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.
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.
Yes.
But, tragically, you can read in the comments that she actually believes this:
– that there’s a Patriarchy, and it’s conspiring to keep poor women enslaved (we meet on Tuesdays except for the last Tuesday of the month, when we adjourn for the monthly Live Virgin Hunting and Eating Contest)
– That a “rape culture” basically includes all heterosexual sex
– That men are out to get her.
She specifically states in her comments that you should look at the *men* you know.
By God, forget men. Most of the WOMEN I know score higher on this list than the men I know.
She is basically complaining about being human, about human sexuality – everything about human sexuality.
That she obviously believes that what she’s writing is even remotely relevant is sad. Her list is so farcical, you can only feel pity for her.
One thing the list doesn’t have anything to do with–
“Rape Culture”, whatever that is, or anything like it.
She just appears to hate sex.
I think most neofeminists, or mock feminists, hate human sexuality – even female sexuality.
Why do radical Lesbian feminists care so much what heterosexual feminists do? Or like?
I understand that they wish men would simply cease to exist –
But what do they have against straight women?
Straight women have sex with straight men. Straight men should not exist. Therefore, straight women are just as bad as straight men.
Twisted logic, isn’t it?
And if you read the comments-
This woman is basically saying that all human sexuality – male or not – is rape.
As currently experienced and practiced and advocated for by both men and women.
Well, then: Either rape is utterly meaningless, or anyone who ever has a sexual thought about the opposite sex, even females, should be brought up on charges of rape supporting.
Her world is so delusional, she can’t even see how delusional she is. The upside: she’s very young, and, judging by the content of her commentary and her blog, clearly not the brightest neofeminist. Even by their standards, her arguments are stunningly weak – based on the most facile interpretation and no logic at all.
Than again, she probably thinks that logic is a male plot to undermine genuine narratives and means of understanding.
Well, at least she never has to actually have, you know, sex with the males of the species.
To the neofeminist, all heterosexual interaction is rape. Though revisionists are now trying to claim that Dworkin and MacKinnon never made such a claim, that’s another example of sophistry. It’s true that neither one ever used the exact words”all heterosexual sex is rape” in any published writing, but what they DID write is completely equivalent. To claim neither of them said that is like my saying “I hate all dogs who bark” is somehow different from “I hate dogs.”
I think they want to punish all men: basically, even if a man is innocent of rape, Men and Maleness are all guilty of rape – so every man, if he ever gets in front of a court, if guilty – as a group and even as an individual – even if he’s not guilty of any crime at this precise moment.
This is why I find all philosophies based on marxist principles dehumanizing. No matter what you do, it always boils down to stripping the human experience and rendering you unable to so much as comment on it.
I like to call it abject moralizing. Abject ,because that’s what it is; moralizing, because it’s as irrational and convoluted as religious “reason”.
And neofeminism isn’t particularly connected to feminist thought – it’s much more a radical marxist method of thinking. This is why neofeminists are as obsessed – if not more obsessed – with issues of class warfare and racial / group identities.
All of their arguments seem, at root, to be grounded in a kind of visceral self-hatred.
My SO has been shown the offending blog post. She laughed – she has a MA in sociology, is steeped in feminist literature, and is conversant with the issues in three languages (French, English and Farsi); and yet, her response was:
– The woman must have survived a rape, and was either dismissed (ie, she felt violated but it wasn’t a forcible rape – hence no-one supported her), and has never recovered from the trauma and indeed has allowed it to completely cripple her, or she’s a lesbian and actually hates the idea of male sexuality, heterosexual female sexuality, and heterosexual sex in any form.
Another question: Why on Earth are we allowing women like this, women who hate men, maleness no matter how defined (I mean, men aren’t even allowed to have varying degrees of sexual attraction to women – I can’t find olive-skinned long-haired shapely women more attractive than older blondes; I dislike blonde colors, generally: This makes me a rape supporter, …??? I guess women and men aren’t allowed to be more or less attracted to anyone… )
… Why on Earth would they be allowed near anything remotely like public policy? I ask this because:
And my SO said it best:
“This woman hates sex. She has no feminine sexual desire. She sounds like a self-loathing asexual misanthropist. I feel sorry for her.”
(Except maybe: She might be a lesbian. She directs her comments only to *men* who have these rape-supporting behaviors; not women, who by and large have exactly the same behaviors).
Because she explicitly excuses women from this analysis, she basically declares:
Men are all rape supporters. Without men, there would be no rape – when women do the same things, don’t think about it, because only women are victims and men are not. Maleness is a crime.”
What’s sad is that this girl isn’t very original. In all of these references, all of this and the underlying ideology is part of mainstream neofeminist thought. It informs a lot of the academic debate in feminism.
No wonder virtually no women alive in the US today identify themselves as feminists. These feminists have basically declared ideological war on the human race- all of it.
There’s also one thing you can also add about the difference between hate and anger, Maggie.
Legitimate anger is an expression of one person (or group of people) expressing their concerns to the person or group they feel is not listening to their concerns or not treating them according to the principles espoused.
