THE NEW STATESMAN PUBLISHES HATE SPEECH AGAINST MEN

Recently the New Statesman recruited extreme feminist Labour supporter Laurie Penny to write a blog on their website.

In her latest piece Penny writes of how her demeanour often means men sometimes suggest to her that she might perhaps smile. Now of course any reasonable person knows smiling to be a positive thing which has health benefits for the wearer and for those around them, something that should clearly be encouraged. However, Penny takes great exception to such a recommendation and somehow links it to "men's indisputable right to pass public judgement on absolutely any woman’s appearance and demeanour". She seems willing for one man to make such a suggestion as long as it is early in the day, but be warned if you make such a comment in the evening because as Penny states "that sort of thing makes even the gentlest soul long to execute the scumbags with a great big gun." Yes - that's right - if you are a man who suggests a woman should smile then your are deserving of execution for committing such a heinous act.

This brings us on the the main content of the article which a a violent feminist computer game, allowing the man-haters such as  Penny to fulfil their sick fantasies and execute men who they deem to be sexist in some way. Penny quotes Ellie Levenson author of The Noughtie Girl’s Guide to Feminism, who states "it’s definitely not feminist to fantasise about shooting men, although I can imagine it might be quite satisfying sometimes" Just imagine if the comments of these two women were about how satisfying it is to fanatise about killing black people, or Jews or gays or how they are scumbags in need of executing? The authors would be out of a job instantly and be facing an investigation by the authorities at the very least. The comments are a million times worse than anytihng written by  Jan Moir, yet her article provoked an outcry the likes of which we've not seen in years. Admittedly the New Statesman have done the decent thing and removed the hate speech but we really need to see a full apology and some wider condemnation.

Penny's sexist doesn't stop there either. She goes on to further apologise for the game by asking a series of questions, such as "What if we wanted to take bloody revenge on our oppressors?", "What if we wanted to create fear and havoc?" and "What if we wanted to rule the world?" It really is very troubling stuff.
I discovered this story though Iain Dale's quite excellent blog, though some of the concern there appears to be in the timing of the article as much as the content itself. To be honest I find such an argument quite offensive and timing merely compounds the issue rather than being of much significance. The fact is that the piece is sexist hate speech against men encouraging genocide against them. It isn't suitable for publication just after a gun massacre, but neither is it suitable for publication at any other time either.

It really disturbs me that that it's still socially acceptable in some circles to discuss the genocide of men as something that might be appropriate or at best some sort of slightly regrettable "final solution". Harriet Harman spoke about men fleeing the country if she got into power and Penny's piece comes from the very same mindset (albeit one far, far more extreme than even Harman).

Ironically, Penny's previous article consisted of a rant about violence against women where she condemns filmmakers as apologists for "thoughtless sexualised violence". She mentions Danny Dyer's "joke" of advising a reader to cut his girlfriends face and quotes Laurie Olivia who complains about how the media dehumanises female victims of violence. Now I'm sure some of these points are valid, but Penny's antics are immeasurably worse. She's excusing thoughtless violence, dehumanising men and urging far more extreme actions than Dyer all in a couple of sentences, and she's done so just several days after complaining about how violence against women is encouraged by the media. It's a classic case feminist double standards at their very finest.

Unsurprisingly, Penny's sexism has also gained her employment at the Guardian in addition to her role at New Statesman. I'd urge readers to write to these publications airing your concerns about this hate speech by their employee. Obviously it's the New Statesman who bear the most responsibility here and lets hope they do the decent thing an write full apology explaining why such an article is so sickening and harmful to the 40% of domestic violence victims who these publications continue to belittle and ignore (and worse).

by John Kimble

Comments

[Pete_]

Mysandrism dressed in feminists clothing yet again.

More and more these days I read of womens rights where the equivalent male issues are down played. I recently took issue with a feminist who claimed any man who compared circumcision with Female Genital Mutilation, and was accused of be misogynistic and bigoted. All I did was point out that she was fixated on the effect, which I agreed was a lot worse, whilst overlooking the cause, and down playing the pain of the procedure in men. Even pointing out that once the cause of FGM has been eliminated the effect is null and void, but she somehow managed to pass MGM as acceptable as it didn't have a long term effect.

In the early days of feminism, and I'm talking Emiline Pankhurst here, it was all worthwhile, but it has gone beyond equal rights and strayed into misandry, which even Germain Greer acknowledges.

Recently on Ewetoob there have been a number of young ladies who have pointed out the crossing of boundaries by some feminists, and they've been admonished by the feminazi for this. Feminism isn't about egalitarianism any longer, it's about egotism, but fear not, there is a new generation of feminists who are shocked by the feminazi.

[amfortas]

I agree that this misandric hatred is unconscionable. But before we simply look at the one sided arguements we need to see that there is another side acting in a hateful manner too.

There are computer 'games' popular amongst young people, predominantly boys and adolescent men, where women are targeted for gunning down, running over with cars, slashed and stabbed etc.

