce? Don't look to feminists for help. They're too busy opposing equally shared parenting legislation.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Would you feel more comfortable with equal reproductive rights, such as a legal equivalent to women's "safe haven" option? Don't look to feminists for help with that, either. They're too busy demanding stricter child support enforcement against you.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Hurt or afraid because you're being abused by your wife, girlfriend or a woman in your family? Don't look to feminism for that, either. They've spent the last 40+ years telling the public that doesn't happen, and if it does, it's "preemptive self-defense" because they believe you'll inevitably hit back. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Trauma from being assaulted or even raped by a sexually aggressive woman? Yeah, don't look to feminism for help with that either. Feminist research on sexual violence has been carefully designed to avoid evidence of experiences like yours so they can paint sexual violence as a male behavior & blame you for it. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Has your life been wrecked by false accusations? Don't expect feminists to care how you feel about that, either. Their story on your experience varies from "it's not as bad as experiencing (whatever crime you were falsely accused of) or "It's ok to sacrifice a few innocent men to ensure we catch all men guilty of (whatever the crime) as if hurting you somehow helps real victims of that crime... to "it's no big deal, because it's rare" as if rarity makes a crime less heinous (Jeffrey Dahmer's victims' families should be glad to know that)... to "This is beneficial - the falsely accused could learn something from the experience" as if you had no sympathy for victims prior & any harm done is negated by changing that... to "Women don't lie about (the crime) so it can't be false" even if you have evidence of your innocence. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">So yeah, men... you're supposed to express your feelings, except when it's not convenient for feminists, such as when you've been raped, abused, alienated, or falsely accused BY A WOMAN... or permanently scarred in a way that they feel competes with a female victim narrative. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">What DO they want you to do? </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Take dance classes, have your ass waxed, and only ever cry when bad things happen to women, because it doesn't really matter to them when bad things happen to you. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">But feminism is totally NOT about hating men, right?</span></div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-12994840891753553902016-08-30T14:14:00.002-07:002016-08-30T14:14:28.037-07:00Rape, a dish with no turnips<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ob4DFbLMbyg" width="622"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Is rape as we know it a social construct? </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
If so, what does that mean about our legal and social response to it?<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Does that make feminism's "rape culture" theory a social construct?<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
How does that affect the validity of the theory?</div>
</div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-57912888689110471042016-08-13T05:09:00.001-07:002016-08-13T05:09:54.405-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.38;">The first venue for the mixed-up meetup is Wright-Patterson Air Force Museum. There is no entry fee for the museum.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.38;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px;"><span style="color: #1d2129;">https://www.google.com/maps/place/National+Museum+of+the+US+Air+Force/@39.7807961,-84.1115705,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x8840832fc83ffd85:0x71e29a127c5a32c9!8m2!3d39.7807961!4d-84.1093818</span></span></div>
<div class="_5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id="js_a6" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.38; overflow: hidden;">
<div style="display: inline; font-family: inherit; margin-top: 6px;">
</div>
<div class="_5wpt" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(220, 222, 227); font-family: inherit; padding-left: 12px;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="_3x-2" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.08px;">
<div data-ft="{"tn":"H"}" style="font-family: inherit;">
<div class="mtm" style="font-family: inherit; margin-top: 10px;">
<div class="_6m2 _1zpr clearfix _dcs _4_w4 _5cwb" data-ft="{"tn":"H"}" id="u_6n_3" style="box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0980392) 0px 0px 0px 1px inset, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0470588) 0px 1px 1px; font-family: inherit; max-width: none; overflow: hidden; position: relative; z-index: 0; zoom: 1;">
<div class="clearfix _2r3x" style="font-family: inherit; zoom: 1;">
<div class="lfloat _ohe" style="float: left; font-family: inherit;">
<span class="_3m6-" style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="_6ks" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0; position: relative; z-index: 1;">
<a href="https://www.google.com/maps/place/National+Museum+of+the+US+Air+Force/@39.7807961,-84.1115705,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x8840832fc83ffd85:0x71e29a127c5a32c9!8m2!3d39.7807961!4d-84.1093818" rel="nofollow" style="color: #365899; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; text-decoration: none;" tabindex="-1" target="_blank"><div class="_6l- __c_" style="font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
</div>
</a></div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-8397064190092039532016-07-15T06:32:00.001-07:002016-07-15T11:20:25.266-07:00Mixed-up Meet up<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I'm seeking RSVPs for an August 13, 2016 meetup beginning at noon and continuing until about 9PM. This event is not limited to a particular group, but open to Gamergaters, Badger fans, MRAs & antifeminists, anyone who has been a part of the greater conversation around these social issues.<br />
<br />
If there is enough interest/response by 7/25, I'll send everyone who RSVPs information about the 2 Dayton, Ohio area locations at which the meetup will take place (beginning at one, and then heading to the second location.) Information sent to those who RSVP will include the names and locations of the venues and the names and locations of 2 hotels within walking distance (2 miles) of the second venue. You will not be able to get this information without an RSVP.<br />
<br />
To RSVP, send an email to mixedupmeetup@gmail.com letting me know you are coming & if anyone else will be attending with you, or add yourself to the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/1801037263449309/" target="_blank">event page on facebook</a>.<br /> Also let me know if you have any other questions.<br /><br /></div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-83283183836851040632016-03-07T15:51:00.000-08:002017-07-14T20:37:50.079-07:00Feminists don't hate men?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I am so sick of hearing that feminists don't hate men.<br />
Every fucking conversation about feminists not hating men:<br />
<br />
"Feminists don't hate men!" <br />
<br />
Good, then you're willing to abandon your gender-based rape culture theory that demonizes all men as rapacious animals based on the word of a feminist who had the fucking nerve to say it's not rape when a woman forces unwanted sex on a man?<br />
<br />
"No, and you're a misogynist for asking! Rape is a gendered attack on women! Women can't be rapists!"<br />
<br />
Well, how about if we talk about the plight of male victims of domestic violence committed by their female partners?<br />
<br />
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YtIU3uxDlQU/WWmN4Wq7tCI/AAAAAAAAECg/MzAieFOSsAICyQ74H9VZZVr66TMe8ssUACLcBGAs/s1600/fire%2Bbreathing%2Bfeminist.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="658" data-original-width="754" height="279" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YtIU3uxDlQU/WWmN4Wq7tCI/AAAAAAAAECg/MzAieFOSsAICyQ74H9VZZVr66TMe8ssUACLcBGAs/s320/fire%2Bbreathing%2Bfeminist.png" width="320" /></a>"No, and you're a misogynist for asking! Domestic violence is a gendered attack on women! It doesn't matter when it happens to men."<br />
<br />
Male suicide?<br />
<br />
"No, and you're a misogynist for asking! Why should it matter how many men die from it when women attempt suicide far more than men do?"<br />
<br />
Workplace death?<br />
<br />
"No, and you're a misogynist for asking! You're just trying to distract attention from the real issue of the gender-based gap in earnings! Men's deaths are nothing compared to the terrible discrimination of paying women less for the same work"<br />
<br />
But if men are doing the high-risk jobs and dying, and women aren't, is that the same work?<br />
<br />
"MISOGYNIST PIG"<br />
<br />
Well, at least you can acknowledge that the practice of involuntary genital cutting on children is wrong no matter which gender, right?<br />
<br />
"No, and you're a misogynist for asking! Intactivism is for girls! Bringing up boys is just a distraction from the issue of how much worse it is to do to a girl!"<br />
<br />
Well, what about children's right to a relationship with both parents? Surely you can support that.<br />
<br />
"No, and you're a misogynist for asking! Fathers are deadbeats and abusers, and children must be protected from them!"<br />
<br />
Okay, what about the problem of boys being left behind in the education system's progress?<br />
<br />
"No, and you're a misogynist for asking! Girls need to be given an advantage because of male privilege!"<br />
<br />
So feminists do hate men.<br />
<br />
"No, you misogynist! We don't hate men, just toxic masculinity!"<br />
<br />
What's toxic masculinity?<br />
<br />
"[insert genderless dysfunction here]"<br />
<br />
Women do that too.<br />
<br />
"It's not the same, and you're a misogynist for thinking it is!"<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
"Women's actions don't matter because women are oppressed, you misogynist!"<br />
<br />
How?<br />
<br />
"Bad things happen to women. Only a misogynist wouldn't know that proves women are oppressed!"<br />
<br />
Bad things happen to men, too!<br />
<br />
"It's worse when they happen to women, you misogynist!"<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
"Because women are oppressed, you misogynist!"<br />
<br />
...and that's where it descends into the Patriarchal oppression circular reasoning spiral which, in the end, still proves only that feminists do, in fact, hate men. <br />
<br />
Bad things are only bad when men do them, and only bad when they happen to women. Men are in control of all the bad things, and women are helpless against them. Men's intentions are always nefarious. Women's intentions are always benign at worst and more often benevolent. Women's side of every interaction with men involves being manipulated, forced, or otherwise having their action caused by men... while men's side of the interaction constitutes some kind of theft or other wrongful intrusion. Therefore, women's issues are all men's fault, and are the only important issues to address and remedy. <br />
All because Patriarchy, which is always offered as proof of itself. <br />
<br />
But that's not hateful, is it?</div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-57662358610481204712015-12-02T14:29:00.000-08:002015-12-02T14:37:57.065-08:00Let's talk<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Rape/Assault victims: Phoebe Greenwood wants to hear from you (either sex) if your assault was dismissed "because you had been drinking." She tweeted a few hours ago that she was looking for such stories from women. In response to a reply criticizing her for ignoring male victims, she amended her statement in a second tweet, saying she'd be interested in hearing from men, as well. <br />
<br />
I think she should hear from victims whose assault was dismissed because they're male, or because their perpetrator was female, which I believe happens far more often than the dismissal of an assault strictly because the victim was drinking, regardless of gender. <br />
<br />
<br />
Why? <br />
<br />
Because this looks like a case of a feminist journalist attempting to use reporting only part of the story to support feminism's female-victim rape culture narrative.<br />
<br />
How can you help?<br />
<br />
If you've been victimized and you've been dismissed when seeking assistance or legal recourse, either because you're male or your perpetrator was female, or if you're male, because you'd been drinking (her original question) please <a href="https://twitter.com/Oneiorosgrip/status/672088599832231936">reply to the tweet I sent in response to her request</a>, and describe your experience. If it can't be put into 140 characters, Twit longer is a useful tool for creating longer than normal tweets. The tweet will then show the title, with the option of viewing the rest of the post. <br />
<br />
If you haven't, but you know someone who has been dismissed while seeking assistance for any of those reasons, pass the tweet on. If you can, tweet a link to it with a request for responses. <br />
<br />
Please only tweet responses that describe wrongful dismissal of your own experience or the experience of someone you know. Though it is frustrating to deal with a person who seems to have an anti-male or at least male-dismissive bias, this will only be productive if we offer evidence rather than blunt or emotional criticism, no matter how justified it might be.<br />
<br />
I don't know if we'll touch her heart or change her mind, but at the very least, maybe receiving examples will help Ms. Greenwood see that narrowing her focus to support a narrative won't go unnoticed.<br />
<br /></div>
<br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hfD-kbewHc4/Vl9wXvf9koI/AAAAAAAAB_M/_y8jZXZ38ME/s1600/Change%2Byour%2Bmid.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hfD-kbewHc4/Vl9wXvf9koI/AAAAAAAAB_M/_y8jZXZ38ME/s1600/Change%2Byour%2Bmid.png" /></a><br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
</div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-12991367188050394572015-11-28T23:18:00.000-08:002015-11-28T23:18:05.618-08:00How should rape be defined? <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Recent discussion on reddit led me back to an old comment I made in response to the assertion of another commenter in defense of feminist researchers using an overly broad definition of rape that the crime is hard to define. While I understand why a feminist might think that, as proponents of the ideology can't even fully agree on what constitutes consent, the determining factor in their various definitions for the crime, I disagree.<br /><br />I contend that such a belief relies on ignoring the importance of mens rea, a vital factor which feminists strive to eliminate from the discussion. I would argue that relying on the subjective concept of sexual consent rather than the more definitive measure of intent, which can be demonstrated based on the alleged perpetrator's provable actions, makes it more difficult to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. Relying on whether proof of consent exists also places the burden of proof in a criminal case on the accused rather than on the accuser, a violation of the due process rights of the accused.<br />
<br />
My response was to describe how rape should be defined in order to avoid confusion and minimize the incidence of false allegations resulting in conviction.<br />
<br />
It would have to start with describing sex crime in general, defining that as the act by the perpetrator of contravening or disregarding the victim's right to refuse sexual contact.<br />
<br />
Disregarding should be defined as ignoring an unresponsive/incapacitated state, or age or disability related inability of the victim to understand and agree to the act.