For example, my mother and dad get into arguments, but they’ve been married for 40+ years. My dad isn’t that good at taking care of his health, but he’s an excellent money manager. My mother is good at domestic chores, but doesn’t understand how to grow her money. They disagree, but don’t have a moment where they hurl complete venom at each other.
Or take the Civil Rights Movement. A group of African-Americans non-violently showed Caucasians that they were being treated as second-class citizens, a violation of the principles espoused in the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.
No African-Americans held a gun to Caucasians heads and said, “You will change this situation or I will hurt you.” Those that did were roundly condemned for the violence.
Illegitimate anger, or hatred, is only concerned with getting a point across and not caring what happens to other people who disagree with it. Or to take another phrase from the Sixties, it destroys the entire community in order to espouse (or save) a principle.
I do not know what is going through this radical lesbian feminist’s head. I rarely know WHY I act the way I do.
But if there’s one thing I’ve learned from my experience, hatred, even if you give into it for a moment, does nobody any good, especially yourself.
Or to take another cliche, “Those who want revenge should first dig two graves.”
The way I always express it is,”hatred is an acid which destroys the container in which it is kept.”
This is unbelievable,and the author is twisted with rage.
How can she possibly object to gay men having intercourse or watching gay porn together? There’s no connection here to misogyny. For that matter, apparently she hasn’t noticed that there is plenty of lesbian porn and that the lesbians do everything the guys do – B&D, S&M, fisting, and group ejaculation on an individual. For readers who don’t know, women can and do ejaculate, often spectacularly.
I took an online poll once to see if I was a chauvinist or a proto-chauvinist. The questions were weighted in such a way that no guy could come out looking good.
Finally, viz. the relationship between porn and rape. Nixon commissioned a big study on this and came up with nothing. Ronald Raygun, to please his brain dead constituents, ordered Edwin Meese to do another study, and bigger and more exhaustive one this time. He failed as well but his failure was never made public. Surely if anyone in the country wanted to find a causative link between porn and rape, he did. Ergo, there is no connection.
At least not then.
Unless, of course, it’s a negative connection.
No wonder, as men are failing in far greater numbers than women, these types are simply pressing home the advantage.
They actually do hate men, … but more to the point:
They hate themselves.
They hate the fact of their female gender, however defined; they hate the fact that humans are sexual beings; and they hate the fact that men exist.
For every execrable male instinct, there’s a female counterpart.
I recall being told killing was evil. Even for survival. Even for food.
I (and most of my family) hunt. I took my SO to Canada last year to tag a deer; I’m into archery. She was skeptical and thought it all rather gruesome, but came along, trooper that she is. In fact, she was a little bit thrilled by it all – stepping outside her world.
I brought down a large male deer. When she said – it’s still alive – I leaned over and dispatched it as quickly as I could.
She seemed somewhat disturbed, verbally – but physically she was obviously intrigued and fascinated. I cleaned it and we had the meat packed for us. I still have deer steaks in the freezer.
As appallingly violent as it was, as typically neanderthal as it was, the following occurred:
She bedded me that night with unusual enthusiasm; and we were both extremely aggressive about it. I was actually injured (sex injury tales). She suffered a mild bruise. It was a surprise to her, how voracious she felt.
I can tell you what it was: Her man killed an animal and then, without flinching, cleaned it. And essentially presented it to her. Charming media guy became competent hunter and killer. Alpha Male. This Man Can Kill For Me. Raw, native instinct; and I was direct and efficient and not cruel about it, but unflinching and sure of myself.
She told me around Christmas that as much as she was against it, in theory, it was shockingly sexy. She felt animal – she felt overpowering animal lust for me, unlike other times: She said she didn’t feel like making love, having sex or fucking, even: She felt like fornicating until we exploded.
Animal instincts, much?
And for the next week, we had sex with a nearly competitive edge. What hit her hard was her response to my naked aggression. The more I pushed her, and at one point I was physically restraining her, the more I overpowered her – the more sexually overwhelming it was.
We both agreed: it was the best sex we’ve ever had, ever, with anyone, including each other. And she felt guilty a month later.
At a lecture about female sexuality and male sexual domination and reversing the script, she felt an overwhelming urge to stand up and say:
“When I was respectfully dominated ,it was the best fucking of my life. I think you’re all wrong.”
The themes of domination – subordination – overwhelming animal lust – desire – attraction – equality – respect – disrespect–
None of these things are simple.
BSDM does nothing for me, but I’m beginning to worry that it kinda turns my SO on. She’s been making intimations of late, about various interesting things she’d like to do.
Occasionally, having that sort of sexual power over another being is interesting – but I like it in reverse as much. Pretty balanced. Variety is good.
But never is it about sharing and equality alone. There’s always a subtext of power – even of sharing power, and at times that’s the theme.
But I’m sure neofeminists will say that I’m a rapist for even thinking thse things. Well, if that’s true, then my SO is in every possible way a rape enabler – in fact, she’s had me force myself on her three times since, by request (general request – such spontaneous situations that seem like I’m forcing myself on her are hard to generate when you’re living together).
Of course, I’m her selected man – no random stranger. And she lives with me. And wants to have my children. And we respect each other. That said –
At no time, ever, is power not a part of our sexual interaction. In one way or another.
