As I predicted in my video about Reteah Parsons, feminists all over the internet have responded with their trademark stupidity by blaming rape culture.
Take for example the blogger The Belle Jar, whose recent not-so-subtle post is called How We Teach Our Sons To Rape.
It is a well established legal principle that if you get yourself drunk, you are responsible for your actions, even if you are so drunk you don't know what you're doing -- and courts are generally hard to convince that you were drunk beyond any comprehension of your actions anyway. If someone spikes your drink, that's a different story. But if you go to a party where you have some inkling that stuff like this will be going on, you have implicitly given consent, unless you can make a compelling case that you were explicitly not giving consent.
Basic stuff, I know; beyond most feminists' grasp, I know.
But what makes this woman such a terrible mother in waiting is that she already believes that her son is a potential rapist. Here we see, yet again, how evil feminism is. It seems beyond her sick imagination that a girl might want to make out with her son, or that her son would rather get together with a girl in a private room or somewhere out of sight, rather than on display in the middle of a living room. Instead she imagines that as soon as her son grows some hair on his testicles that he'll be a sexual hound just waiting for the right cocktail of music and alcohol to be loosed.
And besides that, she talks about her son being drunk but presumably responsible for what is about to do, but describes the girl as not currently having "all of her faculties intact." What about her own son? Her own flesh and blood? Wouldn't it make sense that they both don't have their faculties intact, or that they're both responsible for their actions? If such a scenario as plays out in her demented mind were to take place, wouldn't it be shameful for her son too?
And if her future teenage son gets drunk at a party and meets an equally drunk girl who wants to sleep with him, why is the onus on him to say no? Doesn't the very contemplation of the fact that he might not be able "to say no" show that there's some measure of sexual advance on her part?
Nope, not at all.
I feel terribly sorry for The Belle Jar's son. Instead of having a mother who can confidently teach him right from wrong, and how to be a self-assured gentleman, she's set to turn him into a neurotic, sexually repressed, self-flagellating, ostentatiously pious hypocrite -- just like her.
Take for example the blogger The Belle Jar, whose recent not-so-subtle post is called How We Teach Our Sons To Rape.
How We Teach Our Sons To Rape
I have a son.Until this point, there is nothing unusual here. But, we can all see where this going...
He is two years old.
He was born into a universe where time happens to be linear, which means that he is growing older with every passing minute. In a little over ten years’ time, he will be a teenager.
When my son is a teenager, he will almost certainly go to parties. He will drink. He might experiment with drugs. He will try to rebel against authority figures, myself included. He will test boundaries.
This is what teenagers do. These things are normal.
Do I necessarily want him to do these things? No, not really. But these are the things that I did when I was in high school. These are things that, as Jacqueline Warwick points out, serve as a sort of rite of passage for North American teenagers, things that are “normalized and celebrated in countless coming of age stories.”
It won’t matter whether or not I give my son permission to do these things; he will lie to me or otherwise deceive me and do them anyway.
This is what teenagers do. These things are normal.
Someday, my son’s body will be flooded with hormones, and he will want to engage in sexual acts. If he is heterosexual, these sexual acts will be with girls. Someday my son will want to impress his peers, and he might not be sure how to do so. Someday, as part of his ongoing effort to learn how to live in this world, my teenage son might try on new personalities until he figures out which one fits him best. Some of these personalities might be aggressive, self-destructive or otherwise frightening to me as a parent.
This is what teenagers do. These things are normal.
When my teenage son goes parties and drinks, he will most likely encounter girls who are also drunk. If he is heterosexual, he will want to be physically close to these girls. He might kiss them. He might even do more than that.
If and when he engages in sexual acts at parties, my son will almost certainly be egged on, or at least encouraged, by his peers.
And will my son, whose brain will not yet have the ability to reason the way an adult’s would, be able know when he is about to cross a line?
Will he know how to tell if a girl cannot give consent?The Belle Jar may be knowledgeable about many things, but a high-school-level appreciation of basic law is not one of them.
In the heat of the moment, when my son is drunk, and is faced with an attractive girl who does not currently have all of her faculties intact, and all of his friends are telling him to just fuck her already, will he be able to say no?I don’t know.
It is a well established legal principle that if you get yourself drunk, you are responsible for your actions, even if you are so drunk you don't know what you're doing -- and courts are generally hard to convince that you were drunk beyond any comprehension of your actions anyway. If someone spikes your drink, that's a different story. But if you go to a party where you have some inkling that stuff like this will be going on, you have implicitly given consent, unless you can make a compelling case that you were explicitly not giving consent.
Basic stuff, I know; beyond most feminists' grasp, I know.