This would cover incapacity due to an intoxicant, and protection of
minors and the mentally disabled. It wouldn't cover drunk sex with a
responsive partner, as a responsive partner is capable of refusal.<br />
<br />
Contravening could be defined as taking any
measure to enforce the perpetrator's will on an unwilling victim such
that the victim no longer has the option to refuse. This would
cover physical force, coercion by threat, and surreptitious use of an
intoxicant to bypass the victim's will. It wouldn't cover pressure or
seduction, as these means do not <em>prevent</em> refusal, but seek to persuade.<br />
<br />
The term "rape" would be used when there was penetration of any orifice by either the perpetrator or the victim, or enforced oral contact with sex organs, under the conditions described in the overall refusal definition.<br />
<br />
This would cover the actions generally considered to be sexual
intercourse - oral sex, vaginal sex, and anal sex would all fall under
that definition, even when the perpetrator is a female rapist forcing
the victim to perform cunnilingus, where "penetration" might not be seen
as an accurate description of the act.<br />
<br />
Making the definition so specific would avoid problems caused by using an overly broad definition which relies on a subjective concept like sexual consent. It would go a long way toward reducing
false allegations brought forth due to misunderstanding of the law, and
provide counselors with a clear guideline for discussion of prevention -
communication would be key, as it would be made clear that a potential
victim has both the right and the responsibility to communicate refusal
unless incapacitated or unqualified, and a potential partner becomes a
perpetrator at the moment that refusal (or incapability) is ignored.<br />
<br /></div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-68648148728360743222015-11-10T23:54:00.000-08:002015-11-11T19:47:51.708-08:00#IStandByJack update 2: Futrelle's Magic Fainting Couch Ride<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In a recent post I described <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=19&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CG4QFjASahUKEwjO1Orw_YfJAhVBzmMKHTnHBrY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjudgybitch.com%2F2015%2F03%2F27%2Fdavid-futrelle-redefines-the-words-sick-motherfucker%2F&usg=AFQjCNEZIJZIrxyjZxpfXmOIWShV42y4yw&sig2=mLz50sh7mhF_TmK4cR4vbA&bvm=bv.106923889,d.cGc">David Futrelle</a>'s sniveling cowardice and melodramatic damseling over a father's response to the result of <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDMQFjAEOApqFQoTCIDR5KX-h8kCFRf3Ywodd2oLQw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjudgybitch.com%2F2014%2F06%2F18%2Fis-david-futrelle-covering-for-violent-feminists%2F&usg=AFQjCNGxYgH9Y3M6A-Aee5f866pgPzOvjw&sig2=DEXhGsnZaFIx4LitnZOCcg&bvm=bv.106923889,d.cGc">Futrelle</a>'s manipulation of his more unstable readers.<br />
<br />
http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2015/11/istandbyjack.html<br />
<br />
As I said, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=40&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFQQFjAJOB5qFQoTCMvmzd_-h8kCFUs5iAodtUAOtA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuberfeminist.blogspot.com%2F2014%2F04%2Ffact-checking-david.html&usg=AFQjCNGCcufVX22iq-HQsJN5WjvJPtPOeQ&sig2=oAcK1F4BeNJqYDiHPXs0Ug&bvm=bv.106923889,d.cGc">Futrelle</a>'s method of operation involves selective presentation of cherry-picked information, falsely framed to infer that which it does not actually su<span id="goog_1769722600"></span><span id="goog_1769722601"></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a>pport. <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=52&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjABODJqFQoTCOP10ZP_h8kCFQFGiAoddWoLtg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhistoryoffeminism.com%2Fdavid-futrelle-male-feminist-and-child-rape-apologist%2F&usg=AFQjCNEyz5QeD6OTOp6GZ65J0F0D4qQ9wA&sig2=LnfX6AmdbY356Zr1Q10Lyw&bvm=bv.106923889,d.cGc">Futrelle</a>'s self-sustaining slander farm stretches right past error through the land of the deliberately obtuse to outright targeted deception. He uses that method to stir outrage in a loyal following of individuals of questionable mental stability whose pattern of behavior, generally inspired by his publication, he'd whine piteously about if they were targeting him. He then sits back and watches his useful idiots do his dirty work for him, cherry picks from the responses to their behavior, and starts the pattern all over again.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=56&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDwQFjAFODJqFQoTCOP10ZP_h8kCFQFGiAoddWoLtg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsiryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F63880345214%2Fthat-one-time-david-futrelle-tried-to-debate-paul&usg=AFQjCNF17PbVwXarv5gjT5CdFuSGjLuw7g&sig2=3CGnzHXNN4In1rSj9gFzvA&bvm=bv.106923889,d.cGc">Futrelle</a>'s shit-stirring resulted in one of his useful idiots sending a father messages threatening his family, including his 6 year old daughter, over <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=65&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDMQFjAEODxqFQoTCNPYpOD_h8kCFU7GYwodHA8Lhw&url=http%3A%2F%2Funknownmisandry.blogspot.com%2F2014%2F06%2Fdavid-futrelle-heroine.html&usg=AFQjCNHQEObxnEcgMfvbNR77u5tj35Ck3A&sig2=M1kGcpJIjWRUUfwaK_aDlA&bvm=bv.106923889,d.cGc">Futrelle</a>'s writing. One of the tweets named Futrelle specifically, just to make that clear.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, the child's father responded with all of the tact and finesse of an angry Dad whose child's safety has been wrongfully compromised. He made a conditional statement which <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=72&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjABOEZqFQoTCImIy5eAiMkCFVXzYwodX-MLoA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fencyclopediadramatica.se%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DFeminism%26diff%3Dnext%26oldid%3D424565&usg=AFQjCNEKC_50mPHe9v6I23GsHB3HbcK6LQ&sig2=Gt3l25EBw-m3dYDQ3DMgDw&bvm=bv.106923889,d.cGc">Futrelle</a>, fully aware of what set it off, chose to take as a meaningful threat, thereby admitting that in writing his manipulative posts, he does intend to send his crazy followers after his targets. <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=94&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjADOFpqFQoTCPDB5feAiMkCFQj7YwodojwDDg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cotwa.info%2F2014%2F05%2Fcotwa-was-right.html&usg=AFQjCNEqk46wXi4zSJJpfGlD5mqjbkFJpw&sig2=Rtp9PJBp7BsSEjxK4gIABg&bvm=bv.106923889,d.cGc">Futrelle</a> feigned ignorance, then when he could no longer do so, made a series of excuses relying on imputing malice where malice has not been proved. As I explained in the earlier post, he's actually portraying HIMSELF as the victim of the doxing of a 6 year old child, targeted in his name by one of his supporters enraged by his presentation of his narrative. He's like a man who kicks a revolving door, then cries foul when the other side of it swings back and bumps him in the ass.<br />
<br />
Having seen the post, and being fully aware that his manipulation is eliciting threats of violence against not only his targets, but their children, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=116&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDgQFjAFOG5qFQoTCKOW25yBiMkCFQXKYwodaS8ABQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjudgybitch.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F111499022539%2Fwhat-do-david-futrelle-and-the-gay-cannibal-killer&usg=AFQjCNGc_vBvXisVh6AdEoZs2-nbcYGomQ&sig2=YTe1A3mAqA6UMetY2iRd9Q&bvm=bv.106923889,d.cGc">Futrelle</a> FINALLY came to his senses and wrote a post admonishing his readers to exercise restraint, and...<br />
<br />
haha, no, Of course he couldn't do that.<br />
<br />
After being criticized for trying to make himself the victim of threats he inspired against someone else's child, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=151&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBsQFjAAOJYBahUKEwjb-9f4gYjJAhWIK4gKHeKAALY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmankindglobalmedia.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F89757851976%2Fis-david-futrelle-covering-for-violent-feminists&usg=AFQjCNH34dpUDMJ61pFBvO1KgpJWG-jLHA&sig2=id7FloE8jXm6nPdIifpJhw&bvm=bv.106923889,d.cGc">Futrelle</a> has taken the additional step of whining to his readers that he's being bullied. His response to Jack? He ran Jack's statement through the same MO I outlined above; selective presentation, false framing, and manipulative writing. His whining, boiled down to its essence, was as follows;<br />
<br />
"Poor me, Jack is mad at me because I got someone to threaten his little girl, and he said words I don't like! His response to threats against his child are unjustified but I'm totally within my rights to indulge in extreme paranoia over this, and everyone KNOWS I'm a nice guy who doesn't condone behavior I haven't bothered to criticize until I feared blame for it might stick to me."<br />
<br />
<a href="https://archive.is/Md8TU">https://archive.is/Md8TU</a><br />
<br />
In other words, in a desperate and pitiful attempt to snatch victimhood from the jaws of shame, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=161&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBsQFjAAOKABahUKEwjVt7mpgojJAhUQS4gKHQ9SA7Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baconbangkok.com%2F2015%2F03%2F09%2Fdavid-futrelle-and-his-disturbing-defence-of-a-film-that-consists-almost-entirely-of-graphic-scenes-depicting-the-sexual-abuse-and-torture-of-naked-children%2F&usg=AFQjCNEjNJSOrbY7urLbOT1iD7D6Pnqi_g&sig2=RazrAxVBuNqExPclpx5vEA&bvm=bv.106923889,d.cGc">Futrelle</a> responded to being criticized for sparking proxy abuse by knowingly fueling the reaction. And he supplemented that by adding similarly presented complaints about my criticism of his initial response. Rather than take a smidgen of adult responsibility for the results of his own actions, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=164&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjADOKABahUKEwjVt7mpgojJAhUQS4gKHQ9SA7Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meemira.com%2FanWuZL44vls%2FIntelligence%2520Report%2520%2520Is%2520David%2520Futrelle%2520a%2520Chile%2520Rape%2520Apologist%2520%2Fvideo.html&usg=AFQjCNE9XXMM-6njkcwpSbnT4rSviRRfMw&sig2=ihN-b2IbLQVcfRz1gCZQJQ&bvm=bv.106923889,d.cGc">Futrelle</a> has portrayed exposure of his paranoid fantasy for what it is as an irrational attack on him. Not only is he "victim" of a 6 year old's experience, the guy who fancies himself every MRA's judge and jury is also now "victim" of not being given control over others' assessment of HIS behavior.<br />
<br />
Before writing this most recent article, one might have understood how he could have convinced himself that he was completely detached from the behavior of his readers. Now that he's admitted in print to having seen the cause & effect relationship between his dishonesty and his readers' actions outlined, he cannot rightfully claim that his carefully crafted demonization of men's rights advocates is ever, in any way, disconnected from any response his readers make. And knowing that at least one is not averse to responding by targeting innocent, uninvolved 6 year old girls, he's decided his best course of action is to add fuel to the fire while continuing to deny responsibility for any damage done by its eventual spread.<br />
<br />
Futrelle says he will not apologize for taking Jack's "threat" seriously, yet he has attempted to shame Jack for taking seriously the proxy threat that has resulted from Futrelle targeting him and other AVFM writers. He's reversed in his mind a threat against Jack's child, turning it around to make himself the victim, and has the nerve to complain that the rest of us won't go along with his delusion.<br />
<br />
https://twitter.com/Oneiorosgrip/status/663879290472280068<br />
<br />
Futrelle thinks a chain of sound logic explaining why presuming fulfilled Jack's condition - if harm would come to his family - demonstrates expectation, and therefore intent, is irrational... yet presents as a rational belief the inference that a man sounding off about being made to fear for his family's safety would, without that cause, do anything that would jeopardize his ability to provide for them.<br />
<br />
Futrelle feels maligned because his disclaimers about doxing haven't detracted from his perceived responsibility when his dehumanization campaign results in it, yet he feels entitled to ignore the part of Jack's statement that doesn't fit in with the victim narrative he wants to present to his readers.<br />
<br />
If he becomes any less self-aware in his complaints, he'll have to start referring to himself in the 3rd person.<br />
<br />
Update; Knowing that his yellow journalism sends his readers out on real-world
crusades against his targets, Futrelle has selected another: <br />
<div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SyKxwcp1F_g/VkQLbmRv0II/AAAAAAAAB6w/HCgodCZCPxA/s1600/screenshot-twitter%2Bcom%2B2015-11-11%2B22-41-19.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="312" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SyKxwcp1F_g/VkQLbmRv0II/AAAAAAAAB6w/HCgodCZCPxA/s400/screenshot-twitter%2Bcom%2B2015-11-11%2B22-41-19.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-86356513828397190202015-11-09T11:27:00.001-08:002015-11-11T00:27:30.847-08:00#IStandByJack <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
After months of David Futrelle producing and promoting inflammatory
false frames and lies about the men's rights movement, A Voice For Men
in particular, the publication's writers and editorial staff as a group,
and each of us personally, Jack Barnes's 6 year old kid was doxed and
slyly threatened "I would hate for something to happen" style in
Futrelle's name, presumably by a reader inspired by Futrelle's work. <br />
<br />
As a father reacting to a stated threat against his child, Jack made a
conditional statement - one that several times contained "If" in it,
