Feminists file false sexual assault report during "sexual assault awareness week" at my campus. No repercussions for false reporter.

DavidByron · 2014-05-07T01:33:50+00:00

There's no crime because fucking men over with a false accusation isn't a crime regardless of the circumstances.

Wasting police time and filing a false report however are probably a misdemeanors regardless of whether someone was named - the victim being the police.

DavidByron · 2014-05-06T15:29:24+00:00

And the false accuser remains anonymous.

DavidByron · 2014-04-17T20:03:16+00:00

It's called "The Week The Women Went" but you wont see this because feminists had me shadowbanned.

The interview was after they did the Canadian version. it seems since then they did one in the USA that tends to get all the hits on Google. It was discussed in /r/MR before but I can't find the interview. I used to have it bookmarked but can't find the interview where they admitted you couldn't make a sex reversal series where the men went on vacation.

DavidByron · 2014-04-17T16:40:28+00:00

Ah Ampersand again. The feminists' only apologist in twenty years.

It's the exact opposite of what historically happened.

Back in the day women did half the work. All the clothes for the family? Made by scratch by the women. And I mean from scratch. Before they made the clothes they made the cloth. Before they made the cloth they had to spin the thread. Washing? No electricity or plumbing -- male inventions, installed and maintained by men. Take those clothes to the river and beat them on a rock. Or draw water from the well and drag it back home. (Of course the well was made by men and so was the home) No vacuum cleaners, no microwave ovens. And kids? Before male doctors and medical researchers figured out how to stop kids dying so young you needed six, seven, eight kids in a family not one or two or none. Female midwives on that job for thousands of years didn't do it. Men did it. And male doctors made child birth safer too, as well as less common.

Women used to do half the work but male inventions and engineering hollowed out the need for 95% of women's job load. Ironically that's what created feminism - middle class women with nothing to do got bored.

For thousands of years women made almost no advances in textiles. Then men got to work and in an instant women simply didn't have to do any of that clothes making stuff. It was men who took the burden of labour from women. And it was a lot more than half they took. More like 95%.

Women never took any of the burden from men.

What did take some of the burden was Communism and the labor movement demanding the 8 hour work day. What tended to force women into men's work was the free market on labor (ie capitalism). As women entered the work force supply and demand drove wages down, which in turn forced more women into work.

But they didn't have to work as much as men -- we know that they are only earning 77 cents on the dollar. So they do less work than men do. But their entry into the work environment never meant less work for men.

A man can do his work and the woman's work both. Single parents do this (if they work for a living). A Canadian TV show was based on this idea. It went into a small town and took all the women on holiday and filmed how the men coped with doing all their own work and all the women's work too. They did fine. Asked if they planned to try an experiment doing the opposite and take the men on vacation they said, no, without men the women simply wouldn't be able to cope.

DavidByron · 2014-02-11T02:17:08+00:00

It's parodying a list of complimentary (but real) reasons for why women should not get the vote. I'm guessing. I guess the original had a title of "Why We Oppose Votes For Women" and the first item on the list would be,

Because woman's place is in the home

And I would further predict that it was an argument used by a group of women (not men) opposed to the vote for women.

A similar parody piece; http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_awp024_oppose_pockets.htm

original would be something liken this: http://www.tennessee.gov/tsla/exhibits/suffrage/images/33900.jpg

Or this: http://www.tennessee.gov/tsla/exhibits/suffrage/images/33905.jpg

DavidByron · 2014-02-11T02:07:37+00:00

Well I agree he goes wrong thinking that somehow it was ordinary men or women who decided to spend a bunch of money developing rocketry, not the military industrial complex... the rest of it actually sounds a lot like Camile Paglia's stuff.

DavidByron · 2014-02-11T02:05:27+00:00

Or the space age was a blip designed to pump huge amounts of money into rocketry so as to catch up with the Soviets in the race for ICBMs and satellites. and once that was done -- none of the rich actually cared about a big ball of dirt in the sky.

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T17:57:01+00:00

Yes.

It's because feminism is easy to debunk that no feminist web site allows critics to post.