Does that make both of us rapists or rape supporters? If so–
Then all human sex, at all times, is rape.
Because she’s not that different from my ex-wife. or any other woman I’ve ever been with. And one woman who liked it more than a little rough (and I recall it went both ways) was “Mina”, who I’ve mentioned. I have no idea if her work influenced her libido or sexual preferences, given that she’d worked as an “Entertainer”. But when she had sex: she expected *SEX*. Lots of gentle touching and careful exploration wasn’t on her menu.
So if most of my experiences of female sexuality, as a male, seem to run the gamut but always involve some sort of power dynamic, and it’s never absolutely equal all the time –
Then please tell me, blogger,
WHEN IS SEX AND SEXUALITY NOT RAPE?
And if you brand all human sexuality rape, then how do you distinguish between forcible stranger rape and a husband and wife both desiring each other sexually?
@gorbachev…..Now I am really a rape supporting male, because this whole post totally turned me on…. adding a hunting trip to my sexual bucket list…. c: I’m smiling, but I’m not kidding…
The effect was very remarkable.
I predict that “Eve’s Daughter” will soon “protect” herself from having men look at her body, either by covering herself in a burqa or by becoming fatter than a whale — if she has not already done either or both.
Or maybe by becoming a nun. While her theories do not sound Christian at first, her total disconnect from understanding what it means to be human is a huge parallel.
She has tried to invoke the ultimate form of online protection and deleted her entire blog. Unfortunately for her, the Right to be Forgotten is not an actual right yet. So this page is going to stick around for a long time – testimony to her senseless vitriol.
Wow, I love strip clubs. I talk about sex. I like sex, and attracting a mans sexual interest. I have never signed a contract for sex. I watch porn when I’m bored, I write porn when I’m motivated. I like some women more than others. I think kids are great. I also have sexual needs, that can even be somewhat twisted at times.
I wonder if she realizes that these statements can also apply to women, and if so, is she calling me a rape supporter too? Or simply a rape volunteer? Just wondering. If I hook up with a guy with these same beliefs and we have sex, are we engaging in consensual rape?
I thought rape was a criminal, violent act. Not these things.
I hate to make a bad pun about this, Kelly, but if this lesbian feminist doesn’t like you having sex in an art gallery under a statue of Rodin’s Thinker concealed under a window covering, is that statutory drape?
Ouch! 🙂
Implicit in all her garbage is the idea that only men can do these things; I saw no indication that she believed women could be “rape supporters”. And what that really means is that she’s using the phrase “rape supporter” to mean “man”, so why not simply say “man” and be done? That’s the fascinating sickness of the whole thing.
She believes rape oppresses women and that “being complicit in your oppression” is ‘less bad’ than being in the ‘oppressor class’.
I often wonder how many of the women whose entire lives revolve around this “rape ideology” have actually ever been raped themselves? I’ve been raped several times, and the first time was pretty damned scary, but I didn’t let the incidents destroy my life or cause me to descend into misandry. It would be sad to think that these women were letting one event define their whole lives, but incomprehensible if they had never even endured the thing they’re so obsessed by. 🙁
Wow, Maggie, you are tough. I admire you for that.
Well, one does what one must. I’ve never understood why some people prolong their own torture by continuing to dwell on trauma which is past.
Hi Schala,
Over the past couple of year in the US women have been getting more violent (FBI crime statistics). We see or hear of one god awful episode after another of a mother backing into a lake to drown her children while she escapes, of women who assist men in abducting women; and although they don’t have a cock they can and do use instruments. Women take out contracts on their husbands and in the infamous Pamela Smart case she didn’t claim battered wife syndrome. She simply wanted his insurance money. We’ve had reports of a woman videotaping her two year old getting raped by men and then selling the tape on the internet. We have women who force 7 year old girls into prostitution. Of course I’m not saying these things are common (with modern media one report can loom very large), or that women rape and abuse more than men. But women aren’t angels either, and Dworkin and her mob need to be disabused of this notion.
Oh, I agree women aren’t angels.
Chivalric notions of women as moral and pure seek to deny them agency for bad things.
So if a man drowns/kills his children after a harsh separation or divorce, it’s him (with full agency) being a complete monster, selfish, evil, brutish.
But if a woman drowns/kills her children after a harsh separation or divorce, it’s “not really her fault”, she “was goaded into it by [male relative conveniently not too far]”, she “needs mental health help, not prison”.
And I never thought I’d hear feminists demanding the dismantling of women’s prisons…to build more men’s prisons (because women can have out-of-prison sentences, in rehabilitation centers…while men are lost causes, let them rot and die).
Not in Texas. Most women who kill young children are suffering from postpartum psychosis; they report killing the babies to save them from rapists, or that Jesus told them to, etc. But in Texas they’re prosecuted as criminals even when state-employed psychiatrists testify that they’re bat-shit crazy and therefore incompetent to stand trial. But Texas just wastes public money anyway in a grand kangaroo court to “get” the “evil” woman, and even if the state wins a conviction it’s always reversed on appeal. The state just has a very warped, punitive prosecutorial culture, which is why it also has one of the highest rates of death penalty reversals in the U.S.