along with the statement that he hopes and prays never to have cause to
back it up. If something happens to Jack's family. If his family is
harmed. If he has to bury his wife and kid because Futrelle's
intentional shit-stirring has riled up a psycho. It's pretty clear how
Jack has been affected by recent events; a person who contacted him in
Futrelle's name has given him reason to fear for the safety of his
family. <br />
<br />
Feminists have a habit of phrasing their complaints to paint fathers as
uninvolved, callous deadbeats who take no interest in their children's
welfare or experiences. Seeing a father's protective instinct laid bare
ought to pleasantly surprise those who expect indifference in its place.
That's the role they demanded he and all other fathers fill. <br />
<br />
Male feminism's white knights especially ought to be able to empathize
with a man's need to express that instinct, as they lay claim to it
daily. One would think male feminists, of all people, would get that
sounding off like this might be an expected response when a father sees
his child threatened. One might even expect a male feminist to feel
embarrassed at being associated with the threat that elicited Jack's
response. <br />
<br />
So how has David Futrelle answered? <br />
<br />
Not by stating that he discourages this type of behavior in his readers.<br />
Not by assuring that is readers won't attack Jack's family.<br />
Not by promising to write a post admonishing his readers to refrain from engaging in violence against their political opponents.<br />
Not even by sympathizing with a father's concern for his family's
safety... but instead by confirming that concern, by treating those
statements - which include "this is not a threat," as threats of planned
actions, not conditional, but direct. <br />
<br />
There's only two logical possibilities left, now that Futrelle has made
this response. He can admit that his answer was a completely irrational
overreaction to being held responsible for the effects of his dishonest
shit stirring on his followers, and backpedal to a more rational (or at
least rational sounding) response... or he can admit what his current
response indicates; that he intends for harm to come Jack's family as a
result of his shit stirring, that he DOES encourage his readers to
engage in this type of behavior, and that he DOES intend for one or more
of his readers to respond to his writing by engaging in violence
against HIS political opponents. <br />
<br />
After all, "If X, then Y" only infers Y on the condition of X... so
responding to "If you X, then I'll Y" as if the individual has only
stated "I'm going to Y" is an admission that you've planned on X
happening. And Futrelle's apparent plan X seems pretty cowardly if you
ask me. <br />
<br />
It's getting old, watching sick fucks like Futrelle take cheap shots at
political activists from behind followers who are little more than
useful idiots. Futrelle's knowingly dishonest, falsely framed and
deliberately inflammatory style <br />
(See the post under the video here: <a href="http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/video/cassie-jay-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-red-pill-documentary-film/" rel="nofollow">http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/video/cassie-jay-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-red-pill-documentary-film/</a>), <br />
(<a href="http://judgybitch.com/2015/02/19/what-do-david-futrelle-and-the-gay-cannibal-killer-have-in-common-more-than-you-think-we-dont-produce-a-whole-of-murderers-up-here-in-canada-but-when-we-do-we-go-all-out-i-real/" rel="nofollow">http://judgybitch.com/2015/02/19/what-do-david-futrelle-and-the-gay-cannibal-killer-have-in-common-more-than-you-think-we-dont-produce-a-whole-of-murderers-up-here-in-canada-but-when-we-do-we-go-all-out-i-real/</a>) <br />
is designed to stir up exactly the kind of nutjob who would dox and
threaten a child to punish her parent for his political activism. <br />
<br />
The behavior is textbook "queen bee" style relational aggression taken
to the next level. It consists of falsely framing selectively presented
information and using rhetological fallacies to create an impression the
information does not actually support, all to manipulate the reader
both intellectually and emotionally. Futrelle's spin on it is doing so
in such a way as to be excessively inflammatory, and it does exactly
that. The threat narrative ( <a href="https://youtu.be/Uy3SKPWjWeM?list=PLJOWMtQBIv1sFM-u8FIKZxK0_AkoBzeCV" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/Uy3SKPWjWeM?list=PLJOWMtQBIv1sFM-u8FIKZxK0_AkoBzeCV</a>
) built by Futrelle's writing has resulted in a pattern of behavior
among his faithful that would be called stalking or targeted harassment
if MRAs or even just guys in general did it to feminist women.
Futrelle's followers do it to MRAs of both sexes... then try to play
victim when it results in criticism they're not willing to weather. <br />
<br />
Several of them have obsessively pursued AVFM's writers and other staff
with defamatory assertions and insinuations, inserting themselves into
discussions that do not involve them, making the discussions about
themselves and Futrelle, then making harassment accusations when they
don't like the answers they receive. These nutjobs actually once tried
to push a man to commit suicide by starvation because they were angry
that he was asking that Canadian law be enforced equally with respect to
both sexes. <br />
<br />
When Thunderf00t responded to Laughing Witch's letter writing campaign
by signal boosting her own release of her own information and it had
negative results for her, SJWs came out of the woodwork to condemn him
as if he'd doxed her and sicced the internet on her, portraying the
"fire Thunderf00t for disagreeing with me on the internet" campaigner as
a victim because shit she threw into the wind blew back and hit her in
the face. A massive hand wringing lament went up because Laughing Witch
claimed without proof that people she was responsible for would be
indirectly affected by the blowback. <br />
<br />
Now, Futrelle's dishonest, deliberately inflammatory shit-stirring has
inspired one of his head-fucked followers to directly dox and directly
threaten the six-year-old child of one of his political opponents... not
in response to an attack but over nothing more than disagreement about
political ideology. <br />
<br />
How does Futrelle respond? Calling off the dogs? Posting a call to be
better than that? Admonishing his readers to not destroy their
credibility by taking actions that make them the "bad guys," as MRAs are
expected to do when so accused? <br />
<br />
Haha, nope!<br />
<br />
Futrelle has instead mounted his high horse, feigned detachment despite
his own dishonesty being the first domino in the chain, and is now
seeking a means to make HIMSELF out as the victim of doxing and threats
targeting a 6 year old girl.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://imgur.com/xJHvg73.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://imgur.com/xJHvg73.jpg" height="476" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
He uses the word "escalate" to describe Jack's conditional statement. He
ignores the fact that targeting Jack's family IS escalation. He assumes
that the reason his own family has never been so targeted is because
his favorite writing subjects couldn't get that information, rather than
the simple fact that we don't work that way. Futrelle doesn't know the
difference between his high horse and moral high ground. His ability to
make that mistake with near impunity relies on his choice to target only
people who do know the difference, and who don't do the same things to
him that he does to others. <br />
<br />
Way to go, David, you prevaricating, skanky-assed dolt-hustler. You just
demonstrated with your own occupancy of it that there is a lower place
to sink in the name of gender issues debate than I believed actually
existed. <br />
<br />
Edit: <a href="http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2015/11/istandbyjack-update-2-futrelles-magic.html">Update</a></div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-71690758337682844852015-10-21T18:48:00.001-07:002015-10-21T18:48:43.988-07:00As I recall... a little history on feminism's SPLC claims<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This post is actually a fleshed-out version of one of my responses in a skype conversation. In writing it, I realized that this particular bit of reddit's history hasn't been written down by anyone, so I thought I'd put it here. The following is from my memory. <br />
<br />
When the conflict between
reddit feminists and /r/mensrights started, neither /r/mensrights nor /r/feminism had many subscribers. Reddit itself wasn't all
that big yet. When it was new, its format was slightly different from the way it is now. Originally, links could be posted without choosing a subreddit. They were there, but they were not the focus for the site. They were for specialized posting when the link in question might not be fitting for general posting to the front page... but if you wanted to just post to reddit.com, you could. Both /r/feminism and /r/mensrights were created during that time, when subreddits were basically a side gig.<br /><br />Contrary to feminist claims about men's issues discussion, it's been functional from the beginning. When /r/mensrights was new there was discussion about things like the
Innocence Project, Dr. Farrell's writing, Murray Strauss's work, Erin
Pizzey's work, etc. That was true even before AVFM had the readership or visibility in the movement that it has now. It took time for the staff to build up a body of sourced writing, and during that time it was just one among many blogs with sourced writing, all of which were regularly linked and cited in posts and comments on /r/mensrights. Discussion in the subreddit made it a communication hub for different groups of MRAs, where sources of information were offered, issues discussed, theories shared and evaluated, conclusions drawn, and even some real world activism planned. And while reddit's feminist presence divided itself among a plethora of heavily moderated subreddits (which feminist sub moderators have since labeled "the fempire,) for the longest time, men's issues discussion remained open, but centered firmly in /r/mensrights, leading to the faster and larger growth of that subreddit.<br /><br /> Feminists became upset that information contradicting their narrative was being shared and discussed in /r/mensrights. In fact, they didn't like any of what was going on in the subreddit, and some reddit feminists took it upon themselves to put a stop to it. <br /><br />They began attacking /r/mensrights in a few different ways. Concern trolling complete with shaming tactics began immediately. There were a lot of women who seemed to think visiting the sub to state their disapproval would shame these unruly guys into silence, so there were actual lecture posts.<br />
<br />
I wish today that I'd archived them, because it's hard to go back more than a few years on reddit, and some of those posts were really comical. One chick took the Nurse Ratched approach and demanded to know what our mothers would think if they knew "what we were doing in this subreddit." What I did eventually do was spend a little time archiving into a post titled "<a href="http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2013/01/for-record.html">For the record</a>" a set of links that includes concern troll posts and comments, manipulative efforts, and posts that appear to have been brigaded (targeted by other subreddits for vote or discussion manipulation). I'm not working on that as a project any more, having sampled a pretty good sized window in time, but if you look at today's posts on /r/mensrights, I'm sure you'll probably see some of the same things I noted during the creation of that archive. <br /><br />Another form of attack was to make a sockpuppet account and post something positive that would garner emphatic responses, then edit it, changing to something that made the existing comments look misogynistic. That would then be archived and the archive of the edited post presented elsewhere on reddit as evidence of rampant misogyny in the sub. <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/MRSelfPostCopies/comments/q8y0u/meta_faq/">The mods of /r/mensrights had to employ a bot created by another redditor to archive posts so that there would be an accurate record when those accusations were made</a>. <br /><br />There were two results of this: One, the admins did temporarily ban /r/mensrights in its early stages, and we had to argue for it to be reinstated (it obviously was,)... and two, reddit was so inundated with complaints about posts and comments being edited to make responding comments look bad (in multiple subreddits) that they took user suggestions to denote edits. Posts and comments edited after the first 60 seconds are now marked with an asterisk, so now while you do have a chance to fix formatting, nobody can use editing to gaslight their commenters. <br /><br />At the same time, there was a discussion among reddit's feminists about writing to the <a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/mark-potok-of-the-splc-viciously-smears-non-feminist-people/">SPLC</a> and asking them to declare men's rights activists a hate movement (referred to as "the MRA" because they apparently didn't know the "A" stood for Activists and not something like "Association.") <br /><br />The <a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/southern-poverty-law-center-linked-to-hate-activity/">SPLC</a> article that feminists now cite as a declaration that the MRM is a hate movement came out shortly after that spate of edit-based gas-lighting and the reddit discussion. The speech it describes as hateful and misogynistic could just about only be what was presented after editing those posts. <br /><br />Now, the <a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/how-the-southern-poverty-law-center-cooks-their-books/">SPLC</a> itself is just a <a href="http://capitalresearch.org/2012/10/southern-poverty-law-center-wellspring-of-manufactured-hate/">mouthpiece for the American left</a>, for whom identity politics represents <a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/art-entertainment-culture/the-southern-poverty-law-center-splc-and-sketchy-telemarketing-tricks/">a major cash cow</a>... and though they didn't apply the requested label, I believe the article is evidence that the organization was influenced by those demands from reddit feminists. <br /><br />Even when the <a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/splc-spreads-hate-while-a-man-starves-and-david-pakman-lets-them-do-it/">SPLC</a> didn't do what feminists were asking, feminists immediately began citing the article to back the claim that the organization had labeled men's rights "a" hate group. They did that so quickly that I suspect we weren't even on the <a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/splc-a-poverty-of-integrity/">SPLC</a>'s radar until feminists started complaining about us, and that feminists have been bent on that goal (using the "hate group" label to discredit our advocacy) from the first time they heard of us.</div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-36893596004800899352015-10-21T12:01:00.000-07:002015-10-21T12:34:31.335-07:00Transcript for my video, "Rant on Enthusiastic Consent"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="https://youtu.be/yaKnw55HV8o">Video Link</a><br />
