So misogynistic it's almost laughable

[WaterBomb]

I think the article represents an extreme point of view, and some of the claims are a bit exaggerated and outlandish, but there is a lot of viable information in there, and it is founded on a very relevant argument (albeit one that often remains undiscussed). I am sure lots of people may have thought about what this guy is saying at one point or another, but were afraid to bring it up because they didn't want women everywhere to jump down their throats. I know my own Aunt ripped my head off once when I casually mentioned that some women who claimed to have been "taken advantage of" were partly to blame for allowing themselves to be used in the first place, so I understand why few people want to bring up such a touchy subject as is addressed in this article. Though his views are extreme, they are the same kind of extreme as is expressed by a great many "feminists", so they are just a foil for the opposition. I think what tends to happen is extreme feminism is seen as far more acceptable than extreme "masculinism" (if that's a word), and thus you get precisely the "problem" that is discussed in this article.

I dunno, I agree with some of the stuff in there, but I think the writer's flaw is that he exaggerated far too many statistics for me to consider him credible. If he had been more factual with the concrete stuff (statistics) I might have taken him more seriously. I do respect the fact that he had the balls to say something about it, whereas most of us wouldn't even touch this argument with a 39.5 foot pole.

 

[mtr]

I noticed that we've started to cherry-pick the few legitimate points in the article without noticing things like "unspoken sexual contracts between males and females", conspiracy theories about "pro-female social engineering" and "some mass murderer guy is justified because he couldn't get any (granted, it's a different article, but the author of the piece I linked to agrees wholeheartedly) or "pseudo-anthropological analysis of the institution of marriage".

Regarding the Sodini affair:

It's a well-known fact that sexual frustration, even if it is repressed or sublimated, drives quite a few crimes committed by men. China is just now realizing this: because of its practices of female infanticide and gender-selective abortion, it has created millions of "surplus" men, many of whom are sexually frustrated, or so they claim. Combine this with stuff like economic difficulty, and you've created a powder kig rigged to explode.

Tragedies like these may be isolated incidents, but they were catalyzed by the society that produced the killers. This is impossible to deny.

 

[Objection]

Anyone who's studied Shakespeare (aka anyone over the age of 14) knows the word "cuckhold". It's a brilliant word as words go, there's no other verb quite like it.

I studied Shakespeare and I do not recall seeing that word.

I'm not familiar with any Nazi memes or what have you but I don't think any factor can sum up an argument as "failing".

Comparing something to Hitler or Nazis is only ever done to make something seem much worse than it really is. It's only done for emotional impact and contributes nothing to the reasoning. Relying on it will not work and there is always an alternative.

The thing about this article is that it seems to be portraying women as demon spawn who love nothing more than fucking up men's lives, and in the bit about Venusian Arts (not sure how relevant this was to the topic but it was a ... provoking read), it seems to be saying that, when trying to have a relationship with a woman, the logical decision is always the wrong one. Or perhaps I have misinterpreted. Actually, I hope I have, since the sad thing is that, despite the vibe you might be getting from what I've posted here so far, a significant amount of what was in the article was stuff I already believed (though not yet as far as calling women demon spawn). At the very least, sexual relationships (from dating to marriage and beyond) are definitely chock full of double standards, which are never a good thing.

EDIT: Ok, I did find one laughable thing:

Ceilings and Floors of Glass : Misandrists shriek about a supposed 'glass ceiling' of pervasive sexism that explains why 50% of the CEOs of major corporations are not women.

But if 50% of CEOs are not women, then 50% of CEOs are not not women (ie, are women). And misandrists bitch about this?

 

[Deucalion2]

I think you mean "cuckold" - there's no h.

 

[popemobile]

EDIT: Ok, I did find one laughable thing:


But if 50% of CEOs are not women, then 50% of CEOs are not not women (ie, are women). And misandrists bitch about this?

even though it should be blatantly obvious, it's saying that significantly less than 50% of CEOs are not women

 

[Lanturn314]

I may have misspoken, I can't find anything directly saying that it could be brought to trial based on hearsay, but it is definitely possible for a man to be arrested without any corroborating evidence from the accuser. This might give more info:



Because of rape shield laws, the victims anonymity is protected, but not the anonymity of the accused...meaning that the accused party never even has to face their accuser.

First of all, j7r, I love that your sources are http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-presumptively-innocent-are-given.html and a Wikipedia article that claims it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. Way to find legitimate sources of statistics that aren't obviously biased, contrived, and/or lacking in quality at all.

As for what you said in the quote above, this is mainly to protect the victim from further violence and harm. If there were a lot of false rape accusations, then this might not be valid, but...

Nearly 10% of rape accusations are found to be false...obviously people like to jump the gun when charging people. Rape is a devastating charge, and even a mere accusation can ruin a man's reputation and career. That's why prosecutors are more likely to go after them: they provide free scapegoats for the media, the accused are more likely to settle and keep numbers where they want them. There are actually cases of British lawmakers making stricter laws in the late 90s because rape allegations were at an all-time low.

Only 10% by your statistics??? That means a whopping 90% are true accusations. And rape is actually under-reported because it's such a psychologically taxing process to have to recall the situation in its entirety... every single traumatic detail being brought back into the victim's mind. Lawyers cost money and the process is psychologically taxing, so it's not like there's a good incentive to make a false accusation.

