Regardless of how common it is, it's a very damaging crime, and it happens. Men have lost their jobs/place at college due to lies like that.
I was the one who made that exact pic of hers that they showed, lololol
Seriously, though: what a bunch of sensationalist pricks. The posters never said that all women lie about being raped, it simply treats women in the same level as the other campaign treats men. It's a satire: treats all women as potential liars, in the same way the other posters treat every man as a potential rapist. They're both equally unfair.
She covers the ridiculousness of this whole situation in the video I posted.
edited 20th Jul '13 9:05:34 AM by Teraus
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."Feminists, at least the way Girl Writes What portrays them, are all a bunch of sensationalist pricks. I don't necessarily think all people who considers themselves feminists think like that, but it's the reason I don't call myself one.
Check out my fanfiction!Not just that, there are men who have been murdered due to accusations that were later proved false.
edited 20th Jul '13 5:55:51 PM by Talby
Wow, it's been a long time...
Anyway, there's a new video and it's a perfect reply to anyone who insists MRAs are bigoted or extremist.
edited 18th Oct '13 8:02:39 PM by Teraus
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."Well, some MRAs are bigoted or extremist. She doesn't deny that. But there are outliers in any sufficiently large group of people.
But again she kind of highlights why I stopped calling myself a feminist. I recognise all too well the rhetoric she describes. As a duck who believes in science, that wasn't what I could ascribe to.
I know. Which is why I emphasised some.
edited 18th Oct '13 8:48:34 PM by AnotherDuck
Check out my fanfiction!I meant it as an answer to those who believe that the majority of MRAs are like that.
edited 18th Oct '13 8:02:47 PM by Teraus
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."Given GWW's own thinly-veiled misogyny (see her comments about the 'female nature that drives feminism', and the other stuff mentioned on the previous page), I'm not sure I can trust her verdict on whether her movement as a whole has a problem with bigotry.
What's precedent ever done for us?Good to see she's put out a new video, although she has been pretty busy on AVFM radio lately too.
Watched that video, and wasn't impressed.
- She attacks feminists for strawmanning whilst strawmanning herself. "Man bad, woman good. Man bad, woman good. Wash, rinse, repeat."
- Whilst she's technically correct that none of her colleagues on A Voice For Men never say the exact words 'women re the real oppressors' or 'men are the real victims', several of them come near as makes no difference. Paul Elam had this to say about gay rights, for instance:
And when we learn this lesson well enough, it will provide fertile ground to allow us to see the real resentments that fester against gay men- which boil down to one inescapable fact:Gay men are and always have been resented because they provide no utility to women. They are literally born free of the constraining and egregiously burdensome expectations that heterosexual men are still raised to fulfill.
They are, in fact, the natural recipients of what many men in the men’s movement clamor for every day- freedom from the control of women and from the control of the state on women’s behalf.
Erin Pizzey, meanwhile, has this to say about privilege:
- Her comments about domestic violence are on shaky ground given the ongoing controversy over the Conflict Tactics Scale, the method used in all studies that have shown gender parity in domestic violence. See Michael Kimmel's study for more details.
- She mentions that she has been accused of wanting women back in the kitchen, as if this were some obviously untrue assertion that nobody sane could believe. This fails to gel with her expressed enthusiasm for E. Belfort Bax, whose 1913 work 'The Fraud of Feminism' was reposted and given a glowing review by her parent site, A Voice For Men. In it, Bax, who opposed women's suffrage, attacks at length the notion that women are morally and intellectually equal to men, as seen here:
...