I can quite happily call this woman Laurie Penny an expresser of female hatred. But I do that content that I am fair and even handed and condemn the misogynistic Industry that has grown up. MRAs MUST condemn those games. MRAs MUST severely criticise the mindset amongst some men that hate women with such vivid and awful expression.

We must cast the beams from our own eyes as well as pick the motes out of others'.

[Pierce Harlan]

amfortas -- yes, violence against women is depicted in certain games. But no mainstream newspaper employs a columnist who justifies, defends, and luxuriates in it.

Misandry and misogyny are both too common. The difference between them is that the former is politically correct and socially acceptable while the latter is universally condemned among all enlightened people.

[Groan]

One feature of many games is the number of female characters killing males. I think the messages in them are very
mixed but in general support the view that man are the disposable sex. Frankly few of these games should see the light of day. Simarly Penny should be criticised for misandry. Perhaps it's a good thing when gener feminists come clean about their hatred.

[amfortas]

I agree with you Pierce. The New Statesman was once a magazine with some merit. It has capitualated to dark forces however. Mainstream periodicals and Dailies are all too willing to publish anti-male diatribes from hacks in skirts and at the same time broker no criticism of women in even far lighter vein.

By the way, Sir - congratulations on the phenomenal work that you are doing. You are a Triewe Knight.

[Fraser]

From the New Statesmen article:

"‘Hey, Baby’, however, is neither an incitement to real-world crime nor a manifesto for lasting social change."

"All human beings have ugly thoughts, and the disjunction between everyday transgressive fantasy and the type of violent premeditated hate that obtains a real weapon and goes on a real murder spree is enormous."

From your article:

"The fact is that the piece is sexist hate speech against men encouraging genocide against them."

Do you see a problem here?

The big difference between what Laurie Penny wrote and what Jan Moir wrote is that Penny talked about about things you might do *in a video game*, and Moir talked about a real person's real life.

Speaking of which...

@amfortas
"There are computer 'games' popular amongst young people, predominantly boys and adolescent men, where women are targeted for gunning down, running over with cars, slashed and stabbed etc."

No, there aren't. There are a small number of games - most famously Grand Theft Auto - that allow the player to kill peaceful pedestrians on the street if they feel like it, but none of these games reward the player for doing so, and none of them target women. It is possible to kill a prostitute in Grand Theft Auto, because it's possible to kill ANYONE in Grand Theft Auto. You get no special reward or points for doing so.

@Pierce Harlan:
"One feature of many games is the number of female characters killing males."

No, it isn't. The overwhelming majority of characters in violent games are men - both the computer-controlled enemies and the player avatars. Tomb Raider's Lara Croft is famous because she's unusual as a female game avatar.

This certainly shows that most games treat men as disposable and treat women as a protected species. Contrary to what John Kimble says, though, feminists don't like this inequality:
http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=1816

[ukenagashi]

I see you condemning this game for being an escapist fantasy for women sick of being harassed on the street. And it is escapism! How many women actually go on rampant shooting sprees against men who offend them in the real world? Not many! How many men go on rampant shooting sprees against women in the real world? Oops - rather more, it would seem! And you know what? That's the difference. That's why one is more acceptable than the other. Although, is it? A hell of a lot of men have raised their voices about this game. I wonder if they ever played GTA.

I see a comment even condemning games that glorify violence against women - and great! Thank you! No one seems to pay attention when women complain about that sort of thing, because it's "just fantasy", and "escapism", and, well, basically the same as the Hey Baby game?

What I don't see is you condemning the casual street harassment that led to this statement-making game being made and enjoyed by women all over the place. You express contempt that asking a strange woman (whose dog may have died, who may have just found out she has cancer, whose default facial expression might just not look like a smile regardless of her innermost feelings) to smile is suddenly a crime. I was hoping to see a concession that although it isn't a crime (no one reports street harassment because they'd be laughed out of the police station), women obviously hate it, so how about just not doing it?

[John Kimble]

Sorry but I'm not going to condemn anyone suggesting someone else might smile when the proposed solution to the "problem" is execution.

The article is misandric hate speech. It only condemns comments made by men and judges them as scumbag who need to be shot - if a woman tells you to smile then that must be ok.

If you read the article I haven't really condemned the game, only the gender feminists who are promoting and supporting it.

They key aspect of the article is the hypocrisy of Penny. Her previous article constantly whined about cinema showing and normalising violence against women, yet her comments in the article are actively encouraging violence against men as a group. Yes there are elements of fantasy and other aspects are more proposals than a call to direct action but so what? Could you print an article "fantasising" about killing all the Jews, causing them "fear and havoc", pretending they were all our oppressors who we needed to take bloody revenge against so we could rule the world?

Also please note my article is based on Penny's original piece before it was taken down, rather than the new toned down version which is slightly less hateful.

[ukenagashi]

I'm not saying anyone has to be condemned for butting in unasked on a woman's life, knowing that she can't tell you to bugger off for fear that such situations turn ugly very quickly - I'm saying stop doing things that piss us all off.

