What ‘Rape Culture’ Really Means: Your Male Heterosexuality Is Problematic

Posted on | October 27, 2015 | 110 Comments

“[T]he curse of having been born a heterosexual male . . . meant being consumed by desires that one couldn’t act on or even admit without running the risk of becoming an objectifier or a stalker or a harasser or some other creature of the darkness.”
— Scott Aaronson, Dec. 14, 2014

The Internet erupted in controversy last year over “Comment 171,” in which MIT Professor Scott Aaronson responded to a discussion of “sexual harassment” by describing the sexual fears he experienced as a nerdy Ivy League student in the late 1990s. Professor Aaronson’s specialty is computer science, but in describing how he was driven to suicidal despair by the terroristic campus crusade against “harassment,” he performed award-worthy work as a psychologist or sociologist, exposing to the world what goes on inside the mind of a socially awkward heterosexual male when confronted by feminism’s pre-emptive accusations of wrongdoing. Because he is a male, and because he is attracted to females, such a student is made to feel as if his interest in the opposite sex is a shameful secret that he must be careful never to reveal.

If by any word or gesture he signifies his attraction to a female — or if he even makes a joke that discloses his heterosexuality in a general way — the male student could be accused of “harassment.” When your parents are spending big bucks to send you to an elite school like Cornell University (annual tuition $49,116), the possibility that you could be accused of “harassment” must be a frightening thing, and the risk of a “sexual assault” accusation is the Nightmare Scenario From Hell.

Feminist rhetoric defines both “harassment” and “sexual assault” in terms of experiences that the female deems “unwelcome” or “unwanted.” If a college boy thinks a girl is cute and starts talking to her with the hope that she might reciprocate his interest, his conversation could be considered “harassment” if she dislikes him. Read enough feminist blogs, and you see countless variations of this theme, The Clueless Unattractive Male Who Won’t Take a Hint. His behavior is offensive — “creepy” or “stalkerish” — because (a) he likes her, (b) she doesn’t like him, yet (c) he dares to speak to her without permission, and (d) he doesn’t seem to notice her signals of disinterest. We can easily imagine how a sensitive and intelligent young man like Scott Aaronson circa 1997, being lectured about harassment and rape in a freshman orientation session, must have been stricken with fear upon learning how loathsome his heterosexual orientation made him in the eyes of his fellow students.

How dare this disgusting nerd find women sexually attractive?

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013

In describing feminism’s characteristic anti-male/anti-heterosexual paranoia as “Fear and Loathing of the Penis,” I do not mean merely to make a hyperbolic joke, but rather to call attention to the strange and savage hostility toward normal male behavior that is the fundamental basis of feminist theory. My original guide to this was Professor Daphne Patai’s 1998 book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. Until I read Professor Patai’s book, I had no idea how far feminists had gone in their demonization of heterosexuality, especially in the context of “harassment” charges in academia. During my own youth, we understood “sexual harassment” in the sense of the quid pro quo, in which a male authority figure — an employer, a supervisor, or a teacher — expected females to provide him with sex in exchange for favorable treatment. Everyone understood this kind of harassment to be a wrongful abuse of power. The professor was hired to teach English, not to seduce his students, and the manager was hired to run a restaurant, not to have sex with waitresses. While sex between co-workers might be entirely consensual, everyone understood the problems that could arise in a situation where a female employee was having sex with her male supervisor. Because that kind of quid pro quo harassment was widely understood to be wrong, most people didn’t pay much attention when the definition of “harassment” was expanded to include behaviors that were nothing like the (clearly wrongful) quid pro quo. The feminist legal theorists who pushed this expanded definition of “harassment” — now construed as meaning damned near anything a man did that any woman decided was “unwelcome” or “unwanted” and “offensive” or “sexist” — created a workplace environment where everyday interactions between male and female employees could become the basis of a federal discrimination lawsuit unless males were always strictly and formally professional in their behavior. An easygoing, informal workplace atmosphere — men joking around with their female colleagues in the way they would joke with their male colleagues — was a recipe for disaster, if any woman ever got her feelings hurt, or believed that she was in any way discriminated against in her employment.