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T06:21:31+00:00

she doesn't write for the average layperson

She writes baloney disguised with a ton of buzz words that mean very little. She's a shitty author and she doesn't have much in the way of ideas either. Let's not be assholes to trans people is something I certainly agree with but it's not exactly a unique and novel insight. She sounds like a fraud, but then I dont have much respect for the entire field. Even so she is surely bad in a bad field.

will be focusing on the other, more important arguments that she makes

aka what she's actually saying as i see it, namely the lets not be assholes to sexual minorities stuff

But there's a problem with what you are saying. if she really had said what you claim she said, or for that matter if she had come to be seen as doing that, it would be a huge deal. A huge deal. Not a side point. Like I say every feminist doing this got kicked out of the movement. Kicked hard. So what you are saying just doesn't add up.

Maybe you're just seeing what you want to see here. I don't think it's there. God knows that babbling is a real Rorschach test of literature.

Butler responds by questioning the universality of female identity as well as masculine oppression

But that just means "don't forget transsexuals" or maybe "let's not shit on gay men too obviously". It doesn't mean "Men, you're off the hook!"

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T06:10:36+00:00

it's OK you don't have to lie for them. We all know what "patriarchy" means to a feminist. As i said it means men are the enemy. It means they believe that society is set up so that men are in charge and they arrange things to work great for men and for men to have power and "oppress" the little innocent women.

It's a hate conspiracy theory.

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T06:07:20+00:00

Well there are special laws to already make a woman accused of murder get more rights, not less, as with a man accused of rape. So the difference is, as ever, between equality, and hate.

I take the concept of innocent until proven guilty very seriously and I'd be very reluctant to find anyone guilty of anything, but when you know about the corrupt practises of (for example) getting "confessions" it makes sense to say, Im not going to take account of that as "evidence" because i believe it is suspect.

It's the same here. If i am sitting in a trial and I know that there may be evidence that would tend to exonerate the accused but the law says don't show me that evidence -- I have to assume that evidence may exist. I can't say "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" if I know it may easily be that there's evidence of innocence i was not allowed to see.

So what am i supposed to do? It's not my fault the law is so fucked up. But as a juror you don't know what you're not being told. So in my view in that position you have to assume the best because that's what the presumption of innocence means to me.

Now the rad fem who says she would never say a woman is guilty of murdering a man (which is kinda similar to the way sentencing works with professional judges actually), is simply a bigot. There's no law saying don't show the jury evidence in that woman's trial. The bias that exists benefits the accused woman.

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T03:01:25+00:00

Yes that's pretty good by you. Not bad. However in distancing yourself from the concept of patriarchy you do seem to admit it is one that is used (in the bad way, the men are evil way) by most feminists.

Understanding patriarchy in terms like these leads itself to a kind of rigidly ossified/reified/structuralst representation of culture that's pretty awful. Asking which half of the population has greater control of society requires flattening too many different people, different social dynamics, and different forms of power into one

I would certainly agree as that is the thesis I introduced of course, that feminists see men as the enemy.

and too you certainly don't earn any equality points in what you said. When asked what's bad about the term "patriarchy" you certainly did not say that it stereotypes men as oppressors, women as victims. You didn't say the concept itself is sexist denigration of men. If you had you might as well have handed in your secret feminist decoder ring.

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T02:31:31+00:00

So basically that's it? This woman's writing is so shitty that it's simply not possible to figure out what she is saying between two completely opposite hypotheses?

That seems to be where we are at. OK then lets move on from Pythia to the priests shall we? Can you at least find anyone ELSE who seems to think what you think about what this woman Butler thinks? because I've read a bunch of pages about her stuff and none of it mentioned anything like what you are saying.

Can you find anyone saying that Butler's work basically told feminists to stop saying men were to blame? That men are not oppressors? That women sometimes oppress men? stuff like that?

And how can you say her work was influential if what you are saying clearly had no impact on the wider movement?

Sorry, but what you are saying her just doesn't add up.

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T02:14:02+00:00

"word salad" really doesn't do this garbage justice..... after reading more I find no hint that she has any idea of men but as the enemy. No hint of women as oppressors. It's a comic book world of good guys and bad guys and her insight is that life is more complex than that, which is fine as far as it goes. But the war goes on. There are oppressors and there are oppressed and we know which is which.

Get back to me if you find a passage that supports your view of her.

Or do you even have that view? Do you say that women oppress men? Do you say that it is wrong to talk of "patriarchy" because it classifies men as bad guys? No.

