Women who think all men are rapists. Men who think women think all men are rapists.

[Warren DeMontague]

What women think about men who think women think all men are rapists.

What do men think, about women who think about men who think all men are rapists?

Etc.

It would appear, now, if you poke your pointy head up to challenge assertions about all men as "potential rapists", you are probably an "MRA" and, even better, odds are you yourself are a rapist! ("Seen on DU™!". )

So let's air it out, shall we?

again?

One, i highly doubt anyone on DU actually used the words "all men are rapists". Maybe, but i doubt it. A few people on DU have posted threads about all men being "potential rapists", "Schrodinger's rapist", etc. and from a purely statistical standpoint, given that most rapes are committed by men, i understand the factual basis of the statement- just as factual as saying every mother has the potential to drive her kids into a lake a la Susan Smith.

Saying something factually correct does not mean it isn't also offensive in its implications. If someone said, based on statistics, that every black male on the subway was a "potential mugger", and demanded that all these guys accept personal and collective responsibility for an alleged "mugging culture", wouldn't one expect they might get a tad offended? Maybe?

Likewise, it may be correct to assert that Dworkin, MacKinnon, etc never said "sex is rape" and left it at that. What they DID say, however, and this is taken as not just truth but an essential axiom of "Feminism 101" in (self-identified) radical feminist circles, that heterosexual penetrative sex under patriarchy is fundamentally non-consensual. Of course, "under patriarchy" means "on Planet Earth", and non-consensual ("extremely nuanced definitions of consent" notwithstanding) means, and should mean, rape.

So yes, Dworkin and MacKinnon and Brownmiller and Jeffreys and the rest DO believe that hetero penetrative sex is rape, and no they did NOT ever "retract" or otherwise "clarify" those egregious statements. If anything, as Dworkin's mental illness got worse, she "doubled down" on the insane shit she had said.

And yes, she said some insane shit:

For men I suspect that this transformation begins in the place they most dread -- that is, in a limp penis. I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love as women do together.
-Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood (1976)

Why don't any of the erstwhile "I loves me some Andrea, Stop Picking on Andrea" defenders ever come out of the woodwork to explain how she was "grossly misquoted" there? In her own damn book? Is that statement somehow open to misrepresentation by evil conspiratorial "MRAs" who want to portray her opposition to the notion of erect penises as somehow, er, maybe a smidge out of the mainstream?

Okay, then, what the fuck does she actually MEAN there?

Please, explain it.

Let me guess: "Brilliant Swiftian Satire!"


Ah, yes, you say, but no one could really believe that shit NOW, right? Sure, in the late 80s and early 90s several college campuses were plastered with the names of random male students along with warnings about "Potential Rapist", but surely no one thinks that way, now- in 2012... right?

For it is the stated position of the Savage Death Island Chapter of Spinster Aunts International that, in a patriarchy, “consensual sex” (between women and dudes) doesn’t even exist.

Wait, what was that?

For it is the stated position of the Savage Death Island Chapter of Spinster Aunts International that, in a patriarchy, “consensual sex” (between women and dudes) doesn’t even exist.

Dworkin wrote that nutty crap about outlawing erections in 1976, you say! Surely there are no people - I mean, besides "Twisty"- today who believe that penetrative hetero intercourse is inherently harmful, or oppressive, or an artificial construct that needs to be done away with as we "smashthep" and... oh, wait.

http://radfemimages.wordpress.com/the-gears/#PIV

Um. Ah.

No, obviously, only an "MRA" would say there are people out there, blinded by an extreme cult-like ideology, who ARE calling all sex rape, and all men rapists.

No, there is no basis whatsoever for this, except for "MRA Propaganda".

[LARED]

1. "Schrodinger's rapist"

Too funny.

[Denninmi]

2. Well, I've never thought of myself as a "potential rapist" just because I'm a man.

I've never abused a woman sexually or in any other way, and I never will. I know what kind of guy I am, and I don't need to worry about someone else's attitudes for validation.