A series of high-profile cases in the 1990s — the Clarence Thomas hearings, the “Tailhook” scandal and the Bill Clinton impeachment imbroglio — brought widespread attention to the issue of sexual harassment, so that everyone began to interpret workplace interaction between men and women in a new way. As more and more women succumbed to the feminist sexual paranoia that Professor Patai dubbed Heterophobia, suddenly “harassment” was everywhere, and it was amid this climate of pervasive sexual fear that Scott Aaronson attended Cornell University in the 1990s:

Here’s the thing: I spent my formative years — basically, from the age of 12 until my mid-20s — feeling not “entitled,” not “privileged,” but terrified. I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison. And furthermore, that the people who did these things to me would somehow be morally right to do them — even if I couldn’t understand how.
You can call that my personal psychological problem if you want, but it was strongly reinforced by everything I picked up from my environment: to take one example, the sexual-assault prevention workshops we had to attend regularly as undergrads, with their endless lists of all the forms of human interaction that “might be” sexual harassment or assault, and their refusal, ever, to specify anything that definitely wouldn’t be sexual harassment or assault. I left each of those workshops with enough fresh paranoia and self-hatred to last me through another year.

You should read the whole thing, if you didn’t read Comment 171 when it went viral last year. Professor Aaronson’s very personal account of his experiences was quite risky. As he said, he was “giving up a privacy that I won’t regain for as long as I live, opening myself to ridicule” and, predictably, feminists began dogpiling him with mockery. I have described how feminism enables deliberate cruelty, rationalizing the sadistic impulses of women who are afflicted with a hateful desire to inflict punitive revenge on males, and the way Professor Aaronson was mocked by feminists (including the execrable Laurie Penny and the hideous Miriam Mogilevsky) was certainly proof enough of that.

Feminists are very bad people — dishonest, selfish and cruel — and only a fool would ever trust them. Every word they speak or write is a deception, because they will never admit the vile hatred that motivates their anti-male politics. In Comment 171, Professor Aaronson made a statement I heartily endorse:

I’ve read at least a dozen feminist books, of which my favorite was Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse (I like howls of anguish much more than bureaucratic boilerplate, so in some sense, the more radical the feminist, the better I can relate).

Indeed, the shrieking lesbian rage of Andrea Dworkin is vastly preferable to the Foucauldian academese of Judith Butler, as far as getting to the actual point of feminist theory. Feminists do not like men, feminists do not like sex, and feminists especially do not like sex with men. Why? Because men enjoy having sex with women, and anything that men enjoy is wrong, because they are men. Feminism is a movement dedicated to depriving men of pleasure. Anything that brings a smile to a man’s face must be oppressive to women. This spiteful campaign to eradicate every potential source of male happiness is what has inspired the “campus rape epidemic” hysteria. Nowhere does feminist power more nearly approach totalitarianism than at American colleges and universities, where women are 57% of the students, and every male on campus knows he could be expelled if any female classmate ever accuses him of wrongdoing.

If you believe what feminists say (in other words, if you are a goddamned helpless fool), then you must believe that the only reason any boy goes to college is because he wants to rape the girls who go to college. Every male student on campus is a suspected rapist, and every female student on campus is his would-be victim. The absence of actual evidence to prove this feminist claim (“The Campus Rape Shortage”) is explained away by the assertion that female students don’t report being raped because they are afraid no one will believe them. (Circular logic is circular; the conclusion and the premise of a feminist argument are always the same thing, except when they are completely contradictory, but logic is an oppressive tool of the patriarchy.) Statistics showing that the rate of sexual assault has declined, and that female college students are less likely to be raped than non-college women of the same age, raise the question of why feminists have devoted so much effort to portraying the 21st-century campus as a Rape Factory, an assembly line staffed by violent misogynists engaged in the production of sexual victims.

Once we understand that (a) the vast majority of male college students are not rapists, and (b) the vast majority of rapists and rape victims are not college students, we realize feminist discourse about “rape culture” represents an effort to demonize male college students as “privileged.” The eagerness with which feminists leapt onto the 2006 Duke lacrosse team rape hoax and the 2014 University of Virginia rape hoax betrays the real motive behind this crusade. In both of those cases, the falsely accused males were white and belonged to campus organizations where membership conferred high status. To be a varsity lacrosse player at Duke (annual tuition $49,341) is to occupy a very lofty position in the hierarchies of “male privilege” that are targets of feminist criticism. Likewise, the members of Phi Kappa Psi at the University of Virginia are quite likely beneficiaries of the kind of upper-middle-class privilege that feminists condemn as the essence of oppression.

