Sunday, April 16, 2006

How Dare Those Guys Think They are Entitled to a Good Time?

Here is a good article that really sums up the incident at Duke. The rush to judge the young men in this case is disturbing:

"We don't know all the facts about the alleged Duke lacrosse rape, but ..."

That's more or less how most commentators have introduced their remarks on the case that has reduced the Durham, N.C., community to prayers, tears and recriminations.

Let me interpret the code for you: Men are bad.

Even though we don't know what happened, we're not going to let the absence of facts interfere with our indictment of a team, a coach, a school, but more to the point - of boys.

About the only thing to emerge with any clarity since a black exotic dancer claimed that three white lacrosse players raped her last month is our willingness to believe the worst about males.

That belief is all the more rewarding if the males happen to be white, as well as athletes, and especially if they're perceived to be privileged. If there's one thing we can't bear in this country, it's spoiled white boys who think the world owes them a good time.

The author of this article hits the nail on the head with these statements:

While we wait to hear what the grand jury decides, we might turn our harsh judgment inward and recognize that the anti-male groupthink that permitted a presumption of guilt in Durham is little different than the lynch-mob mentality that once channeled rage against blacks.

Obviously, no woman deserves to be raped for any reason, under any circumstances. But nor do men deserve to be presumed guilty just because they're men.

Perhaps the real crime here is that our man-bashing society has declared itself judge, jury and hangman without ever hearing the other side of the story.


Blogger DADvocate said...

It appears the most hated group in America is "privileged white males." Watching the TV cable news coverage I've heard this phrase derisively tossed out dozens of times.

When the lack of DNA evidence was announced many sounded quite disappointed and began searching for other ways to prove the Duke guys guilty. I heard a lot of "these guys must be guilty because they're not cooperating with the police the way I think they should" stuff.

While the ultimate guilt has yet to be established, it's been more than a rush to judgement, it's been a stampede.

9:33 AM, April 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And given the fact that the guys are all white, and Lacrosse is usually a sport played by the well-to-do, to leftists and extreme feminists, they must be guilty!!
And I am not surprised the lynch-mob type of mentality being displayed by the black students and activists at NCCu, and feminists at Duke, who are fighting each other to "be in solaridity" with the "victim" who is a "person of color"!!!

As far as i am concerned, I think the stripper/dancer's negotiations for her fees didnt go as well as she had hoped, so, she drank some free liquor/beer, and made up the rape story. Otherwise the owners of the escort service would have demanded their pound of flesh

11:16 AM, April 16, 2006  
Blogger Bob's Blog said...

There was a story a while back in the Denver Post about an illegal immigrant killing an off duty Denver cop. The feminist columnist chose to focus on the fact that the cop left behind a seven-year-old son whom he had not seen since the boy was an infant. Nothing about the illegal immigrant fleeing back to Mexico. Nothing about the cop's current wife now being widowed. Just the emphasis on the cop apparently not caring about being a father to his son.

12:07 PM, April 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspect this case revolves far more around the racial makeup of the Durham area voters than anti-male bias. Durham is about evenly split between black and white. Most of the quotes I have seen in the media revolve around race rather than gender.

We have seen the same type of hype when all those involved were male, but of different races. This seems to be following that same script.

12:50 PM, April 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm glad a woman wrote the article you quoted. Had a man written it, I wonder what the Über-feminists would have done with that? "Typical Male BS" kind of thing you suspect?

Good Post Dr. Helen... you keep pounding, maybe one of these days society will listen.

1:23 PM, April 16, 2006  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

I'm not sure I agree. I would be furious at any of my four sons for even attending said party. There is an elegant post about this over at Seldom Wrong, Never In Doubt.

Yes, people jumped all over the idea of the boys' guilt of a greater crime than drunken cheesieness and lust. The news is often more like rooting for a sports team, I fear. People want excitement and controversy, and so oversimplify complicated events to fit their generalizations. Even accurate generalizations have exceptions.

4:43 PM, April 16, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...


I disagree with the article you linked to--frankly, I think college students have the right to party and have fun--rape, of course not. But having a good time in college is part of the experience. To take away these activities is ludicrous.

5:01 PM, April 16, 2006  
Blogger DADvocate said...

certain sports teams, mostly the ones that involve men who collide a lot (football, rugby, ice hockey, lacrosse), are havens for violent, misogynist, drunken, loutish, boorish behavior.

AVI - appears to me that J SWNID at your link is engaging in some of the typical stereotyping of college athletes. Why don't we just accuse females atheltics of being bastions of lesbianism?

Everybody's just dying for a chance to attack, facts and reality be damned. It's also interesting that Mr. SWNID makes these accusations being a professor at a Christian college. We all know how feminists pair mysogny and Christianity as well as the judge not .....

6:03 PM, April 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We do live in a "man-bashing" society.
I personally think it's woven into the educational system where:

Girls = Angels
Boys = Troublemakers

6:04 PM, April 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I used to work as security for exotic dancers in a past life - i.e. I drove the women to the call and usually went inside, or at least made my presence known. What perked my ears when I'd initially read about this story was that there was no escort. Clubs and services don't send women into a house full of stangers by themselves - way too much liability. It looks like these women were freelancing, and freelancing often extends to other activities. Two black girls and 40 white guys isn't a good sign either. So this story has more red flags than a May Day parade.

I don't know how to put this politely, but people need to understand that strippers are not the most stable people you're going to meet. That doesn't mean that they're bad people, or liars, but it does mean that you need to look a little more closely at their version of events than you would your average woman. Maybe there was a rape, or consensual sex with one guy that turned into several guys, or pretty much any combination of events between no sex and a gang rape. Just knowing what this scene it like tells me that it's crazy to jump to any conclusion until things have settled down a bit.

The thing that makes me suspicious of a gang rape is that with 40 guys aware of it, no one's cracked? The first thing the police will do in interrogations is try to get someone to turn on the others, and there's a hell of a lot of incentive to do so in this situation. These guys aren't a Seal Team, if something happened eventually one of them will talk.