But what makes this woman such a terrible mother in waiting is that she already believes that her son is a potential rapist. Here we see, yet again, how evil feminism is. It seems beyond her sick imagination that a girl might want to make out with her son, or that her son would rather get together with a girl in a private room or somewhere out of sight, rather than on display in the middle of a living room. Instead she imagines that as soon as her son grows some hair on his testicles that he'll be a sexual hound just waiting for the right cocktail of music and alcohol to be loosed.
And besides that, she talks about her son being drunk but presumably responsible for what is about to do, but describes the girl as not currently having "all of her faculties intact." What about her own son? Her own flesh and blood? Wouldn't it make sense that they both don't have their faculties intact, or that they're both responsible for their actions? If such a scenario as plays out in her demented mind were to take place, wouldn't it be shameful for her son too?
And if her future teenage son gets drunk at a party and meets an equally drunk girl who wants to sleep with him, why is the onus on him to say no? Doesn't the very contemplation of the fact that he might not be able "to say no" show that there's some measure of sexual advance on her part?
Nope, not at all.
I feel terribly sorry for The Belle Jar's son. Instead of having a mother who can confidently teach him right from wrong, and how to be a self-assured gentleman, she's set to turn him into a neurotic, sexually repressed, self-flagellating, ostentatiously pious hypocrite -- just like her.
This is likely one of the most ridiculous excuses for a blog post I've ever seen. Gotta love how a man (of course) just can't resist picking apart a self professed feminist so that he can justify his own thoughts and actions.
ReplyDeletePeople like you are the reason women are raped at parties. Being drunk is not an implication of consent. Unless you have a flat out fucking yes, then it is a no. Drinking does not imply consent. Just because I go to a bar to have some drinks with friends, in an atmosphere where people may desperately trying to pick up or hook up, does not mean that I should expect to be raped or assaulted, and have therefore given my consent because I chose to go there.
Use all the fucking excuses you want, but you're totally wrong and refusing to see the truth doesn't change that fact. Way to take trolling to a whole new level, you tool.
You're not comparing like with like. If you go to a bar, it's objectively reasonable to expect that you'll walk out of there with your clothes on; if you go to an orgy, chances are you're going there to have wild sex. If, after an orgy, you feel shame and regret, that doesn't magically turn it into rape. Of course, someone like you would probably like the power to make it so.
DeleteThe problem with the requirement of a "flat out fucking yes" is that it makes a rapist out of every man, and makes a mockery of the word rape. But maybe that's what you really want.
It seems you love nothing more than creating controversy and arguments. Most 15 year olds don't attend "orgies". Shit, I've never even met an adult who's been to one! Consensual sex is awesome. Regret happens. I have never, and will never, condone screaming "RAPE!" after a regrettable sexual encounter. Anyone who does is a douchebag. However, you allege that drinking = consent, and that's simply not true. I don't drink with the thought of having sex in mind. Truthfully, the only time I tend to drink is when I go out dancing, because all I want to do is dance and have a few beers. So of course by you asserting that drinking means I consent to any and all forms of sexual contact, that infuriates me... because I don't plan to have sex when I drink.
Delete"Most 15 year olds don't attend "orgies"."
DeleteMost is not all. So you concede that some 15 year olds do attend "orgies"? Oh wait, Are you talking about those beastly 15 year olds i.e. those with a penis? Because I can see them doing that, but not the ones that are not-at-all-hormonal virginal ones i.e. those with a vagina.
"you allege that drinking = consent"
Where did he say that? Or did you "read between the lines" to stoke up your own hysterical beliefs about anti-feminists?
We all know women never need a drink to loosen their own inhibitions. But once she is "drunk" (which by the way is a very objective measureable concept), her consent doesn't matter, does it?
Try rejecting a "drunk" woman who comes on to you, you will find out what hell is like. She might even accuse you of rape and feminists will jump to her defense. In the duke-lacrosse case they simply had to refuse her lap-dancing services and that did them in. Good thing they had money to hire top notch lawyers and investigators to prove their innocence. How many feminists stood up for them in their time of need?
If they were poor, they would be in prison... being raped by actual rapists.
But such situations are reserved for the beastly men. So who cares what happens to them, right? Feminism for the win.
This post is terrifying. I mean yours, not hers. If someone is so drunk that they're unconscious or drifting in and out of consciousness, and someone performs sexual acts on them, the person who is not fully conscious is not performing any actions and is not responsible for the actions of others. And if you are actually saying that going to a party and drinking is implicitly giving consent to any and all sexual acts with any and all persons present, you're most likely a rapist yourself because you do not understand what consent is or what it entails. As for believing her son is a potential rapist, yes, of course, because anyone is a *potential* rapist. And don't try to pretend that any of this is about situations in which equally drunk partners both make the decision to have sex with one another. That's not what the problem is.
