This will be a long post. And it will be in English.
A man named George Yancy, who could have had a promising career as a suicide bomber, judging by his looks, instead decided to have his dick cut off (not literally) and write an “opinion” piece for the failing New York Times. It is titled #IAmSexist, and, as are all feminists, George certainly is. I’ll have to comment that piece of garbage thoroughly.
In light of a year of disturbing revelations from the #MeToo movement
You see, I’ve gotta interrupt this frequently. Which “disturbing” revelations do you mean? That a large part of the populace gives a fuck about concepts like “burden of proof” or “innovent until proven guilty”, even out of the mouth of an admitted child molester and (presumed) statutory rapist?
and from last month’s profoundly troubling Brett Kavanaugh hearings
The unfounded allegations of something that nobody confirmed to have happened, a lifetime ago, being relevant in choosing an honoroable man for a position of upholding the above mentioned basic principles of law? None of the bitches accusing him were willing to testify under oath.
it is time that we, men, act.
No. It is not. This is not a reason to introduce Sharia law and stop believing women or giving their testimonies only half the value of that of a man. It is time that we bethink ourselves back to basic principles of fairness and human decency, instead of jumping on the reactionary witch-hunt bandwagon.
Certainly, some of us men have spoken out on behalf of women.
Please, George, don’t assume you can speak of “us” men. You certainly don’t speak for me, and – as the further text will show – you hardly qualify as a “man”. Of course, you are, but you are a disgrace to my sex.
Some have kept silent out of fear of being judged, fear of criticism or censure, others out of genuine respect.
Oh, the radical notion that other human beings deserve some kind of respect. A very radical notion, George. Fuck you.
In fact, silence has become the default stance of many men who consider themselves “allies” of women.
That’s not true. The current stance of men who counsider themselves “allies” to women is to roundhouse-kick them in the face. The idea of being a decent man, or a decent human being in general, is to follow Kant’s categorical imperative – don’t do upon others what you don’t want done to you – like being roundhouse-kicked in the face. Plus, there’s that radical notion that women are people, too, so they can very well stand (and speak) for themselves.
I’ve decided not to cut corners. So, join me, with due diligence and civic duty, and publicly claim: I am sexist!
Yeah. Everybody is sexist, just as everyone is racist. That’s not a bad thing in general. You don’t have to act upon your instincts, you’re not a dog, but were given a brain to make reasonable, reflected decisions. Even though you, George, are some weird kind of black: You do have a brain capable of reasoned decisions!
Think about its national and international implications as we take responsibility for our sexism, our misogyny, our patriarchy.
I am, most of all, an individual, George. I’m not responsible for your sexism, your (yet to-be apparent) misogyny, and there’s no such thing as a patriarchy outside the kingdom of Bhutan, which is a shitty place to be.
It is hard to admit we are sexist.
No. It is not. I am sexist. There’s nothing wrong with that. The only people who suggest that that’s wrong are feminists, which hardly qualify as women, but very well qualify as witches. And should be burned on the stake. This, by the way, is not sexist at all, it’s basically necessary to keep up a functioning society. Or did you really think we’d have had the age of enlightenment without burning the witches first?
I, for instance, would like to think that I possess genuine feminist bona fides
I’m not gonna doubt that. But, of course, that means you’re a part of the problem that should be burned on a stake. You do know that burning witches involved male witches, too?
I am a failed and broken feminist.
Are you really? Hey – I came to that conclusion before you said it. Although “failed” and “broken” are necessary prerequistes for becoming a feminist.
There are times when I fear for the “loss” of my own “entitlement” as a male.
Yeah – you’re not entitled to anything, dipshit. You may think that because you’re brown and probably got into university because of some racist, discriminatory affirmative action program, but thats a distortion of reality. Plus, you live in the US, so you don’t have to hunt for food or fight the neighboring tribe every fucking day. Go try asking someone from Somalia about your male privilege. Don’t ask a woman, though; someone will gut you for inappropriately speaking to a women, then.
Toxic masculinity takes many forms.