1:03 AM, April 17, 2006  
Blogger DRJ said...

What troubles me the most about this story is how willing some people have been to assume the worst about the Duke students simply because they are men or white or privileged, or perhaps because they are all three.

This intense media and national interest could be due to the "he said/she said" nature of the story but I don't think it is solely a gender phenomenon. Lots of cases involve claims by a woman against a man without generating this kind of interest, although the disparate male/female ratio may be a factor. Or perhaps it is due to the fact that the students are white and the complainant is black. Clearly race seems to be an important and escalating issue in Durham but I don't think that explains why this story has captured national attention. Race relations are a concern in many areas without triggering national attention. It strikes me that it is important that the students are privileged while the alleged victim is not. Our tabloid society certainly enjoys seeing the rich and privileged squirm in court cases or in the public eye. But overall, I think this story interests people because of the dramatic contrasts involved: Dozens of privileged white men and one poor black woman.

I don't know what happened. It appears that at a minimum there was risky and foolish behavior. If that's all it was, the Duke students have been unfairly tarred in the court of public opinion. If the complaint is true, the perpetrators and all who enabled or covered up the crime deserve public condemnation and punishment. And for what it's worth, and no matter what the truth is, I think it will take a long time for Durham and Duke to recover.

2:33 AM, April 17, 2006  
Blogger BobH said...

To JW:

"Also, most of the people raising the misandry flag are women: That is to be expected. Females have greater freedom of opinion in sexism issues."

They sure do! I think that when most men complain openly about anti-male bias and and bigotry, they expect aggressive retaliation from the women in their lives, making these men wish that they'd kept their mouths shut. Certainly, that's the way that I feel.

Women, on the other hand, have insisted that men just sit quietly and "validate women's feelings". There are other strategies as well. Women apparently think that "The Scum Manifesto", an essay which openly espouses the extermination of all men, is hilarious. These women's idea of a joke is a simultaneous attack on other people coupled with a demand that the attacked people not resent it or retailiate. Then people wonder why I have no sense of humor!

Consequently, it is only possible for men to complain about bad treatment secretly and/or to women who are probably unable and/or unwilling to retailiate. One reason for being "unable and/or unwilling" is that the male/female relationship isn't close enough that it can't be completely abandoned at relatively low cost to the male. When a man doesn't really care what a woman thinks of him, he can say all sorts of socially unacceptable thinks.

8:59 AM, April 17, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...


If I were a man and I received "aggressive retaliation" from a woman in my life for telling her how I feel I would be wary of, and dismiss this woman from my life pronto. She must have no empathy and/or dislike men to the point where she is not worth hanging around. Unfortunately, if this woman is a mother, sister, etc.--it is harder. If a wife, why the heck would you marry someone who did not like men? And what gives with trying to keep a relationship going with a woman who is negative or hostile about men's feelings? I call that masochism.

9:43 AM, April 17, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

I heard that Rev. Jesse Jackson through his Push organization is paying this lady's tuition at college. Even if she is found to have made up the incident. Wow. Hard to wrap my head around that one.


10:01 AM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Men have found themselves the target of a conspiracy of forces that provide significant incentives for man hating as both a social and institutional doctrine.

Contemporary feminism plays on what may be natural proclivities for subjectivism, self absorption, self righteousness, and self pity among women. At the same time, female social characteristics ( docility, heightened status and consensus seeking, groupthink ) are prized by social engineers and those generally seeking a malleable population. So you have a situation where one force rewards the other - women are told that they are the moral vanguard of a new maternal consciousness, and the social engineers get to define that consciousness. The result is a mass social vendetta which seeks no recourse to reason, accountability, or even simple decency.

10:33 AM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I've received the same reaction as bobh for expressing fairly mainstream antifeminist ideas, such as:

Abortion should be restricted.

3rd wave feminism (i.e., the man-hating form), has hurt society.

Men should have the right to challenge someone who accuses them of rape in court.

Divorce is harmful to children and society.

I'd love to just be able to ignore people who think these ideas aren't just wrong, but abhorrent. However, they include a very large amount of my classmates and friends, here at NYU Law. You can avoid dating a woman who'll retaliate, but a guy in an urban place like New York can get very lonely if he doesn't keep his mouth shut. Which is a shame, because outside of the anti-conservative bigotry, I love living in New York.

10:46 AM, April 17, 2006  
Blogger BobH said...

To Helen:

Please don't be insulted, but you need to learn more about social economics and economic psychology! A lot of what I said is pretty basic in those fields. There are a couple problems with your rather absolutist intepretation.

First, the woman, in addition to having high negatives, may also have high positives...and be very aware of it. That presumably-accurate awareness is the very definition of self-esteem, isn't it? Furthermore, attractiveness could be defined as "possessing attributes causing other to wish to enter into a relationship in the domain of interest." Highly attractive people can be bitchy to lower quality people who have been attracted, since there are usually others to take their place. That's why the Britney Spears of the world go to clubs with multiple bodyguards, to keep all the attracted but unattractive masses away from her.

Unfortunately, a lot of western women seem to have been trained think that they can be bitchy to all men, at least in their 20s and 30s, then are left wondering in their 30s, 40s and 50s why men shy away from them. Maureen Dowd is the quintessential example of this (although, in her case, I wonder if she isn't just trying to sell more books.)

Second, what if the women misrepresented her future intentions and induced some guy into a arrangement with very high escape costs. Marriage is an excellent example, paticularly if paternity fraud is involved.

11:41 AM, April 17, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...


Please don't be insulted, but I do not care about social economics and economic psychology. As a human being, I care about how people I interact with treat me. I do not look at others as a transaction--sorry, I know that you and others do but I do not use that model as my worldview. Highly attractive people can be bithchy to those of lower quality? If someone views me as lower quality, I do not want a relationship with them--I stay away from relationships like that. The mere fact that they think of people as "lower quality" would be a red flag to me to stay away.

