April 6, 2010
After hearing so many blame-the-victim rape prevention “tips” I was afraid to watch these, even if someone as perceptive as Marcella posted them first. Fear not, these are AWESOME!
Tip#1: Clearly state your needs and desires.
Tip#2: Use the Buddy System.
Tip#3: Call for help
Marcella didn’t post the third one, and I’m taking a guess as to why she didn’t. The third video misses the mark just a tad and yet an obvious reason for it’s lack doesn’t leap out at me. Perhaps you can figure it out. The concept itself when written appears to get the point across effectively, so I’m wondering why the visual interpretation seems to be missing something. Or maybe it’s just me.
Is it that the first two were so perfect, or is it that most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim and the focus on stranger rapes always seems to me to be an excuse not to focus on the most common type of perpetrator? You know, that really cute guy down the hall who is so sweet and innocent and admires your personality? I think I liked the first one so much because it was clear that the two people were on a date, which was going rather well for both of them, right up until PsychoMan makes his move. The second video clearly showed the psychopath’s premeditative intent and also the strategy he was using.
From a guy’s perspective, one who isn’t utilizing rape as a get-to-know-you technique, those first two videos are likely to make him realize what feminists have been trying to tell him all along — that no he doesn’t do any of that crap. Seems like it would defuse some defensiveness, which would then allow the genuinely nice guy (all five of them) to see rape from a female’s perspective instead of being caught in the endless loop of defensiveness-excuse-blindness. From a woman’s perspective, those first two are likely to make her focus on the nice “trustworthy” guy, whom I loathe.
Anyway, these are AWESOME, and are created by the utterly fabulous folks at the sexual violence center — that link leads directly to their stats page, which is helpful to have handy all in one place. I’m posting this to encourage them to make MOAR.
February 16, 2010
Just a quick note to explain why I’m refining my strategy in regards to transgenderism, and to offer it up for consideration to other radical feminists. As always, your opinions, thoughts, and suggestions are very welcome.
Normally, we usually only speak in terms of the male-to-female transpersons, with the female-to-male added as barely an afterthought. Many reasons for this, I’m sure. Mine is primarily that including the ftm renders each sentence too wordy and also that the ftm are not aggressively pushing the trans agenda like their counterparts. Many radical feminists believe, in addition, that some of the dynamics are not exactly the same (I agree with this assessment).
But from now on, I will refer mostly to the perspective of a normal woman whenever possible, in spite of the fact that my main purpose is still to deconstruct mtf. What on earth could be advantageous to such a strategy? It’s simple, I’m narrowing my target — or more specifically, refining my word choices to better address and effect change in, my real target. I asked myself: who is the only group actively fighting for the acceptance of transgenderism, and who is guilt-tripping the rest of their group into compliance? The answer is: 3nd wave vanilla girls (and boys) who display a profound misunderstanding of basic feminism. Consider the effect on her when she reads something like this: Read the rest of this entry »
February 14, 2010
It’s the day to honor love in all it’s ubiquitous cupidity, and I wanted to give all five of my readers a chuckle. Unfortunately, this is like the third year in a row that I’ve failed to write a certain post delineating in great detail all the myriad ways men suck at love, so this one which I’ve dug out of storage will have to do. Which is no small offering in itself, as the subject matter is only THE HOLY GRAIL FOR FEMINAZIS, and, if there was any doubt proves yet again my utter awesomeness I should have posted this months ago. First, a minor quibble:
For all of recorded history men have been formally inferioritizing females through a variety of government and religious sanctioned institutions. I want to briefly stress that before moving on to the argument which concerns us today. Political systems, religious systems, socio-economic systems have all worked in concert with the express purpose of keeping women in their place as subserviant slutmachines and baby factories. Contrary to popular belief this was not an accident, the words used to institutionalize oppression were planned with deliberation, as were those concepts discussed with the utmost consideration before culminating in action.
Evo-pysch babble, religious dogma, and mainstream proproganda — all spewed by men who to this day claim to comprehend the angelic humanity of females when they aren’t raping us for being whores — and feminists have kindly and painstakingly refuted every one. It also needs emphasing that the vast majority of women’s liberation has been the result of radical feminists backing men into the figurative corner whereby men had no other legitimate option than to 1.) acknowledge some bit of sexism as actual sexism, and 2.) shape the fuck up.
Today a feminazi turns the tables but this time provides irrefutable evidence that males as a class aren’t human. I love making logic do parlour tricks, even more so when those arguments are valid, indefensible, and have drastic consequences. Our argument begins with the definition of humane, which I have no doubt Mr. Webster, if he were alive, would immediately change to something less incriminating.
In order to distinguish those who are fully fledged members of humanity from those who are merely homo sapien, we must remember that humanity is a term bestowed only upon those who express humane qualities — specifically compassion is mentioned most often. And since we can’t say that subjegating those one claims to love is compassionate, we also can’t say that men as a class are humane. And alas, therefore we can’t say that men as a class are fully fledged members of humanity.
Happy valentine’s day!
November 7, 2009
I wrote a post this morning in twenty minutes. It’s quite nice, and well worth a read. Except it’s rooooooood as hell. Not really sure how it’s even possible to explain to someone why they are being a total idiot, without using the actual words.
“Pardon me John, but you have shit encrusted toilet paper stuck on your head”. Is there any tactful way to say that? Suppose one could direct John to a mirror and let him figure it out. But suppose John looks in the mirror, sees shit encrusted toilet paper perched on his noggin, and thinks that’s the latest fashion? If he was capable of finding poo-poo chapeau in his closet, wouldn’t he have already taken pains to remove it himself? Read the rest of this entry »
August 29, 2008
Found this at Polly’s and it is disgusting.
Unless public pressure is brought to bear, no murder investigation will take place. Go here and sign the petition, and please contact other news sources and ask them to run the story as well. This is so revolting many people will turn away in sheer horror rather than face a painful situation.
My internet connection is taking literally 10 minutes to load a page if it even loads at all, so pardon the crap nature of this post. Thank you very much Polly for recapping this story so well.
August 8, 2008
The main page to this post is here, and holds six more extraneous bits of baggage which must be cleared away before we can proceed. Number two of this series starts further down at the red, and directly below I’d like to partially address recent kerfluffles.
Whenever oppressed groups seek validation, opposing factions will typically cry foul and say public acceptance will cause some type of social upheaval with negative repercussions. The opposing faction will be eventually unmasked as bigots with their prejudices clearly enunciated for all to see. That has been the pattern for every single oppressed group seeking justice for all of recorded history.
We are primed to expect that pattern, conditioned to condemn the opposition, accustomed to anticipate final vindication of the oppressed group. As feminists, our scripted response is pre-written and pre-memorized, nothing remains but to slip into our pre-assigned roles as redeemers of inequity. We are so habituated to certain cues which normally represent social injustice that we don’t even recognize when the oppressed group is starting out from a disingenuous position.
Unfortunately, as was shown in part one, of all the groups ever seeking full equality only transgenderism has demanded “special” rights — as opposed to equal rights — and because of this unparalleled departure the transgenderism ideology has already placed itself outside normal perimeters from the conventional boundaries usually granted to those claiming minority status.
Radical feminists have been aware of this major discrepancy for quite some time, though perhaps never so plainly stated, and yet regular feminists have been behaving as if the status quo remains unchanged. Perhaps this unacknowledged transgression is at least partly the reason why regular feminists are having so much trouble comprehending the scope of the problem as presented by radical feminists.
And here just for clarity I’d like to mention that the phrase vanilla girl is not applied with equal jurisdiction to all feminists, for many if not most regular feminists lack the certain idiocy necessary to earn that designation. A vanilla girl is sickly sweet, melts under heat, and gives me brain freeze. Vanilla girls shout “hater!!!!” and “my fweelings are hwert!!!!” in response to any criticism and demands obeisance as a sacrament to magical thinking. Apologies for not defining that sooner.
Anyway. We have a situation where we are tempted to respond in the same old way that we always do when presented with somewhat similar stimuli. Yet, no one is entitled to special status and so from the very beginning not only has transgenderism been operating under false pretences, but our responses have been reacting as if those false pretences didn’t exist. A reasonable person cannot expect typical procedure to apply to atypical circumstances, nor can anything other than increased scrutiny be expected to befall such an ideology. Yet vanilla girls, in a hissy fit of gross stupidity, have decided that any objection is “transphobic”.
For all their claims that if only radical feminists would “listen” then mutual understanding could occur; it never dawns on them that “listening” is a two way street. No “mutual” understanding is possible when all negative observations are shouted down as “hate”. This is my final plea for mutual respect and consideration, no reasonable person would expect such continued immaturity to pass unchallenged.
Vanilla girl, it is time you rethink your position. This time, from the ground up. The regular feminists, who have been left quite befuddled between a rock and a hard place, most likely have their own thoughts and perspectives but can’t express anything less than 100% agreement with you without being covered in vanilla girl sputtering splooge. Vanilla child, when are you going to grow up and let other people draw their own conclusions?
Forget the gender identity business; personally, I just think it’s really freaking odd that someone attributes mystical qualities to body parts. The genitalia must be sacred or something, why else does my left foot represent nothing and yet a cunt or a cock embodies their entire being? Anyway…
2) No oppressed group has ever, as a requirement of their own liberation, demanded that a ‘controversial harm to others’ be codified into law, even before that harm is proven to be non-existent. This of course refers to the argument that transgenderism increases sexism by consolidating traditional “feminine” attributes exclusively with females. Since most people tend to proscribe legalized activities from within a framework of positive moral or ethical values and to internalize the theory behind that law as certified and sanctified approval, the likely outcome is easily predictable –if the radical feminists argument is correct.
In other words: once a special-interest lobby convinces enough lawmakers that gender identity should be a protected class, then the general public — which is already pre-conditioned to accept sexist double standards — will be even more amendable to the idea that of course people need a vagina in order to express “feminine” traits and of course people need a penis to express “masculine” traits. Feminists are supposedly fighting sexism now, and the battle for equality which can only be accurately described as epic has raged over practically every society on the planet for the last 10,000 years. It would be foolish to attempt to claim as some do that such an entrenched bigotry can be anything but encouraged with the addition of “but naturally my internal character requires a vagina”.
A cautious approach is warranted given the amount of harm possible to half the population. While it is always important to balance the needs of various groups in a society striving for equality, the insistence on forcing acceptance of the transsexual agenda on the general public without careful analysis or opportunity for nuanced discussion should be a red flag. Given that their “refutations” to the various criticisms always seem to revolve around pleas for sympathy and nothing else, another red flag should appear.
Distraction technique — briefly noted.
Have you noticed how carefully the feminist activists will explain to men that a law they would like to be passed is not unfair to men or harmful to men in any way? Feminists gladly provide whatever evidence is needed to reinforce their claim, regardless how much time or effort is required. Feminists do that as a matter of course, because apparently for some peculiar reason they like men and are concerned about their well-being. Most of all, feminists strive to be fair to men and prefer to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, especially when the subject is men.
If the transgendered truly cared about even the rudiments of fairness as they claim, then they would make similar effort to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no, transgenderism does not increase sexism. They would enumerate and explicate the real point of contention, not strawman arguments of their own invention. They haven’t bothered, not the activists in the field nor the official trans organizations themselves. Brushing off criticisms and questions from the very people likely to be harmed by the trans agenda with the accusation that our questions are a “phobia” bordering on “hate crime” qualifies as genuine CONTEMPT; and yes, those massive minimization and silencing techniques over such an important topic has been…
— duly noted.
There is a huge difference between a law which simply establishes and protects a right for a newly recognized group of incredibly tiny purportions, and a law which creates additional harm to another group which is already a target of proven systematic injustice and half the population. This is not a minor point and to pretend otherwise is speciously condescending — not exactly the mark of one who claims the high ground.
Selfish unconcern for anyone but themselves — duly noted.
If a proposed law was contended to increase or maintain racism, we would not even consider passing it until all the criticisms were addressed and shown to be false.
Imagine just that scenario. Imagine a group of African-Americans who are promised protection and help from a civil rights worker from any laws which increase racism, and then when some African-Americans indicate that such a law is pending, that civil rights worker tells them to stop hating white people. The legislators who would be so foolish as to suggest that the minorities are only hating white people would be vilified in the press.
Imagine the outrage while People of Color plead that we wait for more information until cooler heads prevail, and yet anti-racist activists still insisting that the minorities they claim to protect are just “white phobic”. Imagine that, if you will. Reflect upon the reaction from minorities expecting protection and instead receiving hate propaganda from the very people who claim to oppose racism.
Dear god this post was way too fucking long. snip snip snip
[EDIT: ] The ENDA bill has been passed around like a football between House and Senate for the last 30 years. It has never included transgenderism in all that time. Only five months before this latest attempt was the trans issue added. The american public has never had the opportunity to hear any negatives about transgenderism at all and thanks to Loz for reminding me about that.
January 19, 2008
Pardon my suckage once again, I could not draw a pair of angel wings to save my life. You would laugh if you knew how much time was wasted on this stupid thing. It looks like a moose with icicles. The entire post is suckalicious, so at least it’s consistent.
As part of an ongoing existential crisis I sought outside sources, and as any good radical feminist knows, those sources included both pro and con. We get to be smug because religious fanatics and the like, so it goes, only consult those whose prior agreement reinforces the desired outcome. This guy questions how many steps over the line are allowed before one’s character changes from the box marked ‘evil’ into the the box marked ‘good’. Feminazis are naturally curious about such things, you know. Our evilness may be in jeopardy. He explains my gravitating towards stupid stuff:
“This splitting of things into all-good and all-bad, with the attendant projection and scapegoating, appears to start in us as infants. Since it continues into childhood, it explains why fairy tales use such stark concepts of good and evil. It’s the only thing children can understand. Unfortunately, it also continues with us into adulthood, with catastrophic results. It is an infantile defense, a concept fit only for cartoons and fairy tales, but one with which we as adults consistently judge the complex world with all its shades of gray.”
I of course do not like this, but it gets better:
“One interpretation of the story of the Garden of Eden supports the view that projection starts in us when we are very young. I personally think this myth makes more sense if we consider Adam and Eve to be about four-years-old, because they are as unaware and ignorant as apples.
In the story, the first thing Adam does, when caught breaking the rules, is to point at Eve and say, “She made me do it.” Eve, no different than Adam, then shifts blame onto the serpent. “It’s his fault, not mine,” she says. An old story, but a very perceptive one that clearly tells us that scapegoating is one of the first things we do. One interpretation of the story claims Adam and Eve’s scapegoating, and refusal to accept responsibility for their actions, is what got them kicked out of the Garden of Eden, thereby bringing evil into the world.
Although I certainly don’t believe Adam and Eve were real people, and the story is just a myth (although a very wise one), it suggests that if they had not scapegoated each other, or had accepted responsibility for what they had done, they might have been allowed to stay. The moral, obviously, is that one of the first steps back to the Garden of Eden (to the extent it can exist in this world) is acceptance of responsibility and the cessation of scapegoating. It can’t be done through violence.”
Oh, so according to another thing he wrote, I’m not really evil. HA! Of course he’s lying. Except I’m feeling a budding kinship with clueless twits, so perhaps a downgrade to merely wicked is in order. What does it say when even a vile feminazi feels sympathy for men? This is terrible news. Worst case scenario, I could end up dating my neighbor – holy crap.
Next post: either transgenderism or a really awesome surprise!