Toxic masculinity takes exactly one form, and that is the self-hatred of a fat Australian with gender dysphoria, a psychological condition, who coined the term.
All forms continue to hurt and to violate women.
That’s a false correlation. Hurting women is associated with psychological conditions, not with the male gender. You might consider getting yourself admitted to a psych ward or at least wearing a straitjacked; your’re obviosly a menace to society as a whole; that’s not only to women.
For example, before I got married, I insisted that my wife take my last name.
Spoiler: That’s a lie, he pussied out.
After all, she was to become _my_ wife.
Notice the accentuation of “my”. George didn’t understand the concept of marriage, because that’s exactly what marriage is about: You take the responsibility for that one women, over from her parents – and from society at large. Read up on your marriage laws; it’s perfectly clear that you will have to pay for her forever.
So, why not take my name, and become part of me?
Yeah – why not? It’s not really a thing that qualifies as “price to pay”.
I guess we now know who’s the man in their relationship, do we? Remember, boys: Noboby is forcing you to say “yes” when the minister asks if you want. They even tell you that. You should listen.
She wanted to keep her own last name, arguing that a woman taking her husband’s name was a patriarchal practice.
There’s no such thing as patriarchy, but the name-changing is an established sociocultural practice. As is the concept of marriage. It tends to keep society in check and avoid weird spinsters mistreating cats and writing loony “feminist” articles in newspapers in their late 30s.
And again: You don’t have to say “yes” to a marriage.
I was not happy
And you’re still not happy, because you didn’t stand up for yourself. And you’ll never be. Neither will she, by the way; women tend not to be very happy with pathetic losers with no standards or self-respect.
I became stubborn and interpreted her decision as evidence of a lack of full commitment to me.
Yeah – it seems as if women have kind of a natural instinct, call it intuition, for not commiting themselves to losers.
Well, she brilliantly proposed that we both change our last names and take on a new name together showing our commitment to each other.
Or, of course, they are totally loony. Haven’t you ever heard “don’t stick your dick in crazy”? Fuck. This is sad.
I dropped the ball. That day I learned something about me.
You learned that you are a pathetic loser? In probably your 20s? I’d like to rant about “anti-bullying” bullshit in schools at this point, because that makes kids live in their pink-sparkling filtered dream worlds until way too late, but George is older than I am.
I didn’t respect her autonomy, her legal standing and personhood.
Notice the total lack of George’s autonomy: You can’t drop “legal status” into that list. It is not a sign of respect for other human beings because “it’s a law”. Law is just a codification of shared human morals; not the basis of those morals. It’s, for example, not illegal to murder black people because there was a big problem with white assholes murdering black people, but because society as a whole decided it’s bad to murder people in general, regardless of their genes. Plus, black people have no fault for being black, they were born that way. Being feminist, on the other hand, is totally the persons own fault (a decision of free will), so I’m fine with burning them at the stake. I can’t force them to not become un-persons.
As pathetic as this may sound
Do I see a glimpse of self-discovery here, George? Maybe you should hold on to that and not ignore it. Every human being has the potential for self-improvement.
I saw her as my property, to be defined by my name and according to my legal standing.
Poor George has zero idea about women. This is so, totally, sad. You can’t own a human being. In the times when owning slaves still was a thing, there were books written on how to break people. You basically have to literally break people in order to own them, depriving them of their entity as a human being. We, as a global society, decided that is a bad thing and outlawed it, but it can be done; depriving a person of their humanity. It’s still common in forced prostitution, but you can actually see the lack of a soul in those girls’ eyes. They’re broken. You don’t want that in your wife, you fucking asshole.
She kept her name.
Of course she did. I wouldn’t want the name of a pathetic loser with totalitarian, misanthropic fantasies either.
While this was not sexual assault, my insistence was a violation of her independence.
Who would think of that as “sexual assault”? And the point of marriage is to give up part of your independence. It’s a decision you can make if you want to. You don’t have to get married, but if you find the right partner you’ll get more out of it than you give up. That’s the whole point. Which George didn’t grasp.
I am astonished that there are women around willing to marry that. Don’t they have any self-respect?