Those I’ve heard of don’t kill newborns, they kill kids of 2+ years, kids who can walk, and sometimes talk (and be understood generally). Up to even 8-10 years old.
That’s a different syndrome, unless at least one is an infant.
It may well be why we didn’t get the Olympics. We’re kill-crazy in this state, because, apparently, that’s really tough. @_@
It’s not just killing; Texas is gung-ho on inflicting every kind of punishment available, from fines all the way to execution. What makes it really weird is that (as I don’t have to tell you) it wasn’t really like that until sometime in the ’90s.
I came here in the late, late 1980s. So I missed the Good Times.
I just have to wonder how far things can go before the pendulum HAS to swing back to something a little more reasonable.
lol@kerravon2109 (what a lovely image you create however..
@maggie, maybe I am a man then??? Maybe in her gender laws, penis or vagina means nothing in identifying ones gender compared to sexually liberated, or repressed?
She likes strip clubs? Male.
He is afraid to have sex because his mommy told him it was bad? Female.
WTF>>>?
I may have to give her the benefit of my click, though I tried to withhold it. Every click counts you know. SEO.
Nah, Kelly, you misunderstand; it’s OK if you do any of those things, because men have all the power so if you do “bad” stuff it’s only because you were traumatized by the Patriarchy and that makes you a victim. Free pass. 🙁
You know, I’ve always wondered how many of these, prostitution, S&M, rape fanstasy bashing women are scretly into it?
I’ve alway wondered if the correlation of self loathing neofeminist closet cases is higher, on par, or lower then the gay bashers who are secretly closet cases.
It always seems to me like they are trying too hard in an attempt to prove to themselves that they arent like “that”
I, too, have considered that it could be a case of reaction formation. The defense mechanism is less common among women than men, but neofeminists are only women in the strict biological sense.
Eve’s Daughter might be Ted Haggard? Could be!
I’m trying to think of something to say to this, possibly suggesting a similarity to a unicorn, but even that seems insufficient.
In any case, now that I know you exist, can you please send me some of your DNA so I can see if characteristics like yours can be spliced into the genes of other women (like perhaps all of them)?
And no, I have no idea why I didn’t post this under Kelly’s comment. Brain fart, I guess.
The poor, sad woman. In a reply to a male poster she said ” …I don’t typically approve comments from men, since past experience suggests that male posters attempt to dominate/intimidate/harass other commenters and (on more than one occasion) send me death threats.”
I wouldn’t send her death threats. I would send her a couple of kittens, though. It would be a great start for the crazy cat family she’ll end up having.
Just don’t send her any tom kittens; you wouldn’t want to be responsible for the horrible maltreatment any male creature would doubtlessly receive at her hands. 🙁
Mass generalisation, logic’s equivalent of the 3 minute warning siren. Something really awful is coming next.
Speaking of mass murder:
http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/a-rant/
(Health warning, do not read while drinking or eating, you may choke)
Another fantasy of hate. I was particularly struck by this textbook example of projection: “You would be released from the psychotic prison of your mind…” 🙁
I made the grave mistake of following that link. It’s even worse than her original quiz. And I can see her carrying out this crusade, and killing, killing, killing, killing – with a smile.
A latter-day Ted Bundy in high heels and lipstick.
Surely a “parlor psychologist” of the present-day ilk would pass off my visceral reaction as “mere projection; after all, you are a man, a flawed creature whose masculine identity has those same murderous, rapacious urges constantly simmering under the surface.”
I’ve come to expect this of women.
Except that women like her usually don’t wear nice clothes or makeup. 🙁
but neofeminists are only women in the strict biological sense.
Casual but calculated. Nice.
🙂
Is she in fact a lesbian?
Either that or asexual; I couldn’t stomach looking around her site enough to find out.
I feel bad for her father, even if he did run off, if he did.
Well maybe he was not a very nice male presence in her life.
I think this little or large lady needs to spend extended time in the ME. They will show her the way! 🙂
It’s actually sad that some people are allowed to communicate with the world. She is very warped, makes one wonder what it takes to create such in a human being.
Well, I certainly feel that she has a right to express her opinion, no matter how twisted it is. The sad part is that there are legislators who actually build new repressions on such sick and evil fantasies. 🙁
Such checklists are of course worse than worthless. I do have to say, though:
While I’m not that fond of old Karl, this sort of thing is older than Marx. It’s akin to racism, anti-Semitism, and other bigoted -isms. It would be easy to construct equally bullshit checklists for groups other than men.
ARE YOU A LAZY BLACK?
Have you ever gone on a vacation?
Have you ever missed work due to illness?
Have you ever gone on strike?
Have you ever been laid-off or fired?
Have you ever quit?
Have you ever not taken a job due to dissatisfaction with wages, hours, etc.?
Are you retired?
Told you they were lazy. Ignore any white folks trying to answer this; they don’t count.
Or maybe
ARE YOU A RAPE INVITEE?
Have you ever gone on a vacation?
Have you ever shown any thigh, cleavage, or midriff to a man you did not intend to have sex with?
Have you ever kissed a man but refused when he wanted to take it further?
Have you ever said something sexual without the intention of putting out for any man who might have heard it?
Have you ever told a man he was nice, good looking, or smart without having sex with him shortly thereafter?
