Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Are lesbians beholden to the chivalry code?

I won't elaborate on this much, that is basically my question to anyone who is still around.

I will say however in my personal experience when I have been with a woman I automatically behave in a way that could be classed as consistent with chivalry. I like to pay for everything, etc.

When this is presented as oppression of men I was wondering if in a lesbian interaction if chivalry applies and if so are lesbians oppressed as a result in the same way men allegedly are?

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Critique of the MRM

Stubborn Refusal of Facts

When they encounter someone who calls themselves a feminist, the woman bashing is unleashed and considered justified. A view asserted by a feminist even if it is in agreeance with them is completely disregarded and instead, if they aren't in a good position to censor the immediate response is to talk over the top of that feminist with the statement "you're sexist". This seems to occur often in the absence of any evidence for misandry. It is interesting and creates the first article for why MRM will just chase it's own tail until humanity is extinct. They are so hell bent on labelling feminism as misandry that they refuse to admit that it is possible to believe in gender equality and not in fact hate men or hate women (although they aren't good at demonstrating that). What a waste of time it is to throw unfounded accusations at people when the actual issues could be discussed.


They reject the notion of MRA women playing a major role in their organisation, a few seem to reject the idea of women playing any role in the MRA movement. This one should be self explanatory. Women make up over half the population, a movement is not likely to succeed with half its potential supporters thrown out. This leads into the next point.


While claiming to be opposed to bigotry, they purposefully perpetuate misogynist sentiments. This undermines their position as it becomes the exact same position they accuse feminists of having.

Traditional Gender Roles

They are the champions of traditional gender roles. Longing for the good ole days where women did as they were told and referring to women only as "a good woman" if she wants to live out the gender roles of old. No matter there are many good reasons for smashing "traditional" gender roles and the "traditional" marriage. Marriage is the heart of bigotry, and sorry MRA it is slowly filtering out of society, nothing you can do to ruin peoples happiness and freedom.

Intellectual dishonesty

Quoting statistics from one stand alone study with flawed methodology as though it was gospel. Yes I am referring in particular to the study allegedly proving that 41% rape accusations are false. Give it up, people can see through these lies.


They allow their bitterness to impact on their political leanings. They refer to feminist men as manginas and yet they are the ones acting like the stereotypical woman, with their hysteria and minimised ability to think about things rationally. This was demonstrated on one site where a MRA asserted that "we can start considering gender equality when as many women as men have died in war." What if a feminist said "We can start thinking about gender equality when as many men as women have died in child birth." Yeah it doesn't make the slightest amount of sense.

Equality in Suffering

Rather then seeing an organisation as a source for making the lives of people better the MRA see their role in making people suffer as much as they allegedly have. That is just gross.


All these things result in them having a stance that is largely apolitical, where it isn't just plain confused, backwards or nonsensical.

Sorry guys, you just aren't going to succeed this way. Shape up.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Why men think they are oppressed

There are several issues in which men see oppression of women completely backwards, seeing it as oppression of men. A main area they point to is the idea of men sacrificing themselves for their families, for women and children. A recent example of this is in Haiti where women and children were evacuated ahead of men. However the root cause of this ideology is sexism, sexism against women. This is further seen in the persisting "boys club" which is the military. These positionings of gender however stem from the idea of women being more vulnerable than men, being less able to take care of themselves and handle bad situations. This isn't some sexist ideology directed towards mens lives being less valuable. It is a direct result of women being viewed as inferior.

It is unfortunate in my eyes that the MRA crowd are unable to see the bigger picture. A lack of acceptance of how society is really structured in terms of gender means the struggle they launch is doomed to failure. One must identify the problem first, then it can be addressed.

It must also be noted that society was not always split this way, in the evolution of humans the human society was formerly more cohesive. There weren't always these lines drawn where women should have children and men should die in war. The difference in the physique of females and males was not always so pronounced either.

Women are seen as inferior, this is a fact. This fact needs to be challenged. Terming something "female privilege" is just a denial of the facts. It hinders progress that should be made. The MRA ideology is of course purely reactionary, purely emotional. Their questions are sound. "why aren't women incarcerated for the same lengths of time as men for the same crimes?". To answer this question it would make more sense to me to examine the whens and whys. Higher rates of male imprisonment definitely didn't coincide with the rise of feminism, with any of the waves. In fact I would argue feminism increased rates of female imprisonment. These inconsistencies between gender incraceration was of course caused by the underlying sexism towards women that has long been a part of our culture. Their terming it "the pussy pass" is just degrading towards women.

They rightly point out that without men it would be hard for women to have a functioning society. Well the reverse is also true, without women a society would be damn hard for men. Instead of following this to the logical conclusion of solidarity between the genders, they force more dividers between the genders. There is a greater issue at stake here and it involves the working class not men or women. Not gays or straights. Not blacks or whites. Anger with an unfair system is justified, anger with all women because of the legal system or because of a social paradigm is not. Please direct your anger wisely.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Religion and the patriarchy

It is in my opinion (not so humble) that religion contributes greatly to a state in society which can be referred to as the patriarchy. In my society christianity is the dominant religion so I will concentrate on that. You have a book that you believe is the divinely inspired word of god. This book tells you that a woman should obey you as you obey the church (god?). How can you view this as anything other than sexism? If a woman should obey a man simply because of the penis or lack of penis status that is the definition of sexism. This opens up in society the validation of basing relationships on forcing the woman into a submissive role. The result of having these "divinely inspired" gender roles is rape, genital mutilation and a less important status for women in general, both throughout history and in society today. I think those who support this ideology have a lot to answer for, as it stands atm I am absolutely disgusted by this position.

Christianity is at its core a purely selfish ideology. People who follow the teachings of the bible rarely seem to think about how it impacts on anyone else, they are concerned merely with attaining a heavenly status in the afterlife. It is a mentality of well god said it has to be this way and if it causes these problems that is because people are sinners. I would like to say, if you are a christian that supports this ideology and other similar ideologies found within the bible, you are morally bankrupt and fail to take responsibility for your own thoughts and actions. Please fly to the moon and never return. That is all.

Saturday, October 2, 2010

The MRA position is ridiculous

I think it is obvious to most people that the MRA faction is merely reactionary and largely unneessarily. While it can be helpful to rally against FRA, it is actually going to be ineffective. You are better off spending your time rallying against the way in which justice is carried out, you need to be able to have a better alternative. "Don't lock up innocent people" is a worthy cause but how do you hope to stop that?

The main issue with MRA is they confuse personal issues with oppression. There is a distinction to make. To answer the question of many people on my blog. Men can be oppressed hypothetically, but they are not.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Why the idea that women have human rights in Australia is a joke

Warning: This post may contain traces of anger that many people have an intolerance to. This post will be a bit long, as in talking about human rights I think I have to show the legalities of international legislation on this issue. Please bare with me though, I think I raise some interesting points I would like responded to. If there are any MRA types that still frequent my blog I would also like your input here. I will start off with the UN declaration of human rights;

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedom set forth herein.

(sourced from

To make my argument for the lack of human rights in Australian (which applies well to other nations, such as America) and to show why FRA is not a violation of human rights, so irrelevant as a parellel to the question of the prevalence of sexual abuse I will draw primarily from these five articles;

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

In order to demonstrate my point I will take a personal reality and show how it is also a political reality. Firstly I will pose a few questions, Where were my human rights when I was being raped, sexually abused, emotionally abused and stalked? Where was my right to life, liberty and security of person? Where was my right to not be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment? Those rights didn't exist. As a consequence in a society where 1/6 women will be repeatedly sexually abused or raped (I seperate those two things because law does) where is the human rights of that nearly 20% of women? Where are the human rights of all women in society who are subjected to this constant threat which takes the form of further restriction of liberty. Such as freedom to leave ones house after dark without fear of and the very real possibility of assault.

When I was being raped I did not have those rights, I still don't have the rights to full protection from sexual abuse happening again which is demonstrated by its shameful prevalence. One in six women in my society have had their human rights directly violated, how can you reconcile this fact with the statement that women have human rights? In an above human rights article it also states that it is a human right to not be subject to incitement of discrimination. We live in a society which romanticises and constantly justifies sexual abuse in various forms, including saturation of the media. I don't doubt that FRA is wrong or a horrible experience, but it is not a human rights violation, as the UN outlines in its declaration everyone is entitled to a just hearing when accused of criminal activities and that is just what men accused of rape receive.

Even if it was a reality that FRA was a human rights violation. Nobody has been able to show that it happens as often as does sexual abuse. I doubt that one in six men are subjected to repeated FRA accusations. They get a just trial, and I believe I had a trial too, but not a just one. Society has deemed me as a woman, deserving of sexual assault, it has deemed this by encouraging it and normalising it to the widespread extent of today. Even as a person accused of rape human rights are upheld in this way, but I never got anything but an arbitrary decision that resulted in the ideology that I should be raped and consequently degraded and tortured.