ReplyDeleteYou're half-right. The problem is that The Belle Jar assumes that her son will participate in a gang-bang rather than want to get together with a girl in a normal, healthy, private way. I was at a party once where I could have taken part in some wild group sex and let me tell you, I couldn't leave that place fast enough.
DeleteStop lying about men: the only *potential* rapists are the twisted men and women who have it in them to commit rape. Same thing with *potential* murderers, muggers, thieves, extortionists, and charlatans.
First of all, she never insinuated that her son would participate in a "gang bang". Secondly, she said she hopes and prays that her son will "get together with a girl in a normal, healthy, private way". Hell, that's every mother's hope! (That and condoms, yo).
DeleteRape isn't just forced sex in a back alley. Rape is not stopping when your girlfriend decides that she doesn't want to have sex tonight. Rape is pressuring someone in the heat of the moment into having sex that they're too scared to verbally say "no" to. This can happen to men AND women.
Here's where I infer she's talking about a "gang bang" or something similarly repulsive:
Delete"Someday my son will want to impress his peers, and he might not be sure how to do so... Some of these personalities might be aggressive, self-destructive or otherwise frightening to me as a parent... If and when he engages in sexual acts at parties, my son will almost certainly be egged on, or at least encouraged, by his peers..."
The most natural interpretation of her description is that it's a mob.
How do you interpret the above quote?
And just for context, when I was a teenager there were a couple of parties where I made out with a girl (much to my delight), but we always tried to find somewhere out of sight. Maybe Americans enjoy putting themselves on display, but in Australia couples who get together tend to find somewhere a little more private than in front of a cheering crowd.
I don't know what today's teenagers are like, but back in my day, privacy was still valued and appreciated if you made out with someone. And I didn't read anything into that passage other than peer pressure, like "take her in the other room and get it on!"
DeleteSo let me see if I understand correctly how you interpret the scenario:
Delete"Someday my son will want to impress his peers, and he might not be sure how to do so... Some of these personalities might be aggressive, self-destructive or otherwise frightening to me as a parent... If and when he engages in sexual acts at parties, my son will almost certainly be egged on, or at least encouraged, by his peers..."
So the scene is a party where her teenage son has had a few beers, but enough to remain compos mentis; he and his friends see a girl who is non compos mentis (passed out, delirious); his friends urge him to sling her over his shoulder and take her into a room; and he not only takes her into a room, but then proceeds to undress her, penetrate her, ejaculate in her -- all without her really knowing what's going on -- and then presumably walk out of the room to be greeted by cheers from the crowd.
Is that the scene you imagine The Belle Jar is describing? If not, feel free to paint the picture for me.
Why do you automatically assume that she's describing the worst?
DeleteI pictured her idea thus: he's at a party with friends. They are telling him he should look for the drunkest girl there. Not one who is passed out, but one who is noticeably drunk. They're telling him he should try to pick her up (figuratively not literally). Have you not seen the 40 year old virgin?
But, now that you mention it, the scenario you're describing sounds eerily similar yo the steubanville case. Seems like that would beba legit thing for parents to worry about their kids doing. OK sure those boy's parents never thought their kids could or would ever do something like that.
DeleteHoly fuckin auto correct fail! Sorry.
DeleteLet's be clear about reality and make-believe.
DeleteIn a Hollywood movie, a guy's friends will say, "Go for her, she looks drunk enough to sleep with you," a back-handed compliment if I ever heard one. If someone's friends say such a thing to him, the likelihood of his going up to her is pretty much nil.
In the real world, a guy's friends (if they say anything), will say, "Hey, look, she's checking you out," or "Go on mate, she looks keen," or something to that effect.
I don't want to labour the point, but I hope you can see the difference.
But let's say there was such a scenario as you described -- that his friends egg him on to approach a noticeably drunk girl. Let's say for argument's sake that she's very drunk, stumbling around and slurring her words, but not drunk enough to throw up. (Otherwise he'd lose interest pretty damn quickly)
We can assume there would be some exchange of words, some kissing, etc, before they move on to a more private place to have sex. If he doesn't have to sling her over his shoulder, it means she's in control of her faculties enough to accompany him of her own free will. If she can walk with him somewhere, she can take off her own clothes. If she's compos mentis enough for all that, and she doesn't object to getting naked with him and having sex, please explain to me where rape comes into all this.
I never said that the word rape would be used in that instance. Neither did Anne. What she is saying is that she hopes her son is respectful enough not to take advantage of a woman/girl who is that noticeably drunk. She may be able to physically form the word "yes", but it doesn't mean that she might not be too afraid to say "no". It also doesn't mean that it's a good idea to have sex with someone who is clearly that inebriated.