What you are really talking about is that these women have something to offer--"good looks and status" and possibly good sex. If that is the case--know what you are getting into but if that is your basis of a real relationship, perhaps you are the one with the problem or you have decided that the trade-off to being with a high status woman is worth the abuse. That is a choice.

As far as women misrepresenting themselves, of course that happens. That is one reason to spend time and perhaps live with the person you want to marry, rather than rushing into anything.

12:11 PM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspect that it'll take some really horrific event to shake the broader culture of these assumptions - like the emergence of a cult that castrates male children. It'll need to be something too dramatic for the media to whitewash. Until then things will only get worse.

1:58 PM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

None of this means the woman is not telling the truth, and that's all we should be interested in.

2:06 PM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 2:06

And none of this means that the Duke Men's LAX team is not telling the truth, either.

The more I read about the story, the more I become convinced that a sexual assault DID happen to this woman, and the more I become convinced that the LAX team had NOTHING to do with it. Analyze the timeline closely: what happened to her in between the time she left the frat house and the time she was found in the parking lot unconscious? She may well have NO IDEA who assaulted her and is just lashing out at the nearest identifiable male(s).

Which in and of itself is unacceptable.

3:04 PM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I'm a male and I have freedom of opinion. I decide I have freedom of opinion, not anyone else.

I express my opinion when I choose. I really don't care if some folks don't like it or object. I presume they have freedom of opinion, too, and that doesn't interfere with my freedom at all.

Anyone who thinks they do not have freeodm of opinion has simply refused it.

4:13 PM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 4:13

I think what JW meant is that wome have greater freedom to express those opinions, not that women have greater freedom to hold those opinions.

If you are a man and you express the 'opinion' in mixed company that as many as 40% of all allegations of rape turn out to be false, you will likely be slapped down by the nearest feminist, who will not likely let you get another word in edgewise. If you express that opinion to the MSM, you will be censored; your words will never see the light of ink or video or whatever.

However, if you are a woman and you express that opinion, you may be disagreed-with, but your words will at least be regarded with a measure of credibility.

The sitting president of NOW and NARAL and feminist organizations appear regularly on the MSM, especially CNN and even Fox. But tell me, when was the last time you saw a male men's rights activist on any of them?

Frank H

5:01 PM, April 17, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Frank H,

When is the last time you saw a female men's rights activist on any of them?

5:14 PM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frank H,

I'm not particularly bothered by feminists who object to the expression of my opinions. I have expressed the opinion that many rapes are BS, and DNA is proving the trauma attached to rape does nothing to ensure accurate eye witness testiompny.

Feminists present didn't like what I said, and they said so. Fine with me. We have had lively discussions. I am never slapped down. Why on earth would I allow that?

I also feel free to tell feminists their ideas are BS. They don't like it. So what?

There does seem to be a growing number of people who think their right to expression is somehow violated if someone expresses differing opinions or calls them a jerk. I don't subscribe to that notion.

The internet may be fostering that idea as like-minded people seek out the same on discussion boards and blogs. I speculate this dulls the mind when it comes to really engaging the opposition.

I get the idea there are a lot of people who are surrendering before the first shot is fired.

5:43 PM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I suspect we don't see many leaders of men's rights groups because none of those groups have any built any real base or political power.

Say what you will about NOW and NARAL, but they did lots of grass roots work in building their organizations. The men I have seen on TV talking about men's rights appear to represent nobody but themselves. There may be men who agree with them, but they are not part of an organized group like NOW or NARAL. Hard work pays off.

(The men I have seen were concerned with child custody practices.)

5:51 PM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NOW and NARAL did lots of grassroots, but only with the help of media and academia pushhing the agenda.
Also, a man would be ridiculed for playing the victim. A working mom is a supermom. A stay at home mom made a choice for her family. A stay at home dad is lazy and a working dad who shares the load at home is unimpressive because women have already done that. Academia and the media won't touch those stereotypes with a 10 foot pole.

6:23 PM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I suspect that it'll take some really horrific event to shake the broader culture of these assumptions - like the emergence of a cult that castrates male children."

I don't know that this will do it. I mean, get a group of women talking about the horrors of female genital mutilation, then make a comment about male circumcision.

6:34 PM, April 17, 2006  
Blogger a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

Thank you x 3. Even this business about the guy who wrote, 'I will skin ..,' which is commented on 'as a real sicko who needs therapy' seems to me be excusable as a counterpunch to being put in some Orwellian show trial and asked to say how guilty he feels about what he did.

7:09 PM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I can say that I've seen IWF, CWA, and others on Fox, and I think, on CNN once or twice,. Now, they're not MRA's of either sex, but they're certainly more sensitive to a true gender-equality agenda.

7:18 PM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I get the idea there are a lot of people who are surrendering before the first shot is fired."

I agree. I speak with many men who hold these views (or similar) but do not speak up. I suppose it's because they fear the backlash from their wives (and I know a few wives who make that quite an imposing threat).

Generally, I regard these men and their male feminist collaborators, as the New Castrati, and I have little respect for them. As for myself, my wife does not like all of my opinions, but then neither do I hers.