Yeah, the game is violent, and many people - including Penny - have pointed out that this is problematic. No one has ever said "Let's shoot all men", so I don't know where you got that from.

Also? It wasn't made for men. It was an expression of frustration made by a woman for other women to share in the childish catharsis. Childish catharsis is the main draw of videogames, by the way, for men or women.

But let's leave all that. I have a single question for you. Knowing all that you know now, the next time you see a woman in the street, will you ask her to smile?

[John Kimble]

THe point about "shooting all men" is that the article not only spreads the myth that men are some sort of evil species, it also pretend it is normal to want to execute these "scumbags" whenever a woman wishes to do so. It's not just Penny's content that spread such hatred - there are even quotes form other supporting her position.

Penny complains about the impact of cinema in terms of supposedly encouraging violence against women yet she's guilty of far, far worse in her piece than any film I've seen.

"Knowing all that you know now, the next time you see a woman in the street, will you ask her to smile?"

Well I wouldn't really have bothered telling anyone to smile previously, but given that something so reasonable and positive appears to annoy hateful gender feminists so very severely I think I'll have to make a start.

[ukenagashi]

Well okay, you've proven beyond all doubt that you find reading and comprehension very difficult, so I'm not going to bother engaging you on that.

So, er, you're telling me that knowing how it annoys women (not just "gender feminists", whatever you've decided that is) pretty much universally, and actually contributes to a threatening and hostile atmosphere for women (not just "gender feminists"), you're going to *start doing it*?

Wow. I think I'm done here.

[Snark]

Hahahhaa.

Telling someone to brighten up now "contributes to a threatening and hostile atmosphere for women."

You really are miserable, aren't you? Poor poor dears feeling so attacked for someone giving you friendly advice. Why, it's on a par with rape! Perhaps it even IS a form of rape!

Hey, ukenagashi? I know you're pissed right now - women like you always are.

So I'm gonna give you a free piece of advice.

Smile! :-)

[John Kimble]

Excellent post Snark - I should add that If I start telling people to smile I won't be reserving such health improvements for women only. The gender life expectancy gap is wide enough as it is without me making things worse.

[ukenagashi]

You know what? I don't believe that even the people who read this site unironically honestly think that just because you think something's friendly it should be received as such even when the receiver tells you it pisses them off. This is Human Interaction 101.

But I did think it would take some effort to make you look like the petty, spiteful little contrarians that you are. Apparently you don't need my help!

Well, my work here is done!

Also, please do start telling random men on the street to smile! Tell me what happens when you do!

[John Kimble]

"just because you think something's friendly it should be received as such even when the receiver tells you it pisses them off."

Ummmm but if you've never met someone before how can you possibly tell if something so innocuous pisses them off? Any normal person will appreciate such advice or simply not be bothered either way. Only a totally deranged feminist nutcase is going to get really angry about it.

Is the same as holding open doors for other people - 99.9% will really appreciate it whereas it's only the likes of Harriet Harman who will give you grief for doing so and deem it to be sexist. I'm certainly not going to change my behaviour simply to suit the demands of that 0.1% of the population.

[pjanus]

@ ukengashi,

"Well, my work here is done!"

What work?

[amac]

I wish not to support Miss Penny or your review of her piece but to address what this discussion is entirely missing: I think in all of this debate there is an element of confusion about what constitutes feminism.

A game which depicts women shooting down men - escapism or not - is not a 'feminist computer game'. Similarly the term 'extreme feminist' is entirely misleading.

Feminism is simply about encouraging equality between both sexes - something which (guessing from the title and apparent purpose of your blog)I would imagine you are for. Weighting women's rights as greater than men's is as abhorrent just as the other way around. Women who advocate the subversion of male rights thus are not feminists - the term 'extreme feminist' then means I suppose a person who suppports equality in an 'extreme' manner.

However, the tone of your article seems as steeped in vitriol and confusion as you find Miss Penny's. Such an attitude is only another bar to mutual respect and equality between the sexes. You deride feminism, but on a true reading, if you are committed to equal rights, rather than only male rights (the above repeated equality and mutual respect) then you should also be definitionally feminist.

A rhetoric of hate against 'man-haters' who you describe as feminists is misleading and unhelpful to any debate.

[Syme]

Read the net amac. Many feminist blogs openly attack men or belittle mens problems usually masking it under some often percieved agenda driven attack against women. Equality often seems to be pretty far down the totem pole.

Please keep white knighting though.

[Nihilum]

Violence in the media against women, disgusting and terrible!

Violence in media against men, catharsis and recommended.

Laurie penny is just one of the many so called femists who peddle hate against men, justifying somehow as attempted equality.

[pjanus]

@amac

"the term 'extreme feminist' then means I suppose a person who suppports equality in an 'extreme' manner."

No no no no.........

This is what extreme feminist supports:-

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at
approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The
Future - If There Is One - Is Female.

What?

This is not true feminism? or, maybe not your brand of feminism?

Too bad, these are the feminist who teach in academia, these are the feminist who publish books and are widely read in academia. These are the women who walk the corridors of power and who governments consult when drafting laws. These are the NGO's at the UN and pseudo charities who spread their vile ideology to third world countries.

