Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

How to Defeat Your Own Cause

Published by

Clarissa

on

Do you agree with the statement that “some men rape, ergo all men are rapists”? I hope not because if you do, I don’t want you on my blog. I want you in a psychiatrist’s office.

If you agree with me that it is wrong to condemn an entire group based on the actions of some members of this group, then how is it OK to make the following statements:

That is perhaps the grandest irony of all this: feminism perpetuates these prejudices by painting women as only victims and men as only oppressors. Feminists peddle that message so much that many governments and political organizations accept it without question. It never occurs to any of them to ask whether men and boys are victims of rape and sexual violence.

Would it have killed the author of this piece to put the word “some” before mentioning feminists? Doesn’t he realize that this blatant and stupid generalization makes him sound just like those unhinged people who consider all men to be rapists?

Probably the author of this post was trying to make an important point. I wouldn’t be able to appreciate it, though, because I have no trust for a person capable of such sloppy and careless generalizations.

Rate this:

72 responses to “How to Defeat Your Own Cause”

The Rigorist

March 18, 2012

I’m sorry to say the quoted author is correct, that’s what Feminists believe.

There are some women who are trying to change that, but there are southerners trying to rehabilitate the Confederate flag too.

It’s going to be a long haul for both, and it won’t get done in this generation for either.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 18, 2012
  
  No, he is completely wrong. I’m a feminist and I don’t believe any of that. And I have been blogging for yars precisely against this idea that women are perennial victims of men.
  
  “There are some women who are trying to change that, but there are southerners trying to rehabilitate the Confederate flag too.”
  
  – Those “some women” are called feminists.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. the twisted spinster
    
    March 18, 2012
    
    Yeah, I don’t believe that all women are helpless victims either — it’s actually a rather anti-feminist stand, that paints women as delicate, fragile creatures in constant need of protection from the brutish world. As a matter of fact, I challenge the idea that this is an actual feminist belief at all. The fact that some women who think they are feminists have expressed this idea just means that internalized cultural ideas are difficult to get rid of and have ways of disguising themselves. Thus the idea running around in conservative circles that deferring to your husband as “the head of the household” is actually empowering and feminist. It might be practical, but there’s nothing empowering or feminist about being a good subordinate.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  2. Culture Club
    
    March 19, 2012
    
    This is the reason why I oppose campus wide bans on dating between students and professors. In the case where there is no possible power coercion it simply buys into the cultural idea of defenseless victims which is wholly anti-feminist.
    
    I personally think a student dating a professor is generally a bad idea and I would try to dissuade any student or professor who asked for my advice, but so long as there is no possible coercion (i.e. professor could not possibly retaliate against the student), I think that is a decision for them to make: they are adults, they can reach their own conclusions.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
Pish Posh

March 18, 2012

I think that qualification is important. There is no one “feminist” anything and we might better approach these conversations as discussing Feminisms. It’s incredible to link this with all Feminist thought/action when many feminists do quite the opposite and want to improve the lot for men as well. If there is some strand of ideology calling itself “feminist” but valorizing the victimization of women – this clearly stands in contrasts to many, many feminist objectives, philosophies, and ideologies. It has long been a feminist goal to draw attention not only to the plight of gender inequities but the plight of men and children as well. Furthermore, all one has to do is to read Clarissa’s blog to see that feminists are not all about locating women as victims. Clarissa consistently counters that ideology.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 18, 2012
  
  “Furthermore, all one has to do is to read Clarissa’s blog to see that feminists are not all about locating women as victims. Clarissa consistently counters that ideology.”
  
  – Very good points. 🙂 🙂
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Toysoldier

March 18, 2012

I suppose one could take my comments as a gross generalization. However, to my knowledge no other group of people specifically argues that sexual violence is a gender-based crime. That is something only feminists do, even though not every feminist does it, Also, I cannot think of many governments or political organizations that question the notion that sexual violence is a gender-based crime. Most of the NGOs seem to accept that message, and that message does only come from feminists.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 18, 2012
  
  You are not operating according to the rules of formal logic. All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Titfortat
    
    March 18, 2012
    
    Maybe not your formal logic. Ever dog does have flea’s
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  2. AYY
    
    March 19, 2012
    
    Clarissa, I think your comment actually supports ToySoldier’s point. Also I don’t think you undercut his argument by saying that you’re a feminist and you don’t do what the other ones do. It’s the feminist establishment that he’s referring to
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 19, 2012
      
      “Clarissa, I think your comment actually supports ToySoldier’s point.”
      