The attempt to paint women in a different light to the traditional one of physical, intellectual and moral inferiority to men, probably received its first literary expression in a treatise published in 1532 by Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim entitled De Nobilitate et Praecellentia Feminei Sexus and dedicated to Margaret, Regent of the Netherlands, whose favour Agrippa was at that time desirous of courting. The ancient world has nothing to offer in the shape of literary forerunners of Modern Feminism, although that industrious collector of historical odds and ends, Valerius Maximus, relates the story of one Afrania who, with some of her friends, created disturbances in the Law Courts of ancient Rome in her attempt to make women's voices heard before the tribunals. As regards more recent ages, after Agrippa, we have to wait till the early years of the eighteenth century for another instance of Feminism before its time, in an essay on the subject of woman by Daniel Defoe. But it was not till the closing years of the eighteenth century that any considerable expression of opinion in favour of changing the relative positions of the sexes, by upsetting the view of their respective values, founded on the general experience of mankind, made itself noticeable.
The names of Mary Wollstonecraft in English literature and of Condorcet in French, will hardly fail to occur to the reader in this connection. During the French Revolution the crazy Olympe de Gouges achieved ephemeral notoriety by her claim for the intellectual equality of women with men.
...
Now let us consider the whole of the differentiations of the mental character between man and woman in the light of a further generalisation which is sufficiently obvious in itself and which has been formulated with special clearness by the late Otto Weininger in his remarkable book, “Geschlecht und Charakter” (Sex and Character). I refer to the observations contained in Section II., Chaps. 2 and 3. The point has been, of course, previously noted, and the present writer, among others, has on various occasions called special attention to it. But its formulation and elaboration by Weininger is the most complete I know. The truth in question consists in the fact, undeniable to all those not rendered impervious to facts by preconceived dogma, that, as I have elsewhere put it, while man has a sex, woman is a sex. Let us hear Weininger on this point. “Woman is only sexual, man is also sexual. Alike in time and space this difference may be traced in man, parts of his body susceptible to sexual excitement are small in number and strictly localised. In woman sexuality is diffused over the whole body, every contact on whatever part excites her sexually.” Weininger points out that while the sexual element in man, owing to the physiological character of the sexual organs, may be at times more violent than that in woman, yet that it is spasmodic and occurs in crises separated by intervals of quiescence. In woman, on the other hand, while less spasmodic, it is continuous. The sexual instinct with man being, as he styles it, “an appendix” and no more, he can raise himself mentally entirely outside of it. “He is conscious of it as of something which he possesses but which is not inseparate from the rest of his nature. He can view it objectively. With woman this is not the case; the sex element is part of her whole nature. Hence, it is not as with man, clearly recognisable in local manifestations, but subtly affects the whole life of the organism. For this reason the man is conscious of the sexual element within him as such, whereas the woman is unconscious of it as such. It is not for nothing that in common parlance woman is spoken of as ‘the sex.’ In this sexual differentiation of the whole life-nature of woman from man, deducible as it is from physiological and anatomical distinctions, lies the ground of those differentiations of function which culminate in the fact that while mankind in its intellectual moral and technical development is represented in the main by Man, Woman has continued to find her chief function in the direct procreation of the race.” A variety of causes, notably modern economic development, in their effect on family life, also the illegitimate application of the modern democratic notion of the equality of classes and races, to that of sex, has contributed to the modern revolt against natural sex limitations.
That seems pretty Stay in the Kitchen to me.
- She attacks feminists for using the argument that she is jealous of prettier women. However, this is an argument that she appears to believe also has traction within her own organisation:
- From then on, it's the same tired old bullshit about false rape accusations, feminism-as-the-enemy strawmanning of her foes as deluded hypocrites, and everything else you'd expect from a member of what's basically Stormfront for misogynists.
Remind me, why does she have an It Just Awes Me thread again?
edited 15th Nov '13 5:02:50 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?This thread is locked pending moderator review.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"As far as we're concerned, this is not the kind of IJAM thread we want.
Celebrating this person's work would seem to be applauding the worst kind of hysterical anti-feminist apologetics and Oppression Olympics, topics we've forbidden due to their flame war potential. Complaining about this person's work violates the rules of IJAM. So it's going to be closed permanently.
edited 20th Nov '13 6:48:22 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I watched one of the videos linked, and I found it hilarious that the link showed on-screen was "https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GirlWritesWhat".
Anyway, good video. And I think her suggestion for a poster campaign would be a lot better.
Check out my fanfiction!