[John Kimble]

Amac is right that the dictionary definition of feminists is indeed someone who is concerned with equality and the movement once stood for this. However so many feminists long ago did away with any concern for men whatsoever and it could be argued that much of feminism is now a hate movement.

I do actually tend to distinguish between gender feminists and equity feminists in what I write as you can see from my comments. There's more info on such definitions here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism

Surely these days it's inappropriate to use the term "feminist" in an unqualified manner either way given the vast chasm between those using the label who are actually concerned with equality and those who are doing their utmost to prevent it?

Your main concern should be likes of Penny for pretending to be concerned with equality when instead they are just full of hate. I really don't' see any such hate in my article. I've simply stated the facts and I stand by every single word.

Oh and please don't suggest we're feminists here - even if you ignore how such a word has been hijacked the fact still remains that the term itself is fundamentally biased towards women thus putting them ahead of men - exactly the sort of thing we're against.

[croi]

You wouldn't approach another man, someone you didn't know, and tell him 'it's not the end of the world love, give us a smile'. You wouldn't do it because it's annoying, intrusive and patronising. That's the point Penny is making.

[pjanus]

"You wouldn't approach another man, someone you didn't know, and tell him 'it's not the end of the world love, give us a smile'. You wouldn't do it because it's annoying, intrusive and patronising. That's the point Penny is making."

True, but, a woman would and often does so. I've had a woman say it to me. Was I annoyed. Did I feel intruded upon or patronised. No.

However, I confess I am baffled why any man would take it upon himself to cheer up some sour-pussed woman. Far be it for me to offend the ultra sensitivity of feminsts. I suspect that what really annoys them is that, despite everything, men are still happy.

This year it is an attack on men for the gall to spread a little cheer - oh and, in other news, we are under attack for not being chivalrous by giving up our seats and opening doors for women. Now, who would have thunk!

I simply cannot wait for what's next. The suspense is killing me.

[Peter Radiator Full Pig]

While i agree that the game is sexist, and quite a bit of your article is well written, the first paragraph is an infuriating read.

People on the street telling a person to smile, be they male or female, are telling a person what to feel.

They arent suggesting it.
They arent saying, "It has health benifits"

They are dictating their emotional state.
I mean, do you really expect people to walk down the street, smiling, even when they dont feel like it, to get these "health benifits".
Please.

Anyone telling anyone else how to feel is horrible. Dont try to dress it up.

[Snark]

On the idea that only the 'extreme' feminists are into killing men, please see this link ...

http://remasculation.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-long-can-they-pin-it-on-fringe.html

It's funny how the supposed 'extreme', 'fringe radicals' seem to comprise the main part of the movement: they are the actually powerful, organised feminists capable of affecting change, embedded within government, media, academia, the legal system ... 'fringe radicals'? I think not. Feminism = misandry.

[Snark]

"People on the street telling a person to smile, be they male or female, are telling a person what to feel.

They arent suggesting it.
They arent saying, "It has health benifits"

They are dictating their emotional state."

I think this is stupid.

Of course it's a suggestion. Nobody is DICTATING that one must smile. No one is going around, threatening punitive sanctions against those who refuse to smile.

Just because it is worded in a way that seems like it is 'telling' you to smile, it is still a suggestion - rather obviously.

I know feminists love to contort themselves around an issue in order to, in some way, feel offended ... but this is just ridiculous. If you can't handle being told to smile then maybe you should just shut yourself up in your room and never come out. Clearly, society is too difficult for you to handle.

[Grunt]

Comment deleted - no personal attacks please.

[Snark]

"So why do you think that a lone woman, when confronted with this (worse actually, considering the sexual motivators behind these comments)"

Why do you think there must have been sexual motivators behind such a comment?

Can a man not speak to a woman without there being a sexual motivator behind it?

Wow. What a hateful misandrist you've shown yourself to be. I can't even say 'hello' to a woman now without it being interpreted as sexually motivated.

"It is in the same logical ball-park as suggesting that rape is doing a woman good due to the positive health benefits of sexual activity!"

HAHAHAHA! I KNEW IT! Telling a woman to smile, just as bad as rape - straight from the feminist's mouth. EVERYTHING is rape to you people. Even common courtesy.

"but have completely failed to open their minds to the feminist point of view"

The feminist point of view is victimist crap which blames men for everything and mocks their suffering. Excuse me for not 'opening my mind' to it.

And by the way, girly ... smile. :-)

You sound awfully pissed off.

(Uh oh, was that sexually motivated? Pretty much everything from a man is, after all! They're such brutes!)

[Snark]

"I bet if any of you were out for a walk, lost in thought, and some leering twat in a group of twats shouted "Cheer up, mate! A smile won't kill you!" your first response would NOT be to smile sweetly for their benefit!"

Well, firstly, I wouldn't pre-judge a group of strangers as 'twats' - that's an extraordinarily negative thing to do, so sincerely, I suggest you try smiling. It DOES have positive health benefits.

