Not too long ago we were involved in an argument on reddit with one of the atheism plus supporters. For those of you that don’t know what atheism plus is (who shall henceforth be known as the lucky ones); atheism plus is the aborted bastard offspring of atheism and feminism if it were raised in a cave by creationists and beaten extensively during its teen years. Anyways, nothing much came of it since he took off quickly once his points were dismantled. One thing that came up in the course of the brief discussion though was that old feminist chestnut of Schrodingers Rapist.
Now you probably might have noticed this by now but we’ve always held feminism in a mixture of contempt and amusement. Not because we have any inclinations towards denying women their rights or view women as inferior (I’m totally pro-chick). But because we’ve always found the ideas of feminism to be based on lies, misuse of information, a desire for special privilege, and utter misogyny and misandry. As well as amusement at how vigourously they tend to defend their own ignorance and hatred even in the face of facts and reality. In many ways feminists and feminism remind me of religious fundamentalists and creation. A similarity which we’ll save touching upon for a future essay as this one is already going to be going on for quite a bit of length already.
Yes, we did just claim that feminism has a tendency towards misogyny. This will likely come up several times in the future, and it’ll almost certainly be mentioned in the course of this specific essay. Suffice to say for the time being that it’s my belief that almost nobody has a more degrading view of women than the feminists and their fem-pets.
Anyways in the course of the brief conversation the other party attempted to address SR, however we noted that he seemed to have a very limited view of it. He really only referred to small pieces of it and never actually looked at what it said in any greater context. In fact when we did go into depth on SR and what it said that was about the point when he took off and stopped talking. We haven’t yet seen someone actually address the essay in its whole, either by critics or supporters. We’re certain it’s happened at least once before and we just failed to find it, but my point is that those who seem to support the essay of SR always seem to be rather selective in the parts of it they talk about.
Now obviously, this could certainly be because the essay is really unnecessarily verbose (you could practically gag a porn star with its unnatural length). It really does take more time to lay out what it wants to say than would actually be necessary (because of course we’re one to talk about a lack of brevity). So this could very well be one of the main reasons why this isn’t done. We have a hypothesis, however, that it’s because the more completely you look at SR the harder it is to justify it as not being misandrist and utterly nuts. So we thought that we would take the time to go over the whole mess ourselves and take it piece by piece.
So let’s see what we have here.
“Let me start out by assuring you that I understand you are a good sort of person. You are kind to children and animals. You respect the elderly. You donate to charity. You tell jokes without laughing at your own punchlines. You respect women. You like women.”
Ok, so we have established right from the bat that she believes, or at least claims to believe, that we’re all or mostly all good guys. Really however this seems like more of an attempt at a placation. You ever talk to someone about another group of people and they lead off their argument with “I don’t mean this to sound racist, some of my best friends are X people”; and you know immediately that everything that follows from their mouth is going to be incredibly racist.
Yeah. It’s kind of like that.
You see people don’t typically talk to other people like this.There’s really no need to repeatedly tell someone that you think they’re good right from the start unless you’re going to say something that you know is going to directly contradict it and you want to divert attention away from that fact. So what is she trying to divert from? Well let’s take a look down below towards the end for a moment.
“Don’t rape. Nor should you commit these similar but less severe offenses: don’t assault. Don’t grope. Don’t constrain. Don’t brandish. Don’t expose yourself. Don’t threaten with physical violence. Don’t threaten with sexual violence. “
Now I would like to reiterate again that she started this essay by telling all us men how good, kind, and charitable we are. So you can naturally see how that would segway immediately into an essay about how all men are, at best, rapists-in-waiting. Not some men, not a certain demographic of men. Simply men. For all of her sweet words and attempts at deflection there is no subtlety nor grey area in what this woman says throughout this essay. It is all men that she addresses and accuses.
This is why I concluded that her opening paragraph is simply an attempt at blatant manipulation. She’s putting on a sweet facade in order to convince the guys reading it that she’s not really a dark conglomeration of sleeze and misandry that walks and breathes like a woman. Because if she phrases it nicely she knows that a bunch of guys will whiteknight for her and defend what she says despite the fact that it’s so obviously hateful. They’ll overlook it because as a species we have a built-in tendency to overlook the terrible things women sometimes do or say whenever they bat their eyelashes at us. If anyone else said this sort of thing about any other group they would be a bigot, but as soon as a woman says it about men it suddenly isn’t hateful or morally repugnant to any decent human being. She’s apparently just trying to open a dialogue (which is utter fucking bullshit as well, but we’ll get to that too).
And if you think I’m kidding about the whiteknighting, I’m not. There are many examples of men trying to cover for this deplorable bullshit and I’ll actually get to some of them at the end, once we’ve covered the basic content of this essay.
Now let’s look at the actual structure of what she says here. She starts off by saying that she thinks we’re good guys. Then towards the end goes on to say that we’re all potential rapists who need to be specifically told not to rape. So from a logical perspective there really only seem to be two conclusions that we can take from this.
1:Since the people she claims are “good” are also rapists and potential rapists, it must be that a person who is “good” can also commit rape. In other words the act of rape is either “good” or at the very least is morally neutral.