I had inherited a subtle, yet still violent, form of toxic masculinity.
Read: George has a fair amount of unchecked self-hatred. That’s quite uncommon in black people, they tend to have over-inflated egos and do stupid shit like “black lives matter” without wasting a single thought on it. Listen to rap music.
It still raises its ugly head — I should be thanked when I clean the house, cook, sacrifice my time.
Oh, that’s an interesting way of framing “toxic masculinity”. Being thanked for doing something used to be considered basic human decency, but that supposedly is toxic masculinity now. And we’re honestly talking about entitlement, right? That guy – and obviously feminists – is obviously thinking women are the literal children of god, just rulers fit to wear the red and white crown of the upper and lower Nile and worthy of being a pharaoh. Who, of course, don’t owe a “thank you” to their humble, worthless servants.
And they have the audacity to frame critics of their total disrespect for other human beings, of their misanthrophy, as misogynist. Wow:
These are deep and troubling expectations that are shaped by male privilege, male power and toxic masculinity.
And all that was started by the Jews, of course, who thought the allmighty pharao was just a dick and there’s more to human being than worshipping some pretentious asshole. We can totally twist this feminist bullshit into pure antisemitism quite easily, but let’s continue.
If you are a woman reading this, I have failed you.
I totally believe this sentence. I have zero doubt George has failed every woman he ever interacted with in his whole life.
Through my silence and an uninterrogated collective misogyny
There’s no “collective” misogyny. There is your misogyny, resulting from thoughts of pretend grandeur as the pathetic loser you are, dreaming of being an asshole pimp breaking nice girls to be forced prostitutes. You’re just an asshole, George. Please stop speaking for men in general. Men in general lock people like you up, for good reasons.
I know about how we hold onto forms of power that dehumanize you only to elevate our sense of masculinity.
In all history, men have never dehumanized women. You tend to dehumanize your enemy, because it’s inherhently hard for human beings to kill other human beings as that is – quite obviosly – an evolutionary survival strategy; wolves do that, too. And problably lobsters; we’d have to ask Jordan Peterson.
But even then, after slaughtering your enemy in bloody combat (which were men, in general) you took their women as your booty, took them as sex slaves. Notice: You have to care for your slaves, provide them food and shelter. That’s not dehumanizing.
And it doesn’t raise your level of “masculinity”. Slaughtering your enemies doesn’t, either; in some weird way that makes something inside you break forever. Ask any soldier.
I recognize my silence as an act of violence. For this, I sincerely apologize.
And here I was, thinking it couldn’t get any more pathetic. George is a disgrace to mankind in general, not just the “man” side of mankind. I’m not intending to apologize for George’s existence, though; that’s not my fault.
I know about what so many of us men think about women
No, George, you don’t. You hardly know any men; you probably know plenty of pathetic losers like the soyboy who roundhouse-kicked that woman in her face. You can only respect other humans as much as you respect yourself, and you obviosly don’t do that. You are a prick, George.
the language we use
Men use polite language around women. I guess you mean men calling whores whores or sluts sluts or cunts cunts, but that’s their own decision to be a whore, cunt or slut. Women are human beings, they have free will. They don’t have to be sluts or whores, least of all cunts. Just as you don’t have to be a pathetic loser. I can’t help that you are, though, that’s up to you.
the sense of power that we garner through our sexual exploits
I’d strongly suggest keeping your distance from George at night; that sounds totally rapey.
our catcalling and threatening
Hey, did you ever think “why don’t we throw two completely unrelated words closely together to suggest they have anything in common”? No? See – learn from George. Or read speeches made by Josef Göbbels; he did that, too. You can read more in Schopenhauers Art of being Right. I, though, am not honouring this pathetic trial at sophistry.
our sexually objectifying gazes
“Sexually objectifying” is inherently an oxymoron. Objects aren’t sexual (if you aren’t a weird fetishist). You can, maybe, womanify objects like your fleshlight masturbator, but objectifying women won’t make you aroused. Try getting your dick erect thinking of a pepper shaker if you don’t believe me.
our dehumanizing and despicable sexual gestures
What in the world is a “dehumanizing sexual gesture”? Plus, we keep repeating the impossibility of “sexually objectifying”.
and our pornographic imaginations
Why am I under the impression that George’s pornographic imaginations align quite well with that of an ISIS terrorist raping crying Jesidi girls?