If a stranger suggested that I smile, I'd probably laugh it off and tell him thanks. And maybe reflect on why I was walking around looking so angry or frustrated.

But this hasn't happened to me, because I don't walk around looking angry or frustrated. In short, I'm not a feminist.

So please ... smile. And these kind of problems will never even arise. :-)

[pjanus]

@ Peter Radiator Full Pig,

"While i agree that the game is sexist,"

Sexist! Are you for real. We are talking about an article filled with hate speech, which if directed at any other part of the population, would have got Penny in trouble with the law.

"Anyone telling anyone else how to feel is horrible. Dont try to dress it up."

Now, tell me again, who is dressing what up?
Err, that's right you are dressing up the article as just a little bit of sexism.

Meanwhile, in other news, it is estimated that, in the underdeveloped world, 1.2 billion people are suffering hunger.

Now that's what I call horrible.

[Grunt]

"Can a man not speak to a woman without there being a sexual motivator behind it?"

Yes he can. Of course he can, but the point the game Laurie is talking about is trying to make is about specific incidents of being told to smile, and other generally creepy comments that happen to mostly attractive women in predominantly urban settings. Context is everything, as you've also completely ignored in favour of a snark attack.

"HAHAHAHA! I KNEW IT! Telling a woman to smile, just as bad as rape - straight from the feminist's mouth. EVERYTHING is rape to you people. Even common courtesy."

Reading comprehension fail: read the paragraph again, or get an adult to do so for you. In terms of logic, the 'health benefits of rape' example I used above, exaggerated for effect, is simply a more extreme form of the ridiculous 'smiling is healthy, so being told to do so by strange men on the street must also be good for you' example used by the author of this article. If you still think accosting some lone woman with your opinions of what would make her more attractive is common courtesy then I STRONGLY suggest you look up what common courtesy actually is.

"The feminist point of view is victimist crap which blames men for everything and mocks their suffering. Excuse me for not 'opening my mind' to it."

No, I won't excuse it. If that's all you think Feminism is, then you haven't read very widely, or are reading the wrong places, possibly containing articles like the idiotic one presented here.

And by the way, fella...I'm a fella too. Thanks fo falling neatly into that trap - I knew if I left out my gender you'd assume I was female. See? Am smiling now, now that I've proved how predictable you are. :)

And I am pissed off...by reading rubbish like this article and comments in the vein of yours supposedly sticking up for the rights of my gender but only actually making things much worse. On behalf of all decent, clear-thinking men everywhere - we don't need your brand of 'help': knock it off!

[Zetamale]

i never thought id see someone worse than harriet harman (since valerie solanas)

[Snark]

"Of course he can, but the point the game Laurie is talking about is trying to make is about specific incidents of being told to smile, and other generally creepy comments that happen to mostly attractive women in predominantly urban settings."

Oh no, not urban settings. You know, 'urban' is synonymous with 'black neighbourhood' in many places ... right?

So you're not only sexist, you're racist too. How do you feel about black men being lynched in the Southern states in the early 20th century? Did you know that most of them were falsely accused of rape?

But men are such brutes, aren't they? So prone to raping and harming teh porr porr porr wimmin! Keep playing into that stereotype, friend ... keep talking like men are uncontrollable animals with sexual urges behind everything they do. We'll see where that gets you.

"In terms of logic, the 'health benefits of rape' example I used above, exaggerated for effect, is simply a more extreme form of the ridiculous 'smiling is healthy, so being told to do so by strange men on the street must also be good for you' example used by the author of this article."

Yes, because telling someone to smile is so easily comparable to raping them. It's like a sliding scale! Telling a woman to smile - no, no - DICTATING that she must smile, is surely only a few notches away from sexual assault on the RAPE CONTINUUM. Because, as we've already established, there are sexual motivators behind EVERYTHING men do! All men are rapists and that's all they are - right?

"No, I won't excuse it. If that's all you think Feminism is, then you haven't read very widely, or are reading the wrong places, possibly containing articles like the idiotic one presented here."

Then tell me - WHERE SHOULD I LOOK?

Perhaps I should look to the powerful, organised feminist advocacy groups - those most capable of affecting change? Those feminists in government, in the media, in academia, in the legal system ... ? Are they 'true feminists', rather than 'extreme fringe radicals'?

Let's take a look at what they've been up to, shall we?

http://remasculation.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-long-can-they-pin-it-on-fringe.html

Hmm ... looks pretty hateful to me!

You know, I don't think it makes sense to claim that those driving the movement are the 'extreme/fringe radicals', while powerless pissants like yourself are the 'TRUE feminists'!

But I'd love to hear your argument to the contrary.

"And by the way, fella...I'm a fella too. Thanks fo falling neatly into that trap - I knew if I left out my gender you'd assume I was female. See? Am smiling now, now that I've proved how predictable you are. :) "

What have you got to smile about? So you type like a chick, with all the sassiness and references to 'fail' one expects from an undergraduate feminist. What next? Are you going to call me a 'douche'? How's that for predictability?