      – I don’t know what this means. Any person who says ” feminism perpetuates these prejudices by painting women as only victims and men as only oppressors” is a blathering fool who blabbers like a total hysteric about things he knows nothing about. Have I made myself any clearer now?
      
      ” It’s the feminist establishment that he’s referring to”
      
      – People who seriously talk about a “feminist establishment” have issues. If these people live in the US, they have severe issues.
      
      Maybe you should start by reading newspapers, watching television, maybe even going to the movies every once in a while. Then, these strange fantasies about “feminist establishments” will abandon you.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  3. Toysoldier
    
    March 23, 2012
    
    You are not operating according to the rules of formal logic. All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.
    
    But that was not my argument. My argument was that feminists are the only ones who push the idea that sexual violence is a gender-based crime. That would be akin to saying only dogs are poodles.
    
    I don’t know what this means. Any person who says ” feminism perpetuates these prejudices by painting women as only victims and men as only oppressors” is a blathering fool who blabbers like a total hysteric about things he knows nothing about. Have I made myself any clearer now?
    
    I think you were clear from the beginning, but your are still incorrect. Feminism as an ideology certainly does posit that sexual violence is an extension of men’s oppression of women. To my knowledge, no other ideology argues that; that view is unique to feminism. I do not think that makes me “a total hysteric” to point that out.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 23, 2012
      
      Are these your words or not: “That is perhaps the grandest irony of all this: feminism perpetuates these prejudices by painting women as only victims and men as only oppressors. Feminists peddle that message so much that many governments and political organizations accept it without question. It never occurs to any of them to ask whether men and boys are victims of rape and sexual violence.”?
      
      These are the words I take exception to. Because I have been writing for years on this very blog about how “painting women as only victims and men as only oppressors” is extremely detrimental to feminism.
      
      “My argument was that feminists are the only ones who push the idea that sexual violence is a gender-based crime.”
      
      – This sentence has no meaning. No person in their right mind could say these exact words because that would deny that men can be sexually violent against men and women against women. You are trying to retell complex ideas that you didn’t take care to comprehend and end up with a hodge-podge of meaningless statements.
      
      “Feminism as an ideology certainly does posit that sexual violence is an extension of men’s oppression of women. ”
      
      – Feminism is not “an ideology.” Please avoid carelessness with terminology. I also ask you to either provide foundational documents that all feminists have subscribed to that express this idea or recognize that your baseless generalizations are offensive and meaningless. As a feminist, I can share with you that the only time in my entire life that I have heard such a statement is right now and from you.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  4. Titfortat
    
    March 23, 2012
    
    Uh, Clarissa, feminism is most certainly an ideology. It may be a hodge podge of certain individuals idea’s, both extreme and moderate, but it is an ideology.
    
    Ideology:
    
    the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 23, 2012
      
      I have studied the theory of ideology for many years. It makes as much sense for you to educate me on what ideology is as it is for me to inform you on how you should run your business. 🙂 Seriously, this is one of my central research interests.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  5. Titfortat
    
    March 23, 2012
    
    Did you pass? 😉
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
Culture Club

March 18, 2012

This brings up an interesting question in the abstract: when is the use of the collective form justified? For example it would be correct say to that Jehovah’s Witness are against blood transfusions as the vast majority of them do so, even if some of them oppose them. However it would be misleading to say that Catholic’s are against contraceptives even though the church hierarchy is against them since they are universally used across catholic countries.

If certain leading feminists make (unopposed, unchallenged) comments about men being rapists does that make it ok to say that feminists think that?

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 18, 2012
  
  “If certain leading feminists make (unopposed, unchallenged) comments about men being rapists does that make it ok to say that feminists think that?”
  
  – Which leading feminists, exactly? A two or three completely marginal crazies whose place is in a circus and whom nobody ever took seriously?
  
  It is very annoying to see feminists equated with the tiny, powerless and shrill radical fringe of unhealthy people who confuse their severe mental issues with political activism.
  
  I’ve met several mentally disturbed Americans in my life. Should I assume that all Americans are mentally ill on the basis of that?
  
  And how many rad fems has anybody even actually met?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Culture Club
    
    March 19, 2012
    
    And how many rad fems has anybody even actually met?
    