I have been raped and sexually abused multiple times starting when I was 11. The oppression of women was made evident to me before I even became one. However despite the fact my human rights have been violated consistently over my lifetime I am not supposed to be angry, not angry with the system that allows these atrocities and not angry with the people who perpetuate it. I am sick of being told that I shouldn't be angry, that I should just get over it. How can I get over something that is still happening to the women around me, and how can I get over something which is likely to occur to me again in the future? I don't think I can without accepting that rape is just "shit happens". If that is the case I refuse to "heal" from my experiences, we need to stand up against this system and prevent this shit from happening anymore.

I don't understand at all how anyone can claim that one in six women don't have their human rights directly violated and how women as a whole aren't subject to a system which enforces this. If anyone can give me some answers on this I would be grateful.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

women, LGBT and discrimination

I know I said at the beginning of my blog that I didn't want the imposition on my blog of christians saying "It is god's word", but I have changed my mind. I would love to hear a christian perspective on some of my ideas. Also I plan to express my interpretations of their views so it would be unfair to prevent any from commenting on it. If I am incorrect in some way please let me (civilly). Firstly I would like to offer my interpretation of peoples interpretation of the bible. I haven't read it all but I have read bits, fairly big chunks of it in parts actually. However definitely if I misquote or paraphrase let me know. I write from my understanding of christianity's take on marriage through discussion with church going christians and research into christian groups, activists and blogs. (caution may repeat some sentiments expressed in my last blog entry but I wish to expand and clarify on these points)

I am sceptical that there is any christian that follows god's word (expressed through the bible) in its entirety. I have certainly never encountered anyone who wants to stone adulterers or rape victims who won't marry their rapists to death (for obvious reasons). It applies also to lesser things like a man being forbidden from sitting where a menstruating woman has been. I have heard logical arguments from christians for why; the onset of sanitary protection means disease spread through blood contact isn't an issue anymore, therefore there is no reason to avoid seats formerly sat upon by menstruating women. This puts a qualifier on the whole argument of god's word. By saying it isn't appropriate or relevant to follow certain parts of the bible (as examplified above) you are saying it is incorrect even though god said so because of logic and rational application of facts.

Logic dictates that the other side of this is agreeing with god's word also with a qualifier. Either there has to be a logical reason to follow god's word or at the least no illogical reason why it should not be followed. Thus it seems to remove the "god's word' argument at least as a sole basis for political policy and interpretation of the bible as it is obviously impacted by peoples opinions and views about certain things.

How this applies to the question of homosexual marriage is simple in my opinion. If there is logical reasons why homosexual marriage would be a positive thing, or at least not a negative thing then it should be allowed even though god was/is clearly anti gay.

To demonstrate this point that homosexual marriage is a positive, or at least not a negative, I will introduce a hypothetical here, from a strictly conservative christian view. Let us for a moment assume that sexuality, in particular homosexuality is a choice and that it is also wrong and condemned by god as wicked and sinful. The facts are as follows:

Being homosexual increases the chances of depression, anxiety and suicidality due to discrimination perpetuated by not being seen as equal to heterosexual (ie marriage rights)

Homosexuals are still 'gay bashed'

Homosexuals as people are seen as less than heterosexuals

Gay relations won't actually be changed by gay marriage rights (just viewed as equal)

Addressing the homosexuality (sexuality in general) as a choice argument I would just like to ask as a woman why wouldn't I choose to be gay? The benefits are:

Significantly less chance of stds

Significantly less prevalence of sexual violence

Significantly less prevalence of domestic violence

(compared to heterosexual relationships and marriages, all shown in scientific studies). This leads into the next issue I noticed while perusing the bible. One of the main verses which condemns homosexuality as sinful also includes condemnation of thieves and adulterers. It also condemns rape. 1/6 women in Australia will be raped or sexually assaulted NUMEROUS times in her life. I am not sure of the exact facts here (I am not sure anyone is) but it stands to reason to assume it is about 1/6 of men perpetrating these acts of violence. So on one hand you have gay marriage which involves 10% of the population and on the other a crime nearly 20% of people are directly involved with in one way or the another. I have however been unable to find any christian groups rallying against rape (please direct me to websites of any that exist).

Homosexuality has been proved to have no direct health issues. Being raped on the other hand generally comes hand in hand with co morbid psychiatric issues such as depression, anxiety, borderline personality disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse. Why when there are logical reasons not to oppose homosexual marriage and logical reasons to rally against rape do we have people pouring millions of dollars into anti-gay christian compaigns but none that I can find into anti-rape christian compaigns?

I would like to at this point out that in my opinion the idea of marriage as "tradition" also holds no weight. There is little about marriage today that resembles what it was founded on. There is a no faults divorce system and there exists now the choice not to get married and not necessarily be expected to produce children if you do. The one tradition that holds true is marriage as a union between one man and one woman. However the history of marriage as an insitution is based upon the rule of a patriarchy. The "one" man is dominant over the "one" woman. Positioning women as lesser than men and thereby implying their needs and wants are of less concern. This allowed there to be a position where rape wasn't possible in wedlock. Consequently to support traditional gender roles in marriage is to encourage a culture where sexual abuse is widespread, this I believe contradicts the bible.

Convicted sex offenders and child molesters are permitted to get married with no challenge (that I have heard) coming from church groups. Seems to me that a child molester would pose more threat to the welfare of children then does a gay couple, who have the same potential as straight couples for love and compassion and morals.

I talked earlier about there being no health problems directly involved with being homosexual so I would like to now address a constant argument presented by the conservatives against gay marriage. The fact that gay men are more prone (then heterosexuals) to contracting sexual diseases such as aids. However to say this is relevant to the fact that they are homosexual is deeply flawed. It is like stating heterosexual people contract sexual diseases for reasons of their sexuality. If this is the case, then opposite sex marriage shouldn't be allowed either. On the basis of relative std contraction only lesbian marriage and relationships should be allowed as they have the lowest amount of stds.

It has also come to my intention that several conservative church groups believe it is impossible to have morals without following a divine law. However through the application of science morals can certainly be formed and followed quite well. The bible itself is subject to the scrutiny of facts as I stated previously. The other flaw of this as applied to homosexual marriage is that it is used to state that gay people do not follow god's law correctly and are evil. However many straight couples in society do not follow the bible either, not much is said about their inability to make moral judgement. I suppose as long as you conform to a christian view of a relationship without actually being christian you are still seen as a moral person, even though it is asserted that is is not possible for you to do so.

Another point I wanted to raise is the fact that the bible sees women as lesser beings than men. How can a rational person support the right of women to vote (assuming you do) to grant equal rights but deny equal rights to homosexual couples? Returning to the std argument for a moment, I also don't understand the ramifications of std rates in homosexual relationships in regards to gay marriage. I believe they are most likely already sexually active, it is hard to save yourself for marriage when you're not allowed to marry.

I have two side notes to make here.

1) I oppose the use of the word homophobia and propose instead sexualism (allows for sexualities other than homosexuality to be discriminated against)

2) I use the term homosexual throughout this post as it is written in regards to christianity's response to the LGBT movement which has a focus on the homosexual aspect. Although to be politically correct I would prefer if I, and they, used the term "non heterosexual"

Thursday, August 19, 2010

On the matter of LGBT

I bring this up because I think it applies quite well to the ideologies of feminism in many ways.

The dogmatic conservatives seem to have taken up a postion of oppression. Whereby they are being oppressed by the oppressed. I just don't see how this is possible. You can't have a situation where the oppressed are oppressing the oppressors. Just like in feminism where the men claim it is they who are being oppressed.

And just like within a feminist context they are claiming that their freedom of expression is being compromised by the gay and lesbian movement. However just as it is wrong to openly (or secretly) hate a woman, a black, an asian it is wrong to hate a homosexual.

The parallels between the movements and the issues in each are startling. So I had a few questions. To those who subscribe to christian dogma and support gender equality (which doesn't seem to have support in the bible) and are anti gay how do you justify this position?

To those who support equality based on gender, race and sexuality what do you think about the issue of anti-gay christians being oppressed?

Is it anti-religious to resent that kind of bigotry? Is it even bad to be anti-religious? A lot of the dogmatic christian ideology seems to subscribe to the idea that homosexuality (but not hetereosexuality) is a choice, so it is therefore a viable target. In much the same way (but actually based on facts) being christian is a choice, and interpretation of the bible in certain ways is a choice. So perhaps by their very own logic it is perfectly moral to "silence" them.