"On behalf of all decent, clear-thinking men everywhere - we don't need your brand of 'help': knock it off!"

Your civil rights are being threatened all the time, and you would rather lose them all just to get a whiff of pussy.

Or perhaps you really would like to pay a 'man tax'? Perhaps you think Valerie Solanas was an upstanding citizen? Refer to the link I provided ...

[Snark]

So many times, I have heard/seen a self-identified feminists say he/she doesn't hate men at all, that's not what feminism's about, it's about equality, and anyone who hates men is not a feminist.

Sound familiar, Grunt? Yeah - that's you.

And it only takes a very short time before I hear ...

- violence against men is 'just not as bad' as violence against women ...

- only women should have reproductive rights ...

- men must give up the power they have earned as individuals ...

- women are more deserving of protection ...

- those falsely accused of rape don't matter ...

- ladies first in emergency situations ...

- the man should pay for dinner, it's "just romantic" that way ...

et cetera.

Every single time, I have heard something along these lines sooner or later.

So EXCUSE ME for not believing you when I hear, once again, that "feminists aren't like that!"

Especially considering what actually powerful feminists have been DOING for the last 50 years.

Nothing but misandry.

[Snark]

Comment deleted - no personal attacks please.

[Linus Harling]

@John Kimble:

How can you equate holding open a door to invading someone's personal space by starting talking to them uninvited?

You do know that most human beings have quite strict rules as to when it is ok to approach others? That to initiate a conversation most people need a "excuse"? Perhaps an event that affects both and is followed by prolonged eye contact or an open statement from one part. An open statement is a statement that does not need to be answered or taken into account if the surrounding parties do not feel like it. It is an /invitation/ to strike up a conversation, not a request to be met.

Telling, yes telling, someone to "brighten up" or smile is far beyond what I would call civil, it is far beyond your or anybody else's place to tell me how I should meet un-wanted attention or conversation. It is a request for me to alter my behavior as it does not please the person making the request. IT IS NOT OK. And I do not care if the intent is well meant (that argument is bulls**t, and you know it).

You do not have the right to ask me to change my demeanor towards you. I decide if I like you or not, and I will smile and be friendly if I do.

If you still think you have that right you are very much part of the problem, not the solution.

[Snark]

"You do not have the right to ask me to change my demeanor towards you. I decide if I like you or not, and I will smile and be friendly if I do.

If you still think you have that right you are very much part of the problem, not the solution."

I think you need to learn what a RIGHT is.

Yes, I have the right to TELL you to change your demeanour.

I don't have the right to CONTROL you in that regard - you don't have to listen to me.

But yes, I have the RIGHT to say whatever I damn well please to you.

If you honestly think people shouldn't have the right to say what they like ... then you are an enemy of freedom. That's all I can say about you. You think speech should be forbidden and regulated so as to not hurt anyone's feelings ... pathetic.

OR, perhaps, you are confusing the idea of a RIGHT with what is THE RIGHT THING TO DO (or not).

E.g. what you might mean, is it is not right for you to tell me to smile.

But regardless of your feelings, we do in fact have the right to tell you to .. smile. :-)

[Snark]

"How can you equate holding open a door to invading someone's personal space by starting talking to them uninvited?"

Why don't you ask the feminists? In the 1980s, a lot of men got kicked in the shins for having the gall to politely hold a door open for a woman.

So YOU tell ME, what was up with that?

[Snark]

"You do know that most human beings have quite strict rules as to when it is ok to approach others?"

OH MY GAWD we must obey THE RULES that Linus Harling has written out arbitrarily for us.

Nope. I'll talk to whoever I want and say whatever I want. They don't have to have decided to like me first. LOL! What a crazy world you live in.

"It is a request for me to alter my behavior as it does not please the person making the request. IT IS NOT OK."

Ah I see. So it doesn't matter what you do, if you're not pleasing other people with your behaviour, they just have to accept it, right? Like, you could go steal a car and start mowing people down, and that wouldn't please me, but I shouldn't request that you stop, right? Because that WOULD NOT BE OK.

Seriously, honey ... smile. :-)

You'll feel a lot better.

[Grunt]

"Oh no, not urban settings. You know, 'urban' is synonymous with 'black neighbourhood' in many places ... right?

So you're not only sexist, you're racist too"

WTF are you smoking? Now I'm a racist? That's insane logic, the kind that insane people use.

"keep talking like men are uncontrollable animals with sexual urges behind everything they do"

Er, I didn't?

"Telling a woman to smile - no, no - DICTATING that she must smile, is surely only a few notches away from sexual assault on the RAPE CONTINUUM"

God, how can you miss a point even when I write it out clearly for you in crayon? People simply can't be that stupid, surely to god - you must be doing this deliberately to try and wind me up.

"Perhaps I should look to the powerful, organised feminist advocacy groups - those most capable of affecting change? Those feminists in government, in the media, in academia, in the legal system ... ? Are they 'true feminists', rather than 'extreme fringe radicals'?"