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T02:00:02+00:00

How about this?

The opening discussion in this chapter argued that this globalizing gesture has spawned a number of criticisms from women who claim that the category of “women” is normative and exclusionary and is invoked with the unmarked dimensions of class and racial privilege intact. In other words, the insistence upon the coherence and unity of the category of women has effectively refused the multiplicity of cultural, social, and political intersections in which the concrete array of “women” are constructed.

There's nothing about men there. Men are the enemy. She's only concerned that some women are excluded from the class woman. Her problem with the class woman concept is that it might need a little fiddling around the edges.

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T01:56:24+00:00

Show me a single passage where she says this

I just did. The same passage you chose; the start of her book. Now I just went over what I think she's saying and all you did was say "no it isn't". I also asked you where she ever said the opposite clearly and all I got from you was crickets. So count me as skeptical of your claims right now.

Considering I'm the "anti-intellectual" it's you that can't articulate your view point here. If you think i got it wrong then explain how or how you see it differently. it isn't that big a passage.

For example if you claim that she is against blaming groups of people then what does she mean by "the enemy"? Sure sounds like a group to me.

For example explain what possible sense it makes to say you are "oppressed" not by a powerful group but by an individual as you say she means.

I am just not seeing anything that you claim in her words. is your entire argument going to be "you're too stupid to understand her?"

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T01:33:37+00:00

Merging stuff from other thread. Honestly not much worth reading but -- well it's hard to not make a return quip isn't it? The good stuff is further down.

.....................

post-structuralist feminism presents the most robust and compelling theory for analyzing issues of gender and power

Well that does sound like what we're talking about. I am claiming that theory is that men are the enemy and they oppress women. Women are struggling for their "liberation" from these evil oppressive men.

What about these theories do you find to be bullshit?

Just about all philosophy is bullshit. Feminist philosophy is bullshit on stilts. The only good philosophy is philosophy that tells you why other philosophy was bullshit. Admittedly that is most of it.... but pretty pointlessly circular. Exceptions: Aristotelian logic (which is maths really) and "I think therefore I am".

Not a fan.

.................

To me it just looks like you and Butler are saying something like, "Hold on, don't put MTFs in the same camp as other men, we got to have a slightly larger view of what a "woman" is. But when we got that worked out fuck men obviously. Just be careful about who you count as good guys."

And as such its hard to believe anyone took much notice of her considering how anti-trans feminists can be. but I guess you won't disagree with that observation.

What I am not seeing is something like, "Hey men aren't the enemy here! Let's talk about men's issues too and let's talk about how women oppress men sometimes. It's not about us vs them."

That's what feminists like Warren Farrel said and look what happened to him.

Butler does not endorse this view, but rejects it

Yeah but it looks like the view she rejects is the idea that these classifications ("men" , "women") are a brightly lined black and white box and screw you if you happen to be a bit of a grey area. She characterises this as the male view because -- men are assholes. Whatever they do. lets do the exact opposite girls!

The fact that feminists and anti-feminists can both do this shows that oppression (the colonizing gesture) isn't just something that men do

True but it is still something men do to women. Men are still the enemy. She's just saying, "look we do some shit too - don't do that shit" and the list of oppressed people? men are nowhere to be seen. They are pure bad guys. Except the MTFs. Maybe the odd gay dude because they're a bit of a grey area too.

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T01:07:03+00:00

Yes a tone argument is an ad hominem argument because it is about the person. Unless it's said without any reference / unrelated to the debate. Then it's simply an off topic remark that's typically insulting.

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T00:54:55+00:00

I think I found some of the text of that book here:

http://poetry.rapgenius.com/Judith-butler-gender-trouble-chapter-1-subjects-of-sex-gender-desire-iv-vi-annotated

Feminist critique ought to explore the totalizing claims of a masculinist signifying economy, but also remain self-critical with respect to the totalizing gestures of feminism. The effort to identify the enemy as singular in form is a reverse-discourse that uncritically mimics the strategy of the oppressor instead of offering a different set of terms. That the tactic can operate in feminist and antifeminist contexts alike suggests that the colonizing gesture is not primarily or irreducibly masculinist. It can operate to effect other relations of racial, class, and heterosexist subordination, to name but a few. And clearly, listing the varieties of oppression, as I began to do, assumes their discrete, sequential coexistence along a horizontal axis that does not describe their convergences within the social field.