This is not simply locker room banter but a public display of unchecked bravado for which we often feel no shame.
If you don’t feel shame for your pornographic imaginations, you either have zero imagination or no concept of shame.
We have heard many accounts from women of what it is like to live under the yoke of our self-serving construction of a violent, pathetic and problematic masculinity.
We have heard a lot of whining from “women” who struggle to live in the harshness of reality.
It is time that we stop gaslighting their reality.
This text is like a “feminist bullshit 101” course. Reality isn’t subjective, no matter what the construtivists say. Stating facts also isn’t gaslighting, which would be telling lies. The general public doesn’t do that, intentionally.
By now, many of you are probably saying, this doesn’t apply to me — I’m innocent.
Oh, I’m certainly not 😉
The sluts liked it, though. As did I.
It’s true that many of us, including me, have not committed vile acts of rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse
Oh really? The majority of mankind has moral standards in accordance to the laws we have and enforce those laws on those who trespass? Who’d think that?
I wouldn’t vouch for George, though. He sounds kinda rape-y.
We have not, like Charlie Rose, been accused of sexual harassment by dozens of women who worked for us
No idea who that is, but as Harvey Weinstein is mentioned in the preceding sentence I’m gonna assume Charlie’s innocence. AS SHOULD EVERYONE.
and we are not, like Bill Cosby, being sent to prison for drugging and sexually assaulting a woman, in this case, Andrea Constand.
Yeah, I think drugging and sexually assaulting women should land you in prison. Why, George, do you pretend this is some kind of radical thought instead of being common sense? We have that codified in law, for centuries. Do you sometimes feel like Don Quichotte, fighting windmills?
Yet I argue that we are collectively complicit with a sexist mind-set and a poisonous masculinity rooted in the same toxic male culture from which these men emerged.
No, you dont “argue” that, you allege it. You actually can’t argue that in any way that can be considered an argument, as it is batshit stupid. Im not even valueing this with a pretend counter-argument, it’s already dead.
I’m issuing a clarion call against our claims of sexist “innocence.” I’m calling our “innocence” what it is — bullshit.
I hadn’t thought that 57-year-old George, married, is still a virgin. Are we building a strawman?
As bell hooks writes
Of course we are. Is Bell Hooks as a (admittedly, stupid) woman not worthy of capitalizing her name, you misogynist pig?
men unconsciously “engage in patriarchal thinking, which condones rape even though they may never enact it.
I already mentioned that Ms. Hooks is stupid, didn’t I? Men made laws against rape. Not all people are bigots deeply entrenched in doublethink, as feminists are. It is not reasonable to make laws against things you condone. Men, though, at least try to be reasonable since the aforementioned age of enlightenment. Of course, that doesn’t always work, we did give women the right to vote, for example. We still try, though.
This is a patriarchal truism
Alleging something doesn’t make it true. This is pure sopihstry. Dead.
that most people in our society want to deny
I’m not denying your batshit crazy statement, Bell. I’m just showing it to be a rhethorical trick, and it works just as fine as George’s dick probably does: not.
folks are eager to stand up and make the point that most men are not violent. They refuse to acknowledge that masses of boys and men have been programmed from birth on to believe that at some point they must be violent, whether psychologically or physically, to prove that they are men.
Now we arrive at a problem where a limp-dicked, pathetic, rapey loser quotes a (still stupid) woman on men’s psychology. And Ms. Hooks is quite right with that thing, but she totally misses the point. Nobody teaches (or should teach) anyone that they must be violent to be men. On the contrary, everyone is taught to not be violent to be what is considered a decent human being.
Then, as most women do these days, Bell doesn’t spend even a second on self-reflection, because if you casually drop in “psychologically” into a sentence concerning violence, you actually diminish the human progress to modern democracy where you talk about things insted of slaughtering your enemy.