    Around here, they are the ones in charge of the womyn club at the university, all ten of them.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
FD

March 18, 2012

So vicariously embarrassing to watch someone calling people out for exactly the same rhetorical sin that they are themselves committing.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 18, 2012
  
  This sounds too mysterious for me to decipher. Probably because I’ve never been able to understand what the expression “calling people out” means.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    March 18, 2012
    
    Oh, I got it! Call out means condemn or criticize, right?
    
    It’s hot here, so I get dense.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  2. FD
    
    March 18, 2012
    
    Heh. I’m amused, because I originally typed the British idiom, carpeting short for ‘calling someone onto the carpet’ and edited it to the US version because I figured the US version would be comprehensible to more people.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 18, 2012
      
      Actually, “calling someone onto the carpet” is a Russian idiom, too. 🙂 Isn’t that hilarious?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  3. FD
    
    March 18, 2012
    
    OK, that genuinely is hilarious! Clearly, I ought not to try to be clever. 😀
    And also fascinating. I believe the etymology is unclear for British usage – I wonder where it originated.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
gwallan

March 18, 2012

The old “not all feminists are like that” argument.

Unfortunately in my country, Australia, feminists in government have acted to distort government studies in order to enable discriminatory legislation. The upshot is taxpayer funded services which not only reject victims but often laugh at them and call them liars.

Those feminists have their hands on legislative levers. Understand that they are the effective face of feminism no matter how much you try to deny it.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 18, 2012
  
  “The old “not all feminists are like that” argument.”
  
  – If you want to be taken seriously by people, avoid starting a discussion with them in this tone of a silly brat, shall you?
  
  “Unfortunately in my country, Australia, feminists in government have acted to distort government studies in order to enable discriminatory legislation.”
  
  – How does this even begin to respond to my argument? Turn on your logic for a second. In my country of Ukraine, 3 men raped and set on fire a young girl this week. If I follow your logic, I should decide that all men in the world are rapists and murderers, right? Is that what you are suggesting? If that’s not what you are suggesting, then your comment makes absolutely no sense.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. musteryou
    
    March 18, 2012
    
    “Unfortunately in my country, Australia, feminists in government have acted to distort government studies in order to enable discriminatory legislation.”
    
    Australian legislation may offer a very small safety net for women who are being abused. However, one is likely to encounter misogyny in the Australian workplace, as the cultural attitudes are pretty backwards. I’d say these attitudes regarding women are actually quantifiable. One would only need to establish how often women are referred to as “emotional” or a diminutive term is used — “girls” — in order to express their lower status.
    
    Nothing in life, I suppose, is very fair.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 18, 2012
      
      If we compare my post with the post I quoted, I think we will see that I’m very logical while the original poster is blinded by unreasonable emotions. I think it’s very important that we point out to everybody who dumps on feminists how this dislike of the imaginary bugbear of feminism is completely irrational.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. musteryou
        
        March 18, 2012
        
        Yes, I was assuming he was blinded by unreasonable emotions, and perhaps it was not clear but I was quoting someone else in the first paragraph, in order to respond to that.
        
        Many people have the idea that feminism means a war against men. That idea has been put out there by very cynical people and is adopted by those who run their lives on the basis of fear.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        bloggerclarissa
        
        March 18, 2012
        
        “Many people have the idea that feminism means a war against men. That idea has been put out there by very cynical people and is adopted by those who run their lives on the basis of fear.”
        
        – When, in reality, it’s the exact opposite!!! The supporters of the patriarchy promote the gender wars and the belief in an unsurmountable gender divide.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        musteryou
        
        March 18, 2012
        
        Yes, of course. But many men are afraid to let go of what they know. It’s like they’re gripping onto a cliff edge, afraid to trust their parachutes to bring them safely down.
        
        LikeLike
  2. gwallan
    
    March 19, 2012
    
    So you think you are the real feminist espousing the real feminism whilst those feminists enacting national legislation are not? Would you like to tell them that they are not real feminists or should I? You can contact most of them through the Australian Labor Party. Let me know how you get on.
    
    If you wish to wear an ideology overtly you will rightly be judged by the actions of others bearing the same. When you attack those criticising the bad acts of your fellows you become complicit in those bad acts. I notice no condemnation from you of the institutionalised discrimination created by feminists in my country. It seems you would rather defend a label and denigrate the messenger.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 19, 2012
      
      “If you wish to wear an ideology overtly you will rightly be judged by the actions of others bearing the same. When you attack those criticising the bad acts of your fellows you become complicit in those bad acts.”
      