Have you ever allowed a man to buy you dinner, lunch, breakfast, a drink, a cookie, without promptly giving him an expert blowjob out of sheer gratitude?
Are you a stripper who doesn’t at least offer to jerk off every man who hires you for a table dance?
Well bend over, bitch; you deserve it!
Well, I hope you’re laughing, rather than offended. The difference between me and Eve’s Daughter is that I know my checklists are bullshit. Oh, I shouldn’t say BULLshit; that’s terribly male! Mea culpa. I meant steershit, of of course.
Ok, I’ll be the bitch who says it: raise your hand if you think this woman is a fat, ugly, bitter angry cow that no man has found attractive for at least twenty years. Probably longer.
Sour. Fucking. Grapes.
Anyone?
Bitch, please. When every single man you meet is a rapist/rape supporter, perhaps the problem isn’t men, sweetheart. Perhaps a mirror would be in order. And do something with your fucking hair while you’re there.
Jesus.
{raises hand}
I am irresistibly reminded of this demotivational poster:
Yay, Andrea’s back!
It’s been crazy! We’re into our summer party season here, and down two kegs already.
@ Brandy, @Emily, @ Kelly – get in touch with me on Facebook! Maggie knows who to contact (I really am Andrea, and I really do what I say I do!)
Damnit.
That poster says it all.
Cute story:
Waling with GF in Korea. Ajuma (older Korean woman – maybe 45, obviously with pickled kimchi up her ass) – looks over at tarty little GF and says, just audibly, “Slut isn’t even pretty.”
GF said nothing and then on the way out, asked me what I thought of Ajuma outfits – and we had a louder than proper conversation about them. She wanted to know what I thought of the hair (afro-like).
I said : well, it’s sad that Korean women of a certain age seem to lose al interest in men, or their husbands.
She expounded on this and said: Oh. But what if they were always ugly?
The woman made the Ajuma snort as we left the subway.
Ugly women sound a lot like weenie guys complaining about how hard it is to talk to women.
The “ajuma snort”. LOL. Gotta tell my friend that one.
“Ajuma snort” didn’t mean anything to me, so I googled “ajuma” and got Ajuma Nasenyana, who probably isn’t what you had in mind.
They snort.
Has anybody heard from Jill lately?
Quite often, actually. 🙂
Cool.
Ajuma is Korean for “old lady/auntie”.
Back on topic: thank you for posting your missive on Eve’s Daughter’s rant. As a person who actually *does* try to be tolerant, I could commiserate with most of her points (twisting logic to the bounds of nonsense for some) until she slut out the “If you think that women are hot, you’re a rape supporter/if you think that a woman isn’t hot, and you tell her that she isn’t hot, you’re a rape supporter” BS mindfuck. Apparently, I’m only supposed to find the “right” (as in the woman who chooses me for herself) woman as attractive.
I wonder if lesbians are allowed to find women hot or not.
Or to be attracted to a specific woman or not.
I get the impression she just doesn’t like sex. Her rant is more anti-sex misanthropy than anything else.
Lesbians can be more oppressive than men by her calculations.
She’s a parody: this is the value of her post.
Since you offered the info – I’m curious. You don’t need to tell me, but–
were you raped in the line of work, or by men you knew personally?
Aside:
3 women I knew were raped. One told me a vague story about being drunk and groped/poked by a guy she knew, who was hugely keen on her. He pursued her for a relationship, they dated for half a year, they broke up. She always maintained after they broke up that he had raped her. I never heard his side of the story – but it sound like they were both hammered out of their minds, they both let it happen, and she felt like, being the man, he was wholly responsible. ALSO, he was a weenie of a guy – so not a guy she’d normally date. I find women are harder on guys who are weaker. I never questioned her, but it sounded more vaguely unwanted than rapey.
The second was stranger-raped in France by a Muslim she befriended. The moment they were alone, be forcibly raped her and then left. She never saw him again. It was terrifying. She said she knew many women who’d experienced like this. In every case the man was Muslim (not black; they were clear about this, she said). She personally had a hatred for North African men. When I lived there for a year and a half, it was common to hear anecdotes like this. Muslims in the press were always saying things like “Western womens’ honor is less important – they’re whores anyway” and “It’s the equivalent of taking slaves in Islam – you raid the Kaffirs.” These attitudes are the norm among muslim Males in France. And before you call me a racist – go to France and stay there for a year. Then say different.
The third was my ex, who worked as a whore. She had a story: when she was 22, new to the private escort business, she and another girl entertained two apparently respectable Japanese businessmen. Instead of engaging their wholly willing services, they insisted on hitting them, restraining them forcefully and being abusive. She felt lucky to have survived, though she wasn’t likely in danger for her life. But she nursed a generic hatred for the Japanese and never served Japanese guys ever again. She avoided white guys (hence hiding me from that world served both her and me) because this would make Korean customers nervous: We all know that KOREANS don’t get aids and diseases. Foreigners are DIRTY. Of course those Korean business trips to Thailand were all because of the great golfing.
But only the first woman was scarred by the experience.
The French woman was bitter but sexually normal (I was sleeping with her; she was normal).