The higher a man’s socioeconomic status, the greater his exercise of male power, according to feminist theory, so that any success a man achieves (or any benefit he receives from his parents’ success) condemns him as an oppressor. If his parents worked hard to provide him with advantages, and if he made the most of his opportunities to excel in school, then the very fact that he is attending a prestigious university marks the male student as a living symbol of social injustice. His mere existence is oppressive to women, and if he adds to this indictment by being (a) white and (b) heterosexual, then anything that feminists can do to harm him is justified in the name of “equality.” The male student branded a rapist and expelled from college now is one less “privileged” male competing with women for high-status jobs in the future. The false accuser who destroys a young man’s educational opportunities today deprives him of career opportunities tomorrow. If campus activists can destroy enough young men this way, eventually the systematic process of destruction will bring about the Progressive Utopia of Gender Equality that feminists have been promising women for more than 40 years.

When we begin examining the “rape culture” discourse in detail, we are struck by how little it takes for a male student to be branded a perpetrator on the 21st-century campus. The “regret equals rape” case at Virginia’s Washington and Lee University and the John Doe lawsuit against Brown University are but two of the data points in an emerging pattern. If we can believe what the male plaintiffs allege in complaints like these, it is obvious that nothing like an actual rape was involved in the cases that resulted in their being punished in campus “Title IX” proceedings where they were deliberately deprived of due-process rights that would be accorded to any common criminal in a court of law.

We may contrast this obsession with accusing “privileged” male college students of rape with the way feminists habitually ignore news of violence against women committed by common criminals:

MIDLAND, Texas, Oct. 22: Aurelio Luna Sr., 55, was senteced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual assault of a child. Luna committed multiple acts of sexual assault against a female family member over a period of at least two years. The girl’s mother contacted the Midland Police Department after she found text messages regarding the abuse.
OMAHA, Neb., Oct. 23: Reginald Briggs, 31, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Teresa Longo. Police say Briggs is a pimp and that Longo was one of his prostitutes. Longo’s body was fund Oct. 2. An autopsy showed she was killed by a single gunshot wound to the back of her head. Briggs reportedly bragged about killing her, and another one of his prostitutes told police she went with Briggs to dispose of the shotgun he used to murder Longo on Sept. 17.
MILWAUKEE, Wisc., Oct. 27: Jose Ferreira Jr., 50, was charged with the murder of a seventh-grader more than 30 years ago. Carrie Ann Jopek disappeared in March 1982. According to prosecutors, Ferreira and Jopek were at a party at a house when he pushed her down the steps into the basement. The fall broke her neck, killing her. Ferreira, who reportedly believed the girl was only unconscious, had sex with her corpse. He then buried Jopek’s body under a neighbor’s porch, according to prosecutors. When he recently told his wife about the 1982 murder, she turned him in to police.
NEW BRITAIN, Conn., Oct. 26: Luis Velez, 43, was sentenced to 40 years in prison after pleading guilty to murdering his wife, Johana Gallego, 33. She and Velez had been married less than a year when he strangled her to death. He had previously been convicted of another killing in Puerto Rico.
ST. LOUIS, Mo., Oct. 23: Keith L. Ivy, 41, is charged with kidnapping after police say he and an accomplice abducted Ivy’s ex-girlfriend from her workplace. Ivy, who had been recently released from prison in Georgia and was also on probation for a separate drug conviction, allegedly told the ex-girlfriend they were “going to die tonight.” She managed to escape.
SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y., Oct. 26: Justin Suarez, 27, was arrested on 34 charges, after police say he raped his ex-girlfriend twice, stalked her, threatened her with a sledgehammer and shot a dog to death in front of her. “He told her that if she told anyone, he would kill her, too,” the district attorney said.
WACO, Texas, Oct. 22: Emmanuel Emil Bailey of Ft. Smith, Ark., faces trial on federal charges connected to an interstate child sex trafficking ring. Bailey is charged with transporting persons for prostitution and other violations of the Mann Act. Bailey was among more than 40 suspects arrested during an Internet prostitution sting orchestrated by the McLennan County Sheriff’s Office.