      – Is this in lieu of a simple yes or no answer to the question whether all men are rapists? I understand that you are very stupid and uneducated but do you realize that you just responded that you do believe all men are rapists? Do you get that at all or are you so dense that you can’t read your own text?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
2. FD
  
  March 18, 2012
  
  Ah yes, the demonic feminist cabals. Shocking.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
bloggerclarissa

March 19, 2012

I’m waiting for at least one commenter to find some basic honesty and answer the question: do you think all men are rapists? And if not, what makes you think it’s normal to assign the opinions and actions of a tiny minority of people to all feminists?

I’m sitting here, bothering no one and the OP goes and insults me for absolutely no reason because he heard somebody do something somewhere. Question: WTF? Why do I get insulted and dumped on for something that people I never even met do? Are people so blinded by their stupid resentments that they don’t see how insulting and ridiculous they are being?

Sheesh, it’s like saying, “I met a Jew who was a jerk. This must mean all Jews are jerks.” Is that the only level of abstraction weird creatures who bash feminists are capable of? All they can do is come here and repeat like stupid sheep, “Yes, but there are feminists who do bad things.” That, of course, is easier than straining one’s intellect and trying to answer a simple question.

I am very angry.

LikeLike

Reply
Titfortat

March 19, 2012

Probably the author of this post was trying to make an important point. I wouldn’t be able to appreciate it, though, because I have no trust for a person capable of such sloppy and careless generalizations.(Clarissa)

I agree with you that the generalization is not a good way to go about things. I think my issue is the way you discard the writer completely because of this one aspect. The truth is, if the author has an important point shouldnt you at least be open enough to understand or have compassion for his idea regardless of this generalization? Afterall, you are one of the “good” feminists, right?

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 19, 2012
  
  “I agree with you that the generalization is not a good way to go about things. I think my issue is the way you discard the writer completely because of this one aspect. The truth is, if the author has an important point shouldnt you at least be open enough to understand or have compassion for his idea regardless of this generalization?”
  
  – Once again, if an author starts by saying that all men are rapists, how open would you be to anything that author says after that? What if your other identities were insulted? If I see a post that starts with how Jews eat Christian babies, are you suggesting that I should just get over myself and look for nuggets of useful information in the author’s article? Is that what you’d do?
  
  This is such a simple question, yet nobody is managing to answer it.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
gwallan

March 19, 2012

I’m sitting here, bothering no one and the OP goes and insults me for absolutely no reason because he heard somebody do something somewhere.

You are no innocent bystander here. You blogged about another blogger. You did so only to criticise his non use of the word “some” as a modifier for “feminists” and did so in quite harsh terms. I very much doubt that Toysoldier had you in mind when he wrote those words but you seem to have taken it personally.

Question: WTF? Why do I get insulted and dumped on for something that people I never even met do? Are people so blinded by their stupid resentments that they don’t see how insulting and ridiculous they are being?

Do you not recognise your own agression? How dare you play the victim when it was your own un-called-for attack upon Toysoldier which provoked these responses. You’ve had every opportunity to say something on his blog but chose instead to launch from the safety of your own environment.

If YOU want to be taken seriously by people learn to place principle above your ideology and it’s associated labels. If elements of your chosen ideology do wrong then deriding critics of that wrong instead of the wrong itself is churlish and hypocritical. It also puts you firmly in the camp of those wrongdoers.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 19, 2012
  
  “You are no innocent bystander here. You blogged about another blogger.”
  
  – Can you read before responding? This is a completely weird statement you just made. What innocent bystander? What are you on about? Have you already forgotten what is being discussed?
  
  ” I very much doubt that Toysoldier had you in mind when he wrote those words but you seem to have taken it personally.”
  
  – Are you an American? If I say that all Americans are stinky fools, will you be insulted even if I don;t have you personally in mind?
  
  “Do you not recognise your own agression? ”
  
  – Again, what does this question mean? yes, I;m extremely aggressive. So?
  
  “How dare you play the victim when it was your own un-called-for attack upon Toysoldier which provoked these responses.”
  
  – I will dare to do whatever the fuck I please, you stupid idiot with a tiny dick.
  