The point she’s missing is what researchers like Hannah Ahrendt have pointed out: You shouldn’t deny that the potential for hardly imaginable cruelty is something you’re born with. You may like to think that you’d have been Graf von Stauffenberg trying to assasinate Hitler in Nazi Germany, but the facts speak in a way that you’d problably be a concentration camp guard shooting jews for fun.
You will have to realize this as a part of being a decent human being to be able to be Graf von Stauffenberg, or, to mention a less well-known figure, have the balls of Witold Pilecki. Bell Hooks just didn’t get the point in why boys need to be taught that. Plus, she got it totally wrong. Double-plus, that’s not a gender issue. Women, in general, are way more vile than men can afford to be.
In the language of Simone de Beauvoir,
“One is not born, but rather becomes” masculine.
Yeah – stating something doesn’t make it true, this holds up for quotations, too. Especially if the person quoted is a man-hating communist which should have been in a psych ward.
We have hidden behind a myth that “boys will be boys”
That is not a myth. That was empirically proven by John Money, who bought into that lunatic fringe theory and cut some baby’s dick off. It turned out that boys will be boys (and Mr. Reimer killed himself).
Audre Lorde writes in “Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power” (1978),
I’m not familiar with Ms. Lorde, but that book title reserves her a place in my “lunatic” bin.
Pornography is a direct denial of the power of the erotic, for it represents the suppression of true feeling.
Pornography is an over-emphasized display of feeling; those porn actresses pretend to enjoy about everything. Lorde also was a lesbian, this might explain her having zero idea about men.
Again: Stupid nonsense doesn’t become less stupid or less nonsense just because you quote some idiot who said it. That’s not how arguments work.
Not only are we as men taught to deny our feelings
We’re not taught that. We’re taught to keep them under control and not to act on every whim. Feminists tend to like that, we’d live in a very rapey society if every man would just fuck every woman he’d like to fuck.
but we also are taught that sexual vulnerability is weakness, not the province of “real men.” We mask that vulnerability.
Vunerability of any kind is a weakness. That’s basically in the word. And that’s not really a men’s problem, it’s a women’s problem. I don’t geht the point here, but we’re getting back to lunatic, uninformed Bell Hooks:
Learning to wear a mask… is the first lesson in patriarchal masculinity that a boy learns. He learns that his core feelings cannot be expressed if they do not conform to the acceptable behaviors sexism defines as male
Because that is not what boys are taught, and it is not what keeping your feelings in check is about. This, quite obviosly, stems from reading lesbian women’s uninformed take on men’s psyche.
I am happily repeating my point: If I see a cute girl on the subway, my line of though is, in short, “nice tits [ass] [face] [body], I’d like to fuck that“. It is not only not a bad thing to teach boys not to act out on their every whim, it is fucking essential for a working society.
The quote contunies:
Asked to give up the true self in order to realize the patriarchal ideal, boys learn self-betrayal early and are rewarded for these acts of soul murder.
Read: in any terms that do have at least a mild connection to reality, not fucking everything I find attractive is “soul murder”. The “patriarchal ideal” thus boils down to “not rape women”. Wow. Feminists make that sound like a bad thing. Fucking loonies.
When I was about 15 years old, I said to a friend of mine, “Why must you always look at a girl’s butt?” He promptly responded: “Are you gay or something? What else should I look at, a guy’s butt?”
George being gay actually explains his lack of fortitude when set “against” women. I’d feel totally sorry for that wife of his, but she’s probably fucking the mailman and making that pussy watch. Women tend to have some concept of self-respect.
He had already learned the lessons of patriarchal masculinity. I was in an unfortunate bind. Either I should without question objectify girls’ behinds or I was gay.
Remember: You need lessons in “patriarchal masculinity” to find women’s butts attractive. Now, I’m more a tit guy than an ass guy, but the point is: You don’t need to be taught about women’s bodys to be attractive – that is, if you’re not gay. Finding women’s bodies to be attractive is coded in your genes (and in theirs to be that way), otherwise you’d have no reason to fuck them and our species would have gone extinct. This is also why being gay is an evolutionary dead end, by the way. I totally have no idea what to say to this utter bullshit – except for repeating that “liking ass” is NOT “objectifying”. It’s part of a body. A human body. Of a woman. Which makes you want to fuck her.