You will never find Jaclyn Friedman or Jessica Valenti or Amanda Marcotte discussing cases like that, because none of the men accused in those cases are “privileged” white male college students. The reason feminists ignore crimes committed by perps like Emmanuel Bailey, Aurelio Luna, Keith Ivy, and Justin Suarez is very similar to the reason that feminists never call attention to any crime committed by a woman or a gay man. The hierarchies of privilege determine who is an oppressor deserving condemnation and who is a victim deserving sympathy. A black pimp who murders a prostitute, a Hispanic pedophile who rapes a teenager, female teachers having sex with their students — none of these crimes are of interest to a feminist, because publicizing such crimes does not help promote the “social justice” worldview in which the “privileged” white heterosexual male is the epitome of evil.

If you have a son attending college, or if you have a teenage son who is about to finish high school, he must be warned. Every feminist seeks to destroy him, and therefore every woman he encounters on a college campus is his enemy. No female he meets can be trusted, because all college women are being actively encouraged to accuse male students of rape. Anything your son says to a woman on campus can be interpreted as “harassment,” and any active expression of heterosexual interest puts your son at risk of an accusation of “sexual assault.” The only way a male student can safely attend college in the 21st century is to avoid any contact with female students on campus.

Warn your sons, America. It would be best, if possible, for your son to consider a field of employment that does not require a college education. Let him become a truck driver or a carpenter, rather than subjecting him to the risk of being falsely accused of rape by college feminists.

Wake up, America! It’s 2015! The only reason any girl goes to college nowadays is to seize her opportunity for advancing the feminist cause of “gender equality” by accusing a boy of rape.

Feminism is a movement that seeks to eliminate “male privilege” by preventing men from having any opportunity for success. Because feminists now exercise unlimited authority at American colleges and universities, a young man seeking success in life should contemplate how best to pursue a career path that permits him to avoid attending college, where his presence on campus is considered offensive by the monstrous man-hating fanatics who call themselves feminists.

Academia is now so tightly controlled by radical ideologues that it would be better for your child to have no education at all, rather than to be corrupted by 21st-century “higher education.” Millions of young minds are being permanently warped by the godless perverts who have seized power on campus and are using that power to destroy our civilization.

Dann them all. Damn them all to Hell.

(Incidentally, Scott Aaronson said his purpose in writing Comment 171 was to ensure “no one will ever again be able to question the depth of my feminist ideals.” Some people just never learn . . .)

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

110 Responses to “What ‘Rape Culture’ Really Means: Your Male Heterosexuality Is Problematic”

Ilion
October 28th, 2015 @ 10:18 am

“Energetically” is a rather cismale-identifying-as-male word, don’t you think? Perhaps, in future, you should consider “passionately” denouncing others?
LIbtardian slayer
October 28th, 2015 @ 10:51 am

Yes, folks, the pen is has been defined as a “rape tool” , but only when used in its natural fashion, when used with women.
Fail Burton
October 28th, 2015 @ 11:36 am

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
Bone of a corset make,
Breasts in the chest fake;
Eye of contact, and toe of man,
Hair of nut, and Spam in can,
Golfing tee, and Field & Stream,
Gives you every man-baby’s dream,
Bottle of mansplaining tears;
Suddenly Judith Butler appears;
Read thou her mad prose;
Then add Dworkin’s sacred nose;
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Aborted by a doctor’s aide
Make the bullshit good and thick,
No longer will you be a chick,
For the ingrediants of our caldron.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
Cool it with Audre Lorde’s hood,
Then the charm is firm and good
LIbtardian slayer
October 28th, 2015 @ 12:23 pm

It’s called heterophobia.
Ilion
October 28th, 2015 @ 12:23 pm

So, *that’s* where the old question arises, IYKWIMAITYD: is the “pen” mightier that the “sword”?
DeadMessenger
October 28th, 2015 @ 12:32 pm

You and your silly details…
LIbtardian slayer
October 28th, 2015 @ 12:34 pm

Baby steps
he’s still pretty mired methinks
it can depend on the level of indoctrination
as a successful academic up to phd level, piled higher and deeper with indoctrination, it could take him a decade to get real ingeresting.
NeoWayland
October 28th, 2015 @ 12:40 pm

Yeah, every now and again, crazy libertarians like me get the phrasing exactly right.