  “You’ve had every opportunity to say something on his blog but chose instead to launch from the safety of your own environment.”
  
  – I’m way too popular and too busy to comment on any blogs except a few really fantastic ones.
  
  “If YOU want to be taken seriously by people learn to place principle above your ideology and it’s associated labels.”
  
  – It is really ridiculous when a stupid, unimportant insect like you starts dispensing unwanted advice to brilliant bloggers like me. Stick your advice up your ass, you freak.
  
  “. If elements of your chosen ideology do wrong then deriding critics of that wrong instead of the wrong itself is churlish and hypocritical. It also puts you firmly in the camp of those wrongdoers.”
  
  – People who are as illiterate as you and who write as badly should just shut up and sit there quietly while intelligent people like me try to educate them.
  
  Where did this sex-deprived monkey even come from?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Titfortat
    
    March 19, 2012
    
    – I will dare to do whatever the fuck I please, you stupid idiot with a tiny dick. (Clarissa)
    
    Lmao, who shit in your cornflakes this morning? I see you left the filter in the drawer. Priceless. 🙂
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 19, 2012
      
      “Lmao, who shit in your cornflakes this morning? I see you left the filter in the drawer.”
      
      – My friend, if I ate this weird bird seed people call cornflakes, I would be a lot more rabid. 🙂
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  2. Titfortat
    
    March 19, 2012
    
    Oh yeah, you really strike me as a meat eater. 😉
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 19, 2012
      
      Of course, the best dessert in the world is sausage. Who doesn’t know that? 🙂 🙂
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
gudenuf

March 19, 2012

Yeah feminists can be all over the map. There are some really cool feminists like Clarissa and Ozymandias, and also some really hurtful ones like Schwyzer and my sociology prof. I’ve debated with myself about whether I should call myself a feminist without endorsing the hurtful things I’ve seen a significant amount of feminists write. My compromise is that I tell people that I’m a feminist when I’m among misogynistic or anti-feminist crowds. When I’m among pro-feminist crowds, I say that I’m supportive of feminism but concerned about certain memes floating in feminist-space.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 19, 2012
  
  Now, this is a really great comment. Thank you, gudenuf, you just restored my faith in humanity.
  
  “My compromise is that I tell people that I’m a feminist when I’m among misogynistic or anti-feminist crowds. When I’m among pro-feminist crowds, I say that I’m supportive of feminism but concerned about certain memes floating in feminist-space.”
  
  – I do the same, actually. 🙂
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Wirbelwind

March 19, 2012

Remember Schrodinger Rapist ? Or “politics of hello” (I am certain you commented the last one here) ? If Feministe, Feministing and many other sites aren’t at least somewhat representative than I don’t know what is.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 19, 2012
  
  Yes, those were very stupid concoctions of some very diseased imaginations. And as you correctly point out, I ridiculed them for those strange pronouncements. Still, I and my position get dismissed while the jerks who came up with the “hello as harassment” theory are treated like the oracles of feminism by everybody. So who’s to blame that they get a much wider platform than they deserve, huh?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Culture Club
    
    March 19, 2012
    
    This is the news media searching for a shocking story. Greenpeace knows all about this. They can release twenty white paper studies decrying some environmental catastrophe and none will make the news, or they can get in dinghies and go around whalers and make the news worldwide.
    
    The reasoned feminists out there don’t make the news. The strident all-men-are-rapist type do. Ironically, in the case of feminism as you point out, it only defeats your own cause, but the attention sure pays the bill and puts a hefty down-payment on the ego account.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 19, 2012
      
      “The reasoned feminists out there don’t make the news. The strident all-men-are-rapist type do. ”
      
      – Exactly.
      
      ” Ironically, in the case of feminism as you point out, it only defeats your own cause, but the attention sure pays the bill and puts a hefty down-payment on the ego account.”
      
      – I don’t know. My ego is very unhappy right now because everybody gets promoted except me. The only folks who promote me are people from the opposing ideological trenches.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
musteryou

March 19, 2012

The reason people can’t have a rational discussion about gender is that gender is defined by metaphysics in US and Australian cultures. So, if you want to make a factual statement or a logical statement, this will always be trumped by a metaphysical one. So if I say, “Some of the seeming bad luck I’ve had in my life was to do with gender discrimination,” people probably will not wait to hear the details in order to understand something they’re not already aware of. Instead they will shout, “no!”.