Frank H

7:22 PM, April 17, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

theres a problem with mens rights, it can be too anti feminist, everything feminist related is somehow wrong, abortion is wrong as it gives feminists the power. so we are against it.

there are a few mens rights, my fiance is one. she hates all feminists they have only ruined so many men, and childrens lives.

a lot of women hide their viciousness behind a facade of respectibility, until they land a man, then they have him by the wallet, luckily i discovered one of my ex's was like that when her friend bullied me and insulted my family she thought her friend was more important than her b/f and that somehow he must have deserved it. and she didnt like it that i knew and was telling people and showing them evidence, so she ran, for a better catch.

thats the problem a lot of feminists would rather see an innocent man punished, than allow him his freedom. evidenciary rules are lower for women, this is the hard core feminists, the as one poster said the 3rd wave man haters. these are the people that are getting more power.

i am actually having a discussion/argument with an anti feminist, who says banning abortion is a good thing as its a feminist tool, and how everyone should have kids regardless of failure of b/c. this is the other side of the mens rights and its equally as wrong.

i am equallist, i think everyone sould be treated the same, regardless. these feminists have ruined mens lives due to their pc, touchy feeley, emotionally driven propaganda, these rabid anti feminists they are ruining women, which doesnt do the everyday person any good. caught between these 2 extremely illogical groups.

there are stories about women actually assaulting and raping make strippers, there are stories about men raping strippers. they should be treated with the same rules. but if this woman is a stripper and ran away, but then went back. i would question her beleifs. she decided 40 men were too much, but she came back. thats her fault. there was no dna evidence of rape, no physical evidence.

it could be one of these what can i get out of it, and thats being publiscised by the feminist press, as a weapon to blame the last bastion of so called male oppression mens sports.

4:49 AM, April 18, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

and due to the fact that men are going to be punished for everything, men will say sod this, if i am going to be punished might as well make it count. and you will see more violence from men, towards other men, women, and everyone.

but then there will be a brake put on it, due to the feminist inspired education, men will not be taught, so they will only be mindless drones working for the matriarchy. (which wont work, but it will cause more violence and hatred of women this is whats going to happen)

5:37 AM, April 18, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...


Just to give you a different view, I am a woman, speak to others about equality between men and women and defend men frequently since our society now has turned a blind eye to the injustices and culture of a male-bashing society while exalting women to the status of a saint. Believe me, I win no friends, get eye rolls, active hostility and more from others--or worse, simple bemusement where people ask why I am always "defending men" as if something is horribly wrong with me. Because of this and my other views, I naturally have few friends, if any, as I rarely find others who have much in common with me, especially other women. However, it is more important to me that I express my views and not go along with the toxic memes that others spew than to be liked. Being liked is not that important to me--but I think it is to most people, which is why men (and women in different circumstances) will go along to get along, even if going along hurts other people down the road.

6:46 AM, April 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I don't recall your mentioning how many kids you have, suffice to say "get busy!" The world needs people like you, and most especially women like you, to pop out as many little voters as you can. Don't worry about the bitching hags. In a few years time, they'll be living alone with their cats and their sex toys and will be jealous as hell of you and your grandkids.

In the meantime, courtesy of Angry Harry, here's an insight into what life was really like 'under the patriacrchy.' England in 1895 in this case...

10:59 AM, April 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In 1915, when the Titanic sank, approximately three-quarters of the women passengers survived, as did about a quarter of the men passengers. The reason is, of course, that men gave their seats on the lifeboats, the places at the floats, and their lifejackets to women and children.

In 1989, at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, a gunman came into a classroom with a rifle, screaming about how women and feminists had ruined his life.
He told the men to leave the room, which they did.
He then opened fire, killing fourteen women and wounding twelve.
No man suffered as much as a scratch.

Question: Is this a change for the better? For the worse? Something else?

And did the constant drumbeat of man-bashing sneering at the masculine virtues breed a different sort of man with different reflexes?

11:39 AM, April 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IMO we need to undermine the legitimacy of the argument that "women's ways of knowing" provide a valid standard for public debate. Basically we have two distinct standards at play with regards to statements made by men versus those made by women in the public sphere. Men are expected to base their arguments on verified facts and closely honed interpretations of evidence. Women are allowed, and even expected, to make statements based solely on their subjective impression of facts and events. This is a competition between skeptical rationalism and therapeutic 'truth' ( truth as established by the intensity of emotions associated with its contemplation by the subject ). We've now reached the point that male statements are often subordinated to female statements automatically, regardless of their content or the expertise of the speaker. It's considered callouse, or 'oppressive', to accept male statements in situations where a female interlocutor, or even a hypothetical female listener, feels strongly about a topic or expresses fear. Increasingly this sanction is being applied to entire domains of discourse so that certain lines of reasoning are disallowed out of hand, for the fact that they may make women uncomfortable. You can recognize such critiques in arguments against the principles of verifiability and logical consistency, and the utility of evidence itself ( see Critical Theory ). I'd say that their success is evidenced by the fact that women themselves no longer seem to recognize this defense as a condescension.

If you want to have some fun, the next time you're speaking with who's arguing from this stance, say something to the affect of:

well I think that it's bigotted of you to expect women to understand that sort of reasoning. That's a very masculine argument.

12:54 PM, April 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The media followed events staged by the feninists. They had rallies, marches, bra-burnings, sit-ins, demonstrations, and secured the support of women members of congress. There was something for the media to report, and it often had great visuals.

We don't see this for any mens movement today, so there is nothing for the media to cover.

Several years ago we did see a great deal of media coverage given to Promise Keepers. They staged events that could be filmed. Their spokesmen appeared on TV opposite feminists and they gave a fine accounting of themselves. They demonstrated they represented millions by assembling them is stadiums for the whole world to see.

I don't know if they are still around, but their experience demonstrates that the media will cover things when there is something to cover, and it will present male spokesmen when they really represent people.

Maybe a man will be ridiculed. So what? What's your point? The feminists were ridiculed, too.

I suggest there are lots of people who think someone else should fight the battle they identify. If man want media recognition, then they should do something that can be recognized. Whining doesn't count.

3:25 PM, April 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


A man's life is ruined by a feminist only if he chooses that ruin. Perhaps some do. I don't. And I know lots of other guys who also don't choose that.

I wonder if the weakness of a mens movement is because the strong men who would lead it aren't effected and think it's BS?

3:32 PM, April 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The fact that someone may be seen as a bigot or anti-woman has no effect at all on his freedom of either opinion or expression. If a guy cowers and runs at the thought someone may think he is a bigot, that's his choice.

This is the argument that freedom of expression is a function of what others think of that expression. If an argument is so weak that it can be defeated by disapproval, it probably is weak.