DeleteHowever as I mentioned previously, young men these days seem to not only go for girls/women who *are*, in fact, in this state of inebriation, but *do* also take advantage of women who are in far worse states than that, ie. passed out drunk or too drunk to say yes OR no. Steubenville is the biggest and most notoriously well-known case in the media these days, but that's not to say that it doesn't happen all the time, all across America/Canada and other places. Those boys in particular either didn't realize what they were doing was rape and wrong, or didn't care. If they honestly didn't know, there is a failure in our society, schools, and parenting that allowed that to happen. If they DID know it was wrong (and they seem to be putting forth a good deal of effort to prove that they didn't), then they are simply psychopaths; in which case, it still lends itself to the question, "Where did their parents/society/schools go wrong in raising such monsters?"
This sort of scenario, especially, is what Anne and many other mothers hope to avoid, by trying to properly inform their sons/daughters about consent. As I said before, I'm sure (and hoping) that the parents of the kids in the Steubenville case likely had no idea that their sons were capable of doing such awful things. As parents, we all hope that our children can refrain from wrong doing, but it's our worst fear that perhaps they don't, or won't. I believe that is what her article is trying to articulate.
Sara Hanna, we were just starting to have an honest conversation, and now you're going and spoiling it with double-talk.
DeleteThe scenario I described is what you imagine that Anne is afraid of, but it's not rape, even though her blog post was called, "How we teach our sons to rape". So if a guy and girl are both drunk but still compos mentis enough to excuse themselves to a private room, take off their clothes, etc, and have sex, it's not rape… except when it is. So I give up trying to guess what sort of scenario you think Anne is afraid.
Moving on, when you say, "Young men these days…" do you mean to say that society is getting worse? That's what it looks like. Do you have empirical evidence or merely anecdotal evidence?
But let's say, for argument's sake, that boys and girl are becoming moral degenerates these days. I won't argue this point, I'll go along with it 100%.
Let's say girls are drinking themselves into oblivion and boys are availing themselves of free vaginas.
This moral decline coincides remarkably with the rise of feminist influence in society. Feminist policy reigns in government (Joe Biden championed the Violence Against WOMEN Act) and in education. Take for example Judith Grossman's realisation of what Title IX and feminist policies regarding institutional discipline for sexual misconduct on campus mean for her son, who was falsely accused of rape:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
So here's my point. If feminism is not a hateful ideology that inspires bigotry and hatred, then it has been a complete and utter failure in its attempts to make society better. You are probably rather attached to the word "feminist" and I suppose it has many positive connotations in your mind, but the fact of the matter is that where feminism is put into practice, it always does more harm than good.
So, as a devout feminist, Anne probably does have good reason to be concerned. As long as she buys into the evil lie that all men are potential rapists, she faces a significantly increased risk of instilling that belief about men in her own son.
Why do you automatically assume that I am "attached to the word feminist"? I've only recently started to call myself that, because like you, I had completely wrong and unbiased views of feminism and didn't want to associate myself with the label, lest I be labelled incorrectly. Perhaps you should read this article for a better explanation:
Deletehttp://feministing.com/2013/04/18/what-can-we-do-about-feminisms-brand-problem/
I also don't understand why you seem hell-bent on creating conflict?
Whoops! I meant to say "biased", not "unbiased". Trying to do too many things at once. :P
DeleteAnd by the way, if I didn't label myself a feminist, would you somehow be more inclined to listen to my arguments? Because I honestly can't tell. I don't know if you're determined to debate with me *because* I call myself a feminist, or just because I don't agree with you.
DeleteMaybe you should read this article, too:
Deletehttp://www.thenation.com/article/173911/rape-tragedies-shame-ours
Alright, so our discussion of the merits of Anne's blog post is over.
DeleteYou started by saying, "People like you are the reason women are raped at parties," and by the end, after I tried get some clarification from you on the circumstances of what constitutes a rape at a party, you backtracked and said, "I never said that the word rape would be used in that instance. Neither did Anne."
This is extremely dishonest of you, Sara Hanna. Anne's post was called, "How we teach our sons to RAPE." You accused me of supporting rape. But when I listen to what you have to say, suddenly rape has nothing to do with it.
Anyway, on to the topic of the label "feminism".
The first point to address is yet another bit of dishonesty from you:
"And by the way, if I didn't label myself a feminist, would you somehow be more inclined to listen to my arguments?"
I have responded in careful, respectful detail to everything you said, even though you and your buddies have come to my obscure blog (and my YouTube channel) to call me every name under the sun. Personally, I don't care what you call me, but I take umbrage at the accusation that I don't listen to your arguments. It's the height of disrespect to have such a lengthy exchange and then to accuse me of not listening to you.
