You Are A False Rape Accusation Supporter If ...

For close to seven months now, there has been a blog post festering in the hairy armpit of the radfemosphere that takes the notion that "all men are rapists" and kicks it up to new levels of insanity. Anything and everything makes a man a rape supporter, whether it's being against abortion or being for abortion for "the wrong reasons", to having a type of woman he's attracted to (of course, women can have the same beliefs and behaviors and it doesn't matter because, unlike all men who are overflowing with privilege, all women are powerless, helpless, fragile little creatures who have no choices about or control over their own lives, etc.)

Naturally, this has been ripped to shreds numerous times. This Google search for the post's title shows the original post as the first result, followed by several thousand responses of people showing their well-founded disgust. And it's not over yet. For opponents of Radical Female Supremacy, that train wreck of a post is the gift that keeps on giving.

Most recently it inspired this post by Ginko of Genderratic, showing the absurdity of the original post if the genders were reversed. In the comments section there Adibat made a comment that inspired the post you are reading now, suggesting "it might be entertaining to make a 'A woman is a false-rape accuser if she…'” and giving some of the points to get such a list started. So I took Adibat's idea and added to it to create the following (I changed the title since I think both sexes should be held to the same standards, even if the men who fit this list really are helpless, pathetic little worms making useless attempts to please there mistresses):

You are a false-rape-accusation supporter if you… 

1. Call men rapists even if there is not enough evidence to bring them to trial.
2. Automatically believe anyone (or at least any woman) who claims to have been raped
3. Support leaving the definition of legal rape as penetration (as if the enveloper can't be the rapist).
4. Claim that women never lie about rape.
5. Believe that rape accusers should be given anonymity but the accused should not.
6. Believe that every detail about the past of a man accused of rape is relevant and should be broadcast to the world, but that gaping holes in the credibility of woman making the accusation (a history of lying, past attempts at blackmail, an agenda that the man stands in the way of, even a history of making false rape accusations) should be ignored. 
7. Claim that women who accuse men of rape are never believed, while men accused of rape always are.
8. Distrust someone acquitted of rape. 
9. Applaud vigilante justice against rape suspects. 
10. Believe that if a man and a woman drink and/or take drugs together, get equally intoxicated, have sex against both of their better judgements (but both appear willing to each other), and both wake up regretting it the next day she is a victim and he is a rapist.
11. Claim that if a man serves as little as one glass of wine with dinner to a woman with whom he later has sex, he is "plying her with alcohol" and therefore a rapist.
12. Call people "rape apologists" for disagreeing with or just asking for clarification about your position.
13. Claim that paying for sex is the same as forcing the person being paid to have sex.
14. Claim that persuading someone to have sex is the same as forcing that person to have sex.
15. Claim that watching videos of men and women paid to have sex with each other is the same as raping the women.
16. Claim that when men and women are paid to have sex on video the men are raping the women, even if the men and women are in the same circumstances and the men are paid less.
17. Claim that looking at nude photographs of women is the same as rape.
18. Claim that women who choose to have sex and/or pose nude for money are no different than those who are kidnapped and forced to have sex or pose nude.
19. Claim that adult women who choose to have sex and/or pose nude for money are no different than children who are forced to have sex or pose nude.
20. Claim that jokes about rape contribute to "rape culture."
21. Believe that the mere mention of rape by mythological creatures in an imaginary video game in a comic strip contributes to "rape culture."
22. Believe that rape culture exists.
23. Believe that all heterosexual intercourse is rape (of a woman by a man).
24. Say you don't believe that all heterosexual intercourse is rape but believe that "male pleasure is inextricably tied to victimizing, hurting, exploiting; that sexual fun and sexual passion in the privacy of the male imagination are inseparable from the brutality of male history."
25. Claim that penis-in-vagina intercourse  is "problematic" for women, because it causes pregnancy, the worst condition any human has ever known, and because "it's not even sex anyway" because women never enjoy it.
26. Call penis-in-vagina intercourse "PIV". (I wonder if that might be intended to call to mind something else).
27. Claim that while "penis-in-vagina" is the worst thing that a woman could possibly experience, penis in a woman's anus or mouth, and possibly even in a woman's hand, are also horrible and might as well be called rape, too
28. Say that a man showing interest in a woman - that may or may not be sexual - in an "enclosed space" (like a subway car or an elevator) is like threatening to rape her.
29. Say that a man pointing out that a woman is not really "trapped" in an elevator if there is no one blocking her access to the buttons and the door, is proof that man is an out of touch misogynist.
30. Think Schodinger's Rapist is anything other than someone who raped someone named "Schrodinger"
31. Have ever falsely accused someone of rape.
32. Find this post offensive.

