[Noisebridge-discuss] modern sexism

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Wed Mar 19 22:04:18 UTC 2014

I love it when an "anti-misandrist" shows his true colors.

"Women have not suffered the way african americans have. The suffering
of women does not even compare to the suffering of african americans.

Yeah and Hitler may not have been as bad as Stalin.

I don't have time to fact-check all your crap, but it definitely smells weird.

Ultimately, I don't particularly care what you think about feminism,
and I dissent strongly with several men and women here on what it
means to be feminist.

But honestly, dude... you're not going to win any hearts or minds by
throwing up the litany of "anti-misandrist" strawmen.


On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:49 PM, LinkReincarnate
<linkreincarnate at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the third time I am trying to get this message through moderation.
> I guess my TONE was bad last time...
> This is going to be very hard for many of you to digest, very long winded
> and I am probably burning all of my social capital, but here we go.   If
> your mind is made up already about the validity of feminist claims maybe you
> should avoid reading this.   Except you Lupita,  you asked for this.
>  If you aren't sure that what feminist preach is the gospel by all means
> dive in.
> "Like I'm not black, so I know I can never be a black panther, and that is
> okay, even though I support many of the ideals of the black power movement
> and try to be as supportive of black people as I can. "
> This is where we differ in opinion  you think that militant racists groups
> are perfectly ok because they target whites instead of blacks.  (You
> probably think that black people cannot be racist)   No group that advocates
> violence or exclusion on the basis of how a person was born is ok. Period.
> Not agreeing with the  New Black Panthers doesn't make you racist no matter
> how much they would like to convince you it does.  Being born a certain
> color doesn't make you a racist either but that's another discussion
> altogether.
> Actually it's the analogy doesn't even hold.  Why?  Because when white
> people asked how they could support the  (original BP not the NBP that the
> ADL defines as a hate group) Black Panthers they were told they could be
> White Panthers.  This is a moniker that isn't inherently a subclass to the
> Black Panthers the way you think men should be in the feminism movement.
> You act as if feminists don't argue among themselves about the feminist/ally
> debate. (So much for feminism isn't a monolith)  So every feminist that
> thinks a man should be allowed to refer to himself as one are also all
> misogynist assholes too.  Even the women?  Or are they actually allowed to
> disagree with you?   Are they No True Feminists?
> "Therefore, only women can truly be involved in the movement, and non-women
> can best help out by being supportive but leaving the main space for women."
> So men should be seen but not heard.  Where have I heard that before?  But
> why is that so hard to digest and accept right?  I should be happy to be
> told to sit in the corner and look pretty while to women make all of the
> important decisions.  At least that way I avoid being labeled a misogynist
> for having opinions.
> Women are not the same as black people.(unless you are a black woman)  They
> are not oppressed as a class despite what patriarchy theory states. There
> are individual instances of oppression. Not enough to quality for (or need)
> a liberation movement.    They were never slaves to begin with.   Women have
> not suffered the way african americans have. The suffering of women does not
> even compare to the suffering of african americans.  If you want to see what
> a society that is stacked against you looks like look at how America treated
> blacks in the 50's.  Less so today but there are still vestiges of it left
> over.  Attempts to co-op african-american  movements cheapens their
> legitimate concerns.
> "The thing where modern feminism went wrong is when they started talking
> about equality. I don't want equality, I was liberation. Equality means
> being like men, and I kind of don't want women to rape and murder at the
> same rate as men."
> I bet you loved the scum manifesto...(ok that probably isn't true...I hope)
> Your premise simply isn't true. Lets look closer and actually think about it
> and test it. TBH I was so hoping someone would repeat this since I have
> heard it several times around noisebridge.  Usually with a group feminists
> yelling down any dissent en mass.
> "Currently, in statistical data such as that gathered by the CDC, for whom
> feminist Mary Koss acts as a consultant, such men are not considered rape
> victims, even if they have been forced into sex. Previous year data in their
> latest NISVS showed an equal number of male and female victims of sex
> obtained through force, threats or incapacitation (and attempts, which they
> did not separate out in either case), and a significant perpetration rate
> among women, however, Koss (and thus, the CDC) does not consider a woman
> forcing a man to have heterosexual sex to be rape. "
> http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/2014/02/whispers-of-dissent-within-feminist.html
> http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
> Here is some actual data.
> 40 percent of rapes are committed by women.   That whole women = innocence
> narrative seems to be showing cracks.
> That is not even going into the stigma associated with men reporting any
> kind (In before that's the Patriarchy's fault)
> Not to mention that the conviction rate of men accused of rape is higher
> than that of murder. According the the DOJ crime statistics.  (Sorry no link
> on that you can google it though right?) You think there might be any bias
> against men accused of rape?  No there's no way that could be true.  Right?