The Korean had some interesting effects. In general she liked hard sex and was very relaxed and creative, almost funny, in bed: For her, it was just a ridiculous scenario so she enjoyed it like you’d enjoy any activity. But when you got down to it, she liked sex pretty hard and aggressive. One of the things she liked about me was that I was willing to play ball.
But I was uncomfortable with lots of things she wanted to do. We were lovers; I did it anyway.
Was that unwanted sex? I’ve had unwanted sex (unwanted by me) on many occasions. I’m not into violent sex; a couple of women I’ve been with have requested levels of aggression I’m not comfortable with.
Anyway, I wonder if her rape experience or her job programmed her. I don’t know.
I always wondered that. She liked aggressive men. Some of the things we did – a few times it was basically voluntary rape. Not my scene. I never did ask her why she liked that; but she did.
But there was a lot of variety.
I told the story of the times I was raped on the job in July and the earlier one in November.
Eve’s Daughter explains how she came to her views:
http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/evolution-of-a-feminist/
Short version: She was born with a severe hormonal imbalance (high testosterone) which makes her a borderline transsexual and results in irregular periods and miscarriage. Her parents were knee-jerk “liberals” and her mother put a bunch of stupid ideas about sex into her head when she was young, then she knew a bunch of asshole men. No rape that I could see. In other words, she’s a hopelessly maladjusted whiner who doesn’t want to grow up.
Add anxiety and panic disorder with a possible side of depression and obsessive compulsive disorder.
Quick, get this woman to M.A.P.S. and get her some MDMA-assisted psychotherapy\!
Though I suspect that, even with help from Adam, you fall into the old joke:
Q: How many psychotherapists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Only one, but the light bulb has to really want to change!
Definitely OCD; that checklist is a textbook example of it.
OK, then: psilocybin.
Eve’s Daughter seems to be a severely traumatized woman. She’s traumatized by everything.
You know, on principle, though, I could go through my life and list all of the things that have been done to me.
it to the things done to me by women. Capriciousness, vindictive behavior, selfishness, malevolent neglect, double standards, … the time a guy I knew who was falsely accuesed of rape, forced out of our college, and hounded by the police – only to be completely exonerated, the woman outed as a blatant liar, and then to have *HER* consoled as a victim of the whole process. Ultimately, his parents pushed him to sue and he forced the university to give him a six-figure settlement and issue an apology. The individual woman who ran the student services center refused to acknowledge they had done anything wrong (she’d withheld evidence throughout that the complainant was a liar – it was obvious after the fact that they’d had political motivations, and the actual individual was clearly innocent – what was shocking was that this woman knew this and proceeded anyway, and felt she’d done nothing wrong. She kept her job.) But it was all okay because he was allowed to sue and got money. S o his persecution was all right. Having his life ruined for 3 years in every way was completely acceptable as part of the war against men.
Then there was my divorce. It was straightforward. But it was obvious (as my female lawyer told me) that this was becuase my wife was being nice. In divorces, she explained, men have virtually no power at all – it’s lucky if you ecape with your shirt. In any case, I still had to pay for her lawyer, though she made more money than me.
And when I was 19, a gang of black kids surrounded me and attempted to remove my face. I was saved by a tall black guy who clearly didn’t hate white people. But the worst, by far, among the 5 kids were the two women. One punched me in the balls; the other goaded the men on relentlessly, taking huge pleasure in my humiliation.
Can I point out the vast number of men who have experienced the same thign: goading by women to do things which are obviously sociopathic, and then the claims by the women that they weren’t involved?
When do we stop giving either sex special moral imperatives and excuses?
I could draw up a litany of woe and suffering at least the equal of this Eve’s Daughter.
Clearly, from her screed, it’s obvious that, in fact, she *DOES* hate men as a gender and a sex and she loathes and detests male sexuality in its entirety.
That’s her prerogative.
But using anything she says, as a self-proclaimed victim of everything, a truly damaged human being, as a prescription for human development–
would be a tragedy for everyone else.
You don’t take a an angry victim of black violence (thikn New Orleans after Katrina) who isn’t able to acquire perspective and who dwells on everything wrong with the rest of the world and ask them what they think about black-white relations.
Eve wants men to stop having sex; to be neutered and, essentially, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist as independent beings.
What’s not shocking is that this attitude is not atypical in the radfem communities.
Maggie’s summary is succint and to the point. Says it all.
I suspect if Eve read that, she’d be appalled – but that’s because it hits close to the mark.
Eve’s daughter’s experience has nothing to do with the lives of almost all women.
Or their desires. Or their experiences. In fact, nothing at all.
Drawing any lessons about men and women from such a narrow, self-tragedized fantasy life would be a mistake.
Why are you reading through her site?
She needs a psychologist and therapy. She’s unable to deal with either any aspect of life or reality.
I hope she didn’t have any male children. She’s as likely to indiscriminately abuse them or kill them as raise them.
Eve’s Daughter seems to have absorbed all the wrong lessons.
What was interesting was her seeing images of naked women and pornography as very personal acts of abuse.
I was correct, I think: She dislikes sex, in and of itself: The act of objectification, the feelings of sexual desire, seem to be repulsive to her. And it apparently started young.