Another point in which I saw anaologys to feminism was education. Namely there were complaints about literature involving homosexuals and sex education involving homosexual studies. Much the same as there is opposition to studies focused on women.

I think the point many conservatives miss is that as a woman, as something (someone?) other than heterosexual I experience oppression, where as they are the oppressing force. As the oppressed it is important for their to be things like girls studies, womens studies and the inclusion of homosexual literature and education in the reading curriculum. This to enable the change of societal values that will lead to more freedom for more people rather than what we have now. I am not forcing my will upon their lives they are forcing theirs into my life, by bitterly not allowing me the right to marry a woman.

At this point I should go into the arguments of why/how homosexuality is not a choice, but I really can't be bothered right now. If it is necessary let me know.

That said. I don't hate christians I hate the bigotry and the cowardice of hiding behind the bible.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Rape jokes

I know there is an abundance of feminist blogs addressing this issue, but I couldn't resist putting my two cents in.

Rape jokes can be funny. Example,817/

The question often brought up is "why can we joke about death and not rape"

It is interesting to deconstruct. Perhaps it is because death happens to everyone. It isn't insulting one group of people. Perhaps also the fact that real rape is often a target for joke comes into play as well.

However there are obviously bans on certain type of jokes. Torture jokes don't seem to be common.

The joke is "rape is just surprise sex!" not "torture is just surprise bdsm!"

It just doesn't have the same oomph because people recognise torture for what it is; wrong.

However in a culture where rape is often considered to be rough sex, it hits a little too close too home when people minimise it by referring to it as sex. This misconception damages rape victims, women and society. Why perpetuate the myth?

To lighten the mood...

...and prove I'm not as angry as I seem :P

I found this on the interwebs.

How many feminists does it take to change lightbulb?

None, because they never change anything!

Two..............IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT?????!!!!???

A total of 100. One to change it, and 99 to wring their hands and agonize about how oppressed the socket is.

How old-fashioned. The other 99 are there to lobby Congress to outlaw crimes against sockets -- and to say the bulb-changer is not a representative of mainstream feminism.

A total of 11. One to DO IT ALL BY HERSELF!!!! And 10 to form a survivors of darkness support group!

Seven. One to change the lightbulb, three to protest the offense committed by the lightbulb in regards to the socket, two to secretly wish they were the socket, and one to secretly wish she was the lightbulb.

Three - one to do it, the others to consider unscrewing it before it's a third of the way in.

None. It's not the light bulb that needs changing.

Five, four to try like men and fail miserably, one to find a female electrician, settle for a man and picket as he works.

Two - one to change the bulb and one to write about how it feels.

Two - one to change it and one to threaten to do a Lorena Bobbitt on any man who tries to interfere.

Three - one to screw it in and two to talk about the sexual implications.
"Hey man, screwing objectifies the light bulb"

50,000 marching on Washington demanding the lightbulb be changed!

That depends. If there is money in it, it takes 10 women-only-governmen t- contractors working 2 years at a salary of $50,000 per year. Otherwise, it's traditionally expected for the man to do it.

Ten: To form a university funded protest committee to research how the white male patriarchy conspires to keep women and minorities in the dark.

Two. One to threaten that as a mother, she will be unable to provide her children light without federal assistance; and a N.O.W. attorney to ask the Justice Department to sue GE for allowing the bulb to go out in the first place.

Nobody knows. But everyone knows that women and minorities will suffer more than anyone else because it's dark.

None. Women have a supreme court, constitionally protected right to work in the dark if they choose to.

It's sexual harassment to even SUGGEST jokingly on the net that a woman SCREW in anything.

One. But if the bulb IS replaced, the job will go to a minority or woman contractor.

30,000 to start a letter writing campaign protesting Newt Gingrich cutting off funds for the Federal Light Bulb Changing Agency...

Three. One to screw it in, and two to file a sexual harrassment lawsuit on behalf of the bulb.

Two. One to wait for a federal agency to send someone to screw it in. Another to file harassment charges against the men possibly looking at her in the dark.

Feminists don't screw at all. That's what sperm banks are for!

If a feminist does screw in a light bulb, it will be up to the government or the father to support any children resulting from such a sexual act. She will also require free day care for the light bulb children and federal funding for studies of how light-bulb children should be treated under affirmative action hiring quotas.

Unknown. But the federal government's welfare reform will limit the number of free light bulbs a woman can receive to under a 2 year supply.

One. And when she replaces it, she will think of Mother Earth and use a fluorescent lamp designed to last 3 times longer and protect the environment... But if a man isn't paying for it, then she will use the cheapest one.

Two, one to change it and one to tell her she did a really good job.

That's not funny, abusive white male aggressor!!

Monday, August 9, 2010

It's ok to be raped but not to be angry about it

To put things into perspective here. I will outline a few facts about rape that should be common knowledge. In the legal system of both America and Australia rape is considered one of the worst things you could do to another person. It is in fact second only to murder. Rape is torture. Psychological and physical torture. Rape has long lasting effects on the person's life.

Now having gotten the housekeeping on rape done I get into the point of this entry. This was in part inspired by a response to my last post, but mostly inspired by the general response to rape.

It is easy for a person to say "yes, rape is bad, I understand it has long term consequences" but it seems like another issue entirely for them to actually have any understanding of the reality of rape. The reality is yes, anger and sadness, and confusion and anxiety. So why then is it so easy for these people who supposedly understand to call justified anger "wallowing" or "self pity".

Yes, I do feel bad that I was raped, it wasn't a pleasant experience. Yes I do get sad about it. I do get into a rage about it on occassion. Is this self pity though or is it just grief?

I am not talking about only myself here, it happens to other people who have experienced rape as well. We are still smothered in a silence enforced by societal pressures. No one wants to deal with the anger that results from rape. I mean I certainly don't so I can understand why someone else would want to be away from my anger. However to be treated with a complete lack of compassion is more then I can tolerate sometimes.

I am not by nature self pitying. I never think "Ohhh, why me?" I always think "Why anyone?". As a consequence I then set about trying to help the people it has happened to and trying to prevent it from happening to anyone else.

Sometimes I express my anger in a negative way, I direct it towards people who don't deserve it. However in the case of creative writing my anger isn't really directed towards anyone at all, just the situation in general.

I really don't comprehend why it is so wrong of me to be upset, why I should "lighten up" because someone isn't capable of dealing with the harsh realities of rape and the aftermath. Well sorry but it is something many people actually have to deal with every day.

In a society where sexual assault is so common, why is it that it still so wrong to be angry about it?

Tuesday, August 3, 2010


I wrote a story today, inspired by Dworkin. Be kind, it was just a spur of the moment thing.

Love at first sight

At the time I met her I was empty and alone. Drained and desperate. It was what passes as night in the city. The natural order of the passage of time disturbed by a continual hustle and bustle and brightly lit roads and store fronts. I caught my first glimpse of her when rounding a corner. Her most noticable feature was her hair. It drew my longing eyes like pollen draws the bee. Her hair was long, I don't know about the colour, because it glistened and shimmered in the artificial light. Dozens of different colours all at once, a rainbow trailing behind her, and after that first time I never paid much heed to her hair again. That beautiful luxurious hair lied to me, it said you can bury your face in me and I will envelop you and protect you. It promised freedom in it's tangled tresses, freedom it couldn't deliver, except fleetingly.

Later in her apartment, in her, I found my cocoon, I found a womb to shelter in, reveling in its warmth. For the first time since the endless day began I shut my eyes, resting, satisfied with the fruits of the search. When I thought about it later, and was really honest with myself. I tentatively admitted I had thought by filling her that I could also fill myself. This realisation however occurred past any possibility of usefulness. I was in fact stroking a gun, just as she had stroked me to throbbing fullness, when this thought swam into my consciousness. As the tears soaked my face, I thought perhaps the ejaculation of man was merely grief expressed. Perhaps the male climax is poetry and art and overwhelming anguish.

On that night, that garishly lit up night in the shadow thrown by her shades I had thought myself saved, but the redemption found in the feminine folds of her body was hollow and brief. As soon as I convinced myself that she was salvation incarnate, I moved my things into her apartment, although I had no personal belongings to my name. There for months we laid in each others urgent embrace and told delicious lies to each other, as maggots infested discarded plates of food. Our hearts thrumming together in the throes of abandon, both reckless and needed. We whispered of love and mutual need and satisfaction. We spoke of the world, our world, here in the shadows.

I became a man possessed, when I needed her, which was all the time, I had to have her without hesitation. A slight hesitation on her part would give birth to doubts of the absolute truth of our love. It came to the point where in the after glow of our love making I would reach for her again. Plunge into her depths, into her, and out of myself. My disgust at being alone in my rotting flesh was too much for me to bear so I spent more and more time in her, frenzied in my need, unmindful to hers. It came to past that one night my frenzy reached the crescendo where I was no longer aware of her at all, except as a means of escape.