Just because you can't run rings around me, it doesn't give you an excuse to lie to my face.
Anyway, the most accurate and revealing section in the article you linked to is this:
"[I]f we really want to change the public perception of feminism, we actually have to change feminism itself... [Feminism] is about humanity, compassion, and understanding across all our differences..."
There are two ways to understand this:
1) She's equivocating.
2) She believes the problem with feminism is that it's about humanity, compassion, etc.
Let me tell you, I majored in English Literature, I was in Feminism Central at university, and I can assure you that incidentally bad PR has nothing to do with feminism's bad reputation. I was extremely sympathetic to feminism as an undergrad, but the more I saw of it, the more I realised that it is based on a rotten philosophy. The same goes for every guy and girl who has ever disagreed with a group of feminists.
Feminism's bad image is not due to bad PR, it's come about because feminists en masse do and say extremely harmful things. You can NAFALT all day long, but until feminists exercise their political muscle to fight injustice on behalf of both sexes, e.g. male victims of rape, men whose lives have been ruined by false rape accusations, etc, you'll be on the side of political opportunists and sexual supremacists.
Well it appears we will have to agree to disagree. Good luck with your blog.
DeleteThe whole pattern of this argumnt is comical.
DeleteSara Hanna says something angry, accusing Critical G of 'rape apologetics', etc and asserting rather extreme positions.
CriticalG points out fairly obvious rebuttals to the accusations and positions.
Then, rather than back up her arguments with logic or evidence, she just keeps saying,
'I didn't say that, That's not what I meant'.
She doesn't seem to notice that by taking the most radical position available,
it's common sense that someone's going to ask her to qualify what she's saying.
Instead she confronts each normal step of rational argument as an insidious misrepresentation of the facts or what she was saying.
Throughout this, rather than establish common ground from which to judge what is reasonable, she presents CriticalG's positions in the most cynical light possible.
But she avoids facts and spends her whole effort back-peddling from each radical statement she's confronted on.
If I'm misreading this, rather than insult me, show me one statement she made which she was challenged on which she didn't immediately back-peddle on, instead defend with evidence.
yeah...
ReplyDeleteyou don't get it at all.
you can stop blogging now--you fail at life.
It might be better to try to criticize something from an unbiased, thoughtful point of view. She's aware her son will grow up to do things away from her, and she won't be there to tell him it's wrong to to hold his hand. She is teaching him to be strong enough to say to his friends or whomever, "no," rather than participate in a situation (rape, bullying, or any number of things that can and will happen to kids, no matter what you try to do,) that will ruin his life and possibly someone else's. That's called parenting. I respond in the hope that maybe, by attempting to see past your own hatred for feminism, and maybe do a bit of reading by different feminist authors, as well as by non-feminist authors, you might realize that your opinion is invalid until you can form a cohesive, educated argument, rather than just barfing words on a blog. Nobody will take you seriously until then (like me; I just thought maybe this comment might help you a bit). But in all seriousness, no, sometimes, when you are young and don't know any better, drinking until you can't say no is not "implicit consent". It's the equivalent of "hey, she was wearing a short skirt, that's like saying 'please rape me'". It's silly and doesn't make any sense. And it's important to also note this is the same for men. This is not specifically about women only being raped: this is about the ability of a person to say no to another person who is trying to rape/molest/ otherwise do stuff they don't want to do to them. I truly hope you have never subjected some poor drunk girl to your amorous advances while she was literally unable (key word here, UNABLE,) to say no. Because, in most women's point of view, that is a violation. And likely, if you have, she will be too ashamed or confused to confront you about it. But let's hope with a little reading and maybe a more open mind you might come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as 'implicit consent' when it comes to abuse in any way, shape, or form. Good luck man.
ReplyDeleteCrtical G, I agree with the other posters above that you have totally missed the point. Being drunk does not matter: you can not give consent if you're under 18, even if perfectly sober - it's the law. Furthermore, you clearly do not understand what "rape culture" is. Here's a story that might help you understand how young boys are "taught" to dismiss girls' physical boundaries, which if unchecked can eventually lead to committing 'actual' rape: http://videos.huffingtonpost.com/9-year-old-allegedly-sexually-assaulted-at-school-517492006 - nothing this girl's mother was asking for is unreasonable - in fact, her demands were entirely 'appropriate' and would've been a great teachable moment for ALL students about "consent", yet the school & superintendent refused, and now those boys have just been "taught" to dismiss girls' physical boundaries, and "taught" that rape-culture is acceptable. Do you get it yet?
ReplyDelete"nothing this girl's mother was asking for is unreasonable"
DeleteReally? You think accusing a couple of preteen boys of sexual assault for touching a girl's breasts is reasonable? And you don't even know if she consented or not.