I wish I could take credit for that one. Near as I can tell, it came from an L. Neil Smith novel. But he borrows good ideas from all over in his books, so who knows?
LIbtardian slayer
October 28th, 2015 @ 12:41 pm

Exactly!
The graduate degree is what counts.
who cares where you want to high school or undergrad?
LIbtardian slayer
October 28th, 2015 @ 12:44 pm

Truth by RS
God bless
DrGreatCham
October 28th, 2015 @ 12:48 pm

Susan Brownmiller and Germaine Greer found out too late that they unleashed their own Frankenstein’s Monster.
DrGreatCham
October 28th, 2015 @ 12:49 pm

I like to call it “magic mouth vomit.”
LIbtardian slayer
October 28th, 2015 @ 12:55 pm

Bingo.
also, see the root structure of the word, fem.
If patriarchy is bad you should see matriarchy.
Most don’t even want to look at her face
they pretend that the face of the matriarchy is male
it ain’t
that’s their biggest deception; pajama boy is neutered
the matriarchs like their males neutered and freakish.
see Huma badin’s hubby
LIbtardian slayer
October 28th, 2015 @ 12:57 pm

Counterculture baby.
it’s hip to be square
LIbtardian slayer
October 28th, 2015 @ 1:05 pm

The American male.
species whiptus.
can cook and clean for YOU maam.
you need a sammich maam?
I diagnosed the American male as at a distinct advantage because they are the most domesticated males in the history of the male species.
even the sloppiest, worst cook, worst cleaning male native to the US is still a better catch than the rest.
The rot of feminism has infected the planet, not just this country.
Growing up in the rot of feminism inoculated most if given theothermccain.com on a regular basis
LIbtardian slayer
October 28th, 2015 @ 1:07 pm

+1,000
Finrod Felagund
October 28th, 2015 @ 1:29 pm

I’ve also heard “gun control is hitting what you’re aiming at”.
NeoWayland
October 28th, 2015 @ 1:29 pm

There were some good points. But some let it become The One True Way™ and launched a Grand Crusade to Change The World. That’s dangerous no matter what the cause.

Competition keeps people honest. It doesn’t matter if it’s business, sports, religion, or politics. We need other people disagreeing with us and trying to do it better. It makes us try harder and get better.
NeoWayland
October 28th, 2015 @ 1:31 pm

LOL!!

I hadn’t heard that one before. I’m going to have to remember that.
RS
October 28th, 2015 @ 2:26 pm

Rape Culture. It’s obviously the Patriarchy’s fault.
Saltyron1977
October 28th, 2015 @ 3:11 pm

“I know some feminists who are just as repelled by these actions as you are. They want equality, not privilege.”

Well then, prove it – they know who to fight to end this injustice – the people they call their own.

No different than “moderate v. radical” Muslims. That’s not my battle, that’s theirs, and they better mow their own unkempt lawn or others will have to do it for them, and they won’t care for the quality of the mow.

If they don’t want to be associated with the Thug, they better excommunicate the Thug. I haven’t heard or seen that corrective behavior publicly from the “feminists” or the Muslim in any controversial matter of note. And that’s because the “moderate” is often one who doesn’t have the courage of their conviction, but knows that the extremist does. So they will gladly allow the extremist to fight their battles, since their “side” ends up winning, and the “moderate” can always say they didn’t “intend” the outcome they covertly support.

And for that matter, why are they called “feminists”? Shouldn’t they be “equalists”? It’s their title that gives them away – a “feminist” indicates that they support the woman’s interest in all matters, and if so, then they must assume that the man is unfairly advantaged in all circumstances, and thus deserves “disadvantaged” in order to bring about equality. Example – “you make too much money because you are a man, so I will redistribute your money to me, as a woman, and that will makes us equal. See, I did a good thing for you, Mr. Man! I showed you your evil privilege and removed it from you! Why aren’t you applauding me?”