You can always tell when someone is working with metaphysical postulates because their views and arguments come from a position of seeming to know that which they could not possibly know. They don’t want to know the details of anybody’s situation, because that would detract from their false knowledge and put them into a place of uncertainty.

Metaphysical thinking also leads to the either-or framing of the postulates, because metaphysics deals in essences, so my claim about my life’s experiences must necessarily be reduced to a claim about whether the female essence performs effectively in the contemporary world. Or is could be framed in terms of whether the male essence is not also disadvantaged in contemporary politics, along with the female essence.

As you can see, one ends up talking in generalities about things that have nothing to do with individual or collective experiences.

LikeLike

Reply
Titfortat

March 19, 2012

Wow muster, that was a mouthful.

LikeLike

Reply
1. musteryou
  
  March 19, 2012
  
  Yeah, probably it makes no sense unless you have higher expectations of communication than are actually available in most instances. Then you start to see a pattern of people doing and saying the same sorts of things, whilst avoiding dealing with reality. As I said, if people aren’t interested in actually talking about each other’s experiences and perceptions and asking questions, they’re probably embroiled in some phony epistemology.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Liz

March 23, 2012

Great post!

I have to say I’ve never felt ashamed to call myself a feminist, and no one should be. Feminists are the ones trying to push that, yes some men are rapists, that doesn’t mean male sexuality is evil, after all some women are rapists too.

I’ve heard MRA’s criticizing feminists because men get convicted for crimes more often than women. That’s BECAUSE of sex discrimination which is exactly what feminism is trying to fight, so like I said, I’ve never been ashamed to call myself a feminist.

One of my male friends made fun of me for trying to assert that sex shouldn’t necessarily dictate someone’s life. Then I said to him, well if you believe that then you must believe that men are biologically inferior parents, and therefore, women should get custody in the vast majority of divorce cases. You must believe that men always want sex and can’t possibly be raped by women. If you want to believe that women are systematically more delicate, weak, and maternal, then you must also accept that men are more savage, brutish, and incompetent with the children. I made a feminist out of him allright! 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 24, 2012
  
  “I’ve heard MRA’s criticizing feminists because men get convicted for crimes more often than women. That’s BECAUSE of sex discrimination which is exactly what feminism is trying to fight”
  
  – And that’s a very simple truth that they refuse to admit, blinded by their deep psychological issues that make them dislike women.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
The Rigorist

April 14, 2012

OK, so let’s separate the two kinds of Feminists so Clarissa and Liz can be ones too.

On the one hand, we have, hmmm, Empowered Feminists, the ones that can get things like VAWA and Title 9 laws passed. The ones that can get things done and everyone in the US has to pay attention to.

On the other hand we have, ohhh, Spiritual Feminists, the ones who focus on the pure spirit of Feminism, concerning themselves with its higher and more perfect ideals, but don’t effect anybody beyond their friends.

You’re a wonderful and inspiring Spiritual Feminist, Clarissa. I’m sure there are many many Spiritual Feminists just as wonderful and inspiring as you, but frankly you and yours don’t matter. Y’all can be safely ignored. Only Empowered Feminists matter because they *can’t* be safely ignored, and *they* believe that woman are victims and men are oppressors.

Given, it was rude for ToySoldier to forget that Spiritual Feminists existed, but so what? It’s not like y’all make any difference in his life, or mine, or anybody else’s. THAT is how it is OK for ToySoldier to make that statement. It is *not* like saying “all men are rapists” because there are a THOUSAND times more Feminists like that than there are rapists.

Yeah, a thousand ( 1,000 ) times. Every woman sees me approach after dark and worries that I will attack her, rather than protect her, has agreed that all men are rapists. It has been decades since a strange woman has asked me to escort her to safety. ( Ask me about that last one ) Women only turn to other women now.

I’ve been writing and pondering this for over an hour.

What threatens to make all your years of effort worthless and forgettable is your anger at ToySoldier and me. We didn’t make “Feminist” mean “perpetual victim and anti-male activist”. That definition got shoved down our throats, backed by an irresistible force of armed police.

But because your feelings would be hurt if you didn’t get to say “I’m a Feminist, too!”, I’m not to be allowed to name my enemy? What you are doing is sowing confusion to *those* Feminists’ advantage. Oh, you’re all kinds of help when you’re ‘correcting’ ToySoldier and me.