I'm really very unfamiliar with this whole issue, other than the few posts about it I've read on this forum. And, frankly, I have enough real problems to worry about without being concerned with the strange theories of some fringe figures on the outer edge of psychology or feminism or whatever this is.

I honestly doubt that the vast majority of women feel this way.

But, if some few on the fringe of this want to think of me as rapist just because I'm a functional hetero man, that's their weird issue. Not even on my radar screen, and as Rhett Butler said, "Frankly, Scarlett ..." As I said, I've got my own problems in life that are far more real than this nonsense.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. I know for a fact the vast majority of people- men and women- don't buy into that gibberish

I think some -much- of the frustration and angst you hear from these fringey circles is a reaction to not just irrelevance but increasing irrelevance. There was about 5 minutes in the mid 70s when folks like Dworkin were taken "seriously" in a few rarefied circles. No more.

[Upton]

3. These "MRA" accusations .

started right around the time the usual suspects claimed the SPLC named MRAs as hate groups. Though the SPLC at least appears to partially deny it:

It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit.http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/

For now, at least around here, it's become convenient to dismiss the argument of anyone who doesn't agree with the authoritarian like tenets of radfem 101 as an MRA and an agent of the "patriarchy"...and after all, we men are all rapists, so why should anything we say be treated with anything other than scorn?

One other thing, I don't know about anyone else, but I find it extremely hypocritical of the SPLC to actually defend the SCUM manifesto and those sites that promote and laugh about the annihilation of men, but then sees fit to go after MRAs.....

[opiate69]

11. Completely typical of some of them...

either misunderstand or deliberately misconstrue a study/thesis/etc, then incorporate their twisted (and incorrect) interpretation into their world-view as immutable fact. Critical Thinking - some people kant haz it.

[4th law of robotics]

12. "Critical Thinking"?

Why are you using MRA buzzwords?

[opiate69]

13. D`oh!!

I hate it when I accidentally out myself as a hateful, penis wielding, hatey hate group person!!

[4th law of robotics]

4. Well written

one of my favorite quotes from Twisty's site (from a guest comment I believe) is that men are conditioned to think they have to ejaculate during sex. That men can orgasm without any sort of ejaculation (on command). We just choose to ejaculate to oppress and ultimately murder women via pregnancy (I think they're still using dark-age maternal death rate stats).

When you start saying stuff like that and that hetero sex is an unnatural construct I really don't see how that can be anything other than mental illness. And I don't mean that as an insult. I mean this is evidence to me of severe mental problems that require the assistance of a professional. But instead of being helped they're being egged on by their peers.

It's an entire subculture built around paranoia and hate that is actively encouraged by people who ought to know better.

Like the Klan but with official station sanction (we have womyn's studies in public university where this hate is allowed to flourish. We do not have white-power studies).

[Warren DeMontague]

8. I would add a couple things: One, I think Feminism and Womens Studies are legitimate, personally.

What I don't think is legitimate is a few rigid, extreme ideologues claiming sole ownership of the concepts.

I do believe that historically, in Western Civilization, women have been discriminated against and have had a lower status than men. I think this has changed a great deal in recent decades, but I also think it's a pretty obvious fact. Learning about this history in College and the culture and cultural changes surrounding it is a totally reasonable avenue of study, IMHO.

Likewise, Feminism. Personally, I consider myself a Feminist. I strongly identify with the 3rd wave, sex positive movements as well as other traditionally "feminist" aspects and ideas which once were considered extreme but now, hopefully, are really common sense; i.e. women having the vote, women being able to pursue careers, either gender being able to care for kids, etc. Equal Rights, duh.

I strongly believe there IS a Republican "War on Women". What I don't agree with is the idea that the best- in fact, the only- people who can legitimately claim the mantle of fighting that war, are people who have repeatedly made common cause with Republicans and the Religious Right on issues of telling consenting adult women what they can or can't do with their own bodies, shaming women over the sexuality they choose, etc.

[Major Nikon]

6. When you have conditioned yourself to believe that the entire human race is victimizing you...

this is the natural result.