She also seems to be maladjusted, and to suffer from several kinds of personality disorder – among them narcissism. Severe narcissism.
It frightens me that these kinds of people – those with difficulties dealing with being human – are the ones often determining public policy.
She’s definitely narcissistic, but neofeminism is an inherently narcissistic viewpoint because it derives from anger at the world for being arranged in a manner the neofeminists find inconvenient. The “you’re selling my sexuality” nonsense and taking porn personally are narcissistic in the extreme.
They object as women to the idea that men see women as venues for sexual gratification.
My question is: What other purpose does sexual attraction serve? Both sexes do this. Would they rather people use sex as a bribery tool, used to get goods in exchange – either tangible or not? She seems to object to the exchange theory of sex, as well. if you support that, you’re a rape supporter.
So what form of sexual interaction is it acceptable for people to have, outside of this? Almost all human interaction of any kind is, fundamentally, based on mutual exchanges – coerced or mutual. There’s rarely an equal power relationship in any situation, either.
This is why I think she’s just anti-sex: it stems, for her, as much from self-loathing and self-hatred (hence the misanthropy generally and the misandry specifically).
She hates the state of being human.
Eve’s Daughter also appears to suffer from borderline personality disorder, though obviously i’m not a psychologist so I’m not really qualified to make such a diagnosis; it’s just that the demonization of men and black-white duality are pretty indicative of BPD.
I wonder how many radical feminists also suffer from these psychosocial ailments.
It was the opinion of a black female physician whom I used to correspond with that most of them do. She was the one who first pointed out to me how intrinsically narcissistic all the “-ists” (feminists, Afrocentrists, Marxists etc) are, since they all think the world revolves around their particular pet peeve.
Maggie, this is not really off topic and is a very interesting news report:
Sorry for the length!
If you believe the near-daily news stories, sexual predators lurk everywhere: in parks, at schools, in the malls—even in teens’ computers. A few rare (but high-profile) incidents have spawned an unprecedented slate of new laws enacted in response to the public’s fear. Every state has notification laws to alert communities about released sex offenders. Many states have banned sex offenders from living in certain areas, and are tracking them using satellite technology. Officials in Florida and Texas plan to bar convicted sex offenders from public shelters during hurricanes.Most people believe that sex offenders pose a serious and growing threat. According to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, “the danger to teens is high.” On the April 18, 2005, “CBS Evening News” broadcast, correspondent Jim Acosta reported that “when a child is missing, chance are good it was a convicted sex offender.” (Acosta is incorrect: If a child goes missing, a convicted sex offender is actually among the least likely explanations, far behind runaways, family abductions, and the child being lost or injured.)
On his “To Catch a Predator” series on “Dateline NBC,” reporter Chris Hansen claims that “the scope of the problem is immense” and “seems to be getting worse.” In fact, Hansen stated, Web predators are “a national epidemic.” The news media emphasizes the dangers of Internet predators, convicted sex offenders, pedophiles, and child abductions. Despite relatively few instances of child predation and little hard data on topics such as Internet predators, journalists invariably suggest that the problem is extensive, and fail to put their stories in context. The “Today Show,” for example, ran a series of misleading and poorly designed hidden camera “tests” to see if strangers would help a child being abducted (see “Stranger Danger: ‘Shocking’ TV Test Flawed”).
New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald wrote a front-page article about Justin Berry, a California teen who earned money as an underage Webcam model, seduced by an online audience who paid to watch him undress. Berry’s story made national news, and he appeared on Oprah and in front of a Senate committee. Berry’s experience, while alarming, is essentially an anecdote. Is Berry’s case unique, or does it represent just the tip of the sexual predation iceberg? Eichenwald is vague about how many other teen porn purveyors like Berry he found during his six-month investigation. Three or four? Dozens? Hundreds or thousands? Eichenwald’s article states merely that “the scale of Webcam pornography is unknown,” while suggesting that Berry’s experience was only one of many. (Acosta, Hansen, and Eichenwald did not respond to repeated requests for clarification of their reporting.) Sex offenders are clearly a threat and commit horrific crimes, but how great is the danger? After all, there are many dangers in the world—from lightning to Mad Cow Disease to school shootings—that are real but very rare. Are they as common—and as likely to attack the innocent—as most people believe? A close look at two widely-repeated claims about the threat posed by sex offenders reveals some surprising truths. One in five?According to a May 3, 2006, “ABC News” report, “One in five children is now approached by online predators.”
This alarming statistic is commonly cited in news stories about prevalence of Internet predators. The claim can be traced back to a 2001 Department of Justice study issued by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“The Youth Internet Safety Survey”) that asked 1,501 American teens between 10 and 17 about their online experiences. Among the study’s conclusions: “Almost one in five (19 percent)…received an unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year.” (A “sexual solicitation” is defined as a “request to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk or give personal sexual information that were unwanted or, whether wanted or not, made by an adult.” Using this definition, one teen asking another teen if her or she is a virgin—or got lucky with a recent date—could be considered “sexual solicitation.”) Not a single one of the reported solicitations led to any actual sexual contact or assault. Furthermore, almost half of the “sexual solicitations” came not from “predators” or adults but from other teens. When the study examined the type of Internet “solicitation” parents are most concerned about (e.g., someone who asked to meet the teen somewhere, called the teen on the telephone, or sent gifts), the number drops from “one in five” to 3 percent. This is a far cry from a “national epidemic” of children being “approached by online predators.” As the study noted, “The problem highlighted in this survey is not just adult males trolling for sex. Much of the offending behavior comes from other youth [and] from females.” Furthermore, most kids just ignored (and were not upset by) the solicitation: “Most youth are not bothered much by what they encounter on the Internet…Most young people seem to know what to do to deflect these sexual ‘come ons.'” The reality is far less grave than the ubiquitous “one in five” statistic suggests.
