#ListenAndBelieve: A Lesson in Bigoted Ideology

How unsurprising that the Good Men Project ran yet another long-winded, misandrous article accusing men of being vile, patriarchal, privileged misogynists who ironically cause their own extremely rare and unharmful problems and make the world horrifically horrible for women just by existing.

I could comment on the article, however, John Anderson already did an excellent job pointing out its flaws. Instead, I want to focus on the core problem that prompted the author to write the article: disbelief.

Specifically, the feminist unwillingness to listen and believe men when we talk about our experiences. Throughout the article, the author addresses many of the complaints non-feminists have concerning the feminist position on masculinity, manhood, and maleness. He does so by dismissing those complaints outright. Instead of listening to what men say, the author follows the typical feminist tract of telling men what their feelings, opinions, and experiences are, and demanding that men abide by those opinions lest they prove their privileged bias.

This attitude results is pure condescension, as illustrated by a commenter named Andrew Pauls. Continue reading

The new movement

Nancy Kaffer does not like the men’s rights movement. As she posits in her Daily Beast article:

Men, it seems, do need a movement. Just not the one they have.

Visit the online homes of men’s rights adherents, and you’ll quickly get the impression that the biggest problems facing dudes these days are fat women, sluts, women who claim to have been raped, and, obvs, feminism.

She goes on to state:

Oh, sure, men’s rights advocates are concerned about the climate in divorce courts, where custody and financial decisions are perceived to favor women. But their approach is conspiratorial—the laws, they say, are rigged and controlled by radical feminists—not an acknowledgement that courts haven’t changed as rapidly as society.

These are reactive, not proactive, stances, and they do little to offer substantive solutions.

These are also stances that bear a striking resemblance to the feminist stance on social issues. It is remarkable how easily feminists like Kaffer will accept the argument that rape laws are rigged against women and controlled by “The Patriarchy” with no acknowledgement that many aspects of the legal system have not changed as rapidly as the rest of society, yet reject any similar assertion when made by men.

So, if I can womansplain, here

No, you may not, but you are going to do it anyway: Continue reading

A letter to the internet

Dear Internet,

I realize you are very upset about the Rolling Stone article and their retraction. I understand you do not like being lied to (which is strange considering how often you do it to others). I also understand the need to react to a perceived deception.

But you should at least wait until the police investigate “Jackie’s” story and file false accusation or libel charges against her before plastering her full name and image everywhere.

I know it is very difficult to restrain yourself. Try. Hard.

Even Rolling Stone did not publish the names and pictures of the men “Jackie” accused. Exercise some judgment. All the fear you have about the horrible things that could happen to the nine men she accused can also happen to her if you dox her. And it will be just as wrong.

So do not do that… anymore. Let the investigators do their jobs. If they determine “Jackie” lied, they will release her name, unless it proves too dangerous.

Sincerely,

Jacob

The problem with “automatic” belief

Feminists are scrambling following Rolling Stone’s apology for their recent article about a gang rape. Rolling Stone issued an apology for the article after other news outlets revealed serious inconsistencies in the accuser’s story. This led feminists to attempt to dodge the obvious problem: the accuser’s credibility and feminists’ credibility in regards to their theory of “rape culture” is in question.

Several feminists wrote articles concerning that issue, although none received as much backlash as Zerlina Maxwell’s piece. Maxwell’s argument is bizarrely problematic, yet also troubling is what happened in the 24 hours since the Washington Post published it.

The initial title of the article was “No matter what Jackie said, we should automatically believe rape claims”. It now reads “No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims”. No one needs to take my word for it. Here is the evidence.

Maxwell’s argument is absurd. It was Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone’s automatic belief of Jackie, the accuser, that resulted in the apology. Had Erdely taken Jackie at her word but fact-checked her story, Erdely might have caught the inconsistencies and been able to question Jackie before the article reached print. Had Rolling Stone’s fact-chekcers bothered to question Jackie’s story, they too might have caught the inconsistencies.

