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.

Another Attempt at Expanding Self-Defense Rights

My petition a couple of years ago to get reciprocity between states for gun rights did not succeed. But now there is a new proposal with a similar aim. A friend of mine recently sent an e-mail about House of Representatives Bill 822, which will do much to correct inconsistencies between states and within those that have little respect for the fair application of the right to self-defense. I would urge those interested to read more here http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7044 and to write your elected representatives regarding this issue. Here is a copy of the main text of the letter I sent to my congressman and senators:

I am writing in support of HR 822, The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. The right of peaceful people to carry weapons to defend against society's violent predators is a basic human right. However, despite this right being upheld by the Supreme court, there are several states and municipalities that seem to find that respecting this right is too much of an inconvenience. They will allow the powerful and well connected to defend their own lives, but seem to think that the vast majority should blindly trust government officials to protect them. Perhaps if ordinary adults gave police, prosecutors, and their supervisors the power our parents had over us when we were infants, they would provide the same protection our parents did then. I am skeptical about this, though, and in any case do not see it as the best way to maintain a free society. As such, I support H.R. 822 which will compel states and cities that allow their elites to protect themselves from violence to allow the vast majority of their citizens to do the same.

I would also urge you to read (or re-read) the NRA's factsheet regarding this issue. In addition to the fundamental right to self-defense that I have already stated there are two points I find especially worthy of note:
• States with right-to-carry laws have lower violent crime rates.
and
• Crime declines in states with right-to-carry laws.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003

Oh, My Papa!

I don't like to talk too much about personal shit on this blog. Since the time I started this I have lost two aunts and one uncle, all of whom I was quite fond of, but whose deaths I could not find a way to announce in this blog without making things more awkward than they should be. Well, the same could probably be said about my father's death this past July, yet I feel that is too big a part of my life to ignore. So, while I do not wish to get into my personal relationship with him I will re-post the obituary which I posted on my Facebook Page: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/pottsmerc/obituary.aspx?n=john-j-meade&pid=152392954#.Thztv2UOJXQ.facebook

Here Is What Federal Marshall Thugs Tried to Censor

Via James Babb's Facebook post

Thanks to George Donnelly, who discovered the Google cache reproduced here:

They're Here...
...and Here, and Here
by Jim Davidson
jim@vertoro.com

Bookmark and Share

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

A three-judge panel, consisting of Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain, N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges, and Charles R. Wolle, Senior District Judge, voted in the case of U.S. v. Pineda-Moreno, No. 08-30385 that the DEA and other pigs are not expected to get a warrant to trespass on the private property of a driveway to attach a GPS device to someone's vehicle and then follow that person's movements.

You can read all their foolish ideas here (a .pdf file).

So, let's find them, shall we? These nice men want you to know all about where they live, so you can attach a GPS device to their vehicles and follow them around. Or, come visit them with torches and pitchforks, or candle light vigils, or the like, one presumes.

First we go here: wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarmuid_O%27Scannlain

And we find out that Diarmuid has chambers in Portland, Oregon.

So, that's a rare name, we visit Whitepages.com and find out sure enough there is a listing.

Diarmuid O Oscannlain
3919 SW Mount Adams Dr
Portland, OR 97239-1559
Household: Maura O Oscannlain, Caroline Mcdonough

So we stop by Google maps and find his home.

Satellite/aerial view shows that is a very nice house. Across the street, a car is parked on the street. Street view shows some lovely flowers out front, a nice two-story frame home. Gosh, a wood house. Someone who doesn't believe in your reasonable expectation of privacy lives in a wood house.

It isn't completely clear that there would be a driveway, or garage, for each of these houses. There is one just up the street, but I think that's for another house on the hill. Anyway, it would be irony indeed if this despicable judge were parking on the street.

Norman Randy Smith is 60. wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Randy_Smith

It says there that he maintains a residence in Pocatello, Idaho.

And here that residence is:

Norman R Smith
420 Pebble Ln
Pocatello, ID 83204-3860
(208) 233-0733
Age: 60-64

Household: Ladean E Smith, Randy Smith,

[Map]

Pebble Lane has some very nice homes on it, all with garages. And is that a golf course behind the houses? Wow. Very swanky real estate. It must be nice to be a federal judge and get to stifle individual liberty.

It bears mentioning that "Smith" is a fairly common name, and this is not the only Randy Smith in Pocatello. So phone him up before you stop by.