By that logic pretty much all schools hosting age group of coeds coming into puberty is a hotbed for rape and sexual assault, because there are sexually awkward interactions of this kind all over the place among equally naive and curious parties.
The kids don't know these femichekas are gonna freak out over it enough to try and ruin their lives over it, but that is where rest of the society needs to step in and keep them safe from you!
"Rape culture" is a fiction invented by feminists. But the message I'm seeing from a lot of the commenters Is that females are automatically absolved of all responsibility for their actions while males are always blameworthy for their actions.
DeleteWow. I am going to bring this into my freshman writing class as an example of how to completely ignore the point a writer has made, how to ignore what's going on in our high schools, our courts and our culture, and how, instead, to attack the writer. Can't wait to hear their answers when I ask, "What is 'The Critical G' trying to make us think? And what tricks is he using to do so?"
ReplyDeleteI would love to see what you and your students come up with. Please give me a full run-down of your analysis.
DeleteI'm not trolling like Critical G is, but I want to hear what you come up with too--I, unlike CG, am actually interested.
Delete@Cyndi, why do you say I'm trolling? I'm genuinely interested in what Elizabeth has to say.
DeleteI was pleased that at least somebody got Critical G's point (particularly an apparently female somebody) until I got to "Can't wait..." and on.
DeleteI took those to be doing the "completely ignor[ing]" to be the commenters, and the "writer" whose points were being ignored, and who was under attack, to be Critical G; and agreed heartily. Oh well....
Let's just hope that some politically-aware critical thinkers have - against all odds - managed to survive in your class, Elizabeth, or you'll scarcely need to wait to hear their answers; if it's the usual mandated PC/Feminist (as it has unfortunately become, as opposed to what it was supposed to be) echo-chamber - then I can tell you exactly what their answers will be right now... yawn... no waiting required.
BTW Critical G: 'All men are potentially rapists' is technically correct, in the same way that 'All women are potentially child murderers' is also technically correct: The problem is the frequency of the repetition of the statement being so completely at odds with the extremely low probability that it will turn out to actually be the case for a given, random man (or woman).
[Obviously, the more it's said the more likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy it becomes, as you point out.]
Maybe one of your commenters can explain how the absolutely worst stigma that can ever possibly be attached to a man is rapist (it's worse than terrorist and everything!), if it's been so 'normalised and encouraged in our Rape Culture'?
I was pleased that at least somebody got Critical G's point (particularly an apparently female somebody) until I got to "Can't wait..." and on.
DeleteI took those to be doing the "completely ignor[ing]" to be the commenters, and the "writer" whose points were being ignored, and who was under attack, to be Critical G; and agreed heartily. Oh well....
Let's just hope that some politically-aware critical thinkers have - against all odds - managed to survive in your class, Elizabeth, or you'll scarcely need to wait to hear their answers; if it's the usual mandated PC/Feminist (as it has unfortunately become, as opposed to what it was supposed to be) echo-chamber - then I can tell you exactly what their answers will be right now... yawn... no waiting required.
Egad, I hate that delay and uncertainty when commenting on blogs: if you notice this Critical G, could you please delete the immediately above duplication and this? Cheers mate.
Deletebecauuuuuuuuuuse... you're a self-loathing little boy who hates women?
DeleteI highly doubt it. I imagine you'll just do another "dramatic reading" video for the lulz.
DeleteThe Internet: You're doing it wrong.
ReplyDelete*points and laughs at the Critical G* XD
ReplyDeleteYou are perpetuating rape culture with this blog post. Please take it down.
ReplyDeleteYou know, now I honestly am curious about what's happened to you in your past to turn you into the person you are today. The person who doesn't seem to care about women's rights, wants, needs... the person who would rather attack a mother (and a stranger) because she is honest enough to post her fears on the internet. Do you have kids? Do you have any idea what it's like to wonder what your child will grow up to be, who he will be, how he will act, how you will teach him, etc? I'm going to go ahead and guess not.
ReplyDeleteAttacking a woman (who is a fantastic mother, by the way... I know Anne personally and she is actually a great and loving person) based on one blog post is not appropriate. You can deconstruct her ideas, counter with your own, but to attack her on a personal level is just slimey. I like to hope that everyone has redeeming qualities and is actually a good person, but sadly that's not always true. I'd still like to hope that there is a good person inside of you somewhere.
I'm actually curious about what's happened to you that you immediately assume I don't care about women's rights, wants, needs, etc. I don't doubt that Anne is very pleasant in person, but her thoughts are evidently dominated by a devious ideology that makes her assume the worst of her own flesh and blood.
DeleteIn one sense it is commendable that she is honest enough to admit what she thinks, but it's an indictment not only of her as a mother, but the feminist ideology that has so perverted her expectations.