Yeah, seriously, whatever you are smoking that is creating this level of paranoia - STOP. NOW. I've seen this all over the internet, the fear of the many demons seeking to "ruin our way of life". It usually has no bearing on real life.

"What have you got to smile about? So you type like a chick, with all the sassiness and references to 'fail' one expects from an undergraduate feminist"

No, "Fail" is a common piece of internet terminology. And how am I typing like a chick? By not being a macho dumbass with only one functioning brain cell? Fair enough, then.

"Your civil rights are being threatened all the time"

They are, but not by feminists. It's usually my government doing that. Not hairy-boobed man haters. That actually made me laugh, mate. OoOoOoOooo - feminists are coming to get me!

"and you would rather lose them all just to get a whiff of pussy"

Oh, and I get my pussy just fine without giving anything anyway that I shouldn't be. I'd suggest you get laid soon, though. You seem a mite highly strung.

As for the rest of it, you're just making shit up now, I swear: "Sound familiar, Grunt? Yeah - that's you." *sigh* Putting words in my mouth makes it hard to take anything you say seriously - you seem full of bile and bitterness that is looking for any old excuse to vent and will happily make stuff up or invent it to do so (I'm racist???) I did visit your link and found - oooh - three examples of feminists who, by all proper accounts, sound like complete dicks too. But then, I was on a feminist site a fortnight ago lambasting them for the shitty, badly-researched, reactionary article they'd produced about a forthcoming PC game; there are idiots in both camps and I'll happily tackle either when I think they deserve it. I'd happily slap that Valerie person and everyone who supported her.

Lastly, when I referred to your 'snark' attack I had no idea you were actually CALLED snark. That explains a lot.

[Snark]

"They are, but not by feminists. It's usually my government doing that."

Potat-oe, potat-oh.

You did view the link, right?

These people - who you admit you would like to slap (and I commend you for) - are IN the government! Or they are influencing it!

How could you not grasp this? lol!

Yes, the government is the vehicle THROUGH WHICH they are depriving men of their civil rights.

Fair point on only three examples - I could go on and on and on with examples, but I thought the article was pretty long as it was.

Perhaps I shall add more - thanks for the input!

And I wonder what the tipping point will be, when you realise that this is institutional, and that the feminists I cited are part of the system, not fringe radicals ... that this state of affairs is the norm ... how many examples would I have to point to, before you grasp this?

"As for the rest of it, you're just making shit up now, I swear: "Sound familiar, Grunt? Yeah - that's you." *sigh* Putting words in my mouth"

Isn't that what you came here arguing? lol. That's what I was getting at with 'sound familiar?'

"I did visit your link and found - oooh - three examples of feminists who, by all proper accounts, sound like complete dicks too."

Yes! Thankyou! Perhaps you are not completely brainwashed - there is hope for you yet.

You have the decency to admit what you see. Most feminists do not; they would contort themselves around in some defence of those examples. Not even kidding.

"I'd happily slap that Valerie person and everyone who supported her."

Which is the feminist movement - at least the powerful, institutionally embedded part. Am I getting through to you yet??

(Btw - had you not heard of Valerie Solanas before? I get this impression from the phrase 'that Valerie person'. I suggest you do a little reading around - she was a very popular, very famous feminist.)

"Lastly, when I referred to your 'snark' attack I had no idea you were actually CALLED snark. That explains a lot."

Actually, that ... causes confusion. But never mind.

[Grunt]

"Or they are influencing it! How could you not grasp this? lol!"

Because there's nothing to grasp? I know exactly why my Govt have hacked away our civil liberties and neither feminism nor feminists have had anything to do with it. LOLOL.

"And I wonder what the tipping point will be, when you realise that this is institutional, and that the feminists I cited are part of the system, not fringe radicals ... that this state of affairs is the norm ... how many examples would I have to point to, before you grasp this?"

Tipping point? Oh, you're one of THOSE. Who assumes he's the Sane Man in a world of nutters, freaks and brainwashed sheep. Must get lonely at times? But I'm afraid to say that volume of information isn't the way to get most people on side: the other side of the argument will have as much information to counter, if not more. Try rational debate. REASONED arguments. Not calling people racist based on North American slang versions of words they use perfectly innocently.

"Am I getting through to you yet??"

No. I told you, I stopped taking you seriously when you started putting words in my mouth. Don't pidgeon-hole people before you've heard everything they have to say - it shows you have no respect for the person underneath the label...which, considering your attitude towards feminists, might be why we're having this conversation inthe first place.

No, I hadn't heard of Valerie before. Interesting case, though.

[John Kimble]

A warm welcome to all our new readers, it's good to see a healthy debate on the issues

Unlike many feminist sites we don't censor comments here, though any posts containing personal attacks against other visitors will be removed so please keep things civil.

Many thanks.

[Snark]

"Because there's nothing to grasp? I know exactly why my Govt have hacked away our civil liberties and neither feminism nor feminists have had anything to do with it. LOLOL."

You don't see it yet, but it most certainly is there.