There’s nothing bad in that. Try telling her; she might be up to it. Works, if you put it a little more decent; that feminist concept of decorum plus the evil “patriarchy” keeps you from grabbing her by the hair and drag her back to your cave.
There was no wiggle room for me to be both antisexist and antimisogynistic and yet a heterosexual young boy.
Yes, George. We get it that this is your public coming-out moment as gay. You don’t have to hide behind big words like “antisexist” or “antimisogynist” for that. It’s 2018, it’s okay to be gay. I’d like to emphasize that it is neither sexist not misogynistic to appreciate nice asses, though. Your example was being 15, that may be down to luck in genetic lottery, but having a nice ass past 20 is a lot of effort. There’s nothing wrong with appreciating that. It’s basically a respectful thing, too. Why do you not respect women’s efforts, George?
Yet I, too, participated in acts of soul murder.
Gay people can have souls, too, George. You thinking you don’t have one is just you denying you being gay. Please; George, you don’t live in Iran where they hang you from a crane for being gay. It’s totally okay to be gay. Plus, that wife of yours would probably be happy to openly fuck a real man.
the young boys would play this “game” of pushing one another into girls. The idea was to get your friend to push you into a girl that you found attractive in order to grind up against her.
This must be an American thing. In my time, we threw food leftovers at girls we liked.
I was guilty: “Hurry up! Push me into her.” He pushed, and the physical grind was obvious.
I really feel sorry for George. Being a teenage gay black guy in the 70s certainly wasn’t fun, though that’s not an excuse for “accidental” harassment.
She would turn around, disgusted, and yell, “Stop!”
This is where I call “bullshit”, she didn’t do that. That’s why you’re using the subjunctive “would”. In real life, it’s either “stop grabbing my ass, you fucking dickhead” or “Ooooh”.
Was it sexist and wrong? Yes.
No. See – if you don’t make aguements, neither do I need to make one. You’re preaching to the flock, and it’s really sad that both journalists and editors live in such a bubble so that nobody notices that. But it explains why they publish that piece of garbage from a closet gay man, citing lunatic lesbians; both having no idea connected to reality on how men think.
This was our youthful collective education; this is what it meant for us to gain “masculine credibility” at the expense of girls.
I have to completely stop believing George now. He’s a philosophy professor, and this article is completely a made-up fantasy of him being a “cool boy” as only a dork would imagine, and it’s totally implausible. I’m not the bedpost-carving serial layer either, but I do know some. The described action gives you exactly zero “masculine credibility”, it might, at the most, have been an attempt at friends of his trying to make him to behave like a man for once in his life. Doesn’t work with gay people, though.
Later, I was also made to believe that girls were “targets,” objects to be chased down and owned.
That negro community is strange.
That is the contradiction. For example, at about 16, we used to play a game called “Catch a girl, get a girl.”
Sounds fun. I’ll call out black beople for their black privilege on that the next time the opportunity arises.
There was no equivalent called “Catch a boy, get a boy.”
George has never spoken to a woman in his life.
We would count to give the girls a head start. We would then run after them. If you caught a girl, you could steal a kiss. Some of the boys attempted to grope the girls.
You may consider that weirdly rapey, but it’s a completely innocent teenage game. Which I never got to play. Fuck that black privilege.
The logic governing the game, unseen by both the boys and the girls, was predicated upon sexist assumptions that relegated the girls to positions of prey.
No, the logic of the game is that hormone-laden teenagers in any modern, temperance-stressing society need any kind of bullhit excuse to make out with random people. Plus, for some reason, probably genetic, men feel better when “conquering”, women do the same when “conquered”. I’m not a biologist, ask one. The game wouldn’t exist if it were otherwise, and the girls wouldn’t play it if they didn’t like it.
I’d like to mention that “stealing a kiss” is pathetic, though.