Wolle was a bit harder to find. Visiting wikipedia you might think he was in Iowa. But it turns out that the part to notice is the National Judicial College, which is in Reno, Nevada. He seems to be this fellow, living nearby in Gardnerville.

Charles R Wolle
1030 Lakeside Dr
Gardnerville, NV 89460-9728
Age: 65+
Household: Thomas D Wolle, Susan M Wolle, Kerstin W Wolle

[Map]

Available aerial photo shows it to be a new development, near a golf course. I guess the water rights are in, but the irrigation isn't complete. Say, you try growing a golf course in a desert. Heh. But, money galore, judging by the size of the house and the circular drive. Gee, I wonder if the son of a bitch parks in his driveway.

Anyway, there they are, the current crop of parasites in the government to assault your individual liberty. Their opinion was "rendered" back in January, but a larger panel of the 9th Circuit decided to affirm what they chose. I haven't bothered to look for all those people. Do I have to do everything for you?

Best wishes for more freedom when these parasites get jobs in the private sector. Or, anyway, stop infesting your life.

If a bunch of cross-dressers want to attack individual liberty, to hell with them. Because to hell with them. That's exactly as much eloquence as I can muster. I am not burning down their homes, I am not murdering them in their beds. And I am not advocating that any person ever do anything of the sort. But if it were to happen, who would mind? If they were individually and severally dying in a fire, I would not urinate on a single one of them to save their lives.


Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"

Pay to Jim Davidson
jim@vertoro.com


Jim Davidson is an author, entrepreneur, and anti-war activist. His 1990 venture to offer a sweepstakes trip into space was destroyed by government action as was his free port and prospective space port in Somalia in 2001. His 2002-2007 venture in free market money and private stock exchange was destroyed by government action in 2007. He's going to Mars if he has to walk. His second book, Being Sovereign is now availble from Lulu and Amazon. His third book Sovereign Self-Defense will be released for Kindle soon. His fourth book Being Libertarian will be available for free download as a .pdf, being a compilation of all his essays and letters in "The Libertarian Enterprise" since 1995. Contact him at indomitus.net or indsovu.com He and his associates at Individual Sovereign University are planning a series of concerts and celebrations of freedom around the world. One of these events is 4-6 March 2011 in Kansas City, Missouri.

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.

Sign me up for DAMM, Part II

Predictably, this story is giving neo-prohibitionists and their self-righteous allies a chance to wring their hands about "underage drinking." Of course, what is left unsaid is that 17 year-olds rarely die from binge-drinking related accidents in countries where the legal drinking age is 18 or younger, and drinking of those below the legal age is acceptable when supervised by an adult. It is also unstated that hardly, if ever, does anyone, anywhere fall out of a 25th story window while high on marijuana.

New Petition: Do NOT stop offshore drilling

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/do-not-stop-offshore-drilling

I'm down with Brown

Of course I mean Charlie Brown, he's one of my heroes. Cleveland Brown (not to be confused with The Cleveland Browns) is pretty cool too. Leroy Brown had a seemingly glamorous thug lifestyle though he did kind of turn out to be a loser when confronting the "jealous man."

But what about Scott Brown? Well, I thought this comment I posted about him to Feminist Critics was worth re-posting here:

I didn’t notice this thread before today. I know this discussion is mostly irrelevant now, but I will say I’m glad Brown won. From what I know about him he doesn’t seem like an ultra-right wing fanatic who would restrict personal freedom on either religious or nationalistic grounds, at least not any more so than the Democrats do. I am not in love with the Republicans but he does bring some balance to the current overwhelming leftist Democrat domination of Washington. In recent times some our best years have been under divided governments (Reagan with the Democrat congress throughout his term from 1981 to 1989 and Clinton with the Republican congress from 1994 to 2001). When the two parties clash they somewhat keep each other’s runaway spending and attacks on civil liberties in check. Not ideal, but the best we can hope for until there is a viable third party.

And if Coakley is anywhere near the man-hater she is portrayed to be here, then even if I was a socialist I would still be glad that Brown won. He won’t have much effect on policy until and unless more Republicans are elected this November, while Coakley might well have gotten her misandric agenda passed into federal law almost immediately.

Edit: I originally included this line in my first paragraph of lame, but for me irresistible, jokes about the name Brown: "And then there was FEMA director Michael Brown, who sure did do a heck of a (shitty) job!" Thinking it over that wasn't fair since FEMA would, does and always did, suck no matter who heads it. Also, Hurricane Katrina was only a federal matter because of gross incompetence of the state government of Louisiana and the local government of New Orleans. Mississippi was hit hard by the hurricane too but did not have nearly the same level of humanitarian disaster.

