Feminism is misogyny with effective PR

Feminists creatively frame information to infer conditions it does not support to emotionally coerce women into submissive cooperation with being exploited as political fodder. The largely one-sided "discussion" on harassment, partner, and sexual violence taking place under the hashtag #YesAllWomen is an example.

It uses the out-of-context presentation of personal claims by women, many of whom are simply spouting feminist rhetoric about being afraid rather than describing personal experiences, to infer upon society an epidemic of only male on only female harassment and gendered violence. Why out of context? Because in the overall picture doesn't back up the claim.

Harvard Study says 70% of domestic violence committed by women

Relational Aggression is a behavior more often perpetrated by girls than by boys

And we've seen how hard feminists have worked to erase male victims of female sexual violence...

Manufacturing Female Victimhood and Marginalizing Vulnerable Men

Feminists define rape to exclude male victims

Feminist rape culture theory vs men

Even the stats on sexual violence themselves are exaggerated for effect:

On Rape Hysteria

Feminist advocacy research scam

These political ideologues trading in manipulation of human emotion as currency have ordered women to be unnecessarily afraid. They have demanded that we run our personal experiences through a filter of ideology that dehumanizes men and infantilizes women. When faced with women who don't submit to their self-assigned authority, their response is far from empowering.

That presentation of false or falsely framed information to emotionally manipulate women into exhibiting desired behaviors is gender-targeted abuse. It's a blatant display of misogyny within a movement which would deny women's right and ability to think for ourselves.

Zombie culture. It's not alive, but it's not dead, either.

It has come to my attention that feminists just don't understand zombies. The group has been redefining the word zombie with looser and looser connotations, blurring the line between innocent people and the flesh-eating monsters we all fear, and using unmerited shaming tactics to silence people who disagree with their opinions.

For the record, I'd like to state a few distinctions.

Being hungry does not make someone a zombie.

Enjoying and engaging in bite-play does not make someone a zombie.

Eating a gelatin dessert molded in the shape of a brain does not make someone a zombie.  

Zombie jokes are speech. If you don't like them, don't listen.

Reading zombie-perspective fiction or playing zombie-perspective games is not a zombie attack. Enjoying those media does not mean the user is secretly a zombie.

Games, shows, and literature which portray people as zombie attack victims do not infect players, viewers or readers with the zombie virus.

The involvement of some alcohol does not make mutually engaged roughhousing between two uninfected people a zombie attack by one against the other.

It is dishonest for you to smack someone in the mouth and then later label him a zombie just because his teeth were involved.

If you get drunk and bite someone because you wanted to, that does not make him a zombie, even if he bites you back.

When a person merely looks at you, that is not a zombie attack, even if you don't want the attention.

A person who says hello to you is not automatically trying to bite you, even if you weren't seeking engagement.

Asking you out for coffee is not a zombie attack, even if you don't want to go out for coffee.

A discussion that does not involve you is not a zombie attack, even if you don't like what's being said.

A discussion that does involve you does not become a zombie attack if you don't like the information you're learning.

A person who walks with a limp is not necessarily a zombie.

If you hug a zombie, it is likely to bite you. It is your responsibility to know this.

If you have dinner with someone, that is not a zombie attack against you, even if you didn't tell him to eat.

If your neighbor eats cheeseburgers knowing full well that you are a vegetarian, that does not make him a zombie.

If you don't want dinner right now but your husband makes himself a sandwich and eats it, that's not the same as feeding you or himself to zombies.

If you become infected and you bite someone that person is just as much a victim of a zombie attack as you were when you were bitten.

Zombie virus infection is not a gender-specific trait.

Gender does not affect whether a person attacked by zombies is a zombie attack victim.

The gender of the victim does not make a zombie attack any more or less scary, painful, dangerous, or fun.

Zombies do not eat people on accident.

Rumors of zombie attacks are not solid proof of a zombie invasion.

Calling someone a zombie does not make him a zombie. It does not justify locking him in the closet or shooting him in the face.

Zombie status doesn't transfer by common human trait association. If one zombie has red hair that does not make all gingers zombies or potential zombies.

If you pass a person on the street, being a stranger doesn't make him Schrodinger's zombie. Neither does being male.

If an uninfected person bites you because you put your fingers in his mouth, that's not a zombie attack even if you didn't say "Bite me!"

If you do say "bite me" and someone does, it doesn't make him a zombie if you didn't mean it that way.

Locking up or shooting the uninfected does nothing to prevent zombie attacks against the general population.