And I agree it is legal to express one's personal opinionin the US. Various other countries have had limitations on expression for may years, but it has not effected the US. Are you implying that freedom of expression in the US will be curtailed?

3:48 PM, April 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Why would anyone allow someone else to set the standard for their argument? We all are free to develop our own arguments as we see fit. As a male, I see absolutely no limitations on the type of arguments I may present. I choose the argument that fits my needs. Everyone can do that.

3:52 PM, April 18, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

there is the societal pressures, here fathers for justice, protesting about lack of contact with their kids, they are demonised due to the media, is a feminised tool. watch the news, most if not all is focused on men = demons woman = angels.

look at the tv shows, men are only foils, look at the adverts, men are the foils too. in this atmosphere of men being ridiculed, i know men who cant work in childcare (as people think they are pedophiles,) i know people who are effectively pushed out of work due to the man being the only male. i know places where they wont hire men, but only women.

but the thing is, there is no freedom of expression, speech argument anymore.

There is the recent case of Janice Barton in Michigan, who said in private conversation to her mother that "I wish these spics would learn to speak English." Her words were overheard by an off-duty Hispanic deputy sheriff, who followed her to her car and took down her license number.

Janice Barton was arrested and spent time in jail for a hate crime.

Another recent case comes from Idaho, where a white woman was physically assaulted by a black male. The woman's screams brought her white husband to the scene. He was naturally upset, and, in the heat of the moment, he called the black man a "nigger."

The black man was not arrested for assault, but the white man was arrested for a hate crime.

There have been two cases – a government employee in Washington, D.C., and a schoolteacher – where white people used the word "niggardly" and found themselves fired or in hot water simply because uneducated blacks mistook the fine old word for a racial slur.

and this will spread over to men not being able to speak. would you risk imprisonment for speaking out, in a feminised world, or the ridicule of people because you spoke your mind.

5:59 AM, April 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


What is the risk in ridicule?

2:23 PM, April 19, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

when they ridicule you, you become less important, a lesser person, which makes people remove certain rights, which promotes ridicule, and so on.. if employers think all men are jokes, then will you employ someone who you perceive as being a joke.

4:02 PM, April 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


How on earth can someone else make me less important or a lesser person? I decide that.

8:05 PM, April 19, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

but you are one person, for the sake of argument, what if all this in the press blamed women, or black people or mexicans,

its society can make people seem to be lesser, look at hitler and the rise of nazism, they ridiculed the jews and that made them lesser in everyones eyes(not that i am saying that will happen but it is a cautionary tale). you are one person a society is made up of millions of people most who arent smart, most who follow the party line or are brainwashed to beleive the worst of men.

watch a tv advert or a sit-com, and see how the man is perceived. a loser, a bungling idiot. but women are more powerful. and have a look at the real world. men are treated as lesser people, men get penalised in divorces, i have heard women making jokes about cutting mens penis's off, but you try to say anything about a woman, and you get punished for sexism.

thats ridicule, look at the laws, the VAWA, violence against WOMEN act. nothing about violence against men(there is a addendum to that act i beleive that redresses it), as there are jokes about men being beaten up told by women. THATS the ridicule. no wonder men are sick and tired of it, but they cant fight back because when they do they will be ridiculed even more,

4:17 AM, April 20, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

According to "Gender Issues in Advertising Language", television portrayals that help create or reinforce negative stereotypes can lead to problems with self-image, self-concept, and personal aspirations. Young men learn that they are expected to screw up, that women will have the brains to their brawn, and that childcare is over their heads. And it isn't just men who suffer from this constant parade of dumb men on tv. Children Now reports a new study that found that 2/3 of children they surveyed describe men on tv as angry and only 1/3 report ever seeing a man on television performing domestic chores, such as cooking or cleaning. There are far too few positive role models for young boys on television.

and you wonder why men are becoming like they are.

4:24 AM, April 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


1. People don't have to follow the party line. Why should they? Some may choose that, but that's their decision.

2. TV is full of many things. In some shows men look good. In some they look bad. So what? That doesn't make me or any other man a lesser person.

3. Note that the TV commercials which portray a man as an idiot are aimed at women, and they succeed in getting them to buy things they don't need. Who's the idiot?

4. Every time I hear someone say a man should have his penis cut off, I respond by saying that's a good idea. And an even better idea is female circumcision for women who commit the same crimes. Nobody punishes me. Some object to that idea, but I don't care. Why should I?

5. There are laws about violence that cover everybody. That includes men.

6. I don't think men are sick and tired of ridicule. They don't care. A few might, but most just don't care. Men ridicule each other all the time.

7. If someone is afraid to fight back because the other side may respond with ridicule, they have chosen defeat themselves.

8. And remember, ridicule can be employed by anyone. Men can and do use it.

5:11 PM, April 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


1. I think that "Gender Issues in Advertising Language" study is BS.

2. I don't wonder about what men are becoming. I think some folks just like to blame someone else for their own problems.

5:15 PM, April 20, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

ok my replies.

1 its getting harder to be an individual, you have to look the same, act the same, be the same. it makes the governments job much easier.

2. but the worst are the tv shows aimed at women, showing them that men are jokes. shows that men watch, they have strong women too as its NOT PC to have weak women.

3. the adverts are aimed at women as they have more disposable income than men. as some have a man paying too. its a case of whats his is mine and whats mine is mine.

4. but you miss the point, this thing is upsetting to men, but it doesnt stop these women from saying it, if you say it upsets you , you are called a weenie, and you get it worse.

5. theres a lot of laws that dont. canada for example, the majority of shelters will only take women, and no men, in the uk 3000 womens shelters, 3 mens.

6. men are sick and tired of ridicule by women, men know generally men say stuff. if you go to a bar and see a fight, men can fight and still be friends.

7. but when a person who fights back and is called a weenie, to their face, it cant help but have an effect, if you think it doesnt then you dont know people.

8. yes ridicule can be used by anyone, but more is aimed at men than aimed at women.