She rolled over to sleep after an extended love making session and I became enraged, denied my freedom, denied my pleasure. I reached for her as I had many times before, rough though, this time. I pushed her facedown on the mattress and slid into her, burying my face in that gorgeous hair. No matter my stroke, slow, fast, gentle, forceful, I couldn't find the peace I craved. Her struggles were meaningless and her cries of pain like bird calls on the wind. I thrust harder, winding my hand in the tangle of her hair. If I can just get deeper, I told myself, I will find nirvana once more. After trying until the sweat poured down my back with no success, I pushed her away from me. My shame hanging limply between my legs.

It was never the same after that, we stayed together, but instead of burning for my touch as I burnt for hers she would cower and tremble like a beaten puppy when I reached for her. Her once fiery eyes that burnt with an inexpressible passion were dull and dead, only sparking to life when fear ignited them. It was the never the same to my manhood either, it hung lifeless beneath my belt, and no amount of coaxing would summon it to towering heights again. I felt robbed, she had rejected my maleness, she had rejected me and as a result my masculinity was cowed.

Now, unable to possess her as god and nature ordained, unable to achieve fullness as a man, I turned to other means. I was plagued by feelings of inadequacy and my inability to take what was rightfully mine. I became more forceful, instead of pressing against her to feel her heart beat with love against my chest. I took to pressing against her to feel her heart increase its cadence in fear. Where once she quivered in passion and need she now quivered in terror, I became unable to tell the two apart, I didn't want to. Being the cause of a reaction, any reaction in her body was enough for me. Her looks of love became glances of terror trying to gauge my mood.

Rather then please me, rather than assure me that I still had control, it was merely a reminder of the power I had once had. I had once commanded her body, brought her to shuddering orgasm as the captain steers his ship over the swelling wave. Now all I could do was intimadate her into submission to me, my manhood gone with her desire. I was barely conscious of the atrocities I was committing, losing myself in my helplessness and impotence and only later noticing the bruising forming on her thighs, belly, breasts and face. The more abuse she endured from me to prove her love and devotion, the more I wanted to torment her quaking body, as mine was tormented by withdrawals.

One day I arrived home from work and found her in our bed, lifeless as she had been for a long time, but dead as well. Her staring eyes, searching for something else, something better, as mine once had. There wasn't a mark on her body that I hadn't caused. She was beautiful in death just as she had been in life. I leaned over her body and pressed my lips to hers, tasting only cold and death and my own salty tears. I left the apartment and the bed that had been my sanctuary for a time and never returned. I resumed my restless pacing around the city, looking once more for that long hair I could lose myself in.

Every woman I glimpsed in my outings however, was a reminder of damnation rather then a potential salvation. I came to know that she had been my only safe haven, my angel, my jesus, sent here to suffer for my sins. Just as the jews had tortured and killed their saviour so had I tortured and killed mine. That is how it came to be that I was sitting in my car parked at the very corner where I had first seen her radiance. A gun in my lap, next to my lifeless member. Lips dripping blood where I tore them in distress mixing with tears of knowledge realised too late. Nothing left to do now, I put the gun in my mouth and my finger on the trigger.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Dworkin is my hero

I have only really read excerpts from her books and speeches and just today started on reading ok, more like inhaling a book she wrote titled "Intercourse".

She takes what is in the furthermost reaches of my mind, things I dare not speak of, things I dare not even think of, and lays it out on the page for my eager eyes to absorb.

I feel like I am fully understanding the issue of rape for the first time. I have long thought of it as a hate crime, but only with Dworkin now triggering cognitive functioning, do I recognise it for what it truly is; an institutionalised hate crime.

I will believe that the patriarchy has been dismantled successfully and that gender equality (equity as some have suggested I call it) has room to grow and flourish when I can do the following-

-run down the main street naked
-get so intoxicated I pass out
-walk around outside by myself at night time
-sleep naked next to a boy

without the fear that these actions will result in rape or sexual abuse. All of these things a boy can do (invert the last one to read sleep naked next to a woman) without fear of these such repercussions.

"My body, my choice" is only true if you have a penis.

Returning to Dworkin herself, I believe she will be a great source of inspiration for me. Her ability to persevere through extraordinary personal hardships, never losing sight of the goal, never waivering, never allowing people to bully her. These are all things I admire and hope I can live up to. Amazing lady, just amazing. It is true bravery to state without a doubt that something so widely accepted as right, is actually wrong. Especially for decades, especially besieged by critics. When I grow up I want to be Andrea Dworkin, noble and adamant.

Her work is so emotive, scanning through the pages, lapping up every word of beautifully turned prose I was filled with anger. No, that is wrong, I was allowed to feel the anger I was already filled with. It was...liberating. I have never felt so at peace with myself as I do now, admitting I am pissed off has allowed me to relax.

She made me aware of the true horrors of rape, what I feel personally but didn't have the ability to give voice to. The rage and helplessness and fear I felt during my own experiences are of faded hue compared to the rage and helplessness and fear I feel now on behalf of my gender. How can this keep happening? How can it be that people think its normal for women to go out and have to watch their drink like a hawk lest it be spiked. How can people think its normal to have rape crisis centres scattered everywhere. How can people continue to turn a blind eye when it is their sisters, mothers, daughters, girlfriends, friends being raped. Do they not know that rape is torture, murder of the spirit, destruction of freedom. Do they not realise it is an enslavement of all women, to keep us in our places, keep us behaving, so men can maintain their dominance. You better behave! If you go out drinking, if you wear skimpy clothes, if you flirt without giving up the goods, you might be raped! This isn't conjecture, this is reality, the cold hard facts. Argue with that.

Lurking in my pacifist heart are flickerings of a desire for vengence, a subtle hostility towards men I never allowed near the surface. She is right, if all the men who claim the women in their lives are important and equal actually thought that then we wouldn't have the situation we have now. I feel the nagging feelings of doubt towards these men growing in my belly. Being sexually abused by 4 different men by the age of 22 can do that to a girl though I suppose. I wonder if number 5 would/will push me over the edge into fully formed cynicism. Oh well, I guess we will probably find out.

As for the vengence idea I am already putting my plan into action. I am going to follow in Dworkin's footsteps and rally against the patriarchy and everyone who supports it. I will tear them apart with words and they won't like me very much, but I will like myself and I will be able to sleep at night.

I am entitled to what men are, that is all, and that is all I want, why is it so hard? Decades after we gain the right to vote our movement is stalled. Let us come together once more as the feminists of old did, and take what is rightfully ours. I am done begging.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Sex is natural

I have recently undertaken the task of trying to absorb Dworkin's work and read through some blogs that cover the issues she raises. In doing so, my own brain juices were triggered.

Sex is natural is the instantaneous and absurdly common response to any suggestion that sex may not be necessary. While this satisfied me for a time, the natural state of things rarely seems to be the best state of things. Moving away from a feminism for a moment to demonstrate this point, it is natural for people to eat animals. We are omnivores, we are more intelligent and more powerful then animals, so therefore it is natural for us to do so. I don't know if I ever thought like that really, but it was a good excuse at the time to continue eating meat. However it is wrong to torture and kill and wrong to excuse ourselves and justify our actions by claiming we are "just animals".

If in the case of vegetarianism a claim that it is natural to commit the kind of atrocity against animals that is the meat industry is to be rejected then in the case of sex it should also be rejected. We are not just mindless animals determined to engage in sex and procreate, we are, or should be, thoughtful human beings. Afterall what about our society now is in any way natural? We are constantly pumped full of medication when we probably should have died already, we have cities that are covering the world in smog, and slowly killing it. Nothing we do is natural, nothing we do is merely because we are mindless animals acting on instincts, so why do we continue to hide behind this excuse?

I was surprised by the fact I actually agreed with some of what a self proclaimed radical feminist stated. I have long been resentful of the expectation of sexual intercourse. There are many situations where it is expected, in normal situations, by well adjusted men. For instance if a woman allows a man to touch her, stimulate her, it is done with the absolute assumption that sex will follow, if sex does not follow well then rape does in extreme situations or frustration on the side of the man. I am aware that some women enjoy sex, orgasm from sex, but the studies show that most women do not climax from penetration. Why then is she expected to spread her legs? Why would she want something that isn't actually pleasurable?

In a relationship is another time sex is expected. If a woman isn't willing to have sex with her partner then she is not taking care of his needs properly, though very little is mentioned about him taking care of her needs. If sex doesn't occur this then isn't a healthy relationship, a real relationship or sometimes even a relationship at all. Even though one partner probably won't enjoy it.