> And the conviction rate of women is artificially depressed.
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002
> I'm not sure how much those details change the numbers but but I think that
> brings things a lot closer to equity.
> And lets not get into the false accusations argument.  Though that is also
> misrepresented by feminism. (We actually can go into it if you want but my
> first link does touch on that a bit)
>  So sure, men commit more rapes*
> (*for lopsided misandric definitions of rape)
> What about the greater narrative that women = innocence?  Or are somehow
> inherently morally superior on thanks to their superior genetalia.  (Really
> they are great though I think we can all find common ground there at least)
> Who do you think is more likely to engage in child abuse?  Women, being 3
> times more likely to perpetuate child abuse according to federal hhs
> studies.  (Admittedly a little dated being from 2001 but there is no reason
> to suggest that this trend is not still present.)
> http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm01/cm01.pdf
> How about domestic abuse. That should be a grand slam for feminism right?
> Well not so fast...
> http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
> "This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical
> studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as
> physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships
> with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the
> reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. "
> *Whistles.  Man that is a whole LOT of science that disproves that premise.
> The difference between you and me is that  I wont try to paint all women as
> inherently dangerous because of a statistic.  Statistics dont fucking work
> that way!  I don't try to paint a picture where I deny people of my gender
> are capable of doing evil acts.
> It is misandry to try and tie rape and murder to Masculinity wholesale.
> What purpose does associating rape to manhood serve?   Who does all the FUD
> help?
> "How is that a hard concept to respect, unless you keep to your male
> socialization and demand to enter every space women try to create, and can't
> accept the word "no" from women. In which case, you shouldn't be welcomed
> because you have alternative motives that don't involve helping women."
> I highlight how you managed to imply I was a rapist (or at least a little
> rapey)  there by saying I didn't understand what no means (specifically from
> women).  I also noticed that subtle invocation of the "No means No"
> campaign.    Implying that I am a rapist still doesn't mean I'm wrong.  It
> is a good sign that your argument holds no weight.  If you are resorting to
> that type of chilling effect invoking tactics then you must be running
> scared.
> As far as men demanding to enter a female dominated sphere of thought
> (feminism is not a space) goes.  It is incongruent to simultaneously hold
> the idea that men who want to be included equally in feminism are immoral
> and have questionable motives but women pushing their influence into male
> dominated spheres of influence are not immoral.  The two actions are
> identical.  Either it's ok for either sex to enter thought spaces dominated
> by the other sex.  Or it's not.  If you believe it isn't (as you have
> stated) then to be consistent with your logic you have to argue that women
> pushing their way into male dominated fields is equally immoral because
> those men have the right to define their own organization.  Obviously that
> position would cause further cognitive dissonance since that is action is
> the primary imputus of feminism.  So the latter must be true and you simply
> hold two contradicing opinions on this matter.
> That's the problem I have with the men can't be feminist idea.  It leads to
> a contradiction of either feminism or itself.  Meanwhile (assuming you
> believe patriarchy theory) you are telling the male victims of patriarchic
> oppresion that they should not be allowed any say in how that they deal with
> that oppression. Unless you hold the view that men are (on an individual
> basis) persecuting themselves instead of being persecuted by men as a whole.
> This view seems patently ridiculous to me though.
> Also note I did not criticize your use of the word male.  I did not say you
> were reducing men to the status of an animal.    You did just that then
> another person dared use the word female a while back.
> I certainly DON"T identify as a feminist so symbolically stripping me of the
> title doesn't phase me one whit. Go ahead, call me a misogynist rape
> apologist.  I am not going to be deterred or intimidated by your social
> terrorism. It doesn't make me wrong one bit and intelligent people will
> judge my arguments on their merits not on the basis of what ideological
> tribe I belong to or how pissed off I am when I type these responses.
> I am a humanist who believes in equality. I dont believe in placing one
> group above reproach in the interest of revenge for past sexism and
> discrimination.
> I have placed my life the line to prevent kidnappings, stop date rape, and
> fight (physically and verbally) rapists and I have the scars to prove it.
> But you keep on criticizing people on the internet for their word choice or
> jokes.   I'm sure it helps.
> Oh and quoting a statistic to a rape victim (whoever it was that did that a
> while back) about how rape victims are more likely to perpetrate rape  is a
> form of victim shaming and something that rapist have been known to say to
> rape victims  in an attempt to cause a nervous breakdown (I suspect to make
> them less believable witnesses.)   You are telling them they are going to
> become what they hate more than anything else in the world.  But I guess
> being right in an internet argument is worth it.
> --
> www.linkreincarnate.com
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com

skype: nthmost


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list