Further, it’s cowardly of you. Don’t spend time shaming ToySoldier and me. Show us the email that you sent to those Feminists shaming them for ToySoldier and I believing what we do of Feminism. Stop attacking your comrades and get back in the fight.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  April 14, 2012
  
  I really dig it when unintelligent, intellectually and linguistically impotent fools try to categorize me and give me a list of orders as to what I should do.
  
  Since you started it, buddy, I feel completely free to offer my own set of commands to you:
  
  Go find some employment for your pathetic little dick and stop inflicting the issues that your grievous sexual misery and loneliness are causing you on everybody. You have no political views. You just have a limp useless tiny dick that you service with this verbal masturbation on the blogs of people who are light years ahead of you in every single aspect of existence.
  
  Come back when you have found some help to your pathetic shriveled excuse of a life.
  
  Fair warning to everybody: anybody who dares to address me in the tone of this jerkwad will receive the same kind of a verbal flaying. It annoys me to see this type of insect dare raise his eyes to anybody like me.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Evelina Anville

April 14, 2012

“It has been decades since a strange woman has asked me to escort her to safety . . . Women only turn to other women now.” Um. Why would a strange woman ask you to escort her to safety? Also “escort to safety”? What does that even mean? And if I did need safety for some strange reason, why would I ask some man that I never met before to provide me with safety? That’s just a weird thing to expect any woman to want to do. And what’s wrong with women finding comfort, solace, or strength in other women? Women should only turn to men? I find this whole line of agument very strange.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  April 14, 2012
  
  The entire rant makes absolutely no sense. I have never asked anybody to escort me to safety because there was never any need. I don’t live in a war zone, or anything like that.
  
  People find the strangest arguments to mask their vague resentments against imaginary feminist bugbears.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Evelina Anville
    
    April 14, 2012
    
    I know. Can you imagine seeing the Rigorist if you were walking by yourself at night? I am sure I would run the other way. Not because I’m afaid of men but because he seems so mentally unhinged. 😉
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      April 14, 2012
      
      It’s funny how he never considered that the reason women avoid him is that he’s weird and not because mean feminists told them to. 🙂 🙂
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
The Rigorist

April 14, 2012

@Evelina Anville

Amazing, just amazing.

A woman would turn to a strange man for protection because, first, he has greater strength than another woman to protect and, second, she assumes that rapists are rare amongst men while men who protect are common.

And if the man fails it’s worse for him than her. Escorted woman are raped, but upwards of three quarters of their escorts are killed. She’s scarred, but he’s dead.

I didn’t suggest that women should turn only to men. I noted that they currently turn only to women, who are less able to protect them and might even draw an attacker of her own.

Yes, it’s weird … now. Now, all men are potential rapists. It is no longer assumed that the average common man can be relied upon for protection of a woman against attack. Thank you for rising in support of my assertion.

It hasn’t, upon reflection, been quite decades, but only 19 years. In ’93, a young woman burst into my apartment, fleeing an attempted rape. She crouched and shivered and cried for a while. She used my phone but no one answered her calls. She refused my offer of a ride. Eventually, I walked her the mile or so distance to her home, careful to stay 30 yards or so behind, close enough to come to her aid if her attacker showed but far enough so that she didn’t feel threatened by me.

I’m not special. I’m average and common, but you don’t believe that do you?

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  April 14, 2012
  
  No, buddy, in terms of mental health you are far from the north. Do us all a favor, print out your comments and show them to a psychiatrist. You sound like a decidedly unhinged person.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. Evelina Anville
  
  April 14, 2012
  
  I am not sure why I am bothering to respond but here it goes…..
  
  1) So if your story is true, you expected a woman who is in a state of post traumatic stress from a terrible attack to IMMEDIATELY and within SECONDS to begin trusting strangers? She was probably terrified and angry. The last thing most people would want is to make themselves even more vulnerable at that moment. Secondly, the way to have REALLY helped this woman would have been to call the police and allow the police to escort her home instead of feeling sorry for yourself that she refused your offer of a ride. Soudns like you want to be a hero more than you wanted to help.
  
  2) You say that “Escorted woman are raped, but upwards of three quarters of their escorts are killed.” Huh? What world are you living in which everybody is being raped and killed? Are you in a war zone? I don’t ask for escorts from strange men because I don’t need an escort. I don’t want to live in fear of my world and limit my mobility to moments when men can lead me about like a child. Further, if 3/4 of men who “escort” women to their cars are KILLED, no wonder women aren’t asking. Who wants to be responsible someone’s death?
  