If there is a cure for the zombie virus, administering the cure and then shooting the zombie anyway is inhumane. Even if you have no compassion for recovering zombies, such an action would be unproductive and wasteful. Administering a placebo and letting a zombie languish in isolation expecting to get better before you shoot him is equally inhumane, unproductive, and wasteful. 

Surviving one zombie attack does not make you an expert on zombies.

Being a potential zombie attack victim does not give you an excuse to mistreat strangers.

Other uninfected people are not responsible for what zombies do.

Talking to other uninfected people about your rights doesn't change what zombies do.

If you give someone permission to bite you, changing your mind while his teeth are sunk into your skin doesn't make him a zombie.

Your personal dislike for a person does not make him a zombie or potential zombie.

If you use a needle to inject someone with the zombie virus, you've infected him, even if you didn't bite him.

A person immune to the zombie virus does not have to conform to your expectations of suffering and degeneration after surviving a zombie attack. Failing to rot and fall to pieces is not an attack on other zombie bite victims.

Disagreeing with you about methods for defense against zombies does not make anyone a zombie sympathizer.

Hopefully this has cleared up a few of the more ridiculous myths that have been preventing our society from effectively addressing the impending zombie apocalypse that zombie experts keep predicting.

Riddle me this

For those who oppose the men's human rights movement so vehemently as to waste energy every single day with trolling, mudslinging, haranguing, whining, damseling, and drama, I have one very simple, very serious question.

FOIA update - Sorry for the cliffhanger

Edit: In light of the CDC's efforts to cover up their researchers' discrimination against male victims of sexual assault by female perpetrators, Alison and I decided the call referred to in this post merited further exploration. Alison looked at it from a very basic, fundamental standpoint which plows past the psychobabble to the stark reality of feminist researcher bias... one the researchers themselves cannot explain away when bluntly asked about it. This video was the result. 

*     *     *

The CDC's condition for releasing to me the data I requested from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey was that I speak to them about it via phone conference before doing anything with the numbers I received.

On Thursday afternoon, I spent nearly an hour with them discussing the information. The gist of the conversation was that they don't want raw data used for anything.
I had requested raw data specific to the year 2010. I was very specific at the beginning of my letter in stating that all of the numbers requested was from the data for the year 2010. According to the instructions at the beginning of the PDF I was sent, I received simply raw data. I sent an email repeating the request, and was told it would be addressed during the conversation. Instead of offering the data they used to calculate the "last 12 months" numbers they released in their report, they told me they didn't have those numbers.

That's not actually possible, considering they reported predictions across the U.S. population based on those numbers. However, there was simply nowhere to go on that question, as it was made clear that I was going to be stonewalled.

They made a point of telling me that the only way to get the numbers they got was to weight and manipulate the data exactly the way they had done, meaning that some of the numbers were given more weight in figuring statistics than others, based on criteria determined by the researchers, and referred me to table B-1 of appendix B of the NISVS full report for more information on their criteria.  
   
I've made a composite screenshot of that page for this post.

  

I also asked specifically about the choice to define male respondents having been made to penetrate as "other sexual offense" instead of rape.

The researchers I spoke to stumbled profoundly over answering that, eventually falling back on a long version of "because the 'experts' said so." They could not give me any specific reason why forcibly subjecting a male victim to coitus or receipt of fellatio should be any less reasonably considered rape as forcing a woman to perform coitus or receipt of oral penetration of the vagina.

These were the basic admonitions upon which the researchers made a point to say that the data they recorded showing male victims who reported female perpetrators could not be compared to the data they collected showing female victims who reported male perpetrators.

From the above criteria, all I can gather is that they think the accuracy or value of the data they collected varies based on what type of phone people use, their age, their ethnicity, or their sex.
For the purpose of predicting how many people overall in the U.S. may have suffered victimization during the time periods covered by the survey, that may be true, but it doesn't follow that the data doesn't accurately show what percentage of male respondents reported female perpetrators, vs what percentage of female respondents reported male perpetrators, unless the researchers think perpetrators of intimate partner and sexual violence select victims based on that criteria. Based on that, I see no reason to not report and use those percentages calculated straight from the raw data. 

On a side note, I can see that the data on gay and lesbian partner violence is drawn from ridiculously small samples. I don't think those samples are enough to predict anything about the overall population of the U.S. Drawing out less than 200 respondents in any given segment to predict the experiences of millions does not seem like a reasonable approach, and I think other studies would be needed to make any of the results found in the NISVS worth depending on to guide an approach to addressing intimate and partner violence within those communities, and I am going to have to do some more research on incidence before even considering the potential for conclusions about my local area, community needs, and how those needs might be met. I don't think the CDC survey is going to be any help with that. It may be useful in campaigning for assistance for male victims in general, but until I can gather more information on the prevalence of intimate partner and sexual violence in the GLBT community, I can't assume that any effort I put into that area will actually be beneficial. That's a setback, but not a deterrent.