The thing is, Anne's post isn't about society or even her son, it's really a post about her -- her fears, her anxieties, her prejudices -- which are brought into sharp relief by the reality of being a mother. More than anything, I reckon, she's afraid that in 13 years she'll have failed at raising a good son.
Sadly, if such thoughts are pre-eminent in her mind already, there's every chance of it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And if so, I commend her for reaching out and discussing her own fears and issues, which she does quite frequently on her blog (if you've read any of her posts).
DeleteThere have been a lot of things that have happened in my own past that make me angry and quick to lash out when I'm triggered. This post was unnecessarily personal and hurtful towards a lovely human being, and I don't see why you needed to make it that way.
You have yet to proffer an explanation as to why you felt it OK to attack Anne personally...
DeleteExplain to me how this was a personal attack on Anne.
DeleteExplain to me how it wasn't? Even in the title you called her a horrible mother. I would copy and paste other things but I'm on my phone. Maybe read it again.
DeleteFirst of all, I didn't go to her blog and leave nasty comments; instead, I wrote a post on my rather obscure blog. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone found this post. I could ask why you and your buddies think it's OK to personally attack me, but unlike you, I'm much more interested in intellectual honesty than pleasantries.
DeleteSecond, I completely stand by every word I wrote about her. Anne's confession of her fears is commendable only in the sense that a criminal's openness about her negligence is preferable to outright denial. What she wrote is very offensive to those of us who don't believe that lies (like "all men are potential rapists") should be told to children by evil old women. All her hand-wringing about her son growing up to be the scum of the earth is completely insincere, because there was not a hint in her post that maybe, just maybe, the enormous influence of her own ideology might have something to do with the warped relationship between the sexes.
She's effectively declaring that she takes no responsibility if she fails as a parent, which is so selfish it beggars belief. The boy's only two years old, but she's resigned to him growing up to be a sexually deviant hooligan. Maybe she has some supernatural intuition that something is very, very wrong with her child, but then it's not the fault of "rape culture". And if her toddler seems to be within the bounds of normality, then as a mother she should vow to raise him right.
But that would mean taking responsibility for how he turns out, and that seems to be the last thing on her mind.
I have immense sympathy for her boy and nothing but scorn for a woman who's willing to sacrifice her son on the altar of political correctness.
I hope for everyone's sake that her influence on her son's character will be minimal and that he has a decent father to look up to. With a mother like her, he'll need every bit of a good fatherly role model he can get.
Wow, you just don't get it, do you? You claim that she is politicizing the raising of her son, claiming no responsibility for how he turns out... when in fact, it's the complete opposite. You just seem bound and determined to read your own interpretation into her writing and state that it's fact. It's sad, really.
DeleteAnd I love how you assume that everyone who posted on here is my "friend" or "buddy". I don't know a single one of the other posters. The only person I know is Anne.
It seems debating with you is a fruitless endeavour, so rather than continue to argue and let my emotions get the better of me, I will bid you good day and good luck with your warped view of life and women.
I don't whether you deleted your last comment or whether it just isn't displaying, so here it is:
DeleteYOUR RESPONSE
"Wow, you just don't get it, do you? You claim that she is politicizing the raising of her son, claiming no responsibility for how he turns out... when in fact, it's the complete opposite. You just seem bound and determined to read your own interpretation into her writing and state that it's fact. It's sad, really.
"And I love how you assume that everyone who posted on here is my "friend" or "buddy". I don't know a single one of the other posters. The only person I know is Anne.
"It seems debating with you is a fruitless endeavour, so rather than continue to argue and let my emotions get the better of me, I will bid you good day and good luck with your warped view of life and women."
MY ANSWER:
It is from feminism that we get the expression, "the personal is political," and this personal piece from Anne is entirely political. It posits that there is nothing a good woman can do (and Anne is verily the salt of the earth) in order to raise a son who will not become a rapist. She's saying that even with 15 years of foresight, either "society" has the power to pervert her child's sexuality or male sexuality is such a volatile force that the best parents in the world are powerless to stop it from wreaking havoc.
Although you think debating with me is a fruitless endeavour, I think it's been a rewarding exercise. But that's because I'm trying to elucidate the feminist position and refine my own. It doesn't matter to me that you disagree with me; in fact, it is from this clash of opinions that greater understanding arises.
By contrast, you think it is futile, because I "don't get it". That is, you hoped that by berating me for expressing my opinion on my own blog and declaring that I am WRONG, I would obsequiously defer to you and repent me of my sins.
NEWSFLASH: That I refuse to amend my opinion in light of your extremely shallow and dishonest arguments is not recalcitrence -- it's integrity. And if your emotions are going to get the better of you in an honest debate, maybe the adult world of forthright debate is not for you at this immature stage of your life.