The true issue with these situations is that they are hard to avoid. Humans are social creatures, they want to be with someone and they want to feel physical closeness. Not being in a relationship, not being able to experience physical pleasure without the eventual result of sex will never result in anything but misery. Women it seems to me often end up in situations where sex isn't the result they were hoping for but they submit to it to please their partner. This isn't the normal healthy compromise of a relationship (assuming it is in a relationship) that is sacrifice.

This results in a sense of helplessness I think. It creates an environment where the woman is not free to say no, if she wants to be close to someone if she wants to get the trade off of maybe engaging in sexual activity that pleases her as well she has to have sex. It is a currency, women give sex and men give emotions.

Why do men who are well aware that women rarely climax during sex still expect it? demand it? Get surprised when it isn't there? Are the radical feminists right, are men really conditioned to that extent to feel entitlement over women and their bodies.

Sometimes after I shower I look at my body and wonder how it could be that it will ever be mine, there is always someone who thinks that using it is his right as a man.

Yes I understand that men become aroused and enjoy sex, but I also understand that men aren't animals, sex is not a necessity to life (not anymore).

Why does the chant of "my body, my choice" ring so false?

Personally, I dislike sex, it isn't a pleasurable sensation for me. I gain no enjoyment from it, but people keep demanding that I have it anyway because its normal and healthy and natural. Until today I believed them, I convinced myself it was part of some mental illness, something to be fixed. Go to therapy and fix myself then I will enjoy sex. Seems to me with all the studies showing that sex doesn't often result in climax for the woman, I should have figured out sooner, my lack of desire for sex was probably not caused by mental illness. The tracks that play over and over in my head, frustrate me. Why do I have this determination to "cure" my displeasure when it comes to sex so that I can learn to satisfy my partner? It seems wrong to me, that I have to think this way.

My therapist incidently described a pressure to have sex as similar to the experience of rape. In both scenarios there is one person trying to force their (his) will upon the other for selfish reasons and the other person is trapped and distressed. I definitely see how this is true. Furthermore for me, pretty much anytime I have had sex has been in attempt to please my partner not really examining too thoroughly the fact that it wasn't something I wanted. It is degrading in a way to have these kind of thought patterns in my head.

In a conversation with a friend the other day, I told him he was common because he was a boy, there are lots of boys I said so therefore you are common. He responded that it isn't very nice to be put in a group based on your gender and told you are common. Sadly, my compassion and empathy deserts me just now. Maybe I am just too used to my gender defining me and too sick of it.

What is the verdict on these musings?

Monday, July 26, 2010

I had a bad day...

...So apologies in advance for the bitterness that is ahead of you, my faithful readers.

A question, to everyone who thinks along the lines of the equivalent of rape convictions going to people who wrongly accuse others of rape, what do you think about this idea?

Rapists should be raped

You know that seems very fair to me, if we are going to start implementing a legal system that exacts "justice" based on the suffering of the victim then this should also be passed into law immediately! Come on people, rape for rapists, sounds good, no? It has a certain ring to it. What do we want? MORE RAPE! When do we want it? NOW!

Why send them to prison and just HOPE they are raped, why not just do it ourselves? While we are at it we can kill murderers and if they tortured people in their perversion we should torture them too. Bring on the needles people, we are going old school!

Afterall, only a rape victim can know the pain of a rape victim, so then, why not turn rapists into rape victims?

On second thought, I have a better plan, why don't we base laws on reason, logic and scientific study? Though they don't call me Crazy Cass for nothing, and this may be a part of that nickname.

Oops, did i just lose my patience with immoral people? Did I fail to shut up and accept the things I cannot change? Did I just commit some dreadful sin?

What about love? Compassion? Empathy? Is it uncool to relate to people who do bad things? Uncool to think that maybe they are people too, not under the influence of some force of evil, but just people, people that are also suffering. While not a fan of the bible I am all for loving thy neighbour (but don't get caught!) maybe sometimes people can focus their attentions on that part and leave the other pages to gather dust.

Today, dear bloggers, I fell apart, the thought that nobody actually gives a shit unless it DIRECTLY impacts on their precious lives, struck home. This terrible day led to these thoughts crowding into my mind. I was confused, how do I cope with the apathy and selfishness I see everywhere? I can never accept it, as people keep telling me I should. Where do I stand now? Well all I can think is I will just have to learn to be stronger, to care more instead of less, to make up for the ignorant and the self involved. To increase my resources, increase my advocacy for those issues that make the blood boil in my veins. To never accept, but always challenge.

Mostly though, I have to keep the hope alive. I hope that this blog is a way to do that, to keep my hope alive, and help others keep hoping. Some days I feel very alone in my passion and my desire to do good and be good, but one is better then none. I can only hope I have the strength of will to keep this one going at least.

And so ends my self righteous rant.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Choice and Beliefs

It has often been asserted on this blog that I am answerable for feminisms weaker points because I have chosen to be feminist. However when I answered with the religion argument (review old posts if you need to) it was returned that believing in god isn't a choice. Well in the same way for me believing in feminism isn't a choice, I didn't wake up one day and say to myself I wanted to be a feminist, it just happened that way. I couldn't stop being a feminist any more then a devout catholic could stop being a catholic. In what way are beliefs choices and in what way are choices beliefs?

Secondly, what does it matter? It is just like the homosexual debates about whether being gay is a choice or not, I often become confused about the matter. What difference does it make if it is a choice? Being able to choose doesn't seem to make things more or less wrong.

What do other people think about this?

The balance of morality

This may be a little off topic here for a feminist blog but I wanted to express it anyway.

It was recently suggested to me that I should view the catholic church as good even though it promotes bigotry and unhappiness. This is because they do charity work. Therefore, I was told, there is a balance, the good they do outweighs the bad. This to me is horrific. How can this possibly be that doing bad things is ok as long as you do good things as well. I drew a diagram of this but I don't know how to put it in here. Basically it is a set of scales on one side there is good on the other there is bad, as long as it is balanced, it is acceptable. Therefore under this (an extreme example I know) I could murder someone as long as I turned around and saved someones life. This makes no sense to me. Doing good never makes up for the bad you have done.

In terms of feminism, I am unsure of how to relate it back to topic. I think it works on the level that people use it to try to make up for past injustices, it is ok what happened "back in the day" because I am a feminist and trying to set things right. I am still trying to arrange this in my head, so any input would be appreciated.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

All men are rapists and all women are liars

I have been thinking a lot about these two sides of the debate. I am often very hesitant in expressing my displeasure about things that affect me directly. Either I think I am not in a good place to be objective or I think people will discount my beliefs based on personal bias.

However having already addressed and had several responses to the radical feminist statement that all men are rapists I think I should take a look at the other side of the coin.

I have read through 100s of blogs about gender on the internet pretty thoroughly, so while I admit there are some gaps in my knowledge, I feel I have a finger on the pulse of what is happening here.

MRA seem to be concerned with showing that all women are liars especially when it comes to rape, they echo the myths that women commonly lie about rape for revenge and send forth the message that men should be careful who they sleep with lest the woman should find them less than desirable in the morning and cry rape. Let us put aside for a moment the fact that this is nothing new, it is in fact a pretty outdated way of thinking about rape. Let us also put aside any musings about why women may feel compelled to lie about their sex life and look at the deeper issue here.

This seems to show that MRA don't want to come to a harmonious agreement about gender issues they just want men on top where they have always been. When they examine the issue of FRA it is never looked at objectively, MRA only look at the fact that some accusations are false and address the legislation under that premise. However in looking at law and if it should in fact exist it seems to me that it is necessary to look at both sides. The occurence of rape and the occurence of false accusations of rape and decide from there what the best course of action is, because looking at this from only the angle that false rape accusations exist produces a very deep running bias. Let us not at this point get into the deeply flawed studies that are often quoted as showing that FRA is as common as real accusations or nearly so.

I however will not be silent on the issue that arises from speaking of only reported rapes. It is very convenient to leave the majority of rape victims out of the arguement if they don't prove your point isn't it? Just ignore them altogether, because nobody will notice, we are all too used to them being ignored anyway.

It is hard to explain why most rape, sexual abuse and dv victims don't come forward if the system is so biased towards them and condemns the man as guilty upon accusation.

It is hard to explain why there are false accusations in the first place, not that anyone seems to want to go past the assertion that it is due to women having a princess syndrome. Oh if only, if only I was in a society where my body was my own, where going out to a club or pub won't mean some guy taking more liberties then I like with my person. If only I could live in this fantasy world MRA have dreamed up for me.

This leads to the question of the suffering of the falsely accused man. This is still something I am mulling over. The most common serious illnesses (that I know of) associated with sexual abuse are post traumatic stress disorder and dissociative identity disorder. I think dissociative identity disorder is for the most part contributed to childhood trauma so doesn't really apply to men falsely accused. Post traumatic stress disorder is something however I can see arising from false imprisonment (or even justified imprisonment, but nobody seems bothered by that, that is a subject for another post I think).