What makes Maxwell’s argument particularly moronic is that this is not an instance of Jackie telling only Erdely the story. She told the story to her friends, to activists, and spoke about it on campus. Jackie has likely told the story dozens of times, each time repeating elements that appear to be untrue.

This does not mean that Jackie was not raped, yet it does mean that the story she told everyone appears to be partly untrue, to which Maxwell replied: Continue reading

Feminist: Male rape victims have more privileges than women

I take a simple position on discussions about sexual violence: leave out the politics. Politics make an already complex issue more complicated. They lead to bias, bigotry, and favoring the protection of political stances over addressing the problem. This is particularly true when feminists are involved in the discussion.

It appears many feminists are incapable of discussing sexual violence without resorting to “who has it worse” arguments. Advocates for male victims and men’s rights activists frequently challenge feminists on those arguments. Feminists usually respond by dismissing the challenges as “misogyny” or an attempt to silence women.

Yet there is good reason for people to persist in those challenges, and that is because when such arguments are left unquestioned, they lead to rather ugly statements. For example, Kaelyn Polick-Kirkpatrick wrote in The State Press:

[…] men’s rights activists and skeptics alike raise questions about feminism’s tactics. For instance, why not include everyone in conversations about rape given it’s such a prodigious problem? Well, conversations that include men do need to happen — everyone has a role to play in mitigating rape culture; but these conversations do not necessarily need to happen within the feminist community.

Feminism provides a safe-space for women to cope with and fight back against the oppressive society in which they live. It exists because oppressed people often need support from others who can empathize with their struggles — men have privileges that prevent them from being able to empathize with the struggles of women, even when they are survivors of sexual crimes. For instance, it is unlikely that a man will be asked what he was wearing during an assault, and it is unlikely that a man will be told that he deserved it due to his promiscuous behavior.

That impressive inane statement could only have come from a feminist. No one else possesses such contempt for men to state without irony that male victims of rape are too privileged to empathize with female victims. Continue reading

A Dose of Stupid v103

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

A 12 Year-Old Boy’s First Kiss Shouldn’t Be With a Grown Woman

I was ready to agree with that statement until I saw what it referred to:

That little peck was nothing. It is hardly worth mentioning. It certainly does not rise to the level of child rape . And yet Joanna Schroeder could not help herself: Continue reading

These aren’t the nerds you’re looking for

In my previous post, I discussed the first part of Noah Brand’s series on nerds. As I noted, Brand’s argument can be summed up as gamers are losers who were born losers, will die losers, and not even other losers will mourn them.

He attempts to show sympathy towards male geeks, yet instead falls into the ever common feminist mistake of bashing the people he claims to want to help. In his second part, Brand goes full McIntosh.

First, Brand graces us with an excellent Freudian slip:

In part one of this article, we talked about the cluster of people who are, or believe themselves to me, permanently awkward and socially nonfunctional, people who need simple and consistent rules for interactions.

I believe the proper English would be “or believe themselves to be,” however, the mistake is quite revealing. Geeks do not think themselves permanently awkward and socially dysfunctional. They usually think themselves misunderstood.

They’ve tried to make spaces for themselves within geek/nerd culture, where they don’t have to be acceptable to other people, and they respond with rage when they feel those spaces have been violated by “outsiders”.

Geeks did not create a space where they could be unacceptable; they created a space where they would be accepted. They usually have little problem with “outsiders” coming into that space, as long as the “outsiders” respect it. However, many of the “outsiders” do not respect the space. These people only want to control it. They often demonstrate this by harassing and mocking the community, which is ironically the reason the community exists.

Their experience of outsiders, and especially of women, is that they cause pain, therefore causing them pain is justifiable.

That is a very poor strawman. Most geeks do not attack “outsiders” or women, despite the pain they suffer. If they did, few people would target them for abuse. After all, it is unwise to abuse someone who will fight back. Better to abuse those one knows will do nothing, hence Brand’s two condescending articles. Continue reading