Thanks for your comments. Even though you are committed ideologue and shameless liar, I have learned a lot from our exchange.
Oh yeah - she's fantastic feminist mother. Which if thing about is a complete contradiction. BTW where is dad - or hasn't she given his balls back yet?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your intelligent and informed response to my blog post. I learned a great deal from you.
ReplyDeleteThank you. Take note that I don't remove comments. You are free to say whatever you like here.
ReplyDeleteSars Hanna - why are you posing as Bridezilla? Did you suckered some poor sap to marry you? Gosh that means you are going to have kids too. What a shame. Can't you be like Naomi Klein and decides that children an an intolerable environmental burden that would unfair to unleash on the world - and do us a favour?
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, the personal attacks begin! I wondered how long that would take. Anne is married. Her husband is lovely and shares her views, he has thoughts and opinions of his own, and does actually have balls.
DeleteI am a model, photographer, and businesswoman. That photo is from a shoot for my business. Why does it matter to you if I'm married or a mother? Does that have any bearing on your life? Does my life somehow mean something to you?
"And of course, the personal attacks begin! I wondered how long that would take."
DeleteFor someone who started the discussion with an accusation of supporting rape, you have absolutely no business whining about personal attacks. You should grow up and learn to take what you can dish out.
>And of course, the personal attacks begin! I wondered how long that would take.
DeleteHi, Sara. Do you mean to say that this is the first personal attack in the comments thread?
It seems to me that there were several personal attacks on thecriticalg before this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhere in my post do I argue that it's ok to penetrate an unconscious woman?
ReplyDeleteAs a human being, I have an extremely negative reaction to your statement "...if you go to a party where you have some inkling that stuff like this will be going on, you have implicitly given consent, unless you can make a compelling case that you were explicitly not giving consent." If a person choose to get drunk it does not automatically mean that they want sex as well. Getting drunk is not implied consent no matter where it happens. If a person is too drunk give either affirmative or negative response to sex, it's best that the activity should not occur. After all, if you assume wrong YOU'RE going to be the one with the rape accusation looming over your head. This goes for either gender. Men can be just as easily taken advantage of in this manner, although unfortunately in our current legal male victimization is rarely taken seriously or recognized.
ReplyDeleteThis anon for one finds The Critical G's posts and videos to be thought provoking and quite humorous at times.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, when shown to be incorrect on a thing, or when shown that perhaps he hasn't thought through the implications on his positions, The Critical G also shows the ability to admit error and change his mind accordingly. These are the traits of an honest person, regardless whether you agree with him.
I'm dubious of the oft-cited "privilege" this anon might have... I find it more helpful to "Check my Ideology".
This anon finds The Critical G's posts and videos as thought provoking and sometimes quite funny.
ReplyDeleteOf note is his ability to correct himself when shown that he might be in error or that he might not have thought things completely through. This is the mark of an honest man.
Rather than "Check your Privilege" (a dubious concept when applied to classes of people), I think a much more instructive exercise to avoid a calcified mind is "Check your Ideology".
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=593222200688762&set=a.115969958413991.17486.114517875225866&type=1&relevant_count=1
ReplyDeleteI'm just sayin'.
thecriticalg, I'd like to commend you on your patience. This discussion has been like watching you attempt to nail water to a tree. In a similar situation I would be in danger of losing objectivity due to my irritation.
ReplyDeleteI like these arguments below: if they’re both compromised either they’re both responsible or neither of them is. It’s intuitively fair.
“…she talks about her son being drunk but presumably responsible for what is about to do, but describes the girl as not currently having "all of her faculties intact."
“Wouldn't it make sense that they both don't have their faculties intact, or that they're both responsible for their actions?”
Discussions on hypothetical right action can be fascinating. For example what if consent was given but the woman then passes out on your bed? The case could be made from your arguments that it would not be wrong for the man to continue. What do you say to this?
“But if you go to a party where you have some inkling that stuff like this will be going on, you have implicitly given consent, unless you can make a compelling case that you were explicitly not giving consent.” I think feminists wrongly take this point to mean that if a women is unambiguously raped it is fine so long as the woman was drinking. But what I think you actually mean is that the woman doesn’t have the right to call it rape later when actually she was willing at the time (regardless of whether alcohol was the reason she was willing).
I’ve never blamed on alcohol, willing actions that a later regretted; it’s simply not mature to do so.
“And if her future teenage son gets drunk at a party and meets an equally drunk girl who wants to sleep with him, why is the onus on him to say no?” I find it odd that feminists don’t seem to notice that this argument infantilizes women.
I’ve recently found both YouTube channel and blog and I love both the precision you bring to discussions and your stance against censorship.