This is what American male culture taught us early on: Women were like “meat” and we must always nurture (!) a voracious appetite.
Just say you’re gay, George. Honestly. Its not normal to not be into women, but you’re obviosly not. Just like the lesbian feminists you quoted are not into men, thus they can project all their self-hatred upon them without any negative consequences for themselves. That doesn’t make them right, though.
Insinuating your random lunatic utterances as being facts doesn’t make them facts.
alone should challenge how we construe “mutual consent.
Fuck me. We’re going through all the talking points of a 22yo frustrated 3rd wave feminist. And no, that was a metaphorical “fuck me”, not an indicator of consent.
the philosopher Luce Irigaray
Another lesbian who was raped by Jaques Derrida. Great. We had too few lunatic, mentally damaged women cited as of yet.
dominant phallic economy… Our objective was to “get them.”
And it’s totally unnatural to want to “get” a woman, as in “fuck”. For gay people, that is.
Though the girls played, they were not to blame.
Because women as a sex in gerneral are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. That’s the central point of modern feminism, guys: Women are incabable of anything. Sure they are. Prick. That’s the problem with those collectivist ideologies: The disrespect tha agency of human individuals. Which.they.have.
That … came to my toxic masculinity.
You don’t possess an ounce of masculinity, George. You are a pathetic loser, and a cowardly closet gay. I’ll agree on the toxic part, though.
Yet, I am not beyond redemption.
That’s the eschatology ethos of the christian – and actually, most – religions; repent your sins and you shall be refined. Say sorry to your wife, and fuck the mailman yourself, George. It’s really okay, we don’t live in a muslim Califate – yet.
This is pure obfuscation, a substitution of fictions for facts
This is taking lunacy to the next level, actually. It’s meta-lunacy. You could probably write a thesis in clinical psychology on this article alone. Or two.
In a male-dominated and sexist toxic world
… you get to live in a luxury an 18th century king would be envious of.
a world where his own father grabs women’s genitalia and kisses them without their permission
Why not enter Donald Trumps son into this? I mean, he’s like 12, but he was born male, so he carries the original sin, doesn’t he? He should whip his back with a whip that has glass splinters woven in. Especially because his father kisses women, who then tend to marry him. That bastard. And grabs women’s genitalia, something good gay people would never do.
it is our daughters who should concern us as targets of sexual violence
Yeah, let’s totally focus on those poor white girls whoring themselves out to millionaires to push their careers. We can ignore the rape victims of illegal immigrant perpetrators better, then. But they’re most likely not white themselves, so fuck them, right? We can beat down on a 12 year old boy instead!!!!
What are we afraid of?
Coming out? What purpose does this rhetorical question serve?
We all recently lived through the public spectacle of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.
Yeah, and I guess it was a mistake not to just hang the condemned, but give him a hearing. That’s so 2017.
The history of toxic and violent masculinity should have been enough for us to give full weight to the reasonableness and believability of Ford’s testimony. But we did not.
There’s no “history of toxic and violent masculinity”; in fact, there’s not a single witness corroborating what Ms. Ford claims. There’s not even a history, then. It’s a good thing “we” did not believe unfounded allegations, actually. And that Mr. Kavanaugh was made a supreme court judge. I am pretty sure he’ll now hold up basic principles of law, like presumption of innocence, very high. That is excellent.
Donald Trump’s cruel public mocking of Ford
We already established that “facts” are evil, toxic masculinity, right? I’m not sure about this, but I will just assume Trump summarized the facts. Facts are cruel, now. Cruel, toxic masculinity. If only we could find a way to do away with this cruel, toxic, misygynist concept of reality.
Ford’s words, her emotional testimony, were denounced as the ramblings of someone without any claim on the veracity of her experiences.
The very real possibility of this being made-up bullshit by a woman with an agenda will be ignored, of course. But, in the end, it’s not even relevant. Kavanaugh is to be a supreme court judge, supposed to uphold the principles of the american constitution. That constitution is based on the idea of a rehabilitative, not a punitive judical system. So even if he gang-raped a billion women 30 years ago, that wouldn’t disqualify him. It would disqualify the system, but that’s not in question, is it?