2nd lot, well thats your opinion.

and you dont worry, as you are brainwashed by the feminised world, men are more and more being treated as worse than rapists, worse than murderers, because they are male. regardless of guilt, or innocence, men DO NOT have a fair time in this world anymore, and thats wrong, that ANY group should be considered better than any other.

try thinking it this way, reverse it, put instead of men, women, and see what you feel, if you feel disgusted but didnt when a man was said to have done it then congrats your a sexist. try thinking in the opposite

5:32 PM, April 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"1.People don't have to follow the party line."

Unless that is a condition of keeping their jobs, and often it is, and often this kind of thing happens in the workplace. If you plan on saying that an employer is going to stop that kind of talk when it is directed at a man, think about the effect that will have on your credibility in this discussion. I don't blame the people who get preferential treatment, and I can't really blame the employers who give it to them; I blame the people who fail to intimidate the employers into doing the right thing by not suing when it happens to them - but that will come eventually.

"2. TV is full of many things. In some shows men look good. In some they look bad. So what? "

Dishonest - it wasn't "So what?" back when women were shown as bimbos; then it was all moral indignation.

"4. Every time I hear someone say a man should have his penis cut off, I respond by saying that's a good idea. And an even better idea is female circumcision for women who commit the same crimes. Nobody punishes me."

This only shows that you are exempt from the retribution that Mercurior is talking about, which proves his points.

"5. There are laws about violence that cover everybody. That includes men."

That dodges the issue. The issue is the execution and application of those laws, however they may be written, and there is ample proof that violence against men is ignored or minimized, both by the police and by the courts.

"6. I don't think men are sick and tired of ridicule. They don't care. A few might, but most just don't care."

They care if they make the mistake of caring about the person, or taking her opinions seriously, or are trapped into living with that person, or working with her. We don't all have the same options of who we live with or where we work, or freedom to leave.

"7. If someone is afraid to fight back because the other side may respond with ridicule, they have chosen defeat themselves."

This much is true. A man with a fast mouth can strike back. Usually a woman will crumple if you call her an insensitive dickhead or a stupid animal. Of course. (Getting away with it is a different matter.) The problem, beyond the inequalities in the legal system, is that men are often mal-socialized into the "Broad shoulders" mentality, where they refuse to strike back and harder. Men can be twice the bitches of most women - spend some time in a gay bar if you doubt me - but they bury that under layers of conditioning and chivalry. That is weakening though, and that explains some of the violence against women people report.

6:11 PM, April 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. What party line is a condition of employment? In what industry?

2. Women are still shown as bimbos on TV. So what?

4. What is the retribution to which Mercurior refers? From whom? Resulting in what? I have made the same remark about female circumcision in many settings. Many people who make the penis remark have no idea what to do when a strong response in plain language comes back.

5. There are far more violent criminals in jail for violence against men than against women. Look at the victim stats. Is it your position that a perp gets a free pass of he kills a man?

6. Few man care about all this stuff. Those who do do so by choice. As you say, they care about a person and take their opinions seriously. If the opinions are so wrong, why do they choose to take them seriously? Those few do it to themselves.

7. What does the legal system have to do with talking back to someone?

Here's a suggestion for all the guys who are afraid of ridicule. The next time someone says something stupid, just say, BULLSHIT. It's a wonderful conversation opener. You will find it works wonders.

Here's an example:

I think all the whining by guys on this forum is bullshit. The silly inuendos in the initial posts are also bullshit and show an inability to deliver a rational and cogent argument.

9:41 PM, April 20, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

1 have you ever seen a man complaining about these half naked posters that the women put up, have you ever seen a man take a company to court and WIN for sex discrimination. if you are a"trouble maker" then you will get the crappy jobs, the worst jobs and you will be the first out as your supposed to be a TEAM player.

some women may be shown as bimbos, but somehow they always seem to get the best of men.

if a woman said the same things as us men, would you act the same, tell women they are whiners, and that women cant make a rational argument.

why are you putting it basically on the way females are circumcised, why not just say, hey thats not right, men are people too. you hear these and yet you focus it on female circumcision, try telling one of these people stop that , thats not nice, and you will see a look of disbeleif on their faces.

is it you position that a woman who kills a man, gets off with lesser time, than the same crime but commited by a man. women generally get an easier time for murder, than do men.

so few men care about this stuff, then thats a problem in itself, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. spend 40 years hearing men are whiners, losers, and you will see what its like (waits for them to bring up the women have done it so men should suck it up). how come when women fought for equality it was good, but when men try, its dont be a whiner.

there are court cases, where the perception of male guilt is the over riding system.

yes tell that to your boss when he makes a comment, men are being built to care more by the feminist educational system, and so they HURT more. and the more they care, the more thye get hurt and so on, until you get men killing themselves.

BTW thanks jim you nailed it.

3:58 AM, April 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


1. I have never seen men complaining about half naked posters that women put up. I hope I never do. What's the problem with those posters?

2. Of course I tell women who make stupid arguments they are illogical and aren't making sense. It's easy. Just say, "that makes no sense at all."

3. Focusing on female circumcision is far more dramatic than a plea for kinder gentler treatment. It forces the other person to confront their own words and usually throws them off balance. It's more fun.

4. I don't know anything about the relative length of sentences for various groups convicted of murder. I do know nobody gets a pass because the victim is a man.

5. Women could actually point to structural discrimination in employment practices. That's why people thought they had a case. Most guys think the complaining men are whiners because they don't experience a problem.

6. What court case says men are presumed guilty? What country?

7. I am the boss.

9:46 AM, April 21, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

if a woman can have that kind of poster then why cant men. 2 different rules.

no mentioning female circumcision, puts the emphasis on women, NOT that its being bad to men.

then you havent been looking at the press, how many times has a woman used the PMT defence, how she has kids defence, and she gets less time. more men are sent to death row, than women. i dont think theres been one in a few years.. women consistently get less prison time, than men for the same crimes.

theres a presumption of guilt, in domestiv violence cases, child abuse, the perception is that a man must have done it.