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.

Two Important Upcoming Pennsylvania Bills

While I wish I was in New Hampshire, there are two positive pieces of legislation coming up in my current (and so far lifelong) home of Pennsylvania. I would urge all of my fellow Pennsylvanians to support them:


Via NRA-ILA - House Bill 40 - “Castle Doctrine”  Self-Defense Bill:

HB40, sponsored by State Representative Scott Perry (R-92), would permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their homes and any places outside of their home where they have a legal right to be. Read More.

Via The False Rape Society  - Finally, a chance to reduce false rape claims:

We frequently talk here about how the crime of making a false report of rape is treated so cavalierly. Finally, as shown by the article below, some state legislators are looking to do something about it. Read more.

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.

Debate on Culture continued from Ren's Place

This is the continuation from an ongoing debate at Renegade Evolution's blog.

Anthony Kennerson: Still having that racist moment, are you??

"Racist moment"? This baseless ad hom is no different than the accusations of being sexist radfems hurl at you for your defense of sex work. You can do better than that.

AK: And you didn't even bother to answer my question: how is our "Western culture" -- you know, the one who slaughtered Native Americans, enslaved Black Africans, stole Hispanic and Native American land, and dropped nuclear weapons on Asians -- any more qualified to judge anyone else on who's "superior"??

As VirtueAndVice admitted Anglo-American culture has "its faults" just as every culture throughout history has had. But if no cultures were superior to one another there would be no asylum seekers or refugees. Immigrants, yes, but not people looking to escape from the places where they were born. The greatest tragedy of at least the more extreme forms of multiculturalism is that it encourages people coming from dangerous, oppressive places to re-create the dysfunctional situations from which they came. When my ancestors came from Ireland and Italy, they brought some of their traditions with them but they did not pretend for a minute that things were better back home, or demand the right to continue traditions that would undermine the foundations of American liberty.

AK: First off, like most conservative critics of "multiculturalism', they are so desperate to take an isolated act of cruelty and make it representative of a whole culture or race or "civilization", and therefore declare their favored "Anglo-American" (read that to mean "White Western Christian civilization") to be not only superior to all but to be imposed on all others

These would be isolated acts of cruelty, except that the people engaging in them are using "culture" as an excuse. And some (not all but too many) western leftists are backing up these excuses. As for "be[ing] imposed on all others" V&V said (and I agree), "That's not to say that we should go out and bomb other countries when they don't see things our way."

AK: But I wonder, VaV...would you have gone into such histronics if the perpetrators had been fundamentalist White American Christians?? After all, it's not as if they haven't done such things themselves. Oh, wait...

Who is defending the preacher in that article? Probably not even most of his fellow Evangelicals. Certainly not any groups that have the numbers of the multi-culti defenders of similar behavior by so called victim groups.

AK: Secondly...I'm not much of a fan of the Nation of Islam for many reasons...but to compare them to the KKK is sheer madness. Not even Louis Farrakhan, for all his alleged anti-Semitic smack and belief in numerology, has ever burned a cross in a White neighborhood, or lynched a White man, or intimidated a single White person out of voting.

Farrakhan is too smart to get his own hands dirty by personally participating in acts of violence. Same with most Klan wizards (when was the last time David Duke was arrested). It doesn't mean that Farrakhan's rhetoric is any less responsible for black-on-white violence than the identical rhetoric in reverse by Klan leaders is for white-on-black violence. Similarly, as far as we know, Mary Daly has never directly committed an act of violence against a man (or a boy). It does not mean that her anti-male views are any less hateful than the Nazi's anti-Semitic views, just that she apparently has not yet had a chance to act on them.

SnowdropExplodes: The term "rape culture" has a real meaning in describing Western European cultures - so the culture isn't all that great towards women (whatever the law tries to do about it).

Rape culture is mostly a feminist invention. To the extent that it exists, it refers to a very small subset of western men. Like V&V, "I was 17 once, and 0% of the guys I knew were talking about planning violent sexual assaults."

Cassandra: VirtueandVice - I don't think you understand what multiculturalism is. It can be what you're describing in the hands of a few fools, but that is not in principle what the idea is all about, nor how it's commonly expressed.