<br />
This isn't a response video, just a short rant about feminism and consent... particularly the "enthusiastic consent" standard, which is getting more and more coverage and has now been adopted into law in California.<br />
<br />
This is something I've discussed in various other forums for years, and there's a response I consistently get that is terribly dishonest so I want to address it now & get it out of the way. All of feminism's various approaches to separating consensual sex from sexual violence rely on the very same traditional gender roles and stereotyping they claim to oppose. Every campaign they've had has been based on assuming that the male role in a sex encounter is seeker, and the female role is gatekeeper.<br />
<br />
Their portrayal of social interaction is insultingly melodramatic, presenting the female role as that of a naive, helpless non-participant who never seeks sex and never has control over our environment or ourselves, making men and boys, with the inferred privilege of agency and strength, responsible for us by insinuation. <br />
They, in turn, are presented with a false dichotomy: Fill the age-old role of women's guardians and protectors, or by default fit the villain portrayed in these campaign's propaganda; indiscriminately sex-obsessed, insensitive, pushy, and unscrupulous about where and how he gets what he wants.<br />
<br />
When that reliance on traditional roles and stereotypes is pointed out, then and only then do feminists promoting any given campaign ever mention male consent as a factor. Often, that mention is limited to homosexual relationships, thereby still excluding female responsibility for obtaining consent, until that, too is pointed out. It takes a hard push against their own lack of self-awareness before feminists even so much as pay lip service to the human rights of men and boys in relation to sexual choice.<br />
<br />
So before anyone responds to this video with statements about how your particular brand of feminist consent campaign includes men and boys and therefore isn't about demonizing and dehumanizing them, you'd better be willing to prove that from the beginning, you've been equally targeting females with "don't rape" messages, equally teaching women and girls not to assume their advances are wanted or accepted, equally portraying them the same way your campaign portrays men and boys... in short, assigning women and girls the same responsibility and accountability for their role in an encounter as you do men or boys.<br />
<br />
If not, you might want to re-examine your claim that you're giving male consent equal time. If you're following the existing formula that relies on presenting hapless female helplessness and ineptitude as the norm, you can't rightfully make that argument, and it's a waste of your time to bother making it here.<br />
<br />
With that out of the way, on to the rant itself.<br />
<br />
I wrote about this a while back in my breaking the glasses post about the enthusiastic consent standard, titled Tit for tat: A standard advocated is a standard owed. I'm going to revisit it here so although the article is a longer statement, much of what I'm saying will be the same.<br />
<br />
According to feminism's expressed rhetoric on the enthusiastic consent standard, spoken word is the only acceptable method by which female consent during a heterosexual encounter may be accurately confirmed. <br />
The inference is that nothing a woman does, even to the point of aggressive sexual pursuit of a man, indicates consent to sex. It's basically a statement that no matter what action a woman takes, men must ask for permission to respond, even in kind.<br />
<br />
Within this mentality, a man's consent is assumed, partly on the basis of the same behaviors feminists claim don't indicate a woman's consent, but mostly just because he's a man. This standard relies on treating women's sexuality as sacred and coveted, while condemning male sexuality as automatically predatory and in a way, larcenous. It's very clearly intended as nothing more than a means of enforcing the traditional male seeker, female gatekeeper sexual dynamic women use to make sex a tool for manipulating men.<br />
<br />
I don't think men have to let it be used that way.<br />
<br />
Instead of accepting the imposition of these traditional dynamics, if you're living in an environment where this is now the legal standard, you can use it to cast those dynamics off.<br />
<br />
For one thing, stop juming through hoops to earn the affection of women who can't even be troubled to respond to your efforts with equal enthusiasm. Stop shouldering all of the responsibility for the experiences of both parties.<br />
<br />
Most of all, don't accept being treated like your consent is a given.<br />
<br />
While feminists advocate their enthusiastic consent model as a means of giving women the upper hand, logic makes it a reason for men to exercise the right of refusal when you are not comfortable or satisfied with the dynamics of an encounter. <br />
Nobody is entitled to your attention or affection. Being male doesn't make you community property.<br />
<br />
Don't let women treat you like it does.<br />
<br />
If nothing else, you have the right to protect yourself from what this standard turns shy or demure women into; essentially Schrodinger's false accuser. After all, you're being told that a woman's participation in a sex act isn't valid consent unless she enthusiastically says so.<br />
<br />
She can initiate sex with you, make all of the advances, ride you like a post horse and later accuse you of committing a felony because she didn't say the magic words.<br />
<br />
Logically, that's reason to presume heterosexual sex a risky proposal that you're entitled approach with suspicion. You've got every right to require that your partner prove her intent with clear, unmistakable communication before you give your consent. It's reasonable for you to reserve your attention, your affection, your regard, and your trust for only someone willing to give you that reassurance.<br />
<br />
And really, you should have been entitled to expect that all along anyway. You're no less deserving than a woman is to be treated as a wanted and interesting partner, to be offered an equal experience of demonstrated intent to please and impress.<br />
<br />
Don't settle for some lazy scumbag who expects you to put in all of the effort while she sits back and makes you guess.<br />
<br />
Don't tolerate getting treated like a beggar or a slave instead of a romantic interest.<br />
<br />
Don't accept being ignored or lied to throughout a sexual encounter.<br />
<br />
Those behaviors are abusive.<br />
<br />
If the woman you're with cannot afford you the human dignity to treat you as, and act as, an equal partner, she hasn't earned the right to be one. No one has the right to expect you to put up with that, and you don't have to.<br />
<br />
You never should have, but now you can also cite this standard and the danger it presents as supporting reasons why you refuse.<br />
<br />
As for any women watching this who are offended by what I've said, I'm not the person you should be complaining to about it. Tell your feminist friends who have asserted that male courtship behavior is predatory, consent resulting from it isn't consent, and only verbal communication is communication.<br />
<br />
They've made these demands in your name and governing bodies are listening.<br />
<br />
Therefore, you no longer have the right to expect to be courted for your attention, subtly flirted with, or even treated like your own actions are intentional, because men have been authoritatively told that when they give you that they're abusing you.<br />
<br />
Protesting the expectations I just laid out is asking your potential partners to risk a rape charge just to be with you.<br />
<br />
That's a hell of a demand to make, and frankly, there is not a person on earth whose attention is worth that risk. Therefore, women, it IS your responsibility to prove yourself trustworthy... or even worthy at all, the same responsibility men have always had. You no longer have the right to sit back and expect a man to impress you, while you attempt to maintain an air of demure, modest propriety. If you're shy, if you prefer a traditional approach, if you like to be romanced... well, tough shit. Get over it. It's the 21st century now, and you're outdated.<br />
<br />
Realize that a requirement for communication goes both ways.<br />
<br />
If men are to be expected to obtain communication, women must be equally expected to provide it. <br />
By asserting that men may be expected to assume that anything a you don't directly and clearly request is unwanted, feminists have given men license to assume that you don't want anything until it has been directly and clearly requested.<br />
<br />
They haven't just placed the greater burden on men to obtain verbal consent, or be guilty of rape. <br />
They've placed an equal burden on you to speak up and do so with enthusiasm, or go without sexual intimacy.<br />
<br />
So it's on you now. Quit being so lazy.<br />
<br />
Get off of your ass, stop expecting to sit back and leave all of the work in a relationship to the guy, and start proving yourself the way they've had to for centuries.<br />
<br />
Under the circumstances, you're an abusive asshole if you don't. </div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-69038354275700797712015-10-07T11:05:00.002-07:002015-10-07T11:18:08.676-07:00Transcript for my video, "Response to 'The Men's Rights Movement' by Brave the World"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The video can be seen here: <a href="https://youtu.be/HIG6KMnFjg8">https://youtu.be/HIG6KMnFjg8</a><br />
<br />
The following text may differ slightly from the video in a few places because while reading I added thoughts or skipped things I'd written, but for the most part it's an accurate representation of the video's content. <br /><br />
TRANSCRIPT:<br /><br />
This is in response to the video "The Men's Rights Movement" by youtuber Brave the world. <br />
I want to start out by saying this is one of the most ridiculous examples of the middle ground fallacy I've seen yet. You've used a combination of strawman attacks, entitlement to dictate other people's standards, and repetition of already disproved claims to bolster your own belief that "both sides of the conflict between MRAs and feminists are dysfunctional and damaging their own causes." While that approach is pretty common, your version of it is particularly shallow and sweeping, with an unusually blunt display of the bigoted belief that conditions of adversity magically have less impact on men who experience them than on women.<br /><br />There is so much fail in your video that it's hard to respond to all in one statement, though what I've said so far can be taken as a decent summary.<br />
<br />
However, I think a bit more in-depth analysis of your assertions is merited, so here goes:<br />
The men's rights movement is not a reaction to feminism. This is a belief feminists have put forth as a way of disparaging the movement. In fact, it exists to address discriminatory conditions which men face, whether related to feminism or not, and not all of them are. The conflict between MRAs and feminists is not in a belief that "women's rights" have gone too far, but in areas where feminist lobbying has exploited discriminatory attitudes toward men for political benefit, or where feminist groups have opposed men's advocacy for relief from discrimination.<br />
<br />
Your assessment that men's advocacy has become radicalized seems to rely on a failure to differentiate between men's rights activists and other groups which, by their nature, touch on men's issues. I would also point out that you are mistaken in thinking those groups originated from men's rights activism rather than evolving on their own, and that they're a response to feminism. Like men's activism, other male oriented groups you're calling reactionary are a response to discriminatory social and legal conditions faced by men and boys. Approaches taken by various groups within the spectrum of male responses to that environment range from treating it as a danger and abandoning it (as Men Going Their Own Way do) to advocacy for legal balance and evolution of social attitudes (as Men's Rights Advocates do) to largely bad advice with a sprinkling of knowledge about people, purporting to help young men navigate said environment while attempting to find companionship (see the Pick Up Artist community, who feminists often portray as men's rights activists against the protests of both groups.<br />
<br />
As for your statement about the death of feminism, that movement killed itself without any help. From having had to study feminist history to respond to their territorial attitude toward myself and other women, I can tell you that feminism has never been about rights. It's about politics. And it's never been about equality. It's always been a gynocentric approach to genderless issues, treating all women and only women as victims and only victims... and men as both gods and devils. Its ideology promotes the view that female experiences and interests are uniquely relevant and meaningful, women and girls are uniquely deserving of relief or protection from discriminatory law and policy, and men and boys are uniquely guilty of causing that discrimination and accountable for providing that relief.<br />
<br />
That combination of toxic ideology, along with an unhealthy dose of collectivism, has quite naturally evolved over time into the level of entitled pettiness that you see today among 3rd wave feminists. Seeing everything through that filter mentally "justifies" advocating for discriminatory law as long as it's men who are discriminated against and women at least appear to benefit.<br />
<br />
One significant difference between feminism and men's rights activism is the focus. Where feminists fight to gender government response to genderless issues, MRAs fight for a genderless approach that treats the underlying issue, not the sex of the people involved, as the priority. While feminists consider female experiences and interests uniquely relevant and meaningful, and female needs paramount, MRAs want to see male experiences, needs, and interests given equal consideration; to treat everyone equally in their activism, and to see the law reformed to do the same. It's an uphill battle for us, largely because many people fail to see certain areas of discrimination as discriminatory.<br />
<br />
Next, you threw in a series of supposedly predicted men's rights assertions, none of which would actually ever originate from men's rights advocacy positions. The closest you got was on the backlash against modern women expecting men to buy things for them as was traditional when middle & upper class women didn't work. Why should men treat women like we don't have any money when we can all earn it just like they do? Are you really that entitled?<br />
<br />
The funny thing is, if you reverse the genders, you did mirror some feminist positions. In particular, the idea of being entitled to romantic attention despite being unattractive; feminists use the fat acceptance narrative to call straight men who have a preference for attractive, healthy women "sexist." Often, however, their belief that having standards for aesthetics is sexist does not extend to women's standards. Men who argue against those standards are labeled "creeps."<br />
<br />
There is not only EVIDENCE that there's as much physical violence from women, there's EVIDENCE that there is more. Your claim that men (and only men) who report domestic violence are lying, or that the assaults women commit don't matter because men are stronger absolutely is a gender bias. It is intellectually dishonest of you to use the inclusion of self-reports in the data as an excuse to dismiss the data when self-reports - often well after the events described in them - are the basis for the vast majority of existing statistics supporting the belief that partner violence against women is common and pervasive in our society. Either self-reports are to be believed, or they're not. Believable when you want and unbelievable when you don't like what they imply is not a choice.<br />
<br />
It's also a sad statement that you buy into the gender myths that <br />
1) all men are bigger and stronger and all women are smaller and weaker and <br />
2) being smaller means being less capable of doing damage.<br />
<br />
Some violent women are bigger than their partners. Some use weapons, solicit proxy violence from friends and family and sometimes law enforcement, and even attack using household objects. <br />
<br />
I know a guy whose ex-wife used to throw pots and pans, small appliances, and movable light fixtures at him. I used to know a guy whose ex-girlfriend cracked his skull with an heirloom solid glass paperweight he kept on his desk. <br />
<br />
One friend of mine had to defend his current wife against his approximately 5 and a half foot waif of a wife, who picked up a motorized push lawnmower and threw it at her. <br />
<br />
Another was convicted of assault for putting his hands up to block a woman trying to stab him in the throat with a pencil, because when he did he caught her in the jaw. The woman was not even arrested... because gender made him popping her once in the jaw a worse offense than her repeated attempts to murder him with a sharp object. <br />
<br />
Another case involved a woman who blocked the only exit to an upstairs room with her body and threw every small but heavy object within her reach at her husband. When he squeezed past her to flee the conflict, she called police and he was arrested, later convicted, and spent 18 months in jail.<br />
<br />
Domestic violence victim's advocates consider it battery when a man slaps or pushes a woman even if it leaves no injury, not even marks. There is no reason the same condition should not be considered domestic violence when a woman is the perpetrator.<br />
<br />
Further, violent women don't just slap and quit. They push and nag and hit and harass until the guy can't take it any more and responds. And restraining her is, by many advocates, considered domestic violence as well - so he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't... and that's if he doesn't end up like Travis Alexander at the hands of his murdering girlfriend Jodi Arias.<br />
<br />
When a woman is the victim, advocates label this type of continued, prolonged attack "emotional abuse" and treat it as a direct cause all kinds of dysfunctional behavior in the victim, from withdrawal from social connections to addiction to co-battery and even criminal behavior against third parties, all on the basis that the pattern of abuse affects the victim's mental state. Where do you think you get off denying that the same experience might have the same impact on men?<br />
<br />
Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling stated in her report, Rates of bi-directional vs uni-directional intimate partner violence: A comprehensive review, published in Partner Abuse, vol. 3, no. 2, 2012, that 58% of violent relationships are bi-directional, and 28% are uni-directional perpetration by women against their partners, leaving only 14% of domestic violence as the uni-directional male-on-female partner violence feminists portray as the majority.<br />
<br />
Not only do women engage in domestic violence against men, the CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence surveys have found that a higher percentage of lesbian relationships than heterosexual relationships are violent. According to the CDC's 2010 NISVS, the Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate Partner was 43% of lesbians vs 35% of heterosexual women, and only 26% for gay men. Approximately 1 in 3 lesbian women vs 1 in 4 heterosexual women reported at least one form of severe physical violence from an intimate partner, vs approximately 1 in 6 gay men. If men were naturally more violent than women, the most violence per capita would be found in relationships with two men, not those with two women.<br />
<br />
Women also are more likely than men to be violent toward their children. Health department data shows women as the majority of perpetrators during the last decade, with a decline in their percentage concurrent with a decline in overall perpetration as paternal custody has slowly increased during that time. <br />
Why does all of this matter? I'll bet if you took the time to watch this, you're sitting there thinking, "But I agree with you that men deserve equal remedy! Why are the numbers important if I say men deserve help getting out of abusive relationships?"<br />
<br />
I have three answers for this.<br />
<br />
First, it's the truth, and the truth matters, even if confronting it is uncomfortable.<br />
<br />
Second, feminist lobbying groups which have established themselves as expert advisers to legislative and other policy making bodies have used the claim that men rarely experience domestic violence, and when they do it's usually not serious, to deny men equal assistance. They made that argument in 1978 when they lobbied Congress for domestic violence law.<br />
<br />
The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 provided funds to states for programs to prevent family violence and provide shelter to family members attempting to escape it, but didn't give feminists the gender-specific stipulations they wanted. They spent the next 10 years trying to get congress to make the law gender specific on the basis of their claim that women are the vast majority of victims and deserve the lion's share of funding. Lobbying for the Violence Against Women act of 1994 included the same claims made in 1978, despite the existence of information contradicting them. Feminist lobbyists succeeded in persuading congress to gender the language of the law to follow the Duluth model which presumes family violence to be mainly male perpetrated and female experienced, so that the vast majority of shelters would be women-only. <br />
They also succeeded in persuading congress to create a funding incentive for mandatory arrest, prosecution, conviction, sentencing, and sentence enforcement policies guaranteeing an accusation-to-prison pipeline that feeds on men involved in family conflicts, whether they're the actual primary aggressor, or not. They also persuaded congress to fund research based on traffic through these women-only shelters, guaranteeing the production of a body of bias-created "evidence" to support their claims that family violence is gendered. Victims should not be denied either assistance in recovery, or justice, merely because of their gender, or because of of the gender of their perpetrator... but male victims are, especially when victimized by women, and a large part of the reason is that feminists have worked so hard to marginalize them.<br />
<br />
And third, if you need a self-serving reason, that would be because reducing female violence would result in an overall reduction in domestic violence from both sexes, as a large percentage of two-way violence involves the female partner assaulting and emotionally abusing the male partner until he snaps and reacts violently. Many women feel entitled to slap or hit if they feel offended, and to push the other person involved in a conflict until they get the response they want. Girls don't grow up with the same admonition to refrain from hitting the opposite sex that boys are given; for them, hitting girls is taboo. For girls, it's not only accepted, it's widely portrayed in television and movies as normal behavior. That mirrors prevailing social attitudes.<br />
<br />
When a man hits a woman, the standard response of others is to rush to her aid.<br />
<br />
When a woman hits a man, the standard response is to wonder what he did to deserve it.<br />
<br />
With such a pervasive attitude of acceptance in our society, why wouldn't women hit the opposite sex more than men do? Do you think that women are just naturally more ethical and caring because of their gender? If you do, why don't you recognize the sexism inherent in that belief?<br />
<br />
If women had the same taboo against hitting men that men have against hitting women, and it was enforced with the same level of social shaming and legal ramifications, female-initiated partner abuse would be greatly reduced. And it doesn't matter if you think it's more immoral for a man to hit a woman than for a woman to hit a man. The practical result is unchanged by the gender bias of your morals. <br />
<br />
But let's explore for a moment whether if it were affected, your morals would change the importance of acknowledging and addressing female-initiated partner violence.<br />
<br />
You seem to think women who initiate are exempt from defensive violence and to consider it to be domestic abuse when the defender is a man, even though it's commonly asserted by domestic violence victim's advocates, when discussing female victims, that self-defense should not be considered abuse... even if she escalates the violence. In fact, that's the entire basis for the use of battered women's syndrome as a defense in assault and murder cases.<br />
<br />
The reality is that female violence is at least as provocative as male violence, and in some cases more. When it involves a pattern of repetated, frequent, persistent, or enduring violence accompanied by emotional abuse and aggressive baiting such as getting right up in the guy's face and refusing to allow him to disengage, it is shocking and extremely distressing, and can cause the same fight or flight response a woman experiences in response to <br />
<br />
[There is a jump scare at this point in the video]<br />
<br />
See, reflexes aren't necessarily optional. To assume a man can just shut off that response because the willfully aggressive person eliciting it is female is not just gender biased, it's a heartless attitude toward men, especially if you're using that assumption as the basis for claiming it's not important to acknowledge that deliberately acting to elicit such a response from your partner is abusive.<br />
<br />
Enough on that.<br />
<br />
Let's move on to your statements on rape. First I'll address your assertions about prison rape vs prison guard perpetration.<br />
<br />
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics to develop national data collections on the incidence and prevalence of sexual violence within adult and juvenile correctional facilities. To fulfill that requirement, BJS statisticians have begun surveying incarcerated youth on their experiences of sexual violence while in custody.<br />
<br />
Two reports made from these surveys are available on the BJS website: Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09 and Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012.<br />
<br />
The two surveys produced similar results.<br />
<br />
Staff at the surveyed facilities was 42% female, 58% male in 2008 and 44% female, 56% male in 2012.<br />
92% of respondents in 2008 and 89.1% in 2012 were males reporting sexual activity with female staff only, and another 2.5% in 2008 and 3% in 2012 said they had been victimized by both male and female.<br />
<br />
88% of youth reporting staff misconduct in the 2008/9 report and 85.9% in 2012 reported more than one incident. The 2008/8 report states that 27% of this group reported more than 10 incidents. The 2012 report states that 20.4% reported 11 or more incidents. In both reports, approximately a third of youth reporting staff misconduct reported misconduct by more than one staff member.<br />
<br />
Based on those and other statistics listed in the report, a significant portion of this exploitation took place in broad daylight, in common areas where it should have been easier to spot and stop.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, the majority of female respondents reporting sexual misconduct in those studies were assaulted by other (female) inmates, not male guards.<br />
<br />
News stories about similar abuse in adult prisons describe the phenomenon as if the prisoners are responsible, and the guards are being seduced. With that as the attitude of journalists, how would you know if there is a significant difference in sexual violence perpetration by female guards against juvenile and adult male prisoners?<br />
<br />
But let's say for a moment that the majority of male victimization in the adult detention system is perpetrated by other men. What makes you think that's a reason for you to be so dismissive of their experiences? Do you think that sharing the same gender makes them responsible for being victimized, or maybe that it's not as harmful when a man does it to them? Do you think prison statistics, which come from an entirely different environment than rape statistics on the outside, have any bearing on perpetration in the general population? Do you acknowledge that a percentage of prison rape is perpetrated by prisoners who would not perpetrate if they were not locked up? Are you aware that you have singled out the phenomenon of male prison rape as if the phenomenon of female prison rape doesn't exist and shouldn't be factored in to your beliefs about the tendency to perpetrate? Or are you so bent on denying the female capacity for predation that you're willing to selectively consider and present information in order to maintain your outlook?<br />
<br />
With respect to the general population, the U.S. Centers for Disease control contradicts your claim that when men are raped, men are the vast majority of perpetrators. However, to find that contradiction, you have to actually look past statistics to the methodology of the NISVS itself, which defines rape as "other sexual assault" when a woman is the perpetrator in order to not record female perpetration of rape in the numbers it would show if it were accurately defined. This alternate definition for female perpetration of rape was established by Mary Koss in the 80s and has been used in every survey-type study on sexual violence done by feminist or feminist-leaning researchers since. It was described in her paper, "Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods" in which she stated, "Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman."<br />
<br />
How long would feminists' hissey fit last if rape of women were described as "unwanted sexual intercourse with a man" and victims were described as having engaged in it?<br />
<br />
The significance of Koss's definition is that it prevented the type of rape most likely perpetrated against men by women - that in which the victim is forced to penetrate rather than being forcibly penetrated - from being included in rape statistics. According to the 2012 & 2014 NISVS reports, equal numbers of men and women reported in those matching categories for the previous year. Why is the previous year significant? It's the time period likely to be most fresh in their memories. As Alison Tieman reported in her article, Manufacturing female victimhood and marginalizing vulnerable men,<br />
<br />
"Researchers into the field of traumatic memory recovery note that the longer the period of time a person is asked recall a traumatic event, the less likely they are to remember it. How this works is that surveys that ask about a traumatic event in the last six months get less false negatives than those that ask about a traumatic event in the last twelve months which, itself, gets considerably fewer false negatives than lifetime prevalence.<br />
For men this effect is even more pronounced.<br />
<br />
16% of men with documented cases of sexual abuse considered their early childhood experiences sexual abuse, compared with 64% of women with documented cases of sexual abuse. These gender differences may reflect inadequate measurement techniques or an unwillingness on the part of men to disclose this information (Widom and Morris 1997). Only 16% of men with documented case histories of child sexual abuse disclosed that abuse on a survey intended to capture child sexual abuse. Sixteen percent of men compared to sixty-four percent of women. That amounts to a disclosure rate of child sexual abuse four times higher in women than in men."<br />
<br />
I bet you're wondering, just as with numbers on domestic violence, why this is so important if you're acknowledging that rape happens to men. Of course, the same main reason applies: The truth matters. The same second reason applies, as well. Men who seek help after being subjected to sexual violence find scant resources and few willing to believe them. That sparcity and disbelief are even worse when the perpetrator is female, and just as with domestic violence victim's resources, feminists have fought hard for the last 40 years to reserve rape victim's resources, including law enforcement, for female victims. Again, victims should should not be denied either assistance in recovery, or justice, merely because of their gender, or because of of the gender of their perpetrator... but male victims are, especially when victimized by women, and a large part of the reason is that feminists have worked so hard to marginalize them.<br />
<br />
Another reason is vulnerability. As long as female perpetration of sexual violence remains an invisible problem in society, female perpetrators can feel comfortably able to act with impunity. Men and boys are made vulnerable to female predators by society's denial of their experiences. Continuing to deny them is tantamount to promotion of female on male rape.<br />
<br />
Finally, if you need a self-serving reason, multiple studies have found a high rate of victimization by female sexual predators in the history of men who rape women. While not all men and boys raped by women or girls go on to become rapists, that prevalence in the histories of those who do indicates that their experience contributes to or compounds whatever dysfunction motivates them to engage in sexual violence. <br />
Another self-serving reason: Female victims of female perpetrators are also marginalized.<br />
<br />
Look up a documentary called "She Stole My Voice." Don't watch it unless you can handle rape scenes graphically portrayed, but there is plenty of information about the documentary available online that you can read, and understand. Political bias and the fear of being accused of making the experience up, or being labeled homophobic, or having one's sexuality mislabeled because of one's stated objection to the experience can cause victims of lesbian rape to fear reporting. The denial of female perpetration makes it harder for any victim of a female perpetrator to come forward. <br />
<br />
Regarding your scientific explanation of - to paraphrase your point, "why men are horrible rapey bastards!"<br />
There are a few reasons why your carefully crafted explanation is bullshit, starting with the fact that testosterone is not confirmed to cause physical aggression and therefore a testosterone increase would not be a contributing factor to anyone's decision to commit rape. In fact, the claim that testosterone causes physical aggression was based on flawed or limited scientific study. The conclusions from those studies can't be sufficiently duplicated to support a definitive claim of a relationship between testosterone and physical aggression, particularly not a one listing testosterone as a cause of it.<br />
<br />
However, there is a 2009 study, The role of testosterone in social interaction, (Eisenegger, Haushofer and Fehr) which describes evidence that high levels of testosterone would make a man more likely to seek higher social status, which arguably would make him less likely to commit rape. Risking the stigma that comes with the label "rapist" would not be consistent with such a goal. <br />
<br />
Even if testosterone could be confirmed to contribute to it, your conclusion that that would make men want to rape women is flawed. It relies on treating testosterone as the only thing that goes on during sex, ignoring the fact that you're talking about an extremely complex organism with a multitude of chemical changes taking place in and outside the nervous system during the act. It also relies on treating the male experience of sex as one-dimensional; no emotional attachment, no need to feel wanted or loved, just a primal urge to fuck, and a complete lack of standards or conditions for when or how it should happen. That is a profoundly disturbing prejudice you display with that line of thinking.<br />
<br />
Rape is not a natural manifestation of either gender's sexuality. It's a dysfunctional response to psychological and emotional damage. Read some research on the subject, such as "Reports of Rape Perpetration by Newly Enlisted Male Navy Personnel" by McWhorter, Stander, Merrill, Thomsen, and Milner, and Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists by Lisak & Miller. Feminists have wrongfully touted both papers as evidence that there is an epidemic of serial rapists on modern campuses, when much of the research was not done on university students, but what it actually shows is that sexual violence is not a common behavioral issue. According to the research, it is is generally committed by a small percentage of the population, usually people who display an overall greater tendency toward criminal violence, not your average person, male or female. If testosterone were a cause, the percentage of male perpetrators would be significantly higher than the research found, and the number of victims exponentially so.<br />
<br />
Further, although it's far from a direct cause and effect link which dooms all molestation victims to future perpetration, multiple sources indicate that a history of sexual exploitation by females during youth is a significant risk factor for later perpetration of sex crimes by men. If you want to prevent rape, don't attack testosterone levels in men. Admit the far-reaching consequences of female sexual predation, and stop being part of the widespread force of public attitude that has made it so difficult for advocates to get that issue addressed in law and policy the same as male perpetration is.<br />
<br />
Prison sentences<br />
Guess what: It's still sexism, regardless of whether judges are "used to" seeing female criminals or not. It's institutionalized sexism, in fact, and it actually spans the entire justice system, not just the courtroom. This is described in a report from Sonja B. Starr University of Michigan Law School, titled "Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases." Social attitudes hold women less accountable for their actions, often blaming the nearest associated man. Women's actions are also treated as less impacting, even when there is evidence to the contrary. According to the report, such attitudes and beliefs affect the decisions of officers, prosecutors, and judges. Women are less likely to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, and made to serve their full sentence. And while these prejudices and these tendencies are partly a pre-existing part of society's general attitudes, feminists have fought to capitalize on them by advocating against equal treatment in the justice system... even to the point where some advocate closing women's prisons in favor of psychiatric treatment. <br />
<br />
As for men committing more violent crimes, how would we know? Earlier in your video, you gave a prime example of why we don't, when you showed a willingness to dismiss the seriousness of female violence on the assumption that women are not as skilled at it as men. This attiude's prevalence in society likely covers up a significant portion of female violence. Before a violent woman doesn't get equally sentenced, she may not get convicted because her actions may not be taken as seriously. Before she doesn't get convicted, she may not be prosecuted because a city prosecutor may judge the seriousness of her crime by how the public will perceive his choice to prosecute her. Before she doesn't get prosecuted, she may not be arrested because a responding officer may not even see what she's done as genuinely violent, where the same behavior in a man would result in an arrest. And before she doesn't get arrested, her behavior may not even be reported to authorities, because her victim or witnesses to her crime may, like you, dismiss her violent behavior as less damaging, less hurtful, and therefore less of a threat.<br />
<br />
Under the circumstances it's unlikely that any conclusion drawn from existing data on the prevalence of female perpetration in society will be accurate. It's impossible to honestly say that criminal behavior is significantly more prevalent in one gender than the other when the available data does not accurately reflect the perpetration rates of either.<br />
<br />
Unplanned pregnancy.<br />
Let's start with the fact that the thing you called fucking retarded is available to women twice if they should become pregnant when they don't want to raise a child... three times in nations where abortion is legal and widely available. But it's her overall set of sexual activity, partner, birth control, and post-conception choices which really justifies the men's rights position. Based on those choices, becoming a single custodial mother in the nations where MRAs advocate for paternal surrender is always a choice, even if pregnancy isn't, and even if live birth isn't.<br />
<br />
By the time a woman reaches single custodial mother status, she has chosen:<br /><br />
Whether to have sex<br />
<br />Who to have it with <br />