That why I like to eff with their heads by saying that I, too, support equality like they do, but I consider myself a “masculinist”. And boy do they hate that, because it calls them out on their game-playing and exposes the con.
Lulu
October 28th, 2015 @ 3:13 pm

I was in undergrad in the 90’s, and I don’t remember this PC culture the professor does in relation to sex — there was the PC race stuff (not like today) and some crap about the environment around Earth Day. But boys and girls seemed to be having lots of sex and I never heard tales of harassment or rape — he might be exaggerating his experience to relate it to today’s campus culture.
Saltyron1977
October 28th, 2015 @ 3:20 pm

Good point, but college not being for everyone usually (and should) relate to your personal skills, talents and proclivities and what you are best suited for. With this insanity, college is outright hostile to you as a person, as a man. The difference between being assigned to a job you have no skill at vs. being dropped onto the Serengeti in front of a hungry pride.
Quartermaster
October 28th, 2015 @ 3:34 pm

What can I say? Engineer=OCD.
Guest
October 28th, 2015 @ 3:58 pm

I wish we would discover the ability for interstellar travel soon, then all these “oppressed” groups can go colonize planets and have their feminist planet, their Marxist planet etc. And we can laugh as they crumble. If they somehow succeed, great, whatever, just stay there and never come back again, thanks.
NeoWayland
October 28th, 2015 @ 4:10 pm

Actually they are trying. That’s why I pointed to McElroy’s site. She’s a good’un.

But they’re fighting government intervention. They’re fighting a mindset where dissent is not allowed. And they’re fighting a perception that all feminists are a monolithic block.

They never called themselves moderates. They call themselves feminists. They believe the label was stolen from them and hijacked for nefarious purposes.

They need your help now. And you’ll need their help later on.
Fail Burton
October 28th, 2015 @ 4:17 pm

Why? Can they create and man armored divisions and gatling guns?
NeoWayland
October 28th, 2015 @ 4:37 pm

At the moment the fight is about the language. Take the word “rape” for example. We know the definition has been twisted all out of relation to the action. Or take the word “rights.” Somewhere along the line the definition changed so now it means special privilege for selected groups and never to be questioned. “Liberal” used to mean what libertarian does today.

Controlling language is really about controlling thought.
Saltyron1977
October 28th, 2015 @ 4:40 pm

Sorry, but they don’t need my help – as “feminists” they have more privilege and power these days than a straight whitey male like I will ever have.

But if they want my help in the fight, they won’t be in the drivers’ seat, and instead must ride “bitch”, as it were. Condition #1 is for them to accept the feminist label is stolen, call themselves “equalists”, denounce blanket discrimination against men, and take each situation on a case by case basis with regard to whether the man or woman is getting an improper “presumption”. Condition #2 is that they must protest in front of military recruiting offices and post offices to demand their equal right to be drafted via Selective Service until they win that equality.

I doubt any will take me up on it.
Saltyron1977
October 28th, 2015 @ 4:44 pm

Yes, and that is EXACTLY why any admitted “feminist” must be removed from positions such as legislature and the judiciary, which have major control of re-defining words (“marriage” anyone?) and are supposed to be non-biased and impartial. If I, as a man, have to go before an admitted feminist judge, I know for certain that said judge is inherently biased against me, and he/she probably doesn’t even realize it since they have so internalized that belief that its automatic.
Phil_McG
October 28th, 2015 @ 4:48 pm

Lulu, he’s a dweeby male feminist, what the Redpillers and PUAs might call a gamma (or omega) male, so his psychodrama isn’t typical of normal college students.

Look at the poor guy. That isn’t the face of a man who has known the gentle touch of a woman. The guys in Lambda Lambda Lambda were testosterone-drenched hunky brutes compared with this chap.

http://news.mit.edu/sites/mit.edu.newsoffice/files/images/2012/20120308160903-1_0.jpg
Saltyron1977
October 28th, 2015 @ 5:02 pm

He just needs to turn that frown upside down, make lemonade outta those lemons and start a Singles/Masturbators’ Rights Group. The slogan can be “Give Yourself a Hand!”
Jason Lee
October 28th, 2015 @ 5:58 pm

Romance novels… yes.

Henpecked nerds like Scott Aaronson need to stop wasting their time reading volumes of obscure feminist theory and go to Amazon and read the top 5 romance novels. After reading these novels and the customer reviews, they need to ask themselves, “Why are these novels several orders of magnitude more popular than radical feminist theory?” — and — “What can I learn from the answers to the first question?”

Look at what real women are thinking about.
NeoWayland
October 28th, 2015 @ 8:09 pm

You’re letting a label control your thinking.