Multiculturalism may be all sweetness and light in principle, but not in practice. All to often it is exactly as V&V described. Those fools aren't so few.

Cassandra: OK, reading VirtueandVice again further down...you're not even making a real argument, you're just a zenophobic racist. Never mind, not worth the time.

I see no evidence of racism or xenophobia on the part of V&V. If anyone is acting like a closed-minded bigot it is you. So maybe V&V's opinions (and mine) are not worth your time. Fine if you want to only associate with people who already agree with you 95% of the time. But these opinions are held by a large number of people throughout the western world - close to a majority, if not an outright majority. Furthermore, they are gaining wider acceptance in some places, particularly those - such as The Netherlands - where the damage from extreme multiculturalism has been most obvious. Given that, if you really believe we are wrong you should at least try to make a convincing argument why.

My Petition

Petition powered by ThePetitionSite.com

Just a Random Thought...

Gun rights activists often say "Better tried by twelve than carried by six." I'm not sure that's true. However, having a gun makes it more likely that if you are carried by six it will be on your own terms and if you go down fighting maybe you can take some of the scumbags with you. Or better yet, leave them with permanent injuries. Especially in the case of breaking an unjust law that is enforced with severe penalties, it may be better to fight to the death than let government hired goons cart you off to prison. I'm not saying that I would - when push comes to shove I probably wouldn't have the courage. But I'd like to think that it would at least be possible.

Do Whatever You Want with Your Own Body but...

With Obama's speech to and honorary degree from Notre Dame bringing abortion back into the news, I have decided to put my thoughts on the issue into words. This is as much a matter of clarifying my position to myself as it is of creating a post for others to read. While on most issues my opinion is definite and unconflicted, abortion does bring up many mixed feelings and opposing thoughts that I can't quite reconcile.

When I was an undergraduate in college, I was a member of the campus pro-life group. I was also a practicing Catholic then, which I no longer am (I still believe in God, but do not see any particular religion that I know of as having most of the answers). Still, even then I was mostly libertarian, though I didn't feel strongly enough about my libertarian position on social issues to vote for Libertarians instead of Republicans. I did then, as I do now, see abortion as different from issues such as drugs, pornography, and prostitution. Using recreational drugs (including but certainly not limited to alcohol and tobacco), using and acting in or be photographed in pornography, engaging in prostitution - whether as the prostitute or the john, not to mention riding in a car without using a seat belt or riding a motorcycle without a helmet are all examples of choosing what to do with your own body. (Note: the last two are things I would never do as there are less painful ways to commit suicide than car and motorcycle crashes, but I support other people's rights to fly through windshields anid split their heads when they land after being thrown off a motorbike). I support both women and men doing whatever they want with their own bodies. But a fetus is not part of a woman's body, it is a separate being with its own DNA, and within two months, its own blood type, heartbeat, and brain. To call it a parasite might be accurate depending on your definition, though it is no more a biological parasite than minor children are economic parasites. While it may cause temporary symptoms of illness, it is not really detrimental the woman's health, as would be a virus or a tapeworm. It is not an invader but rather something the woman's body is designed to host. Abortion is not a matter of doing what she wants with her own body but a matter of her having control over the life and death of a distinct individual that just so happens to live within her body.

To put it another way, drugs, prostitution, and most other so-called vices are victimless in and of themselves. Victimization may occur as an unintended consequence but it is not intrinsic to the products or services themselves. And most of these victimizations - drug dealers shooting rivals over "turf", drug users stealing to support their habits, pimps and johns beating prostitutes, prostitutes robbing johns, pimps taking all of the money prostitutes earn instead of a reasonable cut, etc. - are direct results of the fact that these things are illegal. Take away the black market and allow the prices to be determined by a free market, and you take away a lot of the motivation for criminal behavior around these otherwise peaceful activities. And the few criminals left as vendors or customers of these businesses could be reported by the honest people who no longer had a reason to fear the police. In any case, these unfortunate consequences are by no means the purpose of drugs and prostitution, any more than air pollution is the purpose of a car. With abortion killing something, whether or not you consider it human, is the very definition of the act.