<br />Whether to use birth control<br />
<br />How much birth control (1 method, or more) <br />
<br />Available to her are multiple choices for barrier methods, spermicides, combinations of those two items, intrauterine devices, hormonal birth control, and combinations of those two items<br />
<br />Whether that entails insisting on condom use <br />
<br />Currently, a condom is a man's only birth control option and the only option he can confirm is actually being used.<br />
<br />If pregnancy occurs, whether or not to use an abortion drug early following the conception<br />
<br />Whether or not to abort if she has passed up the drug<br />
<br />Whether or not to relinquish custody to the father or another family member<br />
<br />Whether or not to opt for adoption instead of raising the child herself<br />
<br />Whether or not to use a safe haven abandonment drop off<br />
<br />With that many choices behind her, there is no excuse to portray a single custodial mother as a victim... or for that matter, anything but totally responsible for her circumstance. As such, nobody owes her anything for her situation.<br />
<br />
She's not only 50% responsible for her situation. She chose it; she picked up that responsibility, she is 100% responsible, and complaints on her behalf are pitiful and sexist. <br />
<br />
When custody was traditionally passed to men following divorce, women were not expected to pay them child support. Men were expected to maintain their households themselves, even while having to pay for childcare so they could work. The only reason why the requirement exists when a woman has custody is that in the past, women weren't expected to earn the wages a man earned and therefore weren't considered capable breadwinners for their families.<br />
<br />
Today we know that women can earn a living just like men can. It is dishonest to pretend that the inability exists and justifies the need for a man to support her if she chooses a circumstance that makes supporting herself more challenging. She would only need that if she weren't capable of doing the work required to earn a living.<br />
<br />
Further, the creation of the modern child support system was influenced by divorce, which in the early 20th century was perceived as abandonment of a dependent wife and children by an uncaring husband and father. A woman choosing to become a single custodial mother in the face of a host of other options is a totally different ballgame. She doesn't need protected. You're arguing for her to have the right to drag a man who does not want that circumstance along with her into it against his will; essentially, you're arguing that she has the right to demand that for the duration of the baby's childhood, an unwilling man be forced to work to financially support both her choice to retain custody, and her unwillingness to take responsibility for that choice by doing the work herself and earning a living wage. In other words, you've advocated enslaving a man if a woman wants to raise his child herself, against his will. And, I might add, you've used the very same arguments anti-abortion advocates use to tell women that it's not necessary for abortion to be legal or available to women at all. <br />
<br />
And let's be honest; the safety net you're trying to preserve is one of the reasons unwed single motherhood is so prevalent in societies where it's mandated. Women take advantage of the combination of welfare and child support to engage in bad decision making knowing that the potential consequences will be mitigated by making the man they chose to have sex with 100% financially responsible for the result of their entire series of choices.<br />
<br />
On a side note, no, the pullout method is not as fool-proof as you claim. Precum can have sperm in it even when the urethra is clean. And your advice regarding what to do about a lack of trust is terrible. Women with entitled attitudes like yours prove that the best practice for a man is to avoid sex with women he can't trust. <br />
Now let me explain something to you about that narrative you're promoting. You've made yourself a tool in a dehumanization campaign against men; an effort by a political movement’s influential members and leadership to reduce the perception of men's humanity, not based on exhibited behavior, but based on generalized flaws insinuated upon them defined by the inference of a common trait or common traits. <i>Men are violent. Men are abusive. Men are rapacious. Certain things are only bad when men do them</i>. Treating destructive traits as inherently male traits allows influential feminists and feminist leaders to level a perpetual, consistent and ever-escalating attack on male society. The general public is slowly trained to view men only as a group and a set of characteristics, rather than as individuals with unique and broadly varied personal traits. This leads to a subtly and eventually overtly bigoted perception of and response to them. The result is a combination of ‘team’ loyalty, an unsupported us-vs-them mentality, and a distorted view and growing hatred and fear of men. That, in turn, leads to being disposed to accept legal, political, and social treatment of men and boys in ways the individual would otherwise consider unfair, unjust, immoral, unethical, and inhumane... such as imposing homeless with draconian child support laws, or legally and socially marginalizing male victims of intimate partner and sexual violence. <br />
<br />
As I said, men's rights activism is not a response to feminism. It does include, however, response to prevailing attitudes like the ones expressed in your video which are harmful to both sexes. Acceptance of female violence and lack of accountability has created a host of issues that need to be addressed, and the discrimination they cause ended. Mischaracterizing those issues and the advocates who fight for remedy to them isn't helpful.<br />
<br />
From the lowbar:<br />
<br />
This is a response video to one by Brave The World, titled <br />
"The Men's Rights Movement."<br />
<a href="http://youtu.be/svBWhzkZl30">http://youtu.be/svBWhzkZl30</a><br />
<br />
For more information about some of the issues I discuss in this video, check the following links. I've tried to include links to everything I mentioned in the video, plus some additional sources. Some of my sources are linked in other pieces of writing, linked below. <br />
<br />
<b>Domestic Violence</b>:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/more-equal-than-others-bias-in-intimate-partner-and-sexual-violence-victims-advocacy/">http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/more-equal-than-others-bias-in-intimate-partner-and-sexual-violence-victims-advocacy/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/">http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/280897-vawa-must-be-reformed-for-domestic-violence-rates-to-come-down">http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/280897-vawa-must-be-reformed-for-domestic-violence-rates-to-come-down</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://wordpress.clarku.edu/dhines/files/2012/01/Douglas-Hines-2011-helpseeking-experiences-of-male-victims.pdf">http://wordpress.clarku.edu/dhines/files/2012/01/Douglas-Hines-2011-helpseeking-experiences-of-male-victims.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_SOfindings.pdf">http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_SOfindings.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2013/01/vawa-is-not-like-that.html">http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2013/01/vawa-is-not-like-that.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/56Agy4bTv6Y">https://youtu.be/56Agy4bTv6Y</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EglxuSgZmY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EglxuSgZmY</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3bIXDTr0o8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3bIXDTr0o8</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKT9FBghfKg">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKT9FBghfKg</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRCS6GGhIRc#t=2m15s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRCS6GGhIRc#t=2m15s</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.springerpub.com/media/springer-journals/FindingsAt-a-Glance.pdf">http://www.springerpub.com/media/springer-journals/FindingsAt-a-Glance.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<b>Rape</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.genderratic.net/?p=836">http://www.genderratic.net/?p=836</a><br />
<br />
https://youtu.be/0ncjGFIFPJI<br />
<br />
<a href="http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2015/06/26/u-s-incarcerated-boys-report-high-rate-of-exploitation-by-female-staff-while-in-custody/">http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2015/06/26/u-s-incarcerated-boys-report-high-rate-of-exploitation-by-female-staff-while-in-custody/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/the-new-yorkers-jeffrey-toobin-cynical-and-devious-male-inmates-abused-female-guards/">http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/the-new-yorkers-jeffrey-toobin-cynical-and-devious-male-inmates-abused-female-guards/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/dangerous-rape-myths-part-1">http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/dangerous-rape-myths-part-1</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://archive.is/zFO75">https://archive.is/zFO75</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/09/04/the-startling-facts-on-female-sexual-aggression/">https://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/09/04/the-startling-facts-on-female-sexual-aggression/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.batteredmen.com/batrsexcoer.htm">http://www.batteredmen.com/batrsexcoer.htm</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=341&Itemid=95">http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=341&Itemid=95</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.rmdglobal.net/she-stole-my-voice/">http://www.rmdglobal.net/she-stole-my-voice/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MXMs-1Lsxw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MXMs-1Lsxw</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37U9YgyZdHU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37U9YgyZdHU</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7dW--_m4HU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7dW--_m4HU</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ar3vPOny0A">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ar3vPOny0A</a><br />
<br />
<br />
In response to "testosterone causes rape"<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ouwdOsRvC4oJ:https://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Eisenegger_et_al_TiCS_2011.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ouwdOsRvC4oJ:https://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Eisenegger_et_al_TiCS_2011.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/cognoculture/testosterone_and_human_aggression_or_180520">http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/cognoculture/testosterone_and_human_aggression_or_180520</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20110719215946/http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/1348/134851.pdf">https://web.archive.org/web/20110719215946/http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/1348/134851.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.ncherm.org/documents/McWhorterVV2009.pdf">https://www.ncherm.org/documents/McWhorterVV2009.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<b>Child Support</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=cjlpp">http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=cjlpp</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.schr.org/action/resources/unable_to_pay_child_support_poor_parents_land_behind_bars">https://www.schr.org/action/resources/unable_to_pay_child_support_poor_parents_land_behind_bars</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1514:fathersbehindbars&catid=53&Itemid=176&showall=&limitstart=3">http://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1514:fathersbehindbars&catid=53&Itemid=176&showall=&limitstart=3</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/26/locking-up-parents-for-not-paying-child-support-can-be-a-modern-day-debtors-prison/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/26/locking-up-parents-for-not-paying-child-support-can-be-a-modern-day-debtors-prison/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2015/03/19/custody-and-child-support-facts-vs-feminists/">http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2015/03/19/custody-and-child-support-facts-vs-feminists/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2014/09/stupid-question-of-day.html">http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2014/09/stupid-question-of-day.html</a><br />
<br />
<b>Great discussion about ways in which men are discriminated against:<br /></b><br />