2:She doesn’t really think that the men she’s adressing (which is all of them) are actually good people. That she truly thinks that they are all rapists or potential rapists by virtue of simply being born men. In other words it is intrinsic to the nature of a man.
Now I feel fairly safe in hazarding a guess that she isn’t trying to say the first one, so she must be saying the second. She truly believes that all men are rapists or rapists in potential.
Notice also how she never brings women into this. As much as I know feminists really like to claim that women do not commit rape (in fact the plusser that inspired this article claimed to me that it had never once happened ever). This is utter and complete garbage. The kind of garbage that can only be believed by someone who has never looked at any actual evidence with any sort of critical thinking. Women do rape men, it happens a lot, quite possibly with the same frequency that it happens with men raping women (I’ll get more into this and provide my citations when we get into her statistics arguments).
My point in mentioning this is that throughout the article she completely ignores this fact, as do most feminists. Here though it illustrates what she is clearly trying to do and what I pointed out above. She is clearly making an association in her head of men, all men, and only men, as being sexual predators. While ignoring completely that this applies to women to in anyway. The fact that so many of the defenders that I read actually tried to claim that this wasn’t very clearly misandrist can only lead me to believe that they suffer from some obscure and bizarre mental disorder which causes them to forget what words mean.
As a sidenote, do you see how much effort we had to expend just to point out how that much of that was bullshit. And let me I remind you that we’re still on the first fucking paragraph. You really can’t go more than a few sentences through this thing without finding something that makes you want to pound your skull into the nearest hard surface.
You people are so going to owe me for this.
“In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman. “
I’m not exactly sure what kind of loving and mutually respectful relationship you could have with a woman who assumes that all men are naturally inclined to rape. Somehow I don’t think “I love and respect you honey, now when you go out to work today please remember not to grab random women and bend them over in the alleyway” forms the basis for a good relationship.
“So far, so good. Miss LonelyHearts, your humble instructor, approves. “
Gee thanks, I live for your approval. You heard it here guys, the woman who thinks that you’re all rapists approves.
I also rather enjoy how she has the absolute audacity to refer to herself as humble.
One other thing that you’ll likely start to think as we go through this that the tone of the essay is overall slightly condescending and a little passive aggressive.
And you would be wrong, it is actually astoundingly condescending and overhwelmingly passive-aggressive.
“Now, you want to become acquainted with a woman you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. “
I would like to know exactly how she knows this. She claims (humbly of course) to know the minds and experiences of all men. Again this is who she claims to be addressing. She also claims (once again with humility) to know the experiences and concerns of all women. I truly and sincerely would like to know what she bases her claims on, because the only real evidence we ever have for what she claims are on the minds of all women is her own anecdotal evidence. Which is far from a non-biased source.
And what about the challenges and concerns of men? Where exactly do those fit in here? It seems to me that if your ideology claims to want to create an equal society it should not only concern itself with the problems of one group.
“To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted. “
Neither would anyone I would imagine, but what’s your point. We weren’t talking about those things, we were talking specifically about rape. Or is this meant to imply that those things as well are other things that males are always capable of doing to females? Back upwards in her “Don’t rape” section she listed several other crimes, such as assault, that she didn’t want “good” men to do as well. So this seems to carry the implication that she also thinks that assault and similiar things are exclusively male as well. Is this true or not? Well let’s move on and find out.
“But wait! I don’t want that, either!
Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? “
No. It isn’t. However not because I happen to have been born with a penis and an XY chromosome. It’s because I am not a paranoid nutcase. Normal, functioning human beings do not live their lives like that. Especially people who live in a modern, western. first world nation.
“Because, for women, it is. “
Your citation for this claim is?
The reason that I don’t buy this claim, aside from the obvious stupdity and lack of actual evidence, is that I actually give women a degree of credit.Listen, Miss LonelyHearts, or whatever you want to call yourself that sounds equally as retarded. You are not talking about women. Until you actually produce real evidence you are talking about yourself, and maybe the group of mindless vagina-gazing sheep that follow your lunatic ideology.
That you claim it, does not make it remotely true.
“When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these? “
Again, no. Because I am not mentally ill, not because I am a man. I can’t stress this enough, that what you are describing is not the behaviour of a mentally healthy person. Not a healthy man, or a healthy woman, but a healthy person. This is not a matter of gender, you are mentally ill.The problem is that you are attempting to project this warped mental state onto other women and holding up your insanity as the norm for your gender.
Up above she asked this:”Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? “
Let me try to put this into perspective for you, all right. You are a white woman living in America in a reasonably good neighbourhood. You are literally the one demographic of human being on this planet that is the least likely to have anything happen to you. You can pretend all you want that you are in constant potential danger from every man you meet but it is statistically utter fucking bullshit. Worse yet, it’s completely offensive to people who actually do live in places where there lives really are full of danger and threats. Go tell a gay man in Uganda about how terrible and dangerous your miserable existence is.
The only reason it is part of your daily routine is because you are mentally ill. I am far more likely to experience violence than you are and I don’t act even remotely in this manner. The same can be said, we seem to agree, of most men. So here’s my question, and it will come up again; if the ones who are the most likely to experience all of those violent things are able to live perfectly normal lives in society and the ones who are least likely to experience them live lives of constant fear…….what does that say about the second group?
We’ll get to that later as well.