We see people who are ultra-religious believing incredibly nutty things (Akin, Robertson, etc.). This really isn't that much different. When your ideology starts to trump reason, belief in all things regardless of how ridiculous becomes possible. Since these people truly feel they are being victimized by all men, they do not see their rhetoric as misandry, even though it's painfully obvious to any reasonable person. It's just typical ideologue behavior.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. The Universe is much easier to understand if it's got a giant struggle against a singular evil

and easily identifiable villains.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Speaking of "extremely nuanced definition of consent"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125510533

Hell, way too often we outright tell them that they have no right to withdraw consent once sex has started.

I suspect that the author meant to say that the guy has to stop if she changes her mind - which is fair enough (albeit not very nice), but "sex" has already occurred, and you can't retroactively withdraw consent.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. I just wonder where people get this stuff.

"way too often"? Yes. Why, just last week the wife and I were talking, and I said to her, "you know dear, if we start screwing and you all of a sudden mid-coitus decide that you'd rather be power-walking with the neighbors, you have NO RIGHT TO SAY STOP!"

It's fucking ridiculous. Add to that the fact that most people, when they have sex, usually start having sex and finish having sex. While of course anyone has the right to start off saying "lets have sex" and then 3 minutes later be, like, "shit, why are we having sex? I don't want to have sex!!!" the reality is a) That's an awfully flaky sounding thing to do and b) I don't think it even remotely resembles the way humans have sex, over 99% of the planet 99.99999% of the time.

("ONLY BECAUSE OF TEH PATRIARCHY, PHALLOPRESSOR-MAN! WERE IT NOT FOR TEH PATRIARCHY, WOMEN WOULD BE STOPPING SEX RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE ALL THE TIME!!! THEY WOULD!!!!!!!&quot

Of course, the people who believe that Penises are evil and it is only a massive conspiracy that has caused them to be incorporated into what the patriarchy-addled masses mistakenly believe is "sex", aren't really the experts on how most people screw.

[shashi]

23. There are 1001 reasons to stop sex...

I'd say sex gets interrupted quite a bit.

My personal experiences:

1. The guy whom I had been dating for about 3 weeks called me another girl's name. Sorry if that's "not nice" but when you're feeling connected and close, then have that dropped on you, it stops being fun. I guess I wasn't a generous enough person to just let him finish.

2. Another man grabbed at my throat, pushed down, and it got kinda scary. I stopped it, he was obviously really caught up in the moment and was very apologetic, but again...it didn't feel good. We did end up trying again after a little talking.

3. I tend to get massive cramps in my hips with certain positions and yeah, again, doesn't feel good. Need to stop and reposition.

4. I could hear my roommate at the time puking quite violently in the bathroom, and stopped sex to make sure she wasn't aspirating vomit.

Not sure what any of this has to do with the Phallopressor whatever that is, but I thought I'd offer reasons why people wouldn't just say fuck it, let's finish =)

[Warren DeMontague]

24. That's 4 reasons, one of which isn't exactly 'stopping' so much as switching it around.

Reason #1, sounds like you hooked up with a guy who was inconsiderate, or maybe extremely forgetful.

Reason #2, better communication beforehand could probably, hopefully weed out people who are into that sort of thing. I've been having sex for several decades, now, and not once in my life has it involved choking. Maybe I just didn't go to the right clubs, as a youngin, I don't know.

Reason #4, Yeah, obviously.

I wasn't saying there couldn't ever be a reason why anyone might want or need to stop sex, or that they shouldn't should such circumstances arise. Maybe I've been having good sex, communicative sex in a long-term relationship of one kind or another most of my adult life, but I just don't think it crops up that much the way most people do it. Certainly not enough to be deemed a "major issue".

Am I looking to have a debate with someone where I'm arguing (robot voice) YOU MUST NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES STOP THE SEX ACT ONCE IT HAS BEEN INITIATED, HU-MAN...




No, I'm not. Obviously, if someone wants or needs to stop sex while they're doing it, their partner should respect that.

[4th law of robotics]

15. I guess if consent is withdrawn after sex has been initiated

the guy could always go and masturbate to porn.

Oh right, that's rape too.

Damn.

/where do they get this "we're telling people XYZ" stuff from? I've never heard any of their claims in real life.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. What this all boils down to, more often than not, is an attempt to pathologize male sexuality.

Men who have started having sex generally want to keep doing it until they reach orgasm? Well, obviously, that's because they're rapists and "They Hate You!™

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/category/men-hate-you/

In fact, further down in Twisty's classic rant

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2011/07/18/a-bit-of-lighthearted-fun/

(Twisty can't STAND The "Pervocracy", BTW... which is also pro consensual BDSM and porn, which makes me wonder if the ideological purity source-checkers over at HoF aren't asleep at the switch, this week)

she goes on to say this:

in the sweaty throes, has never said to you, when you were ready to stop, “no, wait, I’m almost there.” Or you’ve never closed your eyes and thought of England because you knew you’d hurt his feelings if you said no.

Lucky you.

But maybe you have complied in such situations, only you don’t consider those little things “coercion.” Maybe you think you were just doin’ him a solid. Letting him use you as a toilet shows how much you love him.

Get that, ladies? If "Nigel", which of course is our code word for that icky man-being that women have mistakenly convinced themselves they're actually- yuk- attracted to- is having sex with you and you come first, and you don't immediately stop then and there and instead wait for him to also orgasm, you are letting him use you as a toilet.

But Wait. What were you using NIGEL as, when you came first?

Hmmmm.

[4th law of robotics]

17. Any man who described having sex with women

or female sexuality in such terms (and with such open disdain) would be unquestionably a sexist and would not be tolerated here (even when quoting secondary material from him).

Many on here seem to agree with Rush in that being a feminist means hating men. They only differ on the notion that this is a bad thing.

I can't think of any normal male sexual activities/reactions that haven't at one point or another been condemned by these types as aberrant, dangerous, abnormal or in some other way concerning and worthy of "fixing".

Literally. Nothing.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. I absolutely dont think that being a Feminist means hating men, i consider myself a Feminist

And i dont hate myself.

I also dont think any people on DU "hate men". I think it is arguable that the brain trust behind "I Blame The Patriarchy" has real disdain for men, and wants to convince women (as per her blog) that "men hate you".

I question the motives of her and her erstwhile followers, but i dont think there are very many of them.

[4th law of robotics]

19. I don't either

But some feminists (usually going by the moniker rad-fem) do. At least from their own words.

Just like being christian doesn't mean hating non-christians necessarily, but some christians do think that way.

I also dont think any people on DU "hate men". I think it is arguable that the brain trust behind "I Blame The Patriarchy" has real disdain for men, and wants to convince women (as per her blog) that "men hate you".

I quoted a variety of op-eds from one source on the HoF where she explicitly stated why she hated men.

That was enough to get me banned.

Her hatred was never addressed and they continued to laud that source (anti-porn, go figure).

I don't know if that means they hate men, are in denial about it, or would just like to be able to use those who do without be called on it. But either way refusing to address that sort of thing was concerning.

If I was quoting someone who also had a series of essays entitled "why I hate women" I'd like to know it and would address that fact. I wouldn't seek to silence those that pointed it out.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I myself am trying not to assign nefarious motives or intent to fellow DU members, when possible-

I think some people may be misinformed about the sources they use, which is why it is helpful to shine a light on these matters from time to time.

[4th law of robotics]

21. That's the thing though

I was entirely prepared to assume ignorance.

*Until* I pointed it out and received universally hostile denial and personal attacks.

You can claim ignorance up until you are confronted with evidence. After that . . .

[Warren DeMontague]

22. it don't take a whole helluva lot to get blocked from certain groups around here.

as you've no doubt discovered.

[4th law of robotics]

25. Indeed

and that's unfortunate.

If I were heading a forum I would tend to lean on the side of open discussion (even uncivil discourse).

And if there are to be topics/positions not discussed I would post that openly.