To add insult to injury, Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s defense that Trump was just “stating the facts”
Miss Sanders sound like a reasonable person.
is both a blatant lie
Assertions don’t become true just by uttering them. Try reasoning next time.
denial of the collective suffering of women more generally from acts of sexual violence
Women don’t form a collective. Women aren’t the Borg. There is no such thing as human collevtives outside the lunatic ramblings of Marx and his dicsiples. Human beings are entities in themselves, independent entities capable of free though and decision-making. You, George, being too stupid to form an own line of thought doesn’t disprove that notion, you’re just in a position (like: being born in the US) that allows you to be lazy enough not to have to. You could, if you’d be forced. Or die. Both are completely acceptable in an evolutionary perspective.
I can imagine being passionate about defending myself if put in Kavanaugh’s position
How nice of you, George. Actually being able to empathize with others is a central aspect of humanity, say philosophers. But I’m quite sure there’ll be a “but”, as in the popular “Im, not a Nazi, but..”?
Kavanaugh, however, unabashedly reinforced white male machismo and aggressiveness such that even if one thinks that he is innocent of what Ford accused him of, he put on full display the performance of a cantankerous white male who is recklessly determined to seek revenge against those he claimed were out to get him.
I call “thesaurus” on “cantankerous”. It means grumpy; I’ll save you the time. And he wasn’t that. He was annoyed, offended, maybe even furios, justly or not. Brett Kavanaugh is basically a normal human being. I can empathize with that.
The history of male violence against women speaks to Ford’s pain and suffering.
The history of male violence against women speaks of men being whipped, stoned, quartered and drowned. Or, in really evil places, married to their victims for the closest thing to eternal suffering you can get on earth.
The statistics regarding sexual assault are telling: One in five women are raped at some point in their lives
That’s a blatant lie that has been repeated and disproven so many times I’m not gonna bother.
90 percent of rape victims are female
Yeah. That’s because it’s really hard to rape a man outside a prison. And very few people are gay. These statistics go way worse for women if you include sexual mistreatment of children, though; but that would kill your painting of women as angels too quickly.
in the United States one in three women experience some form of contact sexual violence in their lifetime
I simply don’t care. 100% of men experience some form of violence in their lifetime. We’re not living in the Garden of Eden, and according to the bible, that’s womens‘ fault. Stop complaining, bitches; take responsibility for your original sin. You are the ones who like that concept, aren’t you?
roughly half of female victims of rape reported being raped by an intimate partner
Women seem to be really shitty at choosing mates. Why does that concern me, as a man, or society in general?
We can no longer deny this reality.
I’m totally with you, George. Can we talk about withdrawing the franchise for women? You just proved they tend to make stupid decisions.
I know that if you are a woman, you don’t really need me as a man saying to you that you are not paranoid when it comes to male violence
Oh, if you’re a woman, I’d totally stay away from people like George. They are lunatics that may roundhouse-kick you in the face. Plus leftist circles in general. Most other people are quite decent, no reason to be paranoid.
I speak not for you but with you. In my view, and in the view of many others, Kavanaugh failed himself, and you. And we have all played our part in that failure.
See – It’s not Kavanaughs job to fail or not fail women. He’s a judge, his job is to uphold the law. The law is made by politicians you can (unfortunately) vote for.
I don’t want to fail women anymore.
Yes, George. I got that halfway through the article. It’s totally okay to be gay these days. You don’t need to be embarrassed about that.
We need to admit our roles in the larger problem of male violence against women.
My role in violence against women is completely consensual. Please, George, just because you hate women because you can’t admit being gay and project that onto a weird kind of mix of hatred of women and of yourself and thus buying into the self-hatred of lesbian feminists and fat fucks with gender dysphoria doesn’t make you a prophet heralding the will of god.
We need to tell the truth about ourselves.
Yes, George. Do that. You have to realize it first, though. I’ll go online to shop for a new flogging whip now, that shitty thing broke. Does any of my readers use that stuff on horses? Can you reccommend a brand?