False accusations of rape could tear apart families, ruin lives, waste valuble years, expose people to shame and humiliation. However is it the same thing as experiencing a situation where a person feels their life is in danger, where they are attacked, shamed and humiliated for amusement and fun? I am not so certain.

I have also been on MRA blogs where there are names floating around of men who have killed themselves because of this, which I admit is horrible, the thought of anyone killing themselves fills me with dread and horror. Rape victims on the other hand don't tend to be known by name, or have cases that can be commented on due to the utter normality of a suicide due to issues caused by rape or sexual abuse. It occurs to me that it should be much easier to find out how men are effected by FRA then women affected by rape on a case by case basis as the names of the accused are known while women are anonymous. Why then is it not so shocking to think about a woman killing herself due to rape as it is to think of a man killing himself due to being accused of rape? It seems to be seen as pretty much acceptable that a raped woman would commit suicide (who would want to live after being defiled like that anyway right?). Her worth gone with her purity. When a man's dignity is challenged however it is a different story.

Another point of frustration is the trend I see to want to convict women who falsely accuse men of rape on the same level as rapists. I state on every page I see (with very little success) that many things must come into play when passing legislation. I reject the idea that it would be fair for women who falsely accuse men of rape to serve the same sentence as rapists, this is completely irrational, I can't even figure out the logic behind this kind of thinking. Let us begin with the fact that they are different crimes, yes different crimes deserve different punishment. These must also be taken into consideration-

Safety of society
Safety of the victim
Justice for the victim
Rehabilitation for the criminal
Deterrent for future criminals of this sort

Yes, MRAs blind desire for females to suffer as much as males has led them to the illogical thinking they abhor. I am not saying women (and men) shouldn't be punished for false accusations, but lets actually look at it in a rational way. Firstly do women who falsely accuse deserve to be punished? Well to me it seems they should be, but to what degree? Is society safe from these women? Do they commonly reoffend? Is the victim protected from further victimisation? Has justice been brought about on behalf of the victim? Can they be rehabilitated? What therapy is useful? Are there many criminals of this kind and if there is does punishment act as a deterrent for this crime? Punishment just for the sake of punishment is barbaric, they deserve hurt because they hurt someone else, has been shown to be a flawed way of thinking, and isn't useful in application to the real world. Noses out of the bible for a few moments people.

Let us on the other hand consider the crime of rape. Well I think it is obvious rapists are deserving of some punishment, what punishment is very much open to debate, I don't think it is relevant to get into it at this stage. It has been shown again and again that society is not safe from people with a tendency to abuse, it is in their mentalities and embedded within their various mental instabilities. Is justice ever achieved for rape victims? Very rarely in my opinion. Can rapists be rehabilitated? I am very confused about the answer to that one myself, any speculation would be appreciated. There are significantly higher numbers it seems of abusers then false rape accusers. I am also unsure it would be a useful deterrent as it seems to be a crime of passion, more than premeditated. Very few of these legal issues about rapists and false accusers seem to be discussed or even taken into consideration by the MRAs and their supporters.

Another thought I am swirling around in this head of mine is the fact that women seem to often show remorse for their accusations. As the MRAs adamantly claim in the flawed study where 41% of rape claims were shown to be false, it came about as a result of confessions. I haven't heard of many (any?) rapists who turned themselves in and left themselves at the mercy of the justice system in order to spare their victim more suffering.

Basically the conclusion I have come to in writing this entry is that rape and FRA are completely different issues that should never be compared to each other, they have very little in common other then on the surface appearing to show gender bias. As usual however when one delves a little deeper the flaws become apparent and the arguement illogical.

Stick to comparing rape of men to rape of women, but even in that comparison the flaws are many, perhaps don't compare at all, and just work on the issues in a way that doesn't try to make one side out to be evil. Yes, I mean statements like these, that are just loaded pointless insults

MRA states: Feminists always interfere in MRA business by saying "what about the womminz"

Radical feminist states: MRA always intefere in feminist business by saying "what about the meeeeenz"

Both these statements fill me with disgust, and show a deep bias in those who use these as a defence. I have a very strange idea, support your views instead of rejecting an issue based on gender, that is the very thing we should be fighting against.

A helpful response to "All men are rapists" is not in fact "All women are liars". Will people ever see the hate behind these generalised type of statements and the hurt they cause?

Saturday, June 26, 2010


Just a quick question...

In the extremely skewed statistics most MRAs seem to support is the fact that rape is the most under-rated crime counted in their ratios?

Seems to be reported rape and actual numbers of rape victims are two very different things.

Thursday, June 24, 2010


I encountered a self professed feminist not long ago. He put forth the theory that due to society not being open to women in terms of power and authority women have been returning to more submissive roles, such as domesticity and family. I had a few issues with this concept. The first was he couldn't provide anything to back up such an intense claim. The conversation lasted well over an hour and I couldn't make any progress with him about finding some sources to back this up. This view without any evidence seems to me to be very sexist. An assumption that women are inherently weak and will give up and fall back on traditional roles.

Also viewing domestic roles to be necessarily submissive (and necessarily negative) irks me. I have no problem with women who want to be submissive in their relationship and don't see it as something feminism can't support. Everyone should have choice and be happy with that choice. That is what feminism is to me.

Also generalisations can be made about anyone regardless of gender. Some men are rapists, some women are bimbos, etc. To identify SOME women falling back on traditional roles as a trend is deeply disturbing and not entirely relevant I don't think.

Maybe I have this all confused though, and my fellow debater wasn't skilled in communication. Can anyone shed some light on this very confusing issue? Or provide some personal insight?

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Feminism Epiphany

I was reading through some blogs today, some articles as well, to do with feminism. and any forms not-feminism comes in. I was struck over the head with a metaphorical 2x4. This 2x4 connected with other 2x4s that had come before it. I came to a conclusion, whether this conclusion is correct or not remains to be seen.

The anti-feminist movement as just that, anti-feminist, it appears to care very little about actually helping men in comparison to dragging women (mostly feminists) down to their (alleged) level. They are so blind in their need to knock feminists out of the way they are ignoring those they claim to support: men.

MRA as I have been able to tell so far, are characterised by such rage, such hatred, that leads to an inability to reason. In being liberated women had to take on the traits of men, now it appears as though men are taking on the traits of the stereotypical woman. Whiny, unreasonable and emotionally driven. They seek injustice to attempt to balance out injustice.

Worse still this leads them to confront their imagined foe, the big bad feminist when they could be doing good in the world. An absolute refusal to recognise the system for what it is, a flawed patriarchy. Instead a feminist tyranny has been invented, and things like FRA is used to show the flaws in feminism, when in fact it has nothing to do with feminism and more to do with our increasingly nonchalant culture. A moral void.

Perhaps instead of wasting time blaming all their problems on feminism, making absurd claims of feminist dictatorship and deducing from there an existence of male oppression, men can actually further men's rights, and while they are there why not women's rights as well?

Monday, June 14, 2010


I have had some interesting questions and queries from those on my blog and some outside of my blog lately. So I shall reverse them and put them to you, my readers-

1) What is a conscience to you?

2) How do you know what is right and what is wrong?

and my own questions I draw from that-

3) How does this apply to gender equality?

4) What do you do in those times of crisis when your faith in yourself has been shaken?

Sunday, June 13, 2010


With all the recent conversations I have had in regards to gender equality I find myself with even more questions.

I was worrying about one of my female friends being out late tonight and stopped for a second and realised if it was a male I wouldn't be concerned. Is this from sexism? I wondered. I however thought up many factors that could contribute to this reaction, other then sexist thoughts.

1) I seem to connect with women on a more emotional level then I do with men. I am unsure if this is something I do wrong, they do wrong, or just a natural state of affairs.

2) It is definitely far more dangerous for women, they are quite vulnerable.

3) In friendships consisting of two females it easily becomes one of the friendships habits to check in with each other.

4) I am a stresshead

5) It seems to be more acceptable to ask females if they are ok and things like that, males tend to "pfft".

I thought about those things and briefly felt better until I started wondering if this reaction and these interactions were as a result of gender roles in society. Addressing my previous points in light of this new realisation...

1) Women tend to be quite aware of their gender and the gender of other people (it could be like that for men as well, I am not sure). Could this be due to oppression? Due to being treated like sex objects? Having that constant little voice in the back of their head telling them to not let their guard down too much around the other sex?

2) As always, this brought me to the question of why it is so much more dangerous for women. Why do we have to be taught from very young to be careful where we go and who we go with, because otherwise we will end up raped? How is this an acceptable state for a society to be in?