Oh well. I'm not so it doesn't matter.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

26. I swear, "Twisty" has got to be just one big troll

Maybe I'm just cynical. I can't believe anyone is that mentally unhinged to seriously write or read that stuff and take a word of it seriously.

[rrneck]

10. I'm generally suspicious of any ideology

founded on how others think and feel about its adherents.

With "radfems et al" it seems they are defined by describing how they are understood by others. The underlying refrain seems to be "you are perceiving me incorrectly". It poses an inherently unfair, and unworkable, set of requirements for human relationships. But defining how others feel keeps activists and scholars in a good living.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Prominent "radfems" now want to tell lesbians how (not) to have sex, too!

YOU'RE DOING IT WROOOOONG!!!!!

http://radicalhub.com/2012/10/03/lesbian-bdsm-part-2-contemporary-lesbian-culture/#more-8736

[opiate69]

28. Wow...

just when you think the abject stupidity and psychopathologies have hit rock bottom, some profoundly ignorant rad ups the ante.

[Upton]

29. "Dildo culture"..?

I'll just add it to the radfem list of greatest hits...

male privilege

rape culture

pornification

objectification

visual rape

male gaze

dildo culture

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Apparently, they can act as a "gateway drug" to an actual penis.

Sort of how pot users usually end up shooting smack.

[Upton]

32. We can't have that...

because as we've learned, according to radfem 101, penetration with such even in consensual relationships, is akin to rape. And of course the penis is a symbol for that ever present evil "patriarchy"...

It only follows dildos would be looked down upon as well...

you cannot separate the inevitable symbolism from the real thing. The strap-on dildo is a phallus. It looks exactly like a penis and gets used as such. I do not believe any amount of bullshit promo reinterpretation will ever be able to undo the intrinsically phallic symbolism present at the sight of a dildo.

Where does this Maggie H come off criticizing how other people have sex? What business is it of hers? These people are supposed to be liberals?

If you actually waded through all that crap...you have my envy and my sympathies. Part 3 still to come.

[opiate69]

33. Shit... there was another "culture" I saw getting tossed around recently too...

can`t fucking remember what it was though... now I gotta go look for it again...

Edit: Aha! "paparazzi culture"

I swear, everythings a "culture" with these geniuses....

[Upton]

34. Got to start keeping a list...

I don't think we can use "paparazzi culture" though. A true radfem greatest hit has got to be gender specific...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

36. I'd include "problematic behavior"

The gender specificity is baked in because only men are problems, of course.

[hifiguy]

31. These sad and sorry people live in the same

Twilight World of Total Paranoia as do the freepers, dominionists, radical islamists, survivalists and gun crazies. Everything is a threat. Everything that ANYONE does or thinks that I do not approve of. At all times. I'm SERIES!!!!

Jayzus H. tap-dancing Christ in a tuxedo. Some people tattoo demons on the insides of their eyelids for the express purpose of being able to engage in their persucution complexes even while they are asleep.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

35. Unreal

Nobody has to make up shit about them....this is what they believe. Fucking unreal.

[4th law of robotics]

38. If I were creating a parody of this mindset

to mock and discredit them I couldn't come up with anything half as good as the stuff they earnestly churn out by the blogfull.

They literally cannot be lampooned. They are too fringe to be satirized. That doesn't happen often and when it does it's a thing of beauty.

[hifiguy]

40. History's best satirists,

Swift, Voltaire, Twain, the Marx Brothers, the first generation of National Lampoon writers, would throw their hands in the air and walk away. Nothing they could do in a thousand creative lifetimes could beat that article for sheer self-parody.

[4th law of robotics]

37. So even lesbians enjoying sex is serving the patriarchy

There is a kind of thinking where any data point can (and must) be twisted to serve a central belief system that cannot be altered or questioned.

It isn't science.

It isn't reason.

It isn't common sense.

It isn't logic.

No sir or ma'am, that is religion.

[ZenLefty]

39. Gives new meaning to the oft-used phrase from Stephen King's Dark Tower series:

"All things serve the beam."