"Tipping point? Oh, you're one of THOSE. Who assumes he's the Sane Man in a world of nutters, freaks and brainwashed sheep. Must get lonely at times?"

Eh ... lame attack. There are plenty who agree with me.

"Not calling people racist based on North American slang versions of words they use perfectly innocently."

Just as innocently as telling someone to smile?

"No, I hadn't heard of Valerie before. Interesting case, though."

Okay, right. It strikes me that you might only know the sanitized, candy-coated version of what feminism is. In which case, you're not a misandrist, but you may be misguided.

Some more names you might want to look into: Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon. Again, very powerful feminists, who have influenced legislation, and have enacted change which has removed men's civil rights.

Since you were happy to admit to misandry when you saw it (the examples I gave) here is a link to someone else's blog. The post is a list of quotes, many of which have come from other feminists who are / have been powerful in enacting change.

http://equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com/2009/09/feminism-and-sex.html

[Linus Harling]

"OH MY GAWD we must obey THE RULES that Linus Harling has written out arbitrarily for us"

No, darling, but most people do. And they do it out of something called "respect", that is, respecting someone's right to privacy.

"Ah I see. So it doesn't matter what you do, if you're not pleasing other people with your behaviour, they just have to accept it, right? Like, you could go steal a car and start mowing people down, and that wouldn't please me, but I shouldn't request that you stop, right? Because that WOULD NOT BE OK."

Potatoes and cucumbers. Apples and pears. We are talking about (civil) conversation here. Not application of lethal force. We are talking about how to meet people and not force ourselves upon them. And your response is: "Nope. I'll talk to whoever I want and say whatever I want. They don't have to have decided to like me first. LOL! What a crazy world you live in."

You also say: "I will talk to any woman I damn well please, in whatever setting I like, and I will say to them whatever I choose."

And if they don't like what you tell them, how come you feel you are entitled to further tell them to "smile"? Would you talk to any human the same way or are women the sole beneficiaries of your open-heartedness?

"OR, perhaps, you are confusing the idea of a RIGHT with what is THE RIGHT THING TO DO (or not)."

Yes and no. I would contend that you have no right telling me to smile if I don't know you. Just as I would not take the right to tell you to either smile or prance or dance. Your nit-pick is of course correct, that from a legal perspective you have the right. But that does not make it right from a perspective of social interaction.

"E.g. what you might mean, is it is not right for you to tell me to smile."

Correct. Unless I knew you I would consider you to be an arrogant person and continue not to smile at you.

"Seriously, honey ... smile. :-)"

I would ask you, sir, to do the same, but I do not think I care for your tone and I do not think I like you, therefore I do not care if you smile or not. And thus I will continue not to smile.

[Snark]

"Potatoes and cucumbers. Apples and pears. We are talking about (civil) conversation here. Not application of lethal force."

Agreed!

And that was, by and large, my point.

We are talking about civil conversation - or at least, conversation.

Not something to forbid - unlike lethal assault.

"Your nit-pick is of course correct, that from a legal perspective you have the right."

Ah, but this is no nit-pick; a RIGHT only exists in the LEGAL SENSE.

There are no 'rights' in the sense of 'social interactions'.

A right is what the law permits you to do.

In non-legal contexts, it makes no sense to talk of having a RIGHT to do something.

So, not a nit-pick. You were using the term 'right' arbitrarily, and it made it LOOK LIKE you were advocating something far worse than what you intended to.

I.e., when you say somebody has NO RIGHT to do something, what this means - to anyone who knows what rights are - is that you would deny them that right, that you would rather this conduct were illegal, and policed, and that it would carry punitive sanctions.

That is the ONLY meaning having a RIGHT to do something.

"But that does not make it right from a perspective of social interaction."

Perhaps - but again, refer to the dichotomy I mentioned above.

1. Having a legal right to do X
2. The right thing to do is X

#2 has nothing to do with rights. The right thing to do might be one of several options all of which are legal. The unfortunate thing is that you're confusing the two, which made it SEEM as though you were advocating that civil rights should be curtailed (shouldn't have THE RIGHT to tell someone to smile ...)

But now, we're clear, that's NOT what you meant.

"I would ask you, sir, to do the same, but I do not think I care for your tone and I do not think I like you, therefore I do not care if you smile or not. And thus I will continue not to smile."

Ah, go on ... I am ... not everything has to be a cause for misery.

[Linus Harling]

@Grunt

Oh, and in case you seriously don't get the point:

Sure, you may have the "RIGHT" to tell me whatever you want. But don't expect me to be happy about it. How would you like if random strange people (preferably stronger and more aggressive than you) started telling you how to comb your hair?

[Steelfists]

I think that most of the commentors above may be on the wrong website. I was under the impression that this blog was targeted at people with balls.

[Linus Harling]

@Steelfists:

Hahaha, you owe me a keyboard :-)

@Grunt:

What? No "honey" in the last post? Come on darling, gi'z a smile. You still avoid talking about what you most likely understand is the point, despite showing twice that you understand perfectly well what I mean.

[Snark]

Just out of curiosity, are you intending to address your posts to Grunt?