I'm sure there are many more items that could go on this list. If anyone reading this can think of any, please add them in comments.

Authoritarian Assholes' latest excuse to Censor the Internet

Via ballgame of feminist critics: Stop SOPA! AKA PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet To summarize SOPA/The Protect IP Act are basically excuses to use intellectual property rights to intimidate and shut down anyone posting content on the internet that the powers-that-be don't like.

As the video on vimeo.com shows there are already laws in place to protect intellectual property. While these are imperfect, it is not as if the entertainment industry is in imminent danger of bankruptcy. There are issues in the digital age that still needed to be sorted out with regards to the rights of owners of intellectual property and the rights of purchasers of content to share that content with others. But, there is no hardship so great being imposed on the creators of intellectual property that the government and Hollywood lawyers need to monitor everyone's personal website to penalize anyone who might have made an offhand reference to a copyrighted work.

For anyone interested in fighting this there are, in addition to the link provided by vimeo - fightforthefuture.org/pipa, there are also the following links to petitions and form letters to congresspeople: http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/protectip_docs, https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173

I am sure all bloggers and blog contributors can understand the importance of this.

Muppet Welfare

WTF is this garbage? I love Muppets and I know that they can survive without being Welfare Queens. Look at the non-Sesame Street Muppets, (Fozzie Bear, The Swedish Chef, Miss Piggy, et. al. and INCLUDING one who is ALSO a Sesame Street Muppet - Kermit the Frog!); they've made it in the free market without having to go on the dole (at least until Jim Henson sold them to the über-welfare parasite known as the Walt Disney Company).

And, as for the Sesame Street Muppets other than Kermit - they've had some considerable success in the private sector in the form of merchandising - does "Tickle-Me-Elmo" ring a bell? If Sesame Street had to make it on commercial TV, it could. Yes it might have to accept commercials for sugary cereals and fast food thus causing obesity, diabetes, and toothlessness, since any child who sees commercials for such products will demand to eat them every day for every meal until they wind up in diabetic comas, and their parents will be powerless to stop them. But most children will wind up discovering such things and be drawn in by their irresistible lure anyway. So the possibility of junk food being endorsed by Cookie Monster and Oscar the Grouch (who I believe eats garbage from the garbage can he lives in) shouldn't make that much of a difference. Or if it did, I'm sure the creators of Sesame Street could secure an arrangement that their program could only be sponsored by their own merchandise. But then they couldn't shill for having our tax dollars support programs like Masterpiece Theatre and operas. Fine programs, of course, but ones which are mostly watched by people with more money than God, and who are to cheap to shell out a few bucks for cable channels or DVDs that offer the same type of entertainment, and sometimes even the exact same shows.

Together for Eternity

I've stated before I'm not very religious, but I believe there is at least a possibility of an afterlife. And if there is a just God, I am sure that two very good friends have been recently reunited. Mary Daly who died on Sunday should now be with her good friend and inspired follower, Andrea Dworkin. I can just imagine all of the great intellectual conversations taking place.

Edit (1/18/2010): For anyone who does not get the significance of this picture see here.

Winners and Losers

Now more than ever, I wish I would have written a post last year congratulating Major League Baseball's Philadelphia  Phillies for winning the World Series. I kind of wish I would have written one congratulating them when they won the National League Pennant this year, though at least this way I can't be accused of jinxing them. Anyway, while it was disappointing to see them lose this year's  Series, it was a joy to see them go two years in a row. They are still winners in my book and should hold their heads high. I will certainly miss being near them when I move to New Hampshire.


As for the "Losers" referred to in the title of this post, no, I don't mean the New York Yankees fans, as obnoxious as many of them are. This is their moment and I don't begrudge them their celebrations. Well, not too much, anyway. No, the losers I'm talking about are more along the lines of the usual suspects.