The unfortunate part about not being able to use "she's a slut!" as evidence is that you also can't use "she explicitly told me that she wanted to do this!" as evidence. Because of the elimination of mens rea, a woman can change her mind at literally any time before or after the fact about consenting to sex, whether or not the sex was intended to be consensual from the beginning.

If a girl sleeps around a lot and everyone knows it, why would she feel the need to say that a particular one-night is rape unless it was? If she's actually promiscuous, she's probably proud of most of her conquests... so if she says it's forced one time, it's probably forced, because she'd have no reason to lie.
And if she's not promiscuous, then there's also no reason to lie.
If she was drunk when it happened, then she didn't have full control over what she was doing. Women get more submissive when they are drunk, whereas men become more assertive, so it's not as though a "yes" while drunk will always translate into a real yes. However, this is kind of a gray area for me, as well, because the woman can control how much she drinks, and the sex could have been a mistake on both parts. But if the guy forces himself on her, then it's rape whether she's drunk or not.

I've never seen anything say >90% of DV victims are female, even from horribly biased sources. Here are some sources that back up my claim of a 60-40ish spread, and that's not counting cases where violence was reciprocal.

According to this paper, it depends on what kind of violence you're talking about. I'd like to see what you think about it: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00948.x/full

And I have a problem with people saying that "rape (or anything) is the most underreported crime". How could you possibly know that, and how could you possibly quantify that with the varying definitions of rape? People saying things like that without supporting them are what creates the anti-male attitude that the author in the OP was advocating against.

Check out this paper: http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/sexoff/sexoff.pdf

The NCVS gathers information about crime and its consequences from a nationally representative
sample of U.S. residents age 12 or older about any crimes they may have experienced--whether or
not the crime was reported to a law enforcement agency. ...For both 1994 and 1995 the percentage of rape/sexual assault victimizations reported to a law
enforcement agency was 32%. The most common reason given by victims of rape/sexual assault
for reporting the crime to the police was to prevent further crimes by the offender against them.
The most common reason cited by the victim for not reporting the crime to the police was that
it was considered a personal matter.

I realize that it's an old study, but the methods behind obtaining the data seem sound, and it's not like anything major has happened that would drastically alter the study's outcome since then (if you can find evidence that shows otherwise, feel free to prove me wrong).

[/QUOTE]I don't mind this little side-tangent, but I'm personally more interested in what other people think is misogynist about the article in the OP considering the initial reaction to this thread.[/QUOTE]

 

[Deck Knight]

Futurist is essentially the opposite end of the spectrum from feminists in regards to his placement of the genders.

For feminists, men are hopelessly stupid knuckledragging pigs only out for sexual gratification and to feed their endless narcissism.

For futurist, women are hypergamous scheming flakes out to maximize their personal piggy banks and to feed their endless narcissism.

My experience has been that if you ever criticize a woman on anything she reacts like a sleighted cat and starts implying she is above rebuke. Men don't usually do this. I work in an industry chock-full of women and I've run into more than a few anti-male jokes. I just roll my eyes and keep going on since it's not worth it to pick battles when you're outnumbed 15 to 1.

Though really as far as cherry-picking comparisons, arguments over individual tactics aren't convincing. It doesn't ascend to the ridiculous level of broad-scale mass murder, but tricking a man into paying for another man's child is one of the most disgusting single things a woman can do to a man, especially if you divorce him after your selfish impregnating affair then take him to the cleaners in divorce court. Bonus points if you get there by accusing him a rape and letting that hang over his head forever too.

It's not at the level of deliberate mass murder, but it's so evil "cuckolding" doesn't really do it justice as a word. There isn't really a suitable word made to describe an activity (or really, string of activities) that abominable. It's downright Satanic. It's the kind of thing in your worst nightmare you wouldn't imagine doing to someone. And yet hardline feminists will hold only fleeting reservations about it, as if it's just like calling someone a nasty name in comparison to all that the "evil patriarchy" did. In thier view, the collective sins of men justifies obliterating someone's life and reputation, as long as that person is a man, anyway. Harm even so much a hair on their delicate heads and it's a relapse into the Middle Ages.

So while Futurist may take a step too far in some of his terminology, and exaggerate a bit in his examples, one of the most irritating things about "debate" as it were is choosing to knife someone for their techniques in absense of analyzing thier substance. Yeah, cockolding isn't the same as tossing vast numbers of lives into an oven on the basis of "testing human limitations" with the cultural pretext of "purifying the German race."

But it's still one of the most evil things one indivudual can do to another. So bad they may have actually preferred the oven to rending them of thier home, thier dignity, their livelihood, and their children for the rest of their waking days all for someone else's own sadistic self-pleasure or unrelenting vengeance, all "justified" by wrongs real or precieved done by someone other than the intended target to people other than the perpetrator of the current disgusting injustice.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Good point Deck. There is definitely something worthy of debate in that article, but that article itself is a useless point to start from. It is long and boring and in a lot of ways extremely poorly made.

So what I recommend, is that someone who is interested in this debate (IE knows enough about the subject to give us a reasonable starting point for debating something, which unfortunately means not me) makes a new thread on this subject detailing their thoughts on this, instead of us trying to wrangle a meaningful discussion out of a thread built around a deeply flawed article.

[edit] - I am still kinda curious about the detroit thing, feel free to vm me about it!

Have a nice day.