3:37 PM, April 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


1. It's fine with me if you put up a poster. I don't care. I doubt there are two different sets of rules. I'd say there are some groups that are more likely to complain and demand the enforcement of a rule. Other groups just don't care. I'd say most men fall in the "don't care" side.

2. I agre mentioning female circumcision puts the emphasis on women. That's the purpose of the remark. It's more fun.

3. Any comparison of sentencing has to take sets of similar crimes and evaluate subsequent sentences. I don't have that information. Do you? I agree more men are sent to death row than women. More men commit murder.

4. Who presumes guilt in child abuse cases? That would have to be demonstrated by longitudinal studies of conviction rates for child abuse and other crimes broken down by gender. I don't know those stats. Do you? It might also pivot on the possibility that the abuse by men and women is substantially different. Again, I don't know. Do you?

1:21 PM, April 22, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

so you wouldnt mind a man in your office putting up a poster of a half naked woman. you wouldnt mind men making anti woman jokes, like blond jokes.

but you are turning a anti male comment, into a anti male comment, most people beleive female circumcism is a male tool of oppression. you are just reinforcing the negative feelings. that men getting their penis cut off is payback for female circumcism.

the problem is, they dont want to put the figures, as that would make the system look worse than we know.

look at Mary Letourneau and Richard Lalime, Jr

There is quite a disparity in the way the sentences were to be carried out. Letourneau’s sentence of 7 ½ years with 80 days to serve is in contrast with Lalime’s sentence of 8 to 9 years with at least 8 years to serve plus many more conditions than were imposed on Letourneau

the culture perceives men as being abusers, look at the hysteria of the 90's about devil worshipping nurseries, and the perception that the duke players are guilty even though there is no evidence.

there are different rules, in sex, and in race, look at these stories, a black gang beats up a white man, , but if a white gang beats up a black man..

4:03 PM, April 22, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Anonymous 1:21:

Yes, many times women get lighter sentences than men, especially if the victim is a husband or child--here are a couple of posts on how women get lighter sentences than men:

"The judicial system thinks women are victims and men are expendable, otherwise why would women spend so little time in prison for killing their husbands? The Bureau of Justice Statistics found that on average, convicted wives received prison sentences that were about 10 years shorter than what husbands received. Excluding life or death sentences, the average prison sentence for killing a spouse was 6 years for wives but 16.5 years for husbands."

Women tend to get more sympathy from juries and get lighter sentences than men for similar crimes--just take a look at the news with female teachers who have sex with their students if you need further proof.

6:35 PM, April 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


My offices are tools of the business just as a computer or reference book is a tool. As such, each ofice has a purpose. Decorations are a function of the purpose.

Some offices receive clients, potential clients, the public, government regulators, and investment partners. Since I want something from all these people, I have the offices furnished and decorated in away that enhances my prospects. I pay a decorator to do that. Nothing else goes on the walls, and the people who occupy those offices are limited in what personal items they can display.

Other offices are seen only by our own people, and they have all kinds of stuff hanging on the walls. Half naked people of either sex are welcome.

There are no limits on jokes. Jokes go both ways and can be quite crude. However, behavior with clients never includes such jokes because it fails to elicit the client behavior I want.

My experience is that women who recommend a penisectomy for men convicted of particular crimes are ususlly stunned by my suggestion of female circumcision for women who commit the same crimes. They usually either back off their suggestion or have a fit of unbridled sputtering.
If "they dont want to put the figures" means the authorities don't release sentencing data, I suggest you are wrong. It's all part of the public record.
I don't know who Lalime is.
Who has a perception the Duke players are guilty? I notice ABC News is doing a series of indepth articles detailing the movements of one of the accused. ABC says it is impossible for him to have had the time to rape the stripper.
There is evidence of the rape of the stripper by the duke players. It is the statement of the alleged victim. That statement may be true or false, but we have to acknowledge its existence.
It's a bit hard to say blacks in the US have an easier time with the criminal justice system than whites. Blacks make up about half the prison population while representing about 13% of the total population.

11:23 PM, April 22, 2006  
Blogger zed said...

Helen said...


If I were a man and I received "aggressive retaliation" from a woman in my life for telling her how I feel I would be wary of, and dismiss this woman from my life pronto. She must have no empathy and/or dislike men to the point where she is not worth hanging around. Unfortunately, if this woman is a mother, sister, etc.--it is harder. If a wife, why the heck would you marry someone who did not like men? And what gives with trying to keep a relationship going with a woman who is negative or hostile about men's feelings? I call that masochism.

The sad reality is that man-bashing, victim mentality, and women-firstism has created a world for men where refusing to put up with women who have no empathy or compassion for men often means choosing to be alone. That is often very difficult for people of either sex, but it is celebrated for women these days - that "strong independent woman" thing. Men, on the other hand, who aren't involved with someone are "angry bitter losers who can't laid, and probably have small penises to boot."

You made a similar comment on the MadDad thread, and someone pointed out that most men face financial devastation when they try to leave a marriage. As a psychologist, I'm surprised at the simplistic nature of these statements, echoing the sentiments toward abused women regarding "why didn't she leave him?"

I don't think you have a real appreciation for how deep and virulent misandry has become in western cultures. In order to have a relationship, most men simply have to go along with putting up with some degree of it. I personally have never been able to, which is the biggest reason I am single in my middle 50s, and have mostly forgotten what it was which used to make me think that a relationship was so important.

11:41 PM, April 23, 2006  
Blogger zed said...

jw said...

A male expressing a counter-feminist opinion has radically greater chances of being seen as anti-woman and as a biggot. So, in one way, yes he does have less freedom of opinion. Yet, it is still legal to hold those opinions: At least for now.

Where this will lead is a tough one. I'm of the "explosion" opinion, at least for right now. That is:

"Sexism and discrimination targeted at males will grow until an Omega point is reached. At that point, a significant percentage of the male population will explode. We will have a civil war. Probably one of screaming and civil disobedience, but maybe, just maybe, one with real and significant violence."