3) The age old question of the possibility that men and women may not be compatible in close friendships arises here.

4) Well being a stresshead is probably part me and part society.

5) The macho, masculine attitudes men are instilled with.

It is fascinating.I am sure one day I will send myself insane with constant questioning, but until then, this blog will survive.

Thursday, June 10, 2010


I was recently pointed in the direction of an article that brought up the issue that MRA tend to accuse women of demanding chivalry from men without having earned it. (article is linked in previous blog entry).

I wanted to elaborate on this point because it is a trend I have noticed myself and find quite absurd. I have a confession to make, I like having a boyfriend that will treat me to dinner. I am a new age feminist but I like men "taking care" of me in this way.

However, I also like to take care of the men (and women) in my life in similar ways. If I have time I also like cooking for my boyfriend, because he likes that, especially when he is busy with work and such. I suppose you could see it as conforming to traditional gender roles that feminism abhors. I think the important point here though is that both he and I have choice in the matter, and in the end it is just a way of expressing affection and respect. Why else be in a relationship?

The issue of "protection" is also brought up within this discussion of chivalry. It is interesting in the way that yes, if someone was attacking me I would expect my boyfriend to intervene. On the other hand if someone was attacking my boyfriend or another person (regardless of gender) I would likewise intervene.

This may not fit some MRA's definition of chivalry, however that's a moot point, as if that isn't what chivalry encompasses then I don't particularly need or want it in my life.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010


Does this strike anyone else as completely inappropriate?

Domestic violence used as comedy?

Women expressing sexuality being abused for it.

It smacks of oppression to me.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010


This will be a short post.

I am merely concerned with making a comment about criticism. If you are not open to the fact you may be wrong or able to defend your views, you are just showing your bias. I have been on many blogs where people attempt to defend their views by stating the same statement again. That isn't defending or backing up, that is called repetition. It is frustrating because I feel like they may have something of importance to say, but I can no longer take their views seriously when they have lost that amount of credibility.

It reminds me of what I recently studied at university in regards to media and the internet. The concern academics are showing over how the main use of media has become being heard and the emphasis on listening is completely gone. This troubles me too. Without anyone to listen we are simply shouting into a vacuum.

Although, it brings me back in full circle, to why I created this blog, because I fully believe I am accountable and responsible for supporting my views just as everyone else is, I am hoping this will be a blog of equity as we get past the initial "hazing" phase.

Sunday, June 6, 2010


What does everyone think?


Yes, unfortunately I have had to start deleting comments. No longer will emotional outbursts be tolerated. Swearing is also frowned upon but will be allowed if in the context of a decent point. Personal attacks and character assassinations are no longer allowed either. Please keep it civil and intellectual.

I make this entry because I don't want to explain myself over and over. The regulations of my blog are fair, if you don't like them, please go elsewhere.

If I delete an issue you wanted to bring up because it is obscured by any of the above, please feel free to make it again, but this time in keeping with the regulations.

Any legitimate complaints about comments I have deleted can be made here. Any made elsewhere will be deleted as they derail blog topics.

Thank you

Friday, June 4, 2010

Flaming Star

Today I was watching an old Elvis Presley western. While watching I was struck by the fact that alot of a person's actions were attributed to the colour of their skin. It occurred to me, that there were parallels between that bigotry and the bias I encounter on my blog, in regards to having to defend my reasons for being a feminist and having to defend some really radical ideas from feminists that I don't believe in. I know this could risk bringing it back to the debate "but feminism is a "CHOICE", however I don't think that is applicable and also I believe I have defended that stance adequately.

Basically it is one group of people judging a person based on a part of them that may not have anything to do with the action. For example, it has been put forth on my blog that feminists have been not so kind to people in their experience. Can you however state definitively that this is due to their feminism and not due to some other bias they themselves hold? If you cannot then how can you support this intense anger towards all feminists?

Also I wanted to ask any members of the MRA if they feel they should support all assertions of people who identify as MRA (correctly or incorecctly). For example I was reading on one MRA site a statement the blog owner made. It was something along the lines of; there is a point in arousal where a man is no longer in control of his sexual desires. (Thereby excusing rape).

Do you agree with this?
If so how do you support it?
Are you MRA?
If so do you think you should have to defend this view whether or not you agree with it (as some have claimed I have to do in regards to radical feminism claims)

Choice and labels

There are two things I want to address quickly within this entry.

The first one is why I identify as a feminist. There have been a couple of people questioning my use of this label. Well basically (desire for gender equality aside) when I look at the feminist movement I see it as a fight for choice. Examples of this are as follows:

Women having voting rights, this is political choice

"My body, my choice" is self evident

I see choice as the way to achieve true equality in society. I worry less about the amount of female CEO's, although I admit this may be one way of examining if inequality in choice still exists, and more about if true choice for women (and men) exists.

As for the media display that "women can have it all" this is a flawed model that many people have drawn attention to as a flaw in feminism. Actually, feminism renounces this representation as harmful for women. Regardly of what people may have convinced themselves, feminism's job is not quite done.

Also before you ask, I support women staying at home with the children and cooking for their husband (anti-marriage aside for now) if that is their choice to do so and how they go about maximising their happiness. I don't see it as a betrayal of myself or feminism.

Furthering on from this theme the other point I wanted to address is the concept of labels. Ignore my feminist label for one moment, what if I had called myself "Egalitarian open to criticism"? Would the criticism to support ratio have inverted? In regards to the exact same views?

Just because feminism has a bad name doesn't make it a good reason to drop it as a label, in fact I feel it is even more of a reason to adopt it as a proud label and attempt to change public opinion.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

The boyfriend

It seems a lot of people are having trouble commenting on my blog, including myself and my boyfriend. So here verbatim is the comment he wanted to make. Drum roll please...

Dr. Snark: "Being a feminist is a political affiliation, not a biological fact. You CHOOSE to ally yourself with people who have made explicit their hatred for me, as a male and for no other reason. They have laughed about the idea of me being raped and genitally mutilated. They have entirely dismissed my human rights and have wished the most grotesque tortures upon me. Not for being an MRA, but for being a MAN. All the while demanding that I must stand up and fight for THEIR issues. And you proudly wear that label 'feminist' then ask me to try to understand, to sit down for a nice reasonable conversation, and to reach a compromise."

Incurablesanity: Then you aren't like any feminist I've ever met. And I've met a lot. Aligning yourself with a group in the way you do means taking responsibility for some of the stereotypes that come with it. If you want an honest discussion on gender relationships don't come in waving a banner of a group that has damaged the discussion demanding you be treated differently."

AFOTC: "Well I liken this to christianity. People chose to be christian and as such align themselves with people with extreme views, such as homosexuals are evil and ruining society (marriage) etc. Do you think everyone calling themselves a christian should answer to why this is? I sure don't, I hold people accountable only for their own opinions."

Incurablesanity: "Are you saying Feminism is a faith based group or that Christianity is political? A. If feminism is faith based rational debate isn't going to happen. Just won't. So many reasons why. B. Christianity being political. Yeah I think you missed the point of religion some where. One can believe in gender equality and not be a feminist. However it is a lot harder to believe in Christ as the son of God and not be a Christian. I'm not going to debate politics and religion and where the line is here but it does exist." I think you should define what you mean by "feminist" clearly we have very different views on what this could mean."

AFOTC: "I was merely responding to your argument about choice, as in being feminist as a choice and being a man as not a choice, both feminism and christianity are choices so within that framework I think it applies."

Incurablesanity: "I really think I made my point that feminism and Christianity are not the same when it comes to being a choice."

AFOTC: "In regards to christianity and feminism, yeah I can't say much as your criticism seems to be based on the fact I can't call feminism religion or christianity politics, which I am not doing. I don't see how believing in god is not a choice.So I guess agree to disagree there. I attempted to discuss the issue with my boyfriend but he is busy with study. He said he would look at my blog and comment later, so perhaps he can help me clarify. (he is a genius apparently, 140+ IQ)."

I am the boyfriend :)

Apologies for the long list of quotes but I wanted to have (most of) the (most) relevant parts of the thread to the discussion I intend to contribute to. To start off with I would like to suggest a piece of common ground, hatred of a person due to their gender is seriously wrong ( I do not mean to suggest that it is worse than hatred for other reasons but nor do I mean to deny this). Also the treatment Dr. Snark claims to have received (and I see no reason to disbelieve his claim) from self-professed feminists is deplorable. It is of course ridiculous that there would be call to affirm this common ground but the call for it is created by the crazies who deny it rather than anyone posting here. Interestingly enough it seems that a further piece of common ground is that there is some notion of gender equality that is desirable but not fully realised or not fully realised on a broad scale. Holding this view is probably sufficient to get one labelled a ‘feminist’ among many of the people I talk to (unless you objected to being so labelled I would guess).I don’t mean to suggest that this is the only common ground or even the most important common ground, but it does seem to be common ground and it seems worthwhile to point it out.