<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3nhjwz/list_of_ways_in_which_men_are_institutionally/">https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3nhjwz/list_of_ways_in_which_men_are_institutionally/</a></div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-38228430449819013082015-07-10T19:44:00.002-07:002015-07-10T19:44:47.318-07:00Letter to Reddit's admins on the subject of #RedditRevolt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Sent using <a href="https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freddit.com&subject=&message=">this link</a> from /r/reddit, an archived subreddit for which the admins are moderators. <br /><br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There are a number of reasons why I have been less and less active on Reddit during the past few years. Ellen Pao personified some of them, and I'm happy to see her go, but Reddit parting ways with her is only a step, not the whole road to recovery. <br /> <br />I started using this site because I found it to be an effective and fun communication tool with which I could reach out to others who have similar interests. The ability to communicate openly and share information with a widespread user base was and is very valuable to me. Early on, under account names now defunct because I expressed political opinions someone didn't like, I made personal connections that never would have happened had the site not existed. I formed friendships with people all over the world. I discovered whole communities with a variety of interests and opinions, and a place for discussion and debate that helped me expand my knowledge and sharpen my critical thinking skills and as a result, evolve my whole outlook on life. <br /> <br />And then something terrible happened. <br /> <br />I watched you reduce Reddit's usefulness and comfortable openness with the addition of censorship tools armed and executed with political bias. I've seen you shadowban users for expressing disapproved opinions. I've seen you quietly eclipse or even delete discussions about disapproved topics. Simply put, I've watched the tools purportedly created to protect the site from spam get exploited as silencing tools to "protect" the site from open, meaningful discussion that might lead to conclusions which don't jive with a specific worldview. <br /> <br />I've seen you selectively enforce rules of conduct depending on the political affiliation of the accused. I've seen you refuse to communicate with subreddit moderators, so that they cannot inform their subscribers on how to use the site without falling afoul of your increasingly limiting biases. I've seen you use arbitrary labeling to excuse banning links to small news sites based on whether or not they align with a specific worldview. Seeing you ban users for linking to news and research published on sites against which you have a political bias has been very disturbing. It indicates a sense of entitlement to manipulate public opinion by limiting what can be presented on a widely used discussion hub. You couldn't find a better way to destroy faith in site admins than these behaviors. This makes the site look unprofessional to the point of appearing as a fly-by-night operation.<br /> <br />Pao was a problem, but she wasn't THE problem. The censorship, the unequal application of site rules and site disciplinary measures, and the constant flouting of user interests in favor of arrogantly telling us what we should want and what we should like all started before she came to Reddit. Mistreating your users and mods is why #RedditRevolt exists. Firing one of your most popular employees because she wouldn't do something unethical was the last straw. Please ask Victoria Taylor to come back. She didn't deserve what was done to her and your consumers, the users of the site, are outraged at the way she was treated. <br /> <br />No matter who you put in the driver's seat, if your site stays on the road you've chosen there are many of us who will never be on board with you. We won't adopt a particular worldview if it becomes the only one permitted on Reddit. We'll abandon the site as the sinking ship it is, and go to one of many others which are available, or we will create our own, and because many of us have learned from #GamerGate's example, we can and will take the site's ad revenue with us. <br /> <br />Political bias in site administration takes the social out of social networking. If you want to limit Reddit to just another of several social sites dominated by one small, ideologically restricted portion of the population, you're doing it right. You won't grow, but you'll have a nice, comfortable echo chamber in which to feel more influential than you can actually be in the environment you've created. <br /> <br />If you want growth in user interest and enthusiasm, higher ranking, and to once again be the social communication hub that you started out as in the beginning, drop the political censorship and let people talk... even the ones who say things you don't like... bring back Victoria, and bring some transparency and consistency into your relationship with your consumers. <br /> <br />State the site's rules clearly and make them unmistakable, so they will be easy to follow, and apply them evenly. Do not have or use "unwritten" rules. If it's unwritten, it's not a rule. It is unfair to all of your users and creates a hostile environment when you invent "rules" on the spot as an excuse to shadowban. And don't use your own rules against vote manipulation as a means of vote manipulation. We do notice when you do that. <br /> <br />Don't feel that labeling some news & information sites "not journalistic" because they're small or you don't identify with their area of coverage justifies censoring links to them. That only creates an environment that is hostile to anyone wanting to discuss issues and concepts largely covered by media that isn't mainstream. People are capable of reading, assessing, and debating information presented with these links. Denying your users the choice is tantamount to treating us like we're too stupid to form our own opinions. <br /> <br />Don't make yourselves unavailable to users who contact you, especially subreddit moderators. Don't make your subreddit moderators constantly beg for important information on site administration, rules, maintenance, and updates, especially given the amount of work many of them do without expecting anything in return. You are mistreating valuable unpaid volunteers. Nobody should have to tell you how unprofessional that is, or how unwise. <br /> <br />That's it; all we're asking for is some transparency, and fair treatment of all of your employees, volunteers, and consumers. Those are not difficult requests to fulfill. Reddit doesn't have to sink because of this conflict. It can become better, stronger, and more stable. It's up to you, admins. If you tighten your grip, you'll choke Reddit to death. If you make it functional, unbiased, and open, you'll have the user base you want. We're all waiting to see which road you'll choose. </blockquote>
To be honest, for a long time I stopped bothering to write to Reddit's administrators because they have a long-standing habit of not listening, but right now they seem to be possibly inclined to it.<br />
<br />
Am I holding my breath for a result?<br />
<br />
Not at all. However, the only chance at salvaging the site is if even the most frustrated Redditors are willing to give it a shot, communicate our complaints to the administrators, and allow them a chance to fix things. <br />They're going to have to decide whether they want a social popular, influential bookmarking/networking site, or an echo chamber where they keep tight control on discussion while keeping their volunteers and their consumers largely in the dark about site administration. It's their job to try to fix things, but it's our job to communicate what we want to see, and whether or not the changes they're making are satisfactory. It's my hope that other redditors will also write to the admins, letting them know that the desire for transparency, fair treatment, and unbiased administration (and the reinstatement of Victoria Taylor) is a widely held interest. </div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-13768823791731003052015-06-23T06:44:00.001-07:002015-06-23T06:44:16.493-07:00The feminist derailing fallacy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Feminists abuse the term "derailing" as a tool to avoid information that contradicts an opinion, belief, or attitude they want to promote. While the term ordinarily refers to taking a discussion off on an unrelated tangent, feminists instead use it to describe any speech that contradicts one of their assertions. They rely on mislabeling relevant information as
irrelevant and a distraction in order to protect disinformation from
scrutiny and potential contradiction. It is like a line from The Wizard
of Oz; "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."<br />
<br />
This exploitation of the term is rooted in a combined sense of ownership
and entitlement to dictate public opinion. These ideologues believe, in
all seriousness, that they own women and by extension, all gender issues. Therefore they feel morally exempt from being
questioned or contradicted in assertions they make on our behalf, even
when engaging the public in a dialogue led by an unsupported and potentially damaging claim. <br />
<br />
One of the more ridiculous examples of this is their response to women who refuse to be fodder for the movement's ideological declarations. Feminists begin issue discussions with pronouncements like twitter's #yesallwomen, intended as blanket statements which generalize the experiences and beliefs of some women to all women. None of us are permitted under their worldview to disagree with their narrative about our lives, our experiences, our needs, wants, and beliefs. When we do we are silenced by a special brand of projection, accused of doing that which we're protesting. Feminists attempt to silence dissenting women by shouting us down with accusations that women who, in describing our experiences, question or contradict their dogma are "talking over other women to deny their experiences."<br />
<br />
In other words, feminists are claiming that their experience of having ideological beliefs about women's lives is a more valid description of us than our own experience of living them. They use that claim to treat any resistance to their appropriation of our voices as an attack, rather than a defense against a presumptuous violation of personal boundaries. <br />
<br />
Another example which is equally ridiculous is their response when their advocacy for a gendered government approach to a genderless issue is contradicted. The method is very similar to that used with women who refuse to be feminism's props. The accusation of derailing is used to shout down the voices of men and boys by treating their experience of conditions or circumstances, no matter how common, as an intrusion on what feminists want to portray as uniquely female experiences. The purpose in this case to sneak bigoted marginalization of men and boys past public scrutiny so that lobbying efforts for discriminatory law and policy will not be recognized for what they are.<br />
<br />
This pretense has been a very effective tool for feminists desiring to enforce an ideological monopoly on gender issues discussion, especially, but not exclusively, in the areas of intimate partner and sexual violence. It has been used not only to shut dissenting voices out of feminist discussions, but also <a href="http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2015/04/18/go-home-gamer-girl-press-release-on-unjust-banishment-from-calgary-expo/">discussions</a> involving the <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/pride-toronto-faces-controversy-over-application-from-mens-rights-group-to-march-in-parade/">general public</a>, discussions in <a href="http://menaregood.com/wordpress/straus-exposes-the-academic-veils-placed-on-domestic-violence-research/">academic and professional settings</a>, and in <a href="http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/more-equal-than-others-bias-in-intimate-partner-and-sexual-violence-victims-advocacy/">the legislative process</a>. <br />
<br />
This is how American feminists manipulated the public and legislators into accepting a <a href="http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2013/01/vawa-is-not-like-that-3.html#.">change
from the genderless Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984
to the female-specific, feminist research and training funding Violence
Against Women Act of 1994</a>. When men's advocates call for equal
funding for assistance for men, feminists treat it as an attempt to
siphon funds away from female victims they've convinced legislators and
the public are more numerous and more in need. And to maintain that
illusion, they accuse anyone offering evidence of female perpetration
and male victims of "derailing" discussion about female experiences and
female needs.<br />
<br />
This tactic relies on two things: The fear of being seen as disruptive and rude, and the promise that diplomacy will result in some form of cooperative good will between these ideologues and the groups against whom they have used it. Feminists have demonstrated over and over that the former is going to happen regardless of when and where we speak, and the latter is simply a false hope. Believing they own these discussions, feminists invade and attempt to impose their ideological beliefs on any discussion about issues related to gender, and even many which are not. The only way for nonfeminists to have open discussion that is not dominated by feminist rhetoric and feminist sensibilities is to simply have it; to refuse to allow such accusations to shut us down. Speak up. Don't let feminists have a monopoly all discussion on gender issues. </div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-53337458694789285302015-05-16T06:05:00.000-07:002015-05-16T06:05:04.136-07:00Toxic feminism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Toxic masculinity is a buzzword created by feminists to facilitate blaming men for the external pressures to which they are subjected, most often by the very systems and social attitudes that feminists themselves support and exploit. Its definition falsely represents genderless dysfunction like insecurity, violence and prejudices as gender specific behavior.<br />
<br />
Responding to men's advocates discussing men's issues by deflecting to "toxic masculinity" is not an offer of information or effort to find a solution. It's a form of reductionism feminists employ to excuse marginalizing men in favor of promoting feminist ideology.<br />
<br />
They seem to believe that belching, "toxic masculinity!" into men's issues discussion is enough to justify their male-bashing rhetoric and hide the relationship between feminist lobbying, propaganda, and other agitation, and the continuation of oppressive discrimination against men into the 21st century.<br />
<br />
It really doesn't, and that is one of the more obvious reasons why so many people of both sexes are rejecting the label "feminist" as a name associated with hating men.
<br />
<br />
If feminists ever want to persuade intellectuals to accept the claim that feminism is not primarily about hating men they must first stop targeting men and boys with such dehumanizing labels.</div>
Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com1