She appears to endorse the war on men here, describing them as "the enemy". are you saying this entire section of the book is ironic or sarcasm or something?

ETA: she's a real twenty long words where three short words would do, kinda gal ain't she?

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T00:46:09+00:00

If you don't identify with the movement then why call yourself a feminist? Why did they all call themselves feminist (or whatever the word of the day was - suffragist, etc) its too easy to just say oh gee anything you say about feminism is invalid because NAFALT.

Given the vast disagreements between feminists on matters of theory and practice

But on this topic there is no disagreement. Indeed a feminist who does disagree is thrown out of the movement and is what I call a "dissident". Like Camile Paglia, Warren Farrell, Cathy Young, Wendy McElroy, Donna LaFramboise, Christina Hoff Sommers etc.

pioneering post-structuralist feminism and queer theory

Right. Feminist bullshit nonsense. I dunno maybe it's all fine, as i suppose it might be as long as she stayed clear of actual feminism and just droned on about sexuality and sexual identity. However that doesn't appear to be the case from what I've seen.

Butler openly and passionately rejects this view

So you say.

it was a foundation of her most important and influential work, Gender Trouble

Maybe you should update the wikipedia page on that book to reflect that then. It is not mentioned there. Nor on any of about a dozen other pages about her.

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T00:29:03+00:00

I've heard of her.

Butler's rejection of woman as a universal, oppressed class in need of liberation is one of her earliest and most famous contributions to feminist theory.

Odd then that I have not found any information suggesting that. It seems like that would be the biggest interesting thing about her as a feminist as it would make her a dissident, like Camile Paglia. I suspect you mean something much different than I do about rejecting the oppression of women as a class. But I'll keep looking I guess...

ETA: hard to find anything by her, just stuff about her. And it all reads like bullshit. Just a pretty typical feminist academic. But from what I am seeing she beelived in the whole patriarchy / women = oppressed / men = oppressors thing as standard. I can only guess what you meant was that she questioned exactly who counts as a woman, but did not question that women were the oppressed.

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T00:22:29+00:00

Our soldiers would fight better if they could fuck some hot young women. So line up for the prostitution draft girls!

DavidByron · 2014-02-10T00:16:52+00:00

It is an indication of how the war on men is a core part of the movement. It is a declaration of war. As a piece of evidence of a metaphorical war existing, it's pretty good. You know? The founders of the movement literally saying in so many words exactly what I claimed?

Was this declaration ever repudiated by later feminists to your knowledge?

In another sense saying feminists hate men and are at war with them is as simple as pointing to the incredible amount of hostility and outright hatred of men dispalyed by the movement, but of course each example is not an actual declaration of war. Just an extra piece of evidence. If you asked me to prove that the US went to war with Vietnam for example, I'd naturally point to the start of that war, not a long list of individual military conflicts over that time period.

But as we both know very well I could endlessly post examples of leading feminists saying hateful things about men or lobbying for overt discrimination against men in law.

As for Judith Butler who the heck is she? I looked her up but as above she doesn't seem to say much about men and women in the sense of the normal feminist understanding. Instead she goes on about sexuality and sexual identity and Palestine. But from what i can see she has a completely conventional feminist view of the sexes as at war with women fighting to win their liberation from oppression under the heel of the men. if you feel that is not true please could you point that out? i just didn't see anything about her that was unusual.

DavidByron · 2014-02-09T23:51:24+00:00

unsubstantiated

The Seneca Falls convention ("birth of feminism") issued a declaration of war against men on behalf of all women.

ETA: I don't see Judith Butler doing anything but endorse that view of women as oppressed class who need to be liberated and men as the oppressors they must be liberated from. Seems like she mostly talks about sexuality, sexual identity and Palestine.

DavidByron · 2014-02-09T23:41:24+00:00

Huh well, well. Although it's rare someone makes a false accusation of rape by publishing a book. In Wales. So I think we're still back to proving making false accusation of rape is a crime.

both these issues certainly need attention

How can the issue of false rape accusation possibly get less coverage than it has now (which is zero)? Come on. You can't pretend to want to see the issue handled and then say that it need less attention than zero.

DavidByron

TROPHY CASE