First, there are the piece of shit Bensalem cops who arrested Susan Finkelstein for allegedly trying to trade sex for World Series tickets. How did these brave modern day Sherlock Holmeses discover this dangerous criminal? From an ad she posted on Craigslist. Aside from the ridiculousness of anti-prostitution laws in general, there are dozens of ads on Craigslist that are more explicitly offering prostitution than this:

DESPERATE BLONDE NEEDS WS TIX (Philadelphia) Diehard Phillies fan--gorgeous tall buxom blonde-- in desperate need of two World Series Tickets. Price negotiable--- I'm the creative type! Maybe we can help each other!

The Barney Fife KGB wannabes who responded to this ad were obviously more concerned with getting publicity for their little department than doing anything that would actually protect the public. I guess they wanted to make it appear that they are good for something other than writing parking tickets or harassing honest, law-abiding gun owners. Maybe also they were motivated by the idea that sports are supposed to be pure and wholesome and not to be tainted by anything the sanctimonious mavens of morality arbitrarily decide is wrong. Same mentality that allows officials of all of the professional sports leagues and the NCAA to swoon from scandalized outrage at the thought of expanding legalized gambling on their sacred rituals, while never missing a crass opportunity to gouge their fans for extra bucks. Also the same mentality that causes league officials suspend and sternly scold the players catch with marijuana, while these same pompous preachers don't think twice about accepting ads for beer and boner pills  (Not that I have anything against beer or hard-on pills, I enjoy beer quite a bit and am glad that there are pills to help me get an erection should I ever need them - it's just that it is the height of hypocrisy to accept money to promote drugs which do have considerable, if worthwhile, risks while condemning users of what overwhelming evidence shows to be the safest drug humanity has ever known).


And that brings me to the other losers I have in mind, two pieces of garbage from across the pond named Alan Johnson and Neil McKeganey. I usually don't get involved in the internal affaires of other nations (though I have severely criticized Harriet Harman on Antimisandy.com this was because she tried to make a United States governor submit to her will in her desperate crusade to subjugate her fellow British citizens). Anyway, Johnson and McKeganey are two nanny state extremists who are demanding that Professor David Nutt resign his position as chairman of Britain's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) because he was brazen enough to commit the ultimate crime - telling the truth. Specifically, for saying that "alcohol and cigarettes are more harmful than cannabis," a position that no serious researcher would object to, except on ideological grounds. McKeganey, himself, even admitted “In terms of health harm there is no doubt that cigarettes and alcohol are both more harmful than many currently illegal drugs,” he added. “They are associated with many more deaths and with much wider rates of illness," but despite such an acknowledgment of common sense, he was perfectly able to adapt his authority worshiping doublethink to pretend to believe such obvious bullshit as this:

If you are the key person offering advice to the government you cannot then simultaneously, in public, criticize the government for the decisions it takes. David was going so far beyond his remit to raise fundamental questions about the direction of UK drugs policy in relation to cannabis and in relation to seeking to combine alcohol and tobacco with illegal drugs — in the process muddying the distinction between illegal drugs and legal drugs.

No, God forbid someone advising the government should disagree with them. Everyone should know that "advising" the government means confirming the fact that the almighty politicians and bureaucrats are always right. And yes, how dare Nutt  [muddy] the distinction between illegal drugs and legal drugs. He has no right to do that just because this distinction is based on anti-scientific, superstitious arbitrary moralism. Obviously, if drug laws were based on public health instead of manufactured prejudices alcohol would be of greater concern to authorities than cannabis, and tobacco would be of much greater concern than cocaine, heroin, or any other so-called "hard drug."

Don't get me wrong - I don't think any of them should be illegal. Even tobacco which is much deadlier than alcohol, cocaine, and heroin, to say nothing of the safer-than-aspirin drug cannabis, has been responsible for far fewer deaths than meddling authoritarian governments. But putting things into perspective, "muddying the distinction between illegal drugs and legal drugs" is a logical response to the arbitrary bullshit of morally bankrupt government drug policies. Well when my friend e-mailed me this story under the subject line: "Refuse to support Nutt's sacking!‏" and beginning with the line "It looks like Johnson is supporting Nutt's sacking", I said "What a couple of Johnsons Johnson and McKeganey are. They are not fit to lick Nutt's sack." I think that pretty well sums it up.

Just When You Thought the Talk About "Privilege" Couldn't Get Any More Stupid...

Along comes this: http://www.adonismirror.com/09152009_leader_pot_whites_only.htm.

So Richard Leader thinks that taking a courageous stand against an unjust law is an act of "white male privilege":

The stunt has white-male written all over it. I should know: I’m a white male myself. You can see it in his straight-faced claim that he didn’t do it for attention. You can see it in his imagination that a simple school project made him a true actor in the political process.

Well, for one thing, I can say that Ian Barry is a hero and a patriot much like one of my long-time heroes who is of African Descent: Ed Forchion, aka N.J. Weedman.

But, maybe the author of Adonis Mirror, Leader, does have a point. After all, the white people who participated in the Montgomery Bus Boycott knew that they would not face penalties as severe as those whose rights they were demanding be respected. Same with those white folks who marched in various Civil Rights marches throughout the 60's. Or those men who dared to stand up for feminism back when it was about equal rights and not female supremacy, like today (Of course the men, would only face lesser penalties in terms of social sanctions; women then, as now and always, got treated with kid gloves by the legal system). When I, as a disabled teenager was being bullied by non-disabled, or less disabled teenagers, I would have been grateful for a non-disabled teenager to use his or her "able-bodied/able-minded" privilege to stand up for my rights. I did not think that the people who did or would have done these things were arrogant assholes rubbing everyone else's noses in their massive privilege, but then I obviously don't know as much about "oppression-privilege" politics as the all-knowing Leader (pun not intended -see comment).

I seem to remember reading somewhere that one of the obligations of privilege is to fight for the rights of those do not have it and cannot stand up for themselves. I didn't think that standing up for the rights of the less privileged was a bad thing if you did it in a non-patronizing way that showed solidarity with the oppressed. Well, thank Cthulhu that we have people like Richard Leader to tell us how wrong those notions are.

Edit: I decided to edit out the instances where I made fun of Richard Leader's name as this distracts from the seriousness of the issue. Besides, while he is an arrogant know-it-all who thinks he can tell everyone else how to run our lives, Leader did not deserve to be personally attacked. For that I apologize.

Sorry Anti-Male Bigots, Misandry Exists and You're Proof of It

Via Danny, I was introduced to "factcheckme", a man-hating feminist who ridicules the term used for hatred of men for no other reason than being men. Well not just the term but the concept itself. Her argument seems to be since the word "misandry" was coined without enough intellectual rigor to satisfy her standards, then the concept it represents must not exist. Or if it does exist who cares: "and whether misandry even exists is entirely beside the point, isnt it?" Of course, she never explains why it "is entirely beside the point", we just have to trust the fact that what she, in her superior wisdom, says must be true.

Well, whether or not the term "misandry" can pass the legitimacy test of high brow intellectuals, it is clear that anti-male bigotry is a widespread and dangerous virulent phenomenon. If Andrea Dworkin, Catherine Mackinnon, Mary Daly and their online groupies (including factcheckme) are not enough to convince you consider Valerie Solanas. Naturally, though, we can't expect most of them to act violently themselves since that might alienate the politicians, police, and bureaucrats who currently support them (through laws such as VAWA, under which domestically abused men are arrested for defending themselves, and proposed laws making rape suspects presumed guilty until proven innocent). If the men in government were to see these women as the real threat they are, the alliance that they have with them to subjugate their fellow men would be in jeopardy. So the smart ones will hold off on their wanton random acts of violence toward men until and unless they have consolidated power to the point where their male stooges are disposable.

Maybe I am overreacting. Maybe these are just a bunch of ugly hags who, despite the real or pretend lesbianism that some of them proclaim, are just bitter that they can't use their feminine wiles to seduce men and wrap them around their little fingers the way most women do, and are simply using hyperbole to vent their frustration (of course this does not include Solanas who was a violent criminal and a terrorist by any definition). Be that as it may, I would like to offer this analysis of the garbage from factcheckme's blog both before and after Danny called her on it:

In one comment factcheckme states that she doesn't hate men. However, just a few comments down she agrees with Undercover Punk that "even if Real, [misandry is] an ENTIRELY RATIONAL RESPONSE to the tragic statistics on sexual assault, generalized violence, emotional abuse, abandonment (see single motherhood), and social domination perpetrated BY men AGAINST women?" So bigotry against men doesn't exist, but if it did it would be justified to hate all men based on what a small percentage of men do. Never mind the fact that none of these things are exclusively done by men. Never mind the very likely possibility that she believes in bogus statistics like the lie that "1 in 4 women are raped", or that she ignores the statistics showing domestic abuse to be roughly equal between the sexes, or that women (including those with children) initiate most divorces. Forget all of that and just consider this what would the reaction be to someone who said, "even if real, anti-black racism is an ENTIRELY RATIONAL RESPONSE to the tragic statistics on armed robbery, murder, rioting, arson, and looting"? Or how about "even if real, anti-Semitism is an ENTIRELY RATIONAL RESPONSE to frivolous lawsuits brought by Jewish lawyers, fraudulent financial dealings by Jewish bankers and investment advisers, and Israeli oppression of Palestinians (which, of course, is totally unprovoked and unconditionally supported by Jews worldwide)"? Or try this "even if real, misogyny is an ENTIRELY RATIONAL RESPONSE to false rape claims, divorce settlements where the man loses everything he has despite the woman being at fault, women demanding child support from men whom they know are not the fathers, women demanding child support for children that they don't allow fathers to see, gold digging in general, and abusing men then calling the police when they defend themselves." Draw what conclusions you will. Anyone without ideological blinders can see that these statements are equivalent to the one made by Undercover Punk.

Finally, after discovering Danny's blog, factcheckme and Undercover Punk rate it an "Epic Fail." No surprise there, but I am amused by the fact that factcheckme says "thats after correcting for my obvious bias." I am certain that she's as capable of correcting for her bias as a newspaper editor in North Korea. Undercover Punk also informs us that she is a "lesbian separatist with no interest whatsoever in playing nice with men," and that she "gave up on caring about men after approximately 20 years of being consistently treated as less-than by them." Less-than what? Most likely less than the entitled princess that she thinks she is, though I'm sure some men did try to cater to her but it was never good enough.

There's much more crap spewed by factcheckme, Undercover Punk and other members of factcheckme's echo chamber, though it mostly speaks for itself. The only things of note are Undercover Punk's reaction to the fact that -despite her overblown fear of sexual assault, which is somewhat more likely to happen to women than men- men are much more likely to be murdered and her conclusion that "this is not a joke." In the first case she says, in response to a point on Danny's post "I assume what he means here is that men prefer to murder their equals rather than to sexually assault them..." Yes because sexual assault is so much worse than murder, and men who are murdered, by other men or by women, feel better about it knowing that their murderers consider them equals. I wonder if the family members and close friends left behind by murdered men are also reassured by this respectful attitude the killers have. Finally, there is the one thing UP said that I can at least partially agree with: "If misogyny ain’t a joke, and it’s not–it’s a fucking EPEDEMIC–then this analysis of misandry ain’t a joke neither!" While I disagree that misogyny is an epidemic, it is true, this analysis of misandry is not a joke. And neither is misandry itself.

Amazons Rankings are Rank

Say it ain't so, Jeff Bezos!

Amazon.com has been one of my favorite places to shop for a long time. Especially during the Christmas season when I try to avoid the malls like the plague. So I hope that this "glitch," or whatever it is, with Amazon Rankings is fixed soon.

Sure, there are plenty of other online stores to shop on, but I already have my name, address, credit card info., etc. on Amazon. I don't like to enter all that information in more places than I have to. So hopefully they'll fix whatever's wrong and issue a substantial apology to the injured parties, before I have to experience the pain of boycotting them.

As an interesting aside I was once sent an e-mail by Amazon telling me of several gay-themed books and movies that I "might be interested in" because I purchased a DVD of Airplane! Go figure.

Update: April 30, 2009 - I see that the "glitch" has been fixed. While it is regrettable that this happened in the first place, it is good to see that Amazon did respond when it's customers made their feelings known. With Mother's Day and my brother's birthday coming soon, I am glad I don't have to boycott them!

Even the most reasonable radfem....

I learned of a challenge to find feminist porn from Nine Deuce at "Rage Against the Manchine." Though the challenge was initiated by another radical (read anti-sex) feminist, Nine Deuce was offering to bet anyone $100 to anyone who could win the challenge. I did not take the bet, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with radical feminism (and if it's not obvious read on and it will become so).

Nine Deuce is one of the few radfems who will occasionally let people who don't kiss her ass comment on her blog, and even more occasionally she will post opinions of people who disagree with her, if only so she can personally attack them. So, I thought I might have a chance of getting my comment posted. WRONG! Why I do not know, but I suspect it is because of its mildly sarcastic tone. I should have known that 92 reserves sarcasm for herself and her groupies (of course their sarcasm is anything but mild and usually quite personal). Just goes to show that even the most reasonable radfem can be very arbitrary and unreasonable, and will impose double-standards at the drop of a hat when her fragile little feelings are hurt by someone attacking her worldview.

Anyway, here is the oh-so-offensive posting:

This seems like a rigged contest to me. When has an anti-porn feminist ever considered anything even slightly erotic to be feminist?

Photos of nude or scantily clad men for women's consumption? Male exotic dancers? They're not fulfilling women's real sexual fantasies, just the women's desire to be like men so they're ...MISOGYNISTIC! Women playing a dominant role in BDSM? Everyone knows that no woman really wants to participate in BDSM in any role; they only do it to please their male partners therefore it is ...MISOGYNISTIC! Lesbian porn? Always someone playing a male role and someone playing female role and playing the female role is always degrading. (Incidentally the exact same thing can be said about gay male porn). Now, I, personally, don't know what evidence there is to support the idea of all lesbian and gay porn having people playing opposite sex roles, or the reason that the female role is inherently degrading. But the high priestesses of radical feminism all agree among these points so they must be true. Therefore, of course all same sex porn is ...MISOGYNISTIC!

In fact all sex is misogynistic. All male masturbation is, too, because masturbating males are fantasizing about having sex with (and therefore violating) a woman, or fantasizing about having sex with someone they plan to treat like a woman. I don't know if female masturbation is misogynistic but I'm sure researchers in Women's Studies labs are working hard to determine that.

PS Congratulations to the Villanova men's basketball team on making it to the Final Four for the first time in 24 years! Thanks to you not all of the money I left in Vegas 2 weeks will stay in Vegas (and even less if you win the overall tournament). But whatever happens from now on, thanks for a great season.

Never trust a Communist!

Well, it appears I was wrong when in my first post I described Renee from "Womanist Musings" as polite and civil. I was naive in my assessment. While I didn't know that she was a Communist at first, I should have seen the signs (such as her constant whining about "privilege"). Once she started referring to Marx, I should have known that any chance of a reasonable discussion was impossible, as it would be with a Nazi, or any other follower of totalitarian ideology. But I persisted hoping that if I couldn't reach her, maybe I could persuade one of her other readers of the wrongheadedness of her arguments. It's possible that I did and possible that I did not, though, I should have been prepared for what happened - being banned for life without warning, and then being trashed on her blog without any recourse to defend myself.

Now I will admit to crossing a line by bringing up her family. I was reacting to her mistreatment of a self-described stay at home dad seeking her approval. He was reaching out to her and she basically slapped him in the face, saying he because he is a privileged male, there is nothing he could do to earn the right to be treated kindly. Now, I suppose I shouldn't have cared, if this guy was trying to get compassion from such mean-spirited fountain of hate as Renee, I guess he should have known what to expect. Still, I did feel sorry for him and I did wonder if she treated her boyfriend and her sons this way. I also thought that she was being rather high and mighty condemning parents who spank their children, when she is so constantly filled with rage that it is hard to believe that some of that doesn't come out in her own parenting.

So, I made my comments which admittedly did contain some hyperbole. I guess I could have left well enough alone, my concern for the males in her life won't cause her to treat them any better than she does. Still, if she wanted no discussion of her family in her blog, she could have made that clear. It's not as if I attacked her family, just the way that I inferred that she treated them. I could understand a warning and maybe a temporary ban but then for someone following in the footsteps of Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong-Il, I guess I should be grateful that I was allowed to speak my peace as long I was.