Before you issue surrender terms to a potential ally, listen to what they have to say and watch what they do. They might surprise you.

There are good people there, some of them have some good ideas.
NeoWayland
October 28th, 2015 @ 8:16 pm

BTW, I think that the definition of marriage was lost when government started licensing marriage.

Do you really want to trust definitions to lawyers and politicos?

But that is a whole ‘nother topic.
Fail Burton
October 28th, 2015 @ 8:16 pm

Burn in hell cis swine.
Ilion
October 28th, 2015 @ 8:23 pm

And, let’s not even consider the horrors of “firmly”
ATDavidD
October 28th, 2015 @ 9:21 pm

“Because that kind of quid pro quo harassment was widely understood to be wrong,…”

Why was “the Bill Clinton impeachment imbroglio” about sex and not about sexual harassment?

Any manager who had had sex in his office with one of his interns would’ve been strung up, so to speak.
scanspeak
October 28th, 2015 @ 11:25 pm

” I spent my formative years — basically, from the age of 12 until my mid-20s — feeling not “entitled,” not “privileged,” but terrified. I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison. And furthermore, that the people who did these things to me would somehow be morally right to do them — even if I couldn’t understand how.”
My experience exactly.
Ilion
October 29th, 2015 @ 6:55 am

… and that’s even before we consider “firmly”
Ashley Stefanski
October 29th, 2015 @ 7:40 am

??

.…my friend’s sister is making $97 working on a PC onIine……..A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $83, p/h..Learn More right Here….
1frz……..
??
??? http://GlobalEmploymentReportsTopStarJobsPoint/Get/$97hourly… ?????????????????????????????????????????????????
Quartermaster
October 29th, 2015 @ 11:50 am

It wasn’t about sex. It was about obstruction of justice. The Lawinsky junk was simply a smokescreen the left threw up.
Quartermaster
October 29th, 2015 @ 11:52 am

You need to find a real job. 🙂
Quartermaster
October 29th, 2015 @ 12:01 pm

Dana is a UK grad. They had al sorts of stuff going on up there you’d rather not hear about.
Daniel Freeman
October 30th, 2015 @ 1:03 am

Nowhere does feminist power more nearly approach totalitarianism than at American colleges and universities, where women are 57% of the students, and every male on campus knows he could be expelled if any female classmate ever accuses him of wrongdoing.

I was going to say that your data is out-of-date, but it appears that the 2010 numbers are the most recent available. I guess that nobody wants to take too close of a look at the issue now, for fear that they might be called upon to help men.

The number that we really need is the sex ratio of 2015’s matriculating freshmen class, since everything else is a lagging indicator. Unfortunately, all we have are anecdotes:

This year, the freshman class at many universities could have been called the fresh woman class. Among those enrolling at my university this year, the percentage of females jumped to 70.
Daniel Freeman
October 30th, 2015 @ 2:45 am

But I think we owe it to the not-so-radical feminists and ourselves to find and celebrate them.

No, we don’t. Watering down our rhetoric wouldn’t help anyone. Fine, NAFALT. So what. I don’t care.

The harsher we make our rhetoric, the more it moves the Overton window. It frees the NAFALTs to be even more critical of feminism while remaining the Not-As-Bad Cop to our Really Bad Cop.

There is only downside to being wishy-washy, and only upside to hitting feminism as hard as we can.
Daniel Freeman
October 30th, 2015 @ 2:55 am

As Larry Correia would say, a “trigger warning” should be something like, “Keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you’re ready to shoot!” Someone even made a t-shirt.
Daniel Freeman
October 30th, 2015 @ 3:02 am

A man can survive his 30’s without a woman and stay sane.

Heck, if anything I’m saner than before.
Gunga
October 30th, 2015 @ 7:50 am

You worked at ODOT in the ’90s and then became a County Engineer in Ohio? 10:1 you know me offline.
NeoWayland
October 30th, 2015 @ 8:02 am

This is the bit that I think most people overlook.

Progressive thought depends on labels, it depends on group politics, it depends on finding differences and exploiting people’s fears. It depends on no one group having enough influence and control to kick the so-called leaders out.

The whole power structure is geared to playing victim groups against one another.

The only solution I see that can break the cycle is finding ways to unite people instead of dividing them.

Otherwise you’re just fighting for who gets to be top dog for the next while.