Recidivism revisited
Much of the concern over sex offenders stems from the perception that if they have committed one sex offense, they are almost certain to commit more. This is the reason given for why sex offenders (instead of, say, murderers or armed robbers) should be monitored and separated from the public once released from prison. The high recidivism rate among sex offenders is repeated so often that it is usually accepted as truth, but in fact recent studies show that the recidivism rates for sex offenses is not unusually high. According to a U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics study (“Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994”), just five percent of sex offenders followed for three years after their release from prison in 1994 were arrested for another sex crime. A study released in 2003 by the Bureau found that within three years, 3.3 percent of the released child molesters were arrested again for committing another sex crime against a child. Three to five percent is hardly a high repeat offender rate.
In the largest and most comprehensive study ever done of prison recidivism, the Justice Department found that sex offenders were in fact less likely to reoffend than other criminals. The 2003 study of nearly 10,000 men convicted of rape, sexual assault, and child molestation found that sex offenders had a re-arrest rate 25 percent lower than for all other criminals. Part of the reason is that serial sex offenders—those who pose the greatest threat—rarely get released from prison, and the ones who do are unlikely to re-offend. If sex offenders are no more likely to re-offend than murderers or armed robbers, there seems little justification for the public’s fear, or for the monitoring laws tracking them. (Studies also suggest that sex offenders living near schools or playgrounds are no more likely to commit a sex crime than those living elsewhere.)
Putting the threat in perspective
The issue is not whether children need to be protected; of course they do. The issues are whether the danger to them is great, and whether the measures proposed will ensure their safety. While some efforts—such as longer sentences for repeat offenders—are well-reasoned and likely to be effective, those focused on separating sex offenders from the public are of little value because they are based on a faulty premise. Simply knowing where a released sex offender lives—or is at any given moment—does not ensure that he or she won’t be near potential victims. While the abduction, rape, and killing of children by strangers is very, very rare, such incidents receive a lot of media coverage, leading the public to overestimate how common these cases are. Most sexually abused children are not victims of convicted sex offenders nor Internet pornographers, and most sex offenders do not re-offend once released. This information is rarely mentioned by journalists more interested in sounding alarms than objective analysis. One tragic result of these myths is that the panic over sex offenders distracts the public from a far greater threat to children: parental abuse and neglect. The vast majority of crimes against children are committed not by released sex offenders, but instead by the victim’s own family, church clergy, and family friends. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, “based on what we know about those who harm children, the danger to children is greater from someone they or their family knows than from a stranger.” If lawmakers and the public are serious about wanting to protect children, they should not be misled by “stranger danger” myths and instead focus on the much larger threat inside the home.
________________________________________
Benjamin Radford wrote about Megan’s Laws and lawmaking in response to moral panics in his book “Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us.” He is the managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
I’ve linked to that before, but I can’t remember offhand which column it was.
It wasn’t a column, it was a research article on
http://www.livescience.com I typed Sex in the search bar and found this.
[…] week, Emma posted a link on her Facebook stream, linking to a blog post by The Honest Courtesan. While it’s interesting to see Emma’s reading choices , the point of the blog post was […]
On a much, much, much lighter note:
I’ve just discovered that there is a steampunk novella called The Women of Nell Gwenne’s, by Kage Baker. It is also available in paperback, under another title: Nell Gwenne’s Scarlet Spy, with an additional short story included. I haven’t read either version, just so you know.
It looks to me like steampunk is merging fast with paranormal romance, and I would rather it didn’t. Ah well, like that matters.
Maggie. Maggie, you have got to see this. It’s nearly twenty minutes long, has bad language, and is funny as all hell. I do prefer your more intellectual approach to the subject, but this is good too, considering.
After watching this, I’m wondering if Eve dearest was actually similar to one of those people with an asphyxiation fetish. Only she gets off to hate mail instead of actual physically dangerous acts.
“Oh you hate me, yes, hate me, OH YES YESS YEAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSS!”
I have one thing to say about her; “You went full retard. Never go full retard.”
But in all honesty, are you sure she’s not parodying neofeminism? Sometimes people aren’t as wilfully stupid as they pretend to be, but know that they can get away with tricking people into believing their act because they know people like that exist. For example, I saw an atheist on youtube under the profile D4MVP do a frighteningly convincing impression of a christian fundamentalist that actually made me shudder. It was only in the comments section that he admitted to it being just an act.
Food for thought. 😉
Poe’s Law. A deliberately over-the-top parody and the bat-shit insane reality are hard to tell apart.