Now to the argument between DR. Snark, IS and AFOTC (pronounced ay-FOT-chee or Cassie). It interests me since I think the posts of each suggest three different possible sorts of thing the act of identifying oneself as a feminist could be. It could either be:

1 declaring a political association,

2.identifying oneself as a member of a group define by family resemblance, or

3. it could be declaring one’s adherence to a particular ideology, world view, perspective, philosophical, political or moral position or something of that sort.

Dr. Snark is the most explicit on this in seeing feminism as a political affiliation. I suggest the second notion is implicit in incurablesanity’s suggestion that one should take responsibility for some of the stereotypes that come with a group that one aligns oneself to. For if a group is defined by family resemblance then to fit the stereotypes of that group is to be a member of that group. Hence identifying with that group at least if done voluntarily is to endorse the stereotypes, and hence one should take responsibility for them. Neither 1 nor 3 would explain why someone who identifies as feminist should answer for the stereotypes of feminists in the way incurablesanity claims they should (a claim I could argue for but wont unless asked to). It seems to me that AFOTC was explicit in using feminism in the third way in her original post, and is relying on it in her analogy between feminism and Christianity. Regardless of whether one can choose to be a feminist or Christian, to call oneself a Christian is to do an act of the sort listed under 3, and AFOTC’s analogy illustrates that in general declaring adherence to an ideology (or whatever) does not require answering for the views or actions of others who share that ideology (or claim to) when those views and actions aren’t themselves endorsed.

What to make of all this? Well it means that we have to decide how to use the word ‘feminism’ if we are to distinguish valid and invalid arguments (obviously). Now this choice is not made in a vacuum not is it free from various political concerns (as incurablesanisty notes ‘feminism’ is a charged term). In fact it seems to me that the best way to understand the point of contention between Dr. Snark, incurablesanity and AFOTC (I mean the point of contention highlighted in the quotes I made at the start) is over how to understand the word feminism and I don’t think it belittles that dispute at all. I suggest that what we want is the most expedient definition of ‘feminism’ which is plausible given ordinary usage. I believe that ordinary usage of the word (at least in middle class white Australia or the bits of it I’ve seen) would support definitions of each of the three sorts I distinguished. However given that Cass started this blog to discuss ideas it seems to me that a definition of sort 3 is what is required. As for what such a definition should be I think there are two main considerations of political expediency that should be considered, first of all we want it to be easy to denounce the nasty self professed feminists of the sort everyone who has posted so far has expressed concern about. Second we want it to be easy for people with concern for gender equality to express their views. The first consideration makes me sorely tempted to define ‘feminism’ in such a way that the nasty ones don’t fall under the definition. The reason is calling these people pseudo-feminists seems to me to be a particularly effective sort of denunciation. Calling them extremist feminists might have its own advantages but ‘pseudo-feminist’ seems better to me. On the other hand defining feminism as simply a belief in gender equality seems too thin, and has the potential to alienate men from discussion of gender issues. For example masculinism (I find masculism to be an ugly abbreviation, are there any reasons for it?) would seem to have little point since masculinist’s concerns would just fall under the heading of feminism. I thus suggest two different definitions of feminism:

D1. Belief that there should be gender equality and that there should therefore be a certain level of campaigning for women.

D2. Belief that there should be a certain level of campaigning for women.
I leave what it is to campaign for women undefined to avoid excluding any views we’d want to call feminist.

Using D1 would allow us to call the nasty views discussed pseudo-feminist, using D2 we could call them extremist feminists. Either would allow AFOTC to classify herself as a feminist in order to make a political statement and neither should have any tendency to silence masculinists (in fact defining feminism this way gives a clear way to define masculinism).

“I'm all for talking to lots of people on subjects but you really just came off as "I don't get it so I'm going to ask my boyfriend and then I'll tell you what I think" Also I grew up in a household of genius. I don't care what your boyfriend's IQ is, and no one else on the internet really probably does either. I'll be interested in what he has to say, but not his IQ”

Actually I think Cass’ remark about my IQ was an attempt at wry humour on her part. Perhaps you only get that reading if you know her. In fact we were laughing at how her comment might sound to people when she told me she’d made it.

PS I typed this up last night but could not post it explaining why it does not address more recent posts.

Having issues making comments on previous post

This is a response to the latest issues raised in my previous post titled "A little bit disheartening" as I am unable to comment for some reason.

@ Incurablesanity

"You are drawing parallels between feminism and Christianity. I'm arguing that it is a faulty parallel."

Ok since we seem to disagree on this point I will move towards a more politically based example. I identify myself as part of left wing politics. One of the views held within the left wing doctrines is that we should overthrow our capitalist government. I am of the belief this is too extreme and won't help anything. So since I am left wing should I be held accountable and expected to defend this point of view that I obviously don't hold myself? I don't think so

"Why do you CONSIDER yourself a feminist? When so many other groups believe in gender equality why do you affiliate yourself with that group?"

What do you see as the alternative labels I could give myself?

"If you want to engage in a logical debate don't just dismiss things because someone misunderstood you."

It is certainly not my intention to dismiss things, sometimes I simply don't know how to respond to a point brought up, due to various factors. As I have stated before I don't like giving definitive answers before I can conduct adequate research into the topic.

@ Fidelbogen

"Oppression" of "women" may or may not exist, depending on how you define oppression and women. (This could be a long essay!)

Please elaborate, it sounds fascinating! (no sarcasm intended)

"Are you familiar with the expression that "men can suffer, but they cannot be oppressed"?"

I was not familiar with that statement but it is interesting, what would you like to talk about in regards to this?

Social contract, hmmm, I know only the basics of this concepts, please point me int he direction of some informative literature so I am better able to respond to this point.

"I would be interested to know on what basis you argue that. In the meantime, can we keep the discussion narrow? This is about men and women, not animals, etc."

I brought up animals only as a side note, in that I don't like to present a bias towards nonhuman animals.

In regards to the moral duty I feel I have it is based on one main thing. My position in life. I was born into advantage, while some people were not. I have a roof over my head, food in my belly and love in my heart. More importantly I have access to educational institutions and resources and political empowerment. I have the equipment necessary to change things for people who aren't necessarily positioned well to change things for themselves. I have encountered some hardship and suffering in my life, but do consider myself very lucky, and attempt not to value my own happiness over that of others. I really do desire happiness for everyone.

"I just wanted to plant that in your head for future reference, because it is an important concept. What the future bodes is not men "hating" women, but simply shrugging their shoulders, dusting their hands off, and turning their backs."

I suppose it is a person's right to choose to be indifferent, I however, believe that indifference is the partner of ignorance, and both working together are the cause of many major issues in society today. As such I will keep my determination, my compassion and my empathy alive. Simply put I will continue to care, even if others don't.

@ Factory

"I think what you're missing here AFOTC, is that your 'role' right now is to actually understand men's issues BEFORE you place women's issues above them."

Where did I say I place women's issues above men's issues?

"This is a mistake many 'earnest Feminists' commonly make, and I hope the next 'wave' of you correct said mistake."

The next wave of feminism appears to be the post feminist. I am quite alarmed.

"It destroys your credibility almost immediately when you display stunning ignorance, and refusal to learn."

I have never denied I am ignorant about certain issues (who isn't? It is impossible to know everything), but as I have stated before and will again I am sure, if you identify ignroances in me please point me in the direction of some information. A major reason in creating this blog is that I want to learn.

"And while I admit you are not the best example of this, er, 'stunned refusal', you are most certainly also neither the first, nor the last."

This seems to contradict itself, please rephrase.

"I will state categorically that you have NO IDEA what the mens movement is about, you just want us to stop and 'think of the wimminz'. It's also probably a bit weird to have man after man look at you and ask "Why the fuck should I? What have women done for me?". And now Feminists are noticing this might affect THEM too, and can't understand the generalized social hostility Feminists have EARNED."

Please rephrase, I don't really understand the point you are trying to make in this paragraph.

"As humbling as it may be, your role, IF you have any at all in these matters, is predicated on you actually knowing what you're talking about."

Everyone has a role in the policy making and legislation of a democratic nation.

Also how do I ever "know what I am talking about" without asking questions?

"So, I ask you...can you name 5 things the Mens Movement is working on, and what your position is on them?"

I am not going to respond to this "test". It is absurd.

I see it as your role in this discussion to enlighten me on the causes of MRA, to show me a perspective that differs from my own, or maybe doesn't who can know until we address the issues?

My role on the otherhand is to respond to these issues from the position of feminism. It is not my duty to know everything straight away.