  Seriously. Stop being so afraid of feminists and try to locate a form of self esteem that doesn’t require you to hover around adults that neither want nor need your dubious “protection.”
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. The Rigorist
    
    April 14, 2012
    
    1) She had the phone. If she had wanted to call the police then she would have. *I’m* not going to call the police because that’s a great way to end up in jail for doing exactly nothing, thanks to you and yours. I saw recently that what i did then is now a crime. Some poor sucker went to jail for this sort of thing.
    
    What *I* did was wait and do my best to reassure her that she was safe. I remember her being there for over an hour. I was never able to be closer than, oh, 6 feet or so except for when she passed by me to get in. I noted that she refused a ride to emphasize her trauma.
    
    No, I didn’t *expect* her to trust me. My door was closed and I was minding my own business. I didn’t stick my head out the door and say “Hey girl! Come on in!”
    
    But she did trust me, enough. And I think I was trustworthy, enough.
    
    She asked that I walk her home. It didn’t seem likely that the guy would have waited around for an hour, so I judged it to be low risk. What can I say? Trouble ran into my apartment and I did my best. That doesn’t seem heroic to me. It’s pretty much what any guy would do.
    
    But, I’m wrong though, aren’t I? You don’t think men would commonly do this. You’d even characterize it as my trying to be heroic. You’d run away at the sight of me, not that you’re scared of men.
    
    2) I said that of those reported forcible rapes in the US where the woman raped had a man with them, upwards of three quarters of those men were killed. That’s a national number for the US, not any particular “war zone”. If I am, you’re already in it with me.
    
    In any case, by your expressed attitudes and reported actions, you believe that all men are potential rapists and you trust none of us. If you thought men equal or equivalent to women, you wouldn’t specifically avoid men for escort. Do you consider yourself being lead about like a child when you have a woman walk with you late at night? Of course not.
    
    It’s hardly a surprise that you believe that. What is interesting is the disconnect between your actions, the way you live your life, and your politics. You won’t admit that you think all men are potential rapists, that would sound extreme, but you have no trouble saying that it would be weird to live as though they weren’t.
    
    Regarding my fear of Feminists, I think the at least the same level of caution you treat all men with is appropriate. You needn’t worry about me “hovering” near one without a surveillance camera.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      April 14, 2012
      
      Why does this story mean so much to you? I don’t retell the story of my wedding with this level of detail.
      
      This is something that happened to somebody else a long time ago. Yet, it seems to have turned into one of the defining moments of your life.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. The Rigorist
        
        April 14, 2012
        
        @bloggerclarissa
        
        You said couldn’t understand my previous “rant”, what makes you think you could understand this?
        
        Then again, confused is a good look for you.
        
        I addressed it again in reply to Evelina Anville citing it. When she’s done with it then I will be too.
        
        I first mentioned it in the rant you didn’t understand, so I don’t think you’ll get the reason for that any better this time than you did the last. It was a poignant event that exemplified at larger point.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        bloggerclarissa
        
        April 14, 2012
        
        “You said couldn’t understand my previous “rant”, what makes you think you could understand this?
        
        Then again, confused is a good look for you.
        
        I addressed it again in reply to Evelina Anville citing it. When she’s done with it then I will be too.
        
        I first mentioned it in the rant you didn’t understand, so I don’t think you’ll get the reason for that any better this time than you did the last. It was a poignant event that exemplified at larger point.”
        
        – I respect the fact that your command of English is poor. What is your native language? Maybe you should write in it because it seems like it will be easier for us to understand it than for you to express yourself in English.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
The Rigorist

April 14, 2012

Yeah, y’all would run the other way.

Good luck with that.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  April 14, 2012
  
  From crazies like you? It’s OK, we don’t meet them in real life. They are all institutionalized.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
The Rigorist

April 14, 2012

@Evelina Anville

“Escort to safety” was to be a succinct way to say both escorted to her car in a parking lot or to the door of her home late at night.

@bloggingclarissa

You might want to edit out all those “tiny dick” jokes. You wouldn’t want a passerby to get the wrong idea about you.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  April 14, 2012
  
  Here the little thingy goes again with its silly little suggestions. Like anybody cares about its hysterics. Funny little bug.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply

Leave a comment Cancel reply

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts