Archive for May 29th, 2011

Anger is always concerned with individuals…whereas hatred is directed also against classes…moreover, anger can be cured by time; but hatred cannot.  The one aims at giving pain to its object, the other at doing him harm; the angry man wants his victim to feel; the hater does not mind whether they feel or not.  –  Aristotle

It seems as though every time someone suggests a column topic and I tell them I can’t really use it, within a few weeks I end up changing my mind.  Well, I’ve set a new record; regular reader MaMu1977 sent me this link last Saturday (May 21st) and suggested I might find it a worthwhile subject.  And though I at first dismissed it for the bizarre misandrist, neofeminist nonsense it is, the sheer depth of maladjustment revealed in this pathetic malcontent’s ravings haunted me enough that by the next morning I had decided to post about it.  Take a look at the blog in that link if you dare, but be warned that it’s like opening the viewing window into a padded cell, and what you see won’t be pretty.

The neofeminist goal. Gender separatism? Check. Women dress so as to avoid “objectification” by the dangerous “male gaze”? Check. Women patronized and “protected” by law? Check…

For those who would rather not expose themselves to pure, malevolent, self-destructive hate (and I don’t blame you if you don’t), the link is to a blog called Eve Bit First which is written by a radical lesbian neofeminist who characterizes normal male behavior as “being violent, worthless scum” and appears to advocate total gender separatism (though I didn’t have the stomach to read enough to be sure of that).  Needless to say, she dismisses third-wave feminists and portrays prostitutes, women who enjoy BDSM and pretty much all other heterosexual women as emotional cripples.  The particular post in the link is described by the blog’s author as “a handy guide for women who involve themselves with men” (i.e. interact with them in any way, even online) to determine if the man is a “rape supporter”.  One might think that this term might perhaps mean a lawyer who defends rapists, a politician who tightens the legal criteria for determining rape, a man who tends to blame rape victims for their clothing, or the like…but one would be wrong.  In the dank cellar this person uses for a mind, “rape supporter” pretty much means any non-castrated male over the age of 10 who does not live in a monastery.

You know those ridiculous checklists which claim that your husband might be a “batterer” if he’s ever expressed any opinion contrary to yours or been angry at anybody for any reason? Well, this is like that, but much worse.  I’m not going to reproduce the whole thing in all of its hysterical and delusional detail; if you really just can’t restrain your curiosity, please feel free to click on the link above.  Instead, I’ll remove all of the repetition, prevarication and doubletalk and boil her checklist down to the minimum (statements reproduced verbatim will be so indicated).  According to “Eve’s Daughter”, as she calls herself, a man is a “rape supporter” if:

He has ever had sex with any woman without a signed statement from his partner attesting to her consent, accompanied by a statement from a neofeminist psychiatrist attesting to her absolute mental health at the time of the signing.

He defends the current legal definition of rape.  (verbatim)

He believes that a woman’s consent is a defense against a rape charge.

He has ever doubted anything any woman making a rape accusation claims, no matter what.

He has procured a prostitute.  (verbatim)

He believes women are intelligent and mature enough to make their own sexual decisions.

He has gone to a strip club.  (verbatim)

He has any opinion at all on abortion, lesbians or “social construction of gender”.

He believes in freedom of speech.

He watches porn, including gay porn involving intercourse.

He believes that any woman might ever want to attract a man’s sexual attention.

He tells or laughs at jokes involving female characters.

He watches any TV shows or movies with female characters who actually look like women.

He mocks neofeminists.

He belongs to any traditional religion.

He discusses the mechanics of sex, even scientifically.

He believes that most women want children.

He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.”  (verbatim)

He is more attracted to some women than others.

He defends any woman’s right to do or believe any of the above.

Obviously, there is no male with a pulse to whom at least nine of these “criteria” do not apply, and I’d be amazed if any male reader can find more than five that don’t.  Clearly, the author knows this; she herself concludes with the sentence “So, let’s see how many women reading this know at least one male over the age of 18 who does not fit this list. Anybody?”  So my question is, why bother making the checklist in the first place?  To cleverly craft such a list so that it isn’t obvious that no member of the target group can escape would merely constitute sophistry, but to do so in a manner that would be obvious to a fifth-grader is an obsessive waste of time. Since what the author actually means to say is that “all men are rape supporters”, why not simply say that and be done with it?  Surely even the author cannot be so delusional that she imagines even one reader will buy her ludicrously-transparent pretense of objectivity, so why bother?  This is, of course, the issue which haunted me; I find it sad and tragic that a human being can be so consumed by hate as to spend the time to construct such an elaborate and narcissistic fantasy of victimization.  And unfortunately, this tortured soul is far from unique.

Read Full Post »