Without further comment, below is a link to the PDF file the CDC sent me:

CDC REPLY TO MY FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST


Here is the question list to which it was sent in response: 

I am requesting information from a document, not the entire document. The document referenced in this request is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The overall document is the raw data from the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.

I am requesting access to some of the raw NUMBERS (not any data containing personally identifying information of surveyed individuals) on which the information given in the CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (2010) Report is based. All numbers requested are requested from the data for the year 2010.

I am specifically interested in the following information:

Total number of MALES surveyed.
Number of total MALES surveyed who self-identified as heterosexual, or did not identify a sexuality.
Number of total MALES surveyed who self-identified as bisexual.
Number of total MALES surveyed who self-identified as homosexual.

Total number of FEMALES surveyed.
Number of total FEMALES surveyed who self-identified as heterosexual, or did not identify a sexuality.
Number of total FEMALES surveyed who self-identified as bisexual.
Number of total FEMALES surveyed who self-identified as lesbian.


Number of surveyed MALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence.

Number of surveyed MALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence who self-identified as heterosexual, or did not identify a sexuality.

Number of surveyed MALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence who self-identified as bisexual.

Number of surveyed MALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence who self-identified as homosexual.


Number of surveyed FEMALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence.

Number of surveyed FEMALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence who self-identified as heterosexual, or did not identify a sexuality.

Number of surveyed FEMALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence who self-identified as bisexual.

Number of surveyed FEMALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence who self-identified as lesbian.

Number of surveyed self-identified heterosexual FEMALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported FEMALE perpetrators (even if also reporting male perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified bisexual FEMALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported FEMALE perpetrators (even if also reporting male perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified lesbian victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported FEMALE perpetrators (even if also reporting male perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified heterosexual FEMALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported MALE perpetrators (even if also reporting female perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified bisexual FEMALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported MALE perpetrators (even if also reporting female perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified lesbian victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported MALE perpetrators (even if also reporting female perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified heterosexual MALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported FEMALE perpetrators (even if also reporting male perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified bisexual MALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported FEMALE perpetrators (even if also reporting male perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified homosexual MALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported FEMALE perpetrators (even if also reporting male perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified heterosexual MALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported MALE perpetrators (even if also reporting female perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified bisexual MALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported MALE perpetrators (even if also reporting female perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified homosexual MALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported MALE perpetrators (even if also reporting female perpetrators.)

Honeybadger radio airs again

The people of Salem, Massachusetts in the 1600s lived in a culture that accepted the existence of the devil, assorted demons and other evil spirits, including witches, and which encouraged them to blame all misfortune and conflict in the community on these supernatural causes.

The people of the modern day West live in a culture that largely accepts the existence the Patriarchy, Rape Culture, and Cultural Misogyny, and which encourages them to blame all misfortune and conflict in the community--from rape to domestic violence to the pay gap to male-only conscription--on these ethereal and unfalsifiable "social constructs".

The Salem witch trials began with accusations against an opposing camp--a rival family in the community engaged in a long-standing feud with the family of the accused.

The flurry of recent sexual misconduct accusations in the Atheist/skeptic community essentially began with an invitation to continue a conversation over coffee, proffered by an unnamed man in an elevator. That invitation was ground zero for the splintering of that community into two rival camps--one which embraced skepticism and the rejection of any notion of an invisible, unmeasurable superior power that rules all our lives, and one which embraced dogmatism.

A witch hunt has begun in the skeptic community--one side asking for evidence, and the other demanding blind faith. Who will prevail? God knows...

Join Karen Straughan(Girl Writes What), Alison Tieman(Typhonblue) and me at 9 pm Eastern time, 6PM pacific time on August 22, 2013 for the second episode of AVfM's honey badger radio.
Show Link:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2013/08/23/honey-badger-radio-a-witch-hunt-in-atheism
Karen Straughan (Girl Writes What):

blog: http://owningyourshit.blogspot.ca

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS-fsg

Alison Tieman (Typhonblue):

Blog: www.genderratic.com

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/Genderratic

Della Burton (Oneiorosgrip)

This is my blog. You can also see some of my writing at http://www.avoiceformen.com/author/gloria-sass/

Debut of honey badger radio

 

One correction to this - the ad says 7PM central. The show actually begins at 8PM central.