I also think that the death penalty, while not without its problems is much more justifiable than abortion. It is true that a an innocent person could be killed, and. since this sentence is irreversable, that is a reason why I have some misgivings about the death penalty. Still, there is no question in mind that some people deserve to die (anyone who kills innocent people for pleasure, or one who kills in the act of committing another crime i.e. felony murder). So while the death penalty targets those who have met a fairly high standard to be proven guilty of terrible crimes, abortion targets those who are known to be innocent. Similarly, in a just war where only combatants and the ruling party (or leaders of the insurgency) are targeted but civilians get caught in the crossfire, this is quite different from intentionally ending the life of an innocent being. As for deliberately targeting innocents to bring a swift end to the war and save millions of other lives - as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - this is problematic, though I view it somewhat like using abortion to save the life of the mother (which is the one case where I do unequivocally support abortion during any stage of pregnancy).

There is one thing that I do support, which I can't help noticing is similar to abortion - animal slaughter. I have stated my postion on killing animals for food before. I am not sure about killing animals just for their skins (or furs), though I'm defienitely not opposed to using skin when it is left over from an animal that's been used for meat (as with leather). I do have a problem with killing for pure recreation or trophy hunting, but I support the rights of hunters who eat the animals they harvest.

Meat is a natural part of the human diet, as it is for the diet of chimpanzees, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. I don't doubt that some people can be healthy on a vegetarian or vegan diet, but different people have different dietary needs. For example the Dali Lama was a vegetarian, but began eating meat when his doctors told him he needed it. I also dont' see the difference between people eating cattle, pigs ,sheep,and chickens, and mountain lions or wolves doing the same. Or fish eating other fish, lions eating zebras, or any of thousands (millions?) of other predator species doing what they do in the natural world. Well, there is one difference, people, at least sometimes make efforts to minmize or even eliminate the suffering of their prey. (cf. Temple Grandin and the Animal Welfare Institute).

This all leaves me with the question: should human fetuses have more rights than animals? This is something that I feel should be a yes, but at this time I cannot come up with a logical reason why. And, while I consider abortion immoral and drug use perfectly moral, I do see an attempt to enforce abortion laws as having the potential to cause the police state environment that has grown from the War on Drugs and the War on Terror to become even more repressive. So for now at least, I won't be fighting to change the laws on abortion or basing my vote for a candidate on this issue (regardless of which side he or she stands on).

Still, I would ask that those who are considering abortion because of a birth defect or disability, as well as those who are minorities to consider the genocidal implications. In any case, its fair to say that not all pro-lifers fit the sterotype of prudish right-wing religious fanatics. Some might say it is hypocritical to acknowledge that while calling anti-porn, anti-prostitution, anti-BDSM feminists "anti-sex", but based on the total of all that I've read that the radfems have written and their treatment of people who disagree with them about sexual matters, I think it's a fair assessment.

PS Happy Memorial Day all veterans, those currently serving in the armed forces, and their families.

Foreign Aid Petition

I received an e-mail asking to sign a petition to "Reform U.S. Foreign Aid." I had to think about this a little while. Normally, I don't think it is a good idea to try to "improve" something that, for the most part, I'd like to see eliminated. But, after looking at the text of the bill, as well as various commentaries on it, I decided that its calls for accountability, transparency, and streamlining bureaucracy are positive enough to outweigh any problems it might have. So, I signed the petition, while attaching this message:

I would prefer to see all foreign aid eventually phased out. I would like to see assistance to allied governments come in the form of loans or favors that can be reciprocated rather than grants. Charity, where it is needed, should come from voluntary private donations, not taxpayer money. But, seeing as how foreign aid is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, this does seem like a step in the right direction.

Let the Tea Bagging Continue

KIA, in responding to Becky C.'s post put it best:

If you were like me and real-world committments prevented you from attending the tea parties live, you can send an electronic teabag here:

http://teaparty.gop.com/

Nevermind the hypocrisy of the GOP now, go ahead and teabag the current leadership. It's never too late to try to make a difference.

I couldn't agree more. I know that the Republicans under Bush outdid what the Democrats had done in wasteful spending up until that time. I know that the Republicans under McCain would likely do the same. And I'm far from convinced that GOP politicians have learned anything from last election.

If the GOP is giving us a forum, though, to express outrage about taxes and spending I am not against using it. Just as if the Dems gave a forum to protest loss of civil liberties under a Republican administration, I'd use that, even though Dems are not much better, and arguably worse than the Repubs on that score.

I don't care who Fox News praises and the other networks ridicule or vice-versa. It's about the message, not the messengers. So I sent my postcard and you can too. It's a little late for tax day of this year but really, really early for next year! (And it would be great if the spirit of protest could be maintained year round).