For now, that is my opinion. From what we know of history, this is exactly what happened in the dying days of the paleolithic matriarchy. It also fits well with what psychology knows of males under stress in marriage ie. stress builds - he denies it, stress builds more he denies it while under his breath wishing for a way out, stress builds more and he explodes into action with unpredicatable results.

There's also a large factor of chivalry & the madonna-whore complex at play here. Today's average woman demands chivalry while absolutely refusing to do her part in the chivalry bargain. Eventually most males will swing away from seeing most females as "madonnas" and see most females as whores: That will bring highly emotionally-violent results.

Outstanding post, jw. I tend to disagree with your forecast for the future, however. I'm reminded of that famous line about "going out not with a bang, but a whimper."

What I see happening is a gradual withdrawal by men from women. We've seen it happening for a long time - the whole "men are afraid of committments" canard is at least 30 years old. Having been destroyed by the anti-male school system, more and more young men will just drop out of the system, live with their parents, and drift along, eventually drifting to the fringes and perhaps becoming involved with gangs or other alternative social/power structures. Those who do become successful, will in many cases seek foreign wives and may expatriate - like our beloved Fred Reed.

We are already seeing articles about the trend of women to go it completely alone when it comes to parenthood by purchasing sperm. My experience with boys raised by single moms is that they tend to fall into one of two stereotypic roles which the culture shoves at them - either they continue the process their single moms socialized them into of being her perfect mate (because she had the parental power to demand that he was) or become psychopathic in the Norman Bates/Ed Gein mold.

Unfortunately for men, as the violence against women by the disturbed ones - like the Mark LePines, Gary Ridgways, and Columbine killers - increases, the negative stereotypes which the feminists created will become self-fulfilling prophesies and the anti-male laws will become even more draconian. With half of the culture alienated against it, collapse is probably inevitable. I don't see any way to avoid economic collapse due to runaway government spending and debt anyway, so I think these two factors will feed into each other.

Helen said...


Just to give you a different view, I am a woman, speak to others about equality between men and women and defend men frequently since our society now has turned a blind eye to the injustices and culture of a male-bashing society while exalting women to the status of a saint. Believe me, I win no friends, get eye rolls, active hostility and more from others--or worse, simple bemusement where people ask why I am always "defending men" as if something is horribly wrong with me. Because of this and my other views, I naturally have few friends, if any, as I rarely find others who have much in common with me, especially other women. However, it is more important to me that I express my views and not go along with the toxic memes that others spew than to be liked. Being liked is not that important to me--but I think it is to most people, which is why men (and women in different circumstances) will go along to get along, even if going along hurts other people down the road.

Helen, I have to echo the sentiments of the guy who wants you to raise LOTS of kids. ;-)

A while back, I coined the term "ethical sociopath" for people like you (and me). THe old tale of the Emperor's new clothes and the Milgram studies illustrate that very few people have the ego strength to buck the herd, and the strength of character to be able to deal with the consequences of doing so.

I have been speaking out against this insanity since the early 70s, and have gone through many bloody battles over it - alienating a lot of people along the way. I practice the callousness you advocate in cutting people loose, and have lost several decades-long friendships over my unwillingess to be cowed. I seldom fail to be disappointed in people, and that is not an easy thing to come to terms with. I sometimes think it would all be so much easier if I could just go along. It just isn't in my makeup, however, so I simply choose the costs I am willing to pay over those which I am not willing to.

I've not met many other people in my life capable of doing that. The principle of the green monkey applies - paint a monkey green, and the others will tear him apart for being different.

I applaud and thank you for your integrity and your efforts. Over the years I have been very critical of many of the female writers on this subject for being so indirect and wishy-washy in their writing. I have noticed of late that Kathleen Parker has changed her tone to a much stronger and more direct approach, which I suggested to her years ago. I'm quite glad to see it, and very glad to see women like yourself finally speaking out in a strong and straightforward manner, instead of the hand-wringing "tsk, tsk" passive voice which has been common up until now.

12:33 AM, April 24, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

then your office is the exception, its happened in other places, there was a story about a garage, all MEN, and they had half naked calenders etc.. but they were told to remove them, or they would face a lawsuit for sexism.

its the water cooler syndrome, in other offices you can hear the most ANTI male jokes in existence, but if any man says anything they can be fired for sexual harassment, its happened.

perhaps its how you say it, but in other cases they would use the female circumcism as a proof that men need their penises chopped off. thats the problem.

you try to find sentencing date, for men and or women for similar crimes. they seperate them into black and white, not male and female.

lalime was a male abuser, the girl agreed to have sex with him. like letourneau, it was very similar crimes, and yet he got more restrictions because he was male. she didnt coz she was female.

in another post, a woman said they were guilty, even though they hadnt gone to trial, there was no direct forensic evidence, and theres reports, whether they did it or not, ** Chan Hall, 22, said, "It's the same old story. Duke up, Central down." Hall said he wanted to see the Duke students prosecuted "whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past."**

see they presume their guilt. yes it may be true, it may be false, i am leaning towards false, and a statement isnt evidence. i can make a statement, its not evidence, the word evidence means roughly that which is seen. not what i said. what is seen, if a statement is the only evidence of guilt or innocence.

(but 87% arent black).. look at the people who beat up a white man, just imagine it was a black man that was beaten up. there would have been riots. its the victim mentality, i did this because i came from a broken home, or my ancestors were slaves. it should be about proof, rather than emotions.

5:06 AM, April 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looking for information and found it at this great site... Wbr best price valtrex Tv tuner software for windows Inurl intext barcode reader Nvidia dual monitor video cards rosacea and herbs what is in imitrex New hampshire jenn air refrigerator water filter Motorola bluetoot headset hs850 help Louisiana trip cancellation insurance Free cement estimating guide software Instant bingo training in software airline tickets

3:28